Help desk
< November 21	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 23 >

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 22

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Vasilika

I will appreciate help in changing the article's title: I lieu of Vasilika, I would like to rename it to "Vasilika of Boeotia" Thanks for your help

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Vasilika(Vasilika).

Phokeus (talk) 04:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC) Phokeus[reply]

A412 moved the draft to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Vasilika of Boeotia, but I believe the correctly disambiguated title should be "Vasilika (Boeotia)". The draft's references also look a little dubious. I doubt either Plutarch or Pausanias mention the village which apparently didn't even exist at that time. We'd need a modern source to connect these ancient sites to the modern village. For example, our Chaeronea article has a source calling the same battle the Battle of Chaeronea.

We should also add some information on the modern village: Its population, its coordinates, more detailed information on its place within the Greek system of local government. See the article on the other Vasilika for how that should be covered. Huon (talk) 09:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Logan.leung/sandbox

Hello.

I was creating an article and have noticed that its name corresponds to my username (i.e., Logan.leung). I wish to change it to "LCT Lawyers". May I ask whether this is possible?

Furthermore, I have not been able to move it to the "Articles for creation" page. Would I be able to get some assistance in this regard.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

A412 moved the draft to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/LCT Lawyers. I noticed that the draft has just a single reliable source. It's a good source, but on its own it's probably not enough to establish the law firm's notability. It also doesn't cover much of the information currently in the draft. The only external link that provides additional details is Chambers and Partners, and that is not a reliable source. Huon (talk) 09:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kevin Grey (silversmith)

Why is this article not progressing?

There's a minor note stating that the article could be improved but it doesn't appear to have been reviewed or even progressed up the queue after two weeks?

Phil

Phild66 (talk) 17:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a massive backlog of more than 900 unreviewed submissions; while yours is moving up the queue (the "review waiting" message only shows the grand total, not your draft's position in the queue), it may take some more time until a reviewer takes a look. Please be patient.

In the meantime, MatthewVanitas commented on the excessive list of exhibitions; I'd say the references also need more work. You have the Contemporary British Silversmiths as a source for Grey's membership, the Birmigham City Unniversity as a source for his studies there, The Goldsmiths' Company as a source for an award they gave Grey, and so on - those are all primary sources. Wikipedia content should be based on secondary sources such as newspaper articles. SussexLife is such a source, but it hardly mentions Grey. If he hasn't received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, he's probably not notable enough for an article.

The draft also suffers from an overabundance of buzzwords. Take this statement: "This accumulated knowledge of traditional skills passed on through the trade, coupled with new technologies and production processes, provided an approach to making that extends beyond and complements the traditions of silversmithing." Firstly, it's unsourced. Secondly, what exactly is it supposed to mean? We already know that Gray uses laser welding; that has been discussed before.

Finally, the draft tends to take some liberties with the sources it has. When a source says he was a "sheet metal worker", the draft says he was "hand-making bespoke pieces". That's not quite the same, is it?

In summary, the draft currently looks more like puffery than like an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia articles should aim for a neutral tone. Huon (talk) 18:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Abe21lincoln/sandbox

Hi There,

I am new ad creating Wikipages. I have created one for my partner, Antonio Muñiz, as you can see (I guess). I also manage his website (http://www.antoniomuniz-art.com) and his Facebook page.

The one question I have is how do I set the title of the page. I most certainly don't want it to be Abe21lincoln, but instead Antonio Muñiz. I do a search on Wikipedia for Antonio Muñiz and there are variants, but none that are just Antonio Muñiz. How do I go about getting this page set with the title of Antonio Muñiz - if possible. If not, what are my options?

Many thanx for your help!

Regards, Lincoln Graham — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abe21lincoln (talk • contribs) 20:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

B. Jakob T. moved the draft to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Antonio Muñiz, the preferred location for drafts awaiting review. Unfortunately the draft was a copy of Muñiz' website, and unless you provide evidence that you are indeed the copyright holder, we must presume it's a copyright violation - Wikipedia content must be released under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License. If the copyright holder is willing to release the text under that license, you can send a declaration of consent (see example declaration) to "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org". See WP:Requesting copyright permission for details. For now, I had to nominate the draft for speedy deletion; if permission is granted, it can be undeleted.

However, the draft would have to be rewritten so thoroughly that it's probably easier to start over than to bother with the copyright permission. It was full of vaguely interesting-sounding phrases that convey little or no information. Take for example this statement: "During the journey he encounters entities or beings that move between these worlds and find their way onto the canvas that provide new and deeper meanings to his art and constantly reveal new clues to further discoveries." What beings, and what worlds? Wikipedia aims for a much drier, less lyrical tone.

Much of the draft spoke of Muñiz' hopes and feelings, but much more relevant would be the critical reception of his works. And while the specific example I gave above is apparently a quote that could be sourced to the Artweek article, much of the draft was not be supported by secondary sources. For example, I don't think any of the secondary sources mentions his fascination with the dimensions of thought (what's that supposed to be, by the way?) or his "focus to go deep within ourselves, and not rely on exterior influences". Even his exhibitions, with the exception of Metamorphosis, aren't mentioned in the secondary sources, and the others should probably be removed.

Furthermore, footnotes are supposed to be inserted immediately after the statement they support, not at the very end of the text. It was rather difficult to see which source supports which statement.

Finally, you might want to have a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest. Writing about topics you're that closely associated with is discouraged. Huon (talk) 23:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jakob,

Is it possible to get the saved page back - I spent a whole afternoon putting that together and by deleting all the good work is lost. I can confirm that a lot of the copy has come from the website as I administer the website too. I understand your comments and would like to make the changes you suggested. I will also complete the declaration of consent for the website content, to comply with Wikipedia policy. But for a start, I would appreciate to have the code back so I can continue to develop the page.

Tx Lincoln — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abe21lincoln (talk • contribs) 03:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we first need the declaration of consent and only then can undelete the page. But as I said it's probably easier to rewrite the draft from scratch than to bother with the version now deleted. In my opinion the only content worth salvaging was the list of references, but they're all mentioned on Muñiz' News page anyway. Huon (talk) 12:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]