Help desk
< March 12	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 14 >

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 13

'Gradient-directed transects' / Andyggg

The correct title for this article should be 'Gradsect' as indicated in the primary header (not 'Gradient-directed transects'). Somehow this error must have occurred during submission for which I apologise.

I would be grateful if you could change the name of the article accordingly.

Using the Wiki guidelines I have updated the article and edited out a number of minor errors in formatting references.

Hopefully it is now a little more acceptable.

With thanks. Andyggg (talk) 02:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested an admin to move the page so that Gradsect is the actual title and Gradient-directed transect is a redirect, the reverse of what it was. It should be done within a few hours. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If an admin sees this, please respond to the db-move at Gradsect, thanks. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Something went wrong with the move (I think I moved it twice) but it should be good now, let me know if there are any issues with it still. kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me, thanks. Andyggg are you happy with it? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Roger,

Thankyou for changing the Article title to 'Gradsect' which I am now using and which now appears in the main Wikipedia website.

For some reason the original article 'Gradient-directed transect' still appears on Wiki. Perhaps that should be deleted.

I have taken note of the suggested improvements for the 'Gradsect' text that now contains a number of links to related Wikipedia topics as well as 25 verifiable peer-reviewed journal and book citations.

Hopefully this will match most of the criteria for an acceptable Article. Any other suggestions will be very welcome.

Regards,

Andyggg Andyggg (talk) 04:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andyggg, the Gradient-directed transect page is actually simply a redirect to the Gradsect page. This is done so that both names can be used to find the article - there is not a separate copy of the Gradsect article at Gradient-directed transect. This is done because the page title "Gradsect" is an abbreviation of "Gradient-directed transect", as the first sentence of the article explains. It is necessary that both possible titles must be searchable and linklable. (You can see the redirect page itself here.) Bear in mind that the average Wikipedia readers don't have any formal education in the subject of the article beyond high school level - so one can't expect them to be familiar with jargon or abbreviations that are commonly used by subject specialists. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Misfire: The Rise and Fall of The Shooting Gallery (Film)

Hi,

How do I put headings in?

I'd like to break it down like:

PLOT

RECEPTION, etc

Thank you.

Regards,

WhitneyLife — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitneylife (talk • contribs) 02:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First level section headings are added by placing two pairs of equals signs on either side of the heading like this: == Section heading ==. The heading must be alone on a separate line with preferably a blank line above and below. Headings are written in sentence case, never all-caps. The lead or introduction does not get a heading at all, it comes directly below the page title. If you need to subdivide a section into subsections the subsection headings get an additional pair of equal signs: === Subsection heading ===. Hope this is clear. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Panostic Church

Hello! I was just curious why our submission for creation was denied. I hope this finds you all having a really great day. The Panostic Church (talk) 02:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at the reason given in the pink box at the top of the page? There are also links to guidance on how to solve the problem and there is a further comment by the reviewer below the box. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Draft:Greg McKenzie (Jazz Pianist and Composer)

Hello, my article was declined due to incorrect referencing. I will revise the article and resubmit it, however, I would like to know whether Wikipedia will remove the article before I can resubmit it? Thanks.Musicalind (talk) 03:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It won't be removed, unless you abandon it and no editing has been done for more than 6 months. So pease continue. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Arcadia, Inc.

I keep getting rejected for lack of references

I have been working on this for almost 6 months now, I keep adding independent references but still get rejected. Can someone look at it and give me some actual direction other than it does not meet the requirements?

User Highrez2 article Arcadia, Inc. Highrez2 (talk) 03:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you clicked the links provided in the decline reasons on your submission page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Arcadia, Inc. to see what the problems are?

You need references that demonstrate the organisation has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. A one-sentence mention in an article about an apartment complex is not significant coverage; nor is a Bloomberg Businessweek profile. Nor is a list of what trademarks the organisation owns. A scan of an advert from the organisation itself (despite being from 1955) is not independent coverage. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gerald Wickremesooriya

Hi, i submitted the following article, but it got rejected due to formatting issues>

Can you please help?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kayzeecee (talk • contribs) 07:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kayzeecee, I have removed the draft you pasted in here and added a link to it in the heading. Your article was initially rejected because you submitted a blank page. I had a look at your draft which you have now added. The main problem at the moment is that you have no references at all to verify the information in the article. You need to find sources which have written about this person in depth. We cannot publish material which comes purely from editors' personal knowledge. Your article also needs to be written in a neutral point of view and encyclopedic style, not as a memorial page or obituary. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Your first article, which will help get you on the right track. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 12:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Christopher Meakin

( > > > Note to Wikipedia reviewers. This is the basic outline. More can be added - additional activites, publications - at a later date. I do not know how to code references but the following may prove helpful: > (King Edward VII School Sheffield) "KES: the Clapton Years" website, list of some Old Edwardians > (Isis magazine, Oxford) signed articles in the magazine Hilary Term 1964 to Hilary Term 1965 > (journalism) numerous signed articles in the publications listed. > (Chambers of Commerce) ABC Annual Reports 1973 - to 1977. > (Confederation of British industry ) full-page article "The Action Man" Daily Express, 24 September 1977 > (Confederation of British Industry) Annual Reports 1978 and 1979

and further research will add to that list. The overall outline is based on Christopher Meakin's self-written webpage on Linked-In , and he has been very helpful to me in filling in the gaps and dates. Peregrine Arkwright (talk) 08:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peregrine Arkwright, I have removed your draft which you had pasted above. The link to it in the heading is sufficient. It's unclear what sort of help you are seeking here. Can you elaborate? Voceditenore (talk) 11:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

+++

Hi Voceditenore: I was only trying to conform to the apparently standard way of doing things on Wikipedia, which is to list lots of references. As said, I am not confident on how to code for those. In practical terms I have taken the draft article about Christopher Meakin as far as I reasonably can while remaining on safe and familiar ground. In normal Wikipedia fashion, let others now add to/amend it as they see fit. My original source was his self-written biography on Linked-In, a very objective piece by normal standards, which I have checked with various third parties and augmented where appropriate.

You and I share a determination that Wikipedia should be factual, accurate and interesting. I have edited other pieces numerous times to that strategic end. I am confident the draft article on Christopher Meakin meets the first two criteria. It is up to you to decide whether it meets the third. If so, I suggest you have green lights all the way. Perry Arkwright, London, UK — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peregrine Arkwright (talk • contribs) 06:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, Peregrine. The most important thing is that you establish that the subject meets our criteria for inclusion. The article as written and with the current "sources" hasn't established that at all. The content must then be verifiable by independent sources and it must not contain original research. Those are two key policies of Wikipedia and they are non-negotiable. Cross-checking his LinkedIn profile with his colleagues and personal communications with the subject "to fill in the gaps" and using that as a basis for the article violates both those policies. If you are serious about trying to get this article on Wikipedia, I suggest your start a sources section with full proper bibliographic details and links to the source itself (where available). If you have trouble formatting them as footnotes, that can wait and other editors can assist you, but you minimally need the list. For example the Daily Express article needs the article's author, exact date of publication, exact page number and some indication of what material it is verifying. Voceditenore (talk) 09:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Rajnishtrifid/sandbox

Hi User:Rajnishtrifid, do you have a question for us? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Oblivion_Machine

Hello, I wrote the article about one perfect music band with a unique style - Oblivion Machine. An article about them already exists in Russian part of wiki (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oblivion_Machine), so I decided to create another one here. Could someone have a look at the article for some issues perhaps (I'm not an English native speaker). Thanks for help! Sergey.agapov (talk) 14:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ColemanResearch

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ColemanResearch What is an ongoing Col. user warned? Also, am I not sourcing correctly? I feel like I've sourced so much and my article keeps being rejected due to inadequate sources. Any advice? Lindsay West 15:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColemanResearch (talk • contribs)

CoI is referring to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

Five of your listed references are to the group's own website, and are therefore of no use for proving notability. The Reuters reference is a press release issued by the group, therefore of no use for proving notability.

Crunchbase listings are submitting by the organisations themselves, therefore of no use for proving notability.

The first of the Bloomberg Businesweek references I look at appeared to be a press release or based on a press release, therefore of no use for proving notability.

"Multex: The little engine Reuters wants" does not mention Coleman Research at all, therefore is of no use for proving its notability.

Hope this helps. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Vengo (album)

I'm wondering what the standards are for an article like this? This album by Ana Tijoux comes out next week, so there isn't a ton of information on it yet, but I know that I've seen articles for albums that are soon to come out. Also, the amount of information currently in this article (which would be updated as singles are released, reviews are created, etc.) is comparable to the information in the articles for some of her other albums (take a look at Elefant Mixtape). I know it's really bare bones, but that's just because the information isn't out there yet. Would it maybe be better as a stub? Helixer (hábleme) 17:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help with first time page creater

Hey i need help with some HTML formatting for the references on this page.

Can anyone help me please!!!

thank you

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Leah_Zell — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magriffin117 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Magriffin117- Welcome to the Articles for Creation Help desk. It is actually not that much technical as Hyper Text Markup Language (HTML) is. Use it as, <ref>www.your-source-url.com</ref>. See, Referencing for beginners. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi there! I was curious about the "notability" rule on Wikipedia? I submitted a tech company that has many articles and secondary sources on the internet, but it was rejected for a lack of notability. Can I get some tips on how to prove notability? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raemorg (talk • contribs) 18:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Raemorg- Welcome to the Articles for Creation Help desk. Single tip on notability is, Significant coverage in secondary, independent and reliable sources. See, Wikipedia notability guideline for comapanies and organizations. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Robert Quigg

Hi.

I'm clicking the green box to submit my article for review, it then takes me to the next page where I click save, but it just brings me back to the first page that says I haven't submitted the article for review. Help please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaurenVL (talk • contribs) 21:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was with the reference tags. Reference tags should look like this:

<ref>[Reference text goes here]</ref>

(Pay close attention to the punctuation.)

I've fixed this, and now the submission notice appears. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 22:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]