Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2012 November 8

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 8

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pilz GmbH & Co. KG

Dear all, could you please review my article and tell me what would be the next steps to publish it. Thank you!

The next step should be the addition of reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper articles. All the draft's current sources are the company's own website. Press releases are not considered either reliable or independent. If no one but Pilz writes about Pilz, the company is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Huon (talk) 21:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sergey Shishkarev

Good day to whom may read this! Help me please. I'm trying to publich an article about Russian politician, businessman and an expert. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sergey Shishkarev. Keep getting "insufficient context" review comment. What exactly doest it mean, that this dude isn't important enough to write about him or the sources are unreliable or the formatting of the article in incorrect. Why it it bad if an article about living public official looks resume-like (got that comment for the declined submission as well)? (saw numerous exaples of similar "people pages" - they all look like resume) I would apreciate any comments on how i can improve this article for it to be published! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Key157 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the reviewer's problem with the article any more now than I did the last time. I'll have a look at the draft itself and will probably accept it. That may take a few hours, though; please be patient. Huon (talk) 19:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I've had that look. Some of the sources seem rather dubious to me, and it might be better to improve the article a little more before moving it to the main articlespace. Things aren't made easier by the fact that almost all sources about Shishkarev (and all sources given in the draft) are in Russian, but that's not by itself a reason not to accept the draft. I've explained the problems in a little more detail and proposed some alternative sources at your talk page. Huon (talk) 00:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear, Huon, thank so much for taking the time to review the draft and leave your recomendations. I'll rewrite it, given your suggestions and try to resend it for the edditor's review. In case of further problems, i'll write you again, if that's okay? Key157 (talk) 15:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

One more thing - you've created a side-bar (short info about a man). Whould you happen to know where i can read how create and edit those things? Key157 (talk) 16:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear Huon. I've made the changes you've suggested. Could you please take a look at the article - Sergey Shishkarev. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Key157 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

kirant dynasty nepal

who was the last king of kirant dynasty nepal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.207.125.160 (talk) 14:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

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) 21:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Psychology of Men and Masculinity (journal)

This question is about the rejected Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Psychology of Men and Masculinity (journal)

I'm not sure as to why this lacks "reliable sources." A link is provided to the publisher website, where the information is gathered from. Information about the Journal Citation Reports is also provided. Most other acceptable Wikipedia articles on journals include this exact information.

Thank you for your help.

Barmaru (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

To be considered notable by Wikipedia's standards, a topic must have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The bublisher clearly is not an independent source on its publication. The Journal Citation Reports are a reliable independent source, but that journal ranking isn't significant coverage. They rank all journals in the field.

I'm aware that many other journal articles are in no better shape, but while other problematic articles exist, that's no reason to create more. Each submission must stand on its own merits. Maybe the journal has been the subject of some newspaper coverage or of a review in another journal? Huon (talk) 21:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Women Of Aviation Worldwide Week

Hello,

I'm very confused with article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Women_Of_Aviation_Worldwide_Week) being declined over sources and references when it was pointed it out that I forgot references in the previous review.

I had added more than 14 references including one pointing to more than 60 TV, Radio, and printed media from around the world (http://www.womenofaviationweek.org/about/press-center/) referring to this annual worldwide celebration. I would assume that the coverage of the week's activity by the BBC, ITV, ABC, NBC, CBS, and CBC among others would constitute sufficient independent references.

When adding the references, I consulted similar existing and approved Wikipedia articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fashion_week - references listed don't mention the week

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Aviation,_International - all references are the association's own website; no independent sources

Please enlighten me as to what type of additional references you are seeking.

Thanks,

Flymg123 (talk) 17:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)flymg123

That list of more than 60 media may be helpful, but it's not itself a reliable source because firstly it's hosted by the organization promoting the holiday and secondly it doesn't say anything about the holiday itself. Some of those 60 media may indeed serve as reliable sources, but then we should refer to those sources themselves, not just to the list. Your current references aren't any of those 60 media (with the possible exception of two YouTube videos, and YouTube is not a good source, especially when the uploader is not the original publisher). You should actually use those sources to base the article on instead of just pointing out they exist. The organization's own website, on the other hand, is not an independent source and should be used with care: Not as the sole basis of parts of the draft, and not for contentious statements.

Regarding the other articles you point out: other insufficiently sourced articles exist, but that's no reason to create more. Each submission must stand on its own merits. And the Fashion week article clearly once had sources referring to fashion weeks before the links became broken. Huon (talk) 21:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Review of User:QuickFireSnyp/sandbox

Hello.Is there anywhere on wikipedia to actually write a book. Other than on Create a Book? CHAOS IS PERFECTION CONFUSION IS DOMINANCE 17:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; we have articles on books, but not books themselves. An article on a book would require reliable independent sources on the book, such as published reviews. Significant coverage in such sources would be necessary to establish the book's notability.

If you want to write a book, you may want to have a look at Wikibooks: Homepage. But I believe that's only for textbooks, not for short story collections. Huon (talk) 21:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lords of Uttershausen (von Uttershausen)

Help. I think I might be just getting ready to give up but I figured I should at least try you all first. I "think" this shouldn't be so difficult to do but, the deeper I get the more I feel like I need to be far less of a writer and much more of a coder. I thought I had provided my references and citations in an easy to follow manner but when I attempt to convert them to Wikipedia's References it doesn't seem to do what I want. In the "History" section of my article I inserted several ref codes where I intend them to go and it created links to them in the Reference section, but then I can't edit those in the reference section and put the respective codes next to (in alignment with) the references that I have written. Obviously this is my first attempt at an article and I thought it would be a bit more intuitive than this to take something I've written and put it into Wikipedia but it seems to be an un-ordinary amount of work, trial, and error, to do so. Rbr4wiki (talk) 17:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

That's an impressive amount of work, and unfortunately it will take another almost equally impressive amount of work to bring it in line with Wikipedia's preferred layout (see the manual of style for details). The references are just one example. It might have been easier to gain some editing experience or to start with a short outline before creating an article of that size.

The <ref></ref> tags create a footnote. The text between those tags gets listed in the references section by the {{reflist}} template. Let me give an example: <ref>Sturt, Wolfgang. "Das Geschlecht Reinhard Aus Dem Stamme v. Uttershausen." Hessische Familienkunde January Edition 6.5 (1963): n. pag. Print.</ref> will look like this:

I'm not quite sure what you intend with references such as [1a] and [1b]. Are those excerpts of the book given at [1]? While short excerpts (with a translation, if possible) may be helpful, usually I'd expect a page number to allow the readers to easily check the original source.

My suggestion would be to add a dedicated "bibliography" section for the books and articles you cite, and to put the excerpts with a short reference to the book (author and page number) into the footnotes themselves. For an example, have a look at the 0.999... article, especially footnotes 14 to 16.

Another technical issue: The draft heavily uses external links to link to the German Wikipedia. For at least some of those articles we do have English versions (such as edelfrei or Hessengau; it's better to link to the English articles whenever possible. Even when you provide links to English Wikipedia articles you sometimes turn them into external links, not true wikilinks. Wikilinks are created by double square brackets: [[Johannes Rietstap]] will give Johannes Rietstap.

I'm also not quite sure whether the majority of the content is appropriate at all. The "contemporaries" section seems off-topic by its own admission. And Wikipedia articles are not genealogical entries, so a list of lots of utterly insignificant people who bore the name "Uttershausen" may be considered inappropriate. Huon (talk) 21:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I admit I somehow missed that the text of the reference was meant to go inline in the section with the body of text itself. I assumed that the separate section the template created when I started was meant for me to put it all there directly. Well, I can certainly fix that. I think I understand what you are saying with the writing style and so forth, I thought I was following an accepted form since I was trying to emulate a page like this <http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haus_Hohenfels_%28Hessen%29>, which I've found many other similar ones to as well. I think what I will do in any case is just make this article in wikipedia considerably shorter and if it is acceptable merely reference a more thorough record of the genealogy data I am trying to record on a GenWiki site which I recently discovered. Perhaps most of that is best meant to be directly there instead. As for some of the references, a couple things, (a) English is my primary language so I've relied on google translate and other german-english translation sites to correct when I could beyond that so I meant to include the original German so that others could potentially improve upon the translation if so desired; and (b) even more importantly in the case of reference [1] (Sturt) I highly doubt anyone would be able to obtain a copy of that reference without considerable effort. It took me two years to find one copy in an German bookstore (and it is merely one article and a paper genealogy magazine, nothing considerable by todays print standards, then I had to scan and re-type to correct and translate to get anything out of it. I am afraid that if I do not provide certain original quotes directly in the ref. of my article, no one would ever be able to find them to 'verify' the references in the first place. The other one[2] is luckily available in public domain scans on archive.org, but it still requires knowing where to look and then convert from old style german font to modern and then translating, but you are right that anyone who wished to put in the effort could do the same. I thought I was just being helpful by including these obscure original language items in the work. I guess you are saying I shouldn't do that? What about in the case of ref [1]. Also, I will look for and correct ext. ref's to internal refs. I will say however that I have found many instances where the English variant of a given topic has provided relatively little information compared to the same in other language versions on the same topic. Which also brings me to another question. I had assumed that it was all just one big Wikipedia with just different languages available, should I not assume that what is common or acceptable on the German wikipedia (for example) is equally acceptable on the English one?) Thanks Rbr4wiki (talk) 15:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Johnny Angel - Musician

I am a little confused on what you are wanting for references in regard to the page I am working on johnny angel musician http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Johnny_Angel_-_Musician. An actress friend of mine has a page and there are no references/citations or independent references. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Christopher Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/johnny Angel - Musician Thank you for your assistance, Tracey Capobianco (Tracey Capobianco (talk) 20:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC))

Thanks for pointing out the unsourced article; I've tagged it for improvement. All Wikipedia content should be based on coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper articles. While insufficiently sourced articles exist, that's no reason to create more (instead, the problematic articles should be improved or deleted); each submission must stand on its own merits. The best source seems to be the Best New Bands piece; that publication apparently does have an editorial staff. Most other sources seem to be self-published (like blogs) and thus not reliable, or they're written by Angel and thus not independent. But I doubt that lone good source is sufficient as a basis for an article; to establish a topic's "notability" we require significant coverage in such sources, and that means more than just one. Huon (talk) 21:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Missa Brevis by Leonard Bernstein

Hello, I have written a proposed article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Missa Brevis by Leonard Bernstein, that has just been rejected by Rushbugled13. The reviewer states that, "The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own." I, however, believe there to be quite a sufficient amount of content to merit it being accepted. The article contains analysis of each movement in Leonard Bernstein's last choral work ever written. It also provides background information on the musical work such as its history, its conception, its recordings, and its reception by reviewers in major musical journals. I also have reliable resources, and external links that further elaborate on information provided in the article. I was wondering if my article could be reviewed again, and if I could receive more specific advice on how to get it accepted. Thank you, Bryan Bryan Stenson (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree; there's by far enough for an article on its own, and if it were merged into the Missa brevis article as the reviewer suggested it would utterly dominate that article in a way it shouldn't do. I have notified the reviewer and asked him for a more detailed explanation. For now I have simply resubmitted the draft; I may take a more detailed look later, but I'm rather busy right now. Huon (talk) 21:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I just saw you already resubmitted it. I've left a comment about my disagreement with the previous reviewer's rationale. Huon (talk) 21:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help! I truly appreciate it. Bryan Stenson (talk) 16:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I've moved this into article space. It's standard practice to have articles on notable individual compositions by notable composers, and this one clearly is. It's also well-referenced and just needs a bit of polishing up now. Congratulations on filling a gap in our coverage of Leonard Bernstein's compositions. Voceditenore (talk) 17:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)