Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2012 June 25

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Help desk
< June 24 << May | June | Jul >> June 26 >
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.

June 25[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Fishes of Family Ophiocephalidae: This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources.[edit]


I am new to this wiki submission. can any one help me to publish my content in wiki

I have submitted my article in wiki and its reviewed and got a message "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources".

How to resolve this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunila kumari (talkcontribs) 05:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles need to be based on reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the subject. This is so our readers can verify the article's content. In this case, you might find biology textbooks or scholarly articles discussing the fish family. You already mention Kris Etherton et. al., 2003, and several others, but provide too little bibliographical information to allow identification of those works; we'd need titles and presumably the journals they are published in. As an aside, you should use footnotes as the standard format for inline citations, and you might want to have a look at the {{cite journal}} template, though that's only a style issue.
There are a few other issues. Firstly, we already have an article on Channa. For all I can tell, that's the same family. In that case, we shouldn't create a second article; please consider improving the one we already have. Secondly, major parts of your article seem rather off-topic, for example the discussion of the cultural history of fish in general. If the Ramayana and Mahabharata do not mention Ophiocephalidae specifically, they don't belong in an article on Ophiocephalidae. Huon (talk) 09:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/All's Well and Fair (2)[edit]

I hope the references are sufficient to prove that this is a real documentary film. If not please tell me what other evidence I should provide. --Madaccountant (talk) 08:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires sources not just to show that something exists, but also to show that it's notable. This requires significant coverage in reliable sources. I don't think your references satisfy this latter requirement; they look more like blogs, and I believe most, if not all, of them do not have editorial oversight or something similar. The Gainesville Iguana seems the best in that regard, but it's just local coverage for a demographic similar to that covered in the documentary. My suggestion would be to find more newspaper coverage or film reviews published in sources known for fact-checking and accuracy.
As an aside, you should use footnotes to allow our readers to verify which reference supports which part of the article. Huon (talk) 09:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Halfin-whitt regime[edit]

How can I just transfer my submission so that someone else will be able to improve it? For myself I am not familiar with the required tools, do not have time to learn them, and also a bit tired of the negotiation. I know enough that this is an important topic that would certainly improve Wikipedia but I feel that I have spent enough time on it and did my share.Shuroo (talk) 10:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Right now other people are able to improve the submission; unfortunately it's not particularly likely they will find the draft unless they directly search for it. I don't think there's a way to increase the draft's visibility; the article incubator is only meant for articles that were deleted in the mainspace, not for drafts. Huon (talk) 15:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Please let me know why the mentioned sources are not considered reliable. SriMudhraalaya (talk) 12:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

As I said the last time,, and are primary sources. The article in The Hindu and the Centre for Cultural Resources and Training website are reliable secondary sources, but have very, very little to say about Ramaswamy - hardly the significant coverage we require to establish her notability. I don't know about the Carnatic Darbar interview; that may be reliable depending on whether it's a newspaper or just a couple's personal website and blog - it's hard to tell.
The reviewer also noted some problems that don't directly involve your sources' reliability: The draft is prone to use peacock terms such as "legendary" and reads like a vanity piece. You should use footnotes to clarify which reference supports which of the article's statements, and major parts are not supported by any secondary sources whatsoever - her teachers, for example, or her performance for the Sri Lankan parliament.
You might also want to re-sort your "references" and "external links". Primary sources such as her organizations' websites are unsuitable as references, but may serve as external links. The The Hindu article which is currently just an external link should definitely be used to reference parts of the article - it's the most in-depth secondary source we have. Huon (talk) 15:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Questions about an article decline[edit]


I'm new to editing/creating articles here. I submitted an article for Win Blevins Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Win Blevins that was declined because "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources."

I researched Wiki's citation policies before I posted. I have many .org, encyclopedia, newspaper articles, university webpages, book publisher articles, and even Wikipedia references. I want to comply with the guidelines for "reliable sources" but I'm not sure exactly what to change about my article to do that. As far as I could tell, there was nothing specific that was pointed out as unreliable. The only thing I can think of is that there is a list of books that this author put out, that I did not site references for, but when I looked up other authors, their book lists didn't include any either, so I thought it was not required.

Thank you in advance for your time.

Jen Elsner (talk) 15:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Jen, some of the references you give are not reliable sources or not independent of the subject:
  • Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source for other Wikipedia articles.
  • The Forge reader guide seems to be from Blevins' own publisher, who obviously tends to be biased in Blevins' favor - if he were an incompetent hack, the publisher wouldn't say so.
  • Other sources include a blog and a high school student's essay, neither of which has the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy required to be considered a reliable source.
  • His college's "visiting professor" biography is once again a primary source, as is the Authors' Guild website on its members.
  • I'm not sure either way about the WritingRaw interview - if that's indeed a literary journal, it would be reliable source; on the other hand, it may just be a "literary sharing website", which would mean that interviews it conducts probably do not count as reliable secondary sources. Since the interview questions in no way seem specific to Blevins, I tend to the latter opinion (we should probably consider it a primary source since in effect it's Blevins' self-portrayal).
  • That leaves us with, ipl2 and the Akron-Summit County Public Library. Those look like reliable secondary sources to me, but unfortunately the Library website doesn't actually support the statement it's cited for - it only mentions one of Blevins' two Spur awards.
My suggestion would be to look for newspaper coverage. An author with multiple awards and a decades-long career is almost guaranteed to have been the subject of such coverage, either on the occasion of those awards or maybe in connection with a published book review. If we're lucky, he may even have received some coverage in textbooks on contemporary Western fiction.
In summary, I have no doubts that Blevins is notable enough for an article, and now it's just a matter of basing the article on sufficiently many sufficiently reliable sources. They surely exist, but we should find a few more. Huon (talk) 15:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant page still not accepted[edit]


I was wondering why, with several links to Federal sources and external sources on the article, our submission was still rejected while the Wisconsin Sea Grant page (, with virtually no information, is published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J brown99 (talkcontribs) 15:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

As the reviewers said, several of the sources you provide are primary sources, for example the website of the University of Illinois describing its own program. Several others, especially the "Federal" sources, do not even mention the Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant. I don't think those references show that significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject exists; therefore, the Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant does not appear to be notable.
The Wisconsin Sea Grant does not appear to be notable either, and that article is already tagged for exactly the same problems shown by your draft. Other articles on non-notable topics may exist, but that's no reason to create more. Huon (talk) 18:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/FlexWage Solutions[edit]

My submission was declined a second time for the following reason: "This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article." I could use some help getting this article to sound more neutral. KLPrescott (talk) 22:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe to parts might be seen as problematic: Firstly, for the congressional hearing, we should directly attribute the phrase "reasonable terms and conditions" to Manturuk - it's her opinion, not the conclusion of the committee. Secondly, the "How it works" section is clearly not formal, starting with the title. How about "Business model" or something like that? The section itself reads more like a how-to guide for customers than encyclopedic coverage. For example, WageBank is actually not a bank and does not give loans, but funnels money from the employers to the employees, giving the latter a debit card in the process, with the employers setting some conditions on this funneling. Those details appear more relevant to the company than the exact height of their fees or the details of how customers can request access to these advance payments.
I also had some problems with the CFSI source: Firstly, it's basically an advertisement for a CFSI-sponsored conference. Secondly and more importantly, it doesn't say what it's cited for: It doesn't even mention the middle class. Huon (talk) 23:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Could I please get more info on why this page was not approved? The reviewer cited that I need more sources. I dont get it. Every source I posted has all of the information that I put in there. I am an original member of this band so, I know that the information on the source sites are correct. What do I need to provide? We are not a national band so I cannot point to an official "Music Label" site. Instead I linked to my bands website along with multiple sites that contain information on my band.



-Gorified (talk) 23:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

What you need to provide to establish the band's notability is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The band's website clearly is not independent, and the other sources provide only trivial coverage. A music label is not necessary (though per WP:MUSIC it is an indication of notability); newspaper articles or published reviews are what we're after.
You might also want to read our guideline on conflicts of interest. Writing about your own band is discouraged. Huon (talk) 00:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Huon: Thank you for the clarification! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorified (talkcontribs) 00:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)