Help desk
< May 12	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 14 >

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.

May 13

07:20:30, 13 May 2017 review of submission by Bringing bits to life

Bringing bits to life (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Project Manas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My page has been sent to review many days back. as of now, I haven't got any update yet. Also, my page was previously declined as I did not have reliable references. I have added a few more reference now. I request you to look upon this and notify. Bringing bits to life (talk) 07:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I would strongly advise you to read the document Wikipedia:Inline citation to understand how to insert support for what you want to add to Wikipedia (every single item you want to add must conform to this). I would also advise you read Wikipedia:Reliable sources to ensure what you add is something that Wikipedia will accept as regards its sourcing. Isingness (talk) 05:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

09:02:24, 13 May 2017 review of submission by Obriens86

Obriens86 (talk · contribs)

I've written an article on First Day Covers, but the submission has been declined. It says to expand the article First day of issue. However, if someone actually read my article, it would say that first day of issue is a term reserved for Royal Mail postmarks, so it is separate from 'First Day Covers'. The first day of issue article is relevant to American Covers, however, the article I've written talks solely about Britain. Not every country looks and deals with first day covers in the same way. For example, Royal Mail is unique to Britain. This is why first day covers as a topic is different to first day of issue and why I believe it should have its own article. I understand the other comment regarding the Britain but and I will swiftly edit that

Obriens86 (talk) 09:02, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I would strongly advise you to read the document Wikipedia:Inline citation to understand how to insert support for what you want to add to Wikipedia (every single item you want to add must conform to this). I would also advise you read Wikipedia:Reliable sources to ensure what you add is something that Wikipedia will accept as regards its sourcing. Then, once you have better content, I would advise following the advice of your AFC reviewers and adding that newly created abridged content to the page they have requesting you add it to. If one day enough reliable sources arise for you to de-merge the content from that page into a new Wikipedia entry, then feel free to retry AFC at that time. Isingness (talk) 05:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to review this but was beaten to the punch by User:97198. Below I provide are some advise and unfortunately quite a bit of criticism.

The most important issue is that the editor is under the illusion the term "First Day Cover" is a uniquely British philatelic term, when the fact is that "First Day Cover" is a universal term used by philatelists, stamp collectors and dealers in most, if not all, English speaking countries, such as the United States, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, India and several African countries to name a few. So, in the first instance, there is no need for a specific UK-centric article on this topic - there is absolutely nothing significantly unique about British first day covers that requires a separate article. I've been collecting for many decades and never heard such a country specific use. Why, if the term "First day cover" is not an American term, does the American First Day Cover Society exist. Perhaps the editors is inexperienced in philatelic knowledge. While Google searches are unscientific, it's interesting to see that "British "first day of issue"" and "British "first day cover"" (excluding ebay) both return around 200,000 results.
Regarding content, in particular, at the beginning of the article much of the prose talks in details about the history of philately which is unnecessary for this specialised topic. The article is padded with quite a lot of waffle, long-winded prose, and likely unsourcable, statements. It's more like an essay on the topic than a real encyclopaedic article. Besides the content, which includes much conjecture and, I suspect, original research, there are other MOS and grammar issues. Many statements made apply just as generally in other countries as in the UK.
The article has just 5 sources or citations and two come from the same source as some the covers they uploaded, i.e., Buckingham Covers, the producer of some images. The one citation that is accessable online does not support the prose it is attached to and the other support minor statements. The sort of sources this would really need are known philatelic journals and books, and newspapers.
Who are Buckingham Covers? Surprise surprise, they are producers of, guess what, British First Day Covers for sale to collectors, (prove me wrong) but who is the editor of this article, well it looks like Obriens86 is actually an employee of the company per the Buckingham team page. Several weeks ago I notified this editor about a possible conflict of interest on their talk page but this article really looks like a way of writing an article they can use as promotion for their commercial activities in a possible vein of "Oh look at our article on First Day Covers on Wikipedia". What other objective is there for a website marketing assistant in editing such an article, when she makes no edits to anything else? Well actually redlinks, to the mainspace article of this draft, were added to several philatelic articles.
Image copyright issues were also raised on their talk page the first time they uploaded some very fancy illustrated cover and I pointed out that Royal Mail stamps are copyright for 50 years under crown copyright and they admitted this was knowledge they did not have but still reuploaded the same images and now claim they will provide OTRS verification but I highly doubt the stamps on the covers will be verified as freely licensed.
What advise can I offer? If you want to improve Wikipedia, I honestly advise expanding the current first day of issue article with suitable well sourced, informative, encyclopaedic prose that provides readers with a broader knowledge of the topic in a world-view instead of continuing to try to rescue this UK-centric draft. You can also ask the Philately WikiProject members to help expand the current article to incorporate some of your information. ww2censor (talk) 23:50, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - thank you Ww2censor. Although I am grateful for your feedback, I do feel that you are somewhat against my article as you have been there trying to stump my efforts from the very beginning. Please let me explain:

No where in my article does it claim that first day covers are uniquely British. What is reserved for Royal Mail however, is the term 'first day of issue' which relates to the postmarks. So this is why I would like a separate 'First Day Covers' article to try and not confuse the term.
In response to the first section of my article, I wanted to explain how first day covers came about, they came from Britain with the very first postage stamp. The history of the first stamp is extremely relevant in explaining the origin and the process into first day covers. Where would first day covers be today without the very first stamp?
I will expand my article to include other countries as I know FDCs are not just in Britain
I will add more sources, as I said previously, I am very new to this, and yes, I am a graduate so my writing style probably reflects this, so I will aim to make it more encyclopaedic
This article is personal to me, when I started out in the philatelic world 7 years ago, I really struggled to find a clear and concise definition of first day covers. My aim is to make it easier to understand and easier to find this information. When you do a google search of the term first day covers, it returns many examples of websites selling them, but not a clear definition. The wiki article that is returned is first day of issue which can only serve to confuse someone who hasn't the first clue about the subject. My Wiki account is a personal one
With regards to my initial red links, I explained that I was unaware of the process. My only aim is to offer information and to explain the term in its simplest form. And the history behind the subject is very important
In response to the copyright issues you speak of, there are none. I have the written permission from Royal Mail to place the images into the public domain.

Obriens86 (talk) 08:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 10:42:13, 13 May 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Murf1999

Murf1999 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Lawrence Murphy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm not sure what I need to change. Please let me know in point form what need to be done.

Murf1999 (talk) 10:42, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Dear User:Murf1999, as you have not added any support to evidence the accuracy or truth of your addition, it cannot be included in this encyclopedia. In order to craft content that is reliable, I would recommend reading the following document in detail: Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I would also recommend a general copy-edit, as it is not entirely clear what you are talking about in the current text. Isingness (talk) 05:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:08:52, 13 May 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Ashwin Rao Pallakki

Ashwin Rao Pallakki (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Ashwin Rao Pallakki (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

HI Can you let me know how well I can make changes to my article so that I can get my article reviewed successfully and my article gets published. Ashwin Rao Pallakki (talk) 13:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Response given at earlier posting (under May 12). NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

18:51:15, 13 May 2017 review of submission by Koolbreeze

Koolbreeze (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Stuart Wilson (Musician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I want to make the distinction between the Stuart Wilson in this article and any other Stuart Wilson Koolbreeze (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Koolbreeze (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Koolbreeze. I've retitled your draft and it now appears at Draft:Stuart Wilson (musician). If you have any other questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]