Help desk
< February 4	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 6 >

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 5

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Reginald Kevin Gee (Reg K Gee)

Hello, I do have reference material for the information that I've cited in this article. They are in the form of scans of the book where one of the artist's paintings has been reproduced. I also have scans of the magazine article cited, as well as scans of the newspaper article cited. Lastly, I have permission to use the images of the artwork quoted in the article. Please advise as to the proper way in which to introduce these references into the article; I am not familiar with how to add PDFs to an article.

Thank you.

Victor Edgar Rivera Writer/Poet/Art Dealer

VictorEdgar (talk) 02:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot add PDFs to an article except as external links if they're hosted somewhere on the internet (and then you probably shouldn't link to PDFs you uploaded yourself).

However, I don't think the problem is with the availability of the given sources so much as with the fact that major parts of the draft don't cite any sources whatsoever and the fact that the book doesn't mention Gee by name.

Regarding the images that were deleted because of copyright problems, permission to use them on Wikipedia not enough. They must be released under a free license such as the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License so that anybody can re-use them for any purpose. If the copyright holder is willing to release the images under such a license, you can send a confirmation of the release to permissions-en@wikimedia.org - an example release form is available here. Huon (talk) 05:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding so quickly. The book mentions Gee on page 190...following is the direct caption from the page, which has an Alice Walker statement above Gee's painting, The Inspiration: (Above) The Inspiration 1999, Reginald K. Gee (1964-) acrylic on canvas, 40"60". Courtesy of Joyce R. Furhman and Joshua R. Platt, Ar Search, Clifton, NJ. This page is a available as a scan that I took of the actual book, which I purchased. Scans are also available of the Essence magazine article and the Milwaukee Journal article. It's very difficult, if not impossible, to get links to archived articles. In that respect, a link to a page with these scans should suffice as citing sources. Regarding the use of the artist's copyrighted image, I will not release the images to be used for any purpose and in any way; there must be another license that allows an artist's copyrighted material to only be reproduced for educational and/or charitable causes...but not for commercial use. I would be willing to use that license. Again, thank you for your time. VictorEdgar (talk) 01:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the book: Google Books offers only a snippet preview, but it didn't find that caption. And if your above quote is indeed all the book says about Gee, it isn't really worth the effort - the book clearly doesn't discuss Gee in any detail.

Regarding the images, Wikipedia's policy on non-free content allows the use of non-free images (which need not be released under any special license) under certain conditions - but such images may only be used in articles; a draft is not enough. Huon (talk) 02:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The book is a commemorative book for the Smithsonian Traveling Exhibition honoring the Legacy of Martin Luther King. Artists were selected for their contributions directly or indirectly toward furthering the messages that Dr. King espoused. Any artist who has a work-of-art chosen to appear in this book is worthwhile recognizing. If this draft were released as an article, then I would be able to submit the non-free images under the allowance you've mentioned. Thanks again. VictorEdgar (talk) 07:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Stephen Riady - not accepted

I would like to request help understanding why the submission of the article I've created for Stephen Riady has been rejected. I've made numerous adjustments to citations in order to comply, but it continues to receive push back. Could someone have a look at the submission?Janazupardo (talk) 03:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That draft was last reviewed in November, and it hasn't been re-submitted for review since then. You can submit it for review by adding {{subst:submit}} to the very top. However, quite a few of your sources don't mention Riady, and significant parts of the draft don't cite any sources at all. That should be fixed one way or another before you submit the draft for review, or it may be declined again because its content is largely not verifiable.

Furthermore, you should not have external links in the draft itself; if they're relevant to Riadi but won't do as sources (such as, say, Riadi's personal website or his company's Riadi biography), you should place them in a dedicated "External links" section at the end of the draft. If the pages linked to don't mention Riadi, there's no need to link to them in the first place - the homepages of companies he has invested in would be examples of such useless links. Huon (talk) 05:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indian dams images

1.I really do not understand the implications of all that is given in 'File description box' and filled up the info to the best of my understanding,Whatever I have put ,is it OK ?

2.I have only mapped ( made polygons of Dams , Reservoirs and spillways and added salient features of the project) on wiki maps . I have no copy rights on any thing.

3.I have uploaded jpg image on Satnoor dam. In the place file usage it says No pages on the English Wikipedia link to this file. (Pages on other projects are not counted.). However as and if , my article on Dams in Amravati District is accepted,I intend to use these images in that article to enhance the text on the dams , Please enlighten.Pmvelankar (talk) 06:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing wrong with the file description. But I doubt you own the copyright to that aerial photograph used as a basis of File:Satnoor.JPG; thus, the image likely is a violation of the photograph's copyright and may have to be deleted unless you can provide evidence that either you do own the photograph's copyright or that the photograph had previously been published under a Creative Commons license (in which case we'd have to credit the photo's source).

The "file usage" gives a list of all pages on the English Wikipedia that currently link to the image. Your draft does not; therefore it's not listed. Once the draft does include a link to the image, it will automatically be listed in that section as well.

On an unrelated note, I proposed that Dams in Amravati District be deleted because it had all those problems I mentioned earlier and for which Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dams in Amaravati District was declined. Huon (talk) 14:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Black Creek Investment Management Inc.

I wanted to inquire about a declination of the article on Black Creek Investment Management. You can find it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Black_Creek_Investment_Management_Inc.

The original reason it was declined was due to unreliable sources. However, the sources I have used come from widely known 3rd parties that are not affiliated with the company at all. This includes The Globe and Mail, The Financial Post, and The MorningStar. Does a newspaper (on or offline) interest piece featuring a company founder not count as a reliable source based on the fact that it's an interview and therefore may hold some bias?

I have resubmitted the article, but would appreciate any assistance to improve it before it is reviewed again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SonicKaos (talk • contribs) 08:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of your five sources, the first two are the company's own website, clearly not an independent source. The third and fourth focus on specific funds and are misrepresented as referring to the entire company (the third is just a directory listing, not significant coverage, anyway). The last few paragraphs don't cite any sources at all. Interviews are a gray area; on the one hand, if the company founder or executive who's interviewed is the lone source of information, that's clearly not as independent as we'd like. On the other hand, a newspaper like the Financial Post doesn't just interview anybody. I'd be careful with using such sources and probably treat them as primary sources. Huon (talk) 14:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your assistance. I've noticed that many other financial companies have their own website listed as sources (sometimes multiple times) though, while others have no sources in the article at all. I was wondering how those were allowed/are published. SonicKaos (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, other problematic articles exist, but that's no reason to create more. Instead we should either improve or delete the insufficiently sourced articles. I cannot tell how they slipped in, but we shouldn't use them as an excuse to lower our standards. Huon (talk) 02:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/PetLink Pet Recovery System

Hello,

My article was declined by Andrewman327 January 15 2013. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/PetLink Pet Recovery System I was hoping to discuss it with him on his talk page but I don't see where to click to begin a conversation.

This was a resubmission after a first draft modelled on another Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Again_Pet_Recovery_System I was surprised that using an existing template led to the article being declined but I suppose Wiki criteria change and evolve. The resubmission followed guidelines requesting more references which were duly and amply added.

Can you initially respond about why this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Again_Pet_Recovery_System

is on Wikipedia but why my first submission, based on the Home Again Wiki page, and my beefier follow-up were declined?

Thanks for your help. I will take stock of your response and advice and decide where to go from there.

Yours,

Janesmith100

Janesmith100 (talk) 10:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I originally declined the article because it had no reliable sources. You added some, but they appear to be sources based on the general concept of pet microchipping, rather than the company itself, which is why it was suggested you took the content and added it to Microchip implant (animal). Using Home Again Pet Recovery System is not a good example, as that has no reliable sources, and since I cannot find any, I have nominated that article to be deleted. Hope that's of use. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PMWhyte/sandbox#Request_review_at_WP:AFC

Hi,

This article was originally submitted on 24/01 and rejected on 01/02 due to:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

I have now added some references to back up the facts, but need to know whether it is this type of reference / citation that is needed, or something different / more deeper?

I have re-submitted the article (today), but I wanted to be sure I was on the right track.

Please let me know.

Regards, Phil — Preceding unsigned comment added by PMWhyte (talk • contribs) 18:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the current sources are sufficient. Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as news coverage or maybe reviews in trade magazines. We require significant coverage in such sources, both to establish the company's notability and to allow our readers to verify the article's content. IBM reporting on an "IBM Solution Partner" is hardly an independent source, and those two sources sound as if they had been written by Integrite employees. None of the given sources focuses on the company itself. For example, none mention that it was formed in 2000, that Michael Veenswyk was the founder and not just the managing director, that they have an office on the Bahamas, and so on. Out of four "primary products", three aren't even mentioned by the sources. This doesn't even address the "advertisement" issue: The draft is rather full of marketing buzzwords and seems more aimed at promoting Integrite's products than providing neutral information about the company. Huon (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I have understood your feedback, thanks for that. One thing I would say is that I reviewed a few similar types of articles, for example Relyon, where the article does not have any external reference links, in fact the only links are to the company's own web site and Facebook (no third party references) Would you not agree that on behalf of Integritie I have at least used third party references? I would welcom your comments on the Relyon article, but in the meantime I will re-write elements and make sure that it is neutral and not viewed as 'advertising' which it was not intended to be.

Finally, for info, I am a freelance writer and was commissioned by Integritie to write the article for them. PMWhyte (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)PMWhyte[reply]

If you are being paid to edit, you should read our policies on paid editing ASAP. Paid editing is not forbidden, but many Wikipedians dislike it, as they believe (with some justification) it is impossible to write without a conflict of interest in order to create an article with a neutral point of view. The Relyon article looks like blatant advertising with poor sourcing, and was created by a user who is now blocked. I have nominated that article to be deleted, but to be honest I was tempted to speedy delete it as blatant advertising. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Other problematic articles exist, but each submission must stand on its own merits. Huon (talk) 16:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie and Huon, thanks for taking the time to feedback. It looks like (in the long run) that Integritie need to find someone with no direct association to write the piece. I took it on as I believe in what they are doing in regards to their Social Media Capture technology. Maybe the article should just be about this, as I feel it is ground breaking, but with minimal background on the company itself. I will speak to them and determine the best way to go. On my original reviews, I found quite a few "Relyon" type articles, so I took on the task fairly comfortable that it was like other company related stuff. However, I do see the validity that Wikipedia should not be treated as a showcase for advertising/marketing activities.... I wish that a famous person had approached me instead ;-)

Back to the drawing board it is.... Regards, Phil PMWhyte (talk) 17:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)PMWhyte[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Proxy Robotics

My article on Proxy Robotics was declined several time for various reasons. I have added references from multiple sources, but had this comment on the latest message:

"Inline cite density compared to content makes this feel like original research. Several of the references were links to other WP articles."

What are "other WP articles?

How do you recommend that I fix this?

My article is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Spinlock55/sandbox

Thanks,

Spinlock55 (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Other WP articles" are other Wikipedia articles, here the article on Hiroshi Ishiguro - Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source (citing Wikipedia would be circular). Major parts of the draft, including the entire "history" section and much of the "space exploration" section, do not cite any sources whatsoever - that's the original research mentioned by the reviewer. Huon (talk) 02:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]