Help desk
< March 8	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 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.

March 9

03:52:16, 9 March 2017 review of submission by Rangka05

Rangka05 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Pradeep E ragav Film editor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I am having problem with attaching the reference. Can anyone help me on how to attach a reference.?

Please see WP:Referencing for beginners for more information. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

15:10:38, 9 March 2017 review of submission by Kent Westlund

Kent Westlund (talk · contribs)
- Draft:LuLaRoe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Could you provide some constructive criticism on how to improve my draft (e.g. specific things to add and delete). The contribution started as a long article, has been cut down to a very short description of the company based on Wikipedia editor feedback, and now apparently still reads like an content-free advertisement?

Hi Kent Westlund. Reliable sources are vital. I've removed Forbes from the draft. Forbes sites, written by contributors, are not the same as Forbes magazine. They are blogs. So is Racked (call it an "editorial brand" if you prefer). The Daily Dot is also an opinion piece. These do nothing to establish notability, and there is very little for which they are reliable. Remove them. Consumerist mentions LuLaRoe only in passing. Remove it too. That will leave five sources, all reliable, which should be enough. If you're concerned about quantity, toss in [1] to bring it up to six (WP:RX or I can get you access if you don't have it through Gale, ProQuest, or some other means).

Then ensure the draft accurately summarizes the range of sources. This may mean returning, to some degree, to the content of earlier drafts. The guidance you received regarding them may have been unclear or misunderstood. The company history, business model, what the company sells, and problems the company has faced are all appropriate material, so long as the information comes from reliable sources and is presented in due proportion. Avoid creating many very short sections. Don't highlight controversies in their own section. Instead cover them at the appropriate juncture in the company history. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

19:32:51, 9 March 2017 review of submission by Dtilque

Dtilque (talk · contribs)
- Draft:List of non-U.S. cities which have a U.S. namesake (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The article in question is a long list (currently about 700) of cities, each with another place that has been named for it. This means that for each entry, there's a fact (i.e. one place is named after the other) which needs to be cited. One way to do this is to rely on the wikipages of the individual cities. This was done for a similar page (List of places named after people in the United States) which is also a very long list.

However, I was given to understand that I shouldn't rely on that and should cite the relationship myself. So I did that as best I could, but many of these citations are contained in a small number of references. There are books out there that only contain long lists of place name etymologies. So I ended up giving the same footnote to numerous entries on my list. This caused the reviewer to reject it because there were too many repeat links.

As I see it the options are:

1. remove the footnotes for entries where the city's page has the etymology

2. give individualized footnotes (that is, with the page number in the reference) for each one. This would result in a page with an extremely large number of footnotes (the footnote section would be several times larger than the body of the page)

3. just accept it with multiple reuse of footnotes

Or perhaps someone has a better idea?

Dtilque (talk) 19:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dtilque. Keep the footnotes. Lists must be verifiable, just like articles. One cannot rely on the city pages - etymologies could be removed or changed by anyone at any time. That's one reason circular sourcing is not allowed.

For dictionary-style sources like Gannett, there's no need to provide the page number - for the same reason dictionaries don't have an index at the back. Adding page numbers for sources not arranged strictly alphabetically is a possibility. If they are not searchable and have no index or a poor index, then page numbers would be helpful. To limit bloat, one of the various shortened footnote templates could be used with a footnotes section laid out in a large number of columns and a separate references section for the full citations.

I'm sure "Absurd amount of repeat links here, which is completely unnecessary" is well-intentioned advice, but on its own it is not a valid reason to decline a draft. Perhaps the reviewer can clarify or you can convince them that they are necessary, to meet Wikipedia policy of verifiability. If not, address any other issues raised and resubmit. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 21:33:51, 9 March 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Cornucopia Remembered

Cornucopia Remembered (talk · contribs)
- Draft:George Cross Island Association (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi. I am completely new to creating articles on Wikipedia and have been trying to submit a new article on the George Cross Island Association, but have had it declined on two occasions. I have improved the article and added the requested references, I have had trouble with adding pictures though. I'm looking for any help you can give to get the article published. Thank you in advance,

Cornucopia Remembered.

Cornucopia Remembered (talk) 21:33, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done @Cornucopia Remembered:, article cleaned-up and now published. Nice work! MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]