Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2016 May 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< May 25 << Apr | May | Jun >> May 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.


May 26[edit]

00:40:37, 26 May 2016 review of submission by Valthonisblight[edit]

Hello,

I understand that the referenced sources are primarily from press release articles. However, prior to submission I did a fair bit of research on similar tech companies and found press releases included as a source on many of their pages. Were those sources included in error, or approved by accident?

Although in the SEO world they may not have the same sway as once before, I believe inclusion in the DMOZ directory is in and of itself a worthy and credible resource. The directory is volunteer-run, and has strict guidelines and procedures in place for approving inclusion requests. Would this be an acceptable resource?

In regards to notability or renown; how do we determine when a subject has a sufficient amount of credibility? Would a few local news articles suffice? I'm trying to understand what we as editors should use as a baseline for establishing notability.

Any any all advice my colleagues can provide would be much appreciated. This is my first submission, and although I read through the vast majority of the rules, guidelines, and tutorials, the nitty-gritty may have escaped me.

Thank you.

Valthonisblight (talk) 00:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Valthonisblight. Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains hiqh quality content and low quality content. The existence of low quality content does not mean that said content is in any way "approved". It may simply mean that no one has gotten around to deleting it yet. Arguing that low quality content exists, so more low quality content should be added, is an argument that will cut no ice with experience editors. It is better to reason from policies and guidelines, but if you do use existing articles as models, be sure to use only Wikipedia's best content.
Novice editors are frequently advised to cite at least 3 arms length, reliable, secondary sources to establish notability. They must contain a significant depth of coverage about the subject, so directory listing like DMOZ do not count. The bulk of the article must be based on such sources. The notability guideline also discounts sources of limited audience or circulation. The Los Angeles Times or Fortune is a safe choice of source, but a local paper or trade journal may not carry the same weight.
The company website, press releases, and primary source interviews without independent analysis do not help establish notability. They may be used as sources, but only for a minor portion of the article, and only for uncontrovertial facts. Rightly or wrongly, press releases are often regarded by jaded AfC reviewers as rat droppings on an ingredient list. When you're trying to sell a draft, it's best to avoid them.
It may be unrealistic of you to expect a small, less than two year old, private company to have had the demonstrable effect, and garnered the significant attention of the world at large, that is required for inclusion in Wikipedia. Worldbruce (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

01:19:33, 26 May 2016 review of submission by 72.137.103.75[edit]


How do I include/insert pictures into my page?

72.137.103.75 (talk) 01:19, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The presence or absence of pictures will have no effect on whether or not the draft is accepted, so I advise you to postpone photos until later. With regard to a picture of the artist, unless you took the photo (and thus hold the copyright), it will be difficult or impossible to use the picture on Wikipedia. With regard to pictures of her paintings, they may not be used in the draft because the artist holds the copyright. The rules change if and when the draft becomes an article. At that point it may be possible to add an image of a painting under the fair use exemption, but numerous conditions must be met. Adding an image is a two step process: first upload it, then use it in on a page.
Go to Commons:First steps and carefully step through the tutorial. When you get to "First steps/Uploading files", don't dive in too hastily. First follow the link on that page to learn about the different licensing options. Other useful advance reading includes Wikipedia:File names and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images, which will prepare you to answer important questions the upload wizard will ask you. If after that you have any questions or doubts, there is a dedicated help desk for image uploading.
Once you've uploaded an image, the picture tutorial can guide you through how to use it in an article. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 02:46:44, 26 May 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Cini gra[edit]


Hello there,

On March 10, I discovered that my page on Les Newman OAM had been rejected, apparently because of Reference problems.

I redid all the references and resubmitted on May 5.

Now, my user name, Cini gra, does not seem to be recognised and I am not even sure that the resubmitted page even worked?

Can you clarify the status/problems please? Cini gra (talk) 02:46, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cini gra (talk) 02:46, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cini gra, if you take a look at the history of the page you'll see that you did only two edits on 28 February to create the page and that's all, you've not touched it since then. A look at your contributions log shows that your question posted here is the only other thing you have ever done on Wikipedia. The things you think you did; redo the references and resubmitting, never actually happened as far as I can see. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:40:54, 26 May 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Coastal.culture.vulture[edit]


Hi, I am puzzled at the reason given by the reviewer for declining my draft article and would be grateful for some guidance. If I understand the feedback correctly, the reviewer believes that it lacks sufficient references and is about a business. My confusion lies in that the references includes numerous contemporary primary sources drawn from the National Library of Australia's online collections. The article also relates to the history of a significant building of heritage value. I don't believe the article promotes the current business or owners (with which I have no association with) in any way. Any help would be happily received and gratefully appreciated. Coastal.culture.vulture (talk) 09:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coastal.culture.vulture (talk) 09:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Coastal.culture.vulture. The draft has promise. Do not abandoned it after a single review. It's usually best in these cases to ask the reviewer on their talk page to elaborate on the boilerplate reason for declining. If you can't get an explanation or the explanation does not follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, then ask for wider comment here or simply make what improvements you can and resubmit.
One observation is that the draft depends very heavily on primary sources. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is mainly meant to summarize what secondary sources have said about a subject. One would expect the draft to repeatedly cite a book or scholarly article (or a few) about art deco buildings in Queensland. A long list of primary sources raises some concern about original research. Other notes: Even if the title of a source is in ALL CAPS in the original, change it to sentence case or title case (whichever your draft uses consistently). Access dates should not be used without urls. Avoid bare links such as those in the "External links" section, they are more susceptible to link rot. Beef up the lead a little. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Worldbruce. Many thanks for the guidance and advice. It's greatly appreciated and a big help. I would have liked to have asked the reviewer for more information but, given the boilerplate and after having looked at their talk page, was uncertain if I would receive the detail I was hoping for.
The challenge I'm finding is that some of the topics I wish to contribute to Wikipedia are ones that have a very low online presence, not because they aren't significant or (hopefully) notable, but because no one seems to have done (or shared) the research yet. I'm hopeful that Wikipedia will be enriched by a little more local content from my region.
As a result, I rely on a lot of primary sources which is making this a very interesting experience. I didn't consider looking for references in Art Deco publications for the hotel but will certainly do that. The majority of references will be in print but, hopefully that won't be overly problematic from Wikipedia's perspective.
Many thanks for the formatting suggestions. The contemporary newspaper articles were drawn from a subscription only database so I automatically included the access date but not the URL. I'll tidy that up as well as the titles of the sources. I shall definitely preserve. Kind regards, Coastal.culture.vulture (talk) 21:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

18:34:08, 26 May 2016 review of submission by 86.69.180.157[edit]


COULD YOU TELL ME PLEASE IF MY DRAFT:PURSHOTTAMDAS THAKURDAS HAS BEEN SUBMIT OR NOT TO BE REVIEWED BY VOLUNTEERS ? I DO NOT KNOW IF I DID ALL CORRECTLY IN THE PROCEDURE... THANK YOU !

86.69.180.157 (talk) 18:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Purshottamdas Thakurdas (and Draft:José Olympio Pereira) are in the pool to be reviewed. There is a bit of a backlog at the moment, so expect the reviews to take two or three weeks. Worldbruce (talk) 20:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2016_May_26&oldid=723113699"