Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2016 April 15
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < April 14 | << Mar | April | May >> | Current help desk > |
| 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 15
[edit]04:27:57, 15 April 2016 review of submission by Markadley
[edit]
Markadley (talk) 04:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedia,
My article has been declined on two points, and I would like to question these if possible.
Point 1
La Mona wrote: It appears that all but two of the references are about drugs but not about the drugs wheel. (About the wheel: #9 a copy of it, #10 a copy plus some text.) It may be that the article is mis-named, but references on an article with this name must be about the wheel itself.
Can I direct you to the following five referenced articles that point to the Drugs Wheel itself:
The Drugs Wheel itself is referenced by name six times in Home Office (2015). New Psychoactive Substances (NPS) Resource Pack for informal educators and practitioners. ISBN: 978-1-78246-730-4. Available online: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/new-psychoactive-substances-nps-resource-pack.
The Drugs Wheel itself is referenced by name on page two of Fraser, F. (2014). New Psychoactive Substances - Evidence Review.’. Scottish Government Social Research. Crown copyright 2014. Available online: http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0045/00457682.pdf
The Drugs and Effects wheels are referenced by name on pages 718, 719, 721 of Dr F. Gilani (2015). ‘Legal highs’: Novel psychoactive substances. InnovAiT, 8(12), 717–724. DOI: 10.1177/1755738015612509. Available online: http://m.ino.sagepub.com/content/8/12/717.full.pdf
The Drugs Wheel is referenced by name in Fletcher, E., Tasker, S., Easton, P. and Denvir, L. (2015). Improving the help and support provided to people who take new psychoactive substances (‘legal highs’). Journal of Public Health pp. 1–7 doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdv191
The Drugs Wheel is referenced by name, and allocated its own training session in K. MacLeod, J.P. Kools, K.Schiffer, E.Schatz (2016). New Psychoactive Substances in Europe State of Affairs, Trends and Developments. Amsterdam: Regenboog Groep, Correlation Network. Available online: http://npsineurope.eu/images/pdf/publication/NPS_manual_web.pdf
Point 2
La Mona wrote: The UK & French wheels are CC-BY-NC-SA, and I'm not sure that is an acceptable license for use of the image because of the NC portion. Commons licensing page says "Commercial use of the work must be allowed."
I am a little unclear about this. The Drugs Wheel is not licenced under a Wikimedia: Commons licence, but under a Creative Commons Licence: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/legalcode. Under this licence:
License grant.
Subject to the terms and conditions of this Public License, the Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-sublicensable, non-exclusive, irrevocable license to exercise the Licensed Rights in the Licensed Material to:
reproduce and Share the Licensed Material, in whole or in part, for NonCommercial purposes only; and
produce, reproduce, and Share Adapted Material for NonCommercial purposes only.
I look forward to your response.
Kind regards
Mark
07:33:41, 15 April 2016 review of submission by Js229
[edit]The AfC process has rejected this article on the grounds of notability. I believe this has been based on good faith judgements but ones not correctly based on Wikipedia's notability guidelines.
The article itself as drafted contains more than five separate independent reliable sources - one book, two articles from a long running local history print publication, one official listed building register entry, newspaper articles, a textbook on the history of the cotton industry and the UK Dictionary of National Biography. The book, by an experienced historian named Bamford, specifically describes the subject of the article as notable, gives reasons why which are described in the article, and devotes about (I don't have it to hand at the moment) a page to him; he is the explicit subject, in part, of one of the local history articles and mentioned in the other; the house he built is explicitly (and relatively unusually) described as being notable for having a wealthy patron. In addition there are newspaper articles that mention the individual by name and an authoritative text that attests to the notability of the firm for which he worked as a director. The reference in the DNB is a passing one, but nevertheless he was considered worthy of naming in an extremely authoritative and measured reference source. In short, there is at least an arguable case that this is a notable article.
However, this article did not receive any meaningful debate to address this patently arguable case. The first reviewer commented, somewhat unclearly, that it needed 'any amount' of further sources, despite the fact that it already contained multiple significant secondary sources - ie on the face of it met WP:N; if the reviewer felt the article was not notable according to this guideline they would need to base that on a belief that the sources were not significant, not on a belief that more were needed. I queried this with the reviewer, pointing out WP:N but they essentially repeated their previous judgement. No doubt attempting to be helpful they added that they had improved another article by adding that someone was 'the largest landholder in Michigan', a notability claim similar (in the ordinary use of the word notable) to one already in this article; they didn't refer to WP:N or address any of the specific points I made on their talk page. In the absence of reasons I am left to speculate that the reviewer may not have seen the Bamford book (which is not available online), and may have discounted its significance as a source for this reason.
When I submitted the article for re-review I left in the comments that the first reviewer has made, although they applied to an earlier version of the article. The second reviewer merely inserted the same template as the first, and thus in the same way failed to engage with the arguable case for notability. Again I am left to speculate, in the absence of detail, that the second reviewer was influenced only by the first reviewer's commments.
I invite those who participate in the AfC process to see that I have been left with the impression that the reviewers decided whether the article was interesting to them, not whether it complied with Wikipedia's specific notability guidelines. In any case I feel I am unable to debate the rejection because the reasons given do not make sense to me. I would appreciate comments on whether it would be better to reach consensus by withdrawing from the AfC process and simply creating the article in the main space.
Js229 (talk) 07:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Too Long, Didn't Read. In the pink box at the top of the page there's a blue button labelled "Resubmit" - click it. Reviewers are human, mistakes are possible (I'm not saying it is a mistake, just that it could be) We're also all volunteers, your complaint is longer than the draft! By resubmitting it someone else will review it and you'll receive another opinion. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
09:45:03, 15 April 2016 review of submission by 103.19.198.78
[edit]- 103.19.198.78 (talk · contribs)
- No draft specified!
- Presumably re Draft:Prime Focus Limited since that's the main draft edited by this IP
103.19.198.78 (talk) 09:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- @103.19.198.78:, what is your question please? MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:27, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
13:09:19, 15 April 2016 review of submission by Deuce222
[edit]Hello, thank you for your help on my first submission "David Grace (basketball)". I've implemented Matthew's suggestions on chronological order and supporting notability with citations. I then clicked on resubmit and entered the security letters presented and saved it. That was 4 days ago abut I don't know its current status in the approval process. Have the changes actually been resubmitted and how can I tell what the real status is at this point? Thanks. Deuce222 (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC) Deuce222 (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Done, published by Dodger67. Congrats! MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:29, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
