Help desk
< May 1	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 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.

May 2

03:47:43, 2 May 2016 review of submission by 2.103.26.129

2.103.26.129 (talk · contribs)
- No draft specified!

2.103.26.129 (talk) 03:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

11:34:39, 2 May 2016 review of submission by RobbieIanMorrison

RobbieIanMorrison (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Power-to-X (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Wikipedia

I recently submitted an article for creation on the topic of Power-to-X. It was based on the following German page. My article was rejected for being insufficiently encyclopedic in tone, although my reviewer did not add personalized comments.

The article was intended to be largely definitional and thus short, with other pages (as they evolve) picking up the details of the technologies involved. The article nonetheless uses four substantial references.

I would appreciate any feedback. Thank you for your time.

RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 11:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RobbieIanMorrison. It's possible that the draft received too hasty a review. It's usually best to first ask for clarification from the specific reviewer. If I were reviewing it, I would note:

The first source is already a dead link (its ISBN doesn't go anywhere on Worldcat, Google Books, or Amazon either). If the problem isn't a simple typo in the url, consider substituting a possibly equivalent source (in German) that is archived at [1].
I think I understand decoupling, but don't understand the phrase "possibly using power that has been provided by additional investments." Clarification or additional context may be required.
The first three sentences otherwise do a good job of summarizing the body of the article, but the long list of power-to-whatevers is out of place in the lead - it isn't a summary of anything in the body.
Only one sentence in the entire body cites a source, which is liable to trouble readers.
It's worth linking notable author, journal, and publisher names when citing less-familiar sources, because it helps readers assess their reliability.
There is an overarching concern about whether Power-to-X constitutes a viable stand-alone topic or should be a redirect, either to Energy storage or Power to gas.

--Worldbruce (talk) 18:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for your considered comments. Taking your points in order:

the first source — the link is not dead for me and the ISBN number is correct
additional investments — will modify as suggested
long list of power-to-whatevers — I got this layout from the German page, but will modify
citations — I will address the issue
linking citation fields — will do
stand-alone or redirect — this should be a stand-alone because power-to-X is more than a storage technology, see the second meaning in the introduction

I appreciate your time and attention, thanks again. -- RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

13:36:57, 2 May 2016 review of submission by Hillaoph

Hillaoph (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Finnish American Chamber of Commerce - New York (FACC NY) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi,

I am wondering why my Wikipedia article keeps getting declined although I have provided independent sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Finnish_American_Chamber_of_Commerce_-_New_York_%28FACC_NY%29

The articles I have on the reference list are all from independent large media outlets from Finland. Kauppalehti is the biggest financial newspaper in Finland and MTV3 is the main news channel of Finland. In addition, the Consulate General of Finland in New York has no relations to FACC NY so the article it has written should also count as independent.

There is another very similar organization in America called AmCham Finland who have gotten their page published without any references: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AmCham_Finland

And an identical organization SACC New York (the Swedish version of FACC NY) has gotten a page published with only references to its website: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SACC_New_York

Why is that?

Kindly, Hilla

Hi Hillaoph. Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality content and low quality content. The examples you gave are articles that need to be improved, or if that is not possible, deleted. Although it is natural to reason from examples, it is better to work from policies and guidelines. Arguing that articles that don't meet Wikipedia's standards exist, so more articles like that should be created, will not convince experienced editors.

The draft needs to meet the notability guideline by showing a significant depth of coverage across multiple, independent, reliable sources. Kauppalehti is a good start. The problem with the Consulate General, MTV3, and Talouselämä is that they mention the organization too briefly to help establish notability. Wikipedia is looking for what demonstrable effect an organization has had over time that would justify an encyclopedia article about it. Is the most that can be said about the history of a half-century-old organization a few articles from early 2015 saying little more than " ... event organized by Finnish-American Chamber of Commerce"? The book would be a good source if it were independent and scholarly, but I suspect that it was commissioned and published by the organization to mark the occasion of their 50th anniversary.

Even if the topic is not suitable for a stand-alone article, it might be appropriate to mention it (and AmCham Finland) briefly in some existing article about Finnish businesses, Finland - U. S. relations, trade, etc. Worldbruce (talk) 15:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

18:19:00, 2 May 2016 review of submission by Shyamw1

Shyamw1 (talk · contribs)
- No draft specified!

Shyamw1 (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I cited all of the information I found as best I could. Can you please specify where the copyrighted material is and explain what I need to do to get it accepted? A statement such as "your submission has been denied because it contains copyrighted material" is not very helpful. I wouldn't have submitted the article had I known there was something wrong.

What draft are you asking about? I don't see a declined draft that you submitted that has copyrighted material. I do see that both you, User:Shyamw1, and User:Wshyam, have submitted very similar articles on an Indian politician, Draft:G. Parthasarathy. Is it merely a coincidence that two users have similar names and an interest in the same politician, or are you using two user names, possibly due to some misunderstanding of how user names work in Wikipedia? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]