Help desk
< July 11	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 13 >

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.

July 12

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cynthia Gooding

A lot of what I put in this article is my personal experience. Cynthia Gooding was my mother and I don't know how to properly site myself as a source. Can you help me? Seconddaughter/Cynthia Gooding Seconddaughter (talk) 00:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately your personal experience would be considered original research and is not acceptable as a source. Wikipedia requires reliable published sources. You might also want to have a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest; writing about close relatives is discouraged. Huon (talk) 00:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resubmit pages

Hello I need to resubmit my page for an organization and cannot find how to do this. Ive edited the content and saved it, but i cant seem to see where its submitted and i receive confirmation that's its waiting to be reviewed. Any assistance would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanperformance (talk • contribs) 05:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow the latest submission template was deleted. I have restored it. Your article is in the queue for review. Thanks. :- ) Don 06:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article declined

Hey there!

I have been trying to build an article on Global Talent Track ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Global_Talent_Track#cite_ref-9 ) Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Global Talent Track. However, even after multiple attempts and quoting many references, it still stands declined. Can I please know the reasons for declining the article and get some help in the direction of getting the article published?

Cheers! Harsh.Harshind23 (talk) 06:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, as the reviewer noted, there are lots of references, but quite a few of them seem to be press releases, primary sources, or otherwise not reliable or even irrelevant. It would help to prune the references so that the remaining ones are clearly reliable and cover the company in some detail. For example, I couldn't find information on the "key people", and the article we have on one of them didn't mention Global Talent Track - that would require attribution. There are also issues of tone. Take for example the very first sentence: "Global Talent Track (GTT) is a global education and training solutions company." That's marketingspeak. Firstly, I found no indication the company is truly global - it doesn't seem to operate outside Asia, and not in all parts of Asia either. Secondly, "solutions", while a favorite of advertisers and PR people, seems wrong. They don't deal in solutions, they deal in training, for all I can tell - if they actually deal in consultancy, the article should explicitly say so (in fact, it should offer a little more on what the company does in any case - the secondary sources provide some explanation that we can use). Huon (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John Gledden

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

Please could I ask for help with the submission of the page above ?

I have submitted it on several occasions and it keeps getting rejected.

I have listed all the relevant references including BBC, ITV, Radio, Magazines and newspapers - all dated - some still even on bbc inlayer, .

Can you help me get this page accepted please as its very relevant as its the first British tennis coach to coach a Wimbledon Doubles Champion in 76 years..

Thank you

Adam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tennisbuff12345 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those references may indeed establish Gledden's notability, but right now it's hard to tell because there is insufficient information on which reference is supposed to support which part of the article (inline citations and footnotes would fix that) and on some of the references themselves. Take for example "2001 Look North :- BBC Local News / John Gledden / David Sherwood / Jonny Marray interviews." Am I supposed to watch an entire year of BBC local news to find those interviews? For those references which are available online, please provide links. Many of the references seem to mention Gledden in passing only - the quote from the Jonanthan Marray interview does not devote even one whole sentence to him.

My sugestions would be firstly to use inline references and footnotes to clarify which reference supports what, secondly to get rid of references that provide no significant coverage and to emphasize those that do (and get rid of primary sources such as the insulin video he did, too), and thirdly to provide links to those references available online. For example, I'm pretty sure sources on the trainer of a 2012 Wimbledon winner should exist online, not just in paper. Huon (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/MOLLY MAID

Hello. The following article was rejected for inclusion, on the grounds that it sounds like an advertisement. However, the data presented is neutral in nature and is backed by 3rd party sources. Are there some specific examples you could point to in the article that don't adhere to the notability guidelines? Contenteditor291 (talk) 14:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, while other articles with insufficient references or other problems exist, that's no reason to create more. Major parts of the Molly Maid article are unsourced, including the section on environmental practices and much of the Charities section. Furthermore, many of your references are primary sources such as press releases or the company's own blog, and for quite a few others I doubt they have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy required to be considered reliable. Bison Advertising, Inc., for example, might indeed offer advertising, though it's hard to tell, and Geoplan reports on its own client. Some of the remaining references are just business directory entries or trivial coverage such as the Entrepreneur list, which doesn't tell us much about Molly Maid. Is there no coverage in newspapers or the like, beyond the franchise-specific ones? Huon (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for this information. I will look into the concerns that you note and will adjust as necessary. Contenteditor291 (talk) 14:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Win Blevins

Hello. I have written an article and it has been declined twice for "verifiable" and "referencing" problems. But this time "notability" has come into question. I have read and re-read the guidelines and re-edited this article to meet them, but I don't understand what I need to change this time exactly. I have checked my sources and they meet the guidelines as I understand them, but apparently I actually don't. I think the 20+ books from this author still being in print is enough to warrant notability, so what am I missing? I look at other author pages on wiki who list way less references than I do, and don't appear to site most of the statements. Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Brand. Any specific help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jen Elsner (talk • contribs) 15:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability by Wikipedia's standards is not measured by how much someone has written, but by how much has been written about him. Thus, what we need isn't evidence of his 20+ books in print, but significant coverage of Blevins himself in reliable sources, such as newspaper articles about his awards or maybe some coverage in connection with a review of one of his books. I expect such coverage should exist for him, but what we currently have is very little. The short ipl2 biography is, I believe, the only secondary source that does more than provide list entries. We'd need a little more to clearly demonstrate that he has been covered to a significant extent. Again, I expect such sources should exist, but we have to find and provide them. Huon (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll work on this. Thank you very much for your time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jen Elsner (talk • contribs) 15:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/AWANS of Shamasabad

Dear Sir,

If I have given a reference say <ref></ref> in the article it appears in the reference list as [1]. If I want to mention this reference again in the text in order to refer to some additional information then how I could refer this reference again? Ramalik2 (talk) 16:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can assign a reference a name like this: <ref name="SomeDescriptiveName">Reference text.</ref>

Then you can later add another footnote to the same reference by adding: <ref name="SomeDescriptiveName"/>

I noted that several of your references are Wikipedia articles, but unfortunately Wikipedia does not accept itself as a reference per WP:CIRCULAR. Furthermore, several other references seem rather off-topic; I doubt a book about time and relativity theory tells us much about South Asian tribes. Huon (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/NYC Outward Bound Schools

Hi -

This is in regards to the decline of my submission: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/NYC Outward Bound Schools. The reasoning given was that it wasn't written in an encyclopedic tone, didn't use unbiased sources, and used value-laden language (my wording, as I can't find the decline page right now!). I'm hoping you can give me specific examples or sections? I've used 28 published references in the article, including 3 New York Times articles, a New York Times Magazine article, a New York Observer article, a New York Post article, 2 Newsday articles, a Miami Herald article, several articles from academic journals, and several books from established publishers like Teachers College Press, Public Affairs Books, and Middle Atlantic Press.

There are about 3 sections where I try to describe the organization's mission, values, goals and results that I found challenging to maintain neutrality. In the few places where assertions are made without references I've tried to qualify the language using terms like "The organization espouses a goal of doing XYZ" rather than "The organization delivers quality educational experiences", etc. And I have really tried to not use superlatives and value-charged adjectives.

Can you please give me some sections and examples for me to look at?

Thanks, Carol NYCOBuser (talk) 21:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You indeed use lots of reliable sources; the organization is clearly notable.. But there are several issues:

The draft has lots of external links to primary sources (the organization's own websites) among the text. External links should not normally be used in the body of an article (see WP:ELPOINTS); instead we should add an "External links" section at the very end and there provide one or maybe two links to the organization's websites (I'd suggest nycoutwardbound.org and maybe elschools.org). Furthermore, some of your references are primary sources, too.
To me the article seemed to contain an inordinate amount of buzzwords and comparatively little content. It often refers to "Outward Bound techniques and practices" or "the pedagogy of Outward Bound", but I found it rather difficult to find out what those techniques, practices and pedagogy actually are. The most extreme example was the "School Model" section, where the first paragraph was almost wall-to-wall buzzwords and the last sentence finally gives some details on the model.
The draft sometimes (rarely) uses unduly laudatory language; an example would be "the well-known European educator Kurt Hahn" - well-known to whom? Who says so?
The draft repeatedly emphasizes the organization's mission. I haven't read the secondary sources (since they aren't available online, that would be quite an effort for me right now), but I expect they focus more on what the organization does than on what it wants to do. So should we. That doesn't mean the mission shouldn't be mentioned at all, but right now it's more prominent than their achievements.
Some critical parts of the article do not have any secondary sources, such as the section on school results. I would expect that a secondary source such as a newspaper aricle noting their above-average graduation rates exists; why don't we provide one? In a similar vein, maybe I took the reference placement too literally, but apparently the last sentences of several paragraphs, despite providing factual information that should be easy to source, have no reference. Examples are the last sentences of both paragraphs of the School Model section and the last paragraph of the History section.

All of these issues should be rather easy to fix, though it's quite some editing work. My general advice would be: Aim for a dry tone, unembellished facts, and content that closely follows the secondary sources. Huon (talk) 23:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some more to add to Huon's good advice:

It seems to be hard for a new contributor, particularly one close to their subject or one in the marketing/PR business, to appreciate how extremely resistant Wikipedia is to PR-speak or to being used for any kind of promotion. Encyclopedia articles should consist of dry facts, neutrally stated, so that the reader has no idea whether the author thinks the subject is good or bad.
Read WP:PEACOCK and WP:Avoid mission statements.
The Wikipedia:Verifiability policy says that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source." As you write, imagine a hostile critic looking over your shoulder saying "Who says? Can you prove that?" If you can't prove a claim, don't make it. That will help to filter out the puffery.
Make a strong effort to think of yourself as writing, not for the organization, but for Wikipedia about the organization from outside.

JohnCD (talk) 08:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]