Help desk
< September 16	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 18 >

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 17

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Swedish Mutation

This article cites nature journal as authoritative source along with alzheimer's association web citation. I can't why this article was rejected for lack of authoritative source of information. This is a scientific article need to be evaluated by someone with enough knowledge of scientific literature the least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venkatms11 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You do have good sources, but do they really support the draft's text? For example, which paper recounts the debate about the significance of β-amyloid and the significance of the Swedish mutation in that debate? I don't have access to the full papers right now, but judging by the abstracts they're not review articles. See also WP:MEDRS for the sources required for medical topics. Huon (talk) 01:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Cincywriter4u/sandbox

I've submitted an article about a life coach. I want to include photos but don't know how to do so. Please help.

Thanks,

Carmen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cincywriter4u (talk • contribs) 01:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the image comes with a free license, you can upload it to the Wikimedia Commons via their Upload Wizard. Once it has been uploaded, you can add it to the infobox via the "| image = " line (if the uploaded file were named "Atiya - 2011 by Atiya.jpg", it would appear already, but commons:File:Atiya - 2011 by Atiya.jpg does not yet exist). The picture tutorial explains how to add images outside an infobox.

However, the draft has serious images that should be fixed. Most importantly, it cites no sources whatsoever, but we need significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (in particular not Ayita's own website), both to establish her notability and to allow our readers to verify the article's content. All Wikipedia content should be based on such sources, and you should use inline citations and footnotes to clarify which reference supports which of the article's statements. See also WP:Referencing for beginners. Without sources, the draft will not be accepted.

Furthermore, your sandbox currently contains two copies of the draft. They seem to be identical, but to avoid confusion, you might want to remove one of the two. Huon (talk) 02:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stick Man

Could someone please combine Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Stick Man: The long-awaited coming-of-age novel and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Stick Man: the long-awaited coming-of-age novel into one submission request? I would have suggested putting it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Stick Man, but there's a blank declined submission there. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For all I can tell the drafts are identical but for an empty reference (no. 2) in the Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Stick Man: the long-awaited coming-of-age novel version? Since you're the sole author of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Stick Man: The long-awaited coming-of-age novel, you can have that version deleted by adding {{db-author}} to the top - that will nominate it for speedy deletion. Then only the other version will survive.

I have nominated Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Stick Man for speedy deletion; when that empty draft is gone, I'll move the remaining version of your draft to the shorter name. Huon (talk) 02:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the sole author for these - they were created by User:199.27.175.2. I found them when cleaning up Category:American novels. GoingBatty (talk) 02:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I missed that. In that case we can either just leave them both alone (they aren't submitted for review anyway and will probably remain stale), or we can nominate one of them for speedy deletion as a duplicate - that should be uncontroversial maintenance (G6). Huon (talk) 02:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added {{db-g6}} to one of them - thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 02:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you could please move Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Stick Man: The long-awaited coming-of-age novel to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Stick Man once the speedy deletion has taken place, that would be great. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 02:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done; the draft is now at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Stick Man. Thanks for cleaning up this confusion. Huon (talk) 04:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone who helped with this! GoingBatty (talk) 02:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ghapi

To Whom it may concern, my article "Ghapi" was rejected. It seems it's considered to be advertising. Yes it is about a musician, although I felt I cited many different sources. Could someone please assist me in figuring out if it is only that I need to cite more sources or that the entire article is in question. [Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ghapi]] Ghapi Musician (talk) 06:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That article's sourcing relies heavily on YouTube links, and those are not reliable by Wikipedia's standards. If they are Ghapi's music videos, they would also be primary sources, not the independent sources we're looking for. That leaves us with four "news" sources. First of all, you should use inline citations and footnotes to clarify which source supports which of the draft's statements. Also, I have doubts all of those sources are reliable - I have no idea what the last two are, but they don't seem to be published with a reputable publisher. Even worse, the article contains claims that are not supported by any of the sources - for example, none of them mention the KANNA award or Ghapi's recording studio. Also, the draft's tone is anything but encyclopedic - take for example the section "You've probably seen Ghapi at:" - no, I certainly haven't (and I suspect very few readers will have - there's nothing probable about that), but even if it were remotely probable, a neutral heading such as "Venues" or "Appearances" would be preferable (of course we'd also need a source to allow our readers to verify that information).

In summary, you don't need more sources so much as better sources, and you need to make sure that the article's content corresponds to what the sources say about Ghapi. There may also be issues of notability (which would make Ghapi an unsuitable topic for a Wikipedia article in the first place) - if we remove all the primary and dubious sources, very little remains, probably not enough to satisfy the criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". See also WP:MUSIC for more specific notability criteria. I expect better sources on Ghapi (such as news coverage) exist, but the article should be based on those good sources. Huon (talk) 13:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Love's Journey

Hi, pls let me know why my article is rejected. Pls help. I have made it very very neutral and cited good sources like from The Economic Times, Oneindia etc.:(

Ananyaprasad (talk) 07:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Econnomic Times article may be a good source, but it's hidden behind a paywall; I cannot access it. Many of the other sources are of much lower quality: One is the book itself, another two claim to be primary sources written by the book's author (one of the two, the Faridabad Metro piece, isn't, for all I can tell, but it's just a collection of images anyway), BookChums seems to be interested in selling the book (except it's out of stock) and probably isn't reliable by Wikipedia's standards, and so on. But there are also stylistic problems with the article itself: For example, the very first sentence should tell us what Love's Journey is:

Love's Journey is a novel written by [...] (preferably clarifying the genre of novel - a romance? A Bildungsroman?)

Also, statements on Wikipedia should not begin with "it seems" - if that's what the source says, such a statement needs to be attributed to the source: "According to critic John Doe, it seems [...]" But in fact, the source for that statement doesn't say the author seems to have narrated a real life story - the author is asked and replies it's a work of fiction. That's a very free interpretation of the source - so much so that I'd call it original research. Even worse, the source for the "bestseller" claim says nothing of the sort - the website linked to doesn't even mention Love's Journey.

In summary, your sources might be sufficient to write an article about the novel, but you should get rid of the unreliable sources and those who mention the book only in passing or not at all, and you should make sure the article's text follows what the remaining sources have to say about the book. It may help to have a look at featured book articles; while of course a brand-new article need not be of "featured" quality, the example of articles like Starship Troopers or The General in His Labyrinth may clarify what style we're looking for. Huon (talk) 13:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Crawlspace

I have submitted an article on the Los Angeles band Crawlspace, and I noticed that there is already an article on an Australian band with the same name. Is there anything I should do now to note this or will I be notified that my article will be a "disambiguation"? Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Crawlspace Avocado Louie (talk) 08:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation is the way to go; your article will probably receive a name such as "Crawlspace (US band)". If you think it should have a certain disambiguating term added to its name and don't want to leave that to the discretion of the reviewer accepting the submission, I'd suggest adding a line to that effect to the top of the draft: "Article Title should be Crawlspace (whatever)."

On an unrelated issue, you should also use inline citations and footnotes to clarify which of your sources supports which of the article's statements. Huon (talk) 13:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:D1islandgal/sandbox

What do you do about subjects for which there are no published books, like recent words or phenomenon? my topic of creation is "wootoop" which only became an issue in 2010. The newspapers have references but it is mostly discussed on the blogosphere, since the governor that coined the term, was endorsed by both newspapers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D1islandgal (talk • contribs) 10:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper articles are also reliable sources, but most blogs are not because they have no reputation for fact-checking and no editorial oversight. If there's insufficient coverage in reliable sources, the topic may not be notable enough for an article (yet). Anyway, two thirds of your draft seem to be about Governor deJongh, not about Wootoop - don't turn an article on a neologism into a coatrack. Huon (talk) 13:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nor-Shipping

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nor-Shipping Can you tell me why the link "shipbroker" shows up red even though this page exists in Wikipedia Helkar (talk) 10:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You had linked to the plural "shipbrokers"; I fixed that. The relevant wikicode is now "[[shipbroker]]s". Huon (talk) 13:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

where is "please re-review" link?!

Hi. Apparently I'm tripping today as I simply can NOT find the please review link after editing one of my contributions! Re.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Anthony_Wile I've gone through this article yet again, added about 10 more references from various websites, removed pretty much every adjective I can find in the page so what's left looks to me like a straight-up encyclopedia entry on an individual.

Could someone PLEASE a) tell me how to request another review (if this is not the way to do so) and b) tell me if there's ANYthing left on that page that's peacockery, fluffery, flattery, whatever :)

Thank you!! GatorHalcon (talk) 16:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)GatorHalcon[reply]

The disappearance of the resubmit button is a known bug; I have resubmitted the draft for you. You can do so yourself by adding {{subst:submit}} to the very top of the draft article.

The draft still has serious issues with its sources. Many are primary sources such as Wile's own publications (and the draft wrongly claims The Daily Bell is in German), others are not reliable (such as a Yahoo group; Wikipedia doesn't even consider itself a reliable source), and yet others do not mention Wile at all. I don't think that's the significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject we need to establish Wile's notability - if there's such coverage, it's well-hidden among the substandard sources. An example of peacockery would be the claim that Wile invented the term "Internet Reformation," which is increasingly being used by others. That sentence has five references, not all of them reliable, and not one of them mentions Wile, much less credits him with the invention of the term. Or take the claim that FAFMT's advisory board consists of "many of the most widely known free-market thinkers" - says who? Huon (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:BMXE1/sandbox

Im owner of company lacked knowledge to input history about BMX Entertainment Corporation — Preceding unsigned comment added by BMXE1 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand what you need help with, but if you're the owner of the company, there may be a conflict of interest, and it may be better to leave the writing of an article on your company to others who aren't as closely associated with it. I also don't see any reliable sources - significant coverage in such sources is necessary both to establish the company's notability (see also WP:CORP for notability of corporations) and to allow our readers to verify the article's content. Huon (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Knanaya Catholic Church

Hi there, i was wondering if you could delete the redirect on the name of the topic i would like to create. For example my articles title name is "Knanaya Catholic Church" and that redirects to the topic "Knanaya". I was wondering if you could remove this redirect, because the Knanaya Catholic Church is topic that talks about a Metropolitan Sui Juris Church for Knanayas of the Catholic Church while the page "Knanaya" talks about the Knanaya community they are two separate topics.

Thank you- tthom48

Sources- I am a Knanaya Catholic

That issue will be resolved when your draft is accepted. Until then, it's better to keep the redirect so people looking for the Knanaya Catholic Church may find art least some relevant information. Huon (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Longford Trust

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Longford Trust

I am just wanting to give the Longford Trust a small page on Wikipedia. There is a page called this which redirects - to Lord Longford. I will cancel the redirect - after the page has been approved.

I am an editor of the Longford Trust website and work for the organisation and wrote most of the copy myself. I have not just pasted text in from one to the other , but I am the author in most cases. What would I do about the need for references in this case?

We especially want a presence on Wikipedia to reach out to potential candidates for our scholarship and bursary programmes. That is to a wide an audience as possible.

Psychetube user

Psychetube (talk) 21:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To establish the trust's notability you must provide significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper articles about the trust.

While I personally understand the desire to reach potential candidates for your scholarships via Wikipedia, unfortunately that's not what Wikipedia is for, and you seem to have a conflict of interest. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not to further a charity's goals, however laudable. Also, the draft's lead is unduly laudatory, and the first sentence doesn't even state what exactly the trust is. Huon (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Longford Trust == OK. If I redrafted it and made it notable, would it have a chance of inclusion, or is it not significant enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychetube (talk • contribs) 13:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked for sources myself, but those you have added do not establish the trust's notability by Wikipedia's standards. The Longford Trust website clearly is not independent, and Rachel Billington's website seems to be a blog - a self-published source without editorial oversight or a reputation for fact-checking (and I doubt Billington is a published expert on the subject of charities or prison inmates - she seems to be a writer of fiction). If those are the best sources that can be found, the trust isn't notable enough for an article. Huon (talk) 15:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]