Help desk
< April 1	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 3 >

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.

April 2

17:57:14, 1 April 2015 review of submission by Grahamboat

Grahamboat (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Talen Energy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

On March 18 I submitted Talen Energy for an AFC. On March 19 Reviewer L235 declined on the basis of not enough refs to support notability. Following their advice I added several independent, reliable, secondary sources and resubmitted. On March 22 I received a reply from L235 stating I’m still not sure but will refer to another reviewer for an independent look. Unfortunately, some of the history became hidden in a misnamed archive - This isn't my talk page but I noticed that you have both User talk:L235/Archives/ 20 and User talk:L235/Archive 20. I could be wrong, but that probably isn't a good sign. Dustin (talk) 02:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC). This is the correct page [1]

My question is: did this cause a loss in the queue or is it simply a matter of too many articles/too few reviewers? Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 17:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please disregard as article accepted. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 23:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

05:58:04, 2 April 2015 review of submission by Medals97

Medals97 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Karkar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

i edited my article again, correcting some of my mistakes and adding more detail and elements. i just want to ask, what is meant by this "articles on fictional subjects should cover their real-world context and contain sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance" and how do i fix it? Can i have an example?

Medals97 (talk) 05:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Up in the Air (2009 film) is an example of a recognised Wikipedia Good Article about a comedy film released in the same era. The significant difference to note is that the Plot section takes up a relatively small proportion of the article, and there is a wide range of independent sources used to support the article content.

Numerous other recognised Wikipedia Good Articles about films can be found at Wikipedia:Good articles/Media and drama#Films. A Draft need not be as long or comprehensive as these to be accepted, but they can give a good idea of the sort of structure and balance to aim for. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

08:12:06, 2 April 2015 review of submission by Frankgray

Frankgray (talk · contribs)

I don't want to have it rejected again when I submit it. I would therefore be grateful if you could look at the major revisions in the article in my sandbox (or do I need to Submit it again for it to become visible? I will await your response before re-submitting... Thanks! Frank Gray (talk) 08:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Frankgray: The way to get a reviewer to look at the revisions in your article is to submit it for review. There's no downside to getting rejected again -- it just means that you have more work to do. This help desk is not a way to "jump the queue" to get your article looked at. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

14:33:04, 2 April 2015 review of submission by WhitneyWells

WhitneyWells (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Warren Snodgrass, M.D. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A reviewer added a line in the references about an article in the dallas morning news about this doctor. That article presents the surgeon in a negative light. The article is also false as the surgeon was found innocent in all counts! It was published prior to the surgeon knowing anything about it and the surgeon was found absolutely innocent. This should not be a listed reference because it has nothing to do with this doctor or his accomplishments.

WhitneyWells (talk) 14:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@WhitneyWells: Unfortunately, having a Wikipedia article written about a person means that the article will contain both positive and negative information about them. If reliable sources reported on a subject there is nothing wrong with including it in the article, even if it portrays them in a negative light. Is the article "false" in stating that the University demoted him?

If reliable sources also reported later that he was found innocent, you can add that to the article so it would read something like:

In 2013, ''[[The Dallas Morning News]]'' reported that Snodgrass had been demoted from his leadership positions at Children's Medical Center and [[The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center]]. The university said that he demonstrated judgment "inconsistent with our values and expectations of our leaders" when he invited a visiting lecturer to Children's. The visitor's medical license had previously been suspended following allegations of sexual misconduct with patients.<ref name=Egerton>{{cite web|last1=Egerton|first1=Brooks|title=UT Southwestern demotes surgeon who invited alleged sex abuser as guest lecturer|url=http://www.dallasnews.com/investigations/headlines/20130913-ut-southwestern-demotes-surgeon-who-invited-alleged-sex-abuser-as-guest-lecturer.ece|publisher=[[The Dallas Morning News]]|accessdate=April 2, 2015|date=September 13, 2013}}</ref> However, in SOMEYEAR, Dr. Snodgrass was found not to have committed any wrongdoing.<ref>RELIABLESOURCE</ref>

But you shouldn't remove the demotion just because it presents him in a negative light. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was cleared up. A new article was never published because by the time the court hearing happened overseas it was old news here in the US. Either way this shouldn't effect Dr. Snodgrass. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/west_midlands/7906766.stm Bracka is another internationally known hypospadias specialist. BRacka was acquitted in all instances. We are dealing with a birth defect of the penis. It's obviously a sensitive matter and the young men who go through this have a lot of emotional damage from not having a functional penis. They want someone to take that rage out on. In all cases the courts agreed that no misconduct occurred here. Please consider that while I understand positive and negative information is out there- this has nothing to do with Dr. Snodgrass. He invited the only other world specialist there was to a conference that was all about hypospadias repair. That's it. Thank you.

I just don't think it's accurate to describe this as "cleared up." Both before and after the acquittal, the plastic surgeon's medical board investigated allegations of a sexual nature. A couple of years before the trial, they required the surgeon to have a chaperone present for exams. After the trial, another investigation found allegations that were credible and disturbing enough to suspend him. He remains suspended by that agency. The suspension occurred several months before the visit to Dallas (facilitated by Snodgrass). I couldn't find any source indicating that Snodgrass was returned to his leadership position. EricEnfermero (Talk) 11:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would also say that I didn't include the trial/acquittal information or the previous disciplinary action, because it didn't seem directly related to Snodgrass. Dr. Snodgrass seems notable in urology for his innovations in surgery and I didn't want to give this issue undue weight by going on and on about the plastic surgeon. I think the current wording provides a good explanation of why he lost his leadership position at UTSW/Children's - without harping on the issue unnecessarily. EricEnfermero (Talk) 11:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EricEnfermero The doctor had no idea of any of these overseas hearings or the other surgeons problems before inviting him! Again it was unfair because Dr. Snodgrass was surprised and upset and got a call from Childrens finding out about the whole thing minutes before they went on stage and there was nothing they could do at that point. Childrens said not to say anything it would just make things worse and it would all blow over but because the trial didn't happen until such a long time later it became a big stink. It's very unfair to say it was poor judgement when he didn't even know. And now it's supposed to tarnish him when it had nothing to do with him? Bracka was fully acquitted and the courts found that the nature of any exam like this must be performed in this matter to diagnose properly. Bracka was the only other world expert which is why they needed him for that conference. It's really unfair to taint one doctors whole appearance over something that was completely shocking and out of his control. Thats all. I really appreciate your help and understanding. Please make Dr. Snodgrass' page about him and his procedure...not about the things that happened to a world expert in his same field of medicine that lived across the world from him. Please? Can you follow up with me? And is there any way you can talk about the Charity dr. Snodgrass started? It's called Operation Happenis and hypospadias moms want to raise awareness about it because its the second most common birth defect in the world! And they are hoping to do a 5K to kick off the charity sometime next year! It would be so amazing! Thanks again! WhitneyWells (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

QUESTION: EricEnfermero if you are having to say what the DMA article said can you word it in a way that more accurately presents what occurred? Example: "Snodgrass was removed as academic chief of pediatric urology for inviting Aivar Bracka, another internationally known hypospadias surgeon, to moderate a scientific program when it was learned that Mr. Bracka's license had been removed for allegations of inappropriate sexual contacts with patients." It is also a fact not emphasized by the DMA but emphasized by at least 10 other newspapers (two referenced above) that Bracka had been found innocent of these charges in a British court of law. Thank you so much. WhitneyWells (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another DMN piece says that he did at least know about the license revocation and that he apologized for not disclosing that to administrators before the surgeon's arrival. I don't think your proposed version would be accurate because the revocation (even if not the entire circumstances) is reported as known (by Snodgrass) well before Snodgrass was removed as chief. My take on mentioning the charity is that it would be more promotional and not so encyclopedic. As far as I can tell, the charity has not been covered in any independent sources at all. EricEnfermero (Talk) 14:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

20:44:18, 2 April 2015 review of draft by 99.104.118.168

99.104.118.168 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:The Tim And Henry Show (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

99.104.118.168 (talk) 20:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@99.104.118.168: What is your question? Your draft has not yet been submitted for review. Please add citations to significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article and then click on the button that says "Submit your draft when you are ready for it to be reviewed!". --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]