Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 June 9
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < June 8 | << May | June | Jul >> | June 10 > |
| 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 9
[edit]08:44:29, 9 June 2017 review of submission by Horatiu.prica
[edit]
I have made changes to the entire article. Also, I have added extra sources like SD Times.
If you can give me any feedback on how to improve the article, please let me know.
- @Horatiu.prica: Hello, Horatiu. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. I took a look at the submission and I can see why the previous two reviewers declined it for failing to demonstrate "notability". I would have declined it for the same reason. The draft itself is nothing more than a product description and it fails to tell the reader why this particular piece of software is significant. The sourcing is rather weak -- there's only one of any real substance (the SDTimes review), but even this one appears to be the routine type of review that accompanies the "burst of coverage" that new products often receive. Perhaps the next person who reviews your submission might see things differently, but I'm not convinced that Wikipedia should have an article on your software. I recognize that this is not the response that you were hoping to receive and if you have any questions or comments about it, please let us know. NewYorkActuary (talk) 08:07, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
- @NewYorkActuary: Hello, and thank for your feedback. I have added a section for the history of the software, and some extra references. Regarding the content and reference sources of the article, I took the example of the existing articles regarding software packaging tools. I don't see much of a difference between them and the article I published, regarding how strong the references and sources are. List of installation software: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_installation_software
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inno_Setup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMCO_MSI_Package_Builder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InstallCore
JMDPayal (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello, JMD. Do you have a specific question? ProgrammingGeek talktome 13:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
16:10:01, 9 June 2017 review of submission by Swkayne
[edit]
I submitted an article for review nearly three weeks ago. It has yet to be reviewed. I'm wondering if the list of references was accurately cited. The draft article is entitled Louis Bickford. Thank you.
Swkayne (talk) 16:10, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
- Hello, Sw. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Right now, there are about 500 submissions in the queue ahead of yours. I expect that it will be at least another week, perhaps two, before a reviewer takes a look at it. We appreciate your patience. If you're looking for something to do in the meantime, you might take a look at our WP:Community Portal, where you'll find a list of already-existing articles that could use a bit of improvement. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
21:42:34, 9 June 2017 review of submission by Rudard
[edit]Hi. My article is based on many articles in newspapers going back to the early 1980s that can only be found behind the pay walls at Newspapers.com. I was told earlier by Wikipedia that those sources are okay. Other parts of my article are based on personal interviews. Let me know if these are not appropriate. Thank you. Rudard (talk) 21:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Rudard. Writing for Wikipedia is very different from writing for academia. As long as sources are published, it doesn't matter whether they are difficult to access. However, the bulk of any Wikipedia article should be based on independent secondary sources. Newspaper articles written by Fair should not be a major source in an encyclopedia biography about Fair. Instead look for secondary sources about Fair that analyze what he wrote. Also, it is not appropriate to reference unpublished personal interviews. Wikipedia is not for original research, but for summarizing what others have already written about a topic. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:53, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
- I will also add to that information by saying that external links should not be used in the body of the article and that references need inline citations. SL93 (talk) 04:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)