Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 August 7
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < August 6 | << Jul | August | Sep >> | August 8 > |
| 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. |
August 7
[edit]02:57:01, 7 August 2017 review of submission by 174.44.65.34
[edit]- 174.44.65.34 (talk · contribs)
174.44.65.34 (talk) 02:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- Hello, ManuelBot. Did you have a specific question? NewYorkActuary (talk) 10:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
08:27:30, 7 August 2017 review of submission by Raymond Acheson
[edit]- Raymond Acheson (talk · contribs)
- No draft specified!
Hi, I am trying to provide a Wikipedia presence for my rugby club and my initial article has been rejected due to no references being provided.
This is Lurgan Rugby Club and it is located in Northern Ireland.
We are basically using old photographs off the walls and in photo albums dating back to our formation in 1880 and old tour literature from previous tours to Canada and Italy.
I am a life member of the club and an in charge of events / brand placement and senior player recruitment.
We are currently engaged with a web designer who is creating a web site and social media presence for us.
How can I move this forward without formal references?
Thank you in anticipation of your help
Regards
Raymond Acheson
Raymond Acheson (talk) 08:27, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- Hello, Raymond. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. The quick answer is -- you can't move forward without formal references. Wikipedia requires that all the information in its articles be referenced to published sources, and the ones you've described here don't meet that description. You might try looking for old newspaper coverage but, even if you find it, that coverage might not be enough if it is limited to local sources. On a different note, I took a look at your draft (Draft:Lurgan Rugby Club History) and found that I would have declined it even if it had been adequately referenced. You don't appear to have even tried to write that draft in the neutral tone of voice that is expected of an encyclopedia (it looks more like sports-page coverage). And you've included a ridiculously large number of photographs. In all, I see a lot of problems that need to be addressed before an article about your club will be accepted for Wikipedia. I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 11:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
09:33:07, 7 August 2017 review of draft by Christy.kwon
[edit]- Christy.kwon (talk · contribs)
Hi, I am currently working on article creation, and it appears that the page i want to create is marked as a spam.
What should i do in this case to create an article? It happen because i couldn't understand wikipedia article creation policy well. I would like to know how to restore or any helpful instruction on this matter. Thank you very much for your help.
Christy.kwon (talk) 09:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Christy.kwon: Hello, Christy. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the delay in response. You can ask that the article be restored by following the procedure at WP:REFUND. However, I see that the most recent version to be deleted had been cited for two failings -- a violation of WP:PROMOTION and the use of copyrighted material. It is extremely unlikely that copyrighted material will be restored, so I think you will be left with trying to fashion a draft that does not run afoul of WP:PROMOTION. I haven't taken a close look at your current version, but a quick read suggests that you are not providing any information that wouldn't be found on the company's web site. As such, it looks to me that your draft will not be accepted for publication. But other reviewers might have different opinions about it, so you might want to continue work on it. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
12:26:38, 7 August 2017 review of submission by Moleknoll
[edit]
Hi, I have made changes to my draft to try to satisfy editors, but have not resubmitted them yet. I changed some of my sources to eliminate such things as diaries by the subject and oral interviews, to make my sources more objective and verifiable. Also, just because I chose the username of Vanvleck - one editor thought I was writing about myself even though my draft says my subject, Natalie Van Vleck, died in 1981! Before a possible rejection again, I would like someone to look at my submission and give me a few pointers.
thanks very much!
- @Moleknoll: Hello, Moleknoll. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the delay in response. While looking at your draft, I took the liberty of re-formatting one of your references using the {{cite book}} template. These templates (and others like it) make it easy to get proper formatting and also provide a convenient way to provide on-line links when they exist. I hope you can use that one reference as an example for re-formatting the others. A quick look at the draft suggests that some of them will be better done by using the {{cite web}} and {{cite journal}} templates. If you have any questions about using templates, feel free to ask. In a similar vein, I put the first section header into proper format and I trust that you can use that as an example for re-doing the rest. And there is the more nebulous issue of proper "tone" in the writing. At some points, you veer away from the neutral, staid tone that is expected in an encyclopedia. We are told that the subject "live a life in art and nature". Also, that her work is "powerful" and encourages people to "commune with nature". These (and other expressions like them) do not belong in an encyclopedia article and you might want to put some effort into making your writing less florid.
As for the more basic question of whether the subject has achieved encyclopedic notability, I'm not convinced that she has. As you yourself point out, Van Vleck's work "languished in obscurity" until recently. We are told of only one exhibition of her work during her life, at the (presumably) non-notable Brownell-Lambertson gallery (I'm not counting the exhibit run out of Van Vleck's own studio). And although you've shown that the Flanders Center has become very interested in her work, you have not demonstrated why this in itself demonstrates encyclopedic notability. Nor have you demonstrated that any one else has shown this same level of interest. Most of your references are to a single book commissioned by the Center, some of your other references are written by an employee of the Center, and most of the recent exhibitions are in the same Connecticut town in which the Center is located. In all, I don't see how this artist has achieved encyclopedic notability and I think the reviewer was correct in declining to accept it back in June.
I recognize that this is not the response that you were hoping to get. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
19:11:45, 7 August 2017 review of submission by Cliffbridges
[edit]- Cliffbridges (talk · contribs)
I am attempting to clean up this submission and make improvements to meet the site guidelines. Based on previous advice, I have collected sources from a variety of publications, including magazine profiles and news sources. I removed most sources that seemed to be based on press release information (I left one official VA state release). I believe notability can be established from the included sources.
The most recent rejection is somewhat vague however, and I am hoping to get some clarity around specific problem areas in the article. I have attempted an impartial tone, but perhaps the types of information I have included are inappropriate? I'd love some guidance about specific parts of the article that should be removed or re-written to bring it up to standard.
Thanks so much! Cliffbridges (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2017 (UTC)