Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2012 September 27
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < September 26 | << Aug | September | Oct >> | September 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. |
September 27
[edit]Hello,
Concerning: Wikipedia talk: Articles for creation/Ed Sillvoso
I sent an article for review a week ago and only then noticed that the title was misspelled, even though it appears correctly throughout the text. The draft is called "Ed Sillvoso"; however, it is properly spelled "Ed Silvoso." How do I correct the article title currently under review?
Thanks, Tom Stanfield Tom Stanfield (talk) 03:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- I've moved the draft; it's now at Wikipedia talk: Articles for creation/Ed Silvoso. On an unrelated note, while the draft has very many references, quite a few of them are not the reliable secondary sources Wikipedia articles should be based on. There are lots of primary sources such as Silvoso's own writings or his website. There are blogs, press releases or opinion pieces, which are usually not considered reliable because they don't have editorial oversight. Even worse, some sources simply do not confirm the statement they're cited to support - for example, "The Vision of R. J. Rushdoony" is not just a primary source, written by Rushdoony's son, it also doesn't call Rushdoony the intellectual founder of Christian Reconstructionism nor says that others do. (As an aside, "who some identify as..." is a classical case of weasel words: Who are those "some"?) Yet other sources, such as the Washington Post article "Be not afraid of evangelicals, don't mention Silvoso at all and thus seem at most marginally relevant (or they're an attempt to create an original synthesis that isn't directly supported by the sources). I would strongly suggest to revise the draft and to get rid of the unreliable and irrelevant sources, even if it costs some content - it's better to have a shorter, well-sourced article than a long one based on dubious sources. Huon (talk) 11:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/East Asian Institute
Hi - I have just created a page for submission but everytime I click save, it takes me to a page where it asks if I am ready to submit click here and click on save, I do this and the cycle repeats itself. How do I submit a new article for review? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adbcook (talk • contribs) 09:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- I believe you're asked a second time because there's a reminder that "you haven't provided a subject/headline". You can safely ignore that reminder and click "save" a second time, and then it should indeed save the changes. If that doesn't work, you can submit the draft manually by adding {{subst:submit}} to the very top. However, the draft currently doesn't cite any sources at all. We need to show that the East Asian Institute has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, both to establish the institute's notability (see also WP:ORG for more a specific notability guideline) and to allow our readers to verify the draft's content. Without such significant coverage, the submission cannot be accepted. Huon (talk) 11:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Article submission denied
[edit]Dear editor:
This concerns Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Latitude Learning LLC
I've submitted an article regarding a learning management system (LMS) company, Latitude Learning.
I've edited based on comments the article lacked notability and read like an advertisement.
The language is very neutral and factual, contains links to published articles and national awards won and consistent with the style of the other 28 LMSs listed on Wikipedia.
Latitude Learning has more than 3 million students worldwide - has clients such as General Motors, Chrysler, American Board of Emergency Medicine, the Pet Industry Distributors Association, Nissan Forklift and others - and I'm certain is in the upper tier of LMSs listed.
As an example, less notable LMSs are listed. For example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitalect, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECollege_(LMS) are two examples.
Please note the style used is quite similar to competitive LMS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SharePointLMS and others.
Would you please review and let me know why Latitude Learning shouldn't be included among the list of verifiable and legitimate LMSs available to businesses?
Thank you. Caldo de Gallina (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- First of all, other problematic articles exist, but that's no reason to create more; each article must stand on its own merits. The references for your draft are a mix of primary sources such as Latitude Learning's own website, unreliable sources like blogs, press releases and even a promotional video hosted on YouTube (seriously?), and sources which don't confirm what they're cited for, such as Ektron's partner directory which doesn't mention Latitude Learning (and if it did, Ektron reporting its own partners would still be a primary source). Wikipedia content must be based on reliable sources such as newspaper coverage or articles in trade magazines. The company must have received significant coverrage in such sources that are independent of the subject (unlike the pseudo-articles in Corp! which were written by Latitude Learning's own CEO) to be considered notable; see also WP:CORP for more specific notability guidelines on companies.
- The information most relevant to the company, such as the number of employees or most of the corporate history, is entirely unsourced. Revenue figures would also be nice to have, if they have been reported by a reliable source. Huon (talk) 14:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I have resubmitted for review but wasn't sure if it was registering. Many thanks for you ongoing assistance. Linda Lindadee10021 (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Your article has appeared in the review queue. You appear to have pressed the "submit" button several times, as there are several "please review" notes on it. I'm afraid I still can't pass the article, as the references, while being reliable sources such as the Daily Mail or The Guardian, are all about different things where Shervington has made a passing quote in them. They aren't directly about him, which is what we need to establish notability. Also, the article reads far too much like an advert at the moment - you can't say he's "a bestselling author" or "a well known blogger on communication" unless it's attributable to a reliable source. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
How do I add a picture to the text?
Richard I Levin MDRilevinmd (talk) 14:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- There is a placeholder link for your picture. Simply click on the link and follow the instructions in the upload wizard. You must make sure your picture respects copyrights, which the wizard will try and guide you through. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Review of User:Vacuum void/Vacuum void
[edit]how can I set an image for page in wikipedia? Vacuum void (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- If the image comes with a free license, you can upload it to the Wikimedia Commons via their Upload Wizard. Once it's uploaded, the picture tutorial gives a basic introduction to images on Wikipedia. See also Help:Infobox picture on how to add images to an infobox. However, your draft's most pressing problem is not the lack of an image, but of reliable sources that are independent of the article's subject. If Vacuum Void hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in such sources, he's not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. See also WP:MUSIC for more specific notability criteria. Furthermore, if you are Vacuum Void (as your username suggests), you may want to look at our guideline on conflicts of interest: Writing an autobiography is strongly discouraged. Huon (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)