Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 February 3
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < February 2 | << Jan | February | Mar >> | February 4 > |
| 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. |
February 3
[edit]
Good morning I am trying to Write an article on Meon Valley Stud & apparently need more 'arms length references' but several of the top horses bred by the stud already have Wikipedia articles written about them, which indeed mention Meon Valley Stud. There have been several articles written about the stud in the racing press over the years, should the references be specific to a horse or just general as to provide providence?
Regards
Mark
Farmermark007 (talk) 09:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Farmermark007: Articles written about the stud in the racing press are a good place to start. What is needed is independent reliable sources that cover the stud farm at length, not just mention it in passing while discussing a horse. Also look for books (ideally from academic presses) that cover it, and articles in scholarly journals and general interest magazines and newspapers. The fact that Wikipedia articles about other topics mention the stud farm is irrelevant. Wikipedia, being user-generated, is not a reliable source, and notability is not inherited. Just because a horse is notable doesn't automatically make everything connected to the horse notable.
- The best articles Wikipedia has about stud farms (the articles are only of middling quality) are Belair Mansion (Bowie, Maryland) and Celle State Stud. The more general category "farms" has some good articles, such as Briarcliff Farms. Studying those may help you understand what to aim for.
- If solid sources can be found to establish notability, then fix the tone of the draft. Wikipedia favours drier, just-the-facts prose. Peacock language like "leading", "top class", "famous" and "illustrious" should be removed. Also keep in mind that you're writing for a broad audience, who won't know what jargon like Gr 3, Gr2, Group 1, Grp2, group 1, and GR1 mean. Consistency counts too. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
15:54:21, 3 February 2017 review of submission by 2606:A000:5225:9E00:B983:2B1B:7690:D25A
[edit]
Your help pages are confusing, and the descriptions seem vague. More precise information would be helpful. Please be more specific on why you don't think the sources on the page are notable. The response "The current references are just mentions, and the awards aren't significant as far as I can tell" is an opinion, the significance of the awards is not based on YOUR opinion. Please tell me how I can source the information better. I have included articles and places it is noted and mentioned.
Yes, this is a duplicate of what is on the International Artists Records page, but I will remove that information once this article is approved.
I would like to know why this TV show is not significant when there are so many other pages of TV shows of which I have never heard.
Also, how is a "dictionary" entry of fake words significant, but this TV show, which airs across the country, is not? For example, https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ensemblist is not a real word, why is it included on your pages?
2606:A000:5225:9E00:B983:2B1B:7690:D25A (talk) 15:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- There are three comments near the top of the draft, giving good advice on what to do to get it accepted. Did you read them?
- The is Wikipedia, not Wiktionary. If you have complaints about Wiktionary, please make them there. Maproom (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)