Help desk
< May 14	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 16 >

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.

May 15

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/WHIRLPOOL EMEA (Europe, Middle East & Africa)

I need your help understanding how long we should wait for the article I created on WHIRLPOOL EMEA which is the company I represent. Thank you for letting me know. Please also let me know if I am missing some actions to make it happen.

My Best Regards,

■ ROBERTA VANETTI // MANAGER INTERACTIVE COMMUNICATION, EDUCATION & SOCIAL MEDIA - WHIRLPOOL EMEA Office +39.0332.757071//Mobile +39.335.1400128 // Whirlpool Corporation // www.WhirlpoolCorp.com Via G. Borghi, 27 - 21025 Comerio (VA), Italy — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertaVanetti (talk • contribs) 09:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a backlock of about two weeks' worth of unreviewed submissions. However, I've declined yours immediately since it didn't cite any reliable sources. As the last reviewer said, it might be better to cover the subsidiary in the main Whirlpool Corporation article (with sources, of course). You may also want to have a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest; writing about your employer is discouraged. Huon (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Third Party Liability Insurance For Dog Owners

[[1]] Wow! Huon! What can I do? I have looked at [[2]] as one example. This article has only 4 references and is wholly unsourced. I don't see Dangerous Dog Insurance spamming. I see this trademark one time. But the trademark is a commonly-used phrase. I doubt anyone will look up "Third Party Liability Insurance For Dog Owners" which is the new title I gave the article (upon your suggestion) because that is not the phrase people use. People use "dangerous Dog Insurance". But I use that phrase once and you call it "spamming" I don't really understand why you are saying that my sources are unreliable when they are the insurance industry top sources especially when the wikipedia article on "liability insurance" is unsourced and states this fact on the page. Yikes! thinking about giving up hereChasehunter1 (talk) 10:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, other problematic articles may exist, but that's no excuse to create more. Also, while the liability insurance article indeed cites very few references, you won't find it mentioning any trademarks nor use the "®" symbol. You also won't find it giving advice on how to avoid claims, and the sources it does cite all clearly are relevant - unlike, say, the ADA homepage, which doesn't mention dogs at all. Huon (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly confusing words in resubmission process?

I think that it is possible that some users may be confused by the wording of the new section which appears in the click here link for resubmission of an updated AFC draft.

It says:

<!-- This will add a notice to the bottom of the page and won't blank it! The new template which says that your draft is waiting for a review will appear at the bottom; simply ignore the old (grey) drafted templates and the old (red) decline templates. A bot will update your article submission. Until then, please don't change anything in this text box and press "Save page". -->
{{subst:submit}}

A user might interpret the "don't" in the sentence:

Until then, please don't change anything in this text box and press "Save page"

as applying to the press "Save page" as well as to the change, so may exit without saving. Perhaps the wording could be changed to be clearer? - David Biddulph (talk) 13:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How would you rephrase that sentence? I don't think I've ever encountered someone misunderstanding it, though, so I'm not sure this is much of a problem. Huon (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The situation which made me look at the wording was this Teahouse question, which I assume refers to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Janet Heimlich (2), where I got the impression that the questioner thought that he had resubmitted. I wonder whether the last sentence might usefully be changed to say something like:

Until then, please don't change anything in this text box. Just press "Save page".

- David Biddulph (talk) 10:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Max Bonnefous

How long will this take to be reveiwed?87.236.252.4 (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have just reviewed it. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New team

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tambov State University

Please take a new article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Tambov_State_University — Preceding unsigned comment added by Александр Граф (talk • contribs) 18:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That draft is submitted for review, but it doesn't cite any reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Without such sources we cannot accept the submission. Huon (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Patexia

Hi, I was hoping you could give me some pointers on how I might rewrite this article to be more neutral. I've included citations which reference a few independent magazines/blogs that have written about the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patexia (talk • contribs) 21:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That does not look too bad now. See if you can manage to remove the word "innovation" from the lead. "Crowdsourcing to its community" does not read well. Perhaps that sentence would work with "to its community" removed? You could wikilink patent research (or prior art later in the article) just to make clear to reviewers that it's a specific meaningful term and not a random buzzword. The word "experts" might be (unjustly) setting off promotional-wording alerts as well, so you could wikilink subject matter expert too.

Patent infringement should probably be wikilinked too.

More problematic, however, is that the SFGate article is just a press release, and the Intellogist article may or may not be challenged as being an unreliable source. (It's a Wordpress blog, but to me it looks somewhat reliable.) So you may need to add one or two more independent and reliable sources.

Then try resubmitting it. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]