Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2013 July 26
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < July 25 | << Jun | July | Aug >> | July 27 > |
| 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 26
[edit]Can you tell me why my article was declined? I added 6 references the second time I submitted it. One of my references is from Forrester Research, one of the two leading analyst firms in this area. The other from well known online journals. This is my first article. Is it possible for you to be specific on what I need to do to improve it?
The article is here: [[1]]
Thank you, Shari (Sg75900)Sg75900 (talk) 02:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- You added sources, which is great! I'd like to make some comments on the sources individually, in the order they appear now -
- The source by Dana Gardner is a blog - not a reliable source for most things by Wikipedia standards, and not helping prove any notability for the subject (because it's a blog).
- I'm not sure how reliable InfoWorld is as a source in general, but the article you have from it looks pretty solid, and is borderline significant coverage (as required for the general notability guideline).
- The Forrester link gives me a redirect to this error page telling me the page no longer exists. You may be able to find it again by a search of the company website. As I can't see the source, I can't evaluate it.
- The Floss Manual link gives me Google Chrome's "This webpage is not available" page. I'm not technically capable enough as to speculate as to why it's unavailable, and it may just be temporary downtime, but I can't evaluate this either at this time.
- The DevX source, like the InfoWorld one, is one that I am unsure of reliability on. On the one hand, it's author is named, and is identified to the point that you should be able to trust that his reputation is behind the piece. On the other hand, my gut screams "blog" when looking at the format of the page. On the first hand, however, it is run by the developer.com network. Giving the source the benefit of the doubt (saying it's borderline reliable), and after taking out the interview parts as unreliable (primary sources), it's borderline significant coverage.
- The Wiki, as a wiki, is inherently unreliable as a source.
- Combining all of these leaves us with two (borderline to fully) reliable sources with borderline significant coverage. This isn't enough to satisfy the requirement that articles must have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. If you can add more instances of significant coverage, then it should be easier to pass. Happy editing! ~Charmlet -talk- 02:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Review of User:Creators Touch/sandbox
[edit]Please note that your account has been suspended as it contains very serious infected files which are used to hack websites. These files are malicious uploaded via open source cms that you use or folders that have 777 permission in your website. There is also a possibility that it gets injected via your php coding.
The only way is to delete the website and re-create again. We can unsuspend the site for 45 min for you to download the website contents,email and database. After which you have to terminate and recreate the website. You cannot upload the same old files as it contains serious backdoors. The issue is quite serious and you must act immediately to avoid any problems to your websites and other sites in the server.
In general, if you are using any open source software such as wordpress, joomla, phpbforum etc, please make sure that the versions are upto date. Do not use older versions of these softwares. Also if you have given 777 permission to any file or folder, please change it to 755 which is the max you can provide in shared hosting environment. If you have enabled frontpage extensions while creating the domain, please disable it while re-creating the account again. Nannapaneni
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Creators Touch (talk • contribs) 19:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, do you have a question about the Articles for Creation process? Howicus (talk) 20:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
Can you please tell me what other information needs to be cited. I can't seem to get the citations themselves to be hotlinked. In other words when I click in them it doesn't travel to the bottom where the relevant cite is and highlight it.
Thanks,
Travis Linkwray (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- I replaced the manually created list of references with the Reflist template which automatically generates the footnotes. I've al;so removed a lot of unnecessary piping in wikilinks. Wikilinks do not use underscores for spaces, they use actual spaces just like normal text. The main problem with the draft is that you simply don't have enough references. In articles about living people basically everything must be sourced. You have a few urls listed under "Sources" but you don't actually cite them yet. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Quantitative mineral resource assessments/Donald Singer
I am confused by the stated reasons for rejection. All citations are to rigorous peer reviewed and respected journals or books. Each statement in this submission has been published before. There are no opinions in the submission. The tone of the submission follows those of other articles on related topics in Wicki. Would you please provide me with one example from the submission of each of your stated problems in this submission? Dsing499 (talk) 22:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- The issue is not the quality of the sources, but the fact that major parts of the draft don't cite any sources. You say all the content is based on previous publications - which publication confirms, say, the "Mineral deposit models" section's content? Huon (talk) 06:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- Dsing499, if you move the article into the encyclopedia now, those sections that aren't supported by a "footnote marker"[13] will probably be tagged with [citation needed] which will leave your readers wondering if it can be relied on. Also, people use Wikipedia as a starting point in learning, and citations are very valuable for those who want to read a deeper, more authoritative treatment of the subject than an encyclopedia article offers. The second paragraph here explains how more and more students and academics are using Wikipedia in this way. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)