Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 August 31
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < August 30 | << Jul | August | Sep >> | September 1 > |
| 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. |
August 31
[edit]10:18:55, 31 August 2017 review of submission by Aghnn123
[edit]Hi, My submission was declined for this reason: "The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes." I did use footnotes to cite my sources, so I'm a bit confused - could someone explain what I did wrong? Thank you! :-)
Aghnn123 (talk) 10:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Large chunks of the article do not have inline citations. In fact, there isn't an inline citation until four paragraphs into the article. For living people especially, you need to have inline citations for any claims made in the article, if they cannot be properly cited then they need to be removed. Sulfurboy (talk) 10:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Regulussimo (talk · contribs)
I am unable to connect the quote number in the main text and the references I cited in the box references. Finally, I am requesting assistance in order to create the page.
--Regulussimo (talk) 13:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)--Regulussimo (talk) 13:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Regulussimo (talk) 13:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Regulussimo. The mechanics of inline citations are counterintuitive. Don't place the references in the references section, but mix them in with the text, within
<ref></ref>tags. I've done the first one for you as an example. See Help:Referencing for beginners for more information. A further improvement would be to supply more information than bare urls. Citation templates are good for that. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
19:34:17, 31 August 2017 review of submission by Dibcap17
[edit]Hello. I am requesting assistance because my article draft has been rejected. I'm listing multiple outside sources and links to other Wikipedia articles. The content is completely verifiable through reputable news sources. Please help provide feedback as to what I can more specifically to get this article published. Thank you. Dibcap17 (talk) 19:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Dibcap17. It's good that the content is verifiable. That's a fundamental requirement for all content on Wikipedia. Being verifiable is not, however, sufficient justification for a stand alone article. The draft was declined because it failed to show that IngramSpark is notable.
- Of the sources cited, comstocksmag, irishtimes, and libraryjournal make only brief mentions of the company. The Independent Publishing Magazine appears to be a trade journal. Trade journals are often discounted by reviewers for notability because of their limited circulation and an often too-cozy relationship with the companies and industries they cover. That leaves publishersweekly as the only source of any depth. The AP report in usnews, with a sentence about the company, is a distant second. That isn't enough attention from the world at large to demonstrate that the company is notable and has had a significant or demonstrable effect on anything.
- IngramSpark is part of Ingram Content Group, which is part of Ingram Industries, yes? I suggest you use the information you've gathered to expand the article on the parent company instead of attempting to create an article on the subsidiary. Emphasize the company's history, readers can visit their website to find out about their specific self-publishing services. You may then create a redirect from the name IngramSpark to the article on the parent company so that readers seeking what little there is to say about the company can easily find that information. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)