Help desk
< December 13	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	Current help desk >

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.

December 14

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/UrbanCode Software

I am requesting help to fix my AfC article . . .

(UrbanCode Software re-directed from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MEMarraMA/draft_article_UC; and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/UrbanCode_Software)

. . . which now sits in the "Declined" pile.

I thought I could revise it myself after poring over "how-to" help pages and "How to create your first Wikipedia article," but I can't. The only feedback I received (one comment and the rejection notice) were not specific; so, I don't know what or where to fix it.

SPECIFICS: 1. My proposed article first got a comment from "Ritchie333" who, after looking at "some of" the 38 listed References, concluded "a lot" of them are inadequate and suggested that this topic/subject is not notable.

As that didn't help me improve it, I sought clarification on Ritchie333's talk page, asking which sources lacked notability, highlighting specific, numbered independent refs and why I cited them.

I just received a response from Ritchie333 indicating that he left that comment so that "somebody else could deal with it" (because, he wrote, he "couldn't easily tell whether there were sufficient reliable sources to pass the article"). Fair enough.

Ritchie333 also confirmed my query about all blogs not being equal (or equally worthless), as I referenced a blog from a 500-lb industry gorilla (Microsoft) and blog cites from non-partisan tech researchers. (Ritchite333: "... blogs can be used if the author is well known in his subject field,")

Where I still need help is interpreting Ritchie333's reply: "But per policy, you can never cite other Wikipedia articles, though you can reuse the references in that article."

?? Does this mean I should take Wikipedia articles out of the REFERENCES (4 out of 38)? But it's okay for me to cite Wikipedia articles INLINE in the copy??

Ritchie333's comment also listed "primary sources" as, I think, a negative among my references. My query to him about this asked if my primary sources back up statements or direct quotes that come from originators' mouths, then is that still unacceptable? I got no answer; so I'm not sure if he meant Wikipedia articles (above) when I was referring to primary sources as being textbooks, journals, tech analyst papers, transcribed videotape). Any help on the acceptability of "primary sources"??

Unfortunately, I didn't get feedback from Ritchie333 until AFTER the article was declined; so I have no way of knowing if his highly visible comment of "not notable" influenced the rejection.

2. Zhaofeng Li declined the article without specifying which parts violated standards. This is where I need the most assistance.

Listed in the declined notice: (a) "Avoid Peacock Terms." Check. Since I used none of the superlatives or hype words listed on Wikipedia's Peacock Terms page, I don't know what to do next. I tried guessing: Is it the "Industry Awards & Recognition" that smells like peacock, even with cited references?

BTW -- I added the industry accolades stuff when I found the same on three other software developers' Wikipedia pages. (Me, too.) Can I get specific feedback on this? I hate to dump perfectly good awards unless I know for sure that's the problem.

(And no whining about the content in other similar companies' entries, right?)

(b) Zhaofeng Li: "This article does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article" ... plus

(c) "entries should be written from a neutral point of view," all without pointing me to which parts of the proposed article are not neutral or in the wrong tone. The only guess I came up with are the statements and conclusions made by "poobahs" (notables) in this industry sector -- referenced from textbooks, journals and tech sources. (Are these the unspecified "primary sources" Ritchie333's comment found to be weaknesses??)

Last and Uh-Ohhh --

(d) Zhaofeng Li: "... entries should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources" -- which, in fact, describes 27 of the 38 references I used in this article.

An additional 7 references are verifiable but published on the company's site as news, info webinars or in-depth articles. I KNOW I can find independent substitutes for them; but that's only 7.

Can I get feedback on why the other 27 "independent, reliable, published sources" don't count?

Again, I can't fix it if I'm not sure specifically what's wrong. And I would like to fix it. Help, pls? Thank you in advance. MEMarraMA (talk) 01:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia as a source: Wikipedia is indeed not a reliable source; using it as a reference would be circular. But you can (and should) add wikilinks to the relevant articles within the draft's text. Those links don't count as a reference, but they help reades to find more detailed information on related topics.

Primary sources such as the company's own website or documents hosted by it, or the "Agile Manifesto" website as a source on, basically, itself, can be used for the opinion of their author, but they should be used with care and only for uncontroversial statements; Wikipedia content should be based on secondary sources. For example, the "Agile Manifesto" doesn't say it introduced the term "agile", but even if it did, that would be a statement of fact, not just opinion, and thus would require a secondary source; besides, the manifesto doesn't mention UrbanCode at all, so using it to support claims about UrbanCode is original synthesis, something we should not engage in. At its most basic, if some fact isn't mentioned by secondary sources such as journal articles, textbooks or newspaper coverage, it's probably not that important to begin with. See WP:Weight. Primary sources cannot establish a topic's notability either. Textbooks and journal articles would usually be secondary sources (unless the articles are written by the company's PR people...) and are exactly the types of source we're after. For "tech analyst papers" and transcribed videotapes, much depends on the details. Who's the paper's author, where was it published? Who's in that video, who took the video, and who transcribed it? Unpublished videos are not acceptable sources because there's no way our readers can verify what the video says. In general, we aim for sources published with reputable publishers, sources that have been subject to editorial oversight. See WP:Identifying reliable sources for details. This is also the problem with blog sources: They're self-published and not subject to editorial oversight; most aren't known for fact-checking and accuracy. This also holds for Microsoft's blog.

Regarding the peacock problems: Two of the sources for the "Industry Awards & Recognition" are the SD Times reporting o the SD Times award, the other two are UrbanCode's own blog and press release. Those are all primary sources, and the latter two obviously aren't independent of UrbanCode. An award is much more impressive if someone other than the organizations giving and receiving the award has taken note. Also, we shouldn't use boldface for emphasis per WP:MOSBOLD. Other problematic articles may exist, but that's no reason to create more.

For more obvious peacock problems, take this statement: "Terraform™ is a flexible open source tool, available free under the Apache 2.0 license, to easily define and manage (provision) virtual environments." Firstly, Wikipedia doesn't use ™ symbols. Secondly, who says it's easy to define and manage virtual environments with Terraform? Who says it's flexible? No source is given. Or how about "... a scalable, flexible automation framework that integrates with over 80 third-party tools right out of the box"? That sounds as if it comes straight from UrbanCode's PR department. I could make the same statement sound a lot worse by saying that "without upgrades it integrates with less than 100 third-party tools."

On a more basic note, entire subsections of the "History and industry trends" mention UrbanCode barely or not at all. I doubt many of the sources do, either - I checked a couple of the "agile" sources, and not one of those I looked at did. That's original synthesis once again, and content that no source connects to UrbanCode should be gotten rid of.

Regarding the "independent, reliable, published sources": That doesn't cover quite as many of your sources as you think. Of your sources, we have:

1. UrbanCode press reliase. Not independent.

2. "Company History and Portfolio": UrbanCode website, not independent.

4. Cleveland Plain Dealer, news blog, "By Maciej Zawadzki," president of UrbanCode, not independent.

5. Unpublished video. Not published, presumably not independent.

6. UrbanCode webinar. Not independent.

7. Blog. Not reliable. Doesn't mention UrbanCode.

8. Unpublished video. Not published, presumably not independent.

11. Blog. Not reliable. Doesn't mention UrbanCode.

12. Wikipedia. Not reliable.

14. SD Times editorial. Doesn't say what it's cited for the first time. Doesn't even dedicate a single sentence to UrbanCode.

15. Press release. Not reliable.

16. UrbanCode blog. Not independent, not reliable.

17. Wikipedia. Not reliable.

18. Wikipedia. Not reliable.

19. Self-published opinion piece? Not reliable. Doesn't mention UrbanCode.

Of the sources in between no. 13 indeed looks like a reliable source that mentions UrbanCode. So does no. 10, but the link was broken; I fixed that. I doubt the textbooks even mention UrbanCode, but I don't have access to them right now. So among the first half of your sources we have two that are reliable, independent published sources that mention UrbanCode in some detail, another two that are clearly reliable, published and independent but may not mention UrbanCode, and a one (no. 14) that's abused the first time and doesn't provide significant coverage of UrbanCode anyway. The remaining 14 are all problematic one way or another. The second half doesn't look that much better.

I hope this helps. Huon (talk) 03:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Huon, Thank you very much for spending so much time and effort reviewing my draft article (UrbanCode Software re-directed from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MEMarraMA/draft_article_UC; and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/UrbanCode_Software)

which was previously declined for publication. I did not understand the specific grounds for rejection (primary sources; non-notable references; non-neutral pov; use of "peacock" terms) but not because I'm clueless. I did read all the WP Help Articles before I started researching and writing. I saw all those terms defined. And I was certain I was not committing any of those writing crimes.

Ha! I was also quite proud of my summary re-writes of certain trend events in the computer software development industry ... because I summarized and cited primary sources and I wrote it in plain old English. I thought I did a much better job than the trend / concept definitions I found on Wikipedia.

Quelle hubris.

After reading your point-by-point review, I now get it. "Yep, that IS original synthesis." Duh.

I know I'm "on to something" along the lines of what fiction writer William Gibson (who published the term cyberspace in his 1982 novella Neuromancer) called Steam Engine Time. Interview William Gibson in Wired

Steam-driven gizmos popped up in ancient Greece and China, and in half a dozen different cultures and regions before the early 1800s. But one guy (Fulton) demo'd first in France and then in the U.S. using a steam engine to push boats around on water. In 1803. So, is Fulton really the inventor?

Gibson knew he wasn't the only one imagining cyberspace in the early 1980s; he just got to the gate first, with a fully imagined Internet-like linked fictional world. And he had wider distribution -- science fiction buffs -- than other computer geeks who wrote.

Similarly, both the concept and the means to continuously and automatically integrate changes in software program codes hit a tipping point in the early 2000s. Only a couple developers got to the gate first; two of them were photo finishers (within a nose) and both those "horses" released their big idea for FREE (open source), a business model Robert Fulton never used. (Fulton got a navigation monopoly on the Hudson River in 1808. So much for open source.)

THAT is where I made my "not encyclopedia-ready" errors: I established the history and trends from original sources and then slid right into highlighting the developers/companies who did it first.

Original synthesis, indeed. That statement on WP Help Pages -- You are not establishing notability in a Wikipedia article; you only summarize and cite those conclusions from notable secondary sources (paraphrase) -- should probably be boldfaced. WP's editorial dislike of boldfacing notwithstanding.

Thank you, again, Huon for your time, patience and for being specific on what went wrong with my draft article. I bet it's only the 10,000th time it has come up at the Help Desk.

LAST -- I'm going to attack this again. Obviously my current draft is not "edit-able" or "tweakable." Should I (1) Set up another page in my name space with the same title? I'm not sure what that does to re-directs and history of the first draft. (2) Should I use the code I saw somewhere on "Creating Wikipedia Articles" -- a code in braces that basically says: I'm working on this so don't speedy delete it, please? MEMarraMA (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Solway Primary School

Hi there,

I have set in motion the Review of the above Article.

I am now thinking, that I should get the Article looked over by the Principal of the School before it goes live.

What do you suggest I do? Is there any way you can put a hold on the review for now.

PS - the reason I submitted it for review was because I wanted to upload the logo of the school but this was only possible once the Article is "live" as I understand.

Please advise, how to move forward,

BrianFroggyPeterson (talk) 02:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can "un-submit" the draft by adding a parameter to the review template; I've done so for you with this edit. If you want to re-submit it, either undo that edit or follow the instructions in the "not currently submitted for review" message box. You're right that copyrighted non-free images (and I believe that's the copyright status of the school logo) by Wikipedia's policy cannot be used under "fair use" except for live articles.

However, the draft needs reliable sources such as newspaper coverage. It currently doesn't cite any; thus, the school's notability is not established (and unlike secondary schools, primary schools are not presumed to be inherently notable), and the draft's content is not verifiable. In its current state the submission would have to be declined. Huon (talk) 03:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Founder of the first Pasar Malam in The Hague Holland Dierentuin in 1958 Mary Bruckel Beiten

There is an error made in Wikipedia encyclopedia about the first founder of the legendary Eurasian Market in the Netherlands in 1959 called:PASAR MALAM by Tjalie Robinson.

But in fact it was Mary Bruckel Beiten that started this first legendary Eurasian postcolonial PASAR MALAM in 1958 with her own money, and she continued to organize 8 more yearly pasar malams before she gave her organisation up to Tjalie Robinson.

The evidance of proof I have send you, also in book: PASAR MALAM SELAMAT DATANG (Amazon) are all original proofs in Dutch and next to it in English from the 50e and up till now.

Please help put this historical mistake right.

Geraldine Bruckel-Lang — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.66.122.141 (talk) 05:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to this draft, it currently doesn't cite any sources. The book was apparently written by Geraldine Bruckel-Lang, presumably a relative of Mary Bruckel-Beiten and, going by the username, also the author of the draft and, per your signature above, yourself. It's self-published and probably not a reliable source. On the other hand, I found this UC Berkeley web page crediting Robinson with the founding of the Pasar Malam festival. Huon (talk) 05:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you mostly have a concern about the content of a specific article, and if I'm guessing correctly, it's this one: Tong Tong Fair. When you notice a problem with an article, the best next step is usually to post a message on its "talk" page (Talk:Tong Tong Fair) explaining the problem. Then other editors interested in the article can discuss the issue and figure out what to do next - perhaps look for more references and revise the article, or take some other step. Creating a new article won't necessarily fix a problem with a different article. It's also fine to work on a new article draft of course, but since Wikipedia has relatively high standards for new articles, your concern might be more efficiently addressed by commenting on the existing article. Dreamyshade (talk) 07:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/I'm Not Jesus Mommy

I can't figure out how to insert a picture in the info box. this is my first article, I'm confident with the information in it, but just not sure on the technical issues, such as adding an image.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techistorian (talk • contribs) 05:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, look at Template:Infobox film to learn about the parameters (options) that you can use. According to the "Usage" section, you can insert | image = File:YourImage.jpg into the infobox. Check out Template:Infobox film#Image for guidance on the appropriate kind of image to use. Then see Wikipedia's non-free content policy to learn about the appropriate use of copyrighted images (such as most poster images) on Wikipedia, and see introduction to uploading images to find instructions for uploading an image. After uploading your image, insert that code into the infobox, replacing "File:YourImage.jpg" with the filename of your image. I hope this helps!

A quick note about content: I recommend revising the "Plot" section - aim for a plain, neutral style. It should be a factual summary of the plot instead of an exciting or dramatic summary - this might seem a little dry, but that's how encyclopedia articles are. :) I'd also suggest including a brief summary of published reviews of the movie, balanced with both positive and negative comments. Dreamyshade (talk) 06:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/VSI GROUP

Dear reader, could you please assist me in creating the right references. Could you for example point out a part of the text that you think should be referenced and which is not at the moment? Thank you in advance for your assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankvanemmerik (talk • contribs) 10:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have some trouble with footnotes. You seem to have put the terms that might need referencing (or that you wanted to link to? Wikilinks are created by double square brackets; "[[subtitling]]" will give "subtitling") into the footnotes, not the references themselves.

Regarding statements that should be referenced: Who calls VSI Group a "major provider"? Is there a secondary source for the staff numbers? What source confirms they were "the first Western company" to do electronic subtitling in Chinese, Japanese and Korean? Basically, Wikipedia content should be based on significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper coverage or articles in trade magazines on VSI. None of your sources provides that kind of coverage; with a few exceptions they all mention VSI in passing only. Of the exceptions, one was some company's interview with a VSI representative about their product (not a reliable source), and the others didn't mention VSI at all. Huon (talk) 11:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hi (User:Makhomakho/sandbox)

how can I attach a photo to my article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makhomakho (talk • contribs) 10:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can link to the image just as you did, but as usual for wikilinks you don't need the full URL but just the page title. (the "File:Xyz.JPG" part). I fixed one image for you, but I couldn't determine what other image you wanted to link to. See the picture tutorial for more details.

However, the draft needs reliable sources such as newspaper articles about Khojelani much more than it needed an image. Right now the draft's content is unverifiable, and Khojelani's notability is not established by significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Huon (talk) 12:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Free Highschool Education

some of the best players on earth runners too — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.198.237 (talk) 15:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment does not seem to imply a question about your submission to Articles for Creation. I can see it was declined because it does not have any references to reliable sources. Wikipedia is not for something you recently made up. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Henry Gaffney

Hello all, I am writing an article about an American songwriter. He was very successful, releasing his own work as a solo artist and writing a number of hit songs for famous recording artists(Four Tops, Roberta Flack, etc.). The most easily accessible citable sources that document his career are two obituary's, published by New York University(Clive Davis School of Music) and Berklee College of Music. My article was however denied submission, as in need of reliable sources. My question is this, are the above mentioned documents sufficient as sources(given that all the information contained in the article is contained in either and both of the sources), or is it possible that my citation style is incorrect? Any help would be very much appreciated. Thank you!

This is in regards to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Henry Gaffney

Devinhgaffney (talk) 18:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the two sources are okay, but on its own that's probably not enough to pass WP:NMUSIC. The fact he composed music for The Kids from "Fame" should suggest he is borderline notable, but notability is not automatically inhereted and I'm having difficulty finding any more sources. At the worst case though, there is enough information about him to have some content somewhere on Wikipedia, possibly with his name being a redirect to another article. By the way, your username suggests you are related to him, in which case I should advise you that writing about people you personally know is discouraged due to a conflict of interest. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chrysalis MSP

My Page URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Chrysalis_MSP

I recieved this answer when I tried to create my page...

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources

But I did site under references...

Chrysalis MSP homepage http://www.chrysalismsp.com/

http://webdaptive.com/chrysalis/

FastTech 50 Homepage http://consult.pkftexas.com/FastTech50/

What else must I do to my cites to get my page published?

Thanks,

John173.11.195.225 (talk) 19:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources are highly problematic. Chrysalis MSP's own homepage is a primary source and isn't subject to editorial oversight; it's not reliable by Wikipedia's standards. I'm not quite sure whether the FastTech 50 website is reliable or not, but since it doesn't even mention Chrysalis MSP, that doesn't really matter either way.

Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper coverage or articles in trade magazines. We require significant coverage in such sources, both to establish the topic's notability and to allow our readers to verify the article's claims. For example, is there a source not affiliated with Chrysalis MSP that confirms they provide "businesses with a full team of IT support with experience and skills across all types of technologies and applications at 24/7 disposal", or is that just their own marketing hype? The claim that their teams have experience across all types of technologies seems ... ambitious. Huon (talk) 20:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Pragathi High School Kadthal)

accept this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajkumar1233 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, we can't accept this article - it needs a lot more work. If you look at it closely, you'll notice that it doesn't look like a normal Wikipedia article yet - it includes no references to help readers check whether the information is accurate, and it's too short. Please read this guide to working on your first article, and let us know if you have more specific questions. Another option for you would be to work on improving the related article Kadthal - you could add details to that article about all the schools in the village, for example. If you choose to do that, make sure to include references for the details you add. Dreamyshade (talk) 22:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]