Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2015 July 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< July 25 << Jun | July | Aug >> July 27 >
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.


July 26

[edit]

Request on 00:17:45, 26 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Onlinejonathan

[edit]


Hi, my article keeps getting declined for different reasons. I fail to see how its advertising when there isnt all that much information and whats in is backed with sources. It seems as if every time its declined just because it was declined before. How can this be reviewed with a fresh eye and actually give me the real reason and how to fix because I was refereed to all. Thanks Onlinejonathan (talk) 00:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Onlinejonathan (talk) 00:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think its that far away from what is acceptable. I've left you some thoughts on the draft. I'm also asking Sulfurboy if they would mind re-looking at their last review to consider whether it is as clear cut as they believe. Fiddle Faddle 13:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
THANK YOU! should I just wait? Onlinejonathan (talk) 20:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is lots of contentious material such as "The method is designed to suit different groups of kids, teens and adults including special groups such as ADHD and PDD diagnosed kids and teens, deaf and blind population, gifted children and also adults and elders." This is making a bold statement without independent backing. And to be honest, I need to further examine the other sources to ensure they actually confirm what is stated and are indpendet. Further I would cut the awards section and just implement what is most relevant into the article itself. Cheers. Sulfurboy (talk) 23:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sulfurboy Thanks! Since I am not sure what to do, I must reask - should I wait to hear from you? Onlinejonathan (talk) 14:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wait to hear from me about what? The article? If you feel it's ready please just resubmit it. It'll be reviewed by either me or another editor.Sulfurboy (talk) 14:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

02:41:19, 26 July 2015 review of submission by Natraam

[edit]


i just want to know how to submit the article in this wikipedia page and i want to know where is the mistakes and what i will include in this article Natraam (talk) 02:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It tells you how to resubmit it, and it tells you what is required before you do. You need to visit the draft. Fiddle Faddle 12:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

07:01:12, 26 July 2015 review of draft by Joyful Stone

[edit]


I made my first submission, noted above, on 11 July 2015. How long does approval (or rejection) usually take and how will I be advised. Joyful Stone (talk) 07:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem not to have completed the submission process. I have dine so for you. I have not reviewed it. Fiddle Faddle 12:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

10:57:00, 26 July 2015 review of submission by Paran.agvb

[edit]


Paran.agvb (talk) 10:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC) Sir my article has been rejected. what kind of additional information shoul I provide for acceptance of the same? Draft:AGVBEA[reply]

Perhaps you need to visit the draft and read the comment that was left their when it was declined. If you have any further questions ease come back to this thread. There is no need to start a new one. Fiddle Faddle 12:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

13:45:49, 26 July 2015 review of submission by Myaccount7

[edit]


Myaccount7 (talk) 13:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC) adg;lkjhgfertyklui;ouijhklfkjhrusyf;lkjfhhjkgfgjhjghkj[reply]

What more would you like to know? Fiddle Faddle 15:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

16:25:24, 26 July 2015 review of submission by Sanford1504

[edit]


Sanford1504 (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

–––Can someone please point out the specific sources I've cited on the page Toby Lerner Ansin that are viewed as questionable. I would sincerely appreciate some help. I'm a relative new comer to Wikipedia. Sanford1504 (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)sanford1504[reply]

I accepted this. Newspapers looked to be reliable, but many of these do not have substantial content on the topic. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:13:29, 26 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Smithr32

[edit]


Attempted to create a Wikipedia Article for Youtuber Matthew Lush (aka GayGod) however I don't have any additional information about the Youtuber than provided in the article with links.

Smithr32 (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission won't be accepted at this time. Thank you, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

19:35:37, 26 July 2015 review of submission by Rjames32

[edit]


Hello,

While I am not requesting a re-review at this time, I am interesting in knowing how best to improve the article for which I'm seeking publication. The rejection stated the references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Questions: 1) The references are in the form of links to pages that establish validity of this person's body of work—should these appear in the form of footnotes instead external links? (Perhaps my confusion lies in understanding the difference.) 2) If links are acceptable, are additional references required? 3) Are book and film reviews considered credible references? 4) While the purpose of the article is to show notability as a novel author and documentary film writer and producer of the works listed, the subject has made notable contributions in other fields, for example, education. Would increasing the content of the biographical information in this article help establish notability and increase chances of publication on Wikipedia?

Thank you for any guidance! I have read many resources provided by Wikipedia, yet these questions remain.

obliged, Rjames32


Rjames32 (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a comment on the draft for you. (1) yes, please. (2) further references do no harm, but see also WP:CITEKILL. Overreferencing is bad. (3) it depends whether the reviews are genuinely independent and themselves in WP:RS (4) Always. Fiddle Faddle 19:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rjames32, I'd like to add that if you can find reviews (in mainstream media or literary magazines or reputable websites (not Goodreads or Amazion readers comments!) of the books you could expand the books section. Some basic biographical detail such as where he was born, educated, family, etc, would also help - provided you can properly source it of course. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

21:40:06, 26 July 2015 review of submission by Maproom

[edit]

I created this draft three months ago, in response to this request at the Help Desk. But the OP did not respond. I feel unable to judge whether the draft is worthy of conversion to an article, or needs further work, or maybe the subject isn't really notable. I don't know if this is the right place to ask for an opinion, but I couldn't find a better place. Maproom (talk) 21:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC) Maproom (talk) 21:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A great person to ask on this is DGG, who seems to manage, somehow, to find the time to look at articles on academics and reach a conclusion. Fiddle Faddle 22:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unquestionably notable a/c WP:PROF. I accepted it (the orig article submitted was copyvio from his obit, and Maproom rewrote it, the ideal solution. The difficulties with judging notability by WP:PROF are when it is necessary to make a judgment of being an authority in the subject, without any such unambiguous indications as here. Besides member National Acad of Sciences, he was a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the Institute of Medicine,& president of the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. Any of these 4 is always notable. DGG ( talk )

Request on 22:58:06, 26 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by E W Musgrave

[edit]


I have received this message: This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

I have been a journalist for 35 years. I am editorial director of Drapers, which has been the fashion industry's leading journal since 1887. I am the Professional Publishers Association's Business Media Editor of the Year 2015 (I won the equivalent title in 2003 also).I spent several weeks researching my feature on Don McCarthy, who is a significant figure in UK and international fashion retailing and is a generous donor to cancer research charities. I would certainly carry it in my publication and indeed much of it was included (in a different form) this spring when Mr McCarthy received Drapers' Lifetime Achievement Award for his career in the footwear sector specifically.

Don McCarthy deserves a Wikipedia entry and I feel that you are wrong to reject this feature.

I respectfully ask that you reconsider this decision. The sources quoted include The Times, The (London) Standard, The Daily Telegraph, plus long-established trade papers Drapers, Retail Week and Retail Jeweller. Which of the points in this article is "not adequately supported by reliable sources"?

I look forward to your prompt reply.

Yours sincerely Eric Musgrave Editorial director, Drapers PPA Business Media Editor of the Year 2015 & 2003

E W Musgrave 22:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Did you go to the draft to read the full comment? I am thinking you did not.
Please understand that no-one cares about anyone's credentials here. Wikipedia is a great leveller. I'm glad you have won some prizes. Loads of folk here have, too, but we don't tell folk about them.
If you have been a journalist as long as you say and have been a crack editor, them you will know how to take editorial direction. Here, we set the editorial standard. In your work, you do. Fiddle Faddle 23:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Specific advice: Use longer paragraphs--this is an encycopedia , not a trade magazine or newspaper. Focus the article on him-- condense some of the business detail that is peripheral to him as an individual, & also the philanthropy, which is relatively minor . Avoid adjectives of praise, & vague statements like "one of the largest". Try to find a working ref for retailweek.com if that's being used for the routine facts, and also specify the details for its printed version. DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2015_July_26&oldid=674023427"