Help desk
< July 12	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 14 >

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 13

Can you tell me which is not a proper reference in my article submission?

Can you tell me which is not a proper reference in my article submission? They all look to be independent sources. Articles for creation/Hammerstone Project Rocksinmyhead (talk) 12:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have some decent news sources in your article but, unfortunately, none of them seem to mention your subject, the 'Hammerstone Project'. Several mention the Hammerstone Corporation (owners of the quarry?) and several talk about Birch Mountain Resources (who are digging the quarry?) in some depth. To demonstrate that your subject meets Wikipedia's 'notability' requirements, you need to provide sources that talk about the subject at hand, not something else. Maybe you should write an article about Birch Mountain Resources instead? Sionk (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John Gledden - Help needed.

Hi - its Monday 29th July 2013 ---

It's a while since I was able to review this due to ill health.

I am now only on here as a plea for help - as again due to ill health I am unable to devote the time and energy to completing this submission and I feel so guilty and awful that despite my best attempts - I was never capable ( even when not chronically ill ) to get this page submitted and not I am physically not able to do it and I realise that's my inadequacies that have caused the failure.

I am on here with a plea !!!!

Could someone out there ( someone very kind hearted ) PLEASE take over this article and do the bits that are necessary to complete this article and get it accepted ??

If anybody can - I would be eternally grateful.

I have contacted the subject directly and he is willing to talk or communicate with anybody who is kind enough to take over and I can provide contact details on here.

Please could somebody help me p This project is very important to me and I'd like to see it on here if at all possible. :)

Thank you in advance to the kind hearted wikipedians :) out there who take this on...

81.136.174.251 (talk) 10:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Tennisbuff1234581.136.174.251 (talk) 10:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir / Madam,

This is my first time using wikipedia and trying to get a submission accepted and so far I have been totally unsuccessful and very near the point of giving up.

I have submitted an article ( above title ) but it was rejected twice and now I have resent ( I think ) the article for the 3rd time.

I have no real idea as to why its being rejected, and would like some constructive feedback as to what I am doing wrong.

CAn you please help ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tennisbuff12345 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I'm sorry that your experience at Wikipedia has been that frustrating. Writing a new article is rather difficult; for that reason we usually suggest new editors start out by improving existing ones. But that's just a suggestion, and I believe you have done pretty well for a first attempt at article-writing. I also believe that the various newspaper and magazine articles and the radio coverage you present as references do constitute reliable sources.

As I said before, there are several issues, though. Probably most importantly, you should use inline citations and footnotes to clarify which reference supports which part of the article. Take for example the very first sentence: "John Gledden [...] is one of the UK's most successful Tennis coaches over the last 20 years." Says who? Success is debatable, and such a statement should either be avoided in favour of explicit facts or be attributed to its source. So either something like "John Gledden is a British tennis coach who trained Wimbledon finalist John Marray and Davis Cup participant David Sherwood", or something like "John Gledden is a British tennis coach who was ranked second in John Doe's list of the UK's most successful tennis coaches of the 2000s." - in either case with a footnote to the newspaper article or other source which confirms that statement.

You also have not addressed the other issues I brought up last time. Some of the references are still so vague as to be useless. 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 local news to find those interviews? Could you provide a more exact date? And for those sources which are available online, could you please provide links?

Finally, your reference section's structure suggests that many of those references focus on the players Gledden coaches, not on Gledden himself. Do they actually cover him in significant detail?

I have asked the reviewer to explain his rationale in greater detail, but in summary, I don't think it's the pure lack of reliable sources so much as the difficulty in connecting those references to the article's content. Huon (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer just replied on my talk page and pointed out he reviewed this version of the article, which didn't yet have the references you now have added. The decline messages are still the old ones; they are kept as a kind of historical record (they will be removed once the article is accepted). Since that review the draft has been greatly improved, and while footnotes would be another major improvement, it's now much closer to being accepted. Huon (talk) 15:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice - Its really helped.

Realise now for the first time what I have to do and I can keep editing.

Finding it difficult to pin point dates with television companies who weren't helpful in my quest to find specific dates for tv shows, but I'll keep looking. I have a lot of information now with specific dates especially from the last week.

Initially I will wait until the editors have done this review and see what needs doing thereafter.

I may be asking your help again then !! - But thanks for the advice so far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tennisbuff12345 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John X. Fernandez, Jr.

I am having some trouble understanding what needs to be improved for my article. Is there any way you can be more specific? I've eliminated what I think is the peacock language. I've added reliable sources from the NYT and IMDB, and I believe the entry is written in an encyclopedic style. I write for a living, so this is particularly confounding to me, and I'm doing a lot of guess work trying to understand how to meet your standards. Any concrete and specific guidance would be very helpful. Thank you very much. Alicia

ENTRY: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John X. Fernandez, Jr.

Ansteady (talk) 16:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability by Wikipedia's standards requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Many of your references are primary sources such as the websites of organizations Fernandez is affiliated with. The Variety article is hidden behind a login and I won't register an account with them just to see that article, but the other secondary sources provide only trivial coverage - none of them devotes even one single sentence to him. What we need are newspaper articles or other reliable secondary sources that cover Fernandez in some detail. Huon (talk) 23:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ball (Game & Watch)

My Article has the same name as another one. How do I move it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.223.61.140 (talk) 23:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to move either your draft or the redirect. In fact, you could just edit that redirect page and turn it into an article. But we merged the Ball article we once had into the list of Game & Watch games because that game appeared non-notable on its own. To demonstrate that it is notable, you'd have to provide significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject - which Nintendo websites clearly are not. Maybe reviews in gaming magazines exist? Huon (talk) 23:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]