Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 224: Line 224:
[[User:RDbassK|RDbassK]] ([[User talk:RDbassK|talk]]) 01:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
[[User:RDbassK|RDbassK]] ([[User talk:RDbassK|talk]]) 01:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


:Hello {{ping|RDbassK}}, you are very close to getting it right; your coding is correct, but what you need to notice is that when you put material between the "ref" tags, it forms a footnote, which then displays at the end. Since right now all your "ref"-bracketed content is at the very end of the draft, all your footnotes, the little blue clickable numbers, are all just piled at the bottom of the "Writing on the fine arts" section, instead of being next to the ''specific fact they support'' which is the idea of footnotes. So if you have, for example, a newspaper article that documents that Kohn got his PhD in 1969, you need to take that reference, within its "ref" tags, and paste it at the end of the sentence. Then it will appear as a little clickable blue number at the end of the sentence, and automatically list itself under References at the bottom of the page. The guideline [[WP:Referencing for beginner]] helps explain this.
:Hello {{ping|RDbassK}}, you are very close to getting it right; your coding is correct, but what you need to notice is that when you put material between the "ref" tags, it forms a footnote, which then displays at the end. Since right now all your "ref"-bracketed content is at the very end of the draft, all your footnotes, the little blue clickable numbers, are all just piled at the bottom of the "Writing on the fine arts" section, instead of being next to the ''specific fact they support'' which is the idea of footnotes. So if you have, for example, a newspaper article that documents that Kohn got his PhD in 1969, you need to take that reference, within its "ref" tags, and paste it at the end of the sentence. Then it will appear as a little clickable blue number at the end of the sentence, and automatically list itself under References at the bottom of the page. The guideline [[WP:Referencing for beginners]] helps explain this.


:The larger issue though, ''works by Kohn himself are not "references"''. Those are primary sources, but what a reference is is a secondary source which proves a fact about Kohn. An encyclopedia is a Tertiary source, a compilation of Secondary sources organized for a reader. An encyclopedia is not breaking research based on the original raw documents (such as Kohn's own work). So there should be little/no footnotes to Kohn's own works, because there's not any doubt he wrote them, but what we ''do'' need footnotes to is articles, books, etc that ''discuss Kohn from an outside expert's perspective". The guideline [[WP:Reliable sources]] and [[WP:Secondary sources]] are worth a quick glance there. You simply can't publish an encyclopedia article largely cited to the subject himself. [[User:MatthewVanitas|MatthewVanitas]] ([[User talk:MatthewVanitas|talk]]) 09:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
:The larger issue though, ''works by Kohn himself are not "references"''. Those are primary sources, but what a reference is is a secondary source which proves a fact about Kohn. An encyclopedia is a Tertiary source, a compilation of Secondary sources organized for a reader. An encyclopedia is not breaking research based on the original raw documents (such as Kohn's own work). So there should be little/no footnotes to Kohn's own works, because there's not any doubt he wrote them, but what we ''do'' need footnotes to is articles, books, etc that ''discuss Kohn from an outside expert's perspective". The guideline [[WP:Reliable sources]] and [[WP:Secondary sources]] are worth a quick glance there. You simply can't publish an encyclopedia article largely cited to the subject himself. [[User:MatthewVanitas|MatthewVanitas]] ([[User talk:MatthewVanitas|talk]]) 09:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:46, 28 October 2015

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, List, Sorting, Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

  • This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
  • 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.
Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions


October 22

04:23:43, 22 October 2015 review of submission by 66.87.142.72


66.87.142.72 (talk) 04:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC) Why was my article totally wiped out deleted where I had no chance to edit it[reply]

You need to tell us with precision what this article was. Fiddle Faddle 13:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

10:35:44, 22 October 2015 review of draft by Cratloenationalschool70


Cratloenationalschool70 (talk) 10:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I go into preview, my info box is just a line of text. How do I create an info box in the top right hand corner of my page

Susan

Hello Susan. The problem was fixed in this edit by Voceditenore. I think the problem was a missing }} at the end. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Susan, yes I've fixed the box for you. I should tell you though, that generally speaking, primary schools do not have stand-alone articles on Wikipedia unless they are of great historic significance and/or have been written about extensively by independent sources. Note also, that at the moment your draft is written like a brochure for the school, rather than an encyclopedia article. You might want to look at the tips and guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines. Voceditenore (talk) 10:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:32:50, 22 October 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Fender1964

My article was declined for a lack of notability.

I gathered quite a few sources to establish notability but still didn't pass muster on my article for Rose Shoshana, a Los Angeles gallerist for a lot of important artist. I am not sure what was improper about my sources. Is she just not notable enough? Should I have something more than articles from the LA Times as a primary source? Thanks!

Fender1964 (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Before giving you a detailed answer, please confirm that you have read the reviewer's comment placed on your draft, and whether you have questions about that. Fiddle Faddle 19:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 23

Request on 16:16:40, 23 October 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Meetcramer


I'm unsure of why my article is unable to be published. It meets three of the criteria for publishing of a musical artist.Meetcramer (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meetcramer (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Meetcramer: Which three of the notability criteria for musicians? Worldbruce (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself. 

  Billboard, Diffuser, Rolling Stone, Bob Marley.com, The Sentinel

(2) Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country. 

  She was the main act and headliner of the Grammy Amplifier's 2015 Tour (major tour cities: Chicago, San Diego, Austin, DC, Long Island, etc)

(9) Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition. I'm not sure if this will be posted as a reply, as I'm not quite fluent with Wikipedia yet. But this artist has been touring around the nation with the Grammys and The Recording Academy, her most noted appearance was headlining at Billboard's Hot 100 Festival in NY. Her name was all over the advertisements and lineups at music festivals and her songs are featured all around the DC-Metropolitan area for her work. She's partnered with Starbucks' seasonal playlists, etc etc…I'm not very sure of why the article cannot be included in Wikipedia. Thank you for your time, but I'm a bit confused.Meetcramer (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Meetcramer: Let me start by saying that I agree that Cramer is notable. But it isn't as definite as you think, and reasonable people may disagree. Your username suggests that you may be interested in publicising Cramer. If so, you're in the wrong place, Wikipedia is not for promotion or "getting the word out". You also may not be the best positioned to evaluate her notability.
  • (1) Billboard (Partridge) is touting her performance at the Billboard Hot 100 Festival, and so is not independent. Rolling Stone is announcing her performance at a Rolling Stone event, so is not independent either, and is trivial coverage. If Bob Marley.com is evidence of notability, it really should be cited in the draft. For me, Diffuser.fm and The Sentinel together constitute the necessary significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources, but that's passing by the skin of her teeth.
  • (2) Several of the cited sources alude to a future tour. Billboard (SXSW) says that she performed four songs on a festival stage in Texas. If she played Chicago, San Diego, Austin (in addition to SXSW?), DC, Long Island, etc. I would expect the draft to say so, and cite several sources describing in some depth how her tour went.
  • (9) Grammy Amplifier may be a major music competition, but I see no evidence that Wikipedia has ever regarded it as such before. If her notability hinged on this point, it would be wise to establish a consensus in advance (at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music), for example) regarding whether the competition is major or not.
If you have any connection to Cramer, you should disclose it. If you proceed with this draft, try to bolster the evidence that she passes one of the above notability criteria. If that proves difficult, consider waiting six months or a year until her career is more advanced and she has attracted more independent attention from reliable sources. Worldbruce (talk) 01:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 24

11:24:54, 24 October 2015 review of submission by Stewmills

Back in January I submitted an article on the 1970's rock band Hackensack ("Hackensack band"). I've been looking to see it on Wikipaedia ever since and have only just discovered it's been rejected. I didn't know how to add citations but on the notability front, the band included Billy Rankin, Nicky Moore and Simon Fox who all have Wiki pages, Ray Majors who features on Mott the Hoople and Yardbirds pages; three albums and a single widely available and collectable, the last band to play at the original Cavern Club in Liverpool (I still have the programme!) and John Peel's play of the week on BBC Radio 1 in 1972 must qualify as a "rotation". Please will you reconsider my article which completes numerous other contemporary references. I'm sorry if I'm old and stupid - that's why I need your help! Regards, stewmills Stewmills (talk) 11:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Stewmills and welcome to the Help Desk. No need to apologize; we're here to help! The article Draft:Hackensack was not accepted because it did not demonstrate the band's notability. Wikipedia has some criteria to help determine when a band may be notable; you can read them at WP:BAND. There might be an argument that since Nicky Moore and Simon Fox are notable musicians, the band is notable too (by virtue of "contain[ing] two or more independently notable musicians"). However, in order to substantiate that claim, you'd need to find a variety of reliable, independent (third-party) sources corroborating those claims. The draft doesn't have any referencing right now, so that would need to be addressed. Let us know if you have any further questions. Thanks, /wia /tlk /cntrb 12:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks wikiiawesome for your prompt reply. Can you help me include "referencing" - I have press cuttings/reviews from 1972 - Melody Maker, NME, Disc, London Evening Standard, Enfield Gazette, Bradford Telegraph etc. but don't understand how to reference these? Shall I submit copies? Hackensack is mentioned on both Simon Fox's and Nicky Moore's page (which also Hackensack's discography). So what needs to be "substantiated"? Initially signed to Island records but bought out by Polydor with a £9000 recording advance - the biggest of its time, Hackensack were destined for success. On video they'd have made it but that didn't exist in 1972!!! Perhaps you can refer me to someone who can rewrite the entry in the correct format? Thanks again, stewmills — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.175.50.167 (talk) 13:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Stewmills: Sorry, I just saw this now. If you have reviews of their work from these sources, you don't have to submit copies. All you need to do is cite the source in a reference—see WP:REFB for some basics on referencing on Wikipedia. You can use the {{Cite news}} template to reference those sources into your article.
As for the mentions on other Wikipedia pages, unfortunately Wikipedia is not a reliable source. That's why we require that claims be supported by reliable, external independent sources. Let us know if you have any further questions about the draft. /wia /tlk /cntrb 12:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
HiStewmills - Just want to add a quick note to Wikiisawesome's answer. When you use off-line sources, please be sure to include as much information as possible (it helps reviewers and researchers), such as title, date, page number, author (if applicable), isbn (if a book), etc. Thanks! Onel5969 TT me 13:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

12:56:48, 24 October 2015 review of submission by La Gangos


La Gangos (talk) 12:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC) sources: https://www.linkedin.com/pub/rabin-gangadin/14/ab3/88 http://tpo.nl/author/rabingangadin/ http://www.hebban.nl/!/rabin-gangadin-2#offset_0 http://www.nederlandsepoezie.org/dichters/g/gangadin.html http://www.waterkant.net/suriname/2014/10/04/elisabeth-moendi-column/ http://www.opiniestukken.nl/opiniestukken/artikel/568/Nederlanders-vertellen-fabeltjes-over-Zwarte-Piet http://www.leugens.nl/2009/08/16/liegende-officieren-worden-rechter/[reply]

Hi La Gangos - Do you have a specific question? And an article? Onel5969 TT me 14:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:43:25, 24 October 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Rajin shakya


i don't know how to upload photoes.and i want to know to make wikipedia pages or create article.

rajin shakya (talk) 15:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rajin shakya -Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions. To upload photos, there is a link on the left hand toolbar. Onel5969 TT me 01:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

23:30:08, 24 October 2015 review of submission by Joyandduke

Hello, my post for Lazy Bones Recordings was rejected for not being "notable". I'm a bit confused as I see that another music publisher "Wild Whirled Music" has been listed in Wikipedia and they have not produced the same level of world renown artists as Lazy Bones. The references are tangential to what they've actually produced, yet LBR has actually produced and released albums of "notable" artists that are also included in Wikipedia. Your assistance as to what further references would establish notability would be appreciated.Joyandduke (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Joyandduke (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joyandduke - First please read other stuff exists. Because there is another bad article on Wikipedia is not a good rationale for allowing another bad article to be created. WP is monitored by a few thousand volunteers, and there are millions of articles. That said, the other article is also promotional and lacks notability, and I've just tagged it as such. In time, it will be dealt with. Regarding your draft. There is not a single reference which goes to notability. For that, references need to be from independent, reliable sources and be in-depth about the studio, not about the artists or their work. Usually those come from newspapers, magazines or books. Notability is not inherited. It has to come from the company itself. In addition, you article, with its long lists of other companies, appears promotional. Onel5969 TT me 01:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for the quick feedback. I was merely referring to Wild Whirled not to get them flagged, but I thought it would be helpful to refer to another music record company/publishing article when building my own. While the WP help articles are extensive, they can also seem a bit overwhelming. I will find more articles from magazines and newspapers to include as references for my article. Thanks again.Joyandduke (talk) 02:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 25

00:49:05, 25 October 2015 review of submission by Colemanchris


Hello peoples of the Wikipedia Articles for Creation Help Hesk, Just writing to ask your opinion of this Draft Article for Creation, Draft:Artica , specifically, would the changes made to it make it now eligible for creation, I believe I have edited adequately for Neutral Point Of View, and Notability, as was requested. Any tips, hints, pearls of wisdom, on how to improve this article in your opinion would be most welcome, thank you. If it needs no more improving and fir for creation, would be fine as well. Colemanchris (talk) 00:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Colemanchris: no Declined with a substantial comment left on the draft to guide your hand. Fiddle Faddle 16:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:57:15, 25 October 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by SandeepSessions


Hi I want to create a Wikipedia Page on Sandeep Maheshwari. In my last submission, I provided all the links about the same. Still I am getting the message that your article does not show subject's notability. Please let me know how to proceed.

SandeepSessions (talk) 12:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ping|SandeepSessions}} For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. Fiddle Faddle 16:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 21:16:00, 25 October 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Humza.shahzad


This young kid passed three different exam which were never passed by any one of his age till now. For that I have provided several cross references from different news reporters who on different timing took Humza Shahzad interview against his several unique different achievements.

so I am still trying to understand the reason " biography of a living person notable for only one event" given to reject my article.

While, I see that similar article covered on others kids have been approved. for example see below few names. These below kids have similar success but in different categories. If you require proof of achievements, all original certificates can be provided. Or if require any other information. kindly help guide what is prevent to approve this article.

Arfa Karim Badar Iqbal Ayan Qureshi

Also see these few references links(you can get the URL from my submitted article) I have provided what can be directly verified.

Shabnam Mahmood - BBC Asian Network , The six-year-old computer whizz who passed Microsoft exam, retrieved 17 May 2015 Chris Baynes - Croydon Gardian , world's youngest person in world to pass professional Microsoft exam, retrieved 04 June 2015 Nusrat Shabnam - Urdu - Voice Of America , Meet with Humza Shahzad, world's youngest office professional, retrieved 26 May 2015 Murtaza Ali Shah - The News International , Pakistani boy becomes world’s youngest MS PowerPoint Specialist, 30 June 2015 Shabnam Mahmood - BBC Asian Network , Microsoft exams child's play for computer-mad youngsters, 07 August 2015 Murtaza Ali Shah - The News International , Six-year-old boy passes three Microsoft exams in a year, 27 August 2015

Humza.shahzad (talk) 21:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Humza, unfortunately the subject of your submission is deemed non-notable according to Wikipedia's notability guidelines, specifically WP:GNG. It is extremely unlikely a 7 year old boy would ever meet our notability guidelines, and definitely not by being a Microsoft certified professional. WP:BIO1E pertains to individuals which are known to have been involved with a single event by which they might have a claim to notability. The guideline states when "an individual plays a major role in a minor event...it is not generally appropriate to have an article on both the person and the event" - in this particular case, I wouldn't even consider the event notable in the slightest, casting doubt on the decline rationale for the submission, but alas the subject is non-notable per our general notability guideline. Nonetheless, thank you for submitting an article through AfC. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am grateful for your time to help answer and would request for your further time for my concerns. Thank you so much.

well, I went through your comments and notability guidelines and though instructions are not simple enough to understand but what i have got that nutshell is "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." While not only references from multiple independent media sources have been provided, but even based on his unique achievements he has got tremendous coverage from the media from most of the world and if we search of "Humza Shahzad" in google returns more than 20 pages where hundreds of newspapers have given him courage. So your concern really making me confuse that Humza is extremely non-notable. Secondly my concern is that can you kindly explain then why similar articles for the other kids like "Ayan Qureshi" and "Badar Iqbal" got approval. Kindly advise. Thank you so much for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humza.shahzad (talk • contribs) 00:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 26

18:35:53, 26 October 2015 review of submission by Rkumargeo


Rkumargeo (talk) 18:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have created an article for our organisation under the name "Geoscientists Canada" and did added references as per the instructions. As I am new to creating articles on Wikipedia, I am sure experienced editors will help me to improve to meet the requirements.

You need to rely on yourself a great deal, too. By this I mean that questions and requests for help must be more specific than a "Guys, please help me" query. Fiddle Faddle 22:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 27

00:32:38, 27 October 2015 review of submission by Kaseypoet

Hello, I was told that "Most of the references for this article are its own and those of its founders.  Please provide evidence of notability in the form of independently published material in reliable secondary sources." Only 3 out of my 9 sources are its own or its founders. I can remove those sources if need be, but there are 6 reputable media sources independent of the company in my citations. Is there something I'm missing? Thanks!

Kaseypoet (talk) 00:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on whether the reviewer is correct, something I have not checked, but that you know. You may wish to talk to them over this. We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. Fiddle Faddle 22:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Kaseypoet: I've formatted the references to make the sources clearer. You could carry this further by adding dates of publication. Wikipedia is looking for articles about companies that have made an enduring mark on the historical record. Ongoing coverage over a period of years can be an indicator of that, compared with a brief spike of coverage around one event.
You're best off first asking the reviewer for clarification of their comments. If I were reviewing it I would be concerned about two things. (1) The draft depends heavily on interviews with Tom. Wikipedia articles need to represent the full range of views on a subject. Interviews can be useful sources, but to count towards notability they need to include a healthy amount of arms length analysis and perspective. If they're just Tom talking about Tom (or Tom's company), then they're just the company line, are primary sources, and aren't really independent, no matter who publishes them. (2) To fulfil the notability criteria for companies, coverage specifically of the company is needed. Coverage judged to be of the founder or of a product may not count. The IFC article, for example, might help establish the notability of Tom or of Love, but doesn't even mention To the Stars by name, so a reviewer might discount that source.
If the company is still closely associated with Tom, you might be better off creating a redirect to the article about him and developing the topic there, where currently it isn't even mentioned. If at a later date its notability independent of him is clear, and the amount of information about the company justifies it, it could be spun off into its own article. Worldbruce (talk) 00:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

21:22:21, 27 October 2015 review of submission by Stewpie607

Hi,

Following a couple of rejections I am a little unsure on how I could improve the referencing in my draft article. Could you give me some examples of appropriate references or a slightly more concise detail on what type of reference is appropriate - I have read the referencing article several times but end up with the thought that it is extremely hard to reference outside of an associations literature when discussing one!

Thanks.

Stewpie607 (talk) 21:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem you face is that the organisation may be interesting, useful, but may not pass WP:CORP.
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL may be useful, or some modification to that search. Fiddle Faddle 21:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Stewpie607: There's an entire project, Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains, dedicated to all things RR, including railroad engineering and technology. If you ask at the project's talk page, someone there may be able to suggest alternative sources for the topic. Worldbruce (talk) 00:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 28

01:39:01, 28 October 2015 review of submission by RDbassK


I am creating an article for the very first time. I have many internal footnotes to add in, but I am unable to understand the instructions or mechanisms for adding them in.

The article I am working is at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Robert_E._Kohn

Can someone please send me to plain, clear instructions on how to create the footnotes / references section?

Thank you!

RDbassK (talk) 01:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @RDbassK:, you are very close to getting it right; your coding is correct, but what you need to notice is that when you put material between the "ref" tags, it forms a footnote, which then displays at the end. Since right now all your "ref"-bracketed content is at the very end of the draft, all your footnotes, the little blue clickable numbers, are all just piled at the bottom of the "Writing on the fine arts" section, instead of being next to the specific fact they support which is the idea of footnotes. So if you have, for example, a newspaper article that documents that Kohn got his PhD in 1969, you need to take that reference, within its "ref" tags, and paste it at the end of the sentence. Then it will appear as a little clickable blue number at the end of the sentence, and automatically list itself under References at the bottom of the page. The guideline WP:Referencing for beginners helps explain this.
The larger issue though, works by Kohn himself are not "references". Those are primary sources, but what a reference is is a secondary source which proves a fact about Kohn. An encyclopedia is a Tertiary source, a compilation of Secondary sources organized for a reader. An encyclopedia is not breaking research based on the original raw documents (such as Kohn's own work). So there should be little/no footnotes to Kohn's own works, because there's not any doubt he wrote them, but what we do need footnotes to is articles, books, etc that discuss Kohn from an outside expert's perspective". The guideline WP:Reliable sources and WP:Secondary sources are worth a quick glance there. You simply can't publish an encyclopedia article largely cited to the subject himself. MatthewVanitas (talk) 09:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=687893665"