Help desk
< July 17	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 19 >

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.

July 18

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jenolan Caves House

Hi,

I would really appreciate some assistance with my article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jenolan Caves House, as it has been rejected twice. I am not certain what I am doing wrong.

I feel that I've changed the tone of the article to make it more 'encyclopedic'. However, if someone could point out some really clear examples of where I should be more formal, I am happy to change anything.

Also, I have been advised that my large quote might exceed limits of fair use. What is the maximum length for a quote? Should I paraphrase instead? Unfortunately, Robert Moores volumes are not available online, so I can't link to them.

How else can I improve my article? Happy to make any changes! Regards, CarolynMelbouge (talk) 00:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the quote, see Wikipedia:Quotations. I don't think there's a fixed maximum length for quotes, but I agree with Dodger67 that this one is too long for comfort. Summarizing the information in your own words would be much better. The same goes for the other quotes: Unless we're attributing a possibly controversial statement to its author there's usually no reason to quote our sources instead of paraphrasing them.

I don't quite see the purpose of the newspaper articles you list in several of the "history" sections. If those articles contain relevant information about the hotel, great, we should summarize what they say. If not, why list them at all?

Also, you should provide more footnotes, and you may want to have a look at WP:Referencing for beginners on how to easily create nicely-formatted ones. In particular, footnotes should not read "Same as above"; if another source were inserted in between that one and the one above, attribution would become incorrect. External links should not be used in the article proper; if the linked document is a source for the article text, please turn it into a footnote; if it isn't (say, the UNESCO's Greater Blue Mountains Area web page in the "location" section which doesn't mention the Jenolan Caves House at all), it's better to remove them outright.

The "location" and "tourism" sections sound rather promotional to me. We're not a travel guide (there's WikiTravel for that), and much of the "tourism" section in particular is unsourced opinion, irrelevant to the hotel or both.

I also agree with MatthewVanitas' comment on the sources; he even listed one that provides a historian's perspective and would do well to support some of the currently unsourced paragraphs. I haven't checked, but MatthewVanitas said there are much more books out there - then we should make use of these sources instead of relying solely on a single government report and vintage newspapers.

Finally a minor quibble: It might be nice to mention in the very first sentence that this is an Australian hotel; my first guess would have been "Canadian", and that misconception wasn't corrected until the third paragraph. Huon (talk) 05:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your advice. I will try again. My problem has been that while there are literally hundreds of books out there that mention Jenolan Caves, there is hardly anything about Caves House specifically. Because the caves are so spectacular, the historic hotel is overlooked. That's why I've used the abundant newspaper articles plus Robert Moore's document, which he wrote in order to start the heritage listing process. Although it's still a working hotel, Caves House went into a serious decline in the 60s and has never really been able to recover. I am trying to reawaken interest in it by stressing the reasons why it was heritage listed in 2004. Anyway, I will have another go at the article and resubmit, hopefully next week. Regards CarolynMelbouge (talk) 00:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to have a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest. "Reawakening interest" is not what we should aim for; we're an encyclopedia, not free ad space. Huon (talk) 22:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cathy Luchetti submittal

Please give me more detail as to what specifically I need to change or amend to enable my Cathy Luchetti article to be approved. Thanks. Brian Wright, bwisok Bwisok (talk) 01:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Several sections of the draft, including the "early life" and "travels", don't cite any sources. Where does that content come from, and how can our readers verify it? The "frontier roots" section has sources, but many of them don't mention Luchetti and thus shouldn't be used in an article on Luchetti - at best we'd create an original synthesis of published sources, a form of original research we should not engage in. If her 19th century ancestors were an important influence on Luchetti's choice of career, we'd need a source that explicitly says so. Several other sources, including the very first one, also don't mention Luchetti and thus cannot help verify what they're cited for. Huon (talk) 05:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk: Articles for creation/NC Blue Lions

We've submitted an article, Wikipedia talk: Articles for creation/Blue Lions Outfit. My problem is that, moments after submitting the article, the Blue Lions leaders decided to discuss the content. How do I delay the submission until the committee is satisfied with the text?

~~BlueLionsGamers~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueLionsGamers (talk • contribs) 03:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has already been reviewed and declined; it doesn't cite any reliable sources that are independent of the subject. We need such sources both to allow our readers to verify the draft's content and to establish that the outfit is notable enough for an encyclopedia article in the first place. Also, the draft's tone is highly inappropriate for an encyclopedia article; it reads like something you might expect on the group's own website (including the use of "we" to refer to the article's subject), and that's because it's indeed copied from that website. That's a copyright violation, and for that issue I've tagged the draft for speedy deletion. (The website since seems to have become unavailable, bu the Wayback Machine still found it.)

Two additional comments: Firstly, you may want to have a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest. Writing about your own organization would be such a conflict of interest and is discouraged. Secondly, if this organization is notable enough for an article, the Blue Lions leaders will not get to control the content; rather, it may (and will) be edited by other editors at will, as long as their changes are supported by reliable sources. If there's a risk of the leadership being unhappy with the article, it may be wiser not to write one at all. Huon (talk) 05:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Guido van der Werve

I don't see how I can improve notability: the subject is in the collection of various important museums, has been doing performances at a.o. the opening of the Chess Hall of fame in St. Louis and with the American Symphony orchestra. Won several awards and is noted in New York Times, L.A. Times and all leading art magazines.

I have had a look at the article. As well as the news sources you cited, a quick search for "Guido van der Werve" also brings up several news hits, in English and Dutch. In my opinion, therefore, he is notable and I have passed your article. The next thing I would recommend doing is looking at our various citation templates such as {{cite news}} and {{cite journal}} to see how to better present your references - I have done the first three citations as an example. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'll work on it! Eaglebird74

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/DailyDAC LLC

Hi - an article I recently wrote was rejected for not having reliable sources, however, I cited and referenced major resources in my work such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, the White House, legislation, and IRS official documents so I am very confused as to why it would be rejected. Can someone please clarify?? Thanks.

The article is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/DailyDAC_LLC

Wikipediatalk:Articles for creation/FreckleTrout

FreckleTrout (talk) 12:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)FreckleTrout[reply]

To be precise, your article was declined for not having significant coverage in reliable sources. Of the references given in your article, they are clearly reliable, being US Government documentation, but none of them appear to be have any significant coverage of DailyDAC LLC or Accredited Investor Markets in them. You need to have at least several paragraphs discussing the organisation in each source, preferably more. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback and clarity! I will work on improving it. FreckleTrout (talk) 13:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)FreckleTrout[reply]

why my article decline

sir why my article Cool Herro A Pakistani Hacker was decline — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robin.segal (talk • contribs) 19:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That draft apparently didn't cite any reliable sources and contained negative claims about a living person. We cannot have that lest we become guilty of libel. Thus the draft was speedily deleted. All Wikipedia content, but particularly biographies of living persons, must be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as articles in newspapers or reputable magazines. Huon (talk) 19:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michele Clark

Hey Guys!

So my article was declined at Articles for Creation, I am super confused and would like some help to know what i have done wrong and what i need to change please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emilee33 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Several issues: First of all you had many of your references under the {{reflist}} template; those weren't displayed properly. I fixed that so all references are visible, but the footnotes shouldn't just be a mass in the references section, but they should be added immediately after the statement they're cited for.

Secondly, many of your sources are primary sources such as the websites of organizations Clark is affilitated with, or interviews where we basically have Clark talking about herself. Other sources, such as the Las Vegas Fox affiliate, don't mention Clark at all, or they provide only trivial coverage of the "Clark said..." variety. Blogs are usually not considered reliable. Some of the sources you added do look like reliable third-party sources to me and mention Clark in some detail, but right now the article isn't based on what those sources have to say about her; they're merely added as an afterthought. That will probably require quite some rewriting. Huon (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/National Business Officers Association

Hi! I'm having difficulty finding sources for my article that qualify as "reliable." Could you tell me what's wrong with the sources I've provided & give me an idea of where I should look for "reliable" sources? Thanks!

Sources are considered reliable if they're subject to editorial oversight and have a reputation for fact-checking. My suggestion would be to look for newspaper articles. Reputable trade magazines or peer-reviewed scholarly papers would also do, but I doubt such sources will cover the NBOA in any detail. Have you tried the Google News archives and maybe Google Books? Huon (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia desk

find wikipedia talk desk submission name serves <Nuru>/<Nuru>

How may we help you? Huon (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]