Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2016 July 14
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < July 13 | << Jun | July | Aug >> | July 15 > |
| 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 14
[edit]11:12:00, 14 July 2016 review of submission by SuperMemoWorld
[edit]Dear Wikipedia helpdesk! I am experiencing problems with my article being rejected two times for reasons: <quote> This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies. </quote> From my point of view, the article is neutral in its tone, it is not an advertisement. I have already taken into account first reviewer's notes and provided independent, reliable, published sources to support the article. The sources are not produced by myself; they include articles from around the world, and from sources so recognised as the Newsweek and Wired magazines. I honestly think the entry is worth to be included, but I have run out of ideas how to change it to make it acceptable. Could you please advise what I do still do to make the article acceptable to Wikipedia reviewers? Thank you in advance for your help! SuperMemoWorld (talk) 11:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hi SuperMemoWorld Conflicts of interest are taken seriously here. The fact that your username is similar to the name of the company that produces the software presents some serious problems in this regard. Please read the policy and decide how you want to proceed. If you do decide to continue with the, the quickest way to get past this sort of objection is to remove most of the content. Strip it down to the basic facts but leave all of the references intact. We call this a stub. It will get what appears to be a notable topic into Wikipedia where hopefully independent editors will improve it. ~Kvng (talk) 23:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
14:23:46, 14 July 2016 review of submission by Evanpeugh
[edit]
Evanpeugh (talk) 14:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
I am inquiring about my rejected article on Cornelia Bryce Pinchot. The comment states that more references are needed to establish notability of the subject and verify claims in the article, but I provided six good references. If I could have more specific criticism of these sources I could try to focus on that issue. If the issue is that I have not provided enough sources I can locate more, but it would be helpful to know what a reasonable amount would be. One of the pages I linked to, LLoyd Bryce, only cited 1 reference, so I presumed that 6 would be sufficient.
Thanks, Evan
- In assessing references, quality counts for more than quantity: three good references should get an article accepted, and thirty poor ones should not. To establish notability, what you need is significant discussion of the subject, in reliable independent published sources. In Draft:Cornelia Bryce Pinchot:
- Reference 1 is to a pdf. It is not clear to me what work is cited.
- Reference 2 seems to be to a personal website, which can't be considered a reliable published source.
- Reference 3 looks to me convincing.
- Reference 4 looks reliable, but does not provide significant discussion of the subject.
- Reference 5 is a scan of a letter by the subject, and therefore neither published nor independent.
- The formatting of all the references needs improving, though that is not a reason to reject the draft.
- Maproom (talk) 18:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
14:26:11, 14 July 2016 review of submission by Blwhite
[edit]I need to add more references. Huckley Buck is mentioned (as Hucklebuck) in The International Playing Card Society's journal "The Playing Card" in Volume 33, Issue 4, in the article "Playing the Game: Schnellen, Hucklebuck & Donut". The article is not available online but I have obtained a PDF copy of the article. What do I do with this information? Blwhite (talk) 14:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Blwhite You cite the journal, like this:
- <ref>{{cite journal|author= "author's name" |title=Playing the Game: Schnellen, Hucklebuck & Donut |journal=The Playing Card |publisher=International Playing Card Society |volume=33 |issue=4 |pages="## - ##"|year= "year"}}</ref>
- Add the missing details I put in quotes, if you have them. If the article has more than one author use "|author1= John Doe |author2= Pete Someone |author3= Mary May |". Hope this helps Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Roger (Dodger67) I added that to the references section. Thanks Roger. Blwhite (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)Blwhite
15:08:37, 14 July 2016 review of submission by 140.241.241.100
[edit]Hello, My first submissions were denied but I changed and added material according to your critique. However, I have not seen a change.. have they been reviewed. I don't know what else I can change. 140.241.241.100 (talk) 15:08, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hi anonomous person. I assume this refers to Draft:Boston Landmark but it also looks like you've been working on Draft:Boston Landmarks Commission. The former is awaiting review and someone will get to it shortly. We're a bit backlogged. Sorry for the delay. I personally think Draft:Boston Landmarks Commission is a promising topic and you may want to consider including the Draft:Boston Landmark material as part of this if it is not accepted as a separate article. We actually like it when articles that cover a topic more broadly. ~Kvng (talk) 22:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
HI,
i need to add indepentand references but for my understanding the included ones are.
There are some magazines like Amiga Future or Retro Planet but both magazines are "closed" sources. I mean I could quote from those magazine issues.
Is this ok? Would this be better than the chosen references?
Ppapara (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Ppapara. Offline sources are perfectly acceptable. They are more difficult for reviewers to evaluate. Including a quote in the reference will help with that. Our citation templates have a quote parameter you can use to include a quote. ~Kvng (talk) 22:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)