Help desk
< October 3	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 5 >

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 4

]suman1195/sandbox]

REDIRECT [suman1195/sandbox]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suman1195 (talk • contribs) 07:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That sandbox was empty; I declined the submission for that reason. How can I help you? Huon (talk) 13:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Carlharrop/sandbox

hello

im new, and was hoping to do an article on a very special lady. but its not as easy as i thought. could you help please? Carlharrop (talk) 08:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt Ogden is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. We require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The only independent reliable source is the ITV article, and "significant coverage" is usually taken to mean "more than one source". Furthermore, we have a guideline on people notable for one event only, which suggests it's better to have an article about the event than the person. In this case, Ogden could receive a short mention in the British Heart Foundation article; a single line in the "fundraising" section might be most appropriate. Huon (talk) 13:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References for Article

Hello,

I recently submitted an article for Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Destination Magazine and the user Wyvin rejected it for not citing sources. How do I write to her? Or, what other sources besides the magazine's own website, which I've sited and contains the information, is needed for the article to be accepted? Thanks in advance for your help.

Inkblot01 (talk) 10:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can contact Wywin on her talk page. However, she's right in that we need significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, both to establish its notability and to allow our readers to verify the article's content. In short, we need others writing about the magazie, not the magazine writing about itself. For example, who called it the "leading lifestyle title"? Did some independent newspaper report on the reporting award they won? In fact, the entire "description" section reads like one big piece of puffery; almost every single sentence in that section makes me ask questions such as "says who?" or "known among whom?". Claims such as those that amount to personal opinion should not just be sourced, but attributed to a reliable independent source: "According to John Doe of the East African Journalists' Association, Destination Magazine maintains international standards in its quality and editorial content." Huon (talk) 13:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mary Adelia Rosamond McLeod

I submitted this article (Mary Adelia Rosamond McLeod) for review. In the meantime, I want to add some photos, but when I try to do so, I get a message that the article must first be uploaded. Is there a way to add photos at this stage in the process. If so, how; and, add a link please.

Thanks.

Hedgewock (talk) 11:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on the photos. I have never encountered the message you speak of, and I don't think there's quite such a message - while the article is still a draft, it need not be "uploaded" because it's already on the Wikimedia foundation's servers.

Maybe it's the photos themselves that must be uploaded? If they come with a free license, you can upload them to the Wikimedia Commons via their Upload Wizard. Once the images have been uploaded, the picture tutorial explains how to add them to the article.

If those photos don't come with a free license but are to be used under the doctrine of fair use, they can be uploaded to Wikipedia itself, but our fair use policy requires that such images must be used in at least one accepted article - a draft is not enough. Furthermore, it's commonly assumed that for photos of living persons such as McLeod a free equivalent exists or could be obtained; thus fair use is inapplicable to such photos anyway.

If that doesn't help, please be a little more explicit in your description of the problem: What exactly do you do when you encounter the message? Can you provide a link to that message?

On an unrelated note, the draft's last four references seemed a little strange. Two are identical, but are given with different dates that don't correspond to the date of the source. The other two are bare ISBN numbers; to those we should add full bibliographical details (author and/or editor, title, publication date, publisher, ...). Those four seemed to be primary sources anyway; do independent reviews of McLeod's writings exist? Huon (talk) 13:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Slovak Fulbright Commission

I am attempting to create a Wikipedia page for the Slovak Fulbright Comission however it was denied for being too much like an advertisement. When creating the page, I followed the format of the Wikipedia page for the UK Fulbright Comission, which is currently active. I am terying to figure out why my page was denied and what I can do to get it approved. Any help would be appreciated.

Dan

Roclafacasa (talk) 12:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, other problematic articles exist, and unfortunately the UK Fulbright Commission article isn't quite a shining example of what a Wikipedia article should be. The problem is that Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper articles. We require significant coverage in such sources both to establish its notability and to allow our readers to verify the article's content. There are also tone issues. In particular, the draft repeatedly speaks of "many opportunities", which sounds great but conveys no information. For comparison, for the ETA program the draft clarifies that there were eight positions for the 2012-2013 application cycle - now that's a hard fact. In the other instances the draft should also clarify what exactly the Commission does instead of speaking in vague generalities. Huon (talk) 13:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Second Opinion On a Review

I'm reviewing this article on a music festival that took place in Downtown Dayton. While the article has sources for everything, I'm not sure if it's notable enough. As I'm still getting used to the review process, I wanted to get a second opinion before I wrongly declined it. Thanks. CharmlessCoin (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert reviewer either, but (ignoring the "reference" that is our own referencing for beginners page) that seems to be local coverage only. Per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." This seems like such routine news reporting to me. Merging the information into the main Dayton, Ohio article, which already has a paragraph on festivals in the "entertainment" section, seems more appropriate. Huon (talk) 14:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the broken citation, FWIW. Roger (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, I appreciate it. I'll be sure to mention WP:NOTNEWSPAPER in the decline, and suggest it be included in the Dayton, Ohio article instead of it's own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharmlessCoin (talk • contribs) 15:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Source Definition

My article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Bushman_Delta_Frost_Harmonica was declined by Matthew Vanitas for not citing reliable source! I AM the reliable source. I have an in depth knowledge of the metal used in making the Delta Frost Harmonica - I spent a lot of time and money studying and learning my field. I AM the one who launched the Bushman Delta Frost Harmonica at the SPAH Harmonica Convention in August of 2003. Wikipedia will never find a more reliable source on the origin and history of the Bushman Delta Frost Harmonica in the entire world. Period. Matthew claims to know about folk instruments; I challenge him or any source in the world to know more about my harmonica than me. Reliable source??? Give me break!

This editor doesn't know enough about the subject of HARMONICAS to be editing articles about them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MatthewVanitas

I am the designer, inventor, and assembler of the Bushman Delta Frost Harmonica. I am intimately involved in every level of the manufacturing and distribution of the instrument. There is no more reliable source than me.

John Hall Creator of the Bushman Delta Frost Harmonica Owner/Founder of Bushman Music Works LLC And a VERY RELIABLE SOURCE [personal information removed] — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnOHall (talk • contribs) 17:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can find what Wikipedia classes as a reliable source at WP:RS. Also you stated you work/assemble the topic in question, Knowing that I would probably decline the article for a COI but I have not read the article yet. John F. Lewis (talk) 17:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate a little: Wikipedia content must be verifiable from published sources such as newspaper coverage, textbooks or reviews in trade magazines, sources that have been subject to editorial oversight or have a reputation for fact-checkig and accuracy. Writing about your own personal knowledge is considered original research, and that's not what Wikipedia is for. Your own website is at best a self-published source and is not considered reliable. (You'll surely accept the wisdom of these rules when you consider that otherwise I might claim in the article that the Bushman Delta Frost Harmonica is an overpriced product of shoddy worksmanship, sourced to my personal experience and my personal website... How could our readers tell that you're right and I'm wrong?)

I agree with John F. Lewis that you as designer, inventor and manufacturer of this harmonica are very likely to have a conflict of interest - my advice would be not to write the article on your own invention yourself.

Furthermore, there are issues of notability: To show that your harmonica is notable enough to be the subject of a Wikipedia article, it must have been the subject of significant coverage in such reliable sources that are independent of the subject (ie we need someone else but you writing about the harmonica). Huon (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]