Help desk
< January 5	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 7 >

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 6

Referencing

Hi! I have a draft for an AFC here, but I don't think it will pass as is. Could someone help me find some more references? Thanks, Jakob 00:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Search Google or Yahoo or Bing. You could get help. But I'll also try to find some reference to help you.Happy editing.--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 05:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks! The thing is, I have the book, and it has all the quotes that I listed in it; but of course without references.

--Jakob 14:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Joseph

Could I request some help with this article that has just been rejected because it says sources are related to subject. I'm a little unclear about what this 'related to' means as it includes obituaries from The Independent (Martin Childs) and The Guardian (Valerie Wade), as well as a financial news piece from the Daily Telegraph (Harry Wallop). All three would appear to me to be reliable published sources that are not linked to Joseph the brand (nor am I, by the way). Could you suggest what else I need to add to get past this issue. Many thanks for your assistance.Libby norman 11:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libby norman (talk • contribs)

Fully half your sources are Joseph's own website, which is clearly related to Joseph - it's written by them. The obituaries focus more on Ettedgui than on the store chain; for example the Independent says Ettedgui personally, not his company, won the Knitwear Designer of the Year award. Other parts of the draft (Joseph pour la Maison) aren't supported by the independent sources at all. The obituaries and the financial news piece are indeed reliable, independent sources, but they currently are insufficient to verify the entirety of the draft's content. Huon (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Joseph Huon. One of the problems has been that Joseph Ettedgui and the Joseph brand were quite hard to disentangle – as you'll see from the obits. I've now sourced more material independent of the company website that hopefully backs up the draft contents. Thanks again Libby norman 16:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libby norman (talk • contribs)

JoWonder and The Brooch Pin and the Sinful Clasp articles

Hi,

The articles I submitted on the artist JoWonder and her film TBPATSC have been declined. I'm not sure about the grounds for this. For instance, many of the other films and winners of the Animafest Zagreb festival have items about them,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animafest_Zagreb

and a film's winning such a prestigious award sould surely be considered grounds for notability?

Is there anything specific I can do to help my articles to be accepted?

Many thanks,

Ian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bortspil (talk • contribs) 12:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability for Wikipedia's purposes is measured by coverage in reliable, independent sources such as news coverage or published reviews. A topic should have received significant coverage in such sources, and the sources should form the basis of the article. Right now the Sight and Sound review and Warner's book might be good sources, but I cannot tell what (and how much) they say about the film. Right now I cannot even verify that the film "has won a number of international awards" - what awards, and which source says so?

YouTube videos are usually not considered reliable sources. Huon (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sainath Dukkipati

I submitted My Article pls.Someone review it and accept it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.145.177 (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That draft's sources need a lot more work. Some are broken links, some provide no details whatsoever on Sainath Dukkipati or don't even mention him at all, and some are references to other Wikipedia articles (and Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source). The only non-Wikipedia source that did mention him in some detail was his own website, which is a primary source. Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject; this article doesn't have any such sources, much less the significant coverage required to establish Sainath Dukkipati's notability. Huon (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do i modify my article as a proper article

My submission has been declined due to improper article style. Can you please show me an example of a proper article so that i can modify my article correctly? This is my article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Arif Khudairi Thanks. Azzaaka (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently that article is in worse trouble: It's a copyright violation of Arif Khudairi's Poetry Blog. It will have to be rewritten entirely so as not to infringe on someone else's copyright. Furthermore, the draft is unduly laudatory. Who says Khudairi is a "very productive and imaginative writer"? Which critics see his novella "as a highly symbolic narrative of good versus evil, altruism versus selfishness, of materialism versus spirituality"? Without reliable sources to back up these claims they read like puffery.

In general, you may want to have a look at Wikipedia's Good Articles for examples of what an article should look like. Huon (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Guillermo Mendoza Memorial Scholarship Foundation (GMMSF) Box Office Entertainment Awards

i don't understand. the references are all reliable... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deoxell (talk • contribs) 19:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The news sources are, but IMDb and personal websites (such as the heavily-used personal website of Sharon Cuneta) are not. See WP:Identifying reliable sources for details. The extensive list of award categories seems to be entirely unsourced. Huon (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lawo - are my sources all right, and is there anything else I have to improve?

Dear wikipedia-pros,

I'm still pretty new to wikipedia, and tried to create an article a while ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Lawo The first version was not accepted - and I have to admitt that this was perfectly all right because indeed the sources I cited were not very reliable. So I sat down and did quite a lot of research. I think I was able to find good and reliable sources - universities, well-known institutes like the Goethe Institute and alike.

Still I would feel more confident if someone who is more experienced would have a look, if this time, I did a better job doing the research. Is there anything a have to improve to get accepted? Any comments are welcome :-)

Thanks a lot, McNitefly (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those are definitely reliable sources, but those I checked didn't seem to have much to say about Lawo. For example, I don't think the World New Music Magazine article devotes so much as a single sentence to Lawo. I also don't think they suffice to verify all the draft's content - for example, which source says the Lawophon "became famous"? Huon (talk) 04:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Huon,

thanks for taking the time to check my Article, and I'm glad to read that you also think that they are OK regarding the reliability.

Some parts that mention Lawo are indeen not very long - but is that necessary to prove the facts? I think I found trustworthy sources that clearly state the facts that I collected, which prove the historical importance of the developments of Lawo regarding the evolution of Electronic Music and the work of Stockhausen. Don't you thing that when only some words or sentences are needed to describe a fact, than it's sufficient? As long as the sources are clear and distinct, of cource, but that is the case. Should I maybe add the lines where the quotes can be found, so that it is easier to find the relevant parts?

Regarding the Halaphon that "became famous" - that can be found at the beginning of the 4th paragraph in the reference to the Goethe Institute. Quote: "The "halaphon" was made famous by the ethereal, filigree sound that runs through all the later works of Luigi Nono.". But I was also thinking about how to handle this - I though since I reference to this trustworthy source, it's correct. Do you think that this still is not factual enough?

Thanks a lot - I'm learning ;-)

McNitefly (talk) 10:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is my area of expertise, so I can help you a bit. A search for Sound on Sound, one of my "go to" sites for reliable sources on musical gear, returns several hits for Lawo, but they're all passing mentions or adverts (this article says "Euphonix are up there with Lawo, Harrison, AMS Neve and SSL in the realms of real pro audio." - high praise, but only a fleeing mention). Meanwhile an image search for "Lawo" returns numerous pictures of its consoles in studios, but most of them are on blogs or other unreliable sources. My gut feeling is Lawo ought to be notable enough to have an article, but I'm finding it really hard to verify that this is the case! This is a bit unfortunate, as our articles on mixing console manufacturers such as Allen and Heath and Soundcraft tend not to be very good. I think your best bet is to grab as many of the best sources you can, and write a stub article out of them - which is what I did with Carlsbro. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richie, thanks, that might be an idea. But did you have a look at my article? Because I am trying to come from another direction:

When I look at the wikipedia guidelines, companies either have to be really big, or they have to have a certain historic relevance. And that is how I actually heard about Lawo. I did a tourist tour in cologne, in the former Studio for Electronic Music. And some of the technicians that actually worked with Stockhausen in the 70th told me about their work, and how much the electronic devices of that time actually influenced the music. And the other way around, as you can see by the devices that Lawo built for Stockhausen.

I looked up Lawo afterwards, and had to find that they were hardly present at Wikipedia. Although they had such a heavy influence. I wrote a quick article - but had to learn that the requirements for new articles are very high. (Which caused a lot of work on my side - but somehow I like it, and want to participate in the wikipedia project.) So I digged very deep for reliable ressources. And found actually some really good ones: Papers from the Cambridge University and Durham University, Articles at the Goethe Institute, some Articles in Magazines from trustworthy Electronic Music Magazines. You can find them all in the article. Actually I also found some texts on the pages of Stockhausen and Haller, but I didn't use these too much, as they seem not independent.

Of cource, the sources I found do not talk about Lawo for pages, because they are focusing on the art part of the history. But they clearly state the role of Lawo. How they developed the first machines for Stockhausen to perform his piece "Mantra", later the Halaphon, and then the big step, the hybrid mixing console PTR, which was needed to produce Octophonie.

I think all these facts show how important Lawo was.

And actually from what I saw during my research they still are pretty important today, doing many big shows like Olympia and such, but as you said: The sources for these things are mostly music magazines - and I simply wanted to look at the historic importance, because that's what interested me. The modern stuff, other people may do if they want to :-)

So what would be great is if you could have a look at the current article, and if I was able to prove the historic relevance. And what I could maybe improve to make sure my articles meets the quality requirements stated in the guidelines. I tried to follow them exactly.

And than, I want to put the article online :-)

Thanks a lot,

McNitefly (talk) 12:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the information about Stockhausen is a bit of a sideshow and I would focus more on the company's history and the product range. I've found some more references from reliable sources that help establish notability, and put them into the article, so you've now got two sources that refer directly to Lawo in some depth, which is good. There are a few more as well I need to add, then the article can be passed. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see, those are indeed more modern aspects that I did not look at, and I see what you mean. Thanks for adding them. So what would be the next steps I have to do to put the article "online"? Or is that something that is done by you ot other wikipedia experienced people, once the content is good enough?

Thanks a lot for your help,

McNitefly (talk) 13:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a "click here" link on the pink "Submission declined" box that puts your article in the queue for reviewing again once you're happy in it. In your case, I have found another source that shows, in some depth, that Lawo were involved in the audio mixing for the 2012 London Olympics. That, in my opinion, is a very strong indicator of notability, so I have passed the article for you. It's now at Lawo. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see, OK. Very cool - thank you very much! Also for the good support & your time!

Kind regards,

McNitefly (talk) 14:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]