Help desk
< November 20	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 22 >

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 21

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Actors' Company

The reviewer has stated that my article on The Actors' Company has no sources. The article was in fact written by three people intimately involved with the Company i.e. the two Artistic Directors, Matthew O'Sullivan and Rodney Delaney and one of the actors, Les Asmussen. Would these names suffice as sources? However, there was a yearly publication at the time called "Performong Arts Year Book", published by Showcast. Would that be a better option? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llihnroht (talk • contribs) 00:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia requires published sources so our readers can verify our articles' content. Thus it's not enought to just claim that the article was written by knowledgeable people. The Performong Arts Year Book would be a much better source. Please note that Wikipedia content should be based on such published sources; I doubt the yearbook will serve to confirm all the details currently given in the draft. Maybe the theatre company received some newspaper coverage as well?

You may also want to have a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest; while the draft's tone seemes sufficiently neutral to me, we should be careful when an article is written by people as closely connected to the subject as the Artistic Directors. Huon (talk) 00:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page submission

We have created a page but are having trouble submitting it - would you please let us know how to submit our page for review? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiffing (talk • contribs) 05:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Your page has been submitted at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Trust For Nature. A412 (Talk • C) 06:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David Jay Reed

Hi Huon. It is difficult to find any newspaper articles on the awards as you suggested it might be, so I have taken out all of the individual exhibitions and awards and just written a couple of paragraphs about his general representation. I have used a new source, Pip Christmass from the West Australian, for the Australian content, and Drury for the international content. This should solve the issues that you and Legoktm originally had. I have also taken out the Blasingham reference and information and re edited the text eliminating some of the descriptive adjectives. I think that it reads a little more neutral now. Well... I hope so. Anyway, I have re-submitted the article and hope that we are closer to an acceptance. I will be going to visit Australia sometime next year, so may try to find more information using the microfiche system in a library. If I find some information, I can always edit the article later. Thanks once again, for all you help. JoeJoebzz (talk) 07:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re-submitting article

I have just amended an article but can't seem to see where you re-submit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobMZ1 (talk • contribs) 10:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huon has resubmitted the article for you. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can re-submit it yourself by adding {{subst:submit}} to the very top. However I don't think you have addressed the last reviewer's concern; the draft is thus likely to be declined again. For example, one source is a press release, not a reliable source, and the very first source doesn't support what it's cited for - it mentions neither 75,000 individual customers nor the Fortune 500. I haven't checked the other sources, but this doesn't look promising. Huon (talk) 12:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help-re submission I was editing and now in declined submissions

Hi,

Can someone help me please. I was working on my first wiki submission Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Services Union and had it reviewed 3 times-which the reviewers quite rightly gave me feedback to go and fix up my submission. The last reviewer said that my submission would suit wiki, but I had to get more sources. Also there was some confusion about whether there was already a like submission in Wiki, which I explained there was not.

10 days ago now I fixed up and asked for my submission to please be reviewed again-but I have had not heard anything. I see my submission is now in the declined section-which I am concerned about-as I was encouraged to continue to improve the submission and resubmit.

Can someone please give me some advice. I feel that the submission now has everything that is required for it to be approved. I just also could not find where to resubmit this after the third review.- could you please help here too.

I look forward to some feedback.

Thanks

(Ljbird92 (talk) 11:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

The last note left states that your article appears to be a duplicate of Australian Services Union. What you should do in this case is expand that article instead, using the sourced parts of your draft where appropriate. The original submission can then be deleted. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thanks. Please see my talk section with one of the reviewers, where I have explained that the Australian Services Union- wiki submission is about the National Branch of the Union, not The Services Union which is a Queensland Branch. The ASU has a number of Branches around Australia that operate individually of each other .For example The Together Union which is the other QLD Branch of the ASU has its own wiki submission http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Together_(union), so does one of the NSW Branches http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Services_Union, -I fully explained this fact extensively to the last reviewer, who seemed to understand and after I made a few more revisions, I thought everything would be right for approval-the reviewer suggested that my submission would suit wiki, if I just made a few changes and resubmitted. So I did this and went to resubmit and found that for some reason its been declined. Can you please shed some light? I am just wondering if there is possibly an Australian reviewer that I could talk to-as I feel like I am going in circles, trying to explain the difference between the National Branch and the State Branches of the ASU and how they are different entities who are notable for different things. Can you help me further? Or help me move it somwhere where it could be reviewed again? Thanks (Ljbird92 (talk) 11:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Ah, okay. I don't know why Sionk hasn't replied to your talk page message to him. A proper review of the article will take me a bit longer, but a cursory look at the first reference I clicked on, this ABC News article did not contain the phrase "The Services Union" when I searched for it. If other sources are like this, and don't mention the article's subject or only give a brief mention to it, it can't be used as a reference to establish notability that will make the article pass. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thanks. This particular media, mentions the ASU-this is because some press in QLD are still getting a little used to calling The Services Union by its newer trading name (it was always prior, referred to as the Queensland Services Union or sometimes the ASU-QLD Branch-prior to the change in trading name-which has been sourced). Sometimes the odd media outlet gets a bit lazy and does this-but they are talking about the same entity-as these are the Energy Industry members The Services Union covers. If you could review again that would be great. Thanks (Ljbird92 (talk) 12:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Okay. I can't review this as it requires an expertise in the subject matter, for reasons you've just explained, but hopefully somebody else can. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thanks for your time and feedback-but will someone get back to me??? I have tried to get help etc and you are the first reviewer to get back to me the last week, so thank-you very much!! Also this ABC piece quotes The Services Union Secretary Kath Nelson too. Are there any Australian reviewers out there who understand the context and structure, history and notability of unions here that could please finally review this submission. Sorry I just feel a little frustrated by the whole process, but understand you have to get it right etc. Thanks again. Fingers crossed.(Ljbird92 (talk) 12:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I just had a look at the draft, and there are a couple of problems. Firstly, sources are still insufficient. For example, the section on pay increases for the SACS industry cites no secondary sources, and none of the very first four sources of the draft actually say what they're cited for - they provide specific examples of the Queensland ASU advocating for this or that (or more precisely, most of them just give the Services Union's opinion on something specific), but none discusses the Union's role in general. Taking such sources to support a point none of them makes is a case of original synthesis of sources, something we should not engage in. There are also issues of neutrality. Take for example the section on "RECENT MAJOR CAMPAIGN WINS" - does the Union always win, or could we add another section on "RECENT MAJOR CAMPAIGN LOSSES"? As should be obvious from these examples, we shouldn't use all-caps anyway. For all I can tell, the second of those campaigns, "Fight for Pay Equity – For All SACS Workers in Australia", wasn't actually won by the Queensland branch anyway, and the draft's coverage was a copyright violation of the Union's report - including referring to the union's stuff as "our". I'll remove that section in a moment.

In summary, the draft should clarify that it's about the Queensland branch of the Service Union (and that clarification should begin with both the title and the very first line), it should link back to the main ASU article, it should clarify which of the information (for example the union merger history) is Queensland-specific and which isn't (and it should probably shorten the latter), it needs better sources that are reliable and independent and that actually say what they're cited for, it should be checked for further instances of thinly-veiled copyright violations, and it should be rewritten for a more neutral tone.

The draft wasn't submitted ten days ago; I have now resubmitted it. But there's much work to be done before it can be accepted - if the Queensland branch of the Services Union is independently notable at all; many sources don't really bother to note that they report on the Queensland branch but seem to take it as an integral part of the greater Services Union. Thus, expanding the main ASU article may indeed be the best way forward. Huon (talk) 12:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. I will make amendments to what you are discussing. However, although I can understand your point about SACS Workers in Australia, being a more whole ASU Union issue-although it was started with the QLD Pay Equity Campaign-The Australian Government decided to equal the monies won in that QLD decision-which was the first equal pay court decision since the 1970's, the other sources do talk about the The Services Union and its members particularly. Can you explain what you mean here "...and none of the very first four sources of the draft actually say what they're cited for.. "

I see many wiki submissions with less sources, but they have been accepted. There still seems to be confusion with reviewers re the entities: The Services Union is the new trading name of the Queensland Services Union - which is a QLD Branch of the ASU (which is just the national office). All the State Branches work independently of each other in their day to day work. The TSU covers totally different members for example to the Together Union-the other QLD Branch-and campaign on different things. Hopefully with another edit there may be some good news. After I do some editing-will I be able to resubmit again? Could you just clarify what you mean with the question above thanks (Ljbird92 (talk) 21:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

By now the "first four" sources have become sources 3 to 6, the ones cited for the sentence: "The Services Union campaigns and advocates for better and enhanced working conditions for workers whether individually or collectively in these industries across Queensland." They say about the Services Union, in order:

"Australian Services Union state branch secretary Kath Nelson said female members had come to her with concerns about the light-weight fabric of the new shirts."
"The Australian Services Union (ASU) describes the move as "alarming", given the unpredictability of storm season. [...] The ASU says the majority of the positions will go by Christmas." Plus a lengthy quote by Nelson, described as "ASU secretary", about firing in the public sector and in Government-owned corporations that doesn't provide any information on her union.
"The Services Union represents more than 700 Townsville council employees, mostly in white-collar roles. Secretary Kath Nelson said, in a written statement, she wasn't aware of any impending job cuts, but would keep a close watch over the council Budget." Plus another Nelson quote that doesn't provide any information on her Union.
"The Queensland Services Union said it was deeply concerned about the potential axing of “crucial” Queensland Health funding to community organisations that looked after the most vulnerable people in communities. QSU Secretary Kath Nelson said there were better ways to save money than cutting community services." Plus yet another Nelson quote that tells us nothing about her union.

Two of the four don't mention that the union in question is Queensland-specific. At best, only the first one even mentions something loosely resembling working conditions. Of the list of industries they're supposed to cover, we only have rail, power, community services and health. No mention of, say, ports or shipping. No mention of campaigns. Whether individually or collectively, these sources don't say the union campaigns and advocates for better working conditions in these industries. Besides, the sources do not agree whether Nelson is secretary of the ASU, the QSU, or The Services Union.

What I would like to see is an introduction that clarifies what exactly the draft is about, what its topic is formally named, and what its relation to the Australian Services Union is. Something along the lines of:

The Services Union is a service workers union active in Queensland, Australia. It is an amalgamation of the Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union Queensland (Services and Northern Administrative) Branch (ASU) and the Queensland Services, Industrial Union of Employees (QSU), two state branches of the Australian Services Union...

This is based on The Services Union's own website; of course we should find secondary sources. Surely major mergers of union branches generate news coverage. This clarification also immediately shows that some of the draft's claims are flat-out wrong: The Services Union is not registered with the QIRC, but the QSU is.

The current introduction is an improvement of what we had a few days ago, but apparently it's still not good enough: Yet another reviewer believed the draft to be about the Australian Services Union.

The problem is not the total number of sources, but rather how much (or how little) the sources actually say about the subject. The four sources I detailed above only mention the union in passing while discussing specific issues on which Nelson had commented. An article about the union would be much more helpful. For example, an article about the merger (?) of the ASU and QSU might help to clearly resolve the details of the union's organisation which are currently still rather unclear. It might even serve as a source for the member unions such as the Municipal Officers Association or the Technical Services Guild. Huon (talk) 16:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ref Fenzian Treatment System

Dear Wiki, A wiki submission by '3&1charnham' on Fenzian was originally turned down due to lack of research reference. These have just been added and all are in publicly viewable, peer-reviewed medical or scientific publications. That seems to be Kraftios philosophy, too, and he editted it! Please could someone tell me what specifically is needed now - ie do I need to include the entire script of the published articles? Best wishes, James 12:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3&1charnham (talk • contribs)

You do not need to include the entire published articles; in fact, that would be a copyright violation. However, you should use inline citations and footnotes to clarify which of the references supports which of the draft's statements - you had those in the first draft. For example, I doubt any of these research papers confirms that Fenzian is registered with the FDA, and Degenerate wave and capacitive coupling increase human MSC invasion and proliferation while reducing cytotoxicity in an in vitro wound healing model doesn't mention the Fenzian at all, nor does the draft mention wound healing. How is that paper relevant?

Furthermore, all the new references are co-authored by Colthurst who is employed by Fenzian Ltd. - that's not quite the independent coverage we are looking for. See WP:MEDRS for what constitutes reliable sources in a medical context.

Furthermore, the novelty of Colthurst’s hypothesis is somewhat contradicted by the fact that the Fenzian Treatment System was approved by the FDA because it is functionally equivalent to pre-existing devices. Huon (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Ajflash/sandbox

Hello,

I was creating an article and was wondering how to change the title of the article? I would like to change it from User:Ajflash/sandbox to Agilence. Thank you. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/User:Ajflash/sandbox

Ajflash (talk) 16:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the draft to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Agilence, the preferred location for drafts awaiting review. When the submission is accepted, the reviewer will move it into the main articlespace.

I saw that much of the draft, including the entire "product" section, is based on primary sources such as Agilence's own website. Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Huon (talk) 16:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Buchanans (Production Team)

How long is the backlog for articles to be reviewed? My article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Buchanans (Production Team) needs to be reviewed as soon as possible!!!

Kc1985 (talk) 18:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The backlog is currently 865 items long. Please be patient. A412 (Talk • C) 19:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the oldest unreviewed submissions are from late October. In the meantime, you might want to add better sources to the draft: I just had a look, and one of your references is just a directory entry, two more are clearly blogs, and there's no indication the remaining one, ThisisRnB.com, is subject to editorial oversight either. None of them actually confirms that The Buchanans won a Grammy or that they worked with Beyoncé Knowles. We need significant coverage in reliable source that are independent of the subject to establish The Buchanan's notability; this isn't it. If the draft were reviewed in its current state, it would be declined.

You should also use inline citations and footnotes to clarify which source supports which of the draft's statements. Huon (talk) 19:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Health Research & Educational Trust

Wondering if I have cited my resource properly. Also, let me know when I should be expecting an answering. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Health_Research_%26_Educational_Trust&oldid=521689415

ThanksHret (talk) 19:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your lone reference is cited properly, but it's a primary source, the HRET's own website. Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper coverage. We require significant coverage in such sources, both to establish the topic's notability and to allow our readers to verify the draft's content. Without such sources we cannot accept the submission.

Currently the oldest unreviewed submissions date from late October, so apparently it takes about three weeks for a review. It may be faster in obvious cases such as this one. Huon (talk) 21:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]