Help desk
< June 27	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 29 >

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.

June 28

01:55:58, 28 June 2014 review of submission by Silandcoreng

Silandcoreng (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Anton Milenin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hallo,my draft has been rejected because the "submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability". This is my first page in English Wikipedia, and I am writing on a Russian director living and working mainly in Italy. All the sources I have found directly linked to him are in Italian, but quite relevant in Italian theatre publications, and I would like to be sure that the rejection is not related to lack of relevant sources because of a language/cultural problem (that is: for an Italian theatre professional, someone cited by XXX is an interesting artist, but for an English professional the name XXX can mean very little...). The page on Italian Wikipedia didn't meet any problems, but maybe there are different parameters. If this is the problem, how can I solve it? Main question is about how can I point the notability of the subject. In fact, he is one of the few theatre directors using a technique called "structural analysis of text" originated by successors of Stanislavskij at the MXAT and GITIS... This is the reason of notability for this person in the theatre field, but I had no idea on how I could write it. All the theorical books about this technique are in Russian and there are no traces in wikipedia about it, except the Hermeneutic page wich I included in the "categories", and that is in fact quite general. I also cited the Italian articles in which the technique is explained, or those written by actors telling their experiences through this technique. How would you suggest to make this reason of notability explicit? Shall I go in the technical details, explaining what this technique is? Or shall I write a Wikipedia Article about it so that I can link the person page to the technique page? Or is it enough if I add this peculiarity in his biography, as I wrote it to you? Thanks! Silandcoreng (talk) 01:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Every Wikipedia has its own rules. Perhaps that is incorrect, but it is how it is. WIth regard to your draft, I cannot read non English references, so I will give you a general answer and hope someone else will give you a fuller one. For a living person we have a higher standard of referencing. Every fact you assert requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS. I'm sorry not to be able to be specific. Fiddle Faddle 13:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Silandcoreng, I accepted it. It needed considerable readjustment & shortening to meet our format, and the English style needed improvement , both of which I have done. Very few routine biographies of living people with uncontroversial careers in enWP actually have individual references for each routine fact if a general reference at the paragraph level is given. They are however required if they are contested, controversial, or judgmental. I consider the existing ones sufficient, but if someone wants to challenge it, the specific page numbers for the printed sources will need to be added. We also need publication details for the review in La Repubblica, and any other available reviews. DGG ( talk ) 17:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will improve the article and my contributions in Wikipedia. It was very useful to read Timtrent and Cullen328 comments and to see the work that DGG did to the article to meet the minimum standards. Thanks a lot for your work, your kind welcome and your help! Silandcoreng (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

17:31:43, 28 June 2014 review of draft by 173.233.126.178

173.233.126.178 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:The roots (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

173.233.126.178 (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's empty.WHat is your question, please? Fiddle Faddle 13:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]