Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category — List (sorting)ShowcaseParticipants
Apply — By subjectReviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives

Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

• This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
  • For questions on how to use or edit Wikipedia, visit the Teahouse.
  • For unrelated questions, use the search box or the reference desk.
  • Create a draft via Article wizard or request an article at requested articles.
• 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.

• Top of page
• Table of Contents
• Today's posts
• Bottom of page

December 8

Review of Wikipedia:Articles for creation/iNANiMATE OBjECTS

Hi.

Re: Review of Wikipedia:Articles for creation/iNANiMATE OBjECTS

Has this been declined again (as at 07.12.12)?

Or is it still waiting review?

If it has been declined, I'm having trouble finding any information as to why it has been declined.

Thanks You.

Don

(Donpercy (talk) 04:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC))

You never resubmitted it. The decline template gives instructions on how to do that, when you are ready. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia:Articles for creation/iNANiMATE OBjECTS

OH! SO I haven't resubmitted it since 27 of November (despite thinking I had....?)

Is that correct?

(Thanks, Don)

(Donpercy (talk) 04:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC))

Review of Wikipedia:Articles for creation/iNANiMATE OBjECTS

Hi.

Re: Review of Wikipedia:Articles for creation/iNANiMATE OBjECTS

Has this been declined again (as at 07.12.12)?

Or is it still waiting review?

If it has been declined, I'm having trouble finding any information as to why it has been declined.

Thanks You.

Don

(Donpercy (talk) 04:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC))

   You never resubmitted it. The decline template gives instructions on how to do that, when you are ready. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC) 

Oh, actually, my mistake. You have resubmitted it (I didn't notice the new submission banners below your article). It simply hasn't been gotten to yet as the backlog on reviewing submissions stretches back just over two weeks. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC) Don

(Donpercy (talk) 04:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC))

Review of Wikipedia:Articles for creation/iNANiMATE OBjECTS

RE: Review of Wikipedia:Articles for creation/iNANiMATE OBjECTS

Hi

I'm pretty sure that I've resubmitted this now.

(...by entering the 'click here' in the box that reads: "You are encouraged to make improvements by clicking on the "Edit" tab at the top of this page. When you are ready to resubmit, click here.")

Can you please confirm that this page has been resubmitted today?

Thanks.

Don

(Donpercy (talk) 05:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC))

As Someguy1221 said above, you did coorectly resubmit the draft, but there's currently a massive backlog of almost 1,600 unreviewed submissions, and it may take some time until it gets reviewed again. Please be patient.

However, at a glance the draft still seems to be heavily based on primary sources: The Foster Film Festival website on the Foster Film Festival, the World of Comedy Film Festival website on the World of Comedy Film Festival, and so on. Wikipedia content should be based on secondary sources such as newspaper articles. Huon (talk) 11:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Arthur F Hebard

Having made the page I have box on the top that says "Article not currently submitted for review" and a box at the bottom that says "This submission is waiting to be reviewed". Which is it??? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Arthur_F_Hebard

70.185.123.13 (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The article is submitted for review, the "not currently submitted" message is a relic that should be removed by a bot. Since the bot sometimes is a little slow, I have removed it for you.

However, the article currently only cites primary sources: One of Hebard's own papers and his university website. Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper articles or independent reviews of his work published in scholarly journals. Basically, we don't need the paper where Hebard published his important discovery so much as someone else crediting him with the discovery. Furthermore, major parts of the draft's content aren't supported by any sources at all. For example, neither source mentions the James C. McGroddy Prize for New Materials or Hebard's ten patents. Thus, the draft would probably currently fail a review because its content is not verifiable from the given sources. Huon (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

December 9

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dr. C.T. Abraham

The article was rejected because of lack of sources. Since then, I have tried to add all references (especially news outlet articles) to the page. I believe it is sufficient for the article to be accepted. If I request resubmission, will it get rejected again? Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbar64 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Many sources look like primary sources to me, for example the websites of organizations he founded. Mangaloremithr is a copy of the Deccan Herald's obituary and adds nothing whatsoever. The ministry website, http://poiministry.org, seems unavailable. You should use inline citations and footnotes to clarify which source supports which of the draft's statements. For example, I don't think any of the sources mention Abraham's lack of contentment with his PhD or his views on the awards he received.

It would also help if you could provide more news sources predating Abraham's death. With the exception of a rather dubious Liberty University source it seems dying was his most notable achievement, which certainly isn't correct. Huon (talk) 13:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Horns (film)

Hello, I understand that you are backlogged. I just wanted to put this here, so you know it exists. Thanks! AnonymousAnimus (talk) 13:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Husbands: The Comic

This one is also waiting to be created, and is my last submission for 2012. Appreciate it! AnonymousAnimus (talk) 14:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Your drafts are correctly submitted; there's no need to bring them up at the help desk when you don't have any questions. Huon (talk) 15:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Knowthenet

I am a freelance writer trying to submit this article on behalf of Nominet. It is being rejected. Please can you tell me how I can modify it for Wikipedia acceptance.

Much appreciated.

David — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.113.165 (talk) 15:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

First of all, you might want to read our guideline on conflicts of interest. Writing on behalf of the article's subject is discouraged.

Secondly the draft's language is unduly promotional, for example when it talks of "a wholly independent, reliable source of information and advice" - I couldn't find any independent source backing up that claim. You should probably use inline citations and footnotes to clarify which source supports which of the article's statements.

Furthermore, many of the sources mention Knowthenet only in passing while discussing something else, and others, such as SourceWire, look like press releases to me, not reliable sources.

Finally, the article seems to give more space to Knowthenet's mission statement and things they are dedicated to doing than to things they actually do. See WP:MISSION. Huon (talk) 16:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alexander Coucoulas

Dear Wikipedia, I am considering changing the name of my article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alexander Coucoulas to the following name: Alexander Coucoulas (Father Of Thermosonic Bonding) so my Articles for creation would read ......Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alexander Coucoulas (The Father Of Thermosonic Bonding)

Is it appropriate to change the title as described above or should i leave it alone ? Gathr (talk) 16:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Since we don't have any other article named "Alexander Coucoulas", there's no need for disambiguation. I'd thus leave it alone. Furthermore we aim for a less lyrical tone, so if he needed to be disambiguated, "Alexander Coucoulas (engineer)" would probably be better.

On an unrelated note, the draft relies heavily on primary sources such as Coucoulas' own research papers. Wikipedia content should be based on what others have written about Coucoulas, not on his own writings. Huon (talk) 18:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Susan Branch

Hi,

I made all kinds of changes to this page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Susan Branch this morning to finish it and cannot find them now. Is is gone? I pressed save page twice as instructed.

Do I have to redo everything?

Thanks you for nay help.

Editwriter98 Editwriter98 (talk) 19:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The only major edit to the article after it was reviewed is this one, probably not the one you meant. What may have happened is that you saved not your earlier edits, but just the re-submission of the draft (this edit). Please make sure you've saved your changes before re-submitting the draft, or the edits will be lost. Huon (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

My article keeps getting declined.

I keep getting this message no matter what content i have in my page. --- Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. The submission has not been accepted because it included copyrighted information, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work. --- I am not sure what copyrighted information they are referring to. I wrote all of the copy. Please help clarify.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rcordes http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Garrison_Brothers_Distillery&oldid=527036278

rob

Rcordes (talk) 22:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

That's still the old message referring to the October 20 version of the draft. Yesterday it was reviewed again and declined not for copyright reasons but because it reads too much like an advertisement and doesn't cite enough reliable, independent sources - the lone reference is a PDF from the San Francisco World Spirits Competition website reporting on the San Francisco World Spirits Competition, a primary source. We're looking for newspaper coverage or maybe articles in trade magazines or culinary magazines, sources which have editorial oversight and cover the company in some detail. Huon (talk) 22:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

December 10

Review of Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Professor Bruce Mann

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

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)

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

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)

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)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hapimag

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)

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)

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)

Review of User:Tatiana.grehan/sandbox

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)

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)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tikvah Alper

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)

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)

Review of User:Old Bedan/sandbox

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)

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)

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)

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

"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)

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)

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)

December 11

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kenneth M. Lewis

Do you think this article is more appropriate and helps solving the notability problem we have been talking about?

http://www.dagbladet.no/kultur/1998/08/15/127790.html

Here´s the google translation (it sucks, I can do much better...)

Marit and Marion sign-million contract Pop-fairytale comes true LØRENSKOG (Dagbladet): The legendary American label Atlantic and Lørenskog girls Marit Larsen (15) and Marion Raven (14) all-time popsjanse. The girls have gotten an advance in millions.

By HÅKON Mosler Saturday 15 August 1998 9:10

Almost right from the unknown is high school students picked up for major launches in the U.S.. - This is like a dream. Absolutely fantastic, says girls who in recent years has acted as the duo Marit and Marion. In February, the two US-issued as pop duo M & M with Atlantic's powerful owners, Warner Bros. Group, in the back. Already in september recording. At the same time stop the girls at school to devote himself to popsatsingen. Marion's father, Hallgeir Raven, being from then on the girls' private teacher.

Fjortis Dream Never have two Norwegian fjortiser got such a unique opportunity in the U.S. music industry. Dagbladet wrote about Marit and Marion Star dream back in March. Then they had a record of children's songs to his credit, while they were making good progress with its new popsound. Both then and now they are affiliated production company Waterfall Productions in Grünerløkka in Oslo. Since then, great things happened. A number of companies both in Norway and the U.S. have shown interest in the young pop duo. And when the girls and producer Kenneth Lewis was invited over to Atlantic in New York in June, they had powerful hand in the form of offers from several other U.S. companies. - But Atlantic fell completely for the girls, we felt ourselves very well received and they delivered a very good contract proposal. Since there has actually been formalities have been re, says Lewis. Now, however, everything in the box and M & M can come out on top.

Million-amount Lewis does not deny that the Atlantic contract is very lucrative art. The record industry in Oslo already swirling rumors that Marit and Marion received an advance of a million dollars, that is, around 11.4 million Norwegian crowns. Lewis denies the allegations. - It is not a question so much money. But we have got a very good deal with Atlantic, including in the economic plan. We are especially pleased with the royalty rates, that is, the amount of money we get per disc sold. Marit Elisabeth Larsen and Marion Elise Ravn have been best friends since the age of seven six. They have gone to the ballet together, played in various musicals and directed the band Hubba Bubba. Now they are a new and exciting life ahead. - It will be strange not to go to school when we get up in the morning. And mostly around will probably change. Whichever way this goes, people will look at us in a different way, concludes Marit.

Are herself Despite his young age, do not seem Marit and Marion that the road to the American platebransjes skyscrapers have gone too fast. - It has not gone faster than we have been able to constantly keep up with what's happened. We have not had the feeling that things have been determined over our heads, they say. - What is the reason the Atlantic would have just you? - They like how we sing and they like that we are natural. We are two girls of 14 and 15 years, and not pretending we are something else, answer Marit and Marion. Both girls and producer Lewis is clear that a major contract is not synonymous with success. - It is not that we are successful, and that's actually part of what makes it fun to be in the pop industry. But we know that we are a big company, we know that we are a big priority for Atlantic and we know that we are published all over the world. This is very, stresses Lewis. M & M will be releasing a single in January, while the album is planned released in February.

Oslocat (talk) 13:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

That article is definitely a reliable source, but what does it say about Lewis? Lewis is a producer who worked with Marit and Marion, and he was invited to New York by the Atlantic label in June 1998. That's it, isn't it? The article isn't really about Lewis at all, and it mostly treats him as a spokesperson for Marit and Marion. I don't think it's significant coverage of Lewis as required by our notability guideline. Huon (talk) 14:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Huon. This article confirms the position of Lewis as a producer. You presume he´s a spokesperson for the girls, but this is your personal opinion. He got them signed to Atlantic records (EMI) in NY, that´s a fact. With that deal M2M released 3 albums, sold millions of records and reached top chart positions, worldwide. I´ve checked your list of "norwegian producers" and I can tell you that most wikipedia requirements are not fulfilled at all. Most of the rferences and links are often not "only about" the person in subject, there is a tendency to list unreliable sources (myspace, discorg ect. ) and by clicking some of those links I´m redirected to "This page cannot be found".... How is it possible that some articles have been accepted not respecting the wiki criteria and we are still struggling with mine?

Oslocat (talk) 15:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately the source doesn't say it was Lewis who got M2M signed to Atlantic: Atlantic "fell for the girls", not for Lewis' persuasion. And other problematic articles may exist, but that's no reason to create more. Each submission must stand on its own merits. We should instead improve or, if necessary, delete the other problematic articles. Huon (talk) 00:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Article for creation - :Articles_for_creation/James_Reuben

Hello,

I am waiting for my page to be reviewed, can you confirm how long this will take it has been more than a week. On the page it is saying it will be about 1 week.

Page in question :

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

Many thanks for all your help. Prashant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prash2000 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

It says it can take over a week. There's currently a massive backlog of more than 1,600 unreviewed submissions, and the oldest of them are about four weeks old. Please be patient.

At a glance I'd say the draft still relies almost exclusively on primary sources such as the websites of organizations Reuben is affiliated with. Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper articles about him. Huon (talk) 14:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Applied Data Corporation (2)

I am wondering what areas need to be changed for our article draft Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Applied Data Corporation (2), as the format follows similar companies in our industry, such as Retalix, RedPrairie. Any advice would be appreciated.

JamieSimon (talk) 15:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Jamie Simon

The draft doesn't show that Applied Data Corporation has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Inc. is just a directory entry without any details, the SAP wiki appears to be user-submitted content, doesn't show any evidence of editorial oversight, doesn't appear to be reliable by Wikipedia's standards and doesn't say what it's cited for anyway, and the partners' websites aren't independent. These sources don't suffice to establish Applied Data Corporation's notability, and they also don't suffice to verify major parts of the draft. For example, the entire "history" section doesn't cite any sources at all.

Other insufficiently sourced articles exist, but that's no reason to create more; each submission must stand on its own merits.

Furthermore, the draft uses quite a lot of buzzwords and reads more like a press release than an encyclopedia article. For example, I believe they don't just develop software solutions, but the software itself. Huon (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Off The Bar

Hi I am trying to get the following article published: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Off_The_Bar#.27Off_The_Bar.27:_Loaded_TV_show.

Can I be very cheeky and request a friendly editor give me the heads up on whether it is fit for acceptance and what needs doing if it is not?

I have similar entries in the pipeline and want to minimise time and efort for Wiki good people and msself.

Many thanks!Old Bedan (talk) 15:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

As I said above half the draft's sources look 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, such as newspaper articles about the show. The current draft doesn't indicate the show's notability and thus cannot be accepted. Huon (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Religion's Affect on Asylums

I have tried to submit my work but it will not tell me it has been submitted, I have followed the procedures of submitting and it is not giving me any feedback, how do I fix this? Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Religion's Affect on Asylums

Ashgreer92 (talk) 18:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

That was a problem with the references. I'm not entirely sure what went wrong, but nothing after your first reference section showed up, presumably because all the rest (including the submission template) was wrongly interpreted as part of one large footnote. I fixed that, removed the duplicate copies of the draft and submitted it for review. Please make sure that I got all the references' page numbers right; I'm not entirely sure I interpreted all your footnotes correctly. Please also make sure that when I chose to keep the first of the four copies of the draft I didn't inadvertently undo some improvements.

On an unrelated note, the draft reads like an essay, explicitly calls itself one, and seems to be an original synthesis of published sources most of which do not deal with religion's effect on asylums. One is even about "asylum" as in "refuge from prosecution", not "asylum" as in "institution for the mentally ill", and the one that most of the "religion" content is from doesn't mention asylums at all. In summary, the draft seems to contain a heavy dose of original research and probably is not acceptable as an encyclopedia article. Huon (talk) 20:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Knoblauch, Hubert

hope I did everything alright. It is an article about an professor I met at a conference, I think he has published some noteworthy stuff. I am not very familiar with wikipedia editing, so please be kind about not perfect layout. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.170.107.39 (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The draft is correctly submitted, but it doesn't cite any reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper coverage or independent reviews of his work published in scholarly journals. We need significant coverage in such sources, both to establish Koblauch's notability and to allow our readers to verify the article's content. The German Wikipedia has an article on him, but it doesn't cite good sources either. Without such sources we cannot accept the submission. Huon (talk) 20:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

December 12

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gilbert Hitch

RE Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gilbert Hitch

In his reply to my submission [MatthewVanitas] said "Do you have some sources which prove the statements re his military service, marriage, secretaryship, etc? Such sourcing is required, to ensure that readers can check the facts against the sourcing for WP:Verifiability. Fix the footnoting situation for the basic facts of his life, and this will be ready to publish"

In the form of a link to a 'Prayer in chamber' I have managed to get online substantiation of his marriage to Mavis Blutcher in 1974 on Norfolk Island, and also of the administration positions he held.

Mavis lives on Norfolk Island and is not contactable. I am unable to obtain a copy of marriage certificate as I am not next of kin.

I am attempting to obtain a marriage certificate of HITCH's marriage to Moira HITCH nee STOKES.

Will this be enough to satisfy the verification of his biographical details? Sintch (talk) 00:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't quite think so. Wikipedia content should be based on published sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper articles about Hitch. The marriage certificate would probably be considered a primary source, and while such sources are acceptable for uncontroversial facts such as his marriage, we shouldn't base entire sections only on primary sources. Basically, if something isn't covered in secondary sources, it's probably not all that important in the first place. See also WP:WEIGHT.

I also couldn't verify Hitch's service aboard HMAS Katoomba. The source given for his military service is some sort of record entry, but it doesn't provide any details. Huon (talk) 01:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

As an example of the kind of thing that is admissible, here's one of the few hits I get on GooglBooks for "Gilbert Hitch norfolk":

Annual report on the Territory of Norfolk Island - Page 57

http://books.google.com/books?id=5DQsAAAAIAAJ

Norfolk Island - 1980 - Snippet view - More editions

Norfolk Island. February 2 Mr. Peter GrifWh, Legal Adviser, departed and Mr David Wallace of the Attorney-General's Department took up duties as ... Mr. Gilbert Hitch carried out the duties of Chief Administrative Officer until 4 May 1981.}}

Okay, cool, it verifies the date he ended serices as the CAO. That's one fact documented. However, for overall WP:Notability we need to see that somebody, somewhere, published some serious examination of his significance, whether governmental or as an artist (ideally both). Basically, Wikipedia should never be the first place to "make someone famous" or introduce facts about them to the world. As an encyclopedia, we're supposed to gather widely-spread information about things already proved to be significant, not uncover new truths. It may well be that there are good news and magazine articles about him, or mentions of his artist career in books not available online. If those exist, those could substantiate WP:Notability. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David Jay Reed

Hi mrt3366. Thank you so much for accepting my David Jay Reed article. However, there are two points I would like to discuss. First, In the box section on the right side of the article, the information concerning his occupation is Lecturer at Rochester Institute of Technology. In actual fact he is now Head of the Art Department of Beijing Huijia Private School in China. This is verified by the article written by <Yujie, Julia Li: Interview with David. Huijia Magazine (Special Issue). Edition 48. May, 2012. Pgs 12-15> which is reference no 8 in the article. Can I change this? Is it a major or minor change? If I do, then do I need to cite the above reference? Second, I believe you rated it as a start article, but I'm not sure how to improve it. All my references are legitimate, the article follows a chronological path and I have tried to keep it as neutral as possible. Does it just need more information? Hope you can clarify. Thanks once again for accepting it. Joe Joebzz (talk) 02:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course you can update the infobox, and there's no need to cite a source in the infobox since the new content is supported by the (sourced) article text itself. It's not a minor edit; "any change that affects the meaning of an article is not minor", and correcting his current position certainly is a change in meaning.

Regarding the rating, you may want to have a look at WikiProject Biography's quality scale. Going by their examples the Reed article could probably be considered C-Class, but I'm not really an expert on ratings and mostly don't bother with them at all. You might want to ask Mrt3366, the reviewer who classified it as "start", for his rationale.

I noticed one minor issue that might be improved: The external links currently have very short, meaningless descriptions (or none at all); for example, one is simply named "David". A short description of what those links point to would probably be helpful (for example, the first is his official website, and the description should probably say just that). An image would also be a nice feature, but a free image probably is difficult to come by.

More information would of course also be helpful, provided it's supported by reliable sources. But it's better to have a short, well-sourced article than a longer one with dubious sources. Huon (talk) 03:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Huon. Do you ever sleep? Thanks for replying to my questions. You have helped me in the past also, although you have probably forgotten by now with all the other correspondence. The sections under 'links' was not what I originally wrote as the links. It was either changed by mrt3366 or a bot of some description. I thought it was just something I had done wrong, and that is why it was changed. I also thought it was strange. If you look back on my original submission I had full descriptive link titles. I will try and change them back to the originals. I assume this is a minor change. Also, when I make a change, does the article go back into the 'articles for submission' section, thus pulling the article from the site, or does it just remain, as is, until the change comes through? Thanks once again. Your previous suggestions are what finally got the article posted. Joe 63.141.199.225 (talk) 02:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nikolai Petrovitch Troubetzkoy

Hi

I just checked my draft page on Nikolai Petrovitch Troubetzkoy. I guess I need help with the photograph I posted because it was removed. I thought I had followed directions and licensed it. What can I do to include the photo? There are no photos of Nikolai P. Troubetzkoy (alone) on the web. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Nikolai_Petrovitch_Troubetzkoy

Thanks!! Pianoancestry (talk) 03:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC) Irina Booth

Commons:File:Prince Nikolai Petrovitch Troubetzkoy.jpg was deleted from the Wikimedia Commons on December 4 because it was missing a license since November 23. I cannot look at the deleted content and I'd expect images of people who died in 1900 might by now be in the public domain - but that's not a trivial question and could depend on the date of death of the photographer and on both Russian and American copyright law. If you can provide licensing information you might want to ask INeverCry for help, the Commons admin who deleted the image. You can also contact him on Wikipedia (User talk:INeverCry), but it's more of a Commons issue.

On an unrelated note, the majority of the draft's sources seem to be written by Troubetzkoy's relatives and descendants. I doubt they're the reliable, independent sources we're looking for. You should also use inline citations and footnotes to clarify which source supports which of the draft's statements. Huon (talk) 03:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Contributions by 71.198.250.56

where are all my submitions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.250.56 (talk) 16:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• Your submissions are here. Your AFC submissions appear to be patent nonsense or unintelligible content, so will probably be speedy deleted. It strikes me that you might be very young, perhaps under 10? --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Frank Richardson

Hello, I have a re-submit article ready. I want to include ,say three, photographs of the individual (Frank Richardson) now in this revised article. I cannot find any help within Wikipedia on how to include photos in an article. Can you advise please?

The article is Frank Richardson, an addition to his name in City of Salisbury Police.

TimothyWF (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• You need to use the File Upload Wizard to upload pictures. Before you do this, you must make sure you are the copyright owner of the protographs, otherwise they may be speedy deleted. Once you have uploaded a file, you can use the "Embedded file" icon at the top of the window you see when editing, which will guide you through adding it to the article. Hope that's of use. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Joseph Michael Bruno

How do I submit my article for review/posting. not working! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruno.melanie (talk • contribs) 17:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• You article is queued for review. As you can see on the review box, there is a severe backlog of over 1500 articles, so the review may well take over a week. As it is, I can't pass your article at present, as too much of it is not backed by reliable sources, meaning that we cannot verify that anything in the article is true. Your username also suggests you are related in some way to Bruno, which can create a conflict of interest. In general, you should avoid editing Wikipedia articles about your family and close friends. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hindi WordNet

Hi,

Thank you for a quick review of this article. The article is currently rejected stating "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources".

The proceedings in which the paper (1st reference in the article) is published, are available on-line (e.g., at various libraries listed here: http://mirlyn.lib.umich.edu/Search/Home?checkspelling=true&inst=&submit=Find&type=isn&lookfor=51163816). This reference paper is also cited by several others, as can be seen on the google scholar page: http://scholar.google.co.in/scholar?q=%22a+WordNet+for+Hindi%22%2C+GWC+2002&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5

Please do not reject this article. We are the same people who created the page on IndoWordNet. We are looking forward to make this work available to the international community of natural language processing.

Warm Regards, Salil — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salil.r.joshi (talk • contribs) 17:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there are enough independent sources to establish the topic's notability. The only reference is co-authored by the main organizer of IndoWordNet who preumably is involved with the Hindi WordNet as well. Since the Hindi WordNet and IndoWordNet seem closely related, I'd instead suggest adding the relevant information in a section of the main IndoWordNet article. That article could do with quite a bit of improvement anyway; most of its current sources are primary sources or don't mention IndoWordNet at all, and they don't even say what they're cited for. I'm tempted to nominate it for deletion. We certainly don't need another badly sourced article on the same topic. Huon (talk) 18:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, first of all, it is not the 'same' topic. Hindi WordNet is a project started as an independent work, similar to WordNet. IndoWordNet is a multi-lingual linking project similar to EuroWordNet. Since WordNet and EuroWordNet are both on wiki, I can not see a reason to say that IndoWordNet and Hindi WordNet should not be. Coming to the point of independent sources and notability, I would again bring your attention to EuroWordNet which cites similar sources as in our case as reference. P. Vossen is the contact person for the project, and the only reference in that article is a paper by him. The second reference in that article is only the website of their project. The references which we have mentioned (in both Hindi WordNet article and IndoWordNet article) are from peer-reviewed international conferences. They are of course verifiable. IndoWordNet is cited by several independent researchers as can be seen here: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=975384347232485705&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en. I would therefore ask you to remove the comment for deletion which you have put in IndoWordNet article, and request you to accept this article presenting Hindi WordNet. Salil.r.joshi (talk) 03:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If the EuroWordNet article also cites insufficient sources that don't indicate notability, we shouldn't use it as a pretext to create more badly sourced articles, but we should either improve or delete it. I'm sorely tempted to propose EuroWordNet for deletion as well, but it generates roughly a hundred times the number of Google Scholar hits, and unlike with IndoWordNet, at least some of them seem to be articles not authored or co-authored by Vossen and published in peer-reviewed journals, not just in conference proceedings (I distinctly remember asking you for evidence that these conference proceedings are peer-reviewed; to my knowledge they usually are not). Thus improvement should be possible, and I've tagged the article for cleanup. If you can show that independent, reliable sources cover IndoWordNet and/or the Hindi WordNet in significant detail, please go ahead and improve the article and the draft based on those sources. Huon (talk) 06:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I think that there some confusion regarding journal articles and conference articles. It must have skipped my mind to reply you on your previous query since that article (on IndoWordNet) was accepted that time. Conferences for computer science (LREC - the reference in IndoWordNet article, GWC - the reference in Hindi WordNet article, etc) are peer-reviewed similar to journal articles. GWC : http://lang.cs.tut.ac.jp/gwc2012/call_for_paper/ (says that Anonymous papers need to be submitted to the EasyChair website), LREC: They remove the review procedure from the conference website once the conference is over, so I can not find the details, but you can see here to know that this is a peer-reviewed conference. Most of these conferences undergo a procedure known as 'double blind-review' in which the author names and any information which might reveal author's association is removed before it is reviewed. EuroWordNet has huge support from europian nations, and hence receives more attention. I do not see this as a reason for not including IndoWordNet on wiki. Salil.r.joshi (talk) 04:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Thomas Michaelsen

How do I add an image under this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmich5555 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• Please look at my response to the article on Frank Richardson further up the page, where I have given instructions and advice. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

December 13

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/York Region Environmental Alliance

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/York Region Environmental Alliance was rejected due to references. As this is a community group, the websites listed are basically all the information on the group. Would presenting the references differently make it more acceptable? I feel there has to be a number of other Wikipedia pages that have equally reliable sources.

Thank you for any advice

Dragongal (talk) 00:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think a different presentation would help. The majority of the sources are primary sources such as the website of the York Region Environmental Alliance itself or the website of the Moraine Heroes award on the award. Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent sources such as newspaper coverage. The YorkRegion news pieces are reliable and independent, but most of those don't say what they're cited for. For example, the "Helping reduce footprint" source is cited to confirm that the Our Ecological Footprint paper shows "how to measure human impact on the natural environment". It doesn't say so. It mentions neither the paper nor measurements of human impact on the environment. In fact it hardly mentions the YREA at all. The others aren't much better. In summary, I don't think the current sources provide the kind of significant coverage we require to show YREA's notability, and we cannot base a well-sourced article on them. Other problematic articles exist, but that's no reason to create more; each submission must stand on its own merits. Huon (talk) 01:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Psychological and Sociological Issues Affecting Expeditionary Space Missions

I have a digital image to insert in this article. How do I do this?Kanasnick (talk) 07:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)Nick Kanas

• Please look at my response to the article on Frank Richardson further up the page, where I have given instructions and advice --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Big Brothers Big Sisters of Central Texas

I need help with linking resources to this article. I tried to find reliable resource and added these to the article but it is still not approved. I need help to get this article running as soon as possible!MrsChrissie (talk) 13:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately there's not much that can be done without better sources - the draft currently has a bunch of primary sources such as press releases and a few reliable sources that hardly mention Big Brothers Big Sisters of Central Texas at all. Apparently the Central Texas branch of Big Brothers Big Sisters simply isn't notable enough for a Wikipedia article. It may be better to use some of the reliable sources, especially the kxan.com article,, and improve the main Big Brothers Big Sisters of America articles whose current sources aren't quite what they're supposed to be either. Huon (talk) 13:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/United States Motion Picture Corporation

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/United States Motion Picture Corporation

Hi, I don't know why it says on the top that my article has not been submitted but at the bottom it says it has?

Noreendc (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The bottom message is correct, the one at the top is a relic that should soon be cleaned up by a bot. The draft is correctly submitted for review.

However, I don't think the sources are sufficient. IMDb is not as reliable as we'd like, and it probably doesn't cover the United States Motion Picture Corporation in any appreciable detail anyway. blackdiamondcomedies.com looks like a blog to me, and while the author may be an expert on the field as our article claims, that's not readily apparent, and there's no indication whether or to what extent the individual articles hosted there were subject to editorial oversight. The National Film Preservation Foundation website doesn't even mention the USMPC; neither does the source for Her Fractured Voice. That leaves us with the Times-Leader, indeed a reliable source that provides some information o the studio (most of which didn't make its way into the draft), but on its own it may be too little to establish the studio's notability. Huon (talk) 23:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

December 14

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/UrbanCode Software

I am requesting help to fix my AfC article . . .

(UrbanCode Software re-directed from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MEMarraMA/draft_article_UC; and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/UrbanCode_Software)

. . . which now sits in the "Declined" pile.

I thought I could revise it myself after poring over "how-to" help pages and "How to create your first Wikipedia article," but I can't. The only feedback I received (one comment and the rejection notice) were not specific; so, I don't know what or where to fix it.

SPECIFICS: 1. My proposed article first got a comment from "Ritchie333" who, after looking at "some of" the 38 listed References, concluded "a lot" of them are inadequate and suggested that this topic/subject is not notable.

As that didn't help me improve it, I sought clarification on Ritchie333's talk page, asking which sources lacked notability, highlighting specific, numbered independent refs and why I cited them.

I just received a response from Ritchie333 indicating that he left that comment so that "somebody else could deal with it" (because, he wrote, he "couldn't easily tell whether there were sufficient reliable sources to pass the article"). Fair enough.

Ritchie333 also confirmed my query about all blogs not being equal (or equally worthless), as I referenced a blog from a 500-lb industry gorilla (Microsoft) and blog cites from non-partisan tech researchers. (Ritchite333: "... blogs can be used if the author is well known in his subject field,")

Where I still need help is interpreting Ritchie333's reply: "But per policy, you can never cite other Wikipedia articles, though you can reuse the references in that article."

?? Does this mean I should take Wikipedia articles out of the REFERENCES (4 out of 38)? But it's okay for me to cite Wikipedia articles INLINE in the copy??

Ritchie333's comment also listed "primary sources" as, I think, a negative among my references. My query to him about this asked if my primary sources back up statements or direct quotes that come from originators' mouths, then is that still unacceptable? I got no answer; so I'm not sure if he meant Wikipedia articles (above) when I was referring to primary sources as being textbooks, journals, tech analyst papers, transcribed videotape). Any help on the acceptability of "primary sources"??

Unfortunately, I didn't get feedback from Ritchie333 until AFTER the article was declined; so I have no way of knowing if his highly visible comment of "not notable" influenced the rejection.

2. Zhaofeng Li declined the article without specifying which parts violated standards. This is where I need the most assistance.

Listed in the declined notice: (a) "Avoid Peacock Terms." Check. Since I used none of the superlatives or hype words listed on Wikipedia's Peacock Terms page, I don't know what to do next. I tried guessing: Is it the "Industry Awards & Recognition" that smells like peacock, even with cited references?

BTW -- I added the industry accolades stuff when I found the same on three other software developers' Wikipedia pages. (Me, too.) Can I get specific feedback on this? I hate to dump perfectly good awards unless I know for sure that's the problem.

(And no whining about the content in other similar companies' entries, right?)

(b) Zhaofeng Li: "This article does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article" ... plus

(c) "entries should be written from a neutral point of view," all without pointing me to which parts of the proposed article are not neutral or in the wrong tone. The only guess I came up with are the statements and conclusions made by "poobahs" (notables) in this industry sector -- referenced from textbooks, journals and tech sources. (Are these the unspecified "primary sources" Ritchie333's comment found to be weaknesses??)

Last and Uh-Ohhh --

(d) Zhaofeng Li: "... entries should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources" -- which, in fact, describes 27 of the 38 references I used in this article.

An additional 7 references are verifiable but published on the company's site as news, info webinars or in-depth articles. I KNOW I can find independent substitutes for them; but that's only 7.

Can I get feedback on why the other 27 "independent, reliable, published sources" don't count?

Again, I can't fix it if I'm not sure specifically what's wrong. And I would like to fix it. Help, pls? Thank you in advance. MEMarraMA (talk) 01:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

On Wikipedia as a source: Wikipedia is indeed not a reliable source; using it as a reference would be circular. But you can (and should) add wikilinks to the relevant articles within the draft's text. Those links don't count as a reference, but they help reades to find more detailed information on related topics.

Primary sources such as the company's own website or documents hosted by it, or the "Agile Manifesto" website as a source on, basically, itself, can be used for the opinion of their author, but they should be used with care and only for uncontroversial statements; Wikipedia content should be based on secondary sources. For example, the "Agile Manifesto" doesn't say it introduced the term "agile", but even if it did, that would be a statement of fact, not just opinion, and thus would require a secondary source; besides, the manifesto doesn't mention UrbanCode at all, so using it to support claims about UrbanCode is original synthesis, something we should not engage in. At its most basic, if some fact isn't mentioned by secondary sources such as journal articles, textbooks or newspaper coverage, it's probably not that important to begin with. See WP:Weight. Primary sources cannot establish a topic's notability either. Textbooks and journal articles would usually be secondary sources (unless the articles are written by the company's PR people...) and are exactly the types of source we're after. For "tech analyst papers" and transcribed videotapes, much depends on the details. Who's the paper's author, where was it published? Who's in that video, who took the video, and who transcribed it? Unpublished videos are not acceptable sources because there's no way our readers can verify what the video says. In general, we aim for sources published with reputable publishers, sources that have been subject to editorial oversight. See WP:Identifying reliable sources for details. This is also the problem with blog sources: They're self-published and not subject to editorial oversight; most aren't known for fact-checking and accuracy. This also holds for Microsoft's blog.

Regarding the peacock problems: Two of the sources for the "Industry Awards & Recognition" are the SD Times reporting o the SD Times award, the other two are UrbanCode's own blog and press release. Those are all primary sources, and the latter two obviously aren't independent of UrbanCode. An award is much more impressive if someone other than the organizations giving and receiving the award has taken note. Also, we shouldn't use boldface for emphasis per WP:MOSBOLD. Other problematic articles may exist, but that's no reason to create more.

For more obvious peacock problems, take this statement: "Terraform™ is a flexible open source tool, available free under the Apache 2.0 license, to easily define and manage (provision) virtual environments." Firstly, Wikipedia doesn't use ™ symbols. Secondly, who says it's easy to define and manage virtual environments with Terraform? Who says it's flexible? No source is given. Or how about "... a scalable, flexible automation framework that integrates with over 80 third-party tools right out of the box"? That sounds as if it comes straight from UrbanCode's PR department. I could make the same statement sound a lot worse by saying that "without upgrades it integrates with less than 100 third-party tools."

On a more basic note, entire subsections of the "History and industry trends" mention UrbanCode barely or not at all. I doubt many of the sources do, either - I checked a couple of the "agile" sources, and not one of those I looked at did. That's original synthesis once again, and content that no source connects to UrbanCode should be gotten rid of.

Regarding the "independent, reliable, published sources": That doesn't cover quite as many of your sources as you think. Of your sources, we have:

1. UrbanCode press reliase. Not independent.

2. "Company History and Portfolio": UrbanCode website, not independent.

4. Cleveland Plain Dealer, news blog, "By Maciej Zawadzki," president of UrbanCode, not independent.

5. Unpublished video. Not published, presumably not independent.

6. UrbanCode webinar. Not independent.

7. Blog. Not reliable. Doesn't mention UrbanCode.

8. Unpublished video. Not published, presumably not independent.

11. Blog. Not reliable. Doesn't mention UrbanCode.

12. Wikipedia. Not reliable.

14. SD Times editorial. Doesn't say what it's cited for the first time. Doesn't even dedicate a single sentence to UrbanCode.

15. Press release. Not reliable.

16. UrbanCode blog. Not independent, not reliable.

17. Wikipedia. Not reliable.

18. Wikipedia. Not reliable.

19. Self-published opinion piece? Not reliable. Doesn't mention UrbanCode.

Of the sources in between no. 13 indeed looks like a reliable source that mentions UrbanCode. So does no. 10, but the link was broken; I fixed that. I doubt the textbooks even mention UrbanCode, but I don't have access to them right now. So among the first half of your sources we have two that are reliable, independent published sources that mention UrbanCode in some detail, another two that are clearly reliable, published and independent but may not mention UrbanCode, and a one (no. 14) that's abused the first time and doesn't provide significant coverage of UrbanCode anyway. The remaining 14 are all problematic one way or another. The second half doesn't look that much better.

I hope this helps. Huon (talk) 03:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Solway Primary School

Hi there,

I have set in motion the Review of the above Article.

I am now thinking, that I should get the Article looked over by the Principal of the School before it goes live.

What do you suggest I do? Is there any way you can put a hold on the review for now.

PS - the reason I submitted it for review was because I wanted to upload the logo of the school but this was only possible once the Article is "live" as I understand.

Please advise, how to move forward,

BrianFroggyPeterson (talk) 02:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

You can "un-submit" the draft by adding a parameter to the review template; I've done so for you with this edit. If you want to re-submit it, either undo that edit or follow the instructions in the "not currently submitted for review" message box. You're right that copyrighted non-free images (and I believe that's the copyright status of the school logo) by Wikipedia's policy cannot be used under "fair use" except for live articles.

However, the draft needs reliable sources such as newspaper coverage. It currently doesn't cite any; thus, the school's notability is not established (and unlike secondary schools, primary schools are not presumed to be inherently notable), and the draft's content is not verifiable. In its current state the submission would have to be declined. Huon (talk) 03:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Founder of the first Pasar Malam in The Hague Holland Dierentuin in 1958 Mary Bruckel Beiten

There is an error made in Wikipedia encyclopedia about the first founder of the legendary Eurasian Market in the Netherlands in 1959 called:PASAR MALAM by Tjalie Robinson.

But in fact it was Mary Bruckel Beiten that started this first legendary Eurasian postcolonial PASAR MALAM in 1958 with her own money, and she continued to organize 8 more yearly pasar malams before she gave her organisation up to Tjalie Robinson.

The evidance of proof I have send you, also in book: PASAR MALAM SELAMAT DATANG (Amazon) are all original proofs in Dutch and next to it in English from the 50e and up till now.

Please help put this historical mistake right.

Geraldine Bruckel-Lang — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.66.122.141 (talk) 05:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

If you're referring to this draft, it currently doesn't cite any sources. The book was apparently written by Geraldine Bruckel-Lang, presumably a relative of Mary Bruckel-Beiten and, going by the username, also the author of the draft and, per your signature above, yourself. It's self-published and probably not a reliable source. On the other hand, I found this UC Berkeley web page crediting Robinson with the founding of the Pasar Malam festival. Huon (talk) 05:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

It looks like you mostly have a concern about the content of a specific article, and if I'm guessing correctly, it's this one: Tong Tong Fair. When you notice a problem with an article, the best next step is usually to post a message on its "talk" page (Talk:Tong Tong Fair) explaining the problem. Then other editors interested in the article can discuss the issue and figure out what to do next - perhaps look for more references and revise the article, or take some other step. Creating a new article won't necessarily fix a problem with a different article. It's also fine to work on a new article draft of course, but since Wikipedia has relatively high standards for new articles, your concern might be more efficiently addressed by commenting on the existing article. Dreamyshade (talk) 07:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/I'm Not Jesus Mommy

I can't figure out how to insert a picture in the info box. this is my first article, I'm confident with the information in it, but just not sure on the technical issues, such as adding an image.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techistorian (talk • contribs) 05:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

First, look at Template:Infobox film to learn about the parameters (options) that you can use. According to the "Usage" section, you can insert | image = File:YourImage.jpg into the infobox. Check out Template:Infobox film#Image for guidance on the appropriate kind of image to use. Then see Wikipedia's non-free content policy to learn about the appropriate use of copyrighted images (such as most poster images) on Wikipedia, and see introduction to uploading images to find instructions for uploading an image. After uploading your image, insert that code into the infobox, replacing "File:YourImage.jpg" with the filename of your image. I hope this helps!

A quick note about content: I recommend revising the "Plot" section - aim for a plain, neutral style. It should be a factual summary of the plot instead of an exciting or dramatic summary - this might seem a little dry, but that's how encyclopedia articles are. :) I'd also suggest including a brief summary of published reviews of the movie, balanced with both positive and negative comments. Dreamyshade (talk) 06:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/VSI GROUP

Dear reader, could you please assist me in creating the right references. Could you for example point out a part of the text that you think should be referenced and which is not at the moment? Thank you in advance for your assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankvanemmerik (talk • contribs) 10:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

hi

how can I attach a photo to my article