Help desk
< October 26	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 28 >

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 27

physics

a pendulum is displaced sideward from the vertical and the released.As it swings down toward the vertical axis ,its kenitic energy increases,where does the energy come from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.145.14.183 (talk) 05:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the potential energy: The pendulum is displaced along an arc, not just sideward but a little upward as well. But this help desk is for questions about the Articles for creation process. For general knowledge questions, please try the reference desk. Huon (talk) 10:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Walman

I attempted to create a redirect page for Walman and received the message

This is not the correct place to request new redirects. Please follow the instructions at Articles for creation/Wizard-Redirects. Thank you.

But I see no information at that site to explain what I did wrong.

MD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolinuts68 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a simplified procedure for requesting redirects; it's at WP:AFC/R (or you can tell the Article Wizard that you want to create a redirect). That doesn't involve as thorough a review as the submission of a new article, and correspondingly it's much faster. However, since "Walman" may have other meanings besides the language, a WP:Disambiguation page seemed more appropriate than a redirect. I have created it. Huon (talk) 17:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kolinuts, the technical bits do take some learning, but you have successfully identified a good place for a WP:Disambiguation page, which Huon made. I ended up making some related ones and also some links, so folks looking for Wallman, Wollman, and Wolman can get to the right place too. Thanks for pointing this out! MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Dr._Christopher_L._Snyder

I had written the article below and wanted to see if there is someone I could pay to make it into the correct format so my biography can be included into the Wikipedia. Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Dr._Christopher_L._Snyder — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noah2noaa (talk • contribs) 14:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia editors tend to be volunteers and usually "work" for free; while there are a few editors-for-hire, in general there's no need to offer payment. Furthermore, money tends to create conflicts of interest.

I just had a look at the draft, and there are several problems. Most importantly, The sources don't suffice to establish Snyder's notability. To be considered notable enough for a Wikipedia article he must have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper articles. Two of the draft's sources are written by Snyder himself (and thus not independent); the other two are directory entries and not considered significant enough. I'm also not quite sure where those directories get their information - parts seem to be user-submitted, which would be unreliable (for example, I believe I could rate him without ever having seen him).

Even if better sources can be found, the draft will have to be rewritten significantly. It reads more like a hagiography than an encyclopedia article - would you expect our article on Niccolò Machiavelli to begin with "Niccolò Machiavelli was a results-oriented politician with a passion for promoting the fortunes of his home town"? That sounds good but ultimately tells us little about the subject (maybe even more about Machiavelli than about a doctor). Claims such as that Snyder "earned a reputation for precision and accuracy" would need a secondary source explicitly making that claim, and better yet, attribution to that source: "When Snyder was hired for a full-time position at the University of Pittsburgh, the Random Pittsburgh Newspaper noted his reputation for precision and accuracy" or something like that. In general, we aim for a neutral point of view, not for an advertisement.

Furthermore, the draft should have inline citations and footnotes to clarify which of the sources supports which of the draft's statements.

I'd be willing to help with the more technical parts such as the footnotes, but I have no idea where to look for better sources; without those not much can be done. Huon (talk) 17:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Combination EMS Service and Departments

References

http://www.naemt.org/Libraries/Member%20Resources%20Documents/Issues%20in%20Staffing%20Emergency%20Medical%20Services-A%20National%20Survey%20of%20Local%20Rural%20and%20Urban%20EMS%20Directors.sflb

http://www.penflexinc.com/Are-Combination-Departments-The-Future-c31.html

You should add those references to the draft; in fact, the draft should be based on such sources. You should also use inline citations and footnotes to clarify which source supports which of the draft's statements.

On a more general note, your draft seems based on our combination fire department article, with parts of it literally the same, and other parts with "firefighters" substituted by "EMS" (and with "junior" substituted by "cadet" even where that substitution makes no sense, such as "cadet high school" instead of "junior high school"). Are firefighters and EMS really that similar? Then we might be better off with a section on EMS in the combination fire department article than with a second article that largely says the same as the first. Huon (talk) 19:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]