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

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ord_Minnett

Hello,

I submitted another change to the article I am trying to create - Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ord_Minnett - on 11 July 2013‎ at 02:41. I have not received a response. Can you let me know if my amendments are ok and if not, what I need to do?

Thanks, Michelle

Ords (talk) 01:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ords: It seems that you have not submitted your article for review. Just click on the "resubmit" button in the large pink box at the top of the screen. You shouldn't have to wait long, because there are only a few articles in the reviewing queue right now. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Not sure exactly how I find that version of the article though - ?? I can see it in revision history but how do I get to the revision I made? Sorry... Ords (talk) 02:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you found how to resubmit it. However, it has now been declined as being too promotional. Content like "Important to Ord Minnett's success has been the firm’s ability to attract some of the very best minds available at the time. The alumni of Ord Minnett is an impressive list and includes names such as..." may be related to that.

Another issue is that the article has no wikilinks in it at all at the moment. See WP:WIKILINK for more information on how to add wikilinks. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

question of article sources declined

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Akosua_Adoma_Owusu

I'm writing regarding the article linked above.

It was declined for the following reasons:

This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.

What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject.

Then the reviewer added a number of links:

You are encouraged to make improvements by clicking on the "Edit" tab at the top of this page. If you require extra help, ask a question at the Articles for creation help desk. There is also a live help chat with experienced editors. Find sources: "Akosua Adoma Owusu" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images. Declined by Bonkers The Clown 0 seconds ago. Last edited by Bonkers The Clown 0 seconds ago. Reviewer: Inform author.

I am unsure whether these links are proving the point -- that the sources are inadequate or that the reviewer is advising me on which sources would be appropriate. They link to sources I referenced in the article.

Tsf4 (talk) 06:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tsf4, what you are describing is the standard box that appears on all declined articles. The first bit (in the blue-grey box) is the reason Bonkers The Clown declined your article, because it was felt that the sources you provided didn't show that the subject of your article is a notable person. The second bit (on the outer pink box) appears on all declined articles, it's a set of tools to help you find more sources, or information on how to write a good Wikipedia article. It's not specific to you, they are tools that we think people in general writing articles will find useful. Rankersbo (talk) 08:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surprised you're questioning why the article is declined - your article cites a number of reliable sources such as SF Weekly and Film Quarterly, so it would appear on the surface to suggest that Owusu is at least borderline notable and your article should have passed. However, I'd have to investigate all the sources more closely to make a definitive decision. In my view, reviewers declining an article should clearly explain why the sources are problematic - in your case, some sources such as blogs are not suitable, but the two sources I mentioned above would appear to pass muster. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked around for sources and have added a new source and cited a brief bio from the Rotterdam Film Festival and can verify that Owusu has received an African Movie Academy Award. The awards appear to be internationally recognised as significant, and so this makes her inherently notable per our notability guidelines on people, specifically "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." I have passed your article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection of References

Hi, My page has been rejected many times, for several reasons, but most recently for the references. This is the page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Randall P. Dark: HDTV Pioneer. I have reviewed the referencing information, but I am just stomped on how to get this approved. Can someone just walk me through?

Darkmania Productions (talk) 14:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Darkmania Productions: Checking your article's history, it appears that it has been rejected three times because it doesn't have sources that show that Mr. Dark has been written about extensively by journalists and other authors. It appears from your user name (which by the way, breaks Wikipedia's policy that editors must be individuals and not representatives of companies or organizations) that you are closely connected with Mr. Dark and may have difficulty in writing about him from a neutral point of view. However, right now the problem is sources: These must be written about him, not by him or anyone connected with him. Any assertions of expertise, accomplishments, etc., must be backed up by these independent sources. If he really is a well recognized expert, these should be easy to find. If they don't exists, then Wikipedia shouldn't have an article about him. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Skidmore Studio

Hi, I am writing re: the Skidmore Studio article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Skidmore_Studio ). The article was declined but I don't understand why. Everything is factual and linked to an outside source. I notice that when it was declined, it said "see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics." Skidmore Studio is not a music-related topic at all, it's a company - a design studio. Could that be why it's being declined? Please let me know what I can do to get it approved. Thanks! S9frey (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems pretty up to scratch. Moving. Insulam Simia (^talk/_contribs) 18:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

iPourIt

iPourIt is a self-pour system that allows patrons at a bar to pour their own beer. The system was developed by Brett Jones and Joseph McCarthy and it is based out of Santa Ana, CA.

History

Jones and McCarthy met when they worked together at a travel business for students.[1] A negative experience which kept them waiting for their beer at a bar prompted McCarthy and Jones to devise a system were patrons would no longer have to wait for the bartender to take their order. And in 2010 the pair came up with the idea for a self-pouring system. The iPourIt team launched a pilot (testing) program at the Basement Lounge, a nightclub in Long Beach, where the team fine-tuned the system.[2]

How it Works:

When the patron enters the bar, he or she can request to receive the wrist band for the iPourit system. The bartender takes the patron's ID and comes back with a wrist band (and the ID) and informs the patron that the limit for the self serving system is 32 ounces.(Note: If the patron requests more beer after the 32 ounces are consumed, the bartender reserves the discretion to reactivate the wrist band for another 32 ounces.) The patron puts on the wrist band and heads to the iPourIt wall system. The hand is placed with the wrist band plate facing the "activation plate" from the pouring system. The activation plate is activated by the wrist band, and the patron can dispense the beer by pulling down on the lever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by P.Elva Cutri (talk • contribs) 19:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. If you would like to start writing a new article, please use the Article wizard. If you have an idea for a new article, but would like to request that someone else write it, please see: Wikipedia:Requested articles. I hope this helps. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 20:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tools4ever

I recently submitted a page and it was declined. Would you be able to tell me if their is anything I could change for it to be accepted. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tools4ever Thank you.

DianaParisotti (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Diana[reply]

The message in the decline box was pretty clear about the unsuitability of the sources. Almost everything in all of the many references has been written by or for the company. What's needed instead are news reports, magazine articles, software reviews, etc., that are written by journalists and other authors, not connected with the company, in publications that have editorial oversight rather than those which print just press releases, etc. If the Tools4ever has never been covered in these types of publications, then it doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. If it has, then please add them and remove some on the references to company produced material. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jane Emerssen

Hello again. Based on the content of my article it's difficult to see what other sources could be provided. The reviewer has given no hint as to what these might be to verify the bona fide nature of the content. It is most unhelpful. Giving personal identifiers in relation to the Open University or Society of Authors is obviously out of the question. So what else is needed? Do I have to scan the articles used as references and forward these? If so, how do I achieve this vis-a-vis getting it to the right part of the Wikipedia site? I find navigation a nightmare and filled with incomprehensible terms that mean nothing to me. I have an amazon.co.uk author page. Is that any use?Stoneraise (talk) 21:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An Amazon author page is not helpful because Amazon exercises no editorial control over those author pages and doesn't do any fact-checking - it's not a reliable source. What we need are reliable third-party sources that are subject to editorial oversight, such as newspaper articles or reviews in literary journals. Such sources need not be available online and you don't need to scan anything; in fact most of the sources for the "literary career" section look fine to me (including how you cite them, though page numbers might help).

But where does the "biography" section's content come from? Some of it is from the author's homepage (and it's so closely paraphrased that it raises issues of copyright), but the Wikipedia content is much more detailed. As the most basic question: Which source confirms that "Jane Emerssen is the pen name of Judith Johnstone"? The author's website doesn't, and I doubt any of the "literary career" section's references do. Also, while primary sources such as the author's website may be used for uncontroversial details such as, say, the fact that she lived in Carlile for the first ten years of her life, they should not be the sole basis of large amounts of content, and they should not be used to source claims that might be considered promotional, such as the success of her local government career. Huon (talk) 23:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at worldcat, the one fiction work written as Emerson isn't in it. If it were, the LC authority file would show the pseudonym. The other fiction is less than book length, & not in Worldcat; the notability would depend on the nonfiction. The notability for an author is best demonstrated by substantial published reviews from reliable independent book review sources such as major newspapers, which does not include amazon or blogs. The existing refs aren;t usable as such reviews. Equally important, given that the article was written under the pen name, which was used for one fiction work only, it would appear the purpose of the article is promotional. If you decide that the article cannot presently meet our standards, you can facilitate matters by placing at the top a line reading : {{db-author}}, and it will be quickly deleted. DGG ( talk ) 19:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both for guidance. Will look at these problems and try to fix them when I come back from vacation.(Stoneraise (talk) 21:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]