Help desk
< October 11	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 13 >

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.

October 12

Review of User:Grumpy one au/sandbox

I have written a proposed major revision of the article on Kenneth R. Andrews in My Sandbox, and pressed the button for having it reviewed. However it is a revision, not a new article, so I have also posted the same material directly into the old article as a major edit. I hope this was the correct thing to do, because the old article had previously been marked in 2007 as being both unsupported and a stub, and those markings are still there on my rewritten version of the article. I hope someone will eventually clear both my sandbox and the markings on the article, but I do not know how to request this. Grumpy one au (talk) 00:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The revision process is meant only for brand-new articles; if an articla already exists, you can go ahead and improve it directly, just as you did. I've marked the submission template on your sandbox as "declined because it already exists"; that's not a reflection on the quality of your edits (which seem a major improvement to me, though there are some style issues, some stuff apparently unrelated to Andrews, and still quite a few primary sources) but just to keep other reviewers from wasting effort on a page that needs not be created. There are ways to ask for peer review of an existing article, but I believe that's meant for more developed ones that are close to being declared good or even featured articles. The best place to ask for some scrutiny might be a relevant WikiProject, such as WT:WikiProject Business.

Since the article is now too long and detailed for a stub and cites multiple independent sources, I'll remove/modify the old tags. When you see maintenance tags like these and fix the issues, feel free to remove the tags as well.

You can blank your sandbox yourself or just leave it in its current state until you need it again. If you really want it gone, you can have it speedily deleted by adding {{db-author}} to the top, but that seems like overkill to me. Huon (talk) 01:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/FNZ

Hi there, I have revised the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/FNZ following feedback from a wiki helper. I am hoping that someone else could re-review this article now and pass me any additional feedback? I have tried to include internal links throughout and use good references. Please let me know if this is looking acceptable or if there are any more recommended changes. Thanks, Ali Alasdaircmunro (talk) 09:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to have been accepted by User:Huon as an article, FNZ (company). K7L (talk) 17:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that left so little to do (and I already knew the sources etc.) that accepting it myself was easier than waiting for the "regular" review (which might have taken another week or so - we're terribly backlogged right now). Good work, thanks! What might be improved further are the two General Atlantic references - since that's one of their owners they're primary sources, and a truly independent source would be better. It's not critical or controversial content, though. Huon (talk) 17:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Nightdragon123/sandbox

could u make a please teacher season 2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightdragon123 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not an article, a request for a second season of what is apparently an anime show called Please Teacher!. Declined because it's not even slightly an article, and Wikipedia is not a place to address animation companies with your requests. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Syabas Technology

Hi, I just received comments on my submission with "There are at least a couple of unsourced passages. It's a major deal-breaker." from reviewer Mrt3366.

I am not sure which part is unsourced, as I tried to find citations necessary to make the article more concrete.

article in question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Syabas_Technology

Please advise. Siegheart2012 (talk) 13:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In general, any statement that someone might question needs a source. Press releases tend not to be independent, reliable sources as they are promotional in nature and written by the subject themselves. Any quoted text also needs to be cited (so "640K ought to be enough for anyone" - Bill Gates - would be challenged if someone mentioned it in an article without citing a source to show where or if he actually said that, for instance) and articles about living people require extra care in citing everything.

I'd be more concerned that the page reads like an advertisement. Promoting your own products (or anything in which you hold an interest) on Wikipedia is a no-no, so language which is not neutral but instead biased or promotional will cause your submission to be questioned and likely rejected, with or without reliable sources. Do not write pages about yourself, your own company or other topics in which you hold a direct stake, please. K7L (talk) 17:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Ttaziri/sandbox

Hello, I'm the new marketing director at Colorado Heights and have a page out for review/approval on the University. I was actually trying to update the existing story - did I manage to do that? Also, I'd like to add several pictures but not sure how to do that. I clicked on the picture icon but got stuck when it put and example of a caption. Please help. Thanks, Terrie Taziri phone# removed for security reasons

Hello Terry, really glad you checked in here, because there are a few issues that need to be addressed:

Please don't hit the "submit" button for your draft, as WP:AFC is only for new articles, while we already have an existing article Colorado Heights University. If you submit to AFC it'd be automatically declined for that reason, so let's instead just use your sandbox as a working copy for things to later migrate into the existing article.
Secondly, have you reviewed the existing article Colorado Heights University? Instead of writing a "new" article, you should improve the existing one. Do you have particular concerns about the existing article that need to be addressed? If so, I would first note those concerns at Talk:Colorado Heights University so that other editors working on that article are aware of them.
Thirdly, thanks for being up-front about being a marketing director; that's not necessarily prohibited on Wikipedia, but does have attendant responsibilities for transparency. I would strongly advise that you read WP:Conflict of interest to get a feel for the guidelines. It'd also be a positive step for transparency if you put a small blurb at the top of your userpage (User:Ttaziri). Also, as a general rule if you edit a page while employed by the subject, add a Template:Connected contributor statement to that article's Talk page. Not to load you down with technical talk, but we're happy to help explain any of this for you. Again, the intent isn't to penalise you for being honest, it's to maintain transparency so nobody can accuse your client of using underhanded techniques, so proper transparency should only help the overall PR of an institution.
Lastly, your draft User:Ttaziri/sandbox isn't really a Wikipedia article a currently written; even if Colorado Heights University didn't already exist, your draft wouldn't be a suitable version. I'm not saying it's bad writing, it's just not Wikipedia; it's more a press release that you'd like to see published here, which is not at all what Wikipedia does. If you haven't already, I'd advise reading Wikipedia:Writing your first article. In brief, your draft has zero WP:Wikilinks, is written with a promotional tone and in the university's voice vice a neutral one, has purely subjective phrases like "rich history", "conducive environment". In short, your article is exactly what the U would want a prospective student to read, but not at all what a person wanting to learn about a university in the abstract would want to read.

If you check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities, you can find a discussion board when you can ask Wikipedia university-related questions, see examples of "Featured" and "Good Article" achievements, read Guidlines for how university articles should be written, etc.

Hope this hasn't been an information-firehose for you, but just wanted to lay it all out. If your university has a genuine interest in making sure its Wikipedia coverage is accurate, credible and comprehensive, we're willing to work with you on that. But there's no quick-n-easy "copy-paste some U advertising up and get more page hits" answer, so please take at least a cursory view of the basic policies to see if this is something you're willing to work with. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few additional links which may be helpful:

{{request edit}} - this is a template which you can drop onto the talk page of an article to request that missing info be added or incorrect info be changed. This is useful if you have a conflict of interest on a topic (and therefore need a second opinion before making changes), but see any obvious mistakes or omissions which others may have overlooked or missed. For instance, if Colorado Heights University were to contain a mistake, drop {{request edit}} onto talk:Colorado Heights University with an explanation of what needs to be changed and any cited sources in which the complete or correct information can be verified.
The Wikipedia:Cheatsheet - this is a list of common formatting codes, such as the double set of square brackets placed around [[ a link to an existing article elsewhere in Wikipedia ]] or the equals signs around a == Section header == in an article.
The inline citation tags (<ref> and </ref>). Even if you're posting about topics where you already know something to be true (unless it's something obvious as to whether "the sky is blue"), posting links to books, newspapers or other reliable sources which discuss your topic in depth allows others to check the accuracy of your work and provides the reader with an additional, neutral source which can be consulted for additional information on a topic.
To add images, the picture you intend to use needs to be already on Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. If we don't already have the photo, it would be possible for you to take a digital camera, photograph the campus yourself and go to commons:special:upload to upload the images here. Note that Wikipedia does require a picture under a free license (such as Creative Commons CC-BY or CC-BY-SA) which permits its reuse for commercial purposes, in modified or unmodified form, for purposes which may have nothing to do with the encyclopaedia. That restriction precludes using most photos found on websites or other copyrighted sources. (A small minority of Flickr images have CC-BY or CC-BY-SA if the original photographer explicitly set those permissions, but by default most are copyrighted. Wikipedia:Files for upload can help if you find an existing image online which actually is free for commercial reuse or in the public domain, and wish to import that image to Wikipedia). Once the image is here, then you can use codes like [[Image:...whatever...jpg|thumb|right|This is my photo caption]] to use those files in articles. (File: and Image: mean the same thing here as most uploaded files are images).

A fair amount of additional info is in the help pages (just click help! on the left-hand sidebar). Hope this helps. K7L (talk) 17:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ServiceSource

Hello, I'm waiting for Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ServiceSource to be approved. I submitted the article on October 10th and it said that there were 1272 articles on that page waiting for review. That number has not decreased. About how long will it take for the article to be approved or rejected?

Thank you

Sally Ekman (talk) 16:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC) Sally Ekman[reply]

Though the total number hasn't decreased, rest assured your article is moving up in the queue. The list isn't holding still, it's just that whenever we review 100 articles, there are 100 new submissions coming in. The list Category:Pending AfC submissions is in chronological older, oldest first, so you can see where you article is. Things aren't necessarily answered purely in that order though, since, for example I do a lot of India articles so I'll scan through for India topics to review. But generally speaking once things get towards the top of the list they'll be reviewed.

That said, I looked over your article, and just to save you waiting and to reduce the line I've marked it Declined for the moment. While the format isn't bad, it has some significant issues with the writing style: it's packed with corporate buzzwords, which make it seem like a press release more than an encyclopedia article. It's phrased in ways which give a strong sense it's meant as advertising for the company vice neutral information. Please read WP:Conflict of interest and keep that in mind. Also maybe read some well-established articles on businesses, like Google and Microsoft. If you can make the needed changes, you can re-submit, or you can check either here or at the Teahouse first to make sure you've made the needed changes. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/West America Turkic Council

Hello,

What is the problem/reason with the WATC article for not being published. Can you please provide me with more details so I can correct them. (I did add some citations which are reliable sources and are entirely independent of our organization.)

Here is the link for the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/West_America_Turkic_Council

Waiting for your response.

Thank You, West America Turkic Council — Preceding unsigned comment added by GaReNi (talk • contribs) 22:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, your article was declined in May, and you have not yet resubmitted it. Once you feel it is ready, hit the button to submit again, and it will get back in line to be reviewed. I placed two "tags" at the top of your page noting a few more issues to correct. Feel free to check back in here once those are corrected to see if there are any last changes needed before submitting. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the original question: The article does not establish the WATC's notability. To do so, we need significant coverage in reliable sources that are idependent of the subject. The draft's first source is the WATC homepage, obviously not independent. The other sources are just the reliable sources we need, but only one of them mentions the WATC, and that only in a single half-sentence. That's not significant coverage, and even worse, sources that don't mention the WATC cannot be used to verify claims about the WATC. Furthermore, if you are closely associated with the WATC you might want to have a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest. Writing about your own organization is discouraged. Huon (talk) 22:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who reviews re-submissions? (Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Aaron Robinson)

Hello ~ I wrote an article for submission based on similar articles already approved on Wikipedia. The notability of my subject is far more important than several similar articles ~ I modeled my article on already approved articles, and yet ~ I was declined by Snowysusan. She stated that I needed more references ~ so I completely overhauled the article subject and loaded it with creditable sources both citations, external links, secondary references, etc. It only took Snowysusan 2 days to decline my first submission ... now, I have been waiting well over a week. How do I know that my resubmission has been submitted and in the queue for review? How do I know? I understand wiki is backlogged, but if Snowysusan can simply decline in a matter of hours, why is it taking so long for someone to review my resubmission? The article I submitted is: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Aaron Robinson ~ if anyone can help, I'd appreciate it. I was appalled to see so many articles in the same genre that was approved with hardly any references, and yet this one be declined. Still, it needs to be reviewed. Thanks ~ Impromp2music — Preceding unsigned comment added by Impromp2Music (talk • contribs) 23:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resubmissions are reviewed in the same manner as any other submission, although you won't necessarily get the same reviewer each time. Your article is awaiting review; the current backlog seems to be at least a week. You can see what's waiting for review at Category:Pending AfC submissions (there are currently 1260 articles, listed with the oldest submissions first).

As for sources? Some of the ones you've added look valid, but I would advise *not* citing Wikipedia articles (or other user-generated content) on Wikipedia. Anyone can add anything to a wiki page, unlike a book or a newspaper where the publisher pays editors to verify an author or reporter's facts. If an existing wiki article has facts you'd like to use, see what sources that page cites and steal those. :) The same issue arises sometimes with IMdb, as much of their content is user-supplied (you can mention the IMdb entry if it exists, but don't depend on it as a sole source for your facts.) K7L (talk) 00:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I believe only one of the sources, the Portland Phoenix, is a reliable source that's independent of the subject and provides more than trivial coverage. But to establish a topic's notability we require multiple reliable sources that devote at least a paragraph each to the subject.

Also, other problematic articles exist, but that's no reason to create more. Each submission must stand on its own merits. Huon (talk) 00:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]