Help desk
< April 1	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 3 >

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.

April 2

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Donovan Dijak

Hello, I wrote an article for the first time several weeks ago: Wikipedia talk: Articles for creation/Donovan Dijak. I have not had any reviews or comments from editors. Did I do something incorrectly in submission? Thank you for your help! Kjbriden (talk) 01:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)kjbriden[reply]

Hi Kjbriden - you have not yet submitted it for review, to do so please add "{{subst:submit}}" (copy the exact text between the quotes but not including the quote marks) to the top of the page. It will then be reviewed in due course. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you! Kjbriden (talk) 14:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)kjbriden[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Youngcare

Hi there,

Just wondering why my article for Youngcare has been declined twice. Both times the reasoning has been "this submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability" and to "add citations to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject".

I find this reasoning unfair as the article references atleast 16 different news articles, research publishings or Government articles.

Just wondering what I exactly need to do to ensure that the article can be uploaded.

Cheers, JakeMyers15JakeMyers15 (talk) 01:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@JakeMyers15: I've done some cleanup to this article and removed some puffery. I think on the basis of the Brisbane Times, ABC, and Queensland government reporting that this has enough coverage. Resubmit and I'd be inclined to accept. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mean log deviation

To accept an article, we are told to click on the "accept" button. But I find no evidence that such a button exists. Where is it found? Michael Hardy (talk) 04:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Michael Hardy: It seems you know already know about the AfC helper script, but that you seem to have some trouble getting it to work. Anyway, the "Accept" button appears after you click "Review" (see File:Articles for Creation Helper Script (version oed6ac5).png). Anon126 (talk - contribs) 19:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Doug Skrzyniarz

My article was denied for submission based on "unreliable sources." However, almost all of the sources were from primary sources including newspaper articles. I am confused. Please help. It almost appears that the person who declined my submission didn't even look at my sources.

207.74.198.44 (talk) 15:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)James Johnson[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Doug_Skrzyniarz#Review — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.74.198.44 (talk) 12:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Your submission name here

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jaavan Patio

I think that an article about the jaavan brand is just as important as an article on the nike brand or the pepsi cola brand, could someone create it, or give me permission to create it? I'm seating on Jaavan furniture right now, they're everywhere, except wikipedia. or at least thats what i think. :)

Fernando23.31.31.206 (talk) 12:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John Goodwin (theatre publicist)

Hello,

Thanks to Sionk for the review.

I accept the review’s main point (that the proposed article does not adequately evidence the subject’s notability). I have taken it on board and will address it in the next submission.

My query concerns the “What you can do” section of the review. The answer given to this question is ‘add citations’. I would welcome some clarification about the citations which are already in the reviewed submission.

Of the 13 citations in the proposed article, six give page references to five separate, independent works which mention Goodwin specifically and which directly corroborate the assertions in the text. A further one is the National Theatre website which names Goodwin as the creator of the new style of theatre programme. Two more support the innovative nature of those programmes but do not mention Goodwin. Two give background to an incident at which Goodwin was present (the Russian tour) but do not mention him by name and two give specific references to his childhood home. Please could you clarify which of these are acceptable.

In point of fact, in the revised version there will be several more direct reference from another independent source because a voluminous new history of the National Theatre has recently been published in which Goodwin gets upwards of 30 mentions in the index.

Thanks in advance for your guidance and help

Sincerely,

Cabdan Cabdan (talk) 14:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cabdan. This is a difficult one. One thing I would say is that sources that do not mention Goodwin by name are of no use in proving his notability for Wikipedia. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Your submission name here

I'd like to add an image to an article (which I wrote) about a particular style of art.

The image is from the cover of an exhibition catalog held at a public university in 1972. I've scanned the original, and although there is no copyright data, I contacted the estate of the artist (his widow) whose work appears and received permission to use this piece in support of the article.

I believe that given all these factors this is a proper use of the image. It is also important to the article, as it provides a visual example–critical to understanding the work by seeing a representative sample.

That said, I'm a bit confused by all the options for categorizing and uploading the image. Because I scanned it, does that mean that I created the image (as is the case with people who illustrate art with photos they've taken in museums)?

Or, is there a better way to approach and classify this image?

Thanks in advance for any details you might provide.

Left Coast Arts (talk) 15:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright to the image is not owned by the person who scanned it, but by either the estate of the artist, or the creator of the exhibition catalog, or whomever the artist previously sold it to, or whomever the exhibition catalog creator or heirs of the artist previously sold it to.

Now, we can aggressively assume that the widow is the heir of the artist (since they essentially asserted that to you). We can also aggressively assume that the heir has the right to license the image (since they implied this to you), despite and regardless of any claims of the exhibition, university, etc.

This being the case, you should email the widow with the form of words found at WP:Declaration of consent for all enquiries, filling it out beforehand as much as you think appropriate for their convenience, and ask if they agree to that. If they agree, email their agreement to the email address found on that page, after first uploading the relevant image and then adding {{OTRS pending}} somewhere on that page.

Simple, isn't it? :/ --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Koos Groenewald

MarieSchoeman (talk) 19:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MarieSchoeman: Your entry about Koos Groenewald has no references at all. You could at least use this obit as a starting point. This person might be notable but you certainly haven't helped us verify that. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Draft:Vu Digital

I wrote a page about Vu Digital and it was reviewed without comment. Was it approved, and if so, when will it be posted? Thanks. James WeedJames Weed (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@James Weed: I moved your sandbox to Draft:Vu Digital, so you are welcome to remove that redirect and utilize your sandbox for anything else. No one has yet reviewed your article since you never submitted it for review. A user added a references section but did not otherwise review what you wrote. An editor mentioned to you in late February about submitting the article so I'm not sure what went wrong. Chris Troutman (talk) 10:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Compareinsurance.com.au

Just wanting some tips on how i can get my page approved please. I see a lot of companies similar to mine have pages e.g. confused.com or Mozo. I tried to folow their guidelines as they are live, so not sure why my page was rejected. thanks 220.233.209.242 (talk) 22:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@220.233.209.242 and NatalieSmith83: Well, this article reads like an advertisement, which isn't surprising since it was written by someone who is probably the Digital Marketing Executive for Compare Insurance. Some of those sentences are near copyright violations of that company's website. Our notability standard for an article about a business hasn't been met and that's what ultimately prevents acceptance. More reliable sources would go a long way to helping this article, too. Chris Troutman (talk) 09:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]