Help desk
< March 19	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 21 >

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.

March 20

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Christian Seidel

Hello again. I had problems with the submission of my article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Christian Seidel. I tried to provide all the requested information. Almost a week has past and I am waiting for submission or further instructions. You can find my correspondence below. Please let me know if the article is ready for submission. Thank you. CTC2 (talk) 00:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've already asked a question regarding the article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Christian Seidel but lost the link to the conversation. I don't know better than to copy the conversation so far in here and hope you can help me...

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.

Hello, I have created a new Article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Christian Seidel. It is the english version of a german Article about Christian Seidel. I was asked to bring evidence of the subjects notability. In Germany he is a notable Person, and there are several publications. I checked the Notability Guidelines and found the following as suitable: "Creative professionals >4.The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Can you please tell me what else I can mention that would point out the notability? Thank you in advance! CTC2 (talk) 11:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

You'll still have to provide reliable sources that are independent of the subject so the readers can verify that Seidel created a significant work, or that he has been the subject of independent books, films or articles - say, news coverage or said articles discussing his work. Right now the article doesn't cite any sources, and most of the external links are Seidel speaking about Seidel - not quite independent. See also Help:Footnotes andWP:Referencing for beginners. Huon (talk) 17:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. But this is a misunderstanding. There is not a single link, 'Seidel speaking about Seidel', as you have mentioned in your comment. In the list of my sources there have been a few articles, written by 'Christian Seidl about Christian Seidel. In fact this author is a notable international writer, called Christian Seidl (without an 'e'). He is someone else than Christian Seidel. But I understand, that the similarity of the names confuses. Because of this I have removed these sources and added some other sources. I hope the article is accepted now.CTC2 (talk) 23:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the various interviews - with the ZDF, with BR3, with DWDL and so on. For all of those, Seidel himself is the primary source of information about Seidel. With the current list of references, footnotes are ever more important to clarify which source supports which of the draft's statements. For example, which of the sources credits Seidel's PR success to his "unique style of concept writing"? Huon (talk) 12:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again. I added the footnotes and references and hope the article fits the conditions for release. Please let me know if there is still something missing.CTC2 (talk) 14:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything else that I have to do so that the article can be submitted? I see it is still waiting for submission... Please let me know. Thanks!CTC2 (talk) 15:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, the draft's references are something of a mess. A press release is not a reliable source. I'd expect at least some of the sources should be available online, but you have provided no links, making verification unnecessarily difficult. I believe you translated some articles' titles from German into English, which makes identification vastly more difficult and thus isn't helpful - I couldn't find any trace of the dpa reports about Seidel, and I'd expect the 2011 one to still be available via Google News. Then there's the list of references that aren't footnotes - are those actually used? What for? Or are they just a "further reading" list? Both the reviewer and later the readers will appreciate it if you make finding the sources a little easier. Furthermore, I doubt all those sources are really all that relevant to Seidel. For example, you cite a half-dozen sources on the Diana biography that predate the Seidel-produced TV movie. They probably won't provide any relevant information on Seidel. That said, you should submit the draft for review; the old "submission declined" message box has instructions for re-submission. Despite all those problems, Seidel appears to satisfy the notability criteria, and while I wouldn't be comfortable accepting a draft whose sources I mostly couldn't even find, once that's fixed, the draft should be up for a review. Since we're rather backlogged at the moment, my suggestion would be to first submit it and then clean up the references - it will probably take a week or two until a reviewer takes a look. Huon (talk) 03:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/CU-2010 and CU-2020

Good evening,

I was just wondering if all of my references should be in text citations (like reference #1) or if I can have a general list of references since I did not take anything word from word from these sources. This is the article draft in question Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/CU-2010 and CU-2020

Please let me know,

thanks

Lquinter (talk) 01:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Luisa QuinteroLquinter (talk) 01:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you should use inline citations and footnotes to clarify which of the sources supports which of the article's statements - otherwise our readers might have to check them all before they find the source that supports a certain claim. Huon (talk) 03:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ian K'ser

Hi today rybec and other name could be talk page FoCuSandLeArN talk says did not get info from the URL of Story Misak Kayserian Forty years activities . The URL correctly shows the Glendale Press reprint in Nor Hayastan Armenian daily with the information given on year and page numbers. Please I understand and I give my best what Wikipedia ask, but wonder about URL, they are working with me only reason could be the language it is in Armenian, in Armenian Daily. Thank you once again your effort is always Super and appreciated God Bless You.wimbi (talk) 01:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I too end up with the Armenian newspaper's homepage, not with the article that's supposed to be there. I think the archive does contain a copy of the correct page; it seems to be at http://www.norhayastandaily.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/11web.130182338.pdf. You should provide a link to the correct page, not to the newspaper's homepage. Huon (talk) 03:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Digital Satellites

(advertising removed) Do not use Wikipedia to advertise products or services - you will be blocked from editing if you continue. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Marvelin Deka

--49.136.189.249 (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals

Hello,

I submitted an article for review by editors to ensure it complied with Wikipedia guidelines for submission, and I specifically asked for review from the standpoint of COI and neutrality since I work for the company I wrote the article about. The article I submitted for review was declined, but the reason given was that an article on the subject already exists. The note I received directed me to edit the original article directly.

There was no response from the editor addressing my specific inquiry as to whether the article fit Wikipedia's guidelines. So, may I proceed with editing the orginal article itself? I just want to make sure that my article passed editorial muster before putting it out there only to have it removed immediately for COI or neutrality issues.

Thanks for the assistance!

--Rkhaarma (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for creation is only for new articles, not for edits to existing articles. If you want to raise issues about an existing article, the place to do so is that article's talk page.

At a glance I'd say there are some problems with your draft, and replacing the article with your draft would not be an improvement. For example, the article has quite a few wikilinks to related articles - your draft has none. Also, you say you use "neutral, 3rd party sources", but the "Form 10-K" seems to have been filled out by Covidien. A source that says "We are a global leader in the development, manufacture and sale of healthcare products..." certainly doesn't sound neutral or third-party to me. Similarly, press releases (and I assume that's what the broken NYT link was supposed to point to) are not reliable sources. Yet others of your sources don't even mention Mallinckrodt at all. Then you cite blogs, which are always problematic - news blogs are certainly better than most, but they should be considered opinion pieces not under the hosting newspaper's full editorial control, reliable for the author's opinion, but not necessarily for statements of fact. That said, you do have an impressive selection of reliable, truly independent sources that may well serve to improve our coverage of the company, especially its early history and the various acquisitions.

I'm also a little skeptical about the cocaine issue. If the information was inaccurate, the way ahead would be to correct it, not to remove it outright. Furthermore, your point about Esterom was mistaken: The article doesn't say Esterom was a Mallinckrodt product, but that manufacturers of cocaine-based products such as Esterom must rely on Mallinckrodt as a supplier. Now the source for that paragraph certainly isn't the best, but it took me less than five minutes to come up with multiple reliable sources on the subject, such as the Bangor Daily News saying Mallinckrodt is (or at least was in 1990) "the nation's sole legal manufacturer". If there are now others, fine, add a source for the loss of that monopoly - but to have held such a monopoly is surely a relevant fact. Similarly I had no problem whatsoever to find sources for the Mallinckrodt-El Sohly THC connection. Huon (talk) 20:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Huon. I had read that the "Articles for Creation" area was where anyone with a COI should submit for review before editing the article. I apologize for this mistake. I will take another look at the article and look for some different sources. Yes, Dr. El Sohly worked at the university where the THC was purchased, but the original article made it sound as though the purchase was from an individual, not the university. I will explore a way to reword it. As for the articles that do not mention Mallinckrodt, unfortunately, because of the fact that we are a subsidiary of Covidien at this time, some articles may refer to us as Covidien. But, I will do some more digging to link to additional sources that are not found in the newspaper's blog. Again, our goal here is to correct the facts in a way that is Wikipedia-compliant. I really do appreciate your insightful response and the time you took to review the article. Thank you again. --Rkhaarma (talk) 13:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Killision) Legendary Los Angeles punk thrash band

I am attempting to submit a short biography of legendary L.A. thrashers Killision, they broke the whole pay for play and anti punk/thrash anti scene that permeated Los Angeles in the early to late 80's causing L.A.bands such as Slayer, and Metallica to leave L.A. for San Francisco to gain exposure, I've already submitted the bio with references such as James Hetfield of (Metallica) Jeff Hanneman of (Slayer) Gary Holt from (Exodus),everything stated here can be verified at you tube and wikipedia Jarrod Thornton(Jugheads Revenge)Dave Senescu (1ad7 and Cynic)Chuck Poquette(Stalag 13 and Bourbon Saints)other bands from that period can be found on YOUTUBE (DEMOLITION,DEAD AND BLOATED,EROTIKILL,BAD RELIGION,STONE SOLDIER,MX MACHINE and IDK)please help verify and Thank You for your time it would be a shame for that scene to go unoticed when you stack their music and crowds against the mainstream glams that did'nt deserve "any exposure"again Thank You for your time. sincerely, James Diaz(Jimmy Diaz,Jimmy D.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.118.103.115 (talk) 23:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia requires reliable published sources such as newspapers or reputable music magazines. YouTube and Wikipedia itself are not reliable. Thornton, Senescu, Poquette and Wood might be considered primary sources, but you'd have to give us additional details: Who said what, when and where? Just writing the names "jarrod thornton, dave senescu, jeff wood" in a "References" section doesn't mean you have cited sources. For example, who exactly is the source for the "re-banned until the owner discovered they sold out of liquor" anecdote? Where can I read up that account? Right now the draft reads like a personal essay without any secondary sources, not like an encyclopedia article. It's also very short on exact dates - the anecdote, for exampe, doesn't come with a date more precise than "early 90s". Huon (talk) 23:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]