Help desk
< February 18	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 20 >

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.

February 19

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Rainbow Stories

Could you please tell me why my article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Rainbow Stories has not been approved? The author is a very notable and has won several awards. There was a link to 'The Rainbow Stories' on his author page, but the article did not exist. Thanks! D. Winter (talk) 00:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Douglaswintergreen[reply]

That draft does not establish that the short story collection itself is notable, and since notability is not inherited, not every work by a notable author is automatically notable itself. To establish the work's notability, it must have received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources such as news articles or literary reviews. Moore's review is just such a source, but on its own it's not enough, and it isn't really the basis of the draft's content - it doesn't even say there are thirteen stories or that they are related to the colors of the rainbow. Huon (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I were to add an external link to a New York Times review of the book would that establish its notability? If you look at Vollman's article for 'You Bright and Risen Angels' this seems to be what's been done. Thanks! D. Winter (talk) 00:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Douglaswintergreen[reply]

You Bright and Risen Angels isn't quite a shining example of what a Wikipedia article should look like; it was created back in 2007 when standards were lower. A New York Times review would indeed help establish notability, but it would be much better to not just add it as an external link, but to summarize what it says about the work. All Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources, and that's not the case with your current draft. Huon (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing Articles for Creation

I recently checked the " Yet Another AFC Helper Script: easily review Articles for creation submissions and redirect requests" I have been reading the guidelines and information about how to review articles. I have run into a problem. When I check on the review tab I get this message.

Please check the source code! This page contains a really long HTML comment!

I have not been able to figure out what this message means or what I should do about it. Perhaps you could give me some guidance as to what I should be looking for and what I might be able to do about it when I find it.

Thank you.

Kanuk (talk) 12:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just ignore it. It seems that the AfC process itself has a habit of, at some point, adding an HTML comment that the scripts interpret at "long". I've never paid any attention to the warning and never had any problems. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Olivia Chaney

HI there

Any idea of how much longer the article on Olivia Chaney will take to get reviewed please- its been 9 days now. Thanks so much, just wanted to check i am not missing something and I need to amend anything!

Thanks so much Juniduke (talk) 13:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a large backlog at present, and we are all volunteers, so there is no way to provide an estimate of how long it will take I'm afraid. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have had to decline the article I'm afraid, and have left suggestions on the submission itself. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First Article

Good Afternoon,

I submitted an article for the first time last week Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lollipop Day and just want to make sure I have definitely sent it for review.

Reason for confusion is that when i check status of article in Contributions I see a box at the top that announces Article no currently submitted for review yet when i scroll to the end i see another box, this time saying Article awaiting review

Can you check, please, and let me know. Lollipop Day is happening this Friday so it would be really helpful to have the article live by then.

Many Thanks, Damian

OCFLollipopDay (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your article is queued for review. There is no guarantee it will be reviewed by Friday, I'm afraid. In the meantime, I suggest you add as many reliable sources, such as significant national news coverage, to the article ASAP, as at the moment it is likely to be declined as not having sufficient referencing, which will require you to fix and resubmit to the back of the queue. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Orthopedic Associates

Hi, How what are independent references and how do you do footnote? ~~Bee1113~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bee1113 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Independent sources are sources that are written by people not directly related to the subject and without a conflict of interest, such as news coverage or maybe articles in reputable trade magazines. It's pretty obvious that the doctors themselves and their own website are not independent sources on the group. Furthermore, since we have no way of confirming what Dr Harvey told you, personal communications are also unverifiable and thus doubly unacceptable. See also WP:RS on reliable sources.

Footnotes are created by code like this: <ref>Footnote text, usually a source</ref> They should be placed right into the article text, immediately after the statement they are cited for. They will automatically be displayed in the "References" section by the {{reflist}} template there.^[1] For more details see Help:Footnotes and WP:Referencing for beginners. Huon (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Like this.

[1] Like this.

[1]