Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 June 29
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < June 28 | << May | June | Jul >> | June 30 > |
| 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. |
June 29
[edit]
Hi Wikipedia, I have worked on the Draft of Joyce Stevens AM and do not know what to do next to get the Draft accepted. I have overcome the notability issue now the reviewer says the tone is wrong and it reads like an advertisement.
I thought about deleting the two paragraphs outlining the conclusions about women and work immediately above 'Personal life, family and interests' -would this be a good idea? Also I thought I could delete the paragraph in the introduction that outlines her achievements. Could you help me please?
Thanking you,
Passionfruitvine. Passionfruitvine (talk) 07:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Passionfruitvine (talk) 07:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Helped here
DrStrauss talk 09:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
15:45:00, 29 June 2017 review of submission by Brienanni
[edit]
I am confused by the rejection "improperly sourced". I added links to a variety of news articles, some in Chinese, some in Dutch, but Google translate can easily provide the English version. The key historical facts seem beyond doubt. There is a monument for this individual, so also his noteworthiness seems beyond doubt. Hopefully I can receive an indication what is missing.
Brienanni (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Hello, Brienanni. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. The reviewer who declined your submission didn't say that the sourcing was improper -- they said it was inadequate. And I see what they meant -- except for its first three sentences, the entire Biography section is unsourced. I have no doubt that this can be corrected with the sourcing you already have in the article and, after you've done so, feel free to re-submit and drop a note on my Talk page. By the way, the first reference directs the reader to a web page that doesn't exist. That actually is improper and you'll need to replace that non-existent source with something else that supports the material. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
20:02:39, 29 June 2017 review of submission by Valerievalpal
[edit]
Valerievalpal (talk) 20:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)I am trying to add information to Bobby Osborne Wikipedia page. I have included information that I have found and submitted it in Sandbox for review. I'm very new at this process and learning. Is that the place to ask for submission and correction? I certainly do not want to be accused of copyright violations. I am simply getting my information from printed sources and sharing them.Valerievalpal (talk) 20:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Valerievalpal (talk) 20:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Hello, Valerie. Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia. Are we talking about the Bobby Osborne who already has a Wikipedia article? If so, you can open up a discussion with the editors of that page by posting your proposals at Talk:Bobby Osborne. On a more general note, if by "simply sharing" information you mean that you're copying it verbatim from another source ... , that's exactly what "copyright violation" means. All information should be stated in your own words and cited to the reference that you are using. If possible, you can add a link to that reference material, allowing the readers to read for themselves the original source of the information. For more detail on this, see WP:Verifiability and WP:Referencing for beginners. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Valerievalpal. The copyright information template I added to your talk page, after redacting your post at the talk and your sandbox (and their page histories) as copyright violations from allmusic, has a lot of information in it—maybe too much. Based upon your post above, and your edits to the Teahouse, I think, though I am not sure, that you have a confusion about using sources versus copying their words.
If so, this is what you should understand:
- Reliable sources are cited to show where the information exists that verifies your additions, but you don't copy what they say. As we often tell people: "You may use external websites or other writings as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words." You should also understand that copyright infringement is not avoided by surface modification of existing content, e.g., changing a word here and a word there, while substantially retaining the wording, structure and creative expression in the original material. See Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing.
In sum, read sources; digest the meaning; write entirely in your own words; cite the source as verifying the information. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Valerievalpal. The copyright information template I added to your talk page, after redacting your post at the talk and your sandbox (and their page histories) as copyright violations from allmusic, has a lot of information in it—maybe too much. Based upon your post above, and your edits to the Teahouse, I think, though I am not sure, that you have a confusion about using sources versus copying their words.