Help desk
< May 29	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 31 >

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 30

Child competitions?

hi do you have children competition?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.121.31.95 (talk) 00:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you mean, but I doubt Wikipedia has it. Maybe we have an article on the topic. Huon (talk) 00:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Advancement of Civil War Weapons

I have been informed via the live help chat (by Sp33dyphil, if you need to know) that my article submission needs work- while I understand his point (I do understand) I am not sure which steps to take to finish the product. Would really appreciate any help available. Xavotron (talk) 05:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Advancement_of_Civil_War_Weapons

Xavotron, you have a very good start for your article; well done! There are a few comments I can make that might help with the review process. First, there is already an article on Wikipedia called List of weapons in the American Civil War that may be better suited for the information in your article. I don't mean to demean your article, since it does contain a lot of information that is not in the current article, but you may be able to contribute the information in your article to the List and add sections into the types of weapons for Change or Advancement in the weaponry. This will help to keep Wikipedia more organized, and you could then turn your Advancement of Civil War Weapons page into a redirect for your section(s) in the List of weapons in the American Civil War page. Another thing I noticed was that your page title mentions the Civil War, but not which one. It is commonly assumed in America that the Civil War is the American Civil War, but there are many others and it could be confusing to a searcher. Also, you make a reference to your own article in the header to explain what the article is about and you don't need to do that. I'm going to modify the line to be a bit more encyclopedia style while still keeping that the article pertains only to the American Civil War. Finally, you placed your sources in the External links section and they would be better suited for the References section to show that your information came from those sources. In conjunction with this, it would be helpful to readers and reviewers to add inline citations into your article, particularly with obscure or little-known information so that it can easily be validified. I know I wrote a lot here but you've got a really good start as it is right now and depending on whether the reviewer sees the similarity between your article and the list article as close enough to combine the two, you have a very good chance of passing review as is. Patrick Bradshaw (talk) 13:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This draft should be moved to WT:Articles for creation/Advancement of American Civil War Weapons or WT:Articles for creation/Weapons development during the American Civil War (IMHO this is a much better title). Roger (talk) 14:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Philippine Society for Cosmetic Surgery

Dear Sir,

I submitted an article about Philippine Society for Cosmetic Surgery. The article was declined because of sources I placed which was the website of the society and the website of the Philippine Medical Association, a government website. I would like to ask for some info in regard to references so I can re submit it for review. The article is not for any means advertisement but for information about the Philippine Society for Cosmetic Surgery and its history.

Thank you

Raynald Torres, MD Pscs.1972 (talk) 13:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Torres, thank you for your submission to Wikipedia:Articles for creation! The reason your sources were considered unreliable is because they were not secondary sources. When writing an article about the Philippine Society for Cosmetic Surgery, you should try to stay away from the society's own published material because the society has a given conflict of interest and will have a bias toward itself. Instead, use secondary sources like news articles or third-party, trusted reviews to show the notability and validity of your information. Also, you said that your article is not an advertisement and while that may be your intention, it still reads like an advertisement. Lines like "the Philippine Society for cosmetic surgery has continued to uphold its vision to safeguard the public with trained and competent cosmetic surgeons. It is the pioneer of cosmetic surgery in the Philippines" have no place in an encyclopedia because of their tone. Saying that it safeguards the public, has trained and competent surgeons, and is a pioneer are all opinions and have a severe bias toward the society. Please just stick to the facts and only say the reason you believe these things without stating your opinions. For example, you could talk about the requirements that the surgeons must meet to join the society and any major developments of the society (described in a factual tone), which would show only the facts behind the pioneer and competent surgeon view without giving a bias toward the society. Patrick Bradshaw (talk) 13:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Patrick,

Thanks for the info and the tips. I'll do the editing of the contents to sound more objective which I did not see when I was editing. I got confused on what secondary sources are but I now got what you are saying. We had published articles before in newspapers and I'll put them as secondary sources and resubmit the article for review again. Thanks for the help.

Dr Torres — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pscs.1972 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Principiis Obsta

I am confused about the submission process and how one is notified whether it is accepted/rejected/modifications requested? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephhenryvogel (talk • contribs) 13:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph, you should receive an email notifying you when you article is accepted or rejected; if major modifications are requested, then the article will be rejected and the thing that the reviewer wants modified will be cited as the reason for rejection. If only minor modifications are needed, then the reviewer will modify the article him/herself and then accept it. I took a brief look at your page and noticed that the citations were formatted without hyperlinks, so I went ahead and put them in the traditional Wikipedia style. Patrick Bradshaw (talk) 14:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/H. J. High Construction

I first wrote my article in early May. A reviewer rejected it because it was considered to be too promotional in language, and there were problems with the way I submitted my references. I went back, revised the article and reference formatting, resubmitted the article on May 25 ... and received a second rejection notice. I went back to revise the article again, expecting to see my most recent version on the page—but instead, I found the ORIGINAL version of my article, and not the revised version I submitted on May 25. How did this happen? How can I find the most recent version of my article, so I can continue with my revisions?

Thank you,

Dan McD D102653A (talk) 14:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dan, I looked at the revision history of your article and it appears that the only modifications you made on May 25 were formatting issues (references, headings, bullets, etc.) and then you added one award/honor. If you made a revision after that minor one, then perhaps you forgot to save or Wikipedia encountered an error while saving. Unfortunately, I do not believe that there is a way to revert to the revisions that didn't save because they are not online. You will most likely have to make the revisions again. If anybody else more versed in Wikipedia reads this and knows of some other solution, please post it here! However, I don't believe that there's anything we can do. Sorry! Patrick Bradshaw (talk) 14:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Patrick, for your response and explanation. I'm pretty sure I clicked the "Save Page" button to save my entire revision—the revised article, everything— but ... maybe I didn't. Anyway, I will revise the article again.

Dan McD — Preceding unsigned comment added by D102653A (talk • contribs) 16:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've double checked, the edit Dan made on the 25th May was this one to resubmit the submission for review. Not sure what happened but it would appear you never saved your work. Pol430 talk to me 22:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/George Cheyne Shattuck

The first review incorrectly stated that this person has an article on Wikipedia.

PLEASE NOTE THE SPECIFIC BIOGRAPHIC INFORMATION WHICH IS DIFFERENT FROM THE EXISTING WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE THAT IS ABOUT A DIFFERENT PERSON — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.14.181.237 (talk) 15:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That seems correct, but unfortunately your draft has another problem: You have not shown that there is significant coverage of Shattuck in reliable secondary sources. One source doesn't even mention Shattuck, the school website about its own history is a primary source, blogs are not reliable, and the various genealogy websites do not provide significant coverage. Without such coverage, Shattuck is presumed not to be notable enough for an article. As a dean of Harvard Medical School Shattuck should be notable, but we still need the coverage to prove it. Huon (talk) 16:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Project Monitor

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Project Monitor

Latest update / review : I'm sorry, this comment is the same as the first one... "reads like an advertisement"... Content is similar to existing articles on comparable software solutions, for example : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sciforma_PSNext

I'm not sure what to do now. Thank you for any comments and help.

Tony Bocock

Tbocock (talk) 17:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion would be to find more reliable secondary sources discussing the company (such as newspaper articles or independet reviews of their products published by someone with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy) and to make the article reflect what the secondary sources say. Phrases such as "The solution offers collaborative functionalities [...]" sound like marketingspeak and should be reworded in a more neutral tone. Furthermore, currently the main body of text is not supported by references; improving that would be a side benefit. Huon (talk) 19:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection of article 'Thick Disc'

Hi, my article was declined a few days ago. I changed it with the help from another editor and re-submitted it and told the editor who rejected it if he could stop by but he hasn't had the time. If someone could stop by to see if it's now suitable for its inclusion in WP, that'd be great. Here is the article: Thick disk Cheers. Gaba p (talk) 19:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a severe backlog; please be patient. The article will soon be reviewed again. To me it looks good, though. Huon (talk) 20:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources?

My article-for-submission was rejected due to "lack of reliable sources". I don't understand - many of the 15 sources I cited are independant company websites of music publishers, record labels, music review journals. The article draft in question is

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Matthew Cameron

The link to the page is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Matthew_Cameron

Can someone please give me specific examples of why these are not reliable sources? I don't know how they could be more reliable.

Thank you!68.194.247.229 (talk) 19:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article was rejected because of the way we determine whether or not a subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The General Notability Guidlines require "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" in order to establish sufficient notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. Looking at the sources in your article, tthey appear to be either Youtube videos (which are not considered reliable) and sites selling Matthew's products (which are not considered independent. More specific information about reliable sources is available here. Millermk90 (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cenikor Foundation

I have added a history section to the article I am writing and half of it is missing. When I go in to edit it is there but when I view it it seems to only pick up half of the info. Can someone help me out with this?. Also would like to see if I have more sources and the article is neutral enough to get approved? I'd like to try to get this reviewed and posted soon. Egoins48 (talk) 19:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Egoins48. Unfortunately I don't have time right now to help you with your sourcing (I didn't get a chance to check what the sources were), but I fixed your references and added a reference section to your article. The second half of your references were closed with a ref/ tag instead of a /ref tag and you had no reflist or References section. Patrick Bradshaw (talk) 20:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick thank you for fixing my sourcing and the references section. I appreciate the help. I probably would have never caught the ref/ tag. Egoins48 (talk) 03:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Phyllis Zagano

Can you help me get back to the refToolbar--I inserted things incorrectly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmyles (talk • contribs) 20:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert on the RefToolbar, but I doubt you can use it to modify citations once they have been added. You can edit the article manually, though, and fix whatever went wrong. In particular, your citations seem to be missing titles; you can add those by changing "{{cite web|url=..." into "{{cite web|title=Website title|url=..." (substituting "Website title" by the website's title, of course). For a full list of the citation template's parameters and their use, see Template:Cite web. Huon (talk) 20:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I find instructions on adding photos to my article?98.226.30.173 (talk) 21:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So far nobody ast Wiki has been able to pinpoint what is objectionable for the latest page that had been rewritten again.

Can someone plese point out exactly what is so offensive or unusable to me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.134.104.188 (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can upload an image via Special:Upload; more detailed help is available at WP:Uploading images. Please note that in order to upload images you must be logged in, and the account must be four days old with at least ten edits. Wikipedia's policy on non-free content requires that non-free images be used in at least one article (and drafts do not count); if the image is not free, uploading should wait until the article has been accepted. Otherwise the image will likely be deleted on copyright grounds. If the photo is one you took yourself and you are willing to release it under a free license, of if it is otherwise free content, you may instead upload it to the Wikimedia Commons via their Upload Wizard.

Once you have uploaded an image, you can add it to the article by using code like this:

[[File:Example.jpg|thumb|left|Image description]]

That will produce a thumbnail on the left of the text.

Regarding your article: Most of the sources are primary sources: The websites of institution Zagano is affiliated with, or her own publications. To establish notability we need significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, sources independent of the subject. Huon (talk) 22:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]