Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2014 October 15
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < October 14 | << Sep | October | Nov >> | October 16 > |
| 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. |
October 15
[edit]This has been waiting for more than 6 months now. Is there a way to make it go faster? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.15.39.100 (talk) 06:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yes. It needs to be submitted. It has not been waiting for anything. However, it will be declined unless the reviewer's comments are dealt with. t requires references. Fiddle Faddle 08:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, not being used to the process I was not aware that a comment had been made. I will make the changes as requested.
UekiUeki (talk) 06:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- Please see the comments made to what I assume to be your message directly above this. In view of the fact that you have declared that you are working in it I have removed the potential deletion. It is a clock that ticks for six months. Fiddle Faddle 08:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
16:03:32, 15 October 2014 review of submission by Edward Bermingham
[edit]Not sure l understand the reason behind declining my article. Edward Bermingham (talk) 16:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Edward Bermingham: The reasons are on the draft itself. Those comments seem clear to me. Do you have a more specific question? Chris Troutman (talk) 03:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
18:16:25, 15 October 2014 review of submission by Phambric
[edit]Hi! Can you please give me some insight as to why my article was declined? It says that I need more reliable sources--can you tell me which sources I listed are not reliable? Thank you in advance! ~Paige Phambric (talk) 18:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Phambric: First, many of the sources you listed aren't reliable; please read that guideline. Often if the source isn't a published book or a journalistic source it may be problematic. Second, you've listed a bunch of Wall Street Journal articles where the subject provided a quote. That doesn't connote notability. The source material has to be about the source. Also, your draft is still horribly promotional. If you honestly think you can have a section entitled "thought leader" then you suffer from a cognitive bias that we can't fix for you. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thank you. I selected "Industry Expert/Thought Leader" because that's what another source had referred to him as. I appreciate your help. I will do some editing and resubmit it soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phambric (talk • contribs) 05:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
20:12:31, 15 October 2014 review of submission by Link576
[edit]I just need to know so i can fix it. Link576 (talk) 20:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Pardon for disturbing you, i was wondering why my article was declined on Entity 303? if it was because i did not confirm where my info came from please tell me so i can make amendments.
Thank you Link576
- @Link576: Wikipedia is not here for you to post nonsense. Try the Minecraft Wiki. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
21:19:26, 15 October 2014 review of submission by Efrain Ib
[edit]
Efrain Ib (talk) 21:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello,
Stuck on writing Article on South County EDC.
First time writing Article.
Can you make suggestions on improvement .
And, can you give me steps to speak with live chat.
thank you .
- @Efrain Ib: You cannot use the SCEDC website as a source about it. You'll need to find independent reliable sources to make a case for notability. If you want to live chat see the link at the help desk. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
22:28:20, 15 October 2014 review of submission by 138.202.138.77
[edit]
Thank you for reviewing our draft: “University of San Francisco Silicon Valley Immersion Programs.” However, we have a couple questions about your decision to decline our submission. We very much appreciate Wikipedia’s dedication to chronicling the history of our past and present world. Our main reason for creating a Wiki page was to be a part of that history by chronicling our role in the Silicon Valley ecosystem through our education initiatives. As part of the university, we are driven to create a positive educational impact and would like to be represented among the many organizations already listed on Wikipedia in relation to that Silicon Valley ecosystem.
We would like to work with you to address the problematic issues that you mentioned:
“This article appears to be written like an advertisement.” – Since we are new to writing Wikipedia articles, please let us know how we should go about fixing this. We tried to keep to the facts – numbers of participants, countries they are from, some of our partners, our history, our areas of focus, and our faculty —how can we further streamline this to be compliant?
“A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view.” – Yes, this was written by someone associated with the university. How should we go about making this more neutral? Does it need to be written by someone outside the university?
“This article needs additional citations for verification. / This article relies on references to primary sources.” Since we are a specific program as part of a larger university, most of our sources are through the university itself, so we have few outside sources. Should we use outside sources that cite the university as a whole? Would it work better if our page was linked to the main University of San Francisco page?
Also, we noticed many other educational or Silicon Valley institutions and programs similar to ours that were approved for inclusion in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Executive_Education_Center
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnegie_Mellon_Silicon_Valley
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_Senior_Executive_Program
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGill_Executive_Institute
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_International_School_of_Silicon_Valley
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_Valley_Education_Foundation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish-American_Chamber_of_Commerce_San_Francisco/Silicon_Valley
It would be great to clarify how our Wiki page is different from these already approved pages.
Again, we appreciate all your hard work in keeping Wikipedia to a high standard of quality and want to make every effort to be a part of this incredible project of capturing the world’s history. Any specific suggestions for improving our article would be much appreciated!
Thanks!
138.202.138.77 (talk) 22:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- Who's "we"? Accounts are meant for use by one person, not on behalf of a collective.
- While I understand your confusion, you can't point to other articles to excuse issues with your draft. Those articles aren't "approved," they simply escaped our notice. Wikipedians don't have to submit drafts for approval, as you do.
- Yes, you'll need to find independent sources.
- Sentences like
"The SVI Programs leverage the geographical advantages of Silicon Valley and San Francisco Bay Area and are fully customized to meet the needs of participants."
scream promotion. Who says this is true? How can you verify the subject is actually fully customized or meets the needs of participants? The pictures of notable faculty is inexcusable. You don't see that at the article about Yale. - This draft violates our rule against using Wikipedia like a place to make your own website. This is an encyclopedia.
- I hope all of this makes plain the issue. You would do well to visit the reward board to ask other Wikipedians to help you. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)