Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2015 September 4
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < September 3 | << Aug | September | Oct >> | September 5 > |
| 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. |
September 4
[edit]
Hi I am having ongoing difficulty trying to meet the Wikipedia guidelines on notability. I have conducted significant research into Shane Moran who is a well known business and public figure in Sydney and New South Wales generally. The Moran family name is notable in Australian business, and Shane family has famous and colourful history. Shane has been the subject of a number of periodicals, however, my research has thus far failed to meet the requirements. Would you please assist me in highlighting his notability and shoring up the research relating to this.
Mojohi10 (talk) 00:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
08:09:17, 4 September 2015 review of submission by 203.199.205.25
- 203.199.205.25 (talk · contribs)
- No draft specified!
I could not understand why the post was declined. The celebrity in question is popular with many noted Indian newspapers writing about him on Sep. 3rd, 2015. Kindly help in correcting the page. Thanks.
203.199.205.25 (talk) 08:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
11:42:37, 4 September 2015 review of submission by Rdewan23
[edit]
I believe that this subject is notable being a Human Rights lawyer and former diplomat that has been written about in many newspaper articles.
Rdewan23 (talk) 11:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Rdewan23 - Some of the sources you have referenced do not mention Sheldon at all and others contain barely a passing mention. None of the independent sources actually discuss Sheldon himself in any detail - at most some quote a few phrases from him about various issues. You need to find independent sources that write directly about Sheldon in significant depth. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
13:11:39, 4 September 2015 review of submission by CAUSSIN
[edit]First, when you lern how to drive one card and it is you first time, take time for be expert , how fast you can drive oll the way , you have to be shure for that, it is the same case for my requesting, I wand to lern and be expert how can be if you oll the time rebuke me and I Can not concentrate that s wy I waste time (caussin) (talk) 13:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC) (caussin) (talk) 13:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- @CAUSSIN: Wikipedia is designed to be used as an encyclopedia, not a social network. The page you submitted was rejected because it was a personal message, not an encyclopedia article. I also don't mean to be rude in any way, but it doesn't appear that your English spelling and grammar is good enough for you to be able to contribute to the English-Language Wikipedia. If you're better in another language, you can probably find a Wikipedia in that language at https://www.wikipedia.org/. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
14:08:10, 4 September 2015 review of submission by Roberta Buoite Stella
[edit]
Hello everyone,
I would like some help with this article. It was refused because it sounds like advertisement. The reviewer told me that the two major problems are the tone (I am working on correcting that) and the fact that the parts of the system are listed like a list of products. I would like to know if you have any suggestion on how to describe how the system works without mentioning the single parts. I am not sure how to proceed with this.
(There is a COI, since I am working for this company, but I am ready to change anything in the article that doesn't respect the guidelines of Wikipedia).
Thank you very much!
Roberta Buoite Stella (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Roberta Buoite Stella: When you discussed the system-parts question with the reviewer here, you asked for examples of good ways to describe complex products. Studying these three featured articles may help you:
- Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not the place to "get the word out" about any product. Wikipedia is not for advertising, marketing, or public relations. Worldbruce (talk) 01:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
After receiving the feedback that I had to make my article about the World Press Institute more encyclopedic in tone, I did that but got back the same remarks. Could you please highlight which terms and sentences are not complying with what wikipedia is looking for, so I can adjust them to the standard that will be accepted? Thank you so much.
SleepyGiant14 (talk) 14:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Accepted @SleepyGiant14: The tone still isn't quite right, but World Press Institute is solid enough to take its chances in article space. The most glaring sentence is the mission statement. If you keep it at all, I would move it out of the lead, probably to the "Today" section, and would using inline attribution like "According to WPI, their mission is 'to blah blah blah'". Remember that the lead should be a summary of the body of the article.- There are many avenues that could be developed, and I hope you will continue improving the article. Any relation to the Ford/Rockefeller funded (Zurich?) World Press Institute of 1951? What else does the institute do aside from the fellowships? Explain more fully its funding and the funding crisis. Describe the institute's governing body and who has been running it for 50 years. Add more alumni and a few words describing the significance of each (e.g. editor of ..., Member of Parliament for ..., president of XYZ broadcasting). Worldbruce (talk) 10:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
15:04:37, 4 September 2015 review of submission by Elisaclark
[edit]- Elisaclark (talk · contribs)
This article was rejected for lack of reliable sources. I've read the wikipedia articles on reliable sources and citations and am still unsure as to which citations/sources are problematic. Any help on this is greatly appreciated.Elisaclark (talk) 15:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Elisaclark (talk) 15:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- Sources are judged more by quality than by quantity. A reviewer who sees 45 sources, most of them worthless (e.g. no. 42, which does not mention the subject of the article) or inaccessible, is not going to try and check every one. I suggest you remove almost all of them, and keep only the good ones (if there are any). Maproom (talk) 21:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
My article was recently declined do to lack or resources and notability. I'm not exactly clear as to how I can improve the current sources. They are independent sources that clearly support the factual information in the entry - I don't see how I can make an independent source "better" or "more factual." If anyone can provide me with some insight or specific suggestions, I'd be really appreciative... thanks!
J
Jefftowns (talk) 17:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Jefftowns: Most companies are unsuitable topics for Wikipedia articles. This is especially true of comparatively new, small, and private companies - not because such companies are in any way bad, but because they usually haven't yet had a lasting impact on the historical record or drawn sufficient coverage in reliable sources to justify inclusion in an encyclopedia. StreetShares has potential as a topic; the Washington Business Journal article is a good start. It would be easier to demonstrate notability if there were a second reliable source with at least as much depth. As it is, you have to argue that a few sentences here and a couple paragraphs there adds up to significant coverage, which can be a tough sell.
- The draft reads like a press release, which may be difficult for you to see if you have a close connection to the subject or if you have a background in marketing. It might help to rewrite it without using the company or the Accion-StreetShares press release, which are not independent of the company. Also be sure that the draft doesn't play fast and loose with the facts. NASDAQ doesn't say that, StreetAuthority does. ("The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc.") Forbes doesn't say that, it reports that one borrower, Khan, said that. Entrepreneur doesn't say at all what is claimed in the draft. Worldbruce (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)