Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 October 3
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < October 2 | << Sep | October | Nov >> | October 4 > |
| 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. |
October 3
[edit]Please,can You tell me how you think the information I changed is incorrect? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Vagif_Ibrahimov
12:54:00, 3 October 2017 review of submission by JaxLax
[edit]
Am trying to get an article Peter's Railway approved but has been declined, Firstly my original username (Peter's Railway) was blocked so have created a new account (JaxLax) but still working on the same article Can you give some advice
JaxLax (talk) 12:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Hi JaxLax. User:JaxLax/sandbox was declined for being a duplicate of another pending submission, Draft:Peter's Railway. That isn't strictly true, because the latter was not pending at the time, but the reviewer left a comment there with further instructions: "Please do not recreate this article [Peter's Railway] and submit it under another name. improve this one instead."
- My advice is to do what the reviewer asked. Edit your sandbox and copy its contents, from the text "{{Infobox book series" to the end of the page. Paste that over the contents of the original draft, starting on the line immediate below the comment "-- EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->". It is not necessary to copy the "dup" decline, and you should retain (not overwrite) the older declines and reviwer comments. Next fix the footnotes. You have two sets of them, one set embedded in the text between ref tags (which is correct), and a second, duplicate set listed in the Footnotes section (which is wrong). The only thing in the Footnotes section should be the text {{reflist}}.
- The Amazon product review, Waterstones review, and Goodreads review are user-generated, so they are not reliable sources. Remove them and any content that can only be supported by them. The sort of book reviews Wikipedia seeks are those by professional book critics writing in mainstream or academic publications. Think The Times Literary Supplement, The Guardian, London Review of Books, The Lion and the Unicorn, and the like. The reviews from machinebuilding.net, trainsforkids.co.uk, whatsgoodtodo.co.uk, and lovereading4kids.co.uk are questionable sources. Anyone can set up a website and proclaim themselves an expert, but do these reviewers have any relevant credentials, does the world at large regard them as expert book reviewers? Why should Wikipedia readers care about these reviewers' subjective opinions? I recommend ditching these reviews and any content that can be sourced only to them.
- The best source is The Glasgow Herald. The Amazon bio/booklist is reliable, but not independent. It may be used as a source, but it doesn't demonstrate notability, and the bulk of the article should be based on independent sources. The whole section on "Peter's Railway Young Engineer's Centers" is an awkward fit. The partner organizations are not arms-length sources. They have a vested interest in plugging the "Peter's Railway" brand.
- You may find Wikipedia:Notability (books) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Books helpful for undestanding whether the topic is suitable for Wikipedia, and if so, how best to write an article about it. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
17:37:51, 3 October 2017 review of submission by Wafyalumni
[edit]- Wafyalumni (talk · contribs)
- No draft specified!
Wafyalumni (talk) 17:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Request being added as participant
[edit]19:08:48, 3 October 2017 review of submission by SheridanFord
[edit]- SheridanFord (talk · contribs)
I am eligible to become a participant. I am an active member of WIkimedia NYC chapter and have over 900 edits to date:
https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=SheridanFord&project=en.wikipedia.org
Requesting my username be added to the list so I can use the Article Wizard for a new article.
sheridanford (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Hi SheridanFord. Thank you for your contributions. Anyone may use the Article wizard to create a draft article, and anyone with 10 or more edits and registered for 4 or more days (such as yourself) can use the wizard to create a new article directly in mainspace. No special rights or approvals are required.
- If you wish to be a participant in the sense of reviewing drafts submitted via the Article wizard, then you need 500 undeleted edits to articles. Although you have 914 undeleted edits, only 396 of them are to articles. Good ways to gain highly relevant experience are: participating in discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, checking for copyright violations (CopyPatrol, for example), rescuing drafts that would otherwise be deleted, and improving or commenting on Articles for creation drafts without actually accepting or declining them. After you reach 500 article edits you may apply at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants to become an Articles for creation reviewer. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
19:20:37, 3 October 2017 review of draft by Mitchko
[edit]
Hello I am trying to submit an article for review. When I do so, I get a box telling me that a box will appear at the bottom of the article with a "save changes" button for me to click. but I do not see this.
Mitchko (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- FrankelGnome (talk · contribs)
Hello, I plan to revise this article so it will not sound like an advertisement. However, If possible, I would like feedback on what sections need adjusting/removing.
Thanks!
FrankelGnome (talk) 20:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
FrankelGnome (talk) 20:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
21:07:40, 3 October 2017 review of submission by Jasonperillo
[edit]- Jasonperillo (talk · contribs)
Thank you for the opportunity to receive assistance. I understand the concerns about the "significance" of coverage and "reliability" of the source, but I feel as though what I submitted meets those guidelines. So, I would benefit from your help in directing me to where I went wrong.
In the one instance where I felt the source might not have met those guidelines, I included the name of the source stating that "according to High Watch" and included the text in quotes. How can I improve?
The other item I might question is the mention in silkworth.net, but in that case I also made it clear in the text what the source was, as to avoid confusion for folks who might not look to the footnotes. How can I improve?
Again, any help is greatly appreciated. I'm not trying to present questionable information. I just want to present a post that is factual and that is approved!
Thanks very much.
Jason