Help desk
< July 30	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	August 1 >

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 31

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Original 13th Amendment

Hi:

I tried to submit an article on the Original 13th Amendment with new and material evidence that is not reflected anywhere in Wikipedia, but was told it duplicates other content. I had previously tried to modify the Titles of Nobility article but it would not reflect the new content. My article is based on official government documents, many of which are under the seal of the National Archives and Records Administration. I don't think it right to not allow me to post my article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.2.24 (talk) 05:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You don't need to repost articles here - it's not the right place. I can't easily tell what edits you made in the existing article, because you aren't using an account - click here to see the benefits of doing so. I'm not sure of the reliability of the references of the article, so I can't easily make a judgement call on whether or not the decline was correct. I'm not sure what the procedure is for citing NARA documents, but an equivalent procedure for The National Archives in the UK is to list the document number, title and reference number in the TNA online catalogue. Without this, it's hard to verify the source material. --Ritchie333 (talk) 09:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

English word for the given tamil word

Give me the apt english word for "Kaneer anjali" which is mean by praying for the dead people — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.243.39.212 (talk) 05:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't think Wikipedia is the right place for your request. Try clicking here to see translation requests on our sister project, Wiktionary, which may be of more use. --Ritchie333 (talk) 09:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1aloak/ review umra narayan

will my article be published? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.203.246.83 (talk) 07:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Umra Narayan. That draft will currently not be published because it does not cite any reliable sources such as newspaper articles or textbooks on architecture, local history or religion. Significant coverage in such sources is necessary both to establish the temple's notability and to allow our readers to verify the article's content. You can improve the draft and then re-submit it for review by following the instructios in the "decline" message. Huon (talk) 12:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Andrea Schweinberger/Caligola

Question: When I change the article in the Edit section and then go back to the Read section, parts of the article won´t show. How can I change that/what is my mistake? Andrea Schweinberger (talk) 11:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have some invalid tags in your article. Each "<ref>" tag must be followed by a closing "</ref>" tag. Your article has several tags that should have the initial slash ("/"), but don't, which makes the page display incorrectly. --Ritchie333 (talk) 11:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Medullary Thyroid Carinoma Cancer

Please can anyone help me with some information; Is Medullary Thyroid Carinoma Cancer curable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.203.9.162 (talk) 12:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This question isn't really in the remit of Wikipedia. You might have more success with a related project Wikianswers instead. Hope that's of use. --Ritchie333 (talk) 12:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article accepted but not created...

Hi,I recetly submitted an article on footballer Thomas Eisfeld for creation however it has not yet been created despite being accepted by fellow user Topher385. So my question to you is 'Do you know when it will be created?' Thanks in advance, Goner 16 (talk) 13:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)Goner 16 Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Thomas Eisfeld[reply]

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. Looks like the article was created as Thomas Eisfeld, but then deleted with reason "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion". The February 2012 deletion discussion of the article is at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Eisfeld. The reviewer has started a discussion with the deleting administrator, see User talk:GiantSnowman#Thomas Eisfeld. Hope that helps. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 14:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Summa Metaphysica (2)

Hello, I submitted an article "Summa Metaphysica." Upon submission, at first it shows only the word "Summa Metaphysica" without entire body of the article, so I thought I might have done something wrong there. So I submitted again and this time I saw the article. However, today I received a message stating I sent a duplicate article. I doubt the other article is being reviewed because I didn't see the article myself when I submit. Can you please check? Today I edited my article from the second submission and I'm not sure whether it will go through. I did some slight changes i.e. italic and fixes on the link of the reference. Please have a look at the article and let me know the next step. Thank you very much for your kind assistance :) DavidBirnbaum (talk) 14:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David,

The first article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Summa Metaphysica has been repaired. Every <ref> must be followed by a </ref>. Let me know here or on my talk page what you would like to do now? You may work on either article, but let me know which one you would like to have deleted. -- :- ) Don 15:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also your talk page had a redirect to the article. I have fixed that. -- :- ) Don 15:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Vision Capital

Hi, I work for Vision Capital and would like to re-engage with its editors to understand why this article was declined and what I can do to get it accepted. I am happy to return to the original article and include further citations if Wikipedia think this would be helpful. I would appreciate some advice on this before I start editing. best wishes, Julia van Tuyll Vision Capital — Preceding unsigned comment added by Visioncapital (talk • contribs) 16:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are several issues. First of all, you might want to have a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest - writing an article about your company is discouraged. In fact, even your username seems to be in violation of our username policy because it's the name of a corporation. Since this was your first edit, it's probably easiest to just abandon this account and to create a new one with an acceptable name.

That said, the article was last reviewed in March when it didn't yet have inline citations. Apparently User:Vision capital admin tried to resubmit it in April but just signed it - I'm not sure what exactly went wrong, but since that time it hasn't been reviewed again.

While there are sufficiently many reliable sources covering Vision Capital in detail to establish the company's notability, there are multiple other references that are dubious or primary sources: A press release, a guest piece by Vision Capital's founder, one shortened duplicate of another source we also cite. One gave me a 404 error; maybe the Wayback Machine can help with that one. Some were hidden behind various registration processes. A few others only mentioned Vision Capital in passing while covering something else. We should emphasize the best sources and get rid of the less reliable or harder-to-access ones (in the latter case, we can keep them if they make an important point, but if they're just there to replicate what a freely accessible, equally reliable source says, we can just as well get rid of them). For example, one of the sources gave Vision Capital's base as London and covered in some detail its expansion into the US - that's currently not mentioned in our draft at all. We also don't mention what I'd consider a defining feature: That they acquire "unwanted" companies in bulk. The sources allow us to expand the draft and add significant details; we should do so. Huon (talk) 17:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gliadel Wafer

I would like to make the "overview section" the lead into the article. How do I do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdavis39 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just delete ==Overview== then you have your lead.

Done -- :- ) Don 21:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mel Schwartz

I'm not sure why this article was rejected. Was the problem that the references weren't credible enough (because I included quite a few from reputable sources), or that the expert wasn't deemed notable enough? If the it's the latter, that seems like a qualitative call based on the opinion of one person. If that's the case, what more can I do?

Thank you for your feedback,

Jesseschwartz7 (talk) 20:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)Jesse[reply]

I don't have a clue why it was not approved, but yes there is a wide range in the concept of notability in our reviewers, one reason to come here. It seems like there could be a lot more added to the article, which can come with time, but notability does not seem to be a problem. Your references seem perfectly fine to me. Better than most. Look for your article in a little bit. -- :- ) Don 21:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help, Don. This is my first article submission, and I spent a considerable amount of time trying to adhere to the guidelines. I believe the article by Kathleen Moore (http://www.rochesterhealthyliving.com/past_issues/RHL_Nov2008.pdf on p.13) objectively encapsulates Mel's unique - and notable - approach to relationships, thought, and psychotherapy very well. Moreover, does this hyperlink to an interview on CBS Morning News (http://www.cbs.com/video/video.php?pid=bYQ51ZudimeCCgQwA1aNPwjpns6Rom9v) lend credibility to Mel's page? I'd like to include it somehow, but I'm unsure of how to integrate video as a means of reference.

Thank you,

Jesseschwartz7 (talk) 22:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)jesseschwartz7[reply]

I don't think that interview is a useful source on Schwartz. It tells us much about marriage problems in times of economic crisis, but very little about Schwartz. Furthermore, it's Schwartz himself explaining his approach, so it would probably have to be considered a primary source. If you find there's content in that video that would make a valuable addition to our article, citing it is the easiest part; I'll do it here so you can copy and paste the wikicode:

"Tough Times Add Stress To Marriages". CBS News. April 20, 2009.

If you know the original air date, that would be a useful addition. Huon (talk) 01:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The original air date was April 20, 2009. Jesseschwartz7 (talk) 20:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)Jesseschwartz7[reply]

I've added a "date=" parameter to the example citation template above. As I said, citing the interview is the easy part, but I don't see what it tells us about Schwartz that it's worth citing for. Huon (talk) 20:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Thanks, Huon. Jesseschwartz7 (talk) 00:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)Jesseschwartz7[reply]

References

Hi, what is the difference between a reference and an external link? I am trying to update a new page and add references such as newpaper articles and don't know how to list them. Thanks for the help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giovanni50 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Every link to a website outside Wikipedia is an "external link". A link to the company's website would be an example; WP:External links explains the details.

A reference is a source on which part of the article is based, in your case the newspaper articles. While references are often accompanied by an external link to the source, that need not be the case (for example if the article refers to a book or a newspaper which isn't available online). Conversely, not every external link makes a good reference - the company website would be a primary source, not independent, and many other websites one could link to are not reliable. References should usually be made explicit via footnotes; I believe you already did so. There are also citation templates such as {{cite news}} and {{cite web}} which take a bunch of parameters, such as the source's title, the URL (if the source has an URL), the author's last and first name, the publication, the date and so on, and automatically produce a well-formatted entry for a reference list. They are best used in combination with the <ref></ref> tags. While they look neat, using them isn't mandatory, and if you just add enough bibliographical information to the article to allow us to identify the source, someone else will probably add the templates. Huon (talk) 21:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]