Help desk
< July 15	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 17 >

Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

July 16[edit]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Markes International[edit]

In trying to set up an article on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Markes International, I have come up against the problem of notability - although the company is mentioned in various reliable sources, there have not been articles in major national newspapers or other popular worldwide media, which seems to preclude this topic from inclusion. However, thermal desorption and gas chromatography rarely get mention outside academic journals or specialist trade magazines anyway, so the guidelines seem to make it very difficult or impossible to create entries on companies in this field, and perhaps scientific instrument manufacturers in general.

Is that a reasonable assessment? If so, would the same logic also apply other specialist technology companies of similar standing (which I naively thought might provide a model for how to do it)? For examples, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LECO - no third-party referencing at all
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruker - no third-party referencing at all
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shimadzu – one of the references is a broken link, and 2 of the other 3 link to their website. The only third-party reference provides no evidence of notability
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waters_Corporation – the claim to notability seems to rest on 2 articles in trade magazines, an article in "Chemical Heritage" written by a member of staff, and a few paragraphs from a press release to "The Hindu Business Line".

What is it about these topics that makes them notable? Have I missed something?

Thanks for your advice! Djb20120710 (talk) 10:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out the problems with the other articles. Hopefully someone will address them in the near future. As for your own draft article, in actuality the news article in the Western Mail is very good, in a reputable regional news source and talks about Markes International in some depth. The remainder seem to be either primary sources, or sources that don't talk about Markes International. I'd suggest you flesh-out your article using the facts in the WM news source and try and find at least one other example of relaible, independent news coverage about Markes International. In my view that would satisfy Wikipedia's minimum requirements. Best of luck! Sionk (talk) 12:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider an academic journal or trade magazine a reliable and independent third source, as long as it is not a press release or advertisement. IMHO, these articles are usually more WP:NPOV :- ) Don 13:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ALISON[edit]

Hi,

I would just like to know how I can improve the article I submitted Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/ALISON?

The reviewer states it 'reads more like an advertisement'. If there are any tips on the language I should change in the article, I would be grateful.

I do plan to split it up into sections as well.

Also, is there an issue with the references?

Thanks. Sprout2112 Sprout2112 (talk) 10:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your language is fine. I think your references are all good. I think the problem is that every sentence with the exception of the third sounds or is promotional. You need to add some factual stuff, like:

How many employees?
What are it's annual sales?
What else has Mike Feerick done?
For what are the certificates used?
How many people have taken courses?

Of course much of this could be considered promotional also, so wording is important. If you can find some bad press, then you have no problem. Good Luck. :- ) Don 13:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first two sources are opinion pieces, and those are usually considered less reliable than articles with full editorial oversight. In Don's vein, I'd also like to see some information on the scope of courses offered and on whether or not the certificates come with some sort of accreditation. Huon (talk) 14:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Sprout2112 (talk) 15:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

van Heyningen and Haward Architects[edit]

Hi, I recently created an article for van Heyningen and Haward Architects but during review the title has been changed to Van with a capital V. I don't seem to be able to edit the title of the page so could someone do this please? I know auto-correct puts the v as a capital as it starts the sentence but it is incorrect. Thanks Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/van Heyningen and Haward Architects VHH2012 (talk) 13:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For technical reasons all Wikipedia article titles start with a capital letter, but there's a workaround that displays it as lowercase. I've added that workaround to the article. Huon (talk) 14:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Nasarnss666/sandbox[edit]

hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nasarnss666 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, do you have a question? Huon (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia:Sandbox[edit]

Moved to User:72.45.201.66

:- ) Don 19:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tim Woolcock[edit]

Hi, can please you take a look at my references and tell me if this is enough?

Thanks

Guy Fellowpacker (talk) 19:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guy. Art books and art shows do not necessarily show notability. The London Times article is a good reference. The other 4 not necessarily. It would be good to have another reference like the London Times. Also since this is a WP:BLP, it is best(required) that the citations be inline. You can find instructions and additional help on how that is done at WP:CITE. Thanks for you efforts. :- ) Don 20:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kim Annette Robertson[edit]

I do not know how to format the Personal Best times for this new article. Please refer to an example in Wikipedia on Raelene Boyle - I would like to format Kim Robertson's article in the same way. Also the personal information after the personal bests should be in a box on the right hand side of the article - like Boyles. Deborah Mendel Locke Historian

They are called Infoboxes. I have added Template:Infobox sportsperson to your article you will have to fill in the blanks. The instructions on how to fill in the template can be found at Template:Infobox sportsperson. All infoboxes are stored in the Template name space. To search, simply add Template: to the name of a template for which you may be searching. You can edit the other article to see how that person filled it as an example. There are other templates inside of the infobox. They work the same way search for example Template:Medalgold. Copy and paste the template information into your article where you need it to appear and fill in the data. Come back here if you have any problems. Good luck. :- ) Don 19:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to submit an articlle for possible publication in the Wikipedia[edit]

During the past hour or so I have done my best in trying to submit an article. I don't know if it is lost in cyberspace or has been successfully received.

The feedback I received on my first try suggested that part of my submission had been received. The feedback I received on my second try indicated that I had indeed submitted an article, ... but it was not at all clear what would become of the article.

David Moursund — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmoursund (talk • contribs) 21:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft is at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David Moursund. It will sit there until you submit it for review; the "Article not currently submitted for review" message box at the top of the draft explains how to do so. Before you do so, the draft should get some more references; two of those you have are primary sources (Moursund's own resumé and his organization's website), the other two only provide trivial coverage. I believe the Maths Genealogy Project is also user-submitted content; in that case it probably wouldn't be considered reliable.

On a more basic level, the draft currently seems rather disconnected. Why is the amount of coursework required of University of Oregon students in the 1970s relevant to Moursund? What's the connection between white-collar workers outnumbering blue-collar workers in 1956 and Moursund founding IAE in 2007? If no reliable source connects those events, neither should we.

If, as your username suggests, you are David Moursund, you might also want to read our guideline on conflicts of interest; writing an autobiography is strongly discouraged. Huon (talk) 22:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]