Help desk
< January 17	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 19 >

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.

January 18

00:30:24, 18 January 2018 review of submission by Neutronious

Neutronious (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Mike Gunther (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Not sure what has to be inline referenced. Thought I had footnotes correct. Thanks! Neutronious (talk) 00:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Neutronious:, you need to call the reference within the text. So, when a claim is made, you need a reference that clarifies the statement you have made. See WP:REFNAME. If you name your references, you can place them into the text. There are stricter rules around Living People Biographies (Or WP:BLPs), which means you need to have inline citations as standard. If you would like some help doing this, let me know. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) What Lee said. Since I've already typed it up, here's another way of expressing it:

In the context of this draft, WP:MINREF says inline citations are required for any statement that has been challenged, and for any contentious material about Gunther. The reviewer didn't specify a particular statement they're challenging or that they find contentious. So you could wikilawyer about whether you've met the minimum standard, but most editors voluntarily exceed the minimum standard. Inline citations are widely believed to lead to better articles and they avoid the problem of some editor removing content in the future simply because they can't find the source of it among a thicket of sources. The draft is only 250 words, so it would probably be easier to just add inline citations for everything than it would be to argue about it.

Break it down bit by bit. Which source says in effect that he had a long career (before 2005) creating action sequences for a huge list of films? Move the ref for that source from where it's lumped together in the references section to immediately after the statement in the body. Then which source can be paraphrased as "his first directing was for a roster of MTV shows ..."? Reposition that ref. Continue until everything in the draft cites a source and all the references have been used at least once. WP:REFNAME explains a common and useful technique for using the same source more than once. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

04:55:26, 18 January 2018 review of submission by Vizianagaram

Vizianagaram (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Vivek Yadav IAS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, This is my first article and I submitted it for review. it came back rejected with the comments Comment: Supplement the content of Lede and Early Life with inline citations so that I can know when he was born and what exactly was his early life etc. Dial911 (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

What I understood from the comment was, I need to include inline citation for the part Early Life or get some more content for that part. Please clarify my if I misunderstood the comment and guide me to rectify my errors in publishing the content.

Thanks,

Vizianagaram (talk) 04:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Vizianagaram. Yes, you got that exactly right. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

16:47:50, 18 January 2018 review of submission by AbeAbeModiin

AbeAbeModiin (talk · contribs)

Hi,

Thank you so much for taking my request! I'm simply not sure why my entry was rejected. It appears from the comments that the tone came off as biased/advertorial and the references didn't seem like they were valid. I went out of my way not to editorialize, and the references are all from 3rd parties, major news publications, and major industry publications. Can someone please point to specific examples of where I went wrong? First time at this, so apologies for the confusion; and I want to make this work! And thank you so much for all your hard work making Wikipedia rock :)

Best,

Abe

AbeAbeModiin (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)AbeAbeModiin[reply]

AbeAbeModiin (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This has been asked and answered at User talk:John from Idegon#16:24:01, 18 January 2018 review of submission by AbeAbeModiin --Worldbruce (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:04:20, 18 January 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by 177.228.183.157

177.228.183.157 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:ZipBooks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

177.228.183.157 (talk) 19:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a question? The page is in article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

21:51:35, 18 January 2018 review of submission by Trainerguy

Trainerguy (talk · contribs)

The reviewer commented that the article reads more like advertising than a wiki article, and I'm trying to understand what parts are the problem. I'm a heavy user of Wikipedia so I'm pretty familiar with the encyclopedic style it uses, so I've tried to write it in a similar style - keeping it balanced and focusing on elements that are directly referenced from third party sources.

In preparing the article, I reviewed several other published articles in similar areas for comparison, including Salesforce.com, Microsoft_Outlook, Facebook_Messenger, FirstClass, Edsby, and Drivewyze, among others. Many of these articles have history sections like I've included, several have "main features" sections as well, and some have barely any third party references, so there's obviously something I'm missing.

If you could provide some feedback in that area, and maybe an example of how some of it should be rewritten, I'd be most appreciative. I'm happy to rewrite it such it fits your guidelines, I just want to be clear on what needs to change.

Thanks

Trainerguy (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Trainerguy. It's natural to learn from and reason by example, but in doing so it's important to use excellent examples. Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality content and low quality content. Of the articles you listed, Microsoft Outlook and Facebook Messenger are mediocre, and the rest are awful. Some of them should probably be deleted, but no one has gotten around to it yet. Don't expect an article patterned after them to be accepted - the existence of rotten articles is not a sound reason for creating more of them. The essay "Other stuff exists" may help you understand why.

The draft leans heavily on trade journals: Fleet Owner, Today's Trucking, Truck News, and Trucking Info. Searches found no significant coverage in more mainstream publications. Reviewers may discount trade journals when evaluating notability because of their narrow audience and often too-cozy relationship with the companies and industries they cover. If the company is not notable, then no amount of editing will make the draft acceptable.

I see that it's a subsidiary. I haven't looked for significant coverage of the parent company in independent, reliable sources, but if such coverage exists you might be able to re-purpose the draft to be about the parent. If the necessary coverage doesn't exist, then the parent isn't notable either. There are plenty of other articles you could work on, though, such as that craptastic list you mentioned. --Worldbruce (talk) 07:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Worldbruce, this makes sense. For the articles that you say are awful, they don't appear to be marked for deletion so is there something I can do to help when I find things like that? I'll look around in the docs here and see what the process is, but if I can help improve the overall quality of content I'd like to.

-- Trainerguy (talk) 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Trainerguy: One way to start would be to identify and flag problems. Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup is a comprehensive list of templates used to tag problems in articles. Take an article such as Drivewyze, identify from the list the 1-3 most important problems with it, and add cleanup templates appropriately.

To fix problems that have been tagged, see Wikipedia:Community portal. It's a good introduction to a variety of problems requiring different skills. It also links to a more complete list of maintenance tasks at Wikipedia:Maintenance, and to other resources. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]