Help desk
< March 26	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 28 >

Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded 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 27

Atlwc would like article created to now be approved and submitted please help.

I created an article for submission last August entitled Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Atlanta Woman's Club an article on GFWC Atlanta Woman's Club. I had some reviews and critiques of which I have now fixed by rewriting per the request to write a more neutral article. I think it's done now and would for it to be reviewed and submitted if at all possible.Thank you, atlwcAtlwc (talk) 01:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have submitted the draft for review on your behalf, but there are still quite a few issues. First of all, if you're associated with the club, you may want to read our guideline on conflicts of interest. Writing about topics you're closely associated with is discouraged.

Secondly, adding inline citations and footnotes would help to clarify which part of the draft is based on which source. Also, what I assume is the main source, A Light on Peachtree: A History of the Atlanta Woman's Club, was written by a club member, not quite the independent source we're looking for.

Thirdly, the tone still isn't all that neutral. For example, "The City of Atlanta and State of Georgia would have faced a very different history had it not been for the progressive philanthropic and humanitarian projects undertaken by the Atlanta Woman's Club"? The club significantly influenced the history of the entire state? Says who? At times the draft even still speaks of the club as "we".

We're severely backlogged at the moment, so it may take several weeks for a reviewer to look at your draft. I'd use that time to address some of those issues. Huon (talk) 02:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huon,I can obtain more footnotes from the Atlanta History Center and GFWC library. The Book was indeed written by an author who visited the club many times for research purposes, she has written other biographies on the Atlanta Braves as well as mystery fiction novels. She enjoyed the club and the members that she is a member now. Thirdly, the quote or beginning sentence that I open was a paraphrase or rework of an original quote stated by Former President Jimmy Carter and his wife Roselyn. Both he and his wife wrote the foreward to the Atlanta History Book as he was familiar with the Atlanta Woman's Club's efforts. President Carter's original quote is as follows:“Many in Atlanta may not realize that our city and the state of Georgia could have faced a very different history had it not been for the successful advocacy and funding of several important projects undertaken by the Atlanta Woman’s Club, most notably with the inception and development of the Atlanta airport… ”. His foreward is 2 pages. I will, continue to work on the draft, and would appreciate review for submission. I personally feel this Club is worthy of an article. There are monuments and placards in Georgia thanking AWC for its contribution to the city, although still, no one in the 21st century really knows what they have done,its purpose and mission unless they see the marker. For many years, the women believed in quiet pride, they don't sell anything but merely give, a woman's nonprofit giving back to its community for over 100 years quietly. They did impact Georgia history and their legacy should be shared, which is why they had the book written and why I wrote this article. I would appreciate the review and possible submission. atlwc thanks you Atlwc (talk) 01:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)atlwc[reply]

I don't think Jimmy Carter is a reliable source on history. My suggestion would be to quote Carter as part of a "public reception" section or something like that, and to attribute the quotation to Carter.

The draft is submitted for review, but as I said we're severely backlogged, and it may take a few weeks until a reviewer takes a look. Please be patient and use the time to fix the issues I pointed out above - the more you improve the draft now, the greater the chances that it will be accepted. Huon (talk) 02:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hambodia

I declined this article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hambodia as a joke, but should it be deleted as well? —Anne Delong (talk) 02:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It might arguably be covered by CSD criterion G3: Blatant hoaxes, but I don't think tagging it for speedy deletion is worth the effort. I believe we usually only kill off copyright violations, attack pages, or the most blatant advertisements. Huon (talk) 02:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

reviewing a user page

Dear editors: I was reviewing a page which Phaedra22 had created on his or her own user page and submitted for review. I moved the page to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/European Parliament Simulation but I may not have done this properly. Should I have moved the talk page with it (I did)? Or should I have handled this differently? —Anne Delong (talk) 04:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, you shouldn't move the talk page, as that belongs to the user and is essential to be able to communicate with them. Drafts don't generally have associated talk pages until they get accepted and moved into the main article space, so people can discuss further changes to them. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems as though either someone has fixed it, or the software was smart enough not to do it, because the talk page seems to be okay. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you cannot move the talk page along if you move the page itself into a Talk namespace - where would the talk page go? Wikipedia talk talk? Huon (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ed Monk

My submission (Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ed Monk) was declined for lack of reliable sources. I require more specific feedback. Which sources are not reliable? Or, are they reliable but not enough of them? Please look at William Garden and Leslie Geary. It seems to me, after reading about sources, that the Ed Monk article is cited better than those. Thanks,Tad unger (talk) 14:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the Classic Yacht Association's website is a reliable source. It seems self-published and not subject to editorial oversight. Besides, it cites two references of its own which you both cite directly, so it's rather redundant. Monk's own books are primary sources; for all I can tell you don't cite them for their content, but merely for their own existence. The account in Knee-Deep in Shavings sounds like anecdotes by a personal acquaintance and should probably also be considered a primary source. Thus the draft's content is based on a single secondary source, Oliver's biography of Monk. For all I can tell that's a good source, but a single secondary source is not enough to establish Monk's notability.

The other articles you pointed to have similar problems, but while other problematic articles exist, that's no reason to create more. Each submission must stand on its own merits.

On an unrelated note, it would help if you could add page numbers to the Oliver references. It's a 160-page book, and all I can tell right now is that it serves as the basis for the entire article, which isn't all that helpful if I want to verify a specific statement. Huon (talk) 15:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/George Alexander Baird - Mr Abington

Hello

Just trying to clarify the editing required on the article George Alexander Baird - Mr Abington in order to get it reconsidered. There appears to be pruning required - no problem, but I do not want to throw baby out with the bath water. I have written to the reviewer asking for guidance (OrenBochman) and looked at his/her articles to see what she/he expects but I am still a bit unsure. Any suggestions and will this have to go to the bottom of the pile again if I do resubmit?

Sidpickle (talk) 14:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's not so much a matter of content as of tone and style. The draft begins with Baird's death - the lead section should summarize the content of the article, and I'd expect the first sentence to read something like this:

George Alexander Baird (30 September 1861 – 18 March 1893) was a British race horse owner and gentleman jockey under the assumed name of Mr. Abington.

That's a much better introduction to the subject than his death of a fever, which of course should still be mentioned in the article proper. Most of the draft except the lead sounds rather good to me; maybe OrenBochman will elaborate.

Unfortunately a resubmitted draft will again be at the bottom of the pile; the pile is simply sorted chronologically. But submissions aren't necessarily reviewed in chronological order. Huon (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK I'll wait for OrenBochman to get back because if I do not meet his standards I will be waiting for months to get reviews considered/reconsidered with the current backlog.

Many thanks

Sidpickle (talk) 17:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sidpickle!

I'm glad you have asked how to improve the article.

Having plenty of references is a good thing and not the issue.

It seems like you have done lots of work already by it requires more work. The only encouragement I have is that based on the current status, once you bring it up to speed it should be a C or even B class historical Bio. What you need to do now is mostly self editing.

You have chosen a rather odd subject for your article - besides being rich did he have any notable accomplishments in his short life? The answer to this should be clear from the lead paragraph of the article which is absent - instead you begin with a wonderfully dramatic teaser which leaves the reader guessing. This is one example of the stylistic issues your article is facing!

The article does is not written in the more formal style of an encyclopedia article. I am not a professional copy editor like some the members of the guild of copy editors. But it is plain even to me that the article needs more work to clean it up and to better comply with Manual of style.

To start with Consider using simpler sentences which are easier to understand. Remove unnecessary information. It looks like you could tell "George Alexander Baird's" life in far less words without leaving out any detail. Also there are some other issues - but it is still early to go into details:

"(~~probably~~ equivalent to three hundred million pounds in ~~today’s~~ money)"
- probably indicates some kind of guess or speculation - which is not encyclopedic writing but your or someone else opinion. If it is an estimation say that it is.
- This second issue is your guesstimate of the current value of his estate but your source is from 1930s. By failing to clarify this you committed a faux pas we call Stnthesis which falls foul of the broader policy called No Original Research. So stick to the sources!
- The third problem is that you need to word such sentences so they do not become incorrect next week. Something like "As of 1934 his estate was valued at ... pounds ^[1] which in 2013 would have been valued as ... pounds^[2]"
"~~By all accounts~~" ... is superfluous and indicates a missing inline citation
According to the Manual of style titles need to be in sentence case.

The titles you have chosen also leave much to be desired - look at similar bios and try to emulate their format and style!

If you need more pointers about writing or style I can provide them.

Also be advised that I know many languages by am a master of none and I consider my English is rather disgraceful at times. I try to learn from some of my hero on Wikipedia, so please don't try to copy my poor writing. I recommend you look at the pages of User:Tony1 or at any of the many Featured articles for examples of fine writing!

Finally do not worry about being at the bottom of the pile think about writing the best articles that you can and soon you will not need to use AFC at all. -- BO | Talk 22:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me. I have taken out the early section that included all the areas of concern.

Sidpickle (talk) 07:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Myles L. Berman

[Draft removed] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlberman (talk • contribs) 16:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was a short version of the draft on Berman. How may we be of assistance? If, as your username suggests, you are Berman, you may want to have a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest. Writing an autobiography is strongly discouraged. Furthermore, Wikipedia content should be based on reliable, independent sources such as newspapers. The draft's sources all seem either to originate with Berman himself, or they're mere directory entries. Huon (talk) 16:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Night Biters

Submission declined on 24 March 2013 by DGG (talk). DGG stated “Self-published book. Not in worldcat. Cannot possibly be suitable for an encyclopedia article” DGG is in error my book is in worldcat http://www.worldcat.org/title/night-biters-a-tale-of-urban-horror/oclc/70961973/editions?editionsView=true&referer=br

1. Night biters : a tale of urban horror by Adrian Harper Book: Fiction English 2008

	[United States] :

My work is suitable for an encyclopedia article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harperworx (talk • contribs) 19:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adrian, did you have a question about the Articles for Creation process? Have you read WP:42 ? Goodreads and Youtube are not reliable sources. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While DGG may have been mistaken regarding WorldCat, the basic problem is that Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper articles or reviews in reputable literary magazines. None of your draft's sources satisfy this standard. Furthermore, if, as your username suggests, you are the book's author, you may want to have a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest. Writing articles about your own work is discouraged because it's difficult to maintain a neutral point of view. Huon (talk) 20:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dan Bigley

Hey, my article got declined because I dont have enough citations, but what if this came from the author themselves as original content? They literally sent every word in the article to me, what can I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashikitty (talk • contribs) 23:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia requires reliable published sources that are independent of the subject. Original content from the article's subject is not an acceptable source, and I don't see that Bigley is notable enough for an article by Wikipedia's standards. You may also want to have a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest. Huon (talk) 23:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sylvester Z. Poli

My article draft has been refused, and I would like to re-submit. I am confused by the reason, lack of reliable sources. If you google or bing the subject, there are many articles available to support the history and success of the individual biography. Should I include all of these outside links in the reference section? I must also mention that although I am the great-granddaughter of the article's subject, I have done my best to remain as objective and to the point as possible. Any help or instruction will be greatly appreciated. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sylvester_Z._Poli

Gramps101 (talk) 23:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should cite the sources in the article; our readers shouldn't have to google the subject to find the sources. Among the sources you currently cite, ConnecticutHistory is that organization's homepage which doesn't mention Poli at all; the Time piece is rather trivial coverage that doesn't even devote a single sentence to Poli, and most others are images without enough context to clearly identify the source - one seems a copy of an announcement written by Poli himself, which clearly is not the kind of independent source we're looking for. For example, how can I verify that Poli was "Born in the village of Piano di Coreglia"? No source is given for that claim. Huon (talk) 23:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]