Help desk
< September 13	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 15 >

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.

September 14

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ebillity

Hi, I'm just wondering what I can do to get my page submitted. Thanks Trentoncrawford (talk) 00:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To demonstrate the subject's notability you must provide significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject - in particular, sources other than the organization's own website or websites trying to sell the product. Maybe it has received some reviews in independent publications with editorial oversight, such as newspapers? Huon (talk) 00:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Site-specific recombinases: Classification, properties and dedicated applications

Conceiving this article we were aware of the two mentioned ones and their contents. We also subjected them to minor revision and they were cross-refenced in the present contribution.

In the last decades Cre was the recombinase, which was most frequently used until it turned out that its uncontrolled expression leads to a variety of cytotoxic effects (reviewed in the publcations by Turan et al.). Moreover, new members emerged within the Ser-rec family (e.g. PhiC31 integrase), which gain increasing relevance. The combination of these enzymes enabled the present, comprehensive toolbox for gene (re-)engineering.

For historical reasons the common classification of recombinase subfamilies (integrases, resolvases/invetases) underwent multiple changes and continues to do so, leading to a lot of confusion. This triggered our update of nomenclature in Fig. 1 in accord with the recent contribution in FASEB J. 25, 4088-4107 http://dx.doi.org/10.1096/fj.11-186940 .

t h at — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juergen Bode (talk • contribs) 06:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a possible conflict of interest: Even though the results were published in peer-reviewed journals, I don't think it's a good idea to base an entire article mostly on your own research. In particular, it's probably too early to write an article about your own proposed nomenclature unless it has been accepted by others (and then it might be better to cite not your original work but a review article). Furthermore, major parts of the draft (such as the first section's second and third paragraphs) seem entirely unsourced. While the site-specific recombinase technology article is in pretty bad shape too, it does seem to be the natural home for information on SSR properties and applications. Huon (talk) 11:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your immediate answer. I kindly ask you to consider the following: the two articles bei Turan et al. are invited reviews, which are based on recent results in the communuity. Each of these reviews covers around 100 quotations of which original work from our lab is a minor contribution also. The nomenclature also is not our construction but rather follows the current trends an reflects the majority of quotations since ~2010

Anorther point to remind: Our Wiki-contribution "Recombinase-mediated cassette exchange" was commented in April 2012 to be an orphan. We do whatever we can to follow your advice. We will also be glad to add more quotations to the first and second paragraph of the present article as you suggest.Juergen Bode (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Gönül_Pultar

There is already a page with this title which I have created and am editing at present. Therefore please cancel this review.

Cilingoz (talk) 07:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've declined it as a duplicate. Thanks for notifying us! Huon (talk) 11:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Donnington Collection

I am struggling with the phrase reliable source - the accounts from a government department (externally audited) are hardly unreliable surely . The annual account quoted is one of 2 where the collection is mentioned . Cocklecanoe (talk) 13:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To me the problem is less one of reliability (see WP:RS for a discussion of what constitutes "reliable sources") but of notability. A notable topic must have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject - which your sources are not. Furthermore, the draft was a carbon copy of the CMSM website which presumably comes under Crown copyright; it therefore was a copyright violation. For that reason I have blanked the page and nominated it for speedy deletion. Huon (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Username StevenRRusso

Micro-Tokenization submission in my sandbox that was declined..... I simply do not understand. This is a brand new technology that was vetted and substantiated by the CIO of the goverment improvement team..... Since it is new there is no other definition anywhere... I am the creator....... — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenRRusso (talk • contribs) 14:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the technology is so new that there were no reliable sources for it. Wikipedia content must be verifiable from such reliable sources; furthermore, significant coverage in such sources that are independent of the subject is required to establish the subject's notability. There may also be a conflict of interest when you write about your own creation. It may be best to wait some time until there are independent reviews of this technology, and until someone not directly involved in its development writes an article. Huon (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Becca Stockton and George Komsky

On average, how long does it take to approve a new wiki page?

Komskystockton (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a massive backlog of unreviewed submissions; the oldest are more than two weeks old. Please be patient. However, your draft has severe issues that you should address before it gets reviewed - otherwise it will just be declined. Most importantly, you don't show that the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject: YouTube is not considered reliable, and the Los Angeles Informer piece is not an article, but written by a PR specialist, presumably working on Komsky's behalf. Thus, the topic appears to be non-notable. You should also use inline citations and footnotes to clarify which reference supports which of the article's statements. Furthermore, your username suggests you may have a conflict of interest. It may be better to wait until someone not as closely associated with Komsky and Stockton writes on them. Huon (talk) 16:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Analytical Infrastructure

Hello,

The Analytical Infrastructure page I wrote was declined due to lack of cited references which are not self-referencing to Wikipedia (makes sense). My question is does 1 citation from a book (Fourth Paradigm book) provide enough to serve as an article? This is a new field (kind of like Big Data) which came up within the past year, however there is a limited amount of articles written on the subject.

Thanks

17:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)17:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)~~ Douglas Eisenstein — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougeisenstein (talk • contribs) 17:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A single source is usually considered not enough to satisfy the notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources". It may be better to wait a little until more has been written about the subject. Huon (talk) 18:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Max Misch

Does everything look good before I end up submitting it?

Max "the Diesel Wiesel" Misch Max "The Diesel Weasel" Misch (born in January of 1983) is an Elite level raw powerlifter. He is currently ranks #5 in the 165lb weight class with a 570lb deadlift, and also ranks #14 with a 1295lb 3-lift total.

Military years

Max's first experience in any gym was to help prep Max for Basic training. Max ended up joining the US Army in 2001 till 2003, during this time he received his Tank qualifications. In 2003 Max ended up leaving to Iraq for a Combat Deployment. After the Deployment he ended up with a Honorable Discharge, and on getting the Discharge Max ended up moving back home..

2004-2006

2004: after moving back home, Max enrolled in Queensboro College while Max was in enrolled, he would start back up in the gym. After Max meeting José, he would start Competing in Strong Man meets in 2005-2006. Max would compete in 175/200lb weight class, with no luck.

2007-2012

2007: When Max’s videos made him disliked on forums and youtube, Jesse Marunde (2nd place finish @ Worlds Strongman 2005)would contact Max. 2008: Max had trained for a little while, before taking the first step on the platform in May of 2008. Max would get a total of 1005. Max had entered a meet for SSA in December of 2008, and would make a total of 1125. 2009: Max was named Male best lifter in March for the SSA, by totaling 1140 2012: In May of 2012 at the IPA South Jersey Rumble, Max became Tied for #48(RAW) on powerlifting watch lifter Ranking. June 2012: Max had made his best total for 1295. Max would be ranked #14 for the 161lb class with the #5 dead lift, and #12 squat.

Monstertrainingcanada (talk) 17:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)Robert Mori[reply]

There are several issues. Most importantly, sources are very weak; interviews are basically Misch speaking about Misch, not quite the independent sources we need to establish his notability. Furthermore, I couldn't find one interview; that leaves us with a single weak source which does not in fact confirm several of the draft's contents. If that is resolved, the draft needs some wikilinks to other articles (such as powerlifting), and a little more context. He "currently ranks #5 in the 165lb weight class with a 570lb deadlift"? In what list? Best in the US, best worldwide? What is "currently"? Which organization maintains that ranking? (The interview, by the way, says he was 18th in the 2009 PowerliftingWatch.com raw lifter rankings at his best.) Or take the 2004 event: "After Max meeting José [...]" - who is José, and why is his meeting with Misch relevant? There are also style issues: For example, we should refer to Misch (and to others) by last name, not by first name. Huon (talk) 18:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Majestic Theatre (Madison, WI)

I'm having a little difficulty having the two photos I uploaded for my article Majestic Theatre (Madison, WI)/Dmmiller23 to appear. Is it because the article is still being reviewed, or is it a technical slip-up on my part? Dmmiller23 (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Typos, probably. Now fixed. Huon (talk) 22:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]