Help desk
< August 7	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 9 >

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 8

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hans Nordin

I´m writing an article about Author, TV-host, Fishing Guide Hans Nordin with whom I made several documentaries during the years 1989-2001. Since then also others have made TV-shows and documentaries with him. There also are a lot of articles produced about, with and of him. But before 2000 there is not easy to get references. Especially when it comes to journals. To mention that there is a world wide spread interest in Hans Nordin is relevant since people from all over the world has come to Sweden just to meet and fish together with Hans. Therefore the introduction mention journals from countries not all with references. But there are references from books published in many of those countries. I like to know what your advice is regarding this. Kind regards Börje Peratt Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hans Nordin]] (Peratt) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peratt (talk • contribs) 06:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The current references are a mixed bunch. Many look like reliable secondary sources to me: Articles about Nordin written by independent journalists. Others, however, are primary sources such as Nordin's own books or the TV series, or they don't mention Nordin at all, like that IMDb link to Börje Peratt's page. I couldn't identify some, like "NOANEAHbIM NOB" - is that title misspelt? My suggestion would be to get rid of most of the primary sources and to emphasize those that are truly independent - sources by others about Nordin. I'd also proof-read them for typos; for example, it's not "Wobbler -toppmodelle im eigenbaum", but "Wobbler: Topmodelle im Eigenbau" (that's another primary source anyway, but still).

To have the article state that there's a worldwide interest in Nordin would require a secondary source which makes exactly that claim - it's not enough to present sources from various countries about him and then synthesize them into that claim. For that particular "journals in X" line, I'd say it would be much more interesting to summarize what those journals had to say about Nordin than just to mention that they did cover him. Huon (talk) 10:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that "NOANEAHbIM NOB" is supposed to be Cyrillic (it may still be misspelt, though - there seems to be a lack of consonants). However, a secondary source stating that Nordin is an internationally published author would be much preferable to a bunch of references to the translations of his own books. Huon (talk) 10:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Valerie Miles

How long does it normally take for an article to be reviewed? Could anyone help me out with my article? Much appreciated.

If I wanted to register myself, what would I have to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encatedrales (talk • contribs) 08:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The draft wasn't submitted for review; I have done that for you. There is a massive backlog; it will probably take a few days or a week until it gets reviewed. However, there are a few issues. Firstly, you should use inline citations and footnotes to clarify which reference supports which of the draft's statements. Biographies of living persons face very strict standards for inclusion, and inline citations are often considered necessary. Secondly, not all of the references you give are acceptable. YouTube and Vimeo videos are user-submitted content and usually not considered reliable; neither are blogs. Miles' introduction to Granta is a primary source. The El Pais article, while definitely a reliable secondary source, tells us virtually nothing about Miles. That leaves us with the CCCB profile, and I'm not sure that comes with the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy required to be considered reliable. Furthermore, the standard for notability is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and "significant coverage" is usually interpreted to mean "more than one source that provides non-trivial coverage". My suggestion would be to look for newspaper coverage that provides a little more detail on Miles than that El Pais piece.

I'm not sure what you mean by "registering", but since you have created an account, you're as registered as you can be. Some rights will be extended to you when your account is autoconfirmed, that is, when it's a few days old and has made more than ten edits, but other than that, this is it. Welcome to Wikipedia! Huon (talk) 10:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Thahib

This was just a note that im sending referring to my draft Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Thahib. I would like to know what are essential to be contained in an article (things i must have included for my article to be accepted). i have resubmitted it. (Thahib (talk) 10:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I've had a look at your article and I can't pass it as the moment. The references are other Wikipedia articles, but Wikipedia cannot be used to reference itself. I've added some suggestions for what references you could include on the review comments. Another thing to be aware of is that your username suggests you are attempting to write a Wikipedia article about yourself, which is generally considered a bad idea as it can lead to a conflict of interest amongst other things. --Ritchie333 (talk) 11:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chandrika Balan

Dear Sir.Madam

I had previously submitted an article under name Chandrika Balan which was declined for more references. I have today edited and resubmitted it with Chandrika Balan alias Chanbdramati with all information you had requested.

Kindly let me know the status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panank (talk • contribs) 11:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has not been resubmitted for review; due to the massive backlog, that will take a few days, possibly more than a week.

To me the Hindu and yentha articles seem sufficient to establish her notability; however, you should use inline citations and footnotes to clarify which part of the article is based on which reference. In fact, the article text and the references seem almost disjoint - for example, neither source mentions Canada, or the St. Berchman's Award, or the Playwright's Meet in Adelaide, . The article also needs some heavy copyediting; I've started on that and will continue later today. Huon (talk) 12:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Leigh Bale

Good morning!

I submitted an article titled Leigh Bale. GregJackP denied the article stating that my sources were not "verifiable." I don't know what more to do here. I've looked at numerous other author Wikipedia pages and gave even more source references than many of them have. Leigh Bale is a nationally published author. I listed two of her publishers (every one knows who Harlequin is, right?) and also Amazon.com where her books can be purchased, her web site, Romance Writers of America's web site (which has a page in Wikipedia, too), and some other web sites for awards this author has won. What more can I do here? I'd sure appreciate the help. Thanks!Lynn Savatch (talk) 15:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lynn, I have looked at your references and found:

Is a secondary source, they sell books.
Is a primary source.
Is a primary/secondary source.
Does not check out.
Is a good source.
Is broken.
Is primary source.
Is primary source.

You have one good citation. Since this is a WP:BLP stricter standards apply. We need 2 or more reliable, independent sources to establish her notability and in-line citations for any information in the article that may be contentious. More helpful information can be found at WP:SOURCE. Thanks for your efforts so far. -- :- ) Don 16:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best and easiest way to prove notability is newspaper, magazine articles, reliable website which have book reviews. The New York Times would be 100% guaranteed way to prove notability. But, Grants Pass Daily Courier will also work. -- :- ) Don 21:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article is written like an advertisement

I would like to have someone help me streamline the article Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/VOS_Flips so it will be able to be accepted. I have tried to keep it as neutral as possible, but as I am a new editor perhaps my eagerness to write about this company may have been biased.

Note: I personally met the founder of this company at a meeting at the University of Texas at San Antonio when he gave a presentation about his company to the International Trade Committee. As a student of Latin background, I was very impressed about what his company is doing and wanted to share this information with the world via Wikipedia, similar to what other companies and organizations such as Green America and Toms Shoes have done.

Please let me know what mistakes were made and how I can correct them to align with Wikipedia's rules.

Thanks Shpena (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the article's references leave much to be desired. Many of them are primary sources such as the company's website ot those of the affiliated non-profit organizations. Others provide only trivial coverage - the UN Global Compact and Green America websites don't even mention VOS. Yet others, like YouTube videos, are not reliable. There are some truly independent reliable sources that have something to say about the company, such as the San Antonio Express-News article (of which two versions are provided as "different" references, one of them attributed to the Houston Chronicle), but they are few and far between. Conversely, most of the draft's sections, especially the text-heavy ones like the "Business operations", "Business model" and "Philantropy" sections, ar wholly or mostly unreferenced.

Secondly, the article cannot quite decide what it's supposed to be about. Is it about the brand, VOX Flips? About the company, Flores, LLC? (And is VOX Flips a brand, a company, or both?) That's rather unclear. In any case, I don't see how the founder's football games are relevant to either, and the coverage of the National Rubber Association of Guatemala also is rather irrelevant to either VOX or Flores.

Thirdly, the entire draft's tone is unduly laudatory and full of what I call marketingspeak. VOX designs "unique" cross-over and thong-style designs? Says who? They were "launched in the marketplace"? How about "sold"? Or take this gem: "Two Steps At A Time™ takes a left and a right step to create an integral solution for under-privileged communities." What does that even mean? Also, we don't use registered trademark symbols like ™ or ®.

On the other hand, hard facts are conspiciously absent. There are no revenue figures, no number of employees, no numbers of shoes and sums of money actually donated. Soles4Souls has given away about a million pairs of shoes over the last seven years - how many did VOX Flips contribute?

My suggestion would be to get rid of most or all of the primary sources and to rewrite the draft based on what the reliable secondary sources (the newspaper articles and the like) have to say, and on what's relevant to VOX. We should aim for a rather dry, neutral tone. Hard facts and numbers are worth more than lofty claims and good intentions (see also WP:MISSION). And those facts and claims should always come with a source to back them up.

And one less important suggestion: While the lead section is clearly based on that of Toms Shoes, that was not the best guide. The very first sentence should clearly state whether the subject is a company or a brand, and what they produce. For Toms Shoes that might be obvious, but "flips" could be anything. I'd expect something like this: "VOX Flips is a Guatemalan shoe manufacturer founded in 2008, specialising in eco-friendly sandals. VOX Flips is heavily involved in charity and donates one pair of shoes to charity for every pair it sells." That seems an adequate (though rather short) summary of the company, its business and its involvement with charity; the details can then be provided in the body of the article. Huon (talk) 22:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Sedagroup/Dean Stafrace

Please help

There are articles and website evidence on this person

How do I add them for verification — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sedagroup (talk • contribs) 22:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EL explains how to link to websites. You should use inline citations and footnotes to clarify which reference supports which part of the article. There are also nifty citation templates like {{cite web}} and {{cite news}} which take a bunch of parameters such as the URL, the source's title, the author, the publisher and the date, and automatically produce a well-formatted reference. WP:Referencing for beginners may also be helpful, but let me provide an example you can copy and adapt:

Dean Strafrace is an Australian DJ known as Toyboy.^[1]

Have a look at this section's code to see what I did here: The <ref></ref> tags produce the footnote, {{cite web}} produces the text in the footnote, and {{reflist}} displays the footnote in the references section.

As an aside, I wasn't overly impressed with the amount of articles I found; this one was the only one that turned up in a Google News search. It's not really about Stafrace, and on its own it's probably not enough to establish his notability. Huon (talk) 23:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Creative Child Care". The Sydney Morning Herald. October 5, 2006.

[1] "Creative Child Care". The Sydney Morning Herald. October 5, 2006.

[1]