Help desk
< December 9	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 11 >

Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

December 10[edit]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bruce Mann (oncologist)[edit]

I've submitted an article for creation, but I'm having trouble with the title. I couldn't see any way to suggest the title, but the title I'd like is "Professor Bruce Mann" (an eminent medical professional in Australia). Now I'm getting a message saying "Warning: A page with this title exists. Please make sure that this proposed article does not already exist or that it does not need to be moved to a different title."

How do I get more details on this problem and navigate to a page where I can deal with it? There is another article on Wikipedia for a different "Bruce Mann" (at Harvard) -- is this the problem? I also entered this title in the Wizard at one point -- did I inadvertently save it and create a blank article?

I've also tried to post a photo on the draft article, and get the message that this article doesn't yet exist. Does this mean I have to wait for it to be created before I can post the photo?

Tafkira2 (talk) 00:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)Tafkira2[reply]

Yes, the Bruce Mann article is the reason for the warning; we'll have to disambiguate the title. I've moved the draft to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bruce Mann (oncologist). Wikipedia article names don't use academic titles such as "Dr." or "Professor"; compare for example Stephen Hawking.

I'm not sure what photo message you refer to; if the photo comes with a free license such as the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License you can upload it to the Wikimedia Commons via their Upload Wizard; the picture tutorial explains how to add an uploaded image to the draft. That should work for drafts as well as for accepted articles. If the image is copyrighted and is to be considered fair use, then Wikipedia's policy on non-free content indeed requires an article and not just a draft, but pictures of living persons usually don't fall under fair use because a free equivalent should be available.

On an unrelated note, the draft currently does not cite any reliable sources. Wikipedia content should be based on such sources that are independent of the subject to allow our readers to verify the draft's content. Huon (talk) 00:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can I figure out when my article might be reviewed?[edit]

Re: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Linda A. Mason ‎

I resubmitted an article for review Dec. 3. Is there any way for me to get a sense of when it might be reviewed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RachelJBH (talk • contribs) 14:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's currently a massive backlog of more than 1,600 unreviewed submissions, and it may take about four weeks for reviewers to look at yours. At a quick glance the submission looks mostly ok to me; there are some issues with the references that might be improved: For example, you shouldn't have external links in the article text itself (they're all duplicated by a reference anyway), but you could gather some of them, such as the websites of the organizations Mason works for, in a dedicated "External links" section. Several of the sources looked like primary sources to me, such as Mason's own books. Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so we should try and find independent reviews instead of citing the books themselves. Similarly, the websites of Mason's organizations aren't the best references and should be gotten rid of in favor of independent sources whenever possible. If a certain statement cannot be backed up by independent sources it's probably not that important anyway. Huon (talk) 16:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hapimag[edit]

Hi, I tried to write a article about Hapimag, my former employer in Switzerland. The reviewer sad it sounded rather like advertisement. Therefore I changed it and I was writing from a very neutral point of view but the submission was declined again. I'm wondering which passages of the text still sounds like advertisement? What can I do?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Hapimag

Thanks for advice! 79.153.56.145 (talk) 14:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the draft's sources are lacking. Quite a few are not the reliable, independent sources we're looking for. This includes the German Wikipedia and Hapimag's own website. Others are just search engine results or business directory entries. Furthermore you should use inline citations and footnotes to clarify which source supports which of the draft's statements.

Regarding passages that still read like an advertisement: "A simple idea lies behind the business model of Hapimag" - that tells us nothing about the company and should be removed. Or take this statement: "The Hapimag concept stands for a sustainable lifestyle." - Says who, and why? The only source even mentioning sustainability is the Hapimag CEO himself in the Die Welt interview for which we cite an English translation - I'd much prefer to see the original interview, but much better still would be an independent source mentioning sustainability, not just the company's CEO. Besides, even the CEO doesn't say his company's "concept stands for a sustainable lifestyle" - that sounds as if it came straight from the PR department. Huon (talk) 16:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at this too. Apart the complete lack of independent sourcing and the PR-speak, e.g. "Hapimag boasts over 141 000 members", "A simple idea lies behind the business model of Hapimag", the article tells us virtually nothing encyclopedic about the company apart from the year it was founded. It simply reads like an ad to attract new shareholders. How was it founded? By whom? How did it get its name? How did it grow? How did their strategy change over time? See for example, this 2003 article in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung. How is it governed? Has it always been smooth sailing? For example, what about the shareholder's revolt in January of this year reported here in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung? This is a notable company, considered one of the pioneers of the time-sharing concept. There are a lot of good independent sources out there, e.g. [1], [2] + quite a few newspaper articles that aren't simply based on press-releases. These are the sorts of sources you need for a proper encyclopedic article. Hope that helps. Voceditenore (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Tatiana.grehan/sandbox[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Left school Hi! I have created a new article called "Left School" in my sandbox and then submitted it to Wikipedia reviewers for approval. While the message says that the article has been submitted for consideration, there are 2 warnings at the bottom which I don't know what to do about. The warnings say: • Warning: This page should probably be located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/sandbox (move). - I tried to move but got an error message • Warning: A page with this title exists. Please make sure that this proposed article does not already exist. - I am sure that such article does not exist. Please advise what do I need to do about these warnings. Thank you for your help! Tatiana GrehanTatiana.grehan (talk) 16:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the draft to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Left School. The template that generates the warnings is smart enough to realize that the article is not at the preferred location for drafts awaiting review, but it's bad at guessing what the draft's proper title should be. Thus it guessed wrongly, and then produced a second warning because the title it guessed is already taken. The article that exists and that generated the second warning is our article on sandboxes, completely unrelated to your draft's content. Huon (talk) 16:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tikvah Alper[edit]

I'd like to share the production of this biographical piece with some others - both family and colleagues - who know more than I about some aspects of her work. Is there any way I can send a draft version to them for comments/changes? Thanks

Ruth Sslyruc (talk) 19:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what's keeping others from seeing and editing the draft at its current place - the URL is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Tikvah_Alper and we don't require a Wikipedia account to see and edit it. However, relatives and colleagues may have a conflict of interest, and Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject, not on personal testimony. Huon (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Old Bedan/sandbox[edit]

Hello I am trying to get an article 'Off The Bar': Loaded TV show published.

However I have more articles to get published too: how can I do this? My sandbox appears to be 'clogged' with the current entry: how can I submit a further article please?

Thanks Andrew JohnstonOld Bedan (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, as long as a draft starts with User:Old Bedan/, you can label it as or move it to whatever you like. "Sandbox" is just a generic suggestion be give to beginners. For example, on your "Off the Bar" page you can go to the little menu just to the left of the Wikipedia Search box at the top of your screen, and select "Move". You can then choose a title, and hit the "Move" button, and it will end up at, say User:Old Bedan/Off The Bar: Loaded.

If the next article you want to write is "Acme Brand Anvils", you can go to User:Old Bedan/Acme Brand Anvils and start it as a new page, or just type http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Old_Bedan/Acme_Brand_Anvils into the URL bar of your browser. Either of those will bring up a message saying "no such page exists, do you want to create it?" You just select "create" and now you have a page which is within your overall userspace, so you can safely draft there until you're ready to either submit it to AFC for review, or later on just Move it to the articlespace yourself if you're experienced enough to know when an article is ready. Does this help? MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the draft to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Off The Bar, the preferred location for drafts awaiting review. You can create multiple drafts at the corresponding pages (Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Draft name, wehere "Draft name" should of course be the name of your drafts). However, half your current draft's sources looked like primary sources to me, such as the loaded.tv website, and the other half doesn't mention the show at all. To be considered notable the show must have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Huon (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/George G. "Smittie" Smith[edit]

"If this submission is ready to be reviewed, click here and press Save page"

I click and save, and it still shows as not yet submitted. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigertwice (talk • contribs) 21:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's adding the "Submitted" templates to the bottom of the article, while your older "Not Submitted" remains at the top. So you are indeed submitted, and with four redundant templates at the bottom of the article. I'll go fix it for you. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew, you are the best. Thank you very much. Now, if you could wave your magic wand and make Wiki a bit more user friendly ... on second thought, if you did that, it would REALLY be overwhelmed with submissions. It takes determination to figure out how to submit,and maybe that is by design! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.190.69 (talk) 21:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]