Help desk
< August 17	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 19 >

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 18

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sequential Circuits Prophet VS

Please explain why given two different synthesizers produced by two major manufacturers in the same era,

this one has been refused, the article being deemed 'not notable' by the reviewer, given the boilerplate rejection: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Sequential_Circuits_Prophet_VS

...but these are notable, and worthy of publication: Korg_DW-8000, and Korg_DS-8.

One provides nine independent references, the others zero (at this time anyway). It remains unclear as to why the former was refused. All are notable in modern music and the evolution of the modern synthesizer.

Thanks in advance, from an active Wiki contributor.Vapeur (talk) 05:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

circuit diagram of robot controlled by tv remote and concept about that — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.85.82 (talk) 07:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other insufficiently sourced articles exist, but each submission must stand on its own merits. I don't think the other synthesizers are notable; the articles certainly don't show so.

Your sources don't seem to be reliable; for example, Vintage Synth Explorer is a personal website with no indication of fact-checking or editorial oversight. The interviews might be considered reliable sources, but they don't provide significant coverage of the Prophet VS. Huon (talk) 09:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles_for_creation/Peopleperhour

Hi there, I've addressed the editor feedback on a page that I've created [1] and now I'm wanting to send it back to Articles for Creation so that I can request approval and hopefully get approval, but I can't work out how to do that. Can you advise please?

G2003 (talk) 08:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-submitted the draft for you; you can do so by adding {{subst:submit}} to the very top. I'd reword the draft a little; for example, the source for the claim that "the online marketplace created by PeoplePerHour is often quoted around the world as a model of distributed labour that is transforming how and where work" is a single such example - the source doesn't say it's often so quoted, and I doubt that's such a common occurrence. Huon (talk) 09:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ewisoft Website Builder

Any help would be appreciated and I thank you in advance. I have written my first article and have been declined 2 times because the resources I have identified are not reliable enough? Can you please provide some guidance as to how to accomplish this to wikipedia's standards? I have read the beginner's guide and searched for more information but I cannot seem to find out exactly how I can fix this article. Vickig11 (talk) 13:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and explain. Basically, an article has to be notable to be here on its own right, and you need to have reliable sources to prove it is. Things like newspapers, magazines and books that are reasonably widely known, have a professional set of editorial standards, and cover a wide range of subjects, are generally good choices. Since they cover lots of things, it would be significant if they covered this. However, the first of the two sources you have are a software review site which looks like it reviews a lot of things. That doesn't make it a bad choice for a source, it just means it has to go in some depth to say why this software is important. The second looks like a personal site, and they are generally unsuitable for being a reliable source?

Has the website builder been used for famous or well known sites? And if so, did a newspaper or magazine write up about it? If so, that would be your best success for getting relevant sources here. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see, so a product has to be famous in order to be accepted on Wikipedia. Here is a similar product. On their Talk page, it mentions it being a "stub" and is supported by WikiProject Software. It is CoffeeCup_HTML_Editor. Is it possible that my article is in the wrong place? Can it be transformed to a stub just like the CoffeeCup HTML Editor? Vickig11 (talk) 16:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While other articles with insufficient sources exist, that's no reason to create more - each submission must stand on its own merits, and maybe we just haven't yet deleted the other stuff. Huon (talk) 17:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hans Nordin

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Hans_Nordin&pe=1&#Hans_Nordin_.28author_and_fishing_guide.29

The only part not fully verified is the intro when referring to articles in international journals and these countries mentioned: Great Britain (Scotland), Finland, USA and Japan

But now they are removed. All other facts have reliable and verified sources. Best regards B.P (Peratt (talk) 14:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

The article has lots of sources, but many of them are of rather low quality. For example, a press release is usually not considered reliable. We also shouldn't just report that articles about Nordin have been written in international newspapers, but summarize what those newspapers have to say about Nordin. Many sources are primary sources, for example Nordin's own books. It would be much better to have a secondary source for Nordin's success as an international author than just the translations of his book. Huon (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Paul Schimmel

I'm trying to create an article for Paul Schimmel the art curator as opposed to the other Paul Schimmel. How do I make that clear in the title of my article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scholarlyarticles (talk • contribs) 19:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest addig a line such as "Title of the article is supposed to be Paul Schimmel (art curator)" to the top of the article.

The draft needs more reliable sources, such as newspaper articles about Schimmel. Currently it has only one which mentions Schimmel; that's a little thin. Large parts of the draft don't cite any sources at all. Huon (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Change the title of my article

Hi I would like to change the tile of an article I created from Ervin Wolfe to Ervin "Red" Wolfe. I can't see a way to do it from the edit page. How can this be done? Thank you Rick Wolfe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deacon47 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need to be an autoconfirmed user (ie: having been on for 4 days and with more than 10 edits) to move or rename pages. Then just click "Move" at the top of the article. However, I wouldn't rename it personally though, it's unlikely to be a more common search term. I'd also strongly recommend getting some more references on the article ASAP, as being in the main article space and being tagged as requiring more, it may end up at Articles for Deletion soon. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]