Help desk
< March 24	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 26 >

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 25

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Captain Selby Yetman, Spaniard's Bay, NL Canada

I have prepared my draft which has now been refined and completed but I don't know how to submit it for publication:

I've moved the link to the article draft to the section heading. Anon126 (talk - contribs)

Captain Al Yetman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.143.227 (talk) 00:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Near the top of the article there is a button that reads "Submit your draft when you are ready for it to be reviewed!" Just click that and wait for a review. Even before it is reviewed, you should check back once in a while for any comments. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 00:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation American Standards

Hi,

I'm hoping to understand how to get the picture of the band American Standards to show under the bands name. I reviewed the coding on other artist pages and did a fair amount of research online but still am unable to figure it out. The picture coding is in the edit page but does not appear when I review. I've uploaded and used the common grounds url;

| image = https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Small_American_Standards_Promotional_Band_Photo_Permission_Grant_By_Band_For_Wiki_Use.jpg

Thank you!

FoundationAgency (talk) 01:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)FoundationAgency[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/American_Standards

I've fixed this for you... you needed the filename File:Small American Standards Promotional Band Photo Permission Grant By Band For Wiki Use.jpg not the full URL. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/HKU Dry Club

i don't know why my application was not accepted. my article was HKU Dry Club — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eng.class.cityu (talk • contribs) 01:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons are in the grey box in the pink decline notice at the top of your draft. Read the reasons and click on the blue links to read the guidelines for a better understanding. Voceditenore (talk) 07:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Aaron Fisher

Hey there - how do I find out why my article was decline? I'd very much like to improve it and get it posted! Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.140.170 (talk) 06:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP ((u|135.23.140.170}}- You'll be notified on your user talk page and If you visit your declined submission page, you'll find a light-pink decline box on top with reasons of decline and few helpful links to improve your submission. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 09:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

}}

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Principle Group

Hello,

Would it be possible to get some feedback about why Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Principle Group was rejected? The feedback was that "this submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability", but as far as I can tell I followed the guidelines. Perhaps I missed something simple?

Thanks, Martyn

Martyn D E (talk) 10:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bath Cabinet Makers Draft

Please can someone high up in the chain remove the word DRAFT from the above title.

The name of the article is

Bath Cabinet Makers (NOT Bath Cabinet Makers Draft)

I cannot edit it out myself

The article has been accepted by Sarah Stierch

Thank you Psychetube (talk) 10:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've moved it to Bath Cabinet Makers. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Andrew Briggs

I seem to be going round and round with this submission, with reviewers asking for a change, which I have made, only for a different issue to be subsequently raised. It will be much easier for me if all issues could be raised at once so they can be fixed once and for all.MrArmstrong2 (talk) 11:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have short-circuited that process by accepting the article. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

oh my dear it's too hard to write an article on Wiki! I can't do it!!!!!! thank you Paola

Review of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Richard_Foreman

Could you help explain why it was rejected?

There are independent references- including the Guardian.

Any ideas?

(C.h.books (talk) 12:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]

DO I need to include more like below: http://www.literaryfestivals.co.uk/londonhistory.html

(C.h.books (talk) 12:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

We don't generally consider GoodReads to be an independent reliable source. That means that, although yes the Guardian article is an independent reliable source that mentions Foreman, it's the only one your submission currently has. And also, it does not say very much about Foreman. Adding a link to a website of an event run by Foreman does not get around the issue that you need to provide references to significant coverage of Foreman in multiple independent reliable sources. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, if what's written about Foreman's work as an author is correct, it should be easy to satisfy the requirements of Wikipedia:NAUTHOR by referencing reviews of books that he has written. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Run4TheRoses3779/sandbox

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Run4TheRoses3779/sandbox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Run4TheRoses3779 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question, Run4TheRoses3779? I notice that the text in your sandbox is identical to what was in Munster's Mission, speedily deleted a couple of hours ago as blatant advertising. Before continuing with the draft, I suggest you read the guidance at Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. It also looks to me as if large parts of your draft are copied from somewhere. Am I right? – Voceditenore (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update. Half of the article was a verbatim paste from this site. It has been removed as a copyright infringement. Please do not restore it and please read my further comment about this issue at the draft itself. Voceditenore (talk) 14:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Your submission name here Indu Nivas Prafulla Chandran Pilla

Sir May I know why my article Indu Nivas Prafulla Chandran Pilla was declined..? Jacob prince — Preceding unsigned comment added by JACOB PRINCE JACOB (talk • contribs) 16:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Indu Nivas Prafulla Chandran Pilla was declined for the reasons given in the pink box at the top of that page. Click on the links in the decline reason to learn more. A single reference to a newspaper article, lacking full details, is not sufficient to prove the notability of a topic. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cellar Darling (Album)

Hi, I was making the world a page for my favourite album by my favourite artist (She don't have her own page yet either, but I'll let an official on her life do that one, I just linked her to the biography on her site...and it was rejected? Can someone tell me what happened? It won it's first award and everything, and I'm really proud of her and I went to look it up on here and saw it didn't get one, so I made a page. Please inform me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.41.210 (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In general, Wikipedia needs significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. (Follow the link for more on what that means.) One award is usually not enough to count (and the article doesn't even say what award it is).

I also suggest that you should go through the editing tutorial to learn how to format and cite sources. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 21:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help with notability

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/United States Agricultural Information Network (USAIN)

I need help regarding "This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability" I thought I followed the guidelines regarding "significant coverage in reliable, independent sources", but I am clearly off the mark. I reside in the world of science and academia where scholarly books and peer reviewed journals are the ultimate independent and reliable sources. But perhaps 10 references are not enough? For Wikipedia, are "popular" sources of information preferable- even if less reliable? (newspapers, magazines, etc.)

Regarding: "Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia." Does this refer to the fact that these journals and books are not open access and that only subscribers can view their content? (though there may be some open access in the list, I'm not sure), If I were to include doi's and URL's through my own institution that are still only accessible if one has a subscription, would this "improve the referencing"?

What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject. - How many more? I was hoping the article would go up and others could add without me having to do all the research. Based on other submissions, I thought that 10 was more than enough - or is the issue more with the lack of "popular sources"? They are peer reviewed journal and scholarly books, so entirely independent and reliable.

It is disheartening to be rejected so I'd like to get the last attempt right or know when to stop trying.

Thanks in Advance.

NatDezo

NatDezo (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I accepted it, and moved it to United States Agricultural Information Network. There is a redirect from your original title, and also from USAIN. I think it sufficiently shows importance under the GNG, but of course anyone who thinks otherwise can challenge it. (The informal standard for acceptance if a reasonable likelihood of passing AfD -- often interpreted as 50%, and it certainly is that.) It needed major rewriting, because a good deal of it was copyvio from their website. Normally, that would be sufficient reason not just for declining the AfC , but for immediate deletion--the earlier reviewers should have spotted it, because the tone was so exactly that of a organizational website, full of wordiness and official language. The only reason I didn't do the deletion as an administrator was because I have a special interest in libraries, recognized the organization as important, and decided I was willing to do the work and take the responsibility. This is not something that any contributor can count on: we expect contributors to do their own writing and as a minimum read our rule that material must be original, not copied from elsewhere. I've usually done one or two such rewrites a week, but nobody has the obligation to do that for you. I also made a number of necessary formatting improvement: They are no reason to decline an article, since all articles are subject to improvement, but it does affect the way people look at it, DGG ( talk ) 03:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:USFisheries

I didn't add the title of the page:

Bears Bluff National Fish Hatchery

and also how do I upload the image to Wikipedia my folder?

Thanks, Steve

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Blair Park the automated geo coordinates are incorrect. How do I correct them?

The automated geo coordinates in the upper RH part of the page are incorrect. How do I correct them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfcallahan1 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gainor Roberts

I would like to fix as many of the problems with Articles for creation/Gainor Roberts as possible before resubmitting. I am now down to

1) Categories--how do I get them into a box, or do you do that when reviewing? 2) Do I need to delete the previous comments before resubmitting? 3) I want to include two photographs of Roberts' paintings, but after reading the page on copyright issues and importing, I still haven't a clue how to proceed. What do I do? 4) I have an internal link to an article on Kafi Benz that references my subject. Do I need to link to the paragraph within the article and if so, how do I do that? 5) I have an "External References" section with only one article. Should I include more on painting technique?

I would appreciate your assistance yet again. Thank you! Evelyn4414 (talk) 20:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC) Evelyn 4414[reply]

They will be placed in the category box if the article draft is accepted.
No. As a matter of fact, you should keep all the old comments, so that reviewers can see what progress has been made.
The paintings are most likely still under copyright, so by policy they cannot be added until the draft is accepted.
Generally, it is not necessary to link to the specific section, but if you wish, the code is [[Article name#Section tit:le]], or, in this case, [[Kafi Benz#Fine arts activities]]
If you have only a few general references, you can include them in the same section as {{reflist}}.

Anon126 (talk - contribs) 21:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Be. Accessible

Hello, I'm failing a bit at this whole creating a new article for the Be. Accessible (title of the article) Movement in New Zealand. I wondered if it would be more likely to be approved if it were submitted as a "stub" instead? I've checked another New Zealand disability sector service provider (Blind Foundation NZ) and that seems to be how theirs works.

Thanks, Ambrosia.recordsAmbrosia.records (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ambrosia.records. Whether it's a stub or not makes no difference to it meeting the criteria for inclusion, although trimming an article of any kind of PR-speak and "Mission statement" material is always a good thing. The problem is that all the references so far are to the initiative's parent institute, the initiative's website, press release-based material, or the head of the parent institute talking about it. This initiative is quite new (2011), and thus coverage beyond the types of sources you've used is going to be hard to find in the short term. I had a look at the Blind Foundation (New Zealand) article you mentioned. It was very poorly sourced, but I was able to rectify that quite easily. Its importance and a history which dates back to 1890 can be found in multiple independent sources, including a lengthy write-up in The Lighthouse Handbook on Vision Impairment and Vision Rehabilitation (Oxford University Press). You might find Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations and this essay helpful. Voceditenore (talk) 16:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Voceditenore,

Thanks for your help. Ambrosia.records (talk) 03:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]