Help desk
< November 19	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 21 >

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.

November 20[edit]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Czeslaw Znamierowski[edit]

Hello, can someone help me with understanding why this article was declined. I I written about the Soviet artist - Czeslaw Znamierowski ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Czeslaw_Znamierowski ) but it was rejected. Reason was "In order to be accepted, you'll need to provide multiple independent sources that establish this artist's notability. These might include newspaper articles, reviews, information from published books, etc. If these sources are available online, the references should link to them."

As far as I can see I did provide multiple independent sources that establish this artist's notability. Each source is a newspaper articles, review or information from published book of that time period. All sources where written during Soviet era by well establishes newspapers, magazines and books. I located these sources in the National Library of Lithuania. Due to this, please let me know why these references do not fit the Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you. Earthsphere (talk) 00:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(See also the discussions at User talk:Quadell#Earthshpere.) – Quadell ^(talk) 14:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This issue has now been resolved amicably. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Labrador Sea Water[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Labrador Sea Water This is my first submission to wikipedia, and I'm learning the process. It's a class assignment for my oceangraphy course. I have text in my edit that is not showing up in my preview page and I'm not sure what the problem is. I've tried to compare it to other pages when I go to their edit boxes, but I don't know why it is not matching the format I've entered. The article skips a whole header, and then just puts the last 2/3 of different header onto the first one. What am I doing wrong? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianfbennett (talk • contribs) 03:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should be fixed now. Just a ref tag that didn't get closed (common problem). LionMans Account (talk) 05:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is clearly ready for mainspace, please submit it so that it can be approved and moved out of the very long waiting list as soon as possible. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jim Leverton[edit]

Could someone who understands this concept have a look at my article which has now been declined twice and advise if there is any likelihood that I can ever get this accepted or if it is always going to be refused on the grounds of notability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Jim_Leverton

Many thanks for your help in advance.

Sally of Kent (talk) 08:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Leverton? Local musical hero? Contemporary of Noel Redding? Session player? Member of several notable bands? Appearing in multiple book hits here? Of course he's notable! I'll pass the article now. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi Sally. Wikipedia:MUSICBIO says that a musician may be notable if they have "been a reasonably-prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles". Leverton seems to meet this criterion. In addition, the Rolling Stone source is a good independent reliable source, even though it doesn't say a lot about Leverton himself. So I would hesitate to say there is no way Leverton is notable; more sources might well be out there. Remember that sources don't have to be online on the web to be useable. Newspaper or magazine articles from the 1960s or early 1970s, or books discussing aspects of the music of that era, might be most useful in proving his notability. Just putting his name into Google Book Search brings up at least a dozen books that mention him, most only in passing (mentioning a band's line-up), but some, for example, "Gallagher, Marriott, Derringer & Trower: Their Lives and Music" in slightly more detail.

Ritchie333 has now approved the submission and it is at Jim Leverton. I see Leverton has been in action in Kent as recently as less than a week ago. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the further advice - I will add some of the book references as suggested. Sally of Kent (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Town Spurs - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Cape_Town_Spurs[edit]

I don't understand why this article keeps getting rejected when the other, "affluent" team (Seven Stars) that absorbed Cape Town Spurs to form Ajax Cape Town is accorded a page in Wikipedia.

The reference to Cape Town Spurs on the Ajax Cape Town page does not do justice to the history and struggle credentials of Cape Town Spurs and how it succeeded during the Apartheid era despite not having anything near the facilities and finances that Cape Town City (the white equivalent) had. I wouldn't have written the article if this history was not notable!

The problem with an article such as this is that the history of this club hasn't been codified in the extensive references that you seem to demand of this article (and not of Seven Stars) - this seldom happened during the Apartheid years mostly because poor resources and to avoid being prominent to the government of the day. In the article I have tried to emphasize this struggle history to explain why this team is notable but really want to avoid turning the article into a diatribe about how difficult it was to be a non-white footballer during the Apartheid era, as this would not only detract from the success of the team but would also comment on a sensitive subject that is better left to later generations to deal with from a more objective perspective.

But I think that this topic needs to be put on record now while the former players of the team are still alive and able to give their oral input to the history of this Club. I am not one of those players but rather I am a long-standing student of history, as well as a white South African. so my purpose is, I believe, entirely objective.

Can you let me know why this article keeps failing your review process.

Linus

Unfortunately Wikipedia never publishes original works. If this club is really as notable as you believe there simply must be some independent reliable sources about it. The oral history you refer to so passionately must first be published by a reputable publication before any of it can be used in Wikipedia. Perhaps you should collect the oral histories and write a book or at least a comprehensive article about the club and get it published in a reputable history journal or football magazine. Maybe SAFA or the History Department at UWC might be interested in assisting you with the project, if you're willing to take up the challenge. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't accept that as a reputable reliable source.

Angelina Souren (talk) 21:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Attention State Training[edit]

Hello-I'd like to know why my article was rejected for submission. thank you Kelsball89 (talk) 15:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)kelsey[reply]

It was rejected because it was blank when you submitted it. I see you have now added text to the page. If you wish to submit it now, just add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the page. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/UConn Office of Economic Development[edit]

I had submitted my article for review (after I made edits as suggested by the editor who reviewed the article Anne Delong (I believe). However, I have not heard back if my revisions have been accepted or denied. Admittedly I am completely unfamiliar with the wiki universe and have found it a bit cumbersome. I would just like to know if my article is apprved as is, or i there are further things I need to do to edit it. Thank you in advance. Sic12002 (talk) 16:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC) sic12002[reply]

This submission is currently awaiting review. Unfortunately reviews are often taking a very long time at the moment (as much as a month or more) because there is a very large backlog. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Your submission name here[edit]

I have made the edits recommended by the reviewer for the entry "SPOC" I created. Do I need to do anything else to get it posted now? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poetfount (talk • contribs) 16:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This submission has been accepted and is now at Small private online course. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sanjiv Buttoo[edit]

cant seem to submit new article for review — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjiv67 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is currently submitted for review. The box at the top saying it is not, is wrong. However, in its current state it is likely to be declined. You should read Wikipedia:VRS for a summary of what needs to be added, and Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners to see how to do so. You may also need to review Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 18:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Curved Space Diamond Structure[edit]

I am developing my first article and have submitted it for review while continuing to improve it and learn how this is done. I am looking for some help with the following:

category inclusion, is there a template I should use? What is a typical procedure for creating the code to include. I guess I just don't understand how an article gets categorized or where they come from.

Photo inclusion. I'm not sure where to begin with this one. Should there be one photo? multiple photos if there were multiple locations where the article item was installed? Should the photos first be loaded or found in commons?

Is there a template for what the object is made of or how it is constructed. Seems like there may be something like this for historic structures I have looked at. Is it an info box?

I am very new and inexperienced and have been reading the article creation wiki's, but any tidbit, idea, or outpouring of information will help and be appreciated. Scottsadventure (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scottsadventure, welcome to Wikipedia! For help with categories, Wikipedia:FAQ/Categorization should help. The basic format is to add the category at the bottom of the article, for example [[Category:Playground equipment]]. However, categories should only be added to full articles, not articles for creation submissions.

Images aren't necessary, and adding won't help your draft get accepted, but you're welcome to add some. The number depends on the exact article. For an article the size of your draft, I'd say more than one or two would start to look crowded. The photos either need to be uploaded to commons, or they need to qualify under Wikipedia's fair use policy.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by your third question. Does Template:Infobox artwork fit in this case? Howicus (Did I mess up?) 19:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Edward F. Fischer[edit]

Resolved

Good afternoon,

I'm a graduate student at the Vanderbilt Center for Latin American Studies, and I'm looking for assistance with an article I submitted on Professor Edward F. Fischer. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Edward F. Fischer The submission was rejected based on lack of "notability" but I'm looking for additional information on what else might be needed. I think that there are several reliable sources listed there that speak to his notability, including NPR, The New York Times, and Psychology Today. He is a renowned writer and lecturer on political economics, Guatemala, and the German social economy and is much sought after for his expertise on these topics in the private, public and academic arenas. Any advice you might be able to offer on what information might be necessary for this to pass the notability requirement will be greatly appreciated!

Thank you,

VU CLAS (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Elizabeth Murphy[reply]

Hi, one problem that makes it rather hard to judge the sources of your draft is that you have formatted the references in a way that makes the URL links "invisible" and renders them as just a number in square brackets. To make the URL directly readable please remove the brackets you have placed around them or alternatively consider using the standardized {{cite}} templates. I unfortunately don't have time right now to evaluate the individual sources for Notability, I will be back in about an hour so I can do it then unless someone else would like to do it before then. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that can establish notability is the post he holds- is his proffessorship a named chair- ie is he anything other than an ordinary proffessor. That could save a lot of the effort in proving his notability by showing his work has gained attention. Rankersbo (talk) 10:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the sources - he easily passes GNG so I have acceped the article, which is now at Edward F. Fischer. Please continue to improve the article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]