Please let me know further your advice, opinions and commentary! <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Luculence|Luculence]] ([[User talk:Luculence|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Luculence|contribs]]) 16:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Please let me know further your advice, opinions and commentary! <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Luculence|Luculence]] ([[User talk:Luculence|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Luculence|contribs]]) 16:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Hi Sionk, just an FYI I have decided to add the Foundation's info to the existing PUNTACANA Resort and Club page, as you recommended. Thanks for all your advice and support in my first Wiki editing endeavor!!
:Hi Sionk, just an FYI I have decided to add the Foundation's info to the existing [[PUNTACANA Resort and Club]] page, as you recommended. Thanks for all your advice and support in my first Wiki editing endeavor!!
[[User:Luculence|Luculence]] ([[User talk:Luculence|talk]]) 18:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
[[User:Luculence|Luculence]] ([[User talk:Luculence|talk]]) 18:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Articles related to architecture over the past two weeks are listed automatically by AlexNewArtBot.
This list was generated from these rules. Questions and feedback are always welcome! The search is being run daily with the most recent ~14 days of results. Note: Some articles may not be relevant to this project.
This template will be updated regularly. If you would rather not receive this bulletin, just delete it from your talk page.
Hello and welcome to the WikiProject Architecture - here's the bulletin - if you don't like it just delete it from your talk page, otherwise, it automatically updates. Please give me or one of the other project members a shout if you need any help. Kind regards Elekhh (talk) 22:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A belated welcome!
Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm!
Here's wishing you a belatedwelcome to Wikipedia, Sionk. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.
I noted that you declined this article because the references were from car magazines. As these are the most likely and generally only independent source for this type of company I wonder what alternative source you might suggest? My understanding is that the magazines are within independent test criteria and article significance matches the policy guidelines. NealeFamily (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments on my talk page. I have read the Notability section as you suggested and disagree with your conclusion with regard to the Alternative Cars Limited articale for the following reasons.
1. The coverage in the cited sources is neither trivial nor incidental. They are third party and reliable.
2. Its notability is based on having attracted notice from reliable sources with an interest in the international automotive kit car field
3. The sources are independent of the company, mutliple, and their coverage could not be classified as trivial
4. The sources are international, not just local - United States and United Kingdom, in addition to national (New Zealand) ones
5. While some sources contain an element of promotion, I have taken care to avoid this.
I also sought review and advice from a major contributor to the Wiki Automobiles Project - their comment was:
"... one of you articles (Alternative Cars Limited) seems to have enough references to be "worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia" dont know why is was not accepted, the Reid Steam Car article could benefit if you could find more sources to give it more "notability", you can also ask help from WP:CARS discussion ... -->Typ932 T·C 20:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)"
If you agree, I shall resubmit the Alternative Cars article.
For the Reid car, I think you are correct in suggesting its inclusion in an article about Reid, himself.
I am of two minds on the Countess Mouldings item - Short has continued to develop other business relating to a unique sheep shearing product, which might put him into the some category as Reid. However, at this stage his car is more significant than him.
As I am only a volunteeer reviewer of Articles for Creation, I have no authority to prevent (or give consent to) your re-submission of 'Alternative Cars Limited'. If you read WP:NCORP you will see that it is recommended to have at least one example regional or national coverage of the subject, to demonstrate its notability, "On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability". I used this guidance to make my decision. Clearly the members of the Automobiles Project will be eager to see more articles in their subject field and may be biased in this regard. I thankyou anyway for engaging in a civil and polite conversation and wish you all the best in your future contributions! Sionk (talk) 01:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your explanation - from what you are saying the question then comes down to what constitutes "media of limited interest and circulation". I'll look into the phrase and let you know what I find. Hopefully it well be helpful to both of us. Always a pleasure to converse with keen Wikipedians, keep up the good work. NealeFamily (talk) 09:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have been on a rather long excursion through the guidelines - at best I would describe them as vague and at worst confusing relating to Notability. Given the pages of discussion on Notability and the meaning of "limited interest and circulation" I can only conclude that it seems to become a matter of opinion as to whether a kitcar magazine constitutes a publication of limited interest and circulation - not helpful to either of us. I therefore turned my attention to other Notability guidelines Wikipedia:Notability (astronomical objects) and Wikipedia:Notability (aircraft), the latter being an essay rather than a guideline. These seem to show a split in the way Wikipedians view notability. As a sweeping generality (please excuse me for this) those from a scientific/literary viewpoint seem to prefer to limit what is notable in their field, while those from mechanical/technological one seem to want to include more. From my personal preference, I tend to lean towards the latter and I think that would be similar for those on theWiki Automobile project - the projects stated aim is to "co-ordinate the effort to compile articles on all types and classes of automobiles, automotive parts and technology of the automotive industry". A troll through the various autombile and aircraft pages shows some very obscure types, which in themselves must be of limited interest even from my viewpoint. So despite my best efforts I don't think I have resolved much more than to agree to disagree. Let me know if you have any suggest/thoughts on the matter as I am quite interested. NealeFamily (talk) 23:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 2859 submissions waiting to be reviewed.
I had later realized my mistake and thereafter i had nominated the article for deletion with your reason. But I think one of the administrators cancelled my request for deletion.
(Sumitkumarjha75 (talk) 07:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Elizabeth Wilbraham
Nice article on Elizabeth Wilbraham. When I cleaned up the Wotton House article (which I only did because I found it in a terrible state, when linking to the articles on the houses that John Adams and Thomas Jefferson toured in April 1786), I wondered why there was no article on EW. Adams's comments are particularly useful, as he gives a notable view on the worth of many of the best arcadian houses north west of London. The state of the article was ironic really because Adams wrote "Wotton is both great and elegant, though neglected". -- PBS (talk) 06:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Glad to see other editors are interested in developing the Wilbraham article! The John Adams diaries look quite interesting too. Sionk (talk) 11:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey,
Thanks for finaly adding my article to article space! however, I do not really like that it is classed as an orphan or whatever wiki term is for it being " unreliable" . Have a look at Project Harar wikipedia article: I do not understand what makes their sources better than mine? Is 2 bbc coverages not enough? Why is their page trustworthy and Facing Africa's is not. I really need some guidance on how to sort it out. Just take minute and have a look at charities work, it will be enough to u that it is not some 2 day mickey mouse project. I agree with all the changes youve made, but could you consider adoption of my article?:)
P.s. its class that u have to uni degrees!I am a second year phd and i work for the charity i am talking about in the article (i mean im not some random idiot trying to put his fish and chips shops advertisement through), but i do not specialize in wiiki articles, so please help me out ! ;)
Another editor added the 'orphan' tag. I prefer the 'deadend' tag because it explains things more sympathetically. The idea behind both the 'orphan' tag and the 'deadend' tag is to encourage someone to integrate the article into Wikipedia so more people will find it. Articles that have wikilinks to it from other parts of Wikipedia are much more useful and credible.
Hi,
I overruled your decision at the AFC draft St Jude's Church, which was original declined by you. As you already said in an AFC comment, that this submission is a boderline case. Since the user cited a great independent / 3rd party (and reliable) magazine "The builder" (we have an article on it!) and an old building / church is / should never get declined/deleted because of notability, I overruled your decision. Please also consider using our great AFC helper tool located at User:Timotheus Canens/afchelper4.js (add it to your skin.js, if you need help, leave me a talkback) which adds a new tab t the top similar to twinkle. It informs the submitter and doing similar tasks at once! Regards, mabdul12:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip about the AfC tools. If I return to AfC in a big way, I'll definitely try them out. As for the St Jude's Church article, as far as I understand, church buildings are not automatically notable. But I take your point that an article about this church is very unlikely to be questioned or deleted. I'm glad of your second opinion. Sionk (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good work on the disambiguation ;) Next time don't forget the talk page XD (I replaced the redirect with a disambiguation project tagging) mabdul18:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
we had a conversation recently regarding this AFC.
I edited the keepsake box page, trying to keep the addition neutral, and placed an explanatory comment on the history. A Wiki Editor reversed the amendment, I posted a question and explanation on their talk page but have received no response.
I wonder if you could point me as to the best way forward?
I left a comment on the other editor's Talk page. Because the Keepsake_box article is so ridiculously short and under developed at the moment, I can understand why they may have thought your additions were OTT. I'll try adding something as short as possible to the article. I still think the Wheathills box is a lovely example, so would make a good illustration. If readers want to find out more, they can refer to the BBC and Derbyshire Life sources. Sionk (talk) 12:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou very much! It was interesting to read about the topic, though I still have no idea about the music of Pakistan :) Sionk (talk) 13:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sionk! It's Lerysik again)) You helped me with the sources to my article (remember?)) Thanks a lot) You are the only person whose help is really useful)) You suggested me expanding the sources and so I've done it)) If you don't mind I'd like to ask you to check my article once again in order it isn't declined again. Many thanks)) Lerysik (talk) 09:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
About "MZ". So I found out what MZ stands for))) It is "Mitteldeutsche Zeitung" (German newspaper). I suppose I should change MZ to its full name, should'n I?;)) I'll do it right now. Is everything OK now?with the sources and other things? Can my article be published at last? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lerysik (talk • contribs) 06:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Article Shudra - The Rising
Hi Sionk
Thanks for your valuable feedback... I have done some wikifying on this article as per your suggestions.. kindly check & if it's ok I'll be more than happy because it's my first article I successfully got loaded on wiki after immense of my effor... it will certainly boost up my morale to add some more valuable articles here. If the wikifying done by me is as per your desire I feel more confident to give my time to other such kind of articles too. If it's not up to the mark kindly update me I'll certainly work hard on it & will give my best to this renowned encyclopedia. I just loved being here..
30 sources for a brief article -- which I never claimed to own -- are not enough for Sionk. I can add many more; Artfinder and Artist Finder for example:
But none of this would be enough for Sionk who is more eager to delete than improve. 30 + more "independently published” notable sources do not constitute notability? One self-published source is http://local-artists.org/users/dmitry-borshch, which I think is worth including.
The fact that Borshch donated his images to Wikimedia Commons (a free image repository) completely negates Carrite's statement that the article is commerce-related and promotional. Most living artists retain full copyright of their images in order to profit from them commercially.
I challenge you to be conscientious editors: undo your delete vote, read the journal above and others, then decide whether the article can exist on Wikipedia.
Whose comments did I delete? Such false accusations will not improve your standing in the Wikipedia community.
I removed your notice because you are not qualified to place it, having no expert knowledge of Russian, Russian-American, Ukrainian, or Ukrainian-American art. You did not even read the article references before you placed it.
Instead of placing that notice again, please respond to my statement above and others in User talk:Khidekel.
Hi Sionk. I noticed you reviewed my Article for Creation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Bath_Fitter) and denied it because "This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia."
In the article, I have references from NYT.com, Business Week, and TN.Gov. Would you mind helping me understand what better references, I should include on my page to help increase the chances that the page will be created? Thanks for your help! (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I declined your article because we need to see multiple examples of independent, reliable, in-depth sources to prove the company is notable enough for Wikipedia. The NYT article at least gives a few lines to Bath Fitter. owever, the BusinessWeek page is a business listing only, as is the TN.gov page. Thougjh I can see you've linked to a government Bill that was written about Bath Fitter, I cannot see any evidence it was raised or passed. Sionk (talk) 13:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To me, the www.entrepreneur.com page looks like another listing on a website. The Tennessee Government's news page helps to explain the Governor's Award and, though it is a press release, it is independent of Bath Fitter and somewhat reliable so could possibly count in a small way towards 'notability'. If you wish to add it to the article, by all means do so. Inmy opinion the article is a borderline case and I would prefer another editor to make a ...erm ...second opinion on it, so to speak. Why not raise the question at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk? Sionk (talk) 16:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Sionk, for your continuing interest in this article and for your recent contribution. Unfortunately, though, Wikipedia frowns on bullet points in articles, preferring running text. I am always reluctant to revert the additions of creative Wikipedians but I would invite you to restore the earlier format, adding your latest contribution to the para on British partnerships. Hope you can go along with this. - Ipigott (talk) 14:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ipigott, I'm not sure what the problem is here. Wikipedia does not frown on bulleted points in articles. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Embedded_lists#Appropriate_use_of_lists welcomes 'children' lists. Because the section was previously comprised only of a large number of examples of architect partnerships (of a few sentences each), a 'children' list seemed to work better. In my opinion, this is particularly true if the section begins by discussing the general topic, as it should. If you have a major problem with this, maybe the issue should be resolved on the Talk page of the article. Sionk (talk) 15:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you got back to me so quickly on this. I hope we can sort it out between us. Seasoned reviewers have on more than one occasion encouraged me to rewrite bulleted lists as running prose when advising on improvements of articles to B or GA status. They have referred me to the source you quote yourself which states quite clearly: "Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a simple list may not. Prose flows, like one person speaking to another, and is best suited to articles, because their purpose is to explain." That is not to say that sections such as bibliographies, timelines or external links should not consist of bulleted lists - they usually do. Another factor is that as an article expands, it is usually much easier to add to paragraphs of running text than it is to expand on lists. If you still wish to maintain bullet points, I suggest we begin by asking Elekhh for his views on this, rather than cluttering the talk page. What do you think? - Ipigott (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sionk, again, I'm a little aghast by your comments provided on my talk page. You have suggested that it's promotional - far from it. I would argue that these are merely references to Gratton's work. "He wrote a book, but we can't tell you what it is".
Hi Sionk, Thanks for reviewing my Article for Creation on the painter Bertha May Ingle (Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Bertha_May_Ingle). As have other reviewers, you have taken the view that her notability has not been established by the references cited.
Strictly speaking, according to your stated criteria, this assessment is correct. But, to be honest, I believe Wikipedia's notability criteria do not really define notability at all, but rather fame, which is not the same thing. To my eye (and many agree with me), the notability of this artist is apparent for anyone to see, in her works that are on display in the cited web site. If no-one has yet written much about her, then, yes, she is clearly not famous. But the facts establishing that she is notable are clearly demonstrated in the sources I have cited. Moreover, they are all directly verifiable by you, as a reviewer, and by any reader of the article.
Look at the works, look at the facts of her life and career. Think about what notable really means: "worthy of attention or notice". Aren't you being blinded by your own boiler-plate?
Hi McFlann, I'm glad you agree I was correct. Anyone can claim somebody is worthy of attention; fortunately Wikipedia requires proof of this, rather than taking people at their word. Anyone can set up a website or blog about someone, claiming they are important, which is why Wikipedia's notability guidelines require reliable sources with "editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability". This normally means authoritative books, or newspaper/magazine articles. The lack of multiple, reliable, in-depth sources about Ingle, plus the significant amounts of original research from primary documents, were the reasons I declined your article. Sionk (talk) 11:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sionk, You have simply repeated your argument, with more boilerplate! That doesn't respond to my point, which is that the boilerplate criteria are misguided, if you are really interested in notability as opposed to fame. Repeating them doesn't alter that.
Someone can be famous (and recognized by Wikipedia) without being any good: witness Florence Foster Jenkins. I contend that someone can be regarded as notable, i.e. worthy of our attention, without having achieved fame, provided the evidence can be shown. That is what I have tried to do, in the case of Bertha May Ingle.
My article is not asking Wikipedia to take anyone "at their word". The "proof" of the facts it states is staring you in the face, but I guess you're too busy copying and pasting guidelines to look at it. Mcflann (talk) 11:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AFC Arbitration Place
Hi Sionk, thank you for your help and advice with creating and improving the Arbitration Place article. I will add clarifications as you suggested. GladlyTeche (talk) 15:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)GladlyTeche[reply]
wikipedia page rejection - PUNTACANA_Foundation:_Social_Projects
Hello Sionk, I appreciate your review and commentary, and I wanted to address your rejection of the page-in-review for PUNTACANA Foundation: Social Projects and ask that you reconsider, or give further advice on how to achieve page acceptance.
Your reasoning for rejection: "This article seems to be about the Puntacana Foundation. The status of the Foundation is unclear; many of the achievements are cited to Puntacana Resort and Club. Information about the Foundation should probably be incorporated into the existing article about PUNTACANA Resort and Club, unless better independent sources can be found that talk about Puntacana Foundation and verify the information in this article."
"The status of the Foundation is unclear"--- The Puntacana Foundation is a specific department of the hotel corporation Puntacana Resort and Club, as stated in the page-in-review (as stated: "The PUNTACANA Foundation’s Social Projects, of the PUNTACANA Resort and Club, focuses on promoting and assisting in the sustainable human development of local education, health care, culture, sports and community organization of the underserved communities in and around the Punta Cana region of the Dominican Republic through a variety of activities, projects and collaborations.") Please explain to me how I can make the status of the Foundation more clear than how it is listed above. Would it be better to call it "The PUNTACANA Foundation’s Social Projects department, of the PUNTACANA Resort and Club"?
"...many of the achievements are cited to Puntacana Resort and Club"--- to explain this: the achievements listed are due to successful community development projects, of which are all managed by the Puntacana Foundation, and the Foundation belongs to the Puntacana Resort and Club. The achievements cited on the page-in-review are for community development projects- due to the Foundation's activities only- and not for achievements which may be connected to Puntacana Resort and Club, such as an award like "4 star hotel rating". In most of the awards listed, the Foundation is named and even explained- for example, the Grassroots Outreach Award which states: "the Puntacana Foundation has vastly improved the quality of life in the local working-class town of Veron, establishing a permanent health clinic that services 15,000 patients annually, a bilingual school with a vibrant scholarship program, and a polytechnic school—the only high school in Veron to offer free education."
"...better independent sources..."--- upon review of the list of sources, there are nine independent articles and three independent sources used- for example, the Travel and Leisure Magazine, the Dominican Today online newspaper, and the World Travel and Tourism Council- which specifically name Puntacana Foundation and their community development activities. Not only this, but there is a fourth independent source- U.S. university, the Virginia College of Osteopathic Medicine- which verifies the Foundation's community development activities in health, specifically the yearly Medical Mission projects.
Lastly, I would like to address the thought of combining the Puntacana Foundation's information with the Puntacana Club and Resort's Wikipedia page. I did consider this but I believe that the Foundation's activities are numerous enough that a separate page is necessary. It will attract many Wiki visitors seeking specifically Puntacana Foundation-related information (for example, those who wish to donate to development projects may wish to read about current and past project details, also students of the Virginia College of Osteopathic Medicine, who participate in the Medical Mission Projects, will have a place to read and learn more about the Puntacana Foundation).
Hi Sionk, just an FYI I have decided to add the Foundation's info to the existing PUNTACANA Resort and Club page, as you recommended. Thanks for all your advice and support in my first Wiki editing endeavor!!
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Teater Ekamatra
Hi Sionk, after several weeks of research and reading on the topic, and subsequently being repeatedly declined, I am inclined to seek further advise with regard to the creation of my first article. I have read the guidelines on notability, and have improved the article's referencing accordingly. There are independent and reliable sources I have included that clearly indicates the subject's notability. For example, in one book (the Encyclopedia of Asian Theatre: O-Z) which I have referenced in the article, the text on page 759 reads:
"The 1980s saw the birth of a number of companies devoted to creating and staging new Singaporean plays. Of these, TheatreWorks, Necessary Stage, and the Malay-language company…Teater Ekamatra have made the most significant and lasting contributions."
Another book referenced in the article (Singapore Malay Theatre: Issues of Cultural Identity) also includes a comprehensive analysis of the subject as a "prominent theatre group".
I therefore seek clarification and help, to find out what is it about my article that does not verify this theatre company's significance as a notable theatre company in singapore, as there are already articles in wikipedia written for the other theatre companies mentioned in the above quoted text, namely TheatreWorks and Necessary Stage that have already have been approved and published by Wikipedia. As such, I am concerned if this article may not have been given closer scrutiny on its referencing, and have perhaps not been given further consideration of its proven credibility due to the extensive scrutiny on "existing online sources". Thanks for the time taken. Grateful for the help nevertheless. Thelostslipper (talk) 03:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ITN ArcelorMittal Orbit
On 18 May 2012, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article ArcelorMittal Orbit, which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.
Article Review - Coalition of Hope - 16 May 12 Review
Hello Sionk. Like many of the comments posted on this page regarding article rejection, I do not understand your determination of non-notability. I have cited member activity in disaster relief as cited by:
• MSNBC – COH President David Perez interviewed as a guest of Tucker Carlson on “The Situation with Tucker Carlson”
• ABC News – Article directly addressing COH President David Perez’ rescue/relief operations
• CNN – CNN reporter Kyra Phillps interviews COH President David Perez on Hurricane Katrina relief operations
• Military Intelligence Readiness Command Magazine – Page 24, COH Founder Tim Keegan awarded the Outstanding Volunteer Service Medal for organizing and shipping 1.2 million pounds of relief supplies to Haiti after the 2010 Earthquake
• HALO Corporation Harbinger Magazine – Page 22, Getting Serious About Global Disaster Relief
How does this square with your comment, “find independent sources for the information in the article”?
Just today, Harriet Fulbright, President of the J. William and Harriet Fulbright Center, has joined our board. She, along with other notable COH board members, such as former Senator George J. Mitchell, Boston College Dean of Communications Tom Fiedler, and UK Vice Admiral Sir Timothy McClement have found the organization important and noteworthy enough to join COH at the director level.
In light of these facts, can you please reconsider article publication? Thank you.
