Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2012 August 11

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.

August 11

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Basil Webb

This article was turned down on 3 Aug because of lack of references. This was rectified the next day but the article has not yet been approved nor have any further comments been received. Could this article please be submitted for review again.

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Basil_Webb

Thank you

Ashkelon5059 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashkelon5059 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The article has been resubmitted for review, but since there's a massive backlog, it will probably take a few more days until it gets reviewed again. However, I'm not sure the references are sufficient. Some of them don't even mention Webb; I doubt Zoominfo's reliability, and most of the others provide only trivial coverage. The reviewer may well decide that this still isn't the significant coverage in reliable sources necessary to establish Webb's notability. Huon (talk) 02:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Landt Trio

I have several different headings in my article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Landt Trio. All of them come up except the third one, "Later Years" or "Later Career" (I tried both hoping the problem might just have something to do with the number of characters, but of course, it didn't.) The heading text appears in neither the table of contents nor the body of the text. I have checked and double checked that each one has the right number of = before (each of my headings has 3 = before and 3 after the words.) I can't think what else to try. Please help or send me to the right forum for this kind of help. Many thanks.

Karlsdotter (talk) 03:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC) Kitsie Parkinson (Karlsdotter)

You made a minor syntax error formatting one of the named refs. I changed a <ref name="dunning /"> to <ref name="dunning" />. I also replaced the reference section with {{reflinks}} so the footnotes will be automatically generated. Kilopi (talk) 03:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks to Kilopi who doesn't seem to be able to receive direct communication (or as a newby, I haven't yet figured out how.) However, I am very grateful for your help.

Karlsdotter (talk) 05:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jetex Flight Support

Hello

I would like to know if my article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jetex Flight Support has been submitted for review. It was created on August 11th

Thank you

Komal KomalQaiser (talk) 09:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The article has been submitted; as long as there's a "Review waiting" message and it's categorized among the pending AfC submissions, it is awaiting review. However, there's a massive backlog of more than 700 drafts awaiting review, and it will take some time, probably about a week, until it's this one's turn.

I have tidied up the references and added the footnotes to the relevant parts of the article. However, four of the references are to the company's own website, a primary source. Since Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it would be much better to have independent confirmation, such as newspaper articles. Huon (talk) 10:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mark Saylor

Please note that the editor known as Ritchie333 who erased the original article erred in several places in his review - First, he apparently did not know that Steve Brilll'sBrills Content is a very respectable online newspaper media watchdog referred to in Wikipedia itself under Steve Brill. Ritchie333 referred to it as a newsletter. Second, Ritchie333 erred in commenting that an article did not reference Saylor when in fact it did. Finally, it appears that Ritchie333 did not read the references in the article he reviewed and deleted it based poor reasoning and little understanding of the content area -- Ritchie333 stated that the article was defamatory.

In no way is this article defamatory. It is a factual article about a notable editor who ushered Pulitzer prizes to completion and gave the LA Times stature during his tenure. I believe Ritchie333's prior comments and lack of knowledge concerning standard publications in the media area obviates his ability to review subjects in this area. A careful reading of the documentation within establishes both the notability of the subject and appropriateness of the documentation. I respectfully object to his review and to his right to review further articles in the media area. Thank you.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Scholarlyarticles (talk • contribs) 23:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, it wasn't Ritchie333 who deleted the draft but The JPS. Secondly, the current version is rather dubiously sourced. Two of the sources are the LA Times itself (a primary source on its own entertainment editor), and neither of them supports what it's cited for; the "Crossing the line" article doesn't even mention Saylor (and yes, I searched all 40 pages). Classifying Brill's Content as a newsletter seems appropriate, and it doesn't provide significant coverage of Saylor anyway. The American Thinker article confirms only half of what it's cited for, and conversely, half of what the American Thinker had to say about Saylor somehow didn't make it into the draft. I also have doubts about its reliablity. That leaves us with the Editor and Publisher piece, which is a reprint of a Hollywood Reporter article. That's the one most similar to the article content it's cited for, but "friends say" is gossip at best.

It might be possible to write an acceptable article about Saylor, but this draft would have to be rewritten entirely.

I would agree, though, that it's not defamatory - quite the opposite, it's unduly laudatory. For example, there's hype such as "known for creating the first hard-nosed coverage of the entertainment industry in the business section of The LA Times", and it forgot to mention Saylor's lobbying work for South Ossetia which, according to the American Thinker, included promoting the faux human rights activist Lira Tskhovrebova. Huon (talk) 01:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I suspect the "defamatory" might be because there was too much information not in reliable sources (for reasons discussed above by Huon) in a biography of a living person, and the standard template for declining an article of that type mentions "defamatory" in its text and blanks the article. To suggest I hadn't reviewed the references isn't assuming good faith - chill out. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)