Help desk
< March 18	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 20 >

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.

March 19[edit]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Mission Point (Mackinac Island)/Karin D. E. Everett[edit]

Advice Help please: I have uploaded two new photos to complete my article 'Mission Point (Mackinac Island)'. These photos are of 3 buildings that are described in the article (The Film Studio, Conference Center, and Library). Both photos were provided to me by their authors for use in this article. I identified these authors in descriptions uploaded with the photos. The photos are: File:Mission_Point_Film_Studio_-_Fine_Arts_Building,_Mackinac_Island,_1966.jpg and File:Mission_Point_conference_center_and_library,_Mackinac_Island,_MI_1969.jpg

Both photos were taken in the 1960's after building construction was complete, and the upload category that I selected in the Wikipedia: File Upload Wizard said: --This is a depiction of a copyrighted three-dimensional work or building, which is the object of discussion in an article. This is a photograph or other kind of depiction of a copyrighted, three-dimensional creative work, such as a statue or work of architecture. The article contains a discussion of that work which requires illustration. The photograph as such is free, or was provided by the creator of the sculpture.

However, now a warning on the 'Studio' image says something quite different: -The fair use only covers "proposed building or architectural work." - the license says "As soon as construction is completed on the building, this image should be deleted and replaced with a freely licensed photograph of the actual building"

Also, regarding the 'Conference center / Library' photo: What are the restrictions Low- vs. high-resolution ?

Should I have uploaded these as free? (see above: "the photograph as such is free"). If so, how do I fix these problems?

Sincerely, kdee Karin D. E. Everett (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the people who took the photographs wish to freely license them, they can do so (or you can assist them in doing so) using the instructions at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. A photographer still owns the copyright to their photograph even if it was taken in a public place. Also, the licensing requirements for Wikipedia require more than merely permission to use an image in an article (as explained at that link). Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David L Peterson[edit]

I am disappointed, you are right, that this submission ("David L Peterson") was declined. I have read the tutorials for beginners, and the subject shared a Nobel Peace Prize, which was documented in the submission, and numerous other awards, which were documented and verifiable. All the links I provided are active, and the only one provided by the subject is his citation list, which is easily verifiable. Others in his field with Wikipedia pages have equal or fewer elements of notability (e.g., Thomas W Swetnam and Steve Running, not that they are unworthy).

So I am really perplexed at how your reviewer characterized my submission, clearly mistakenly in my view. That said, if you could provide SPECIFIC examples in the submission of inadequate referencing, I could beef them up further.

thanks for your help.

98.247.169.229 (talk) 04:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Are you also User:Dmckgbear? Or are there two people working on the article? Anyhow, don't give up hope. I personally think that there is sufficient referenced material there to establish notability and move the draft into article space. (I've made a few changes and additions so far.) I'm going to ask another editor who's an expert on articles about academics and scientists to give a second opinion. In the meantime, I suggest you do a bit of copyediting per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having had a close look at the article and spoken with another Wikipedia editor with a lot of experience in assessing biographies of academics on Wikipedia, here are some of the things you need to do:

1. The Nobel Peace Prize was given to the IPCC as an organization, composed of literally dozens of scientists. I've had a look at the literature and there seem to have been over a dozen from the US Forestry service alone. Thus, it doesn't really count towards evidence of his individual impact. In my view the IUFRO Award and the "Chief's Award", which are recognitions of his individual achievement and impact are far more important, and you have no citation for that latter one.

2. His key books and studies need complete bibliographic information. They should be referenced not to themselves, but to reviews or discussions of them in other books or peer reviewed journals, which again demonstrates the impact of his work. I suggest you limit the publications to four or five key ones. They should probably go in a separate section, but that's a minor point.

3. The draft is currently written like an author's blurb on a book jacket and simply lists accomplishments. Read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch and remove words like "leading", "notable", "currently", etc. Downplay the Nobel bit. Simply state what his role was in the IPCC. In the text the organization will be linked to Wikipedia's IPCC article where the reader can see that the organization won the Nobel Peace Prize. There's no need to mention it in the article about Peterson, and it actually detracts.

4. As a biography, it's not really adequate. I added his birth year from the authority control, but where was he born or grow up? What were his undergraduate and master's degrees in? From what universities? What was the topic of his doctoral dissertation? When did he join the US Forest Service?

Hope that helps. Voceditenore (talk) 08:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Howdy! I was just curious why our submission for creation was taking so long to be reviewed and approved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyurg03 (talk • contribs) 08:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You never resubmitted this draft after it was declined in May 2013. If you would like to resubmit it, add {{subst:submit}} at the top of the page. It may take several weeks to be reviewed after that. However, you should consider adding additional independent reliable sources that discuss the topic before resubmitting, as in its present state it looks likely to be declined again. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pointman (user interface)[edit]

Hi, I submitted my article for review 4 weeks ago. Is there any way to check where it is in the review pipeline? (This is my first submitted article, so I'm new to the process). Pdenbrook (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might do well to work on it a little quickly: we do not include trademark symbols, and the article seems to give exccessively detailed description, to the point that it reads asa press release for the product. DGG ( talk ) 18:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jeff Schneider I am still waiting to hear from a newspaper organization about an online link that should be included in the article for review. Which exists for a fee now I assume ? Are there alternatives to include such a link or should I just remove it entirely? Thank You (Jeff Schneider 15:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camus312 (talk • contribs)

Resources behind paywalls can still be used as references. Cite as many as possible of the newspaper name, publisher name, journalist's name, date published, and title of the piece, together with the link itself. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Your submission name here[edit]

Hi, My Review for march 18 has been declined.can you help me in this Articles for creation: User:K sharma27/sandbox (March 18)

Thanks Ksharma

As noted, any information of this nature can be added to Indian general election, 2014 instead; it does not require a separate article. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Avp5231[edit]

Is there a way to prove that I am not affiliated with Artvest Partners, per my feedback from Aggie80? Re: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/User:Avp5231?

Avp5231 (talk) 16:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not easily. If you say that you're not, then other editors should accept good faith, so long as there is not a problem with your editing. Editing in other topic areas might help.

Having a conflict of interest is not in itself a reason for a submission to be declined, so perhaps you should improve the submission further and then resubmit. From a quick look, it doesn't seem clearly apparent that the event is non-notable. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 21:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Devlin Crow[edit]

Devlin crow (talk) 17:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Devlin crow. Please do not paste your whole draft here. I have removed it and replaced it with a link to the draft. What sort of help are you asking for with the draft? Voceditenore (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the primary notability is as a film-maker, it does not appear that he has directed any notable films; if it is as an artist, it does not appear he has works in the permanent collection of major museums. See WP:CREATIVE. DGG ( talk ) 18:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Randy Gage[edit]

Hi, Considering that Randy Gage earned CPAE Speaker Hall of Fame with some other recognitions and has written a book which featured in some bestseller lists, including that of The New York Times and Publishers Weekly, does he not meet WP:ANYBIO? All these were cited in my initial submission, but (although, they were straightforward, descriptive statements of facts and referenced with reliably published primary sources—WP:PSTS) another editor removed them as he believes that primary sources should not be used at all—see this revision. I need help on this submission, please. Thank you. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]