Help desk
< August 6	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 8 >

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 7

Added reliable sources/inline citations

Hello--It was suggested that I improve my sources, so I changed many of the book references. Can you have a look at the article on Patrick O. O'Meara? [[1]] Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Patrick O. O'Meara For some reason, the link to re-submit it is not showing up any more, and I would like to try to re-submit it if you think I'm on the right track. Thank you! Carrot 70.Carrot70 (talk) 04:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can manually resubmit a article by adding {{subst:submit}} to the top; I have done so for you.

However, there are still issues with the references: Two of the references are primary sources: O'Meara's own university's biography pages. And foreign language Wikipedias (like the English Wikipedia itself) are not considered reliable. The book reviews don't devote a single sentence to O'Meara (in fact, the only review which mentions the editors at all only lauds the other editor). That leaves us with the very short Indiana Public Media profile, which on its own is probably not enough to satisfy the notability requirement for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (and I'm not entirely sure it's truly independent anyway) and which does not support all of the article's content; for example, it does not mention O'Meara's South African origin. My suggestion would be to look for newspaper coverage or for academic sources discussing O'Meara's work in some detail.

Also, you should use inline citations and footnotes to clarify which reference supports which part of the article's content. Huon (talk) 07:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/AES-CCMP

I have submitted a new article for creation at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/AES-CCMP

Currently, there is a stub related to CCMP at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCMP, and a redirect to this page at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AES-CCMP&redirect=no.

The page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AES-CCMP_encryption_protocol, indicates there is no article with the title "AES-CCMP encryption protocol".

I believe this article is best suited for the title AES-CCMP, so this is the one I requested. Please let me know if this will be approved or not. I am yet completing some additional edits in my sandbox, which can be used later for editing once approved.

Thanks!

Pointdexter5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pointdexter5 (talk • contribs) 05:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is currently awaiting review; that may take a few days. Please be patient. Once it has been reviewed, you will be notified of the result on your talk page. I just had a glance at the draft, and it looked promising to me; however, its subject seems to be the same as that of our CCMP article. If that's the case, have you considered improvig the existing article instead of writing a duplicate? We won't accept a second article on the same topic. If you believe the existing article's name should be changed, you can request it to be moved. As an aside, you can continue improving the draft while it's submitted for review; there's no need to wait with improvements until it's approved. Huon (talk) 07:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If one of my articles is submitted and waiting for review, can I submit a second article for creation at the same time? If the answer is yes, how would I do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jengawiki (talk • contribs) 09:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can certainly create a second article about a different subject in your userspace. I have held User:Ritchie333/Jazz After Dark for some time (there are no reliable sources to make it pass a review) while creating other articles in the meantime. However, you shouldn't create a second article about the same subject, as that will just get declined. --Ritchie333 (talk) 09:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/AES-CCMP

New here, so not sure how to reply to the previous answer from Huon.

I understand this is the same topic as the CCMP document, which is why I asked the question. If the article is not approved, could I replace the content in CCMP with this one, then have it renamed to AES-CCMP? I believe this article is more current and complete compared to CCMP as it exists, so just want to make sure I follow correct procedures, and that the content is accepted one way or another.

Pointdexter5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pointdexter5 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My advice would be not to replace the content entirely, but to improve on the old content. For example, I don't think your draft's first sentence is really an improvement - an article should start by stating what its subject is, not by stating where it was originally defined. Similarly, there may be other parts of the current article that are salvageable. But in principle, editing the current article is definitely the way to go. Be bold! Should your edits turn out to be contentious, you can discuss them on the article's talk page and work towards a consensus. Requesting a page move is also done on the article's talk page; WP:Requested moves#Requesting a single page move explains the necessary steps in detail. Huon (talk) 14:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please answer

My submission has been denied because it states that my content is copywrited but I don't know how it is. Please help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eabrookman (talk• contribs) 19:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been deleted (the standard procedure for copyright infringements); I therefore cannot tell what copyright it violated. If you used a copyrighted source such as compay websites but had permission to do so (which would require the source to be released under the CC-BY-SA license, you will have to provide proof of that permission via the procedure outlined at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission#When permission is confirmed. Once permission has been confirmed, you the draft can be undeleted. But it might be easier to just paraphrase whatever source you used in your own words. Huon (talk) 19:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What if the information from the website was written by me?? How do I go about getting approval with Wikipedia? Layman's terms, please Eabrookman (talk • contribs) 13:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As Huon has stated, you'll probably find it easier to just rewrite your own content using different words. The reason the article is blanked is that anything you write on Wikipedia can be changed and modified by someone else, and the blanking is to prevent them doing so if it's not clear they have copyright clearance to do so. --Ritchie333 (talk) 14:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two weeks ago I provided a detailed explanation on how to provide evidence of a permission to use the content under the CC-BY-SA license. Basically, find out who holds the copyright, get an authorized person to fill out this form, and send (or forward) it to "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org". Or rewrite it; a company website is unlikely to serve well as an encyclopedia article anyway. Huon (talk) 14:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Your Teen Magazine

I've submitted my article twice, both times having it rejected. I made the requested changes to the first draft after the first rejection. It has been rejected a second time, but for reasons that don't seep to apply to my article. The two changes the editor requested in order for the article to be publishable were 1) in-line citations and 2) notability.

According to Wikipedia's own guidelines, the "Reference" and "Note" templates I used in my article qualify as in-line citations. I followed Wikipedia's guide in creating these references and notes, so I don't understand why they are not being recognized by the editor.

In terms of the notability of the subject (Your Teen Magazine), I have sourced multiple independent, legitimate sources in creating my article (e.g. The Sun Press, LA Talk Radio, Fox 8 News Cleveland, etc.). If linking to the magazine's own website or to retailers where one can purchase the magazine are not allowed on the page, I'm happy to remove them. But my editor made it seem like these two links were the only sources I provided.

Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yourteen (talk • contribs) 16:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I think there are a number of issues here, so I'll discuss these in turn.

Your username has a strong resemblance to the article's subject, which can potentially indicate a conflict of interest. In general, you should avoid writing any articles about yourself or anything you're affiliated with.
The tone of the article is still written too much like an advertisement. I can't easily tell what Your Teen is in the opening paragraph, and I should be able to. Is it a mainly a paper based magazine or a website? Unfortunately, if it's the latter, it may not necessarily be notable (and, being a website, has the risk of being speedy deleted). The first sentence should read something like "Your Teen is a magazine produced for parents with teenage children, published by...". The sentence "Check out "Your Teen"'s Facebook page and tap into their Twitter." is completely unnecessary - you should not use Wikipedia for promotional purposes, though a "see also" link at the bottom of the page might be acceptable.
Relating to the above, although you have cited some reliable sources, such as Fox News, they don't really discuss why this magazine is notable, merely that it exists. Click here to see some of the criteria that determines whether or not sources establish notability - the Fox News reference seems to just cover the existence of the magazine, without going into depth about its pros and cons. If the news coverage was spread over a number of years covering a wider range of significant topics covered in the magazine, they might be more acceptable.

I was hoping to find an example of a similar subject that's well laid out and properly sourced, but I can't think of anything obvious. Possibly the closest match I think of is Good Housekeeping, which at least is laid out in the way I'd expect a Wikipedia article to appear.

Hope that's of help to you. --Ritchie333 (talk) 17:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree on the notability issue; the magazine has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, that should suffice to establish its notabilty. However, let me expand on the "promotional tone" issue: Currently the draft is a piece of advertising masquerading as an article. The "buy it here" links are just the icing on the cake. As Ritchie333 said, it begins with the very first sentence: I'd expect something neutral and descriptive, like "'Your Teen is an American quarterly magazine on parenting founded in 2008." Instead, it "addresses the challenges inherent in raising teens and helps parents to continue the journey toward the goal of successful parenting"? Would you really expect to read that style in the Encyclopedia Britannica? The entire draft is chock-full of these instances of what I call marketingspeak, and they are not supported by the sources provided. For example, "Your Teen is a trusted resource readers turn to for help with raising teenagers" - says who? That claim would need not only a source, but attribution to the source - "a Cleveland Sun Press review called it a 'trusted resource'" (except it didn't). I also found the article curiously thin on hard facts - it does contain the founding date (that's actually not the founding date reported by the sources, though), but very little other data. What's the circulation? How frequently is it published? The sources allow us to write a good article on the magazine, but this isn't it. If it were accepted, it would immediately have to be rewritten from scratch. Huon (talk) 17:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Vision 2020: New York City Comprehensive Waterfront Plan

How do I edit the title of this proposed article? Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Vision 2020: New York City Comprehensive Waterfront Plan I just want the title to be: New York City Comprehensive Waterfront Plan

Thank you.

JulieNYNJ (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion would be to just add a note to the very top: "Article name is supposed to be New York City Comprehensive Waterfront Plan." When the draft is accepted, the reviewer will move it to the correct title. Huon (talk) 17:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Submission Timeframe

On August 2nd, I submitted an article to be reviewed and since then, nothing has happened. I understand there is a backlog but articles submitted on the same day as me have already been reviewed. I just want to make sure that I submitted it correctly or if the process is just slow. Thank you! (Aknordstrom (talk) 18:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)) Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Intelligent Energy Storage[reply]

Your article was submitted correctly, and is in the queue. One thing to be aware of is articles may be taken off the review queue simply because they were easily to decline as unsuitable, such as being nonsense, unreferenced, or only backed up with typical unreliable sources such as Facebook or Twitter. There is a backlog at the moment, which we're working through as quickly as possible. However, I'm afraid I'm not sure I'd pass your article in its current state, as large parts of it are unsupported by references, and it looks at first glance to maybe be original research or a duplicate of one of the other articles mentioned in the first sentence. These might be things worth addressing now before somebody's had a chance to formally review it. --Ritchie333 (talk) 19:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pokemon Red/Blue Lavender Town

y wont it let me submit the article to you 96.42.170.128 (talk) 20:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)Sam Bam Billy Bob Jones[reply]

The draft has been submitted: When there's a "Review waiting" message and it's categorized among the pending AfC submissions, it is awaiting review. However, it is currently not supported by reliable sources (YouTube is not considered reliable) and will thus be declined; the claim that 600 children committed suicide due to the music would definitely need a better source. Furthermore, significant coverage in reliable sources is required to establish the topic's notability. We also already have an article on Pokémon Red and Blue. Huon (talk) 21:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may also be interested in reading about The Pokémon test, which resulted from a general fatigue of Pokémon related articles some time back. --Ritchie333 (talk) 22:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]