Help desk
< June 6	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 8 >

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.

June 7

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pitcairn Islands Study Group

Re: Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pitcairn Islands Study Group

Please compare the draft article on PISG to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Helena,_Ascension_and_Tristan_da_Cunha_Philatelic_Society. The latter is a similar oceanic island philatelic society/study group which boasts only half the membership of PISG (146 members for SHATPS vs. 291 members for PISG). Furthermore, the article for SHATPS, which was posted online in September 2012 and has remain unchallenged since that time, contains many fewer independent references.

PISG is also worthy of its own Wikipedia article. Please understand that the draft PISG article as submitted is only meant to be a stub which will be added to in due course. A history of the society is currently available and can be used as a basis for expansion as soon as the stub itself is approved.

PISG is celebrating its fortieth anniversary this summer. Its award-winning quarterly journal has been published continuously for four decades. It was the first and today is one of only a very few "go-to" source publications for information on Pitcairn philately, history and culture. The society maintains an annual presence at most U. S. national stamp exhibitions, and in 2012 it co-sponsored an international conference attended by over 100 people.

The review below was given for the above-referenced draft PISG article. Please note my comments under each point:

Comment: Hi there. We have pretty specific guidelines on how something gets a Wikipedia article. I think for now this organization is not notable enough to have it's own article. It can be *mentioned* in the Pitcairn Islands. Here is why the citations do not establish notability: [1] barely mentions it. They only mention PISG once. If this article was about PISG then this would be a significant secondary source. It's not.

- My comment: This was only meant to reference the words "award-winning" in relation to PISG's journal. It was not meant to evidence notability.

[2] advertisements are not reliable secondary sources

- My comment: This is not an advertisement. It is the first issue of the group's quarterly journal. This was meant to reference the date of the first issue of PISG's journal. It was not meant to be a secondary source.

[3]http://napavalleyregister.com/star/news/opinion/columnists/david-stoneberg/my-turn-remote-pitcairn-island-story-told/article_c044ca7e-f236-11e1-a102-0019bb2963f4.html] it's great that this secondary reliable source has mentioned PISG twice, however, it's not "multiple" reliable secondary sources. It's the same press company mentioning the organization twice. We'd need expansive coverage about PISG in another source. The NYT's article is a mere mention, so that does not count.

- My comments: References number six and seven are articles published by two newspapers which have their own Wikipedia articles. These articles detail a recent major activity of the study group. PISG co-sponsored a worldwide conference for 100 people. Of the 15 speakers, three speakers came from Pitcairn Island and three others came from Australia. No matter how many times PISG is or is not mentioned, these articles make it clear that PISG, as a co-sponsor (there were only two co-sponsors, and PISG was the major one of these) is actively involved in promoting an awareness of Pitcairn's philately, history and culture. Furthermore, The New York Times article had this to say about PISG: "More information is available from The Pitcairn Log, a tidy little quarterly published by the Pitcairn Islands Study Group ... As one might guess, members of the study group number more than five times the population of Pitcairn."

[4][5][6][7][ are non-reliable source as it's related to PISG

- My comments: Reference number four is not related to PISG. It is from the South Pacific Handbook published by Moon Publications, which has its own Wikipedia article. The South Pacific Handbook, a best-in-class encyclopedic guidebook on the entire Pacific region, had this to say about PISG: "The Pitcairn Islands Study Group publishes The Pitcairn Log quarterly. It contains much interesting material on the people of Pitcairn, as well as the collecting of Pitcairn postage stamps ..." Reference number five is not related to PISG. It is from Linn's Stamp News, which has its own Wikipedia article. Linn's is the world's largest weekly philatelic newspaper, and the Linn's article heralds the upcoming worldwide conference staged by PISG in 2012. References number six and seven have been dealt with immediately above. These are from two newspapers which have their own Wikipedia articles. Again, these references are not related to PISG.

[8] is content provided by PISG. therefore not reliable.

My comment: This reference was added merely to provide clarity rather than to try to establish notability. It can easily be removed.

So for now it might be WP:TOOSOON for PISG to have it's own article. I'd just merely mention it in the Pitcairn Islands article. Thank you! SarahStierch (talk) 05:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

- My comment: A total of 12 references were provided. Fully half of these are from independent secondary sources, as follows:

a) Reference number one is from the American Philatelic Society which is the world's largest nonprofit philatelic foundation. PISG is an affiliate of the A. P. S. A separate reference to this latter fact could be provided, if desired.

b) Reference number three is from The New York Times.

c) Reference number four is from the South Pacific Handbook, a world-class guidebook covering the Pacific area.

d) Reference number five is from Linn's Stamp News, the world's largest weekly philatelic newspaper.

e) Reference number eleven is from the American Topical Association, the largest organization devoted to topical stamp collecting. PISG is an A. T. A. affiliate.

If it would assist in obtaining approval for a stub article, the six references which are not from independent sources could be removed easily. These were added to provide clarity rather than to try to establish notability.

Please approve this separate stub article for a four-decade-old group with members worldwide. The group is actively involved in the study of Pitcairn's philately, history and culture.

Greatshearwater t (talk) 07:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In short, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We may have other problematic articles; that's no excuse to create more; each submission must stand on its own merits. Practically all your third-party sources are passing mentions only. For all I can tell there's not a single dedicated third-party article about the PISG. By the way, if PISG is an APSA and ATA affiliate, then APSA and ATA are not independent sources on PISG. Huon (talk) 09:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/H2i technologies

Hello, I'd like to know what makes a article being advertising, mine is considered as so and I would like to understand how to make it become suitable for Wikipedia as I don't want to advertise but just to speak about a company creating new technologies which I think could be interesting to add to Wikipedia. Thanks for your reply Marc.gem (talk) 07:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Using words like "perfection" and "renowned" and phrasing like "the result of many years of diligent engineering" and "convinced of the relevance of its innovations" and "unique and robust solutions" and "a ingenious mix of quality, design and technology" is the problem here.

"Thanks to the incorporation of H2i's technology you can turn on/off the light through a simple soft touch on the lamp" - that's something you would write in a marketing brochure, not in an encyclopedia.

The "Where they've been" section is completely unnecessary.

TouchWave is an example of a Good Article about a technology company. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cheah Cheng Hye

The subject article is rejected. The content of the article is written in a neutral tone, which part of it make it got rejected? is it the nickname in Chinese or something else?? Tsuitsui (talk) 08:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's the nickname, but rather phrases such as "dedicated value investor", the extensive self-sourced extolment of his school-induced skills, or his philosophy. Basically, we're not really interested in how great Cheah Cheng Hye thinks himself. Huon (talk) 09:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh....those "dedicated value investors" or school-induced skills parts are not my article, it's submitted by someone else previously...my submission is at the bottom of the page......should I delete those things not submitted by myself? Tsuitsui (talk) 09:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1970's TV drama The railway children

What was the station masters name?86.40.236.225 (talk) 08:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. Please consider asking this question at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what the Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps. Huon (talk) 09:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Malene Rydahl

To Whom it may concern,

I have tried to publish this article but i face copyright problem.

I am the copyright holder of the text but by reading your help section on this i still do not understand what to do.

Please advice me how i can upload the article.

Thank you in advance.

Maud.Autrechy (talk) 10:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Muad.Autrechy, all you need to do to avoid the copyright problem is to rewrite the article, so that it's no longer a copy of the other text. Note that this doesn't mean your article will be accepted, only that the copyright problem will be solved. Howicus (talk) 16:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may find your answer at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials#Granting us permission to copy material already online. However, Howicus's comment above that "this doesn't mean your article will be accepted" still stands. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk: Articles for creation/class-centred teaching

The above article has recently been rejected, even though its title is not a neologism according to the definition of neologisms provided by Wikipedia. As I understand it concepts (which is what class-centered teaching is) are NOT neologisms. Please could you outline whether there is any way that the article can be re-worded - but still retain its title of class-centered teaching - so that it can be included in Wikipedia? I would also point out that the term is supported by reliable published sources. Thank you for your help and advice ElisabethEvill (talk) 10:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What you need to do is find other sources that use the term "class-centered teaching." Right now, all the sources in the article were written by R. Senior. Find evidence that other people use the term to prove that it wasn't just made up by R. Senior. See WP:REFBEGIN for more info on references. Howicus (talk) 16:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Daniel Boey

Hi,

Would just like to check why the article is considered unsourced and was declined when tons of sources were quoted? What are considered relevant sources then?

Both actual websites, magazines, and other sources were quoted. And technically, as I am writing it, and am a member of the press, am I not considered a source too?

Thanks. Kstarfan (talk) 11:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First off, no, you cannot be a source, that would be WP:Original research. If an article you wrote is published in a serious media source (not a hobbyist blog or facebook, but actual online news sources) then I believe you can quote that, though it's best that someone neutral does the quoting of your article so there's not a conflict of interest. But you definitely can't do "Footnote: I'm Bob Smith the journalist and I know this" for example.

The reason your article is declined is listed at the very top: rather than use WP:Footnotes or WP:Wikilinks, you've cluttered up the body of the article with in-line external links. It's not allowed to write " Christophe Josse", just wikilink it as Christophe Josse]. If that person doesn't have a existing article, that's fine. If we let people put external links in-line in articles, it turns into promotion of other websites in a non-neutral way, plus it makes it harder to surf from article to article. So you want to clean that up. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Human Property, The Story of Mariah

Hello,

My article was turned down due to questions regarding the validity of the story. I am the author of this story and I researched and has cited the sources in my book entitled "Human Property Hanging in the Family Tree Yields a Harvest." That is why I listed my book as the reference source. Should I list all the references in my book along with my book? This is a true story backed up by written creditable sources.

Thank you,

Also can I have an editor review or write the article?

(Antoinettelee (talk) 14:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)}[reply]

If the Wikipedia article is going to be about the book, then the references for the Wikipedia article need to be things like magazine or newspaper reviews of the book. (Take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (books)). If the Wikipedia article is going to be about the person (Mariah), then the references for the Wikipedia article need to be things like magazines, newspapers, academic journals or books by recognised/reputable historians that discuss the person in detail. If the Wikipedia article is going to be about the historical events, then the references for the Wikipedia article need to be things like magazines, newspapers, academic journals or books by recognised/reputable historians that discuss those events in detail. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/A Country Doctor (novel)

I need some assistance with creating this article on "A Country Doctor (novel." If anyone has any info on it, please notify me. Thank you!24.225.89.81 (talk) 14:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I had posted a similar HELP question on June 1 and that was answered.24.225.89.81 (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Creatrix Innovation Assessment

Hello, I collaborated with a colleague on this. Is there someone who can help us with this? What do we need in terms of neutralizing it--as the reviewer said? Thank you Jacqueline Byrd, Ph.D.--Dr. Janet Polach (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of issues. First of all, you seem to have signed your message both "Jaqueline Byrd" and "Janet Polach". Wikipedia accounts are for individuals, not for work groups, and shared use of one account by multiple persons is a violation of Wikipedia's policies. Please create one account per person.

Secondly, the article seems to be on an invention by Richard Byrd, Jacqueline Byrd's father. You may want to have a look at our guidelines on conflict of interest. Citing yourself, if it's done as heavily as here, may also be a problem.

Thirdly, you should use footnotes to clarify which source supports which of the draft's statements. Just to give a random example, what does Reisman's 1950 book have to say about a measurement invented in the 1970s? Not very much, I wager. And which of the 50 or so sources confirms that "creating and then sustaining innovation momentum stand as two of the biggest challenges faced by business leaders today"? I cannot tell. See also WP:Referencing for beginners on how to easily create nicely-formatted footnotes.

On the tone issue, the reviewer has already given an example. Phrases such as "seminal work" or "powerful tool" make it sound as if you're advertising this test (which you offer commercially, again a conflict of interest) instead of describing it from a neutral point of view. A minor issue in the same vein is that Wikipedia doesn't bother with highlighting registered trademarks (®).

In general, I found the article awfully vague. It provides next to no information on how a person's (much less an team's) creativity and risk-taking are measured. A self-reported questionnaire, with what kind of questions? Evaluation of past decisions? Something entirely different? The article doesn't tell, though it hints at the first option. It compensates for not telling how the values are measured by explaining in intricate detail what they are supposed to mean. I doubt anything of that corresponds to the mainstream positions within psychology. Does third-party research confirm any of these claims? The only indication I see is a certain "Dr. Richard Bents" (form a consulting agency, not a university), but Bents' publication is not listed in the bibliography. Oops.

Finally, the claim that "Employees have realized that they all own innovation" as an impact of Creatrix is flat-out wrong. It's well-known that the Toyota Production System, especially Kaizen, emphasized the same much earlier. Huon (talk) 22:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]