Help desk
< May 8	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 10 >

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 9

Review of Draft:Jerry Balmuth

How do I insert a photograph within a biography? mbalmuthMbalmuth (talk) 02:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mbalmuth. This is not a draft. You had created it directly in article space as Jerry Balmuth. This help desk is only for editors enquiring about their submissions to the Articles for Creation process. For general help questions like yours, I suggest you go the Wikipedia Teahouse, "a friendly place to help new editors become accustomed to Wikipedia culture, ask questions, and develop community relationships". Voceditenore (talk) 07:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Daniel James Brown

Hello there! This piece for author Daniel James Brown is the first new article I've created. (I've done some editing.) I think it's in good enough shape to post now. Is it possible to get it posted now or must I wait for review? Granitedesk (talk) 03:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Granitedesk:

Declined Submission fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:GNG, and WP:ANYBIO. The root of the problem is that you've listed various websites including publishers and booksellers but none of those is independent (eg, they have a commercial interest in hyping the author and his books). None of those is considered to be a reliable source. Without the sourcing, the notability case can't be made. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Humanities and Social Sciences Entrance Examination(HSEE)

i had created an article on hsee but it has been rejected saying it contains copy righted information but i assure you that the article was my own and no such information has been copied

05:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.216.66.189 (talk)

Hello, 117.216.66.189. It appears the draft was submitted by User:Arun Raj K M. Is that you? I haven't seen the now deleted draft, but it was deleted on the basis that it was copied or too closely paraphrased from this source. A lot of people make the mistake of taking text from a source and then changing one or two words or leaving out some of the text, thinking that this makes it original material. This may have been the case here. I suggest you prepare for rewriting your draft by reading Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Also, as this exam is used only by the Indian Institute of Technology Madras, it may be better to add a section briefly describing it to the IIT Madras article, rather than creating a stand-alone article. Voceditenore (talk) 06:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Teresa Pastor/sandbox/

Hello,

I recently tried to create an article called "Fedenatur" Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/FEDENATUR but the submission was not accepted because it may have copyrighted content. Can you tell me which content exactely is copyrighted in my submission? Thanks for your help.

Teresa Pastor (talk) 09:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Teresa Pastor: A few sentences like "FEDENATUR was created in 1997 following the 2nd Symposium on natural areas in metropolitan and periurban zones" and "It therefore appeared necessary to establish a network of exchanges between Periurban site managers on a European scale" are copied from fedenatur.org. That second sentence looks like it was lifted from this 2008 book, unless they stole it from Fedenatur. I find that an odd question coming from the Technical Secretariat and Projects Coordinator of Fedenatur. Fedenatur could donate its copyrighted material if that's an avenue you want to pursue. You appear to have a conflict of interest so you should not pursue writing this article. What you could do is offer a reward at the reward board for an un-involved editor to write this for you. Chris Troutman (talk) 09:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rossby wave instability of astrophysical discs

Interested to know the reasons for rejection of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RVELovelace (talk • contribs) 15:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RVELovelace, you need to look again, it was accepted, not rejected - congratulations! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Bouqs Company

I am confused as to what I should modify. An article I am working on Articles_for_creation/The_Bouqs_Company was rejected stating "..should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed." but I have provided numerous articles from very reputable sources including Crunchbase, Hollywoodreporter, LA Business Journal, Reuters, and The Wall Street Journal. How can I possibly have more reputable sources than these?

David Condrey (talk) 16:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, David. It's not just about how many sources are cited, but how much of the information is cited. Granted, I think you have cited a sufficient number of independent reliable sources to demonstrate notability. But most of the information in an article should be cited to those sources. (More information about this is at primary, secondary, and tertiary sources.) I suggest taking out anything that isn't cited to an independent source. I also recommend that you read the advice about so-called peacock terms; this is a concern other than sourcing that can make an article seem like an advertisement. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 03:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello David. I'm going to be frank with you here. Whether or not this is the case here, this draft is typical of the ones we get which are written by people who are associated with the company (often in the marketing department) or paid editors acting on behalf of the company. It is currently written like an advertisement and if/when it goes into article space, it will be heavily cut and edited. If you don't address the following issues, other editors will:

Do not use evaluative adjectives in praise of the company and its business model. The article is currently full of them, e.g. "successful", "prominent", and expressions like "Hollywood's Go-To Florist to the Stars" to describe its floral designer in the infobox, whether that's what Hollywood Reporter calls him or not
Do not describe its products and pricing in detail. This section should go entirely in its present form and structure.
Cut the PR-speak, e.g "with a focus on superior quality, customer service, and low prices by connecting the growers directly with the consumer".
Do not list its Competitors in a sub-section entitled as such and placed under advertising. At most they belong in the standard and neutrally titled separate See also section at the end of the article.
Do not fill the article with links to the company and/or its products. One link to the official website is sufficient. It also violates the guidelines on using external links inline with the article text, i.e. do not link in the text to the pages on iTunes, Google Android, Windows Mobile where the company's mobile apps can be downloaded. Per these guidelines, remove all inline external links, whether they are associated with the company or not.
Rewrite and truncate the Advertising section completely to remove utter trivia like it being offered as a prize on a game a show. So what? Companies donate prizes to game shows all the time as a form of advertising. How is that notable or encyclopedic? Ditto, the CEO's appearance on Shark Tank. At most that belongs in the company history section.
In short, this article about a two-year old start up should be a short, neutral description of the company, its business model, and its history—devoid of adjectives and boring.

Re the referencing. Stick to high-quality sources only, e.g. WSJ and the Forbes article. The "reference-bombing" currently present is often a dead give-away that article has been produced with a conflict of interest. Many of your sources are simply company-authored profiles uploaded to various business sites, Crunchbase, etc. Others are obviously based on press-releases and are duplicative in addition to not being independent. Finally, eliminate references to blogs and self-published sites like Ramblings of a Suburban Mom, and several others. Others are simply advertisements, e.g. this one, masquerading as independent sources. Get rid of those too.

Voceditenore (talk) 09:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for the feedback. I wish that the original reviewer had been as thorough with their review so I would actually have this constructive criticism to give me direction on improving the article. I will work on adjusting the article accordingly before submitting it again.

Before I started writing the page, i looked at the pages of other companies in the same industry and used their format as a guideline of how to compose my article, perhaps this is not an ideal method for composing a new page?
To note just a couple of your mentioned points, I listed competitors because I saw that this was done on these pages: FTD , Teleflora.
Additionally on the Teleflora page they had created a section detailing their advertisement campaigns, so I followed suit with a similar section.
Regarding the History section. Is there a proper format for creating a timeline of events?

-Thanks

David Condrey (talk) 19:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, David. In general, it's usually not a good idea to use just any article as a model. Other articles suffer from problems, too. If you want to model your article after an existing one, look for a good article or a featured article.

About the "History" section: It should be written in prose: Describe the events in one or more paragraphs. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 06:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I adjusted the article to address the points mentioned, can you please take a look at it again? Thanks David Condrey (talk) 18:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How to Remove " redirected from...."

Frank_A._DeMarco AFC feedback was resolved, and this page was moved to mainspace where it has been reviewed and approved, while reviewer from AFC was on a "wikibreak". We do not know how to remove "(Redirected from Wikipedia:Frank A. DeMarco)", which resulted from prior moving to wrong area by mistake. Thank you for your help.Ammiamm (talk) 20:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ammiamm. After you move a page to a different title, a redirect is automatically left behind at the old title. To clear up the "Redirected from" message, I personally always just hit the "Read" tab, and it should clear it up. Don't worry about it too much. If you navigate directly to the title Frank A. DeMarco, and not the erroneous title, then there shouldn't be a "redirected from" message. I hope this makes sense. If I am unclear, feel free to leave a reply below. Best, Mz7 (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mz7 - I see what you saying - the actual page is clear of the re-direct- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_A._DeMarco so then how do we kill the mistake one below so it does not come up in google search? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Frank_A._DeMarco Ammiamm (talk) 03:25, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Ammiamm: I've marked that redirect for speedy deletion; it is in the wrong place. The original name of the draft, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Frank A. DeMarco, should not show up in search engines. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 21:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Draft:R4biagaming

why was my article declined? :| — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethan2234 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ethan2234. Your article was declined because it does not show how this organization is notable. Notability on Wikipedia generally means that other people not affiliated with the organization have talked about it (brief summary of this requirement). You have not cited anything from other people, only the company's website. To fix this, add references to things like newspaper or magazine articles that have talked about this company. If you need help adding references, you can go to the introduction to referencing or referencing for beginners. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 02:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]