Help desk
< March 13	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 15 >

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.

March 14

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lion in The Mane

Can someone please edit my Wiki so it can be published?

Thanks, TIMZIOBRO184.153.158.55 (talk) 00:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please EDIT my Wiki so it can be PUBLISHED?

Thanks,

TIMZIOBROTIMZIOBRO (talk) 00:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TIMZIOBRO. The article will never be published unless you can supply references to a number of sources which are entirely independent of this band, and have covered them in depth or until you can provide references to independent sources that verify the band passing one of the inclusion criteria at WP:BAND. The article also needs to be completely re-written from its current highly promotional style. However, the first thing you need to do is find some evidence of this band meeting the inclusion criteria. Voceditenore (talk) 09:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/A Thing of Beauty

Why was my article declined? No reason was given in your reply. Alan J. P. Thompson, Sculptor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.203.8 (talk) 04:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reason given is in the grey box inside the decline notice at the top of your draft:

This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

The notice also has blue links in it to guidance pages that are relevant to understanding what types of articles and subjects Wikipedia publishes and which ones it does not. If you are the sculptor of the statue you are discussing in the article, you also need to read the guidance at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 08:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Girl On Fire (Band)

The first part of my article entitled "Band History" and "Early Years" for some reason will not show up when I preview the article, nor do they show up in the table of content. This is screwing with my source numbers too! Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks!

-Harry M. Macd1512 (talk) 11:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Macd1512. You had added a lot of html coding to the page instead of using Wiki-mark-up and you had listed most of the footnotes (citations) with only the reference name and no content for the ref. I've fixed the basics of that, although you need to go back and format the citation content better. Also, if you are only editing one section, only that will show up in the preview. To see the whole thing, edit by clicking on the highest level section Girl On Fire (Band) (or the edit tab at the very top of the page). I removed your use of other Wikipedia articles as references. Other Wikipedia articles cannot be used as references, although they can be linked in the running text. Note that we use only the official site in the external links section, not the subject's other social media, and we only list YouTube if it is the subject's official YouTube channel. Finally, if you are a member of this band or have a personal or business affiliation with it or its members, see this page for guidance when editing under those circumstances. Hope that helps. Voceditenore (talk) 12:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Schellman loop (protein structural motif)

I created a new article which I entitled "Schellman loop (protein structural motif)". I now realize this was a mistake as it is unnecessarily long. I should have simply called it "Schellman loop" whilst ensuring it belonged to the "protein structural motif" category. I don't know how to reverse this mistake and I wonder if you might do it for me? I will then change the few links to it that exist as appropriate. JamesMilnerWhite (talk) 11:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)JamesMilnerWhite[reply]

I've renamed it to Schellman loop by means of WP:MOVE.

There doesn't seem to be an existing category Protein structural motif. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added it to category Protein structural motifs instead. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Need assistance in improving Article which was rejected

Hello,

I would like to make the necessary revisions to the article I recently submitted for AmeriMark Direct which was rejected for the following reasons:

"This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia."

The references I used include a major Ohio newspaper, the Cleveland Plain-Dealer; and also BusinessWeek.com. In addition, two other large trade organization publications were provided as references. The company is well established, founded in 1969, and is a large employer with 700 employees and has operations in three states - Ohio, Nebraska and New Jersey. Reference was also made to an existing article on Wikipedia where the company's president is listed as a board member of the American Catalog Mailers Association.

I reviewed several other Company Articles that are active on Wikipedia that serve in the direct marketing and mail order area and I believe the nature of the article I submitted is comparable to those. I would be happy to let you know which of those articles I am referring to if that would be helpful.

If you could provide any more specific direction regarding how I might address the issues that gave rise to the rejection I would be most grateful.

Regards,

Greengoldpack (talk) 11:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note The draft in question is Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/AmeriMark Direct. Voceditenore (talk) 12:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I consider BusinessWeek listings as not useful for proving the notability of a topic, as they often seem to be provided by the business itself (though this one may not be).

Having said that, this submission does seem very close to proving notability, in my opinion. Perhaps if you add a couple more independent sources it will be OK.

Using existing Wikipedia articles as a benchmark for what is required for notability is not a good idea unless the existing articles are of recognised quality, e.g. Good Articles or Featured Articles. You could find some Good Articles about businesses at Wikipedia:Good articles/Social sciences and society#Businesses & organizations. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability ?

Hi, I am trying to improve the "notability" of my submission but am having a hard time understanding what more I can add to prove this. I have included references and quotes from notable magazines such as Mercerdez Benz, Flare, Marriage Quebec, Les Affaires, La Presse + and various blog posting and internet articles validating Ecksand's validity and notability as a major player in the Jewellery industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoan vidoni (talk • contribs) 15:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note The draft in question is Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ecksand. - Voceditenore (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Eclipse Ball

Hello, recently submitted an article about Eclipse Ball and it's beginnings. The Article was rejected. What can I do to make it acceptable to be listed on wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eclipse ball (talk • contribs) 15:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eclipse ball. Check the links provided in the decline reason inside the pink box on the submission page itself, especially the ones after "What you can do". Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eclipse ball. I've found two more sources for this article which I have added to your draft. However, I doubt this would be enough to qualify it as a stand-alone article. There's no evidence of this being a widely covered or played sport outside PE classes in some US school districts. Perhaps a trimmed version of this article could be added as a paragraph to the existing Net sport article. I've elaborated on this in my comments at the top of the draft. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 10:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Syed Qasim Raza Shah/sandbox

If we take a nearly solid body, composed of very small iron pieces which are loosely magnetized. And we place this body in a container, such that a uniform magnetic field keeps the body in the space. Now if we pass a solid permanent magnetic spherical or nearly spherical body near the body (which is composed of small particles), it(2nd body) will disturb the 1st body. May be it breaks the 1st body into a large number of small pieces (smaller than the whole body which is still present and is larger than its fragments), of different sizes, depending upon the speed and force as well as closeness of the passing body (2nd body). Also under the influence of the magnetic field, these fragments will spin/rotate about their own axis as well as move/revolve in circular orbits/paths due to the magnetic force of 1st body. And the radius of these orbits is governed by the force applied by the 2nd body. In this experiment the magnetic field is applied because the particles are being very small and gravitational force between them is negligible. So in order to provide gravitational force magnetic field is applied. So magnetic field is equivalent to the gravitational field. Perhaps the solar system and other systems of planets and stars were formed like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syed Qasim Raza Shah (talk • contribs) 18:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Syed Qasim Raza Shah Welcome to the Articles for Creation Help desk. We answer queries related to submissions submitted at Articles for Creation. Please be more specific with your query. If you are concerned about your sandbox submission recently declined. See, WP:Your first article and WP:Writing better articles. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Bond Club of Chicago

Hello,

I have just created my first page, The Bond Club of Chicago. When I go to that page, Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/The_Bond_Club_of_Chicago, it says at the bottom that is it under review, but at the top, says it is not currently submitted for review. Just want to make sure it is being reviews.

Thanks, Oliver Omwhybrow (talk) 18:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Omwhybrow- Welcome the Articles for Creation Help desk. I would like to let you know that your submission page is successfully submitted to be reviewed. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Hectorchavanajr/sandbox

How do I title the article when it is in my sandbox. I wanted to title this last one Alicia Escalante, but I could not figure out how to do it before sending it our for approval. Hectorchavanajr (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already fixed: It's been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alicia Escalante. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 00:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]