Help desk
< May 27	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 29 >

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.

May 28

Review of Holisic versus Analytic Cognition page.

My article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Holistic versus Analytic Cognition was declined submission. It was suggested that I improve on notability and look at the golden rule. I have reliable resources from prestigious academic journals, so I don't think that is the issue. Holistic and analytic cognition is a significant topic in cultural psychology and social cognition, and while there are articles on Holism and Analytic, and even Analytic psychology, these are all distinct topics from my article. I would appreciate any advice as to what I should do. Thanks! Thisisjm (talk) 00:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)Thisisjm[reply]

While your draft has very good sources, there are more basic problems: It is more of an essay than an encyclopedia article. Some of the information contained therein may be used to expand articles such as holism or cultural psychology. Maybe a new article on analytic cognition might be written from parts of that draft, too. The draft itself, however, may be suitable for Wikibooks, but not for Wikipedia. Huon (talk) 15:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/"phat"

How long must an article be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.241.4.12 (talk) 01:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no set minimum article length. Stubs can be rather short. However, I'd say that less than two paragraphs will hardly be worth the effort of writing an article - after all, even short articles need reliable secondary sources to establish the subject's notability, and if such sources cover the subject in significant depth, why not write more than the bare minimum?

On an unrelated note, we already have an article on the term phat. The slang uses of your draft aren't mentioned yet, but if you find reliable sources for them (which might prove difficult), they could just be added to the existing article. Huon (talk) 02:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Venowave

In regards to my latest comment about the verifiability of my Venowave article for submission, I was wondering what I could do to make it more verifiable and less biased. All studies posted are reliable and it seems like its written in a neutral tone as the studies main takeaways were included in the article.

I would like this article up as soon as possible as I believe the device is an important innovation and could help the lives of many. Please help me with this.

Thanks,

PTShelp 14:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PTShelp (talk • contribs)

Sorry, PTShelp, but it reads like an promotional advertisement. Other problems are:

Your approval letter says you can market your device because it is basically identical to devices already on the market, unless you can prove(by citations) it is innovative.
The citations from tripod are obviously from your company.
Your user name indicates WP:COI, that is why I use the pronoun 'your'.

:- ) Don 16:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the prompt response.

1) The article references patents towards wave compression technology that mimics your own bodies circulatory rhythm. There is no product out there that does this, as followers use vibrations, electricity or invasive measures to stimulate blood flow which is not nearly as effective as the Venowave's patented innovative technology
2) I will admit that I occasionally help out with projects for the company, I am not an employee however. The clinical studies from the leading North American University (McMaster) in venous disorders, and I took the key takeaways from all the studies ever done on the Venowave, remaining as impartial and unbiased as possible.

Having said this, can you please give the article another read through or provide me with an answer to adjust the article if need be to fit the sites criteria.

Thanks,

PTShelp 20:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PTShelp (talk • contribs)

Review of User:Toupicus/Beder Lorand

Blanked and put up for speedy deletion as an attack page. Nothing to see here. Huon (talk) 20:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]