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

March 3

Michael A. Potter

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael A. Potter has failed review several times but I think it looks (barely) okay, despite only minor changes to the last decline. I'm inviting the other reviewers who declined to discuss it here before I make a decision to create the article or not. Other reviewers are welcome to give input. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

There are a few minor peacock terms, I.e. "Renowned speaker". ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 04:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not impressed by the draft. I didn't check the offline sources, but the online sources are mostly primary sources, with one piece of Manchester local news and one Ghanaan article that either isn't about Potter at all or consistently misspells him as "Porter". Several sections cite no sources whatsoever. Then there are the style problems. Potter may barely be notable, but this draft isn't ready for the mainspace. Huon (talk) 04:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I declined it in January because it seemed totally self-promotional and had almost no coverage that was independent and reliable. I don't know what a 'globalist' is and there's little evidence he's reknowned. At best he's an expert in human resources, with a couple of self-published books and some articles in a couple of specialist magazines. Sionk (talk) 14:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

What they just said. I really found it to be incredibly promotional, almost an apparent attempt to hide notability. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all for the teamwork. I declined the article citing the consensus of this discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

After the fact but still useful. I looked at the difference from the January decline to when I went in. Typically if a submission already has a few declines, I'll look at the changes that have been made since the last review to see if the user is making an effort go get to acceptance or if they're just playing around. In this case we had some prose change, but no actual improvement from the previous decline. I declined it again citing the way the article read (as a promoptional for the subject). Hasteur (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Pitchfork Reference for L.A. Jay

Hi Huon,

Would this feature on 'Bizarre Ride II The Pharcyde" on Pitchfork help prove the notability of L.A. Jay's work at all? Annoyingly it doesn't credit the production to L.A. Jay, but it does talk in depth about the production of "Otha Fish" (which was L.A. Jay's song)and cites it as the Pharcye's greatest song, as well as one of the greatest in "rap history": http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/16595-the-pharcyde-bizarre-ride-ii-the-pharcyde-20th-anniversary-box-set/

"Yet while "Passin'" is the group's canonical classic single, "Otha Fish" is the Pharcyde's best song. Back to back on Bizarre Ride, the two constitute one of the greatest 10-minute stretches in rap history, and it's exactly this sort of artful expression of romantic doubt and anguish that separates them from the 1992 rap class-- hell, from the 2012 rap class. Where Fatlip shone brightly on "Passin'", SlimKid Tre proves to be the Pharcyde's best rapper here, absorbing the spotlight with three fluid verses of splendid remorse. Over the high, lonesome saxophone lick from Herbie Mann's "Today", Tre effortlessly bridges the emotional chasm between Marvin Gaye's "Ain't No Mountain High Enough" ("why ain't you climbin' up?") and Here, My Dear's "When Did You Stop Loving Me, When Did I Stop Loving You?" Kevin Kerslake's video for the track didn't do much to assist the vibe, though its aesthetic similarity to his "Come As You Are" clip got the attention of Alternative Nation (they'd play Lollapalooza in '94). Along with "Passin'", I'm convinced that "Otha Fish" is the key to Kanye West's naming Bizarre Ride his favorite album ever. He's yet to record anything quite as open-hearted and vulnerable about the opposite sex, though."

Thanks for your help!

Alice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlicePS (talk • contribs) 15:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

"Otha Fish" may be the greatest song in rap history, but the song's greatness is attributed to the musicians, with a brief mention of Kevin Kerslake's video, not to the producer. A source that doesn't even mention LA Jay cannot contribute to his notability. Huon (talk) 16:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Teacher Quality

Should the article for creation for the subject 'Teacher Quality' be approved? (Existing discussion below) Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 04:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello friendly Wikipedia folks,

I'm trying to get an article created on the topic of Teacher Quality, and I'm feeling a need to emphasize to the reviewers that this is a "real thing," and a topic of encyclopedia-worthy definability. Currently in NJ we have conferences devoted to this topic, books and scholarly articles in peer-reviewed journals (many of which are in the AFC draft), and even doctoral-level courses on this topic (I teach one!) Yet the topic of "Teacher Quality" is sorely in need of definition, hence the push to create this article. In short, I feel that this page presents the topic of "Teacher Quality" in a neutral manner, is NOT is essay format, and cites a number of secondary sources as well as includes links at the bottom that demonstrates the real-world nature of this topic.

The page is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Teacher_quality

Any and all advice on how to get this approved would be welcomed, but really I have done a massive amount of work on currently existing Wikipedia pages on analagous topics, and this one absolutely fits on Wikipedia.

Thank you, Douglarkin (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Douglarkin

Hi Doug, the problem is that because Wikipedia doesn't publish original research, an article whose aim is to arrive at a definition of "teacher quality" via a synthesis of published research isn't appropriate. The guidelines at No original research, especially the section on Synthesis, have more on this. My suggestion would be to re-focus (and re-title) the article to "Teacher quality assessment". In a way, that's pretty much what your article is already mostly about. It can be an overview/summary article of the TQA area with links to the several existing Wikipedia articles (or article sections) on the subject, see these. You could discuss how TQ has been variously defined by others, but then focus on the various measures which have been used for TQA, and the uses to which this assessment has been put. Another suggestion is that your article is entirely focused on US educational practice and concerns. As an overview/summary it would ideally need a more international perspective. Voceditenore (talk) 18:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Voceditenore asked me to comment. I think the article is essentially acceptable as it stands, though it could be improved and ought to be retitled. I just do not see the problem with OR--this is a summary article on a general topic, and the material is cited. It's not at the level of detail that would require detailed sentence-by-sentence citations. There is certainly much contention in this area, but the areas of most bitter dispute are not discussed here in a way to make detailed citation necessary.

I would certainly retitle the article "Teacher quality assessment." The present title is too general. The concept of "Teacher quality" is a very broad one with very deep implications--it involves the basic philosophical and psychological concepts of what is meant by teaching and learning, how human minds develop, and how they acquire and process information. We could use an article reviewing this, and if Doug wants to write one, well and good, but it's a very extensive undertaking. A survey article on Teacher quality assessment is quite ambitious enough, and would be a good first step.

The question of geographic coverage is inherently difficult. Voce's's suggestion is unfortunately impractical at this point, and is properly labelled "ideally". The majority of our detailed articles refer to the UK educational system, often without specifically saying so; quite a number of them are on specific features and institutions of that system, The US system is different, if only because of the lack of effective centralized national policy, and the corresponding great influence of local political bodies. Some concepts are in common to both, but not all that many details will be. I do not see how one person could possibly cover them both in an adequate fashion--dealing with the various US institutions in the 50 stated is difficult enough--for some matters the discussion would have to go state by state. In other English speaking countries, the situation is yet different. We usually emphasise those countries, but the rest of the world has similar problems. The normal way we handle this problem is not to make separate to level articles, but a general article with sections. Nobody can be expected to write it all at once, and its acceptable to write a general lede paragraph, and one of the sections. That section, & the other section when they get written. can then be developed in detail, using the organization of material we call WP:Summary style. I think the level of detail of this section is appropriate for the US section of such a very general article; a more detailed article about the US could be written, and I hope Doug will attempt it as away of expanding the present text.

I would advise using a wider range of sources, as Voce's suggests. You don't have to add them now,but if you could add a section listing a few more of the best standard books available , it would help readers.

I'm waiting for your response, and to see if Voce has any comments. If there are no objections, my plan is to move the page tomorrow, and then accept it. DGG ( talk ) 00:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect DGG, I do not think the article is ready to be accepted. There are too many terms within this article that is not well explained. "Framework for Teaching", "National Board Certified Teacher" and "rubrics" - these are terms which without context, does not make sense to the average reader. The external links given, the author should not simply dump these terms without explaining what they are. Wikipedia is for everyone, not for people within the field. "Assessments of teacher quality may also draw upon evidence collected from observations of teachers' work. This evidence may be collected from in-person or video recorded observations of teaching, pre- and post-observation conferences with teachers," What does this really mean? Doesn't this just boils down to "We look at the teacher's work to assess the quality of teaching"? Along with the "This evidence may be collected from in-person or video recorded observations of teaching" parts, is that not a bit saying a lot about nothing?

It may be that in those references given, everything on the page is backed up; but to an outside reader, there is not clear indications where each statement is backed up by which source. It'd appear to be WP:NOR, whether it is or not. I appreciate not to over cite, but it'd be better to make those statements more verifiable for the reader.

I do not doubt the efforts or the good faith Doug or any editors who have contributed to this article, but I do not think, without giving more context and re-editing it to be more precise and less vague, this article should be moved to the mainspace. Wikipedia:Ten_Simple_Rules_for_Editing_Wikipedia#Know_your_audience Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 01:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Based on the author's reasoning that "the topic of 'Teacher Quality' is sorely in need of definition" I suspect this article contains original synthesis. If teacher quality hasn't already been authoritatively defined, we shouldn't have an article on it. Sionk (talk) 03:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm with Sionk. Besides, after reading the article I still have no idea what exactly teacher quality is, beyond "a term". Are the various components of teacher quality - teacher effectiveness, qualifications, test scores, demographics - correlated with each other, or are they independent? The article doesn't say. Which demographic factors indicate higher quality? The article doesn't say. Does that depend on the students' demographics, the subject, and/or the grade? The article doesn't say. I can't even tell if there's a common definition of teacher quality or if everybody using that term has their own private definition - I strongly suspect the latter. And then we should not have an article on the term. Huon (talk) 03:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for the thoughtful conversation about the entry. This is my first foray into the world of the Wikipedia "peer review" process and I'm rather pleased to see it doesn't differ terribly from the process we use for reviewing journal articles--it's even much faster! It makes me more likely to engage and take part in the Wikipedia reviewing process in the future (next year after tenure, please!)

Of course, I'm going to side with DGG, and I am okay with making the title "Teacher Quality Assessment." (I am not sure how to do that without messing up the AFC page link--feel free to do it for me if you choose to move it to the main page) I will say that earlier versions of this article did include much more detail and international scope, but these were pared down to give the article clarity. I have added one line to internationalize the entry with reference #4 (OECD countries define teacher quality primarily in terms of credentialing). Of course, my hope is that a wider international community does ultimately participate in editing the entry. I don't think the terms that Kinkreet points out are particularly unexplained (Framework for Teaching is a book title, which is cited) but I have edited the other terms. In the case of rubric, I have linked it to the Wikipedia page: rubric (academic).

Conducting the search proposed by Voceditenore somewhat proves my point about the need to have an article about teacher quality. The sections on the No Child Left Behind Law and highly qualified teachers present Teacher Quality in a way that does not distinguish between the various ways teacher quality is currently assessed in the US and abroad. Nonetheless, I have linked to NCLB and the Highly Qualified Teacher wiki pages as acknowledgement of Voceditnore's point about demonstrating how TQ has been defined by others.

In respect to Kinkreet's concern about obviousness, I see this as a measurement issue. Just as one would not write an article about velocity stating that to measure the velocity of a car one just "sees how fast it is going," an article about teacher quality needs to discuss the evidence used to make that measurement. In the 1920's, teacher quality was measured by whether or not women conformed to accepted standards of behavior (i.e if they drank, stayed out late, or got married they were fired). If we were still measuring teacher quality with that evidence today (glad we aren't), I would have included that in the entry as well.

I look forward to the reviewing decision resulting from all this, and again I am grateful for this conversation.

Douglarkin (talk) 03:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Douglarkin

I stick to my guns when I say those terms are relatively 'unexplained' or unclear. Just because you've cited something or linked something, does not give it context. You need to write about it in the article also. Take rubrics - write a line or two about what it is, so when people read the article, they don't have to open 10 different tabs just to read on article. Of course, don't explain it in so much detail, but just enough so that the article flows. It is good to defend your point of view, but in this case, I think it is wise to heed the concerns of multiple editors. Regardless, we agree to disagree. For this reason, I urge DGG not to move it into main space in the morning and await further discussion. Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 04:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• Move to article space with the title Teacher quality assessment, but isn't a formal request for comment a bit of overkill? In any case, I've revised the lede to show what the article is really about. See this version. As such, the article is neither original research nor synthesis. If you actually read the article and see past Doug's original title and his choice of words in this discussion re the aim to arrive at a definition of "teacher quality", you can see that it is actually a decent summary article describing the various methods of TQA, where they are used, and why. I see no original research in the article and it is actually very well-referenced for a starter article. A lot of the quibbles here are not sufficient to keep this draft from becoming an article, e.g. he doesn't explain "rubric enough", or that videotaping is superfluous to simply saying observation. First of all, I don't agree with those quibbles. Nor do I think it lacks context in any significant way. The purpose of AfC is not to produce a perfect and comprehensive article. It is to produce one that would pass an AfD and doesn't violate any actual policies here. As I said, if you actually read the article, it does not contain original research or synthesis, it is decently referenced with inline citations, it is not a copyright infringement, it is not a BLP violation, it has a neutral point of view, and it is on a widely covered encyclopedic topic [9], [10]. Voceditenore (talk) 07:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• Let's move it to article space under the better name Teacher quality assessment and see how it goes. Sionk (talk) 12:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. An RfC process on this is ridiculous, Kinkreet, that's our last resort for intractable disputes. . The normal procedure with AfCs is that if the creator does not like the rejection, they simply ask someone else until it gets accepted or until they realize it's hopeless--or they can in fact simply move it themselves--everyone with an account has the right to make an article in mainspace directly; AfC is not a required step. Any other editor who thinks the article too weak to stand is free to bring an AfD on it, just as for any other new or old article, and then the community decides at the AfD. I have from time to time challenged new articles accepted by AfC by bringing an AfD , and sometimes they stand and sometimes they are deleted.

The standard for AfC is not meeting the GoodArticle criteria, but being able to pass AfD. Usually we do ask for a little more, that nobody is likely to challenge it there, for we do nobody a service by accepting at AfC an article likely to be soon deleted. But we don't try to make it bullet-proof or perfect. I apologize to the author, for I could simply have moved it last night, and left the desirable improvements for later, but I was trying for some of the improvements first--and I also wanted Voce's opinion, for we rarely disagree.

As for the specific objections: in a summary article like this , it is impossible to completely avoid generalizations, but the wording should try to minimize them. If general references are challenged as to general, the references should cite more specifically--which is easier than arguing about them. As for the undefined words, I can make similar comments at any Wikipedia article whatsoever, including most Featured articles. Specific entities or terms of art should of course be defined, or linked to another WP article--WP is hypertext I decided to compare some Featured Articles, and examining the list, I noticed almost none of them are on general topics--it is almost impossible within the constraints of WP to write a fully satisfactory very general article. Even so, every one I examined left terms undefined or assumed some degree of related knowledge. I'm a biologist by training,and, like most natural scientists, I have a certain feeling that most work in the social sciences is by natural science standards a little fuzzy (I would certainly include my later field of librarianship in this general statement) . Many of us have sufficient experience with the education system to be very aware of its deficiencies (perhaps those of us educated in the US more so than elsewhere), and therefore there tends to be a certain bias here against education research in general. (I have seen us fairly often deleting at AfD articles on faculty in the field of Education at a level which would be unquestioned keeps in other subjects.) This is to some extent a prejudice--we must accept the different parts of the world as we find it--being hypercritical here would be akin to by being excessively critical of certain genres of music because we detest their style. (I in fact do utterly detest some forms of music, and deal with it by avoiding article on them. I similarly avoid some other subjects because I think them inherently worthless and know it is not fair to define the encyclopedia to suit my prejudices--however well I am prepared to defend my prejudices if asked in another context.)

There is no fixed rule for when to close an RfC, or deal with one that should not have been brought. I urge Doug to make some changes, and in a day or two I will ask someone else to decide to move the article. Although this is not an admin function, & there's therefore no restriction on myself doing what any editor can do, I prefer to remain as far from such COI as possible. DGG ( talk ) 02:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

March 4

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Fényi Gyula Jesuit High School

Hi.

I am creating a wikipedia entry for a Hungarian Jesuit high school in Miskolc, and I would like some assitance in editing the content. I'd like to create a sidebar for quick facts about the institution. Do you have any advice or tutorials? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irg1969 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

That sidebar would be the {{Infobox school}} template. The template page explains the parameters. More help on infoboxes is available at Help:Infobox. You might also want to have a look at WP:Your first article and, rather important, WP:Referencing for beginners. Although we generally assume all secondary schools to be notable, Wikipedia content should be verifiable from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Your draft currently doesn't cite any sources beyond the school's own website, which obviously isn't independent. Huon (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Review of User:Dophism/sandbox

Where can I specify which categories my article belongs to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dophism (talk • contribs) 15:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Drafts shouldn't yet be added to article categories, but you can add links to the categories the draft shall be placed in once it's accepted. To do so, add code like this: [[:Category:British female singers]]. It will look like this: Category:British female singers. Categories are added at the very end of articles, below the references.

By the way, your draft didn't cite any sources whatsoever. Wikipedia content should be verifiable from reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as news coverage or reviews in reputable music magazines. We require significant coverage in such sources to establish a topic's notability. Thus I had to decline the submission. Huon (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/printed.com

Hello!

How to I create the right hand box with the following content?

Founded 2011 HQ London Print facility Newcastle Area served Global Founder Nicholas Green Employees >150 Website www.printed.com

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmashleighJayne (talk • contribs) 16:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The box you're looking for is the {{infobox company}} template; the template page explains the available parameters and provides examples of use.

You should use inline citations and footnotes to clarify which of your sources supports which of the article's statements. Right now I don't think much of the draft's content is based on the sources - for example, RealBusiness says the company had 50 employees in November 2012, not ">150" as you write above. The Financial Times link points to that newspaper's homepage, not to the specific article. The Sunday Times article is, for all I can tell, not used in the draft (though it claims the company had 150 employees back in July?), and except that factoid it doesn't tell us much about the company anyway. For the "global" claim I'd also like a source; I doubt they have much business outside the UK. Huon (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/D. Chamberz

An example image

can we change this to "D.Chamberz" not "D._Chamberz," thanks! Also, if you could please let me know the correct way to add an image, as I am confused by your reference articles.

Mgmtsoundbyte (talk) 19:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I've moved the draft to the correct spelling. Images are added to articles by code like this: [[File:Example.jpg|thumb|An example image]]. The "thumb" parameter automatically displays the image in thumbnail size, and "An example image" will become the image caption: This code generated the image I added to this section. For more details I'd refer to the picture tutorial. Of course you must first have uploaded the image, and for living persons we will probably need a freely licensed image. Huon (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

March 5

Review of User:Tad unger/sandbox

Hello,

I created an article in my sandbox, then used the link to request creation. Some notes were then added, among which are these:

   Warning: This page should probably be located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/sandbox (move).
   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.

First, where should I be requesting creation of my article? Second, I have searched many times for this topic and found none; which "title" already exists?

Thanks, --Tad unger (talk) 02:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The warnings are an artefact of the submission template; I fixed that issue by moving the draft to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ed Monk, the preferred location for drafts awaiting review (I chose that title because it's the title used by the Monk biography cited). Basically, the template is bad at guessing what articles should be named, guessed it should be named "Sandbox", and complained because we already have a "sandbox" article.

The draft is awaiting review; we're severely backlogged, so that may take a few weeks. In the meantime, you may want to have another look at the draft's references. I believe you cite but a single independent source on Monk, Oliver's book. A single source may be too little to establish his notability. Have you checked contemporary news sources for coverage of Monk? Huon (talk) 03:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Robert Owen Hutchins

Is it usual practice to ask specific people to contribute to a page? I'm sure Bruce and Cindy Maryanoff could add a lot to this page about their mentor 150.131.111.37 (talk) 05:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. Wikipedia content should be based on reliable published sources that are independent of the subject, which precludes personal testimony. Furthermore, the Maryanoffs may have a conflict of interest when writing about their mentor, and our Bruce E. Maryanoff and Cynthia A. Maryanoff articles, apparently largely written by Bruce Maryanoff himself, show that they have some problems with maintaining a neutral point of view in such circumstances. Huon (talk) 06:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

the vamps boyband

Pleeeeeeease make a wiki for the vamps boyband? (British) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.41.48.165 (talk) 12:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

To request others to write an article, please use WP:Requested articles and its sub-pages, here Wikipedia:Requested articles/music/Performers, bands and songwriters#Va-Ve. Please add a reliable source, such as a link to a newspaper article about the band, to the request so we have something to base the article on. Huon (talk) 16:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

no reason for decline

I am trying to create a page for the Exposome, this is an emerging concept in biomedical science that aims to provide an environmental equivalent to the human genome. The US Government is getting ready to make grants in this area and the European Union made two award a few months ago. This really needs to get out there. The first version was declined for not being sufficiently encyclopedic. It was revised and hours ago it was declined, but not reason was given. Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Exposome

Gwmiller23 (talk) 12:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The reason given in the latest decline is: "This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner." Decline templates always contain a reason. Roger (talk) 13:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

That was the reason of the previous decline, the submission template was recently removed by a reviewer without any reason for decline (see: [11]), probably by mistake. The submission template is there once again. Nimuaq (talk) 13:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Review of User:Ajaysrawat/sandbox

• 
  Caption1
• 
  Caption2[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

What exactly do you need help with? These references should be added to the draft, immediately after the statement they're supposed to support. See also Referencing for beginners. However, some of the links are broken, some of the sources don't mention Rawat at all, some are primary sources such as Rawat's own book, and none look like reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as news articles about him or peer-reviewed articles (written by others!) discussing his scholarly work. To be considered notable by Wikipedia's standards, Rawat must have been the subject of significant coverage in such reliable sources.

You may also want to have a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest. Writing an autobiography is strongly discouraged because it's difficult to maintain a neutral point of view about oneself. Huon (talk) 16:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Resubmitting

I am trying to resubmit my article with amendments - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Thebusinessdesk.com but can't get to the submit command - any help would be great - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snapester2012 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

You can always manually resubmit an article by adding {{subst:submit}} to the top of it. On a related note, the article as it stands reads far too much like an advertisement - it's not immediately obvious what the site actually is. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

A few questions about my draft - MWW

Below are a couple of questions I need answered as it is my first time posting.

• It's a little confusing on my draft page because at the top it says "Article not currently submitted for review. However, at the bottom of the page it says "Review waiting". So I don't know if it is waiting to be reviewed or not.
• The warning at the bottom of the "Review waiting" box says "A page with this title exists", however, no article has that title that I could find. Do I need to have the name changed or is it fine?
• On the draft page it says: "Template loop detected: Template:AFC submission". I went to that page but was still confused. What do I need to do to fix this "template loop"?

I submitted this article a week ago and am just curious as to what I can to do help make the review process go faster. Thanks!

ZackDouglas (talk) 17:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)ZackDouglas

• Your submission is queued for review, but there is currently a substantial backlog, which means it may take longer than a week. Please be patient. In the meantime, you should look at the sources, as a lot of content cited to prnewswire.com and related sites. The problem with those sites is that they simply print press releases without any fact checking or attention to bias. Therefore, they can't generally be considered independent enough sources for an article to pass. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Help regarding the page - Trashness

I have created the page expecting it would be publishes satisfactorily on Wikipedia. But it was speedily deleted. I had so much expectations from the launch of the page. Kindly, please help me how to restructure the page and make it live on Wikipedia. It would be really grateful if I can borrow some help from the experts and administrators to make the page trashness come alive. Hoping I will find speedy reply to my problem. Thanks a lot ! Regards, Aminuddinshroff (talk) 23:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I cannot see deleted content, so I cannot comment on the article's specific problems. That said, Wikipedia content should be based on what reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspapers or reputable computer or fashion magazines, say about the subject, and to be considered notable, the blog must have been the subject of significant coverage in such sources. That means the sources should not just mention the blog in passing, but it should be about the blog - multiple sources of at least a paragraph in length each. According to the speedy deletion rationale, the article didn't even give a reason why this isn't yet another run-of-the-mill blog. Please note that while giving such a reason might suffice to ward off speedy deletion, articles may be deleted through other processes - and if the article does not show evidence of notability as explained above, it will be deleted again. If you believe sufficient reliable sources exist to establish the blog's notability, you may want to use the Article Wizard to write a draft and have it reviewed by an experienced user instead of creating the article directly in the mainspace. If the draft is found lacking, it will not be speedily deleted; you will be able to further improve it. However, a quick Google News search did not provide any relevant results; the blog simply may not be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Huon (talk) 00:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind help but I forgot to mention the citation in the article. I have a reliable source which can help the article be published on Wikipedia. Here is the citation : http://www.soletopia.com/2012/10/faces-of-trashness-interviewing-amin-eftegarie-maarten-van-damme/ ! Please review that and get in touch with me asap ! Hoping you will help me with creating the article and getting it published over Wikipedia.

Regards, Aminuddinshroff (talk) 00:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't look like a reliable source to me; there's no indication of editorial oversight. It looks like a store's website with a blog attached, not like a reputable news source. Besides, it's an interview with the founders of trashness, and the founders aren't quite an independent source on their own blog. Even without those problems, as I said notability requires multiple sources. Huon (talk) 00:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

March 6

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Vietnam American International School

How can I get someone to review my article? Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamieha88 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The article is correctly submitted for review, but we're severely backlogged with almost 2,000 drafts awaiting review. It may take some time until yours is reviewed; please be patient.

Wikipedia content should be verifiable from reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as news reports. Most of this draft doesn't cite any sources whatsoever, and the given sources are the sister organizations' websites, not independent sources. Furthermore, the tone seems rather promotional. For example, it's "the only private school in Hanoi, Vietnam to offer a complete American curriculum for students from kindergarten to 12th grade (K-12)" - says who? Who called the Minnesota guidelines "strict"? The draft even routinely calls the school "we" - clearly not appropriate. Thus it might be best to find some independent sources and to rewrite the draft based on what those sources have to say about the school. Huon (talk) 04:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ellen Spolsky

I am trying to create a page for my advisor, Prof. Ellen Spolsky. Several of your Wiki articles mention her and her scholarly friends (e.g. Lisa Zunshine) and I would like people to be able to reach her reference when she appears in wiki articles. She has written several books which I included in the book list. However, the article was rejected because it "lacked sources". Since what I want in the article is her name and own booklist, a list of sources doesn't make sense. At any rate, I can't manage to create the list (yes I've looked at your help pages and have not figured out an easy way to do this). Thanks, Dr. Orley K. MarronOkmarron (talk) 13:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid you misunderstand the purpose of biographies on Wikipedia. A biographical article needs to be based on reliable sources that directly discuss the person herself. The question you need to ask yourself is - What do other people (not connected to her in any way) have to say about Ellen Spolsky? Her work may be very significant and even considered very important by many people, but if no independent person has published substantial information about her as a person then there cannot be an article about her here. Take a look at the specific notability guidelines for academics here. Roger (talk) 13:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mufeedu Rahman

[Article draft removed.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mufeedu (talk • contribs) 21:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia content must be based on what reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as news coverage. To be considered notable, people must have been the subject of significant coverage in such sources. Furthermore, you may want to have a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest; writing an autobiography is strongly discouraged because it's difficult to maintain a neutral point of view about oneself. Huon (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Uploading images to infobox

Hello--can you walk me through the process of uploading an image to an infobox, or point me to where I can learn more? Thanks.Cellotown (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

That depends on the image in question and on the infobox. If the image comes with a free license such as the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License, you should upload it to the Wikimedia Commons via their Upload Wizard. If the image is not free content, you may be able to upload it to Wikipedia itself via our File Upload Wizard if it falls under the non-free content criteria. Corporate logos usually do qualify, but such images must be used only in articles proper; not-yet-accepted drafts, for example, do not suffice. You'll also have to provide a fair use rationale that explains for each article where the image is to appear why that appearance is covered by fair use. I believe for corporate logos the File Upload Wizard automatically adds a fair use rationale.

Once the image is uploaded, you'll have to check the respective infobox's documentation to find out how to add the image to the infobox; unfortunately not all infoboxes are standardized. Many take a simple "|image=Filename.ext" parameter without any additions, even without the "File:" prefix. Others use more complicated code; for example, {{Infobox company}} displays logos if you use a "|logo=[[File:Filename.ext|XXXpx|Description]]" parameter, where "XXXpx" is the size of the image and "Description" is the image caption; 220px is a standard value for the size, I believe. The template's documentation should always provide a list of parameters for that template and an example of use. Huon (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

March 7

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/gbs architects

Hi there, I seem to have 3 or 4 identical drafts in for review ! (and don't know how they doubled up ?... the weird thing is that on each one is says at the top "Not Submitted for Review" whilst at the bottom of the page it says "Submitted for Review " may take a week ....Have I submitted correctly ? many thanks, Nigel (Nigelspawton (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC))

That's not a problem. By the way, have you copy and pasted this information? Frmo either a website or a word document? Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 15:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Underground (Boston)

Hello,

I am planning on editing and resubmitting the article referenced above [Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Underground (Boston)], and it would be very helpful if I could get some more specific comments from the reviewer who declined it. It's unclear to me whether the problem of "not adequately supported by reliable sources" means (a)he/she didn't like the sources I referenced (print articles from the 1980s that mostly are not accessible online--I have scans, printouts I could easily provide, though); or (b), there are ideas, events, etc. mentioned in the entry that he/she wants to have a reference for? If there was a problem, I expected to get more specific feedback so I could adjust accordingly.

I was also hoping to have the same reviewer look at the revision when I resubmit--seems to make sense and it would probably save time for everyone.

Thanks!

paulsherman13 Paulsherman13 (talk) 15:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I have left a message at the reviewer's talk page notifying them of this question.

The problem is definitely not the lack of online availability of 1980s newspapers - offline sources such as those are entirely acceptable. However, I'd say that the draft contains quite a bit of unsourced and inappropriate information, starting right with the second sentence: Whether the list of emerging acts hosted by the club is "impressive" or not is pure opinion, and it should not only be sourced, but attributed to that source. I doubt Vice is reliable, and it certainly doesn't mention People in Stores, Wild Stares, CCCPTV and Dangerous Birds in connection with the Underground, nor does it call Propeller Records "artsy" or "idiosyncratic". In fact, I'd say the draft's tone is a worse problem than the sources (or lack thereof). But the unspecified "vintage newspaper ads and gig flyers" cited for the "notable acts" (most of which apparently aren't notable enough for Wikipedia articles of their own) definitely are not the reliable, independent sources Wikipedia content should be based on. (By the way, "Lyres" doesn't link to a band.)

Usually a random reviewer will look at a draft after re-submission, not necessarily the same one. It might be better to get more independent feedback on an article; a second reviewer may notice issues the first one missed (or, conversely, may disagree with the issues the first one saw). Besides, keeping tabs on all pages they reviewed would bloat reviewers' watchlists. Huon (talk) 18:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah the one source from vice is questanble plus like Huon said unsourced and inappropriate information, starting right with the second sentence: Whether the list of emerging acts hosted by the club is "impressive" or not is pure opinion, and it should not only be sourced, but attributed to that source. etc etc. You are welcome to work on it and resubmit it and like Huon else will look at it after u resubmit it and they will say yes or no to it at that time.Oo7565 (talk) 18:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

March 8

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Samuel Snowden

Whenever I save or preview the page I am creating, I lose all of the information I have typed in except for the introduction of the article. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Samuel Snowden

Mdaley55 (talk) 14:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)Mark D

The issue was a broken <ref> tag: If you want to refer to a certain named reference again, the correct code is <ref name="RefName" />; if you omit the "/", that will be interpreted as the beginning of a new footnote, and everything afterwards as content of that footnote. Huon (talk) 14:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

re-submitting an edited article

I edited an article and tried to re-submit, but I have no indication that it has been submitted. Please advise. "Waldo Family Lecture Series on International Relations" — Preceding unsigned comment added by News 2222 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

You have not currently resubmitted this article. Click on the link next to the text that says "When you are ready to resubmit, click here." You will know when it has been submitted because a yellow "submission waiting for review" box will appear. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

James B. Norman

there is an indication on an article for James B. Norman that it sounds like "advertising" - how should i correct that page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caseydeak (talk • contribs) 19:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

That article has worse problems than its tone - it does not show Norman has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as news coverage or articles about Norman (not by Norman) in reputable journals on history or photography. We need such coverage to establish that Norman is notable enough for a Wikipedia article.

That said, the draft's tone does seem unduly and one-sidedly positive; for example, which source says that the objects Norman photographed were the state's "most significant historic resources"? The book descriptions read like sales blurbs, and we shouldn't use adjectives like "amazing" without attribution to the source - they're obviously just opinion, not statements of fact. In this case it doesn't even refer to Norman or his work, so it's irrelevant opinion anyway. Huon (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

March 9

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Chronic Blues Circus

Hi, I dont know about getting this article about The Chronic Blues Circus submitted. Regards, zbpete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zbpete (talk • contribs) 05:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The draft is submitted for review, but in its current state it will probably be declined because it is unduly promotional. Claims such as "Bangalore's foremost Blues Band" should not only cite a source, but be attributed to the source: "Critic John Doe, writing for the Deccan Herald, called The Chronic Blues Circus 'Bangalore's foremost Blues Band'." You should also use inline citations and footnotes to clarify which source supports which statement, and you should provide some additional bibliographical details such as page numbers, article titles or, if available, links to online versions of the news sources. Huon (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John Janwari

It has been over a week and this article is still under review? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.97.227.77 (talk) 12:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

We're currently severely backlogged, with more than 2,000 submissions awaiting review. Please be patient. I have just had a look at the submission and had to decline it because it doesn't cite sufficently many independent, reliable sources such as newspapers to clearly establish Janwari's notability, and because its tone was unduly promotional. Huon (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Looking for Filipino band Jargons from Koza Okinawa

I was stationed at MCAS Futenma Okinawa from 1971 through 1972 and became friends with band members from a rock band called the Jargons whom performed at a nightclub on Gate-2 Street in Koza Okinawa. I would like to get in touch with them if possible. Thanks for any help I can get. Steve Greene173.216.16.125 (talk) 14:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not meant to contact other people; we cannot help you. Huon (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Noam Tibon

Hello,

the article is based completely on Hebrew sources which appear on this existing article - http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%A2%D7%9D_%D7%AA%D7%99%D7%91%D7%95%D7%9F — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmanuelpep (talk • contribs) 15:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Non-English sources are acceptable; see WP:NONENG. But you must cite them in the draft; otherwise our readers will have no way to tell which source supports which of the draft's statements. See WP:Referencing for beginners for referencing help. Huon (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Organization Workshop

Hi there! I am at the moment re-drafting the (declined) ‘Organization Workshop’ article on the basis of the comments made by your reviewer. I am acting on all those comments, except one, which baffles me: re:” This looks very much as if it were copied or slightly adapted or closely paraphrased from an outside source. We do not do that. SeeClose paraphrase for an explanation” 1. It may be that I copied a particular sentence, but in that case, I do not know what sentence the reviewer is referring to 2. If the reviewer means that the whole piece is copied, now, that really throws me. If that is the case, where from? I know that there is an ‘Organization Workshop’ article on the seriti.org.za webpage, but that is my very own and will be taken down once this wiki rewrite is done . Is it possible to copy from myself? Many thanks Raff Carmen (Rafaelcarmen 18:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafaelcarmen (talk • PS: seriti webpage: if the 'copied' comment indeed does refer to the 'carmen&labra' seriti article, every part of the present redraft is being seen & approved by Labra (Rafaelcarmen 18:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)) contribs)

I have to agree with the reviewer: The draft sounds like a close paraphrase of this text, so close that it will have to be considered a copyright violation, which Wikipedia for obvious reasons cannot accept. I thus tagged the draft for speedy deletion. There is no evidence that the source has been released under a free license compatible with Wikipedia's CC-BY-SA 3.0 License. If you are indeed the author of the source and want to donate it under a free license, see WP:Donating copyrighted materials on how to do so. However, Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and we should neutrally summarize what those sources say. I'm rather skeptical about that. For example, does Wertsch really say that the Soviet concept of activity inspired OW? Furthermore, the text seems heavily based on an upcoming, not-yet-published book, which is not a reliable sorce by Wikipedia's standards. Huon (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/hip hop hall of fame awards

Hello:

We just wanted to make sure that we are done with the process for submitting Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/hip hop hall of fame awards for Review. Thank you. A.M. Thompsoninternationalpros (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The draft is correctly submitted for review. You may want to have a look at your references, though: They don't all say what they're cited for. For example, the 2004 Billboard article for obvious reasons does not mention "other joint venture projects that hit and missed from 2006-2011". If you are associated with James JT Thompson, you may also want to have a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest: Writing about a topic you're closely associated with is discouraged because it's difficult to maintain a neutral point of view. Huon (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Aubrey Tingle

I am creating a new article called "Aubrey Tingle" It's formatted, referenced, and internal links installed. My problem is with the internet when I'm looking up external links. After about half a dozen it slows right down (even though I'm careful to go back to the home page each time) and stops. Then the computer stops running altogether. Yesterday I lost ALL my work. Today I got to the point where it slowed down and saved the article, even though it's not complete and I will have to edit it to insert the remaining external links.

Has anyone else had this problem, and how did you deal with it? (My computer is a desktop with 8 gigs RAM)

Cheers

Writerred

Writerred (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't have such a problem, and I have far less RAM than you. Unfortunately I don't really have a better idea of what may cause your problem. If you're using Windows, I'd keep an eye on the task manager - if it's a problem with either memory or CPU capacity, you should see it.

On an entirely unrelated note, I believe many of the external links won't make good references. Quite a few of them are primary sources such as websites affiliated with Tingle or papers written by him. One is even a page of Google search results - I cannot think of why we would want to cite that. Huon (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/National Music Centre

Hello reviewers,

I received notice that my article on the National Music Centre in Calgary, Alberta was rejected and I needed a little clarification. The rejection notice stated that my tone and sources didn't appear neutral enough for an encyclopedia entry. All of my source were taken from reputable news sources and, I believe, should be adequately objective for the article entry. So it just the tone of my article that seems too much like an advertisement. I'm used to writing research papers, so maybe my writing style is bringing my objectivity into question.

Best regards

Musicmuseum (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)JimJamJummel