Help desk
< October 21	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 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.

October 22

Rejection of Article (Fritz Schaetzler)

Hi,

I was wondering why the article was declined, and if there is anything that can be done to make it viable? It must have to do with the article itself rather than the subject as there is an article with different content about the same person in the German language wikipedia.

Best,

Corrado — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corrado Gong (talk • contribs) 00:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the reviewer said, the draft reads more like an essay than like an encyclopedia article. Take the very first line: Schaetzler "was one of the most interesting stage figures of his generation" - says who? That's obviously a subjective opinion, and it needs not just a reliable source, but attribution to a source: "Music critic John Doe called Schaetzler 'one of the most interesting stage figures of his generation'." I also have some doubts about the draft's current sources. Schaetzler's autobiography is a primary source and should be used with caution. Does the Revue article about Emmy Göring really mention Schaetzler? It seems very hard to find. The LA Times article is precisely the kind of source we'd want and it cofirms much of the draft, but it differs in the details - for example it says Schaetzler "retired from the stage while still in Germany, but made the rounds of hospitals singing and dancing for wounded soldiers", but it doesn't mention his work for the AFN. It mentions that Schaetzler and his wife taught voice in La Habra, but not that the work was related to the film industry. I doubt any of the sources mentions Schaetzler's grandson, and even if they did, the grandson's current occupation would be off-topic in an article on Schaetzler. For rather obvious reasons the sources also cannot mention Schaetzler's death.

On a more general note, it would be a great help if you'd use inline citations and footnotes to clarify which source supports which of the draft's statements. Some additional details on the sources, such as page numbers for the books, couldn't hurt either. I've added some links to related articles, but some more might be helpful.

In summary, Schaetzler appears quite notable, but I'm sure there are more (and better) sources available, and the article could profit from being rewritten to focus on the details of Schaetzler's musical career instead of empty praise and off-topic content. The various parenthetical comments should probably also either be worked into the text itself or removed outright. Huon (talk) 03:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Master of Information and Communication Technology

why you have not created an article on masters of information and communication technology? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Umairjaved90 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That draft hasn't yet been reviewed. There's a massive backlog of unreviewed submissions, and it may take about ten days until a submission is reviewed. However, the draft was a copyright violation of the University of Western Sydney page on the subject; I've therefore nominated it for speedy deletion. Huon (talk) 03:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Submission for Dark Rome Tours page declined

Hi all

My page for creation - Dark Rome Tours has been declined. Just wondering if anyone knew why or had any insight into what I could do to change that status?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.120.165.162 (talk) 08:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the reviewer said, this still needs better sources. The first two references are primary sources, the web sites of the company itself and of the Vatican Museum announcing a business deal with the company. The third is a press release, the last looks like user-submitted content without editorial oversight; neither of them seem to be reliable by Wikipedia's standards. The LA Times and Travel Weekly are better, but they don't cover major parts of the draft, making those parts unverifiable. Huon (talk) 10:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/European Network of Research Integrity Offices

Dear Wikipedia-Team!

I wanted to create an article abeout ENRIO (European Network of Research Integrity Offices) and have obviously mixed things up. My article which I originally wrote in the sandbox (but then thought I had moved it on into creation and reviewing) has now popped up in the Wikipedia talk namespace. I am required to either move this page into my userspace, or remove the {{User sandbox}} template. I get confused. I only wanted to write this article, have it reviewed and then published. I do not know what went wrong. can you help me out with this????AlexMlakar (talk) 09:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the {{User sandbox}} template. The draft is in the correct place and has been submitted for review; everything is OK in that area. We're severely backlogged, though, and it may take some time until a reviewer looks at the draft.

The draft currently does not cite any reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper articles. We need significant coverage in such sources both to establish that ENRIO is a notable organization (see also WP:ORG for more specific notability criteria) and to allow our readers to verify the draft's content. I had a look at some of the external links to what I believe are member organizations; those I looked at didn't even mention ENRIO. If no independent sources can be found, the draft will be declined. Also, much of the current draft reads like a mission statement instead of a description of what ENRIO actually does. Huon (talk) 10:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/CampDoc.com

Can you provide a specific example of how this article could be improved? It does not seem to read like an advertisement to me. Please help! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/CampDoc.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.205.4 (talk) 11:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewers didn't leave any comments, which is a shame. From my point of view, a phrase like "the most comprehensive study of camper and staff injury and illness ever conducted" must be attributed to a reliable source - how do we know it is the most comprehensive study otherwise? Looking at the sources, most of them seem to be primary sources because they are on the company's website or are press releases, whereas we require independent sources to establish notability. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Eucalyptus Systems

Hi, I'm trying to figure out if this page is moving forward, it looks like it received some edits Oct 5 and should be ready to be published but nothing's happened to it since then. Is there something I should do or should I just wait--we're anxious to have this page posted if at all possible. Many thanks in advance for any feedback--Chris Chriscarrolljcc (talk) 14:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Apparently someone marked it as "being reviewed" and then forgot about it without ever finishing the review, effectively putting the draft in limbo. Sorry about that! I reviewed it right now, but I had to decline it. There are several issues. First of all, we already have Eucalyptus (computing), which seems highly redundant to this draft. While it focuses more on the software than the company, it may still be better to improve that article than to write a new one.

Secondly, the current draft's sources are insufficient. Several are primary sources, the company's own website. Two others are blogs and are not considered reliable by Wikipedia's standards. Entire sections didn't have any sources at all. The Cloud Computing Journal was the best of the bunch, but it didn't say much about the company (as opposed to its product). In particular, there are no reliable secondary sources for the claim that Eucalyptus Systems' software is "the most widely deployed cloud software platform" or that there's something "unique" about the design. There are no reliable secondary sources for the company's officials, its history or its customers except the NIST, and that's arguably a primary source for its own use of Eucalyptus. In fact, there's hardly enough coverage to establish Eucalyptus Systems is notable in the first place (see WP:CORP for more specific notability guidelines). Much of the draft thus couldn't be verified from reliable sources. In fact, I don't think there's any content based on reliable sources that isn't already included in the Eucalyptus (computing) article. Huon (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SoccerStarz Figurines: Article rejection

Hi, I am hoping you can help me. I have recently created an article for our company which I strived not to look like an advertisement. However it was rejected for thsi reason.

Can you please assist me on how to write it? I looked around for examples but I can't really understand why.

Many thanks, Sal Soccerstarzmania (talk) 15:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, writing on your own company is an obvious conflict of interest, and it shows. Significant parts of the draft are directly based on the words of Creative Toys' CEO. Phrases such as "uniquely crafted" or "an actual figure to touch, share, swap and play with" are almost direct quotes, but they're not marked as such. If we cite the CEO we should say so, but it would be much better to base the draft on truly independent sources. It would also help if we had a broader base of sources. All current secondary sources are from the same trade magazine. Have the figurines received coverage in other publications, maybe in mainstream newspapers?

Conversely, I couldn't verify some information in the draft, for example the relative frequency of the base colours. The trade magazine doesn't mention base colours at all, and what exactly is "ultra rare" supposed to mean anyway? One in 1000? One in a million? This kind of vague, unsubstantiated but well-sounding statement is precisely what we don't want.

You might also want to use inline citations and footnotes to clarify which source supports which of the draft's statements. Huon (talk) 16:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help with a review

Moved to Reviewer Talk.

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ESL Explorer

Hi there,

I'm currently putting together a new article for the company ESL Explorer, and I would love to get some further feedback at your convenience, so that I can make sure it is well written , and in the formal tone that is expected of a Wikipedia article.

From reviewing the submission I noticed that the last sentence: "As of July 2012 they had 275 English second language schools listed across 72 cities.[5]" could be see as peacocking, however I was not certain.

If I was able to get some further insight into what sentences/citations were not up to standards, I could improve the article for resubmission, as the current reasoning is somewhat vague.

Cheres,

Elcurto99 (talk) 19:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)Elcurto99[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ESL Explorer

Many of the draft's sources are problematic. The source for that last sentence writes very little of its own about ESL Explorer; for the remainder they simply cite a press release. They also don't mention 275 schools, but only "around 250". The sources for the award are both connected to the institiution giving that award; they are problematic both from the reliability and from the indepedence perspective. Newspaper coverage would be much better. TechVibes is a blog and thus probably not subject to editorial oversight. The author of that article apparently is his own editor; it's effectively self-published. The "stated aim" is a mission statement we shouldn't bother with anyway; a description of what they actually do, based on reliable sources, would be much better.

What I'd be really interested in would be some revenue figures or the number of employees, but I expect it's very hard to find sources for those. But such hard facts are severely lacking right now; the draft text doesn't even mention the founding date. As an aside, the "industry" entry in the infobox is currently a redlink; that should be pointed to some existing article instead. Huon (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Matthias Bertsch

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Matthias Bertsch. As asked from first reviewer, I have reduced the links and refs.

Prof. Bertsch is teacher at our university and his publicatios can be found in the library http://www.mdw.ac.at/bib and some are listed in the Google Scholar Citations. His Bio has been published in some conference proceedings, which have been summarized. BTW, the article is already published in the french and german wiki.

Is there anything to improve ? How and when articles are moved to the main pages ? --Ziehharmonika (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I don't know about the French Wikipedia, but the German one often has lower standards than the English Wikipedia. That they accepted an article on Bertsch is no indication that we should do so as well.

At the English Wikipedia, content must be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper articles - we don't need Bertsch's publications, but what others have written about him. The current sources are even more primary sources than the last time, articles by Bertsch and websites of organizations he's affiliated with, plus the same article from the Konrad Adenauer Foundation that still doesn't mention Bertsch and thus cannot be used to verify that Bertsch was among those who played for Reagan and Honecker. They still don't establish Bertsch's notability (see also WP:PROF for more a specific notability guideline), and until significant coverage in secondary sources has been found, we cannot accept the draft. Huon (talk) 23:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]