Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gitakrishna (talk | contribs) at 07:11, 18 April 2017. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, Sorting, Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

  • This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
  • Do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page.
  • Watch out for scammers! If someone contacts you saying that they can get your draft published for payment, they are trying to scam you. Report such attempts here.
Ask a new question
Please check back often for answers.
Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions


April 12

Request on 02:04:29, 12 April 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Dandelionz


Dear Articles for Creation. I am worried about the rejection by Robert McClennon and wikipedia of a draft article I have posted on US-Australian unterior architect/designer George Henry Freedman. On checking your criteria for notability, re creative professionals, it seems that he complied with all four of the criteria, as follows: 1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. (Freedman certainly is widely cited by the leading interior architect/designer of his generation in Australia, by multiple editors of all industry magazines, by his client architects (who were the leading architects of his day), by his design peers, and by the younger designers and architects that he employed and trained (who include the leading Sydney designers and architects of the following two generations to Freedman). 2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique (We said that Freedman was internationally known for his daring colour schemes, materials palettes, furniture designs and rigorous attention to construction details. He was repeatedly selected as the lead juror for the prestigious annual Dulux Colour Awards in Australia.) 3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. (Freedman and his interiors were regularly promoted in Australia’s most prestigious design and architecture magazines, he was also regularly mentioned in the ‘Style’ section of the Sydney Morning Herald as one of Sydney’s important tastemakers and designers.) 4. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. (Re a. Freedman’s interiors for Sydney’s Powerhouse Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences remain largely intact and are visited by thousands of people per day. Re b) He designed and exhibited the sets for three major Sydney Dance Company performances. Re c. He won extensie and significant critical attention over three decades of work in Australia. d. Items of his furniture are in the collections of museums, eg cocktail trolley archived by the Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences.

I am sorry that I didn't include all his publication references (just the major ones). Here is the full list of his publications—excluding the key articles on him that he was asked to write for design magazines, and the articles that I published about him when I was a design maagazine journalist.

Extensive list of references moved to Draft talk:George Freedman

Could you advise how to add this information and seek a reconsideration of the rejection of the draft article. Also could you advise how best to fix the tone issue (overly supportive?) that your reviewer has questioned.

Regards Dandelionz Dandelionz (talk) 02:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - In order to deal with the citations issue, in your rewrite, make sure to only include material you have cited to major sources, and remove everything else. Wikipedia:Citing_Sources is a good starting point if you are unsure of what good sources are. Think less instead of more. In terms of the tone issue, see Wikipedia:Neutral_Point_of_View for more information. Some phrases that are particular problems include: "most prestigious and prosperous families", "widely known for his waspish wit, warm laugh...", and "recognised by design and architecture industry experts for his daring". Making an effort to present the material without lauding or commentary will help you achieve your goal, if indeed the subject matter proves to be notable. Isingness (talk) 02:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: I've moved the extensive listing of references over to the draft's Talk page. NewYorkActuary (talk) 11:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

09:40:52, 12 April 2017 review of submission by Laureneseca


I wrote an article about Jean-Luc Allavena a French businessman on the English version of Wikipedia. This article is a translation of the French wikipedia article about Jean-Luc Allavena https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Luc_Allavena. I added exactly the same references. But my article has been rejected, I don't understand why. Could you help me? Thanks and best, Laurène Laureneseca (talk) 09:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Laurenseca. Policies about notability differ between Wikipedia versions; notability may be different on the French Wikipedia than here, but you may want to contact the reviewer(s) to get further clarification. JTP (talk • contribs) 17:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

21:02:13, 12 April 2017 review of submission by HankitoJ


My original submission was rejected due to a lack of citations. I found a number of references all of which seemed to work fine except one: Citation [2]. Once I saved the document the reference did not show up in the references section although the various document entry locations did. This is the only citation I manually entered, as it is not found in a published location. It is a military document that records a person's military service. The entry I created is: < ref>DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge</ref > When I tried to edit the document to correct it I was unable to get it to work. Can you suggest something?HankitoJ (talk) 21:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - You need to remove the "< ref >" after "< ref name=":0" >", and the final two "< /ref >". Basically you just entered extra code. Isingness (talk) 21:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 13

02:25:34, 13 April 2017 review of submission by Zshualman


Hi there, thanks for your feedback. In regards to the references, we have newspaper articles from Singapore newspapers but it seems that in order to view them online, users will need to subscribe. We are having difficulty trying to cite them. Any advise who we can do it? eg. This is from the newspaper archives regarding Bhumiband but can only be viewed at the library. http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Search?ST=1&AT=search&k=bhumiband

Thanks again!

Hello, Zshualman. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. You can cite these items the same way as for any other off-line resource. In your case, you might find the {{cite newspaper}} and {{cite magazine}} templates useful. If the material is available on-line, but only for readers with a subscription, then add the url to the template and also set the "url-access" parameter equal to "subscription". However, I took a look at your cited link and saw that the issue really wasn't about subscriptions. It appeared that the material is avalaible only on microfilm and viewable only in the library itself. If I am correct about this, then there is no point in adding the url to the template (and also no reason to specify a "url-access" parameter). I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 11:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

03:10:03, 13 April 2017 review of submission by Nojiratz


For example, the Texas DX Society article is similar to mine, but uses far fewer references, and yet was accepted.

Hello, Noji. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. I see that you have already received some feedback from the reviewer who declined your submission. To that feedback I'll add that, because Wikipedia has more than five million user-generated articles, it is inevitable that some will exist even though they shouldn't. In particular, the article on the Texas DX Society probably shouldn't exist because, as you point out, its sourcing is extremely weak. But this doesn't mean that we will lower our standards for new articles. Despite the existence of that other article, you still need to demonstrate that your organization has received substantial coverage from reliable sources. The article in the Daily Herald is a start but, given that its coverage is largely restricted to a single metropolitan area, it probably will not be enough (for a bit more detail on this, see WP:AUD). I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 12:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

06:01:18, 13 April 2017 review of submission by WIZRADICAL

Can any one tell me what to do?.I submitted my article 12 days ago two reviewers reviewed it on that day and added comments but they did not accept or reject the article.I have done the changes long ago but the reveiwers never came back to check the changes.(WIZRADICAL and FORCE RADICAL are the same person.The reason for this anomaly can be found on the WIZRADICAL userpage)FORCE RADICAL (talk) 06:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Forceradical. You are quite correct -- when I and the other reviewer left comments on your submission, we neither declined nor accepted it. Those comments were left in response to your question here at the Help Desk. However, asking a question here at the Help Desk doesn't automatically move your submission to the front of the queue. Right now, there are about 300 submissions in the queue ahead of yours and it will likely be another week before someone takes a closer look at yours. In the meantime, you might want to improve the referencing in your draft -- several of the references don't state essential bibliographic detail such as who wrote an article and when it was published. For more detail on this requirement, see WP:CITE. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 12:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 14

12:34:40, 14 April 2017 review of submission by UrbanStrupp

Hi, my article was declined because of a "lack of notability" - artistic norability being established by "museum's collections and major art reviews" - but in fact, the subject of my article, an artist I really like, is present in quite a number of permanent collections in European museums, which are also cited in the article. Do I need to reference them in a special way? Thank you for letting me know!

Hi UrbanStrupp, you draft currently contains no references at all. See the Referencing for beginners guide. If you need further help please ask here again. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

!!!OK!!! I had not realized that. Now I know where to start. Thank you, Dodger67!

Request on 14:47:56, 14 April 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Rudylive


I have tried to submit article many times and it keeps getting reject for the reason that is sounds like advertising. can some one help with the creation of this entry

Rudylive (talk) 14:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rudylive. Your submission appears to be deleted, so we can't help you. Thanks, ProgrammingGeek talktome 14:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 15

06:37:01, 15 April 2017 Observation against a review of submission by Bkpsusmitaa


Why is only one voluntary reviewer, SwisterTwister monitoring my draft article, vOICe? As soon as I posted a helpme post in the talk page of the article Draft_talk:VOICe, he posted his reply, which is not acceptable. I have myself enhanced some articles that existed in wikipedia but were without any references, for example, only recently, Spin Trapping.
Are there no other editors who could peruse the draft, which I keep embellishing, and make it into an article? It is not about satisfying my ego, my animal need to be heard or recognised, but I consider it as very important and my pride to be able to report a groundbreaking research to the wikipedians! Bkpsusmitaa (talk) 06:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bkpsusmitaa: you submitted the draft for review, and it was rejected by Robert McClenon. You improved it and resubmitted it; and after only two days (remarkably fast, considering the length of the queue), it was reviewed again, by SwisterTwister. You have since improved it further, and it is once more in the queue. No-one is "monitoring" it, and no-one has a duty to monitor it.
Despite SwisterTwister's rapid reviewing of your article, you accused him of "foot-dragging". He replied politely, and after only 17 minutes. Why do you consider that "not acceptable"? He has no more duty to help you with the draft than any of thousands of other volunteer editors. Maproom (talk) 08:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reply from Bkpsusmitaa:
The moot point is that I could have converted the draft into an article myself, but desisted from doing it, because of my empathy and moral support for the editors. Actually, no duty (rather, responsibility) was expected of SwisterTwister.
Only 17 min delayed review is not foot-dragging, continual denial for nearly two weeks, and again posting a negative reply within 17 min is; appears as if the reviewer waited for posting a denial.
I acknowledge Sw...Tw...'s quick reviewing, but not my being limited by one particular volunteer editor who preferentially expects a lot of significant sourcing, when I (specifically mentioned earlier) myself have added all the references to a zero referenced article only recently.
I do have an observation to make against the preferential monitoring of one particular poster, while other un-referenced / un-sourced articles lie unnoticed for a long time. Bkpsusmitaa (talk) 09:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You aren't limited to "one particular volunteer editor". Each time your draft is reviewed, you are likely (but not guaranteed) to get a different reviewer. Your draft has so far been reviewed twice, by different reviewers.
From Bkpsusmitaa: No, twice by Robert_McClenon in the beginning, but thrice by Sw.Tw., that too, for an extended period of time. That's what irks me! Which is why I posted my observation here!
BTW, why don't you check for yourself whether the said article (rather, technology) has enough significant sourcing?! Such verification only requires common sense. Then we wouldn't have to engage on repetitive exchanges! And do remember to ping me.
I don't know who you mean by "one particular poster" (Bkpsusmitaa: That would be 'me'). We are all volunteers. Some of us chose to monitor things, some choose to review articles, some choose to correct spelling mistakes. We have no duties. In particular SwisterTwister has no duty to review, or even look at, the draft again (Bkpsusmitaa: But he still was there! The dates and reviews are themselves evidences!). Maproom (talk) 13:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - In terms of your concerns regarding sourcing and the appearance of unsourced articles on Wikipedia, I would recommend reading Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, which among other things, will explain why policies such as Wikipedia:Reliable sources is followed by reviewers here despite the existence of unsourced articles elsewhere. I would also comment that it appears that the "Reaction" section within your draft appears to be promotionally driven. Isingness (talk) 22:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

10:53:06, 15 April 2017 review of submission by Ijvascvisualarts


Why this article was declined? It is all about a new kind of technique drawn on paper by finger nails called Finger Nail Art. A dissertation on this work submitted in the department of Fine Arts at Aligarh Muslim University and Kurukshetra University, India. This art was shown in many exhibition.

Kindly approve the article.

Thanks.. Ijvascvisualarts (talk) 10:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ivasc. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Surely you must have seen that your submission was blank and that this was the reason for its being declined. I looked a little deeper and found that you had introduced some coding errors that caused the draft to appear blank. Those errors are now corrected and the full text of your draft can be seen. Feel free to re-submit the draft when you feel it is ready for review. Before doing so, however, you might want to take a look at WP:CITE and WP:Referencing for beginners. In its current form, your draft falls far short of our referencing requirements. It is unlikely to be accepted for publication unless you can demonstrate that the subject has received in-depth coverage from reliable sources that are independent of him, and you must make that demonstration by using proper referencing. I also note that the entire tone of your draft causes it to appear more like an essay than a neutrally-worded encyclopedia article. Finally, the layout of the material fails many aspects of our Manual of Style, especially the requirement for using headers. In all, you probable should work through our WP:Tutorial, which will introduce you to the basic techniques that are used here at Wikipedia to craft acceptable articles. You also might want to take a look at some of our better-quality articles on visual artists such as Caspar David Friedrich and Daisy Jugadai Napaltjarri, which will give you some idea of what a properly-formatted article looks like. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 12:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 16

03:44:23, 16 April 2017 review of submission by The Brook Shelf


Hello, my article has been rejected several times now always for the same reason. I have taken the steps suggested in seeking assistance in how I should edit my page in order for it to be accepted including going to the Tearoom and the help desk. I updated the article with the suggested edits, but the most recent comment left by the article reviewer states " for all the same reasons as before". If someone would be able to point out specifically which part of the article is not compliant it would be very helpful. Thank you for you time and patience helping with this article. The Brook Shelf (talk) 03:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Brook Shelf (talk) 03:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, The Brook. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. It is oftentimes helpful to contact the individual reviewers to ask for more explanation as to why they declined your article. You can find their names and Talk page buttons in each of the "decline boxes" that appear near the top of your draft. Before posting here, I took a look at your submission and found that I too would have declined it, because you haven't demonstrated that the subject is "notable" in the sense that Wikipedia uses the word. We generally require that "notability" be demonstrated by showing that the subject has received substantial, in-depth coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. And what I saw in your draft were a few magazine articles that were not about the subject, but that merely included a brief quote or two from him. Another reference was largely an interview (and these count very little when demonstrating notability, because an interview is largely a person talking about himself). You need to show that this particular hedge fund manager is somehow worthy of encyclopedic interest, and you have not yet succeeded in doing that. On less substantive notes, you should not be including your Wiki-signature or time stamps in the drafts (as currently appear in two locations). Also, you probably want to read our guidance on referencing, WP:REFB, for information on how to present your references in a standard format. And I see that another editor has already removed the ridiculously long listing of directorships that appeared in the infobox, but that's just a start. There is still far too much data in there, and none of it is sourced. And some of it appears to be patently false. Are you really telling the reader that the subject is known for developing exchange traded funds? Isn't it much closer to the truth to say that he makes a living by running one? And is the subject really a Director of the American Bar Association? Perhaps he is but, if so, it needs to be referenced with a reliable source. I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 12:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


April 17

01:28:12, 17 April 2017 review of submission by Joslad1


Can you please shift the "Sources" section with the two listed books by DT Stewart and JE Traue below the "References" section? Thank youJoslad1 (talk) 01:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joslad1 (talk) 01:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Worldbruce (talk) 13:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

13:22:07, 17 April 2017 review of submission by Hutchi333


Any advice on how to improve the neutral point of view in this article would be much appreciated, thank you! Hutchi333 (talk) 13:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I would refer you to the document Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. I would also focus on the history (if notable) rather than your sales pitch. As regards how you might rephrase something in a less advertorial manner, here is an example: "Although a British brand, Troubadour works mostly with Italian suppliers for its vegetable-tanned leather, fabrics and zippers," would be better phrased as, "Some of the textiles and materials used by Troubadour, such as zippers or fabrics, are sourced from Italy." I would also avoid terms like "luxury". Isingness (talk) 18:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

17:41:33, 17 April 2017 review of submission by Cecilith

Riccardo Marchesini (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm8899218/?ref_=tt_ov_dr) is an italian director; unfortunately there is a homonym already in wikipedia, a canoer with the same name! I am trying to create a page for the director! I thought I had enough references to prove he is real! I am not sure now what was wrong.. Please help :-D

Cecilith (talk) 17:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Cecilith, and welcome to Articles for Creation! It seems like you're just using links to other websites, which is fine, but they aren't formatted properly. Please take a look at WP:Referencing for beginners. Thanks! ProgrammingGeek talktome 18:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

21:23:00, 17 April 2017 review of submission by WadeDeadpoolWilson

Hello, Wade. Did you have a specific question? NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
information Note: see WP:Articles for deletion/SwimSwam ProgrammingGeek talktome 23:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 18

01:27:42, 18 April 2017 review of submission by Jdonnell cs92


I accidentally misspelled Sheafer in the title/url of the wikipedia page. Instead of "Shaefer" it should be "Sheafer" How do I fix this mistake? Jdonnell cs92 (talk)jdonnell cs92


Jdonnell cs92 (talk) 01:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I have fixed it for you. Isingness (talk) 01:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 02:52:51, 18 April 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by 202.253.138.199


I have been told that the Wikipedia page on ProSPER.Net cannot be published because it is copyright by ProSPER.Net. I am the responsible for ProSPER.Net, writing the article. I don't see the issue here as we are not failing any copyright issues. I work for ProSPER.Net and am solely responsible for its communications of the network. 202.253.138.199 (talk) 02:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP address. Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia. The best source of information about copyright questions will be Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. You can also ask questions at WP:THQ. I expect that when you do ask your question at those venues, you will be told that, as an individual, you do not have the right to grant licenses for material that is copyrighted by your employer. I also took a look at the unu.edu web site and saw that the license granted there (which is here) does not permit re-use of its material for commercial purposes, whereas material hosted on Wikipedia does not have that restriction. And so, it seems to me that there is a very real copyright issue that can arise from taking material from the website. But I encourage you to seek a more-expert opinion from either of the two sources that I named at the start. On a different note, if you are writing an article about your employer, you are subject to our conflict-of-interest requirements, for which you might want to read WP:COI. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

07:11:27, 18 April 2017 review of submission by Gitakrishna


Kindly view the following 'Draft', and offer your valuable advice on how to further improve the said Article, please: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jugpreet_Bajwa_--_the_Blind_Singer Thanks in Advance, please. Gitakrishna (talk) 07:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=775980967"