Help desk
< July 16	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 18 >

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 17

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Murphy Rocks, Australian Antarctic Territory

Under References I am attempting to insert the following:

==References==
 {{reflist}}
 <ref> Name approved by the [[Antarctic Names and Medal Committee]] and forms part of the [...]</ref>

What is wrong with the way I have set this out ?

I have another article for creation McCallie Rocks which I will not attempt to revise until I get this one right.

Murph Bmurphy99 (talk) 03:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue was that your reference came after the {{reflist}} template that's supposed to display the footnotes - there it won't get displayed. It should instead be put directly after the statement it's cited for. I fixed that, rewrote some of the content so it's not just copy-pasted from the (copyrighted!) SCAR Gazetteer, and added a link to the Gazeteer to the footnote. I couldn't tell where the second half of the content comes from; it seems partly redundant and should be merged with the first half to give a coherent whole, and we should cite a source for those facts which aren't supported by the SCAR Gazetteer. Huon (talk) 03:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Robin mcnair

Hi

I'm trying to create this page for Robin McNair http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Robin_mcnair

But it was turned down as not having adequate sources but I believe it does have good sources including obituaries from three broadsheet newspapers and multiple other sources?

Please advise what changes I need to make as this is the first article I have ever created and I've found it very difficult.

Thanks, Ian IanBrumpton (talk) 09:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't my area of expertise, but certainly I would expect having official obituaries in The Independent, The Telegraph and The Times enough for your article to pass. My understanding on the notability of RAF personnel is that you need to be at the rank of Air commodore (three up from Squadron leader) to get a "free pass" at notability. I would strongly recommend looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history and particularly their notability guide for military personnel as the project is (imho) staffed with very knowledgeable editors on this subject (as can be seen by its track record of creating featured articles) and may be able to help you. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's sufficient. I would accept it, but first please make sure that none of it is copied of closely paraphrased from any of the sources. DGG ( talk ) 17:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is very hard to judge when the references are not used as inline footnotes and also not available online. How much and what the sources actually say about the subject is then anyone's guess - is it a mere passing mention or a comprehensive biography? Perhaps the referencing guidelines need to be looked at for such situations. In this specific case could we request the draft writer to use inline cites with direct quotes from the sources? Also to clarify which of the "sources" listed under "Citations" and "External links" sections are actually being used as References? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- actually, it's just the trivial job of moving the refs to the obits from the online link section. The referencing guidelines are, btw, absolutely clear that print sources are acceptable for everything in WP. If you've been reviewing on the basis that they are not, it's not that we need new guidelines, but that you need to review the existing guidelines. If they are challenged, we do give a quotation, for references are not supposed to be used unless the writer has actually seen them. There's no need for refs to be used as inline refs unless the material is challenged or controversial, or its negative material in a BLP. (The way to use obits as inline refs is just to refer to them in the article as needed, anyway. It's easy to do that in a straightforward article like this.) DGG ( talk ) 18:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am fully aware and fully agree that that sources do not need to be online (I've even written a few articles with only dead tree sources) The issue here at AfC is that offline sources are not necessarily available to AfC reviewers - it is impossible to do a proper review without accessible sources, hence the request that the references be more explicit and specific; i.e. inline and including quotes. BTW I've just passed the draft - it is now at Robin McNair, please help get it into shape as car as categorisation, etc is concerned. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - While cleaning up after moving to mainspace I found that quite a few of the "external links" are in fact used as sources so I have converted them to inline references where apropriate. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sam Jones

Hi,

I believe I have submitted a page correctly, but am not sure where to go to see the status of the review?

The page is Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sam Jones

I have also made some edits since it was first submitted - will these be viewable for review?

Atoates (talk) 11:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have not submitted your article yet. You can do this by typing {{subst:submit}} (remember to include the curly braces) at the top of the page and saving it, which will bring up a yellow "awaiting submission" box. You can carry on editing the article while it's queued for submission - the reviewer will take whatever the latest state of the article is. However, at the moment I would say it's highly likely that your submission will be declined as it reads far too much like a CV and an advert for Jones and his companies, and doesn't cite any good sources such as major national broadsheet newspapers or independent magazines. Linkedin is particularly problematic, as anyone can create a profile on there - it's not special or important enough to have an article on Wikipedia, I'm afraid. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Felix Giles (Anzac)

11:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Stevengreen1969 (talk)

That article is very short and almost devoid of context. If I hadn't heard the term "ANZAC" before I wouldn't have the least clue who Giles might have been or why we should care, and even so I expect there are thousands, if not tens of thousands, of members of ANZAC - what makes this one notable? Notability is not inherited, so merely being the son of a notable father doesn't help.

I'll try to rewrite it somewhat. The Northern Territory Library you linked to holds many reliable sources that can help, especially digitized old newspapers. Huon (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sarah Franscesca Green

hi there!

my article has been declined due to lack of sources. i have added more sources and I wonder whether it is fine now to resubmit it so that it gets accepted. thanks in advance Cissy theo (talk) 13:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page submission denied for being too commercial and not enough verification

Good Morning,

I need guidance on a page please.

The page is Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Glenn Neely

I received this reply back from Bonkers the Clown:

"This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies."

I am not sure what to fix. The page is about a notable person in stock market prediction and I proved that in the references that I provided. There are 19 references provided for an article that is only 626 words long.

2 of the references are books written by the person because that is how notoriety and expertise is shown in most fields. One book was self published early on in his career about a theory he was changing and the other was a extremely revised version of the first book because he adapted his theory. This second book was was picked up and sold through a book publisher.

3 references are from different pages of this person's website because they are more personal details and relating to his theory. I chose to include the information directly from what this person has posted on their site about themselves. This is no different than contacting the person and getting a personal interview with them for information for this page. But, I know that Wikipedia discourages writing about people you know or have had contact with, so I was trying to only provide facts from places that could be verified.

5 references are from publications that have deemed this person enough of an expert to publish articles created by him on his theory and his predictions of the stock market. No information was taken from these articles other than to establish that he is seen as an expert in his field.

5 references are from another person in the field that interviewed this person because he felt that he was enough of an expert in the field that it warranted a whole series of interviews on what the person's expertise and advice about the field.

2 references are from well-known sources in the investment field that have deemed this person an expert in the field. One of these sources is Investopedia, which is an investment encyclopedia. The other source is a financial news source.

2 references are negative references showing that this person is not always right about his predictions and that there are other points of view in the field that clash with each other. One reference directly states that the stock market at the time was making him look like an idiot because it was going against his predictions.

This article is no different than published pages that have been approved on other experts in this field like Robert Prechter, whose page also includes the books he has published and uses references from articles that he has written. Which is why I am so confused, I want to meet your standards and I thoroughly read through your guides and am using your article wizard to try and create this page, but I have apparently missed a step somewhere. I don't understand where the advertising in this page is at.

Can you please guide me to what needs to be changed or removed so that I can make the changes and resubmit again.

Thank you for your help on this, it is much appreciated.GlePa (talk) 14:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just tidied up your references, many of them are highly problematic. In particular:

Everybody can write books. To judge the impact and importance of Neely's we'd need not the books themselves but third-party reviews.
In a similar vein, Neely's own website isn't quite an independent source on Neely and cannot establish that he's notable.
That also goes for Neely's articles. We need what others have written about him, not what Neely has written himself.
Interviews aren't quite as independent as we'd like our sources to be, and these don't even cover Neely himself in any detail. Furthermore, they were uploaded by Neely; I somehow doubt a truly notable financial analyst has to upload his own interviews.
The Investopedia article doesn't mention Neely at all. I don't think the Financial Sense Archive's biography of one of that show's "Special Guests" would be considered an independent source, and it doesn't say what it's cited for anyway (it mentions that Neely traveled the Far East for Reuters, but not in what capacity).
Planet Yelnick is a personal blog with no indication of editorial oversight; that's not a reliable source. Business Insider is indeed the lone reliable third-party source; it lists him among people who were made to "look and feel like idiots" by vastly inaccurate predictions. Somehow that didn't find its way into the Wikipedia draft; the source is instead cited for how Neely is "closely watched and analyzed by the media and investors alongside other market experts". That borders on deception and certainly didn't alleviate the reviewer's concerns about an unduly promotional tone.

So in summary our main source for Neely's fame and proficiency is Neely himself, with the single reliable third-party source pointing and laughing more than providing information on Neely. To prove that he's notable you'd need at least three to five reliable third-party sources that cover him in some detail, such as profiles of Neely in newspapers or financial magazines or published reviews of his books, and the draft should summarize what those sources have to say. In particular, the "Recognitions of Neely's Expertise" gives the impression that his expertise is recognized almost exclusively by himself; that's to be avoided. Huon (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Huon! This is exactly the guidance I needed to understand what I did wrong. Thank you so much for taking the time and giving me a detailed explanation. GlePa67.5.92.176 (talk) 22:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sarah Franscesca Green

Dear reviewer,

I would be really grateful if you could be a bit more specific. The only part that is not referenced in independent sources is the part that deals with her life. there I put a ref to an interview of hers in a pod cast by the american anthropological association at the point she was invited to act as an executive programme president. Given that you accept that for living people it is usually the case that there are not biographies, what else can I use for referencing this part of my article? But perhaps there are other points that you consider as having problems as well. Could you please indicate them to me so that i erase them. Unfortunately I am running out of time... i would really appreciate your help!Cissy theo (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As previously stated, Wikipedia's general policy is to have articles on any full-time professor in a named appointment at a notable university. Since Prof. Green has held the post at several, your article should not have been declined. You should now find it has been accepted and can be found at Sarah Franscesca Green. Sorry about the confusion. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I frequently work with this sort of article, and I have accepted it. DGG ( talk ) 16:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wuhu Island

Can anyone give me specific ways I can show notability with this, or did I pick something completely non-notable? --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 16:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably notable. The review in Edge is a good source--If you can find one more such discussion, you're set, tho I would add a quotation of one of their somewhat skeptical comments and one of the praise, worded like "Edge called it 'Nintendo’s most significant new landscape of the past five years. " " The other refs are just descriptions. Also, in giving the references, give full author and title as well as the link. That the Edge review was written by their staff is what makes it a reliable source. DGG ( talk ) 17:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson

Is there a limit to how many times an article can be submitted for review? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mckenziecoey (talk • contribs) 17:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, although resubmitting it without addressing the last reviewer's concerns would be seen as disruptive. Huon (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bombfell

Hey Guys,

I recently submitted an article and it was rejected. I wanted to hear some advice from experienced editors on how I can go about further editing my article for an acceptable submission. The article is about a small men's subscription fashion company that I have been a customer of basically since they started. I loved the service and the people that, as a periodic freelancer, I reached out to them and said can I write a Wikipedia page about you. They approved and provided me with several secondary sources about their company to help me. I really tried hard to write this neutrally and cited nearly everything from reputable secondary sources such as Time magazine, the Wall Street Journal, Tech Crunch, Bloomberg's Business Week, Forbes, Life & Style, and a couple things from their own media kit. If you could provide some further feedback on what else I could do I'd appreciate it. Thanks for your help!

P.S. if I did not submit this properly, I apologize I am a bit new to this formatting.

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bombfell Mrchucknorris (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the issue is not the quality of the sources but the tone of the draft. It reads like something written by their PR department, and not all of the content is supported by the given sources. For example, Forbes doesn't mention "personal stylists" (though Time does), Life&Style doesn't mention Lohan's brother but only "the men in her life", and TechCrunch says nothing about "all 50 states". (Bloomberg, by the way, is just a reprint of the TechCrunch article, so there's no need to cite two different sources for the same article.) It's also rather short on hard facts: We have the founding date, we have an approximate number of customers, we have the money they got in a seed round, and that's it. It's probably difficult to find more specific sources, but it'd be nice to have the revenues (probably in the low seven figures), the number of employees or the number of stylists, and the names of key personnel.

A comparatively minor style issue: The draft repeatedly says something "is reported". That's something of a weasel word: If the source is a reliable third-party source reporting facts, we can simply report those same facts as well. If it's a reviewer's opinion, we should attribute that opinion to the source (say, "Time magazine's reviewer said that despite first impressions to the contrary, the 'professionalism of the company was that of a sophisticated working man.'"). If it's not a reliable source at all, we shouldn't bother with what it reports. Huon (talk) 03:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Franscesca Green

I have a major problem that I just realised; my article about Sarah Francesca Green has been accepted but I just realised that because of using her middle name, now her name is not searchable in the web. I tried to remove the middle name from the heading but i can't. What shall I do?Cissy theo (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a little tricky. There's a typo in the middle name; we definitely have to change the current title. Almost all the sources call her "Sarah Green" (in fact I don't think any of the sources give her middle name as "Francesca"; the most I found was a single "F."), so I was prepared to move the article to that title, but we already have an article on an unrelated Sarah Green. My suggestion would be to move this article to Sarah Green (anthropologist), to move the other Sarah Green to Sarah Green (author) and to turn Sarah Green itself into a disambiguation page that links to the articles on the various Sarah Greens (there's also Sarah Green (film producer)) - none of them strikes me as so much more significant than the others that she should get pride of place. I have propose these changes on the various articles' talk pages, namely Talk:Sarah Green and Talk:Sarah Franscesca Green. Huon (talk) 03:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dissimilar Metal Design

Hello,

Submitted this article, and would like to know if someone could please provide me with information on where it stands in the approval process.

Thank you!

(TheArtOfRust (talk) 23:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]

The draft currently isn't submitted for review, and it won't be accepted unless you can find better sources - your current footnotes don't say what you cite them for and only mention the company in passing. I've re-added the old "submission declined" message; it not only serves as a historical record until the draft is accepted but also contains the "Resubmit" button you can use to request a new review once you have made sure the content is properly supported by reliable sources. Huon (talk) 03:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]