Help desk
< November 19	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 21 >

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.

November 20

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Standardized Automotive Brake Tubing Connectors

Hello, would it be possible to get more detail explanations, please? My article was rejected due to "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources " . All the sources cited in my article are either peer reviewed publications from respected publishers like SAE, or patent specifications , or common industry-level standards. I can not agree they are not reliable. Would it be possible to specifically point on those ones which are not reliable/verifiable in the reviewer opinion, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pliassounov (talk • contribs) 03:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think patent applications are considered reliable by Wikipedia's standards - you can patent almost everything including cold fusion and even perpetual motion machines (though you have to engage in some creative naming for that). The draft's main problem with regard to sources, however, is not that those you have are largely unreliable, but that many parts of the draft don't cite any sources at all. For example, claims such as that "the most important [requirements] are the requirements emerged from the assembly process excellence mindset and lean manufacturing philosophy". Says who? Even more curious are the references that aren't in the draft: Take for example the statement "There are certain known limitations of the self-adjustment capacity of currently produced connectors based on cone-to-cone type of mating [5]." That looks as if there should be some reference. Is that supposed to be the draft's reference 5 again? There are ways to add multiple links to the same footnote; see WP:NAMEDREFS for details.

But the draft also has other problems, for example with its tone. It reads like an essay or maybe a research paper, not an encyclopedia article. At times it speaks of "we"; that's not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. It uses editorializing phrases and words to avoid such as "it is important to note" or "regrettably".

On an even more basic level, the draft doesn't just describe different connector types but advocates for a sphere-to-cone mating. That part of the draft is based exclusively on the work of Pliassounov, who, by your user name, appears to be yourself. Whether Pliassounov is right or wrong in arguing for a sphere-to-cone mating, Wikipedia isn't the place to do so. You might also want to have a look at Wikipedia's guideline on conflicts of interest; while we ecourage experts' contributions, even the experts shouldn't place undue emphasis on their own work. Huon (talk) 04:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Branko

I get this message, what to do next? "This sandbox is in the Wikipedia talk namespace. Either move this page into your userspace, or remove the {{User sandbox}} template." Brankoab (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the {{User sandbox}} template for you. It was left over when your draft was moved from your sandbox to its current location, the preferred location for drafts awaiting review.

While I looked at your draft I noticed that it cites but a single reference which does not confirm much of the article's content. It does not even mention Branko's Ecuadorean origin, much less his parents' hometown, and does not provide any information on Branko's projects except the 111 First Street film. I don't think that source on its own is sufficient to establish Branko's notability, and it certainly doesn't allow our readers to verify the draft's content.

If, as your username suggests, you are Branko, you may also want to have a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest. Writing an autobiography is strongly discouraged. Huon (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is confirmed, there are now two news articles mentioning Branko.

I did remove Branko's origin and his parents hometown.

One of the news articles mentions a second movie, "911 Number Seven"

See: "On Sept. 11, 2001, Branko was working as a photojournalist for the Associated Press and shot images of the World Trade Center’s Building No. 7, which was also destroyed that day, along with the Twin Towers. He later decided to film a documentary about the lesser-known Building No. 7" Read more: Hudson Reporter - Showing a little love New film documents 111 First St arts community

If other changes are needed, please let me know.

I'd like to change the page's name from "Branko", to "Branko (filmmaker), Can anyone help with that?

The reason I posted this article on the "Sandbox" is because Wikipedia recommends doing so, in case the writer is making an article on himself, that way other people can comment and improve on the article, before it is approved and published. Thank You Brankoab (talk) 05:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kenneth M. Lewis (2)

Hei kind people out there! I need help to find errors and how to improve this article pls?! Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kenneth M. Lewis

Oslocat (talk) 16:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said the last time, the draft's main problem is its lack of reliable sources. The current sources don't even confirm such basics as Lewis' birthday. The draft must show that Lewis has received significant coverage in sources such as newspapers or music magazines; without such coverage he isn't notable enough for a Wikipedia article.

As an aside, please do not remove the old review messages from the draft; they serve as a historical record until the submission is accepted. Huon (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Alaska Satellite Facility

I'm creating a Wiki page for the Alaska Satellite Facility (ASF), the organization where I work. I'm having trouble finding and incorporating adequate source info. into the article for ASF. We're an organization and don't have many peer-reviewed journal articles or books that would be appropriate to use in this context. or Any suggestions or examples of similar pages would be greatly appreciated! Arallen3 (talk) 19:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't find reliable sources on your own institution, I doubt random editors will be in a better position. Reliable sources need not be peer-reviewed journal articles, however: Newspaper coverage is also acceptable and probably more likely to exist.

While many research institute articles suffer from insufficient sources, I'd say the Galveston National Laboratory is a rather good example: Sources include the Galveston County Daily News and the Houston Chronicle. Huon (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nora S. Newcombe

To Whom It May Concern: May I cut and paste the content of this "new" article waiting to be created: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Nora_S._Newcombe into the stub that already exists (we had overlooked the stub when starting to create this article): Nora_Newcombe?

Apologies for the noob mistake.

Jennnu (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)Jennnu[reply]

Since you have written that draft's content there are no licensing problems when you copy and paste it into the existing article. I haven't checked the draft in detail, but at a glance it looks like a good article and a major improvement over the current article. I'll create a redirect from Nora S. Newcombe so the article will be easier to find, and I've declined the draft so other reviewers won't waste time looking at something that need not be reviewed anyway. Thank you for your good work! Huon (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]