Help desk
< October 11	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 13 >

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.

October 12

18:13:56, 12 October 2016 review of submission by NP3RUZZ!

NP3RUZZ! (talk · contribs)

What specifically reads as an advertisement? There doesn't appear to be any promotional language. Is it because the links tend to be editorial, rather than factual? NP3RUZZ! (talk) 18:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

20:26:16, 12 October 2016 review of submission by WaqasT

WaqasT (talk · contribs)
- Draft:ProcessModel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would like to request a re-review of the article before I submit it again. I have removed most of the references that were present in the article and have tried giving it a more neutral tone.

You will see that there are more than 1 reference present at three places. The reason for that is to provide credible references to what is being said. Like; "used by many model building and simulation service providers", "rated among the best simulation softwares", "It is also being used in many universities." Should I remove one of the references from each? I am not sure if the statements can be proven if there is only one reference.

Which of the 13 references in the draft do you believe provide evidence that the subject is notable? Maproom (talk) 13:46, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All the links that have been provided are from third party sources that have either used the software and have written about it or have performed tests on it to compare them with other softwares. I have gone through the links again and most of the studies have been done by university professors, and the links are valid links from their respective university. One link also refers to how Social Security Administration in collaboration with IBM used the software, the link/pdf is hosted on IBM itself. As per the notable guidelines, I believe the following articles provide "Significant coverage" and "Sources";

  * Ref 2 (a paper on how ProcessModel, a discrete event simulation software was used to achieve results)
  * Ref 3 (a book on health care management by a doctor, which details the use of ProcessModel as a tool used to simulate different healthcare scenarios)
  * Ref 4 (a paper on how ProcessModel was used for analysis of a food production company)
  * Ref 5 (a case study of how ProcessModel was used to efficiently stock a grocery store)
  * Ref 6 (a showcase by Lockheed Martin employees (Stephen Austin and Bob Beckley) on how ProcessModel was used to reduce the time it took to release engineering drawings)
  * Ref 7 (a presentation on how Social Security Administration used ProcessModel to optimize internal SSI redemptions. SSI - Supplemental Security Income)
  * References 8,9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 are used to verify what is being said is true.

All the links provided for reference are either from universities, govt institutions, IBM or Google Books. Except reference 1, 8 and 9. --WaqasT (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Submitting it again is how to get a re-review. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I meant if someone could help me fix what was wrong in the article before I submit it again. --WaqasT (talk) 15:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of the references 2-7 as listed above:

2,4,5,7 are pdfs available on the internet. They haven't been "published in a reliable independent source".

3 may help to establish notability, I don't know as I don't have access to the book.

6 has one brief mention of the subject, not the "significant discussion" that would help establish notablility.

Maproom (talk) 18:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit confused, there are literally dozens of articles on Wikipedia that link to a PDF as a references, if PDF is not an accepted reference why let people use it? Almost all the 'Commercial' software mentioned in the List of discrete event simulation software do not qualify an article on Wikipedia based on what is being told to me. I know the said software/articles do not have anything to do with my submission but when you're trying to put an article up on Wikipedia you tend to take tips from what other articles have done in the same field. That said; let me find some "Published" articles to reference.

Should I remove Ref 3 as the book is not accessable?

For reference 6, I think your comment here is not fair, the reason being, it's a software. The procedure that was done using the software is detailed in full and then the software used is mentioned. Some one will not keep on mentioning the software again and again because that does not make sense. If you read through the sub heading "A Process Performance Model Used Within Lockheed Martin MS2" you will see they are using pictures of the software to detail what was done and all the text tell what the problem was and what was done using ProcessModel to fix it.

Thank you for all your help so far. I will look forward to your reply and will respond once I have updated the source on the article. --WaqasT (talk) 18:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@WaqasT: I have not been involved in the review of your submission, nor do I intend to be. I also haven't looked at all of your references (nor, again, do I intend to). I'll just comment on a few of your points. First, regarding the off-line text, there is no requirement that sources be available on-line. But any reviewer is free to ask the folks at any relevant Wiki Project to comment on the reliability of a text. If you feel that your source would survive such a query, then feel free to use it. As for PDFs, I would be surprised if Maproom were arguing that PDF documents can't be used at all. The more common concern with them is that a direct link to a PDF file makes it difficult for the reader to know where that PDF came from and, hence, it becomes difficult to assess its reliability. You can avoid that problem if you format your references using the various citation templates, such as {{cite book}}, {{cite web}}, or (especially for reference 5) {{cite journal}}. With that template, you could cite the paper to the journal in which it was published, and a link to the paper would be provided via the template's "url =" parameter. (And much better would be a link to the website page that hosts the PDF document, not the PDF document itself.) But even if you do these things, there is still no getting around the fact that reference 5 mentions the software only in passing. The paper is a discussion of discrete-event simulation as applied in a particular context. The authors of that paper were going to use somebody's software, and there's very little notability derived from their particular choice. You have a similar problem with reference 3. It too mentions the software only in passing. But here, the reference actually works against you because, in the very next sentence after identifying the software, the authors go on to say (in effect) that they could just as well have used any other discrete-event simulator. Finally, reference 2 does take the time to describe the software in a bit of detail, but the greater concern is that the paper is a Ph.D. dissertation. They tend to be viewed here as less-than-fully-reliable sources.

I hope this was helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:34, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify a couple of points.

Ref. 3 being inaccessible (to me) is not a problem. You can cite it if it says something relevant; I can't check, but someone with access to a good library can.

You can cite PDFs. But the PDFs you have used as references 2,4,5,7 have not been published, they are in what look like personal subsubdirectories of university websites. They may be good to support some statements, but they do not, in my opinion, do anything to establish notability.

I am not asking you not to cite any of these sources. I am pointing out that if a reviewer rejects your draft, it will probably be because you have not supplied sources that establish notability. Maproom (talk) 21:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Maproom: and @NewYorkActuary: for all your help so far.

I have updated the references on the article one more time. I have removed all PDF references except one.

@Maproom: you may not be able to read through the entire book but can search within it using the search button on the left middle. It says "Search in this book." I have however changed the reference to a different book.

If anyone has time to spare, can you please check my article again to see if it meets notability now?--WaqasT (talk) 21:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

21:31:21, 12 October 2016 review of submission by ARouleau

ARouleau (talk · contribs)
- Draft:IdeaWork Studios, Inc. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello - I am looking for assistance for my submission: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:IdeaWork_Studios,_Inc.

My submission has been declined on the grounds that the press listed is niche and does not establish notablity of the company. I have inquired with the reviewer, as follows:

Hello, and thanks for responding with this information - I appreciate it. With respect, however, the press indicated here is anything but niche - they're the most respected outlets within the branding, design, and hospitality communities. AdWeek, Yelp, Food & Beverage Magazine, Open Table, HOW Design, Website Magazine, PRINT Magazine, Graphic Design USA, Forbes, AdAge - these (and more) discuss the company in depth, and are THE reliable sources across these industries. Certainly, I would argue, that notablity has been effectively established - particularly when considered alongside the range of already published agencies. Can you please let me know your thoughts about this? I appreciate your consideration, and look forward to your reply. With appreciation, ARouleau (talk) 19:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I have not yet received a reply and am hopeful someone here at the help desk will be able to assist me with this submission, and next steps.

With appreciation, ARouleau (talk) 21:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent decline message says that your submission reads like an advertisement. Please read WP:ARTSPAM for more. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:NotTheFakeJTP Yes - but then I responded to that user, as follows: @Czarkoff: Hello - thank you for your reply. Can you please advise why this submission is declined, when it fits the parameters for these other approved submissions? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_advertising_agencies

I appreciate your assistance in this matter! Many thanks, ARouleau (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Niche press does not really establish notability of company. In order to have this draft promoted you need to demonstrate that multiple reliable general purpose sources discuss this company in depth. P.S.: If you notice that articles on other similar companies with the same standard of sources, feel free to nominate them for deletion via WP:AFD. P.P.S: when you want to link to some page on Wikipedia, you should use wikilinks. Eg. your link above should be spelled as "List of advertising agencies". — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 16:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@Czarkoff:: Hello, and thanks for responding with this information - I appreciate it. With respect, however, the press indicated here is anything but niche - they're the most respected outlets within the branding, design, and hospitality communities. AdWeek, Yelp, Food & Beverage Magazine, Open Table, HOW Design, Website Magazine, PRINT Magazine, Graphic Design USA, Forbes, AdAge - these (and more) discuss the company in depth, and are THE reliable sources across these industries. Certainly, I would argue, that notablity has been effectively established - particularly when considered alongside the range of already published agencies. Can you please let me know your thoughts about this? I appreciate your consideration, and look forward to your reply. With appreciation, ARouleau (talk) 19:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

ARouleau (talk) 16:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]