Help desk
< June 5	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 7 >

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.

June 6

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ziegler & Brown

Hi there,

Can you please provide me with some guidance around how to get the below article approved?

Is the primary problem that all of the information in the Wikipedia entry is not available at the reference provided (as in, the Wikipedia entry has additional information that cannot be found at the site)?

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Ziegler_%26_Brown

Any help you can give me would be great.

Thanks!110.174.10.223 (talk) 01:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That the article has information that cannot be found in the reference is indeed a problem. But a more basic problem is that the only reference is a primary source (Ziegler & Brown's own website), and we need significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to show that the company is notable enough for an article. Furthermore, writing articles about future products is strongly discouraged; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. For these reasons I don't think Ziegler & Brown is an appropriate topic for an article - at least, not yet. If there are newspaper articles or independet reviews of these products, we can write an article based on those sources. Huon (talk) 02:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lucien Wang

We received the following feedback:

"This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner."

We are trying to revise, but we face some difficulties. While we incorporate some secondary material, most of the important material on Wang's life consists of primary sources, which we have accessed and referenced. The sources can be verified by a visit to the archive. Could you confirm that you do not want primary sources to be cited on Wikipedia? If this is the case, then we'll mount the article elsewhere, and give a reference to it in the Wkipedia article (effectively making it a secondary source), but this seems a strange way of proceeding.

We honesty think that the page is written in a neutral manner and does not contain opinions. Perhaps an example could be given of a phrase or paragraph which is not written in a neutral manner or which contains unsubstantiated opinions.

Thanks!

Rendun62 (talk) 07:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed content should not be based on primary sources, per WP:PRIMARY. Please note that just hosting the material someplace else will not turn a primary source, such as a letter by or to Wang, into a secondary source. As an example, I'd point to the paragraph on Michael Liroudia. If no secondary source has commented on their relationship, this paragraph should be removed in its entirety. The same holds for the paragraph on teachers, whose only secondary source does not mention Wang at all. There seem to be various newspaper articles on Wang, enough to establish notability: Those are the sources the article's content should be based on. Huon (talk) 11:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Adobe CreatePDF

I Create article about Adobe CreatePDF Match the Acrobat.com So I create this article. Ferry Roland 12:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Ferry Roland — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolandhelper (talk • contribs)

You will need to show significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to establish this product's notability. Is there anything else you need help with? Huon (talk) 12:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tom McEwen (sports writer)

I made major changes to this article on Saturday and resubmitted. I made changes according to each problem cited in the rejection notice It still has the same comments to change what I have changed already and it says there are 638 articles waiting ahead of it... same as it did when I first submitted it. The rejection notice said I could make changes and resubmit, but I've gotten no notice that it's been re-reviewed. Please let me know what's wrong this time Elissa McEwen (talk) 14:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with the submission, just a huge backlog (those 600+ articles are not waiting ahead of yours; that's the total number of drafts currently submitted for review). I believe your draft is being reviewed right now. Please be patient. Huon (talk) 15:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted. France3470 (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Photosensitive Anodized Aluminum

Hi. I am working a new article and I have an image that is totally legal to use that I created, but I can't seem to upload it - pls help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam.wainer (talk • contribs) 19:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can upload images via Special:Upload, or via the File Upload Wizard. More detailed help on uploading images is available. Your account must be four days old and you must have made at least ten edits, but you satisfy these preconditions.

If the image comes with a free license, you may instead upload it to Wikimedia Commons via their Upload Wizard. Huon (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JEWELERY

WHAT HAND SHOULD MALE WEAR WEDDING BAND AFTER SPOUSE DIES — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.51.197.110 (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. Please consider asking this question at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what the Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps. Huon (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tandoor Chef

Please advise - I am working to get this company profile added to Wikipedia and am requesting your assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TAN1979 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The references are rather weak for this company: Some are not reliable (for example the "Cooking with Coley" blog), some are primary sources (such as the press release), none provide significant coverage of the company. The very first one even condradicts the article by stating that Tandoor Chef is not a manufacturer at all but a brand of Deep Foods. Conversely, the only section which is sufficiently referenced at all is the one about the products - the "history", the "community", and the "foundation" have no reliable secondary sources, and they also sound like advertising - phrases such as "dreaming up new entrées for all to enjoy" are hardly encyclopedic. In summary, I don't think the brand's notability has been established, and even if that problem was addressed by better references, the article would have to be rewritten almost from scratch. As an aside, I don't see why an article on an NJ-based food manufacturer should contain an entire section on a barely related Indian charity. The charity may or may not be notable on its own, but unless it's a subsidiary of the food company (and not just supported by it), the details about the charity's work in Gujarat do not belong in the company article. Huon (talk) 00:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]