Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2013 May 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Help desk
< May 1 << Apr | May | Jun >> May 3 >
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 2[edit]

Appeal Follow-Up--Darden Smith[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Darden Smith Thank you for your clear and helpful explanation. Indeed, I did not understand the difference between primary sources and secondary or tertiary sources. I have gone back and pulled all information that relied on the primary sources you mentioned: record label's press release, the ASCAP column, interviews with Smith, his HuffPo author profile and one of his blog posts. When I found secondary sources, I was able to restore some of that information. But I tossed the rest.

Would you be willing to take another look??? Once again, I am grateful for you help in seeing this article through. Sabrina Sabrina Barton (talk) 03:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

You can re-submit the draft for another review by following the instructions in the lower "submission declined" message box or by adding {{subst:submit}} to the very top. I have done so for you; it will be reviewed again in a few days. At a very quick glance the sources look much better now. Huon (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

How do I add a request?[edit]

How do I add a request for an article to be created? The "submissions" page is semi-protected. 65.128.234.79 (talk) 03:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

If you want to write a new article, please use the Article Wizard. If you want to request others to write an article, please have a look at WP:Requested articles and its sub-pages. Our submission pae is protected because it's an information page for the reviers about submissions, not the place to add new submissions. Please don't try to modify that page. Huon (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/National Music Centre[edit]

Hello there wonderful wikipedia editors.

Before I submit my article for publication, I was wondering if you could look it over to make sure I have fixed the issues you mentioned earlier. I'm very new to this, so I do appreciate all of your help in getting this article up.

Thank you!

Musicmuseum (talk)jimjamjummel (Musicmuseum) for Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/National Music Centre — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicmuseum (talkcontribs) 03:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It will be reviewed when you submit it. From just a quick look I can see some issues, some minor such as the section headings are not properly formatted but more significant problems are that the first reference appears only about a third of the way down the page - thus most of the material above it is not referenced, the article as a whole is not very well referenced. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Blair Cuspids[edit]

How do I post a photo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.112.64.40 (talk) 05:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

That depends on the image. Wikipedia can (with some narrow exceptions which don't apply to drafts) only accept free images. If the photo is in the public domain (say, because it's the work of an employee of the US federal government) or if it's copyrighted but freely licensed (for example, because you took it yourself and are willing to release it under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License), you can upload it to the Wikimedia Commons via their Upload Wizard. The picture tutorial explains how to add the image to a page once it's uploaded. Huon (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
On an unrelated note, I had to decline your submission because its source is not reliable by Wikipedia's standards. Wikipedia content should be based on sources that are subject to editorial oversight, such as articles in newspapers or reputable magazines or peer-reviewed scholarly papers. Huon (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Review of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Nick_Grey[edit]

Hi there,

Please can someone review the AfC on Nick Grey, the British inventor behind Gtech, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Nick_Grey

I've made numerous edits and now believe the copy is okay for approval for Wiki publication - but need one of you lovely editor-types to have a looksee, and give it a thumbs up now that it's been edited.

Any feedback/advice much appreciated.

46.31.87.177 (talk) 08:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

You can re-submit the draft for another review by following the instructions in the lower "submission declined" message box or by adding {{subst:submit}} to the very top. However, I'm not sure your changes since the last review are sufficient. For example, quite a few of the draft's sources do not even mention Grey, and others do so only in passing, quoting Grey on some other topic without discussing Grey himself. The same goes for the article itself, which seems to cover Grey's invention in excessive detail. For example, what's the fact that the AirRAM is fully rechargeable and includes a Lithium battery supposed to tell me about Grey? That sounds more like a sales pitch for Grey's invention than an encyclopedia article on the inventor. Huon (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Huon, thanks for the advice. This is a difficult area, but essentially, the features of the AirRAM you mention represent an advance in vacuum cleaner technology unique to Gtech. The changes invented/implemented by Grey differentiate the Gtech range of cordless products from those of other manufacturers'. For instance, the Lithium battery delivers energy savings of up to £200 per year - this is a unique feature of Gtech's product, not offered by other manufacturers, and an innovation in energy efficiency compared to mains-powered vacuums. In terms of "excessive detail", this is down to the number of new inventions within Gtech's products, again, not offered elsewhere. Failure to mention these is failure to explain why Grey has created a successful business in a competitive market. There actually isn't "excessive detail" - the AfC doesn't go into the run-time on charge compared to other manufacturers, for instance, as this could be seen as promotional, even though it has a greater run time as a result of the unique Lithium battery being used, which you felt was an unimportant detail.
It's hard to explain any of that without it sounding salesy.
In terms of 'passing mentions', the fact Grey is regularly featured as a spokesperson for British design/manufacturing were added as citations, as there were initial questions on Grey's "notability". Clearly if the UK's largest broadsheets belive he is notable, with citations showing this (I've never had a feature in the Sunday Times, Sunday Telegraph or Daily Mail about me), then these are worthwhile citations to underline his notability. Again, this is difficult to describe without it sounding promotional.
Is the upshot of all this, then, that until there is a warts-n-all history of Grey in a newspaper, that it's impossible to establish his notability without it sounding like an advert?
Or would it be better to just wipe down the information on the AfC to the bear minimum and attempt to create an entry with no context and thus be disapproved due to lack of info/clarity?
Apologies, but there are countless promotional Wiki pages for numerous businessmen, businesses and retailers which don't even have citations (Argos, for example), so it's confusing to know exactly how to circumvent this 'promotional' business whilst maintaining context and notability, and without going as far into advertising territory as other, approved Wiki pages...
So, given this, is it best to try a very skinny edit with bare-bones material and see how that goes?
Really appreciate your time, thank you :)

10:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Question of your review on my wiki draft: 7!!(Seven Oops)[edit]

Dear Sir or Madam,

I was wondering if you could let me know where to improve in my draft. It is understandable to be denied, but I would like to make the page for the band 7!!(Seven Oops) be public. There are wiki pages for the band in Japanese, Italian, Spanish, and Myanmar. Thus, I assume my problem was partly the structure that I made for the English version.

Again, please let me know whether I can obtain any advice.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

-Kotaro — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kotyorkotaro (talkcontribs) 14:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

As the reviewer said, the draft doesn't cite any reliable, independent sources. Without such sources we cannot accept an article. That, not the article's structure, is the main problem, though you may also want to take a look at the Manual of style. Huon (talk) 00:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alexander Karasyov[edit]

This page already exists (it seems to have passed the review, for which I would like to say "thank you"), but still comes up as AfC and "waiting for review"in my "contributions". So it seems that there is some sort of "double" submission of one and the same article.

I noticed that, on the page existing on the main article space, the references do not show up properly.

Would it be possible to copy the text from "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Alexander_Karasyov" to Alexander Karasyov? That would take care of the messed-up references and some changes that I have made to the article for creation.

Thank you KomarKomar KomarKomar (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Update: I have made the necessary changes. The references are now all there. So copying is no longer necessary.

What do I now have to do to retract the AfC in order to avoid multiple submission?

Thanks. KomarKomar (talk) 23:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd just wait a little; the article is already tagged for a history merge (which must be done by an admin); once that happens, the draft will no longer be submitted for review. Huon (talk) 00:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)