Help desk
< January 30	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	February 1 >

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.

January 31

jpg image.

I have mapped features of dams , Spillways and Reservoirs of Irrigation projects in wikimapia as well as in google maps by putting polygons In districts of Vidharbha region . I want to put screen shot of these mapped images along with my write up of the dam. Is it OK ? If yes,I would like guidance as to how to fill up copy right and licensing information.Pmvelankar (talk) 07:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Google Maps is definitely not okay to use here, as it is a commercial product, and your screenshots would unfortunately constitute a copyright violation. Wikimapia, although it claims to follow the CC-BY-SA licence that we use here, uses derived aerial photography, so screenshots are probably also copyright violations (see Wikimapia#Licensing for further information). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks . {{YMG}}Pmvelankar (talk) 00:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Henry Edward Bedford

I am looking for more specific details on how to properly edit the article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Henry Edward Bedford based on the feedback provided by reviewer.

Reviewer: Bonkers the Clown writes...

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms, that are designed to promote or show-off the subject.

I have reviewed the Wikipedia materials available on the topics of tone, POV, and sources and find myself looking for more specific direction on how to "fix" the submitted article to meet reviewers expectations. I have edited to remove suspected peacock terms.

Any specific help/examples are appreciated.

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Henry Edward Bedford

Tjthomas67 (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've got no idea why that decline reason was given, as the article looks perfectly acceptable in terms of writing for an initial submission. I can find one obituary online from the Brooklyn Daily Eagle about him, so combined with your book references, it looks like he might well be notable, in which case the article should pass. I'd resubmit the article, to see if another reviewer will accept it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Here's an idea why. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 15:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see the version I was looking at had some mild peacock terms removed. Nevertheless, the "advert" decline rationale is designed for articles that are basically full of fancruft and puffery, with minimal to no sourcing. If the subject is sufficiently sourced, and I think he just about it is (though 19th century artists / engineers isn't my area of expertise, I'll admit), the article should have passed. You can always put a {{peacock}} template on the passed article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I need additional guidance regarding my submission, which was now declined by a second reviewer: Sionk writes "This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia."

Yet I believe the subject article meets the basic criteria (multiple independent sources) as well as points 4 and 5 of additional criteria for Creative Professionals as outlined in the Wikipedia Notability Guide.

Could a reviewer please advise. Tjthomas67 (talk) 16:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Solo 401(k)

Hi, I recently submitted an article for approval - Solo 401(k) - but it was rejected. This is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Solo_401(k).

I'm not sure what specific edits I can make to appease the reviewer. Prior to writing the article, I reviewed a number of wikipedia articles on similar topics, and I based my format on those articles. (Specifically, the general IRA and 401(k) articles.) I believe my sources are all good and impartial. (A lot from the IRS website, as well as a few other .edu, .gov, and .org.) Please help me out.

Thanks a lot, Daniel Sentell Dsentell (talk) 16:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources look good, as they aren't just based on the IRS documentation but refer to other sites discussing it. I'm not sure the "essay" decline reason is the most suitable here, but I think my problem with the article is that it doesn't specifically say why the Solo 401(k) is notable outside of the world of financial planning, and uses jargon without explaining it to the casual reader. The first sentence states "It gives them the full tax benefits of a standard 401(k)" without actually describing what a standard 401(k) is. By contrast, Individual retirement account starts off with "An Individual Retirement Account is a form of retirement plan, provided by many financial institutions, that provides tax advantages for retirement savings in the United States", which gives a basic jargon-free summary. 401(k) and State Earnings-Related Pension Scheme are another articles that might give you some ideas. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Yolande Milan Batteau

Re: Wikipedia talk:Artilces for creation/Yolande Milan Batteau

Have updated with additional cited sources to further establish notability of subject. I beleieve i have resubmitted for review, but seems to be no further action taking place. I am new to this, so if I need to submit the article from scratch as a fresh article for creation, I will do so... just am not sure how best to proceed to have the article reviewed once more in light of recent edits.

Thanks!Tttsss786 (talk) 17:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not currently submitted for review; you need to add {{subst:submit}} to the top of it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting all articles

I just want to delete articles I created and start from scratch. How can I permanently remove them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Russellmwolf (talk • contribs) 19:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can nominate articles you wrote for speedy deletion by adding {{db-author}} to the very top. I have done so for you at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/World Software Corporation; I believe that's the only draft you created. Huon (talk) 20:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Huon! Russellmwolf (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Russellmwolf[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Women in Hip-Hop

Looking forward to editing this article properly. I'm not sure what steps to take to make it less like an essay - do certain sections work at all? Thanks! Klbarry (talk) 21:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen a number of different "genre" articles, such as British rhythm and blues, West Coast Hip Hop, Women in science and Women in the military, I would say that there's no reason for Women in Hip-Hop not to be a valid topic on Wikipedia, provided the term is widely cited in the sources you've used. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case at the moment - large parts of the article are unsourced (the 1970s paragraph has only two sources, neither of which are specific enough to cite anything in it), and some parts appear to cite other Wikipedia articles, which can't be accepted as reliable sources. Unless you can find articles or books that are specifically about women in hip hop, the article would unfortunately be original research and unsuitable, even if the content cited to reliable sources can go in individual articles. By contrast, British rhythm and blues' key source is a chapter called "Early British R&B" in the All Music Guide to Rock - a source which is specifically about the subject. You'll need to find something similar for women in hip hop. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Covario, Inc.

need to find Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Your draft name here (replace the "Covario, Inc.") so I can edit. happyeditor 23:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by C. A. Bruemmer (talk • contribs)

Here is a link to your draft, if that's what you mean. You can edit the page via the "edit" tab near the top of the page. To find any of your past edits, you can check your contributions; there's a link to your contributions at the very, very top even above the "edit" tab link, next to "log out". Huon (talk) 02:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]