Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 September 5
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < September 4 | << Aug | September | Oct >> | September 6 > |
| 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. |
September 5
[edit]09:09:54, 5 September 2017 review of submission by Vectorebus
[edit]- Vectorebus (talk · contribs)
Please advise if the logo I redrew and uploaded of Bloem City Blazers on Upload Wizard followed the correct process: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloem_City_Blazers#/media/File:Bloem_City_Blazers_logo_for_T20_Global_League.svg Vectorebus (talk) 09:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Vectorebus: Hello, Vectorebus. We're not the people best able to assist you on this, especially given that the article hosting the image was not submitted through the Articles for Creation project. You might seek assistance at Wikipedia's Teahouse. Or simply do nothing -- in most cases, if there's a problem with the upload, someone will let you know. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
11:59:55, 5 September 2017 review of submission by Perplexed12
[edit]- Perplexed12 (talk · contribs)
- No draft specified!
I submitted an article on "Roaring Reggie Newton" and I understand it has been rejected. I proposed adding references over the next few days along with a photo of Newton that I will place on Wikipedia Commons. Can I still proceed with these two or does the rejection close the matter? Where do I find the story I submitted if I can continue? Perplexed12 (talk) 11:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Perplexed12. Yes, you may continue improving Draft:Reginald Newton. It is essential that it cite a range of independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain a significant depth of information about Newton. Inexperienced editors commonly misjudge where the bar is set, both in terms of what is a reliable source and how deep those sources need to be to demonstrate notability. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
13:52:48, 5 September 2017 review of submission by Manish Aacharya
[edit]- Manish Aacharya (talk · contribs)
- No draft specified!
Manish Aacharya 13:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
why does my artical not show wikipedia in google
- Hi Manish Aacharya. If you are asking about User:Manish Aacharya/sandbox, it has not been accepted as an article, so Google ignores it. If you are asking about User:Manish Aacharya, that page does not follow the user page guidelines and does not serve Wikipedia's needs. The content there should be removed. Google ignores it too. Wikipedia is not Facebook or LinkedIn, where anyone can create a page about themselves. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It covers only topics that are notable, and is not the place to write an autobiography. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
16:16:48, 5 September 2017 review of submission by John hanley parc
[edit]
tl;dr: skip down to Bottom Line.
Hi. I'm asking for newbie help in drafting 1st article, rather than a re-review.
Ablative Analysis[1] is a term of art in the new field of Machine Learning[2]. I publish in this field, and I wrote the article because I heard this unfamiliar term used in a conference call and was disappointed that wikipedia did not describe it. I wanted other people to easily find a description.
Despite citing seven authors who use the term, the 1st draft was rejected as not adequately supported by reliable sources. That's cool, I didn't expect my first attempt to immediately go sailing through, this is going to be a learning process. My understanding is that the article is currently rejected because I haven't done enough work yet, and the action item is on me to improve the writing, that's good. I seek constructive criticism.
The help I'm requesting is: what's my next action item? What should I improve?
Here are some specific aspects I am considering, but I welcome you to raise new aspects as well as comment on these:
1. Perhaps the text of the article needs to be expanded or adjusted to more closely follow the structure or vocabulary of one of the cited reliable sources, or to make stronger or weaker assertions. 2. Perhaps the article is too long, and it would be easier to start with a shorter one that organically grows with contributions from others. 3. Perhaps the article's few paragraphs are not adequately supported by reliable sources due to inadequate inline citations, and I should add one or more. Maybe Ng's ref. 1[3] gets cited two or three times, with a couple of the other refs. thrown in. 4. Perhaps the article's list of seven references does not adequately support (with reliable sources) the article content, and I should expand the list of references. 5. Perhaps the seven references do not adequately support the article because they are not sufficiently reliable sources. For example Ng [4] or Thrun [5] may not have enough verifiable awards listed, or I need to mention paper counts or citations or h-index, or I need to describe references that won Best Paper Award or appear in journals or conferences above some specified level of prestige or have been cited more than N times.
potential further references to add:
- I chose to ignore e.g. Richard Socher's[6] remark about "one could reduce the confusion by performing an ablative analysis (show its performance with different parts removed)" in http://hunch.net/?p=1852 because it is brief and in a blog rather than a peer reviewed journal, so it didn't seem above the bar for a citation. (BTW he used confusion in this technical sense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confusion_matrix)
- Kan Chen et al., Systems and methods for attention-based configurable convolutional neural networks (abc-cnn) for visual question answering, U.S. Patent Publication US20170124432 A1 [7]
- Gunnar Sigurdsson et al., What Actions are Needed for Understanding Human Actions in Videos? [8]
- Rafal Jozefowicz et al., An Empirical Exploration of Recurrent Network Architectures [9]
- Rico Sennrich et al., The University of Edinburgh's Neural MT Systems for WMT17 [10]
- Michael Yang et al., On support relations and semantic scene graphs [11]
- Yi Zhu et al., Efficient Action Detection in Untrimmed Videos via Multi-Task Learning [12]
- Miloš Cerňak, Diagnostics for Debugging Speech Recognition Systems [13]
- Xiaolong Wang et al., Transitive Invariance for Self-supervised Visual Representation Learning [14]
- Abhinav Shrivastava et al., Beyond Skip Connections: Top-Down Modulation for Object Detection [15]
Bottom Line: I respect your process, and am asking for someone to hold a newbie's hand to shepherd me through my first new article. Thank you!
John hanley parc (talk) 16:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- @John hanley parc: Hello, John. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. As for your question, I'm not sure what to say, mainly because I'm not sure where to start. I think there's a lot to discuss here and the draft's Talk page is probably the better place to do that. Later today, I'll start that discussion and will notify you when I do. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
20:07:36, 5 September 2017 review of submission by GrayscaleInvestments
[edit]
!helper How can I add company data to the right hand side of the screen in the summary box , i.e. company logo, Type, Industry, Founded, Founder, Key People, Headquarters, AUM, Website? I have submitted a page for review for 'Grayscale Investments.'
GrayscaleInvestments (talk) 20:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Hello, Greyscale. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. I think you're looking to use the {{infobox company}} template, details of which can be found by clicking on the link just given. But right now, your bigger problem is the lack of sourcing in your submission. Other than a link to your own website, the submission includes no sources whatsoever, and certainly not the multiple instance of third-party reliable sources that are going to be needed before your submission is accepted for publication here on Wikipedia. That -- and not the infobox -- seems to me to be the more pressing concern. On a different note, your user name suggest that you have a conflict of interest here. If you haven't already done so, please read our guidelines on conflict of interest. I hope this response is helpful. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I have improved my Article titled 'Hygiene during milking in Tanzania' to address the issues raised by one of your reviews and I have resubmit today morning, bu no answers until now. Please I need your help.
Cesilia Mambile (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Hello, Cesilia. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. When articles are declined and re-submitted for review, they typically go to the back of the queue and do not see their next review for a few weeks. But in your case, I saw no reason to wait. The referencing you added was insufficient to satisfy the earlier reviewer's concerns, because those references were simply a name and a year. Were these books? articles? personal letters to you? Complete bibliographic data would have been needed before any further action was taken on your submission. But I also saw a bigger problem -- the topic of dairy hygiene is already discussed in the Dairy article. So, I declined your submission for that reason. Perhaps some of your material -- after being properly referenced -- can be used to improve that other article. I hope this response is helpful. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)