Help desk
< January 8	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 10 >

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 9

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael Falzon (actor)

Hi, I was told that my subject wants verifiable/referenced properly, but when I asked in what way, I was told that the subject was no notable enough. How do I prove notability further than listing the theatrical productions he has appeared in? I have already mentioned that he has performed in productions held at international arenas, and that he has been cast by people ranging from Jeff Wyane to Dr Brian May from Queen. Many other actors have much less creditability or background and still have pages. I dont know what else to do

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Michael_Falzon_(actor)

"Can you be a little more specific about what I have done wrong? As far as I was aware, it was referenced properly. I don't know what I need to change

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Michael_Falzon_(actor) — Preceding unsigned comment added by I hate thinking of names (talk • contribs) 03:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Verifiable may have been wrong. There are a number of points that go unreferenced, but honestly I'm more concerned by his notability. Read over WP:NACTOR and make sure he meets the notability guidelines. Also, please replace all instances of "Michael" with "Falzon." We prefer to say "Falzon starred in XXXXX" rather than "Michael was a star in XXXXX". avs5221(talk|contrib) 03:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC) I can change his name pretty easily, but I am not sure how any Australian musical theatre actor meets "notable" any more than he does. He was the first Galileo Figaro outside the UK, he was the first to be directed by Ben Elton. He originated the role of Stacee Jaxx in Australia. He has been in every version of Jeff Waynes Arena production of the War of the Worlds since joining the cast for the second tour (and is I believe the only cast member to be asked back that often.) - And thats not his first Arena tour. These are pretty major roles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I hate thinking of names (talk • contribs) 03:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)"

I hate thinking of names (talk) 05:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At a glance notability is indeed the biggest problem. To be considered notable Faizon must have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

Many of your sources are primary, non-independent sources, including Faizon's own website and the websites of organizations he's affiliated with (such as thewaroftheworlds.com reporting on its own cast). Such sources may be used for uncontroversial facts (for example we might use his personal website as a source for his birthday, unless there's some sort of controversy about his age), but they shouldn't be the sole basis of significant parts of the article's content, and they don't contribute towards notability.

Several other sources are of dubious reliability - this includes IMDb, which has very little editorial oversight, most blogs and other self-published sources, and purely commercial websites more interested in selling things than providing accurate, unbiased information.

Your draft does have some news sources, which are just the type of source we're after - independent of Falzon and subject to editorial oversight. But those I checked mentioned Falzon only in passing without giving any details. That's not significant coverage.

My suggestion would be to de-emphasize or remove the primary sources and to get rid of the unreliable sources as well, removing all content that cannot be backed up by reliable secondary sources (that would take care of any referencing problems as well). That will probably lead to a much shorter draft, but a short, well-sourced draft is better than a long one based on lots of dubious sources. Then we'd have to see whether the remaining sources amount to significant coverage - that's usually interpreted as "multiple good sources devoting at least a paragraph each to Falzon". If we have that - great, the draft will be ready for re-submission, and the reviewer can easily see both that the draft's content is verifiable from good sources and that Falzon is indeed notable. If what remains isn't significant coverage, then Falzon may simply not be notable enough (yet) for an encyclopedia article, and we'll have to wait until better sources that cover him in greater detail become available. Huon (talk) 16:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me a comparable example in here of an Australian Musical Theatre performer that has reviews etc with at least a paragraph dedicated to them or their character. That would really help, as what you are suggesting seems extraordinary in this country.

I hate thinking of names (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert on the subject and wouldn't know any Australian theatre performers at all, but Category:Australian musical theatre actors has 61 articles, and while many of them seem problematic as well (which is no reason to create another insufficiently sourced article), there's Dorothy Brunton whose article is backed up by dedicated pieces in The Argus, the Sydney Morning Herald and the Brisbane Courier. I find it very hard to believe that Australian newspapers wouldn't report on Australian musical theatre performers. Huon (talk) 22:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I won't argue the difference between "celebrity" and "notability" with you. But I will point out that you do not live here, so do not tell me what the media reports on. There is an old joke - perhaps you have heard it - "Whats the difference between an Australian and a yoghurt? - A yoghurt has culture." Unfortunately we, as a society deserve that reputation. Media reporting of the arts takes a back seat to just about everything. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by I hate thinking of names (talk • contribs) 05:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lieve Joris

Hi,

Guess I do not quite understand what ' reliable sources' are, as I am using both sites from (in this case) the author and some references from newspapers, conference, etc. In my opinion these are sources that can be verified.: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lieve Joris] So, the simple question is: what's wrong with the sources I use?

Thanks, Auke AukevdBerg (talk) 09:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The very first source is a blog with no indication of editorial oversight: A self-published source. The second source is written by the Dutch Foundation for Literature, which looks like a professional association or maybe an advocacy organization, not a news source. They're likely to be biased towards Joris; if she were a bad writer, the Foundation probably wouldn't say so. The third was written by a literature tour in which Joris participated; it's not an independent source and even more likely than the second to be one-sidedly positive when reporting about Joris. The Telegraph and Libération are just the types of sources we're after, news sources, independent of Joris and subject to editorial oversight. I'm not so sure about les quotidiennes which looks like an opinion piece by a columnist. I'd try not to use that one if we can avoid it. The seventh reference is to an image which doesn't really serve to verify any of the draft's content.

It would also be a great help if you used inline citations and footnotes to clarify which source supports which of the article's claims. For example, the first sentence calls Joris "one of Europe’s leading nonfiction writers" - which source says so? Such a statement that's ultimately opinion might even need not just a source, but attribution to a source: "John Doe, reviewing Joris' book for the Telegraph, called her 'one of Europe’s leading nonfiction writers'" (except the Telegraph article doesn't actually say so). Huon (talk) 16:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/PHPixie

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/PHPixie

I received the warning that the page doesn't include reliable sources of information. So I thought it was referring to the history of the framework, so I added a few refs to that part. Should I resubmit the page now, or did this warning mean something else?

Dracony (talk) 10:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble with your article is that your sources are either the PHPixie site itself, or a blog. You can only use sources that someone else has written about PHPixie, and those sources must stand up to formal editorial scrutiny. cNet and TechCrunch are often considered good sources to use. I didn't find any suitable reliable sources when I did a search for PHPixie just now, which suggests you will have difficulty getting the article accepted. Sorry. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ivar Mendez

Hello... I am trying to improve the article on Dr Ivar Mendez. The referencing seems to be inadequate and I am hoping someone can review my references and external links so it can be revised and improved. I can further elaborate on the subject and submit other links to prove the point. Many thanks for your help and consideration. Tatjana Tatjana.Vukoja (talk) 13:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, many of the references are problematic. Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as news coverage or reviews of Mendez' work published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals.

Quite a few of the draft's references are primary sources such as Mendez' own website or the patent applications that were written by Mendez himself - clearly not independent sources. While such sources might be used for uncontroversial facts, they should be avoided if possible, they don't contribute to Mendez' notability, and they shouldn't form the sole basis for significant amounts of content. In short, if no secondary source for the information can be found, it's probably not all that important to begin with.

Many other references are to local news pieces published by Mendez' university. I'm not sure about those - they may be reliable, but on the other hand the university newspaper reporting about the university's own professor might be too closely related. They're currently cited for Mendez' awards; for that purpose they should do.

The source for the Diamond Jubilee Medal doesn't mention Mendez at all.

The best reference in my opinion is to the National Review article on Mendez' sculpting - that's a truly independent publication covering Mendez in significant detail.

Many other sources that should be turned into references linger in the "external links" section: National news coverage by the Toronto Star, the Chronicle Herald, the Globe and Mail and so on. We should summarize what these sources have to say about Mendez and, if possible, remove the more dubious sources in their stead. They should actually allow us to write a significantly longer account of Mendez' medical achievements, for example. Among the external links I found less helpful is CBC: That's just a short biography on their own guest. It probably wasn't subject to the same scrutiny as their news coverage. And while non-English sources are acceptable, it's easier for our readers if we can use English sources instead. I haven't checked what those Spanish sources have to say about Mendez or whether they're reliable in the first place. Huon (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Interra information Technologies Inc.

i have made article same like below company which is approved by you, so request you to please approve my article. Many thanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steria — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1jatinchopra (talk • contribs) 14:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Steria article is not a good example, as it is tagged as having too much reliance on primary sources. Similarly, your article only really has one good source - the Business Standard article, which isn't really enough to establish notability for the article to pass. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Scottish Community Education Council

I recently submitted an article on the 'Scottish Community Education Council', which has been declined. I am unclear why this was so as I cannot find the reviewer's feedback. I would be most grateful for advice as to what exactly I need to do to make this article for it to be accepted. I believe the problem was that there were not enough referenced sources.

Really would value your help.

Look forward to hearing from you

Charlie McConnell — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.244.123 (talk) 17:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The decline reason "Your submission is not adequately covered by reliable sources" is not particularly helpful, or even necessarily correct. An HMSO report might well be a reliable source (I've used one such report when Good Article reviewing A1 road in London, for instance). It's a common mistake I've seen amongst reviewers to assume that sources must exist on the web, which in fact is not true at all. However, without physical access to the sources, it's difficult to say more. One problem, is it's not obvious at all which bits of the article relate to the sources - have a look at Referencing for Beginners, particularly the use of {{cite book}} or {{cite journal}} which will help reviewers identify exactly which bits of the sources have been used to write the article. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Interra information Technologies Inc.

how many references you want? how may? i have provided many from news company sites, even from bloomberg. doe it satisfy ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1jatinchopra (talk • contribs) 18:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Bloomberg site is just a mention of the company's existence. It doesn't explain why the company is notable. Have a look at User:Uncle G/On notability, which may give you some more ideas. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Baze Article??

Hello, I submitted an article for creation on Josh Baze on December 1st, and I still haven't received any responses regarding its pending-process or approval. I posted a question asking how long it would take on this forum, got a response from someone-- and now when I look back that response doesn't seem to show up. I'm also quite concerned because I looked on the article submissions pending list and that article title is no where to be found. It still exists on my contribution history, so I am quite confused...

this is the article link! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Josh_Baze

— Preceding unsigned comment added by CartelMGMT (talk • contribs) 18:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your article was not submitted to the queue of those to be reviewed. I have now done this. The good news is that there is a backlog reduction drive on at the moment - there were only 150 items in the queue today, which is quite impressively low by recent standards - so hopefully someone will look at it soon. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble with Article Submission

Hello, I am the Marketing Manager for Stibo Systems and I have tried (and failed) several times to post information about our company. This is the article in question Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Stibo Systems. I have used the information off the stibosystems.com site and provided citations. Please let me know how I can get my article published.Kaco2012 (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kaco2012 (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise if this sounds blunt, but you should probably forget about trying to add a Wikipedia article about your own company unless you are very familiar with our core policies, particularly those regarding conflict of interest and a neutral point of view. There are just too many pitfalls, and, for good or bad, there is a culture around Wikipedia's editors that discourages autobiographies, which has some justification for reasons I've just explained. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]