Help desk
< August 12	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 14 >

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 13

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Holidaysafe

Hi, thanks everyone for the feedback regarding my article for creation 'Holidaysafe'. I was just wondering if anyone could expand on the feedback. Several people have said that the sources are not reliable, I have had a look at the Insure and Go wikipedia page, who are similar to Holidaysafe, and I don't understand why their sources are ok but the ones I have collected for Holidaysafe are not...? Thanks again RichMoon (talk) 09:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The tag (which is put in by a template) of "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." is a bit misleading in this case. I declined this because, although a lot of the sources are reliable, and secondary, they were mostly just lists of holiday insurance packages, with Holidaysafe appearing as one of many and I didn't feel that there was anything that significantly talked about Holidaysafe in depth.

The reviewing instructions, for what it's worth, state "References about the subject – at least one lengthy paragraph, preferably more. Not passing mentions, not directory listings, not just any old thing that happens to have the name in it. Several of them." Having said all of that, I feel this is a borderline case, and somebody else may have a different view (quick look towards Huon), and if you can find another reliable source or two that talks directly about Holidaysafe, and discusses them over several paragraphs, that will probably get it to pass.

The other thing to point out is that articles are evaluated on a case by case basis, and just because another article isn't up to scratch, it doesn't mean that this article should go to a similar standard. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for more. Hope that's clarified things a bit. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ritchie333's assessment. The references are a mix of primary sources, self-published sources which probably are not reliable (in fact they look like undercover advertising to me), trivial coverage which does not provide any details on the company, a broken link, and a few websites which don't even mention Holidaysafe. The best of the bunch seems to be the defaqto review, but that's about a single insurance policy, not about the company. We don't have revenue figures, the number of employees or even a secondary source for the company's founding date. I don't think all of that combined suffices to establish Holidaysafe's notability. The article is also flat-out wrong in calling the Versicherungskammer Bayern Group "Germany’s largest banking group"; Germany's largest bank and insurance company are Deutsche Bank and Allianz, respectively. (Holidaysafe seems to be, via the Versicherungskammer Bayern, a subsidiary of the de:Sparkassen-Finanzgruppe, but that entire group is still smaller. Sources for those connections are insufficient anyway.) Huon (talk) 14:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, the sources I felt were reliable were Which?, the FSA, the Daily Telegraph, and maybe, just maybe the Daily Mail (though see this). If all of them talked about HolidaySafe in depth, I'd have passed it. However, none of them do. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

is the image the problem?

Hello,

My article Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Jim_Linderman has been twice denied. I am not sure what about is being denied as instruction is vague.

It is not supported by relevant sources- I wonder if it might just be the image that is mucking things up, in which case, could I please just post the text portion of the article without the photo and work out the image at a later date??

I am going to be in trouble if I can't work this out soon.

Thanks.

Elhiggins89 (talk) 15:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the confusion here is that the reviewer's weren't sure what in the article was referenced by what. That in itself isn't a reason not to pass an article, though. The newspaper articles here, here and here would suggest notability. You can clean an article much more quickly than you can make a non-notable person notable! Having said that, I wouldn't personally pass this in its current state unless I was prepared to do the aesthetic cleanup on the article myself. Have a look at something like Jann Wenner to see an article on a similar subject is laid out. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate a little: Four of the six references, Linderman's book and his blogs, are primary sources, but Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Maybe some of the current "external links" could be used as sources, but if so, you should clarify which parts of the article they are supposed to support by using footnotes, just as you did with the current references (the primary sources among those should probably turned into external links instead). Huon (talk) 16:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revision to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Community Professional Loudspeakers

I sent in a submission on Community Professional Loudspeakers on July 23, 2012. I followed your editor's recommendations and revised the article on August 8. I have yet to hear back from Wikipedia since submitting this revision, and wanted to make sure that you had received it. When I made the changes, I inadvertently submitted the story four times. It is the final version I sent that I would like considered. Could you please verify that you received this revision?

Thank you for your time.

SFall34 Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Community Professional Loudspeakers SFall34 (talk) 16:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The draft had not been resubmitted for review; I have done so for you. Due to the backlog it will take a few days, about a week, until it will get reviewed again. However, two of the four references are primary sources (the company's own website), and the links given for the other two don't point to the correct places; I couldn't find the articles that are supposed to be the sources via the target websites' search functions. I'm not sure whether Pro Audio Asia is a reliable source in the first place; it looks more like a collection of press releases. Without significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, the draft is likely to be declined again. Huon (talk) 16:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rejected submission [Wikipedia talk: Articles for creation/Sports Mastery]]

Hello,

I created a page but it got rejected, you stated it was because of needing more reliable sources. I have cited 3 different authors books and various websites. How can I fix this? The link to the page is below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Sports_Mastery

Just fyi..you stated some of my sources are not considered reliable or credible, I don't know how much more credible we need....

The Jordan to the Max video I cited is pretty credible I would think. Mel Siff's book is focused on training and he is very credible. (I believe he passed recently) J.Warner's book is on winning championships and he is credible as well. George Leonard is also a very credible author and he covers a wide range of improvement topics.

MarcC75 (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The references aren't all that helpful. The first link didn't point anywhere; I believe I fixed the typo in the url, but the new target doesn't say what it's supposed to say. Mel Siff's book seems to be self-published by the co-author, Yuri Verkhoshansky, or possibly by the Supertraining Institute. J Scott Warner's book is also self-published. Sports-mastery.com is apparently a subsidiary of Warner's company Psinova. While Jordan to the Max may be a reliable source, I don't think it discusses sports mastery at an appreciable level of detail; we cite it for Jordan's claim that he mastered basketball by "incorporating various philosophies and training into his life". That' so vague it's useless. Finally there's Leonard's book which we cite for an equally vague statement about mastery in general, not for anything about sports mastery. In summary, the draft looks as if it's promoting Warner's philosophy and his organization, embellished by some vague references to the term in other sources. I doubt this is a viable topic for an article, but if it were, it should, at the very least, present the criteria for sports mastery it alludes to, and cite the "studies throughout history show[ing] evidence of pro athletes that have become masters of their sport" - I assume those studies have been published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals? The more dubious claims, such as the one about sports mastery only being taught by "artisans", should be backed up by sources independent of an organization that offers such artisan training. Huon (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Bella922323/sandbox

Bella Lawrence was bron on (personal details deleted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bella922323 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just declined that submission because it gave no indication of notability. If you're the subject of that draft, you might want to have a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest; writing an autobiography is strongly discouraged. You might also want to be careful about what kid of personal information you publicise. Huon (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Virtual Piggy

My round of revisions still got rejected: hoping I can get it right the second time.

What specific sections should I remove to make this look more like an encyclopedia entry, and less of a company guide? Would adding a History section be adequate to get this approved, or should I am to delete items too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.105.128.235 (talk) 20:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm the second user who denied your AfC submission. I would suggest removing the first three sections as they are unnecessary for a Wikipedia article. Considering visiting the link I suggested at your AfC submission (Wikipedia:Writing better articles). If you need additional help, contact me at my talk page. SwisterTwister talk 20:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shifting the focus from the details of Virtual Piggy's product to the details of the company itself - revenue figures or the number of employees, for example - would definitely help. But I must also note that many of the references aren't the reliable secondary sources we need. There are several references to Virtual Piggy's own homepage, a few blogs and opinion pieces, and several press releases. None of those come with the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy we require. Rather few truly independent reliable sources remain, such as the Yahoo News piece or the Beach Reporter article; those are the ones on which the article should be based. Huon (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Foodessintals

Foodessintals — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.17.193 (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what your question is, but the draft was declined because it was so short that it didn't give enough context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter. It also didn't have any reliable sources. Huon (talk) 21:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/TranslationArtwork.com

Dear Help Desk,

after the post have been declined I made some changes. Now I am kind of insecure if everything is fine. Would you mind to give me some feedback?

Best wishes, Patrick — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrickseifried (talk • contribs) 20:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Unfortunately, I've had to decline your submission, as it didn't have any significant reliable sources covering the company. However, please don't take it personally - hundreds of submissions are declined every week for similar reasons. At least here, you have the chance to improve them, whereas if you just create the articles directly, they have a tendency to be deleted before people really understand why. If you feel a bit disheartened, there are plenty of other things you can do on Wikipedia that don't involve creating articles directly. Find an article that interests you, look for a tag like {{cn}} and see if you can find a source that actually validates the claim made and can mean the "[citation needed]" text goes away. That will hopefully give you some insight into how to find sources. Hope that's of use. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bill Jerome

{{Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bill Jerome]] I've submitted an article for consideration on August 9. I'm not sure I've submitted it correctly. My username is Sarahshields and the article name I wanted my article to have is Bill Jerome. I'm afraid I somehow created the name of the article as Sarahshields but I'm not sure. Is there a way I can see what article and its name I have pending and the status? It is not showing up in wikipedia yet. Sarahshields (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved this article into the correct place. However, provided you have submitted an article for review, if it's still in your sandbox, a bot will move it to the right place after a few days. However, I can't pass it for review as none of the sources for the article have significant coverage of the article's subject. You need to find newspaper or magazine coverage that talks specifically about Bill Jerome in some depth, ideally several paragraphs or more. The fact he's worked with several famous artists doesn't mean he will be able to necessarily have a Wikipedia article, as notability is not inherited. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Marie P. Anderson

What do you advice I change on the Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Marie P. Anderson page for it to be able to pass the submission test?

Mariepanderson (talk) 20:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)Marie P. Anderson[reply]

Firstly, this appears to be an article about yourself. This is generally a bad idea for a number of reasons - other people will notice a conflict of interest and accuse you of being unable to write with a neutral point of view. Also, people can write good and bad things about you, and provided they're correctly sourced, you won't be able to change them.

As for what sources, you need to find things like newspaper or magazine articles, ideally from something that's nationally published, that discuss you in depth. If you've never been interviewed for a newspaper, a magazine, TV station, radio etc many times, you probably aren't notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Sorry. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A more serious problem I've noticed is the article seems to be a straight copy of the text on your website. Unfortunately, this is a copyright violation, as all content on Wikipedia can be reused elsewhere freely, which we can't do with the text on your website without written permission. I would advise you rewrite the article ASAP as it could be speedy deleted. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined article, need help!

I just got declined because my article was considered not from a neutral standpoint. In writing this article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Intelligent_Energy_Storage, I tried to be as neutral as possible. This is a type of technology, not a company. Can anyone expand on how this looks like an advertisement? I am aware of two other applications that would fit this news article. If I included those and they are not part of the company discussed, would that be more acceptable? Any suggestions and advice would be much appreciated! Thank you for your time. (Aknordstrom (talk) 22:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I agree that "advertisement" is not an appropriate description, but the article's tone is still problematic. It engages in various off-topic remarks (such as the history of power generation back to 1882). It is vague in its definitions (I initially read "inventory" in the first sentence as "see how much we have", not "store"). Worse, "intelligent energy storage" is so much of a neologism that many of the references don't even use that term. Yet worse, the draft uses sources that don't even mention the subject - the Fraunhofer article, for example, is about intelligent production and consumption, but not about energy storage.

The article desperately needs a clearer definition of what intelligent energy storage is. For example, much of the article speaks of intelligent energy storage in buildings, such as in those New York City residential high-rises (and that part indeed heavily promotes Demand Energy Networks), and of "electricity located at or near the end-users’ site". Yet later sources speak of storage near wind parks - far from the end user, near the producer. The definition should probably include both types. The article also needs sources that explicitly back up that definition. Right now, as I said, most sources don't even mention "itelligent energy storage"; we basically synthesize the definition from various sources, none of which makes our point.

On the other hand, everything after the lead is only partially sourced, or not at all. That should significantly be shortened: Sources that don't deal with intelligent energy storage (such as the Pearl Street source) should be removed entirely, and content that is relevant to intelligent energy storage should be backed up with reliable sources (that doesn't include company websites or opinion pieces). Huon (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Hidaddyyouth/sandbox

Hidaddyyouth (talk) 22:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)§[reply]

That's empty. What do you need help with? Huon (talk) 23:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]