Help desk
< November 29	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	December 1 >

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 30

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tiny Island Productions

Hi there, my proposed article just got rejected for reading like an advertisement so I need some help to see how I can fix it. I know that there are quite a number of "first" this and "first" that within the writeup, but those were usually describing other companies rather than the subject of the article itself, plus the "firsts" were what makes the subject more notable and were referenced by various trade journals. I'm hoping I can fix this article as I'm using this as a template in a number of articles I have in mind; This is the first article I've created from scratch in a long while (when there were fewer restrictions on article creation), so I look forward to clearing this up! Thanks in advance! Zhanzhao (talk) 01:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How are any of those "firsts" relevant to Tiny Island? I don't see what it tells us about Tiny Island that the Cartoon Network didn't have another CG animated movie before Ben 10 - Destroy All Aliens. Furthermore, not all of those sources are as reliable as we would like - for example, the Animation World Network piece is a Tiny Island press release, a primary source. The CartoonBrew link seems to point to a blank page, and the link for Qiuyi Tan's article points to Ramin Zahed's article again.

The draft is also rather short on hard facts about the company itself: How many employees do they have, what are their revenues and profits, who are the key people, for example the CEO? Huon (talk) 02:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, Huon. I'll address them point by point

I'll remove the part about it being Cartoon Network's 1st CG movie (I'm quite a spontaneous editor and I might replicate the same writeup across different writeups that called the same reference; I added that line to both the Ben 10 article and this one).
The Animation World Network's link actually states that it was a press release by Cartoon Network, not Tiny Island. I'm not sure about the policy regarding this as that makes it technically a secondary source.
I've just checked the Cartoonbrew link again, it loading properly from my end. Though it 1st loads up a full-page interstatial ad, do you have some ad-blocker running?
My bad about the Qiuyi Tan article, I'll fix it so its the right link. Too much cut-and-paste.
I'll add more content about the company to the article. Zhanzhao (talk) 03:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what went wrong when I looked at the Cartoonbrew link; not it works for me too. Press releases in general are not subject to editorial overview, should be considered self-published sources and should probably best be avoided. Besides, a primary source is not just a source by the subject itself, but any source close to an event written by people directly involved - Cartoon Network is obviously directly involved in its own shows, so while the press release may be independent of Tiny Island, I'd say it's still a primary source. But in general I think the draft looks good; there's certainly enough coverage to establish notability, and its tone doesn't seem too promotional either. Huon (talk) 04:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the assist and suggestions, I'll continue to work on it! Zhanzhao (talk) 05:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dermablade

Hi there, I was just wondering what the status of this article is - it seems to be taking a long time to work through the review process? G2003 (talk) 16:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's correctly submitted for review, but there's a massive backlog of more than 1,300 unreviewed articles, and it may take some time until a reviewer looks at your submission. Please be patient. Huon (talk) 16:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, no problem - just seemed longer than usual and was worried I'd messed it up somehow.G2003 (talk) 07:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Advertising Women of New York

Hello,

My submission on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Advertising Women of New York was declined due to its lack of secondary sources. I've since found an article and a published book that could be used as additional sources, but I'm wondering how many secondary sources Wikipedia recommends. Do I need more than 2 secondary sources for this topic? What's the general volume/limit for outside sources on entries? Thank you!

Schlesinger Library (talk) 21:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It depends what the sources are, how much they talk about the subject, and how much the information in the source contributes to notability. When I put Bullets and Daffodils though AfC, it had six references, but the most significant one there was the BBC News article. Put in as many sources as you can possibly find that are reliable, and mention the article's subject in depth. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia content should be based on reliable secondary sources. If the sources you have don't support major parts of the draft, you don't have enough. Notability requires "significant coverage", which is usually interpreted as "more than one source that covers the topic in some detail", but beyond that it becomes a matter of interpretation and depends on the factors Ritchie333 listed. Huon (talk) 21:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Antonio Muñiz

Hi,

I am waiting for review of the following article - Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Antonio Muñiz It has been about a week since I submitted. Can you confirm that this is still in queue to be reviewed, and not lost in the system somewhere. I understand there is a backlog and happy to wait, I am just concerned that it may have fallen through the cracks somewhere.

Thanking you in advance.

Regards, Lincoln Abe21lincoln (talk) 23:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is properly submitted; as long as there's a "review waiting" message and it's categorized among the pending AfC submissions (the very last line), everything is OK. The backlog is at roughly three weeks right now, unfortunately. However, I don't think the draft's sources are sufficient. The entire "early life" section is unsourced, the gallery and museum websites don't mention Muñiz at all and don't confirm he was introduced to Blaisten, and it would be much better to summarize what the reviews have to say about Muñiz than just to mention that they exist. For example, art ltd. describes the details of Muñiz' technique; that might be worth mentioning. Huon (talk) 01:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]