Help desk
< November 1	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 3 >

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.

November 2

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SwiftKey

My submission for SwiftKey was recently declined twice for reading like an advertisement. I used the Swype page as a guide for how to create the SwiftKey page (as both are competing third party keyboards for Android it seemed reasonable). I do not see how my submission is so different compared to the Swype page with regard to content. I kept all of the information factual. I started from SwiftKey’s beginning and explained it’s evolution. There are only two major differences that I notice between the SwiftKey page and the Swype page. The first is listing the awards SwiftKey has won. I can see how this may be interpreted as advertising, so I will remove it if I must. The other major difference from the Swype page is the description of the evolution of the 3 versions of SwiftKey. I feel like this is no different than describing the updates to the Android operating system such as describing ICS or Jelly Bean in the Android version history. I'm just trying to explain my thought process because I really don't understand why the SwiftKey article was declined. Will someone please explain what it is that needs adjustment (or removal, if necessary) in order to have the page published? Thanks in advance for any response.G what (talk) 01:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's more an issue of tone. Your draft addresses the reader - an encyclopedia article never should do so. Or take this statement: "The Fluency Prediction Engine is the most notable feature in SwiftKey." Firstly, we should not be using boldface, with very few exceptions such as the first occurrence of the article title; see MOS:BOLD. Secondly, that statement is not supported by sources, and thirdly, it provides no relevant information anyway. The sentence immediately afterward explains what the Engine actually does; that's much more helpful. (There's a second virtually identical statement about the Fluency Prediction Engine a little further down, including yet another use of boldface - was that deliberate?) And maybe it's just me, but the word "solution" seems to be heavily overused. What's the difference between an "on-screen keyboard solution" and an "on-screen keyboard"? I'm not sure what the section on the "VIP beta testing" is supposed to tell me about SwiftKey except that the company likes to flatter its volunteer testers. It's unsourced, too. On that note: Phrases such as "significant improvement" practically scream for a source. If they cannot be attributed to a source, we can remove them outright and won't lose anything of value.

And while that's not an issue of advertising, the "more information" section looks like an afterthought and should probably be merged with the rest of the text.

Another side note: References shouldn't be added to section headings but to text. In those cases I'd probably put the source after "The followinng new features were included". Huon (talk) 02:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a news article

Hello good afternoon, I have a question because my Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/tropical depression 01W (2010) is not a news. It is an article that I write each day what is happening to the storm system. That is not a news. It is an article about the storm's lifeHurricane trackers (talk) 04:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you refer to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/tropical depression 01W (2010). I doubt that tropical depression is notable by Wikipedia's standards. Has it been the subject of signifcant coverage in reliable sources? The references you cite look like routine NOAA coverage, which would probably not suffice to establish it's a notable storm system. Huon (talk) 06:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok but why did the others accepted my request like tropical depression 17W and tropical depression 18W they are not also notable but they accepted it do you have a coconut head?Hurricane trackers (talk) 13:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those other articles are also marked for insufficient references. I personally don't think they're notable either; the reviewer apparently disagreed. But while other problematic articles exist, that's no reason to create more. Huon (talk) 14:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Maguire (solicitor)

Thank you for creating Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Frank Maguire (solicitor) article for me.

As per your comment I now modified the article to take out subjective words and added more reference to demonstrate objective view of Frank. Can you please let me know how can I make the comment that refers to subjective word usage disappear from the top of the article?

Thank you CCarolinehaney (talk) 13:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That comment is generated by the {{peacock}} template at the very top of the article. When you feel the issue has been resolved you can simply remove the template. However, I feel it's still appropriate because the article in parts still praises Maguire lavishly with either no source at all or only his own law firm as a source. Is "Master Yachtsman" even a title? Are his colleagues the best available source for the claim that he was "respected"? (As an aside, the source doesn't actually say so.) The bare facts, in this case the "Solicitor of the Year" award Maguire won, are much more telling than ultimately vague opinions such as that about "respect", especially if there are no independent sources for the latter.

As an aside, what is the "key cases" section supposed to be about? I would assume that it's about legal cases Maguire was involved in, but rather it seems to be a loose collection of times Maguire expressed an opinion on something, often backed up only by primary sources written by Maguire himself. For quite a few cases it's not even clear what the "case" was about: What should "Opposing View - Holyrood Magazine March 2010" tell me about Maguire?

Also, since the draft has been accepted and is now a live article, it's technically no longer within the scope of WikiProject Articles for creation and this help desk. The main help desk may be a better venue for future questions. Huon (talk) 14:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Legmore/sandbox

Hi

I have submitted something on Wikipedia but I don't think I have completed it correctly. Is there any way I can withdraw it?

Lindsay Legmore (talk) 14:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need to remove the {{AfC submission}} template from the article. I've done this for you. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

what browser does you live chat work in? so far Chrome and Fire fox does not show a white box to type in.

Corey12 (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't use a browser at all but a chat client: mIRC. For Firefox you probably want a dedicated chat extension like ChatZilla. I don't know about Chrome and cannot give any advice on that. There also exist less comfortable "webchat" pages such as http://webchat.freenode.net/ - those should work from any modern browser. I just tested it, and in my Firefox the link I provided does work. If it doesn't with yours, that may be due to restrictive settings regarding JavaScript, but I don't guarantee for that. Huon (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want Wikipedia general help the channel name will be wikipedia-en-help. Enter any nick you would like to use. -- :- ) Don 22:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Scott Jay Kenyon

Thanks again to Huon for an excellent critique of the article I am writing, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Scott Jay Kenyon, and very clear pointers on how to proceed. I have tried to use this advice in the revision - I have added many secondary sources, eliminated some of the lists, and followed Huon's suggestion of a separate publication list. If Huon or someone else could take a look at the revision, I would appreciate it. I am hopeful it has what is needed but if it does not please let me know how to fix the parts that are not quite right. Thanks! Seriouscallersonly (talk) 19:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed, accepted, published. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! That was fast! And great news - thanks very much! Seriouscallersonly (talk) 19:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Westchester Bank

What is wrong with the way I am citing my sources? I've tried several times to contact the users who have reviewed my article but have not heard anything back. Is there a number I can call to speak with someone?

Thanks

Bill — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wthogan (talk • contribs) 20:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's a phone helpline; since Wikipedia is basically a volunteer effort, that would probably be impractical. We have a live help chat, though.

The problem is not the way you cite the sources, but the fact that the draft's only source is the bank itself. Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper articles. We require significant coverage in such sources, both to establish a topic's notability and to allow our readers to verify the article's content.

I just noticed there's a second draft with additional sources: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Westchester Bank. I haven't looked at the The Westchester County Business Journal since it's apparently not available online, but the Yahoo News pieces in fact aren't news reports but press releases originating with the bank. Those are not considered independent sources; by Wikipedia's standards they're probably not reliable either because they haven't been subject to editorial oversight. The County Business Journal may be a good source, but on its own it's not enough: "Significant coverage" usually means "more than one source with at least a paragraph each on the subject". Huon (talk) 22:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]