Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 May 14
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < May 13 | << Apr | May | Jun >> | May 15 > |
| 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 14
[edit]01:10:45, 14 May 2017 review of submission by Choclawrence
[edit]- Choclawrence (talk · contribs)
Dear Helpdesk Experts,
I am new to article creation in wikipedia.
I have been working on a new and fresh version for the title 'Kobi Arad' in the recent several days - I believe it has encyclopedic value.
I have made effort to keep it concise and not commercial. Also, senior editor - Anachronist has viewed the article and has advised to submit it for review.
I humbly request your expertise in helping me edit this draft, and in uploading it successfully to wikipedia.
With thanks,
Lawrence
Choclawrence (talk) 01:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Choclawrence: Hello, Lawrence. Our apologies for the delay in response. Later today, I'll leave some comments on your draft. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
03:59:36, 14 May 2017 review of submission by Prairiefire2
[edit]- Prairiefire2 (talk · contribs)
Prairiefire2 (talk) 03:59, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
1) I drafted a new article for election audit. The article was declined by User:Kostas20142 with the explanation that the page already exists. However, no such page comes up when I search on 'election audit' or 'election auditing.' Instead, I get the message "You may create the page Election audit, but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered." The list that follows contains no general entry for election audits, only smaller articles addressing specific types or incidents of election audits. Minimum content for a good overview entry for election audits would include at least mention of both a) process audits and b) results audits, and explain the need for election audits and something about history and current practice.
2) There is an entry for "risk-limiting audit" (RLA) but risk-limiting audits are just one type of election audit--specifically, one type of a results audit. Other types of election audits are much more common; RLA is not used in many US jurisdictions. In a well-organized encyclopedia, RLA would be covered as a subsection of a larger entry about election audits.
3) The entry for RLA was very poor and tagged as a stub--one paragraph with incomplete basic info about RLA, and one paragraph consisting entirely of off-topic commentary on the 2016 Presidential recount, in which audits (risk-limiting or otherwise) played no part. I deleted the irrelevant material and added specific information and links about RLA, but did not turn the RLA entry into a general overview of election auditing.
QUESTION: Now that I have ascertained that no entry for 'election audits' exists, and have edited the entry on 'risk-limiting audits' to make it clear that RLA is only one type of election audit, can I go ahead and publish the entry for 'election audits' as originally drafted? Prairiefire2 (talk) 21:39, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you.
- Hi Prairiefire2 The initial review of Draft:Election audits has been reversed, so a fresh review will be done. You are welcome to continue improving the draft while waiting for the review. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
HI I have reedited my article and I would like to know how it looks right know also what should I do for its improvement. If possible I would also wish to know about when can it reviewed
Fightmore (talk) 06:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Fightmore: Hello, Fight. Our apologies for the delay in response. Later today, I'll leave some comments on your draft. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
\
My article on Don Dudley, an American artist has been deleted. Included a quote from Don Dudley's gallery, with proper citation, and a reviewer scrapped the entire article. If in the process of creating articles on contemporary art you cannot cite galleries, or words used by galleries and museums, it makes the submission process incredibly difficult. I also noticed that the man who deleted the article was a scholar on Classical and Renaissance art, with a long history of editing those articles, however scholarly writing on contemporary art does not follow the same guidelines and I fear that my article was biased against for not being a part of his favored historical period.
I would like clarification and help in posting this article on Don Dudley, which has been linked to more notable sources than the majority of artist page stubs on wikipedia.
- Certainly you can cite text used by galleries and museums. But what you did was copy text directly from another website to Wikipedia, in violation of copyright law. Wikipedia takes copyright law very seriously, so the reviewer removed the text. And, to be pedantic, the draft has not been deleted, it's still there at Draft:Don Dudley. It's its content that has been deleted. Maproom (talk) 09:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
EAAlfonso (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- EAAlfonso, more precisely the problem is that the draft was made up of a series of quotations, and we do not do that. It needs to be rewritten as a text, with the quotations used more sparingly for emphasis. One way to deal with it is to add a quote= parameter in the reference, and put the quoted text in there. What you did is I think fair use according to US law, but Wikipedia has more restrictive rules, designed to make our articles universally acceptable even in countries which do not recognize fair use the way the US does. DGG ( talk ) 20:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
16:03:27, 14 May 2017 review of submission by Balaprabakark
[edit]
Balaprabakark (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Balaprabakark: Hello, Balaprabakark. Our apologies for the delay in response. Did you have a specific question? NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)