Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ubaid1salfi (talk | contribs) at 16:21, 6 July 2017. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category — List (sorting)		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


June 30

09:17:26, 30 June 2017 review of submission by WorldH


I created a new article "Schönburg" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sch%C3%B6nburg) and I think I must have maken a mistkae because this article was never reviewed even though six weeks have passed. Could please anyone explain me how to move this draft in the right space for revision and ensure a fast revision (because it is pending for so many weeks now)? WorldH (talk) 09:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WorldH (talk) 09:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WorldH I moved the page to Draft:Schönburg, you had it as a user page under an invalid username. It has never been reviewed because you have not submitted it. To do so please add {{subst:submit}} (with the double curly brackets) to the top of the page. Your other draft Draft:Saaleck is correctly submitted and waiting review. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia already has an article Schönburg (Saale), which is supposedly about the municipality but is mostly about the castle. Draft:Schönburg is also about the castle. It might be better to enlarge the existing article, rather than create a second article about the same castle. Maproom (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Review and Namespace

I have made some fundamental edits on my article Draft:Whiteplains British School but it is still awaiting a formal review and approval. Please can anyone help to move it for a formal review and approval for namespace?--Nwachinazo (talk) 10:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nwachinazo: It has been submitted, but please be patient; we're highly backlogged at the moment, but we'll drop you a note as soon as someone reviews it. jcc (tea and biscuits) 11:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

11:27:52, 30 June 2017 review of submission by Yuval Filmus

My submission, about a mathematical topic, got rejected since it has no explanation for the average reader. Other articles about mathematical topics similarly contain no explanations for the average reader. My motivation for contributing further articles to Wikipedia in the future is naturally rather minimal at the moment. I was responding to a community call (https://thmatters.wordpress.com/2017/05/02/tcs-wikipedia-project/), but your side has to cooperate as well.

Yuval Filmus (talk) 11:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yuval Filmus The only article you seem to have edited Analysis of Boolean functions is in mainspace, so it has actually been accepted. Thanks for your contribution to Wikipedia. By the way, you might be interested in joining WP:WikiProject Mathematics, you will find other subject specialists there. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done accepted draft DrStrauss talk 13:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

13:16:27, 30 June 2017 review of submission by Dmurray06

I work for Pioneer State Mutual Insurance Company, therefore we own the copyright material on the company's website (www.psmic.com/history.aspx). I realize this creates a COI, but I took special care to make sure the article met the guidelines and requirements of Wikipedia. Is there preferred method for a company to submit an article to Wikipedia? I was under the impression that submitting it in the Editing Wizard, in the specified tone was sufficient. Any guidance you can provide is appreciated Dmurray06 (talk) 13:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dmurray06: COI editors are advised to create drafts as opposed to going straight into the mainspace. DrStrauss talk 13:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmurray06: See WP:BFAQ#COMPANY. Companies are strongly advised not to submit articles at all. It's almost always a huge waste of time for the company and for Wikipedia volunteers. If a company is foolish enough to think that an article about them would be a good thing (is unfamiliar with the law of unintended consequences), then the preferred way to get an article is to ask at Wikipedia:Requested articles. Companies that ignore that advice too, should, as DrStrauss says, submit their proposed article as a draft.
So why is your draft being deleted? The company may be able to license the text on their website so that it could be published here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Even if the company changes the copyright notices on their web page to a compatible license, it likely will be impossible to use the text here. Material on their web page has been written to promote them, a purpose which is incompatible with Wikipedia. Writing an encyclopedia article is an entirely different undertaking. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

16:30:22, 30 June 2017 review of submission by Dmurray06

{{Lafc|username=Dmurray06|ts=16:30:22, 30 June 2017|page= @WorldBruce I'm sorry I thought I was creating a draft using Article Wizard. I was trying to figure out the proper way to disclose my COI. Pioneer State Mutual is a well established Insurance Company that has been in business for over 100 years. All of our competitors have Wikipedia pages. How do you suspect they went about this? Can you please offer a solution of where I should go from here? Dmurray06 (talk) 16:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dmurray06: Hello, D. Your notification of WorldBruce failed (it was incorrectly coded), so I'll notify him here @Worldbruce:. I'll also add my own comments. First, it will help to recognize that, by lifting material directly from your company's web site, your first effort was doomed to failure. If it hasn't been already, your submission is going to be deleted later today. So, moving forward means starting a new draft, perhaps in your Sandbox. Second (regarding the CoI), if your new draft is accepted for publication, someone will slap a "COI banner" on its Talk page. But you can also add the disclosure to your user page, which you can create by clicking here. See WP:COI for more information. And now to the underlying question -- is your company sufficiently notable so as to justify an article on Wikipedia? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But you're not going to demonstrate notability simply by quoting what the company says about itself on its web page. Instead, you are going to need to demonstrate that there is something about your company that caused it to receive substantial coverage from reliable independent sources. Let's start with Best's Review. Has that publication ever done a piece on your company? If yes, then you're well on the way to demonstrating notability. If not, then you'll need to find other reliable independent sources that devote some in-depth coverage to your company. For what it's worth, I have a personal fascination with the history of insurance in the United States, so I hope you succeed in demonstrating that this is a notable company. But frankly, nothing I saw on your web site leads me to think that you will succeed. It started out in 1908 selling farm fire insurance, but that type of insurance was already commonplace in the U.S. for more than half a century before that. It then changed to issuing general property coverage. But so too did many, many others. You really do need to find something about the company that's worth an article, and it needs to be something more than "we exist and have been around for a hundred years". I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

17:04:34, 30 June 2017 review of submission by Ryanmardini24

I want to know how I can change my Draft in order to make it accepted by the Article Creation. Ryanmardini24 (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Question has already been answered at the Teahouse, here. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:11, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

21:59:03, 30 June 2017 review of submission by Ncsr11

Translated from Italian language Wikipedia. Request for it to pass based on Italian page w/o references, please.Ncsr11 (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC) Ncsr11 (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ncsr11. Thank you for your translation. Existence doesn't mean that an article is acceptable to Wikipedia. It could mean only that no one has gotten around to deleting it yet. In any case, each language version of Wikipedia operates according to its own policies and guidelines, set by the community of editors who contribute there. So an article may satisfy the rules for the Italian Wikipedia but not the English one, or vice versa. The English Wikipedia's verifiability policy has gotten stricter over the years. These days no AfC reviewer would accept a draft with no references. If she's notable, surely you can find three independent, reliable sources that discuss her at some depth. Someone here might be willing to do it for you, but we're pretty swamped. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 1

00:14:26, 1 July 2017 review of submission by Emilywlk

What more do need or what factors am I missing to get this article approved for Draft:Lamont Sincere? I gladly appreciate your help. Thank You

Emilywlk (talk) 00:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Emilywlk. I can't tell from reading the lead what, if anything, he's notable for. Does he satisfy one of the criteria of WP:MUSICBIO? If so, which one, and how? --Worldbruce (talk) 02:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

15:23:38, 1 July 2017 review of submission by Oddjob84

How do I appeal a "submission declined"? Oddjob84 (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC) Oddjob84 (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Oddjob. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. I see you've already taken the first step -- that of contacting the person who declined your submission. After receiving some detailed feedback from them, you might be better able to address their concerns. And you can always re-submit the draft to find out what another reviewer thinks (but I suggest you first engage in discussion with the first reviewer). And for what it's worth, I note that you didn't help your case by providing most of your sources in the form of "bare URLs". This practice runs afoul of our WP:CITE, because it fails to provide basic bibliographic information such as who wrote a piece and where/when it was published. In effect, you are telling readers (including reviewers) that if they want to learn this essential information, they have to leave Wikipedia and find out for themselves. And this, in turn, makes it difficult for reviewers to assess the usefulness of your sources. This problem can be avoided by using citation templates such as {{cite web}}, which makes it easier to assemble the essential information and automatically displays it with proper formatting. Later today, I'll convert one or two of your sources using the citation template, which you can then use as examples for doing the others. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:47, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NewYorkActuary: Thanks for the information on WP:CITE and the revision of footnotes 1 & 2 in the article. I have also been there and changed over the Book & Journal citations. While I am fine with improving the citations, and will do so, that is not why the article was declined, and quite honestly, I doubt re-doing the citations will change anything. Further, I am disinclined to wait another five weeks to discuss the matter. So, to my original question... how do I file an appeal? If you wish to see my reasoning, you may look here: User:Oddjob84/sandbox. Oddjob84 (talk) 17:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Oddjob84: we use gender-neutral pronouns until you decide whether or not you want to tell us your gender. From now on, we shall refer to you as "he". I think you misunderstand the process of Articles for Creation: you submit your draft to us and we check it against policies. We then advise you as to how you can improve it. You can either take that advice or leave it but doing the latter will adversely affect your chances of successfully creating an article. There isn't an appeals process, you just resubmit it. I can ask another reviewer to review it as soon as possible so it gives the same effect as an appeal. The sandbox piece is as jcc says, a bit of a diatribe but that's beside the point. I've resubmitted it and I'll ask another reviewer to take a look at it. DrStrauss talk 20:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Update: jcc, I've just resubmitted the draft so Oddjob84 has a de facto appeal. If you've got time, could you review it and see if you come to the same conclusion as myself? Thanks, DrStrauss talk 20:22, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are we a bit touchy here at AfC? "di·a·tribeˈdīəˌtrīb/ noun. a forceful and bitter verbal attack against someone or something". I have pretty scrupulously avoided any attacks at all, personal or otherwise. And I don't think you could characterize it as bitter in any case. I have pointed out that there are potential problems with the "decline", and am looking for an explanation at this point. I would rather that we had engaged in a discussion before a re-submit (I could have resubmitted it myself), but since you have jumped ahead, I would ask that the points I have raised, as well as those implicit in my objections, be considered, and a much better explanation be provided. Oddjob84 (talk) 20:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jcc's re-review/explanation

References check

Ref #1 is self published, however the writer has published articles before in other newspapers/magazines so I believe that whilst this source might not help notability (we have no idea how locations are selected for inclusion on this website) it is reliable enough to back claims sourced back to it.
Ref #2 is similar to ref #1 but it has been published by a tour company, again it doesn't prove notability.
I can't get ref #3 to load.
Ref #4 is better for notability showing that the location has been part of a study.
I am unsure if ref 5 helps demonstrate notability because their "about us" menu link doesn't work. It could be a regional website to encourage tourism or another tour website.
Ref #6 does not prove notability.
Ref #7 is a press release and does not prove notability.
Ref #8 is a local created website to encourage tourism (so presumably ref 5 is a tour company website) and that is therefore a primary source.
Ref #9 is another study which goes reasonably in depth.
Ref #14 is primary
Ref #15 is a study based on the effects of the breakwater at Wakayama Marina City. I must admit that I am unsure as to why this has been included, there is no mention of the claim it is supposed to support in the document?
Ref #16 is a blog by someone who has been and is certainly not helpful to show notability.
Ref #17, a page by the architects does not help show notability.
Ref #19 is a tour company again.
Ref #20 may help to show notability, it appears to be independent.
Refs #21 and #22 are duplicates.
From the above, I don't think DrStrauss's decline is unreasonable.

Sandbox

Since the sandbox comments have become pertinent to this discussion, and since I periodically clear my sandbox, I have pasted the item below for clarity and archival purposes.

Wakayama Marina City

The article was rejected on the grounds of insufficient "notability of organizations and companies". Wakayama Marina City is not an organization or company it is a place. Although it is partially owned by the Wakayama Marina City Company, Ltd., it is also co-owned by Wakayama Prefecture, as made clear in the supplied references. WP:NGEO is the proper application of notability, and Marina City passes. An obvious analog is Kansai International Airport which is held by a private corporation and a public entity. Rokkō Island is much the same as Marina City, in that it is a recreation hub and largely in private hands. Port Island is also much the same, and also opened with an expo. Kobe Airport rounds out the four artificial islands in Osaka Bay which apparently have already passed notability standards.

The reviewer left the following comment: "Please add more major media reviews". This is a fair illustration of WP:Systemic bias as outlined in WP:WORLDVIEW. Of course it is difficult to cite major media reviews in English. The Draft Talk:Wakayama Marina City page, which the reviewer apparently missed, said so. There are more references, but they are in Japanese, and will have to wait for a Japanese-speaking editor to add them. This will never happen if the article is not in mainspace. Furthermore, I have little doubt Marina City was covered in the New York Times, Washington Post and/or the Los Angeles Times but this information is all behind paywalls, and I am not inclined to buy a subscription to prove it.

The article is also notable because it was Universal Studios' first overseas project. It must be noted that Universal's second overseas project is notable enough for inclusion: Universal Studios Japan. However, that had the advantage of NBC/Universal's publicity machine in English. The 23 in-line citations provided in the references in the draft article are by any measure adequate, particularly for a Start-class or Stub-class article. As to the "major media reviews", the supplied references are perfectly acceptable sources within their respective spheres of coverage, and meet the tests of "reliable secondary sources".

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions state:

If this article were nominated for deletion at WP:AFD, would it be likely to survive?
Yes, it will probably be kept. Then ACCEPT it now. (You can tag non-deletion-worthy problems.)

I appreciate the fact that the AfC process is badly backlogged, and it is probably more convenient to reject new articles at a glance. However, this does a disservice both to Wikipedia and new contributors, particularly given the five-week turnaround. Oddjob84 (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response to points in sandbox

Now, in response to your points in your sandbox:
I'd agree that WP:NGEO is the applicable standard here, but also note that WP:GNG is a valid alternative standard.
I would disagree however that Wakayama Marina City is comparable to Kansai Airport. Kansai Airport falls under WP:NAIRPORT whereas Marina City falls under WP:NGEO. However, there are multiple subdivisions under NGEO, and I believe that it would fall under "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments". This tells us that the criteria for inclusion is "significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability". From the above, I am reluctant that the above sources explicitly show notability (in contrast to your claim that the supplied references...meet the tests of "reliable secondary sources" as not all them do as outlined above).
It is important to note however, that I am unable to examine offline sources. I also agree with the conclusion that more sources may arise in mainspace, and therefore I believe that we should assume good faith and assume that the offline sources do show significant coverage when combined with the existing sources. In line with this I have passed the article and left a copy of my comments on the talk page, and would advise that they are used to improve the references. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have started repairing the references per WP:CITE and your remarks. I will also drop in the images tomorrow, which may help as well. Oddjob84 (talk) 23:08, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2

15:28:36, 2 July 2017 review of submission by Dave Truesdale


I am new at this and don't understand what the reviewer, DrStrauss, has asked me to do. I am hoping someone can be very specific, hopefully with an example directly from the draft I can use as a template. DrStrauss has asked me to turn WP:EL into WP:CITE, but when I went to the WP:REFB page I just got more confused. Thank you. Dave TruesdaleDave Truesdale (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DaveTruesdale, your draft has a lot of external links and further reading items which is good but we tend to prefer inline citations. This can be done by using the citation toolbar in the editing interface as I see you have done with some other references. For example [10] on nuclear power could be turned into a citation using said toolbar like you have done with other references. You may want to have a look at WP:42 as your draft probably needs more references which are independent and reliable for it to pass. Thanks, DrStrauss talk 17:45, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DaveTruesdale. I would go even further than DrStrauss. I believe the best recommendation in this case would be to discard the external links section entirely. The draft uses the section to list Cohen's patents and papers. Wikipedia doesn't normally list either of those things for scientists (there have been exceptions in the past, but that's my sense of the current state of the art). Wikipedia does usually list any books a person wrote, but in a "Works" section above the references (see Isidor Isaac Rabi for an example). Although in principle any of the patents or papers could be used as references, they're primary sources. Primary sources are difficult to use correctly, and Wikipedia (in contrast to publishers of scholarly research) emphasizes the use of secondary sources.
After you get rid of the distraction of external links, focus on the much more important issue of sources. There's no one-size-fits all rule for how dense citations must be, but the draft doesn't have enough. The entire 1000 word biography section cites no sources, leaving the reader (and reviewer) wondering where on earth all that information came from. Contrast the draft with good article Harold Urey. After the lead (which is a summary of the article, so it generally doesn't need to cite sources - they're cited in the body) Urey generally has at least one citation per paragraph. Also remember that Wikipedia is mainly interested in what reliable sources have written about Cohen and his work, not what Cohen has written himself.
To give you a specific example of what WP:REFB is talking about with regard to references, I've improved two references in the draft, using cite newspaper/journal templates, to clearly show the reader where the information came from. There are templates for other media, such as {{cite book}} and {{cite web}}. I didn't tackle any of the other references because it wasn't clear exactly what they were supporting or whether the content was even suitable for an encyclopedia biography. (The Berlin Project seems considerably off-topic, for example). --Worldbruce (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

17:34:46, 2 July 2017 review of submission by Pri D


I have written an article on a leading publishing house from India (Leadstart Publishing). But it has been declined. Could you please help me and tell me why, and also what can I do better to get this approved? Thanks much.

Pri D (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pri D (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pri. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. I've taken a look at your submission and see that you have certainly verified the existence of the company, as well as it several imprints. However, Wikipedia articles about companies almost always require evidence of notability that goes far beyond merely proving that the company exists. And that's what your submission is missing. You've shown that there is a good deal of press coverage regarding some of the company's authors, but that isn't at all the same as demonstrating that the company itself has received substantial coverage from independent reliable sources. And when they're not addressing the authors, your sources tend to be either directory listings or press releases. In one case, it's an interview with a company officer. None of this adds up to the significant third-party coverage that we expect to see for a Wikipedia article about a company. I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:54, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello NewYorkActuary. Your response has shed good light on my draft and my question. Thank you so much for your detailed response. I shall see what I can do better with my draft and resubmit it. thanks again! Pri D (talk) 19:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 3

02:25:58, 3 July 2017 review of submission by Billyarberry

I would like the know the basis of the rejection of my article. I'm not questioning the decision in any way but I would like to know the defects of the submitted article so that I can better comply with expectations in the future. Best regards, Bill Yarberry


Billyarberry (talk) 02:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Billyarberry. User:Billyarberry/sandbox/3.0 World was declined because Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Topics of Wikipedia articles must have gained significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time. Wikipedia is not a dictionary either, and not the place to "get the word out" about anything, including a neologism. To understand what Wikipedia is, it may help to spend some time browsing the encyclopedia's best content. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

02:55:39, 3 July 2017 review of submission by RonBond007


RonBond007 (talk) 02:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why was my article on the potential Fourth Star Wars Trilogy declined? I had some good resources from other sites!

Hi RonBond007. User:RonBond007/sandbox/Star Wars Fourth Trilogy was declined for failing to cite reliable sources. Perhaps you meant the five external links to be references, but they're all dead, and, with the possible exception of Screen Rant, the websites do not exhibit the characteristics of reliable publishers. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:04, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

07:40:00, 3 July 2017 review of submission by Bellosaurus

I'm trying to work out why my draft for Cornerstone Christian School (Palmerston North, New Zealand) was denied: "This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability.". I recently started working at this growing school (my bias declared). It is one of eight schools that offer secondary education in this city, the other seven all have wikipedia pages. Two of the other schools (LAC and QEC) each have about half the school roll as this school, and have stationery rolls. Cornerstone is growing - so I struggle to see the 'notability' problem in terms of the school's size. You could argue that we are one of the youngest schools in the city, and so therefore have had fewer graduates than those other two...

My best guess is I didn't have enough references about this school. I have since added five more references. They are mostly news articles, specifically about this school and its growth. Are multiple news articles from New Zealand's biggest news agency (fairfax) sufficient to justify notability? Should I continue to add additional news articles, or start looking for other sources, like Ministry of Education, or printed sources. Is there a required number of references? Should I remove the link to the school's website from the references section (it is else where on the page, but seemed useful under references)?

Thanks for your help.

Bellosaurus (talk) 07:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, essentially Wikipedia's policy on the inclusion of schools has recently changed. It used to be the fact that any school, as long as it could be proven to exist was worthy of a Wikipedia article. Now all schools have to show they are notable- i.e. covered by newspapers, media reports etc., and existing schools are slowly being gone through to check that they comply with the new policy. I see that you have added new sources- hopefully a reviewer will be along soon to check the new sources. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:03, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hi Bellosaurus. What jcc said. The relevant notability guideline is WP:ORG. Being large, old, or growing does not demonstrate that a school is notable. Significant coverage in independent reliable sources is what proves that a school is notable. So you're on the right track by citing news coverage in the Manawatu Standard.
With regard to articles about other schools, bear in mind that Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. Rules and their enforcement change, so be wary of comparing articles. Furthermore, at any point in time there are high quality articles and poor quality articles. The existence of articles that don't meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines doesn't mean they belong, it could just mean that no one has gotten around to deleting them. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you learn from examples, be sure to use examples drawn from among Wikipedia's best work.
I'll leave more specific comments on the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:52:08, 3 July 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by WilHutton


Hi Wikipedia

I have edited a page on the AMAR Foundation to the point that it doesn't contain any adjectives and only states factual evidence. Nonetheless it keeps getting rejected whilst other pages for charities are more self-promoting and subjective. Please advise how I can get this page recognised and accepted.

WilHutton (talk) 13:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WilHutton: The bulk of any article should be based on arms-length, reliable sources. GulfNews, Middle East Eye, and BBC Radio 4 are such sources, but they contain only five sentences total about AMAR Foundation. The draft needs in-depth independent sources so that it doesn't depend so much on the publications of the organization and its partners. Follow the advice Chris Troutman gave in his comment on the draft.
Use the search links in the topmost big pink box on the draft to find more and better sources. For example, this snippet suggests that there may be a meaty article in a 2006 issue of New Statesman. To get the whole article and determine whether it is independent, visit a library (especially one at a good research university) or request the source at WP:RX. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:52, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

20:55:40, 3 July 2017 review of submission by RachelBBerry

Please point out which sections of the text have been deemed "promotional" in nature, so that I can remove them. We have included a number of citations from scientific journals and other external resources - I am not clear on what sections of the content are "promotional." RachelBBerry (talk) 20:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RachelBBerry and RickinBaltimore: The page has been deleted, so you'll have to ask an administrator. Try asking at User talk:RickinBaltimore, who deleted the draft (I've also pinged him so he can reply here). jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DrStrauss: The page was also tagged by DrStrauss for promotional content, which I agree with. The page, while describing the company, did so in a promotional vein. The sourcing was good I will say, however the page should have been written someone more neutrally. I'd like DrStrauss to add on as well, as he originally declined the draft. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:22, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed RiB's ping template, re-ping @DrStrauss:. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@RickinBaltimore and RachelBBerry: I've reviewed a large number of drafts recently and while I can't remember the exact phrases which were promotional but I think its tone was the main error but I can't see it now... DrStrauss talk 17:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

21:39:00, 3 July 2017 review of draft by Duncan R2


Hi - I am at the early stages of drafting this article and have a couple of questions

1. I would like to insert a contents table at the start. The previous articles just set them up automatically but this one doesn't seem to have one.

Bellosaurus (talk) 22:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC) Hi Duncan. Thanks for joining Wikipedia editors. I'm also a beginner, but noticed that the contents page only came automatically once I had 3 or 4 subheadings to go in it. Keep going with your article with another section or two, and it should appear.[reply]

2. There is already a "red link" article for this subject so do I need to do anything special when drafting or submitting it?

Thanks

Duncan R2

Duncan R2 (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Duncan R2: Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. The contents box is now there- it appears once the article has been expanded. There's nothing special about the fact that the article has already been linked to; once the article has been accepted, the 'red link' will turn into a blue link automatically. Keep going with the article- looks great so far. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 4

02:46:47, 4 July 2017 review of submission by Americanasaurus


Need someone with greater experience to assist me with Draft :Takao Sadashichi {Americanasaurus (talk) 02:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)} Americanasaurus (talk) 02:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: comments have been left on the draft. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

09:58:46, 4 July 2017 review of submission by RIC Marketing


Hi

I am a newbie and wanted assistance for a successful post on wiki , I am trying to publish a page named Dr Venkat Sumantran which is declined in the creation stage. could you please educate me on what all could be the reason for the decline so that moving forward i could improve my skills Thanks !RIC Marketing (talk) 09:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RIC Marketing (talk) 09:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of points here:
  1. Move your references inline- there should not just be a dump of links at the bottom. A guide that might help you is Wp:Referencing for beginners but essentially place <ref>URL HERE</ref> next to each claim in the article e.g. "He also acquired a Master’s degree in Management of Technology from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute."
  2. You also need to make the article read less like a CV- if you look at some good biography articles you'll note that one thing they all do is talk about their subject in a neutral manner- currently, your submission (and headings) read like something out of a CV. One tutorial that might help is WP:NPOV.
  3. As the reviewer pointed out (I haven't had time to check myself), you need to prove the subject's notability. All subjects on Wikipedia have to be fundamentally notable to get an article on Wikipedia. On the decline box on top of the article there's some helpful advice with a number of links showing how your subject can prove that they're notable. I shan't repeat the contents here fully but essentially what it boils down to is having a number of media reports or news coverage that talk about your subject in depth e.g. interviews.
I hope that helps. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:19:45, 4 July 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Arun G Nair



Arun G Nair (talk) 11:19, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


~~I need assistance from wikipedia team to make improvement about a wikipedia page which i have created~~

@Arun G Nair and TheSandDoctor: I presume what the reviewer meant was that some claims were not cited e.g. "Under the guidance of Ketan, Mahesh practiced tattooing for 6 years. After that he joined LS Raheja School of Arts, Bandra where he chose portraits as his area of specialization". I am not entirely sure though, so I have pinged TheSandDoctor who may be able to help further as they reviewed your article. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:00, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping Jcc. Arun G Nair JCC is correct. I have added some citation needed templates to the draft in areas that I feel could use citing. If you have any questions, please feel free to let me know. I will be monitoring this particular discussion periodically but a 'ping' (using {{ping|TheSandDoctor}} in your message) would be helpful to make sure that I see any responses sooner. Please also remember to sign your messages with ~~~~. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

13:30:38, 4 July 2017 review of submission by WorldH


Hi there, I know that there are many articles in the waiting line. I would kindly ask if someone could have a look on my article as it has some urgency. I do not know if there is a special procedure in case of urgency to ask for a faster revision process and would be grateful to know more about it. Thanks so much WorldH (talk) 13:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WorldH (talk) 13:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WorldH What urgency could there possibly be for an article about a village? Wikipedia has no deadlines. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

16:50:48, 4 July 2017 review of submission by REFinch

Thanks to Legacypac for the fast review response. Submission was not accepted because "it appears to be taken from http://www.scaht.org/organisation. Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere, unless it explicitly and verifiably has been released to the world under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license or into the public domain..." but http://www.scaht.org/organisation is in the public domain, isn't it? (also, I co-wrote it). What do I have to do - maybe change the wording slightly? REFinch (talk) 16:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC) REFinch (talk) 16:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

REFinchI'm afraid the www.scaht.org website content is not public domain. This is what the site says about their copyright:

Copyright © 2014 SCAHT. All Rights Reserved. Downloading or copying of texts, illustrations, photos or any other data does not entail any transfer of rights of the content. Copyright and any other rights relating to texts, illustrations, photos or any other data available on the SCAHT website are the exclusive property of the SCAHT or of any other expressly mentioned owners. Any reproduction requires the prior written consent of the copyright holder.[1]

You will need to reword it entirely, "slightly" will not do. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Impressum | SCAHT - Swiss Centre for Applied Human Toxicology". www.scaht.org.

Thanks Dodger67, this is more complicated than I thoughtREFinch (talk) 17:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 5

08:42:40, 5 July 2017 review of submission by REFinch

Reviewer Legacypac kindly told me yesterday that text on this page (Editing Draft:Swiss Centre for Applied Human Toxicology (SCAHT)) is copied from the SCAHT website, so is copyright violation, which is OK, although I also have other original non-copyright-violation text on the page. Today I was going to adapt the copy-paste text to address copyright violation, but the whole page including my original material has been deleted. Unfortunately I have no local backup, thinking that it would be available online. Is there any way I can get access to my text? REFinch (talk) 08:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac: Pinging Legacypac. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Request on 09:11:11, 5 July 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Rakeshgupta0708



RAKESH 09:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@Rakeshgupta0708: Your article has been declined (over and over) because it contains no content. If you would like to request that someone else write an article, try WP:Requested articles. Please do not resubmit unless you add content. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 03:12, 5 July 2017 for assistance

Juby

There is much rubbish printed about the origin of my genealogically rare surname. There are many references to it cited in the early State Papers such as Inquisitions Post Mortem and Calendars od Rolls, etc. Modern examples are held at the General Record Office.

My problem is that many papers are held privately in my family archives and which are not in the public domaine.

It has also been deemed that this is a personal plug and therefore disallowed. Quire frankly I am tired of reading the unadulterated rubbish written about my name and wish to correct it.

Put simply it is the name of the Norman family who were given three manors in Leicestershire by William the Conqueror and, in keeping with the times, took their surname from the largest of them.

Thus we were the de Houby family (now Hoby) phonetically changed to Juby soon after. Our coats of arms are in the church and were the Lords of the Manor. (I am its current Lord.) Sincerely

Bernard Juby

Anketil (talk) 11:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Anketil: Hi Anketil, the article you were working on has been deleted because you had not worked on it in six months, so unfortunately I am unable to see it and point out why the article was disallowed. If you follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/G13, then drop a note back here or on my talk page, I'll take a look. Best wishes, jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:51, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

16:39:05, 5 July 2017 review of submission by Nmmoore

I removed the ECAR website link from the page. Is that what was the problem when it said there were external draft in the draft, or is it something to do with the citations? Nmmoore (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nmmoore: Yes, that was it exactly. What I've done is clean up the article a bit, and a reviewer will hopefully be along soon to take another look. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nmmoore I have put the subject's website in a proper "External links" list. There is another problem - All of the references that cite a website must actually include a link to the cited page - the word "Web" is useless. Wikipedia is not a paper journal, so actual links are needed in references. That style is a "fossil" from academic journals before the journals themselves were published online. I've fixed the first referennce as an example you can follow. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:19, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

23:05:05, 5 July 2017 review of submission by SCBY


I want to shrink the trail logo without having to upload a new file. Can this be done? SCBY (talk) 23:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it can be done easily enough. I'd have done it myself, but there's another problem. That image can only be used with "fair use" justification, which only applies to accepted articles, not to drafts, and has been removed from the draft. Here is what I would recommend: Carry on working on your draft, but without the image. Once it has been accepted as an article, add the image. Then, if you haven't figured out how to resize it, ask for help at the Help desk or by messaging me. Maproom (talk) 07:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 6

00:03:50, 6 July 2017 review of submission by HeatherRBI


Hi, Thanks for your help on finding neutral tone. I have made as many changes as I can find that might lean to one direction or another without credible sources--a few changes since the recent decline. I want to get your advice before going through the submission process again. Is there anything specific I can do on this article that would remove any "promotional" tone? Do I need to go into detail about his company's bankruptcy to show more of the negative? In my research, it seems like he used to have a wikipedia page, but it was under his former name, and then was deleted by an editor whose account was deleted as a sock puppet. I appreciate your feedback in advance and hope to become a better writer! thank you :) HeatherRBI (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)HeatherRBI[reply]

Request on 03:29:25, 6 July 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Nickevgeniou


I was told, that this is not an adoption site. That was the same note as earlier, and I specified, the animal, in this case Kip Dynamite the hairless guinea pig, is not up for adoption.

Nickevgeniou (talk) 03:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 05:18:45, 6 July 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by BugMenn


I want this draft to become an article soon. Please help.


BugMenn (talk) 05:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

09:46:37, 6 July 2017 review of submission by Coxnix


I have added alot of resources and improved the article I am still not clear upon the claims that had the article declined at the first place. What is the essence of promotionalism that the reviewer talked about? I have checked through the sources and they are not press releases and published with reputed newspapers and journals. What is the criteria to consider something as "Press Release"?

10:32:58, 6 July 2017 review of submission by Divanova

Why was the article declined in the English Wikipedia? I translated and improved the German entry. Divanova (talk) 10:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Renate Kordon was rejected because, as it says in the rejection notice at the top, it has no lead section. English Wikipedia articles are required to have a lead section (which may be the entire article, or may summarise the rest of the article). Rules may be different in German Wikipedia. Maproom (talk) 11:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Divanova the simplest way to fix this problem is to remove the "Life and Work" section heading. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:46, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :-)

15:17:15, 6 July 2017 review of submission by Tonytea51


Hi, I have created an article in relation to the name Timmins. There is already an article with this title that refers to the City of Timmins in Ontario Canada, the founder of the city had the surname Timmins. Also there is an article title "Timmins (surname)" which seems to be just a list of people with the surname of Timmins. Due to existing Wikipedia entries I am seeking advice on what the title of my article should be called?

Thanks, Tony Timmins

Tonytea51 (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

16:21:19, 6 July 2017 review of submission by Ubaid1salfi

I have provided adequate reliable references for the above subjects notability. A person who saved people during riots, built a blood bank to serve humanity etc. has earned notability in my view although I tried providing relevant references. But still I found some newspaper cut outs on https://tajallieshahabblog.wordpress.com/in-news/ and I tried finding the archive of those relevant news articles on respective news paper website but that are not available but these news paper cut outs are available on the above mentioned website but I am not sure if that can be cited as a reference? your kind help will be highly appreciated. Thanks Ubaid1salfi (talk) 16:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=789304995"