Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2012 August 9
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < August 8 | << Jul | August | Sep >> | August 10 > |
| 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 9
editIn the two years I've been active on wikipedia, I've created almost 40 articles -- and always moved them from draft stage to article stage when I thought they were read. I just created an article titled "The Yankles" but was automatically notified that it must be reviewed and approved. It is now at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/The_Yankles. I'm wondering if this is a new policy for all new articles? Also, is there a way for an editor who has created multiple articles to reach a point where he or she is exempt from this review requirement? I apologize if these questions are inappropriate, but I'm still trying to learn the rules.... Thanks! NearTheZoo (talk) 01:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Done I've accepted the submission and moved it into mainspace. If you used the Template:userspace draft and clicked on "Submit the page!" it submits it to AFC. If you don't want your draft articles to go here and can just move them instead on clicking "Submit the page!". Normally any article in mainspace is placed on a list and an editor patrols it in the new page patrol process. The autopatrolled user right marks them as patrolled (and is not related to AFC) and is only given out to people who have created a number (usually around 50) of acceptable articles. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, Callanecc! Ah...now I understand what I did differently this time! Many thanks! NearTheZoo (talk) 12:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
I need more info on the review of Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Shadow Education. How are the sources provided not reliable? They are either published articles, online articles or from academic journals. There are a plethora of citations, from a variety of sources.
SCrowley123 (talk) 09:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- Hi. I declined this, and I think the reason was because a lot of the article relates to the first source, which I thought might have been a primary source, but on looking at it, it seems to be a valid news report, and there are several other sources cited. Also, the lead is a bit confusing, and should simply state something like "Shadow education is the private tuition of school age children who also receive state funded full time education" or something similar. The other concern I had is that article didn't have a gobal view on the subject, but that in itself is not specifically a reason to decline an article, and I would simply tag that as such. Also, in a news search for "Shadow Education" here I see articles from Reuters and BBC Archives, which sustain its notability. My apologies - please resumbit the article for review. --Ritchie333 (talk) 10:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello
My name is Bianca Malisan, from EYC Ltd. Please could you remove the article for creation: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/EYC_Ltd
The reason for this is that the information is untrue and the company, EYC Ltd. would like this page removed so that people cannot access it on the web.
Thank you Bianca Malisan Executive Assistant 0208 255 2205 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.231.50 (talk) 09:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- I've added a speedy deletion tag and courtesy blanked. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Chandrika Balan alias Chandramati
editSir, Madam,
Thank you for your prompt response.
However,it is not clear what you mean by foot note coding. Does it mean that more information should be given on each source?
http://www.berchmanskuwait.org/activities.htm This link shows her as the Best Teacher Award winner of 2002. For the Adelaide and Canada visits, unfortunately no web sources are available.
Kindly advise what to do.
Sincerely
NB: Kindly advise how can I send her photo?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panank (talk • contribs) 13:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- Regarding footnotes, please have a look at Help:Footnote. It means that each possibly contentious statement should be accompanied by a footnote that specifies the references that supports the statement. I have added this source and the references given in the article to the relevant statements as footnotes; you can have a look at the draft's code to see how I did that. However, much of the article's content remains unreferenced and will have to be either sourced or removed. Sources need not be available online (though that's easier for the readers, obviously); print editions of newspapers or books are also acceptable if you provide sufficient bibliographical details to identify the source.
- As an aside, the Alumni Association's website is a primary source (the organization giving the award reporting about its own award); a secondary source would be much better. The reasoning here is that if no one else has bothered to take note of the award, it's probably not that important in the first place.
- If the photo comes with a free license, in particular one compatible to the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license, you can upload it to the Wikimedia Commons via their Upload Wizard. Once it's uploaded, the picture tutorial explains the wikicode for displaying it in the article. But a photo is much less important than the reference issues; those should be your primary concern. Huon (talk) 14:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I went through my references with a reviewer, which she found notable, and she tried to approve my stub article however she received a error which she wrote about in a comment in the article Comment: Tried to approve this stub and got an extension hook error, also got a title blacklist message when attempting to move. Not sure what's going on but at least it's in the propor talk space now.heather walls (talk) 05:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Please fix issue and approve article as per reviewer's request.
Oniazuma (talk) 17:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- The article looks available to review. However, I'm reluctant to pass it as I've spotted an immediate issue with the references. The first one here is cited for "The firm is one of the leaders in Tribal Gaming accounting", an important notability claim for the article, but it returns a 404 "Not found" error. Based on that, it might be more appropriate if you checked all the references again and resubmitted the article for review. --Ritchie333 (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what that issue was, and if the title indeed is blacklisted, creating the article would probably require admin intervention. However, I agree with Ritchie333 that the references need work; I don't think they actually suffice to establish the accounting firm's notability. One, the Journal of Accountancy article, covers the firm in some detail. The others are almost all broken links, primary sources or trivial coverage; many do not even support the statement they are cited for. For example, the claim that the firm "has helped steer Indian Gaming regulation" is sourced to an Imperial Valley Press article which mentions Eve only as a source on the percentage of gaming revenues that is net income. No indication of Eve "steering regulation" is given in the source. In summary, almost all of the content is not based on reliable secondary sources. As an aside, there was no improvement to the references (except capitalization) since the article was declined for a lack of notability on July 27. Huon (talk) 17:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Ahh crap ok you know what happened was when i was fixing capitalization and other errors i must have accidentally broken the links. As far as the references, perhaps i should have put the imperial valley article after the sentence, and perhaps I am looking at the article from the perspective of a CPA too much, but as far as notability, I think the fact that they quoted the firm for the revenues & NI figures is far more notable than all the other words in the article. This is because we are looking at a public accounting firm, and in the accounting industry figures are what the meat of the practice is about. And for them to quote the firm for the indian gaming figures, when they could have used figures from any other firm, including big 4 firms speaks multitudes when the topic is a public accounting firm. Public accounting firms must also stay independent of the client in many cases, so speculations about the industry etc is often avoided. I thought steering regulation would be ok wording because articles like this are what steer regulation, & the fact that figures provided by the firm were used means independent research led to the firm's figures. But yes, I think maybe the wording could be changed, so I will change it to something more concrete. Thank you for the suggestion. Also, there were many references added to the article since it first was declined - you don't see it this way because after the first decline by czarkoff the other ones were mistakes. I found this because I went to the help chat room, talked to a reviewer who overturned czarkoff, then he said czarkoff told him the subsequent denials were mistakes. Anyways, i'll get to work fixing the references. I just wanted to start a stub at first,then add more/better refs and info when I have more time etc, but I wanted to add that the indian gaming public accounting industry is a very niche industry which is still very much in its infancy in the scheme of things, and the Senate hearing where the firm was called was to testify probably was the most notable event in indian gaming accounting history as far as regulation etc goes. Also, there are few media outlets because accounting is not a very sought after topic for exciting news especially because tribal accounting is even smaller but among the largest is NIGA, which the firm is reported on plenty of times by. Just thought i'd add that in this particular industry, media outlets like NIGA & Casino Enterprise Magazine are like the CNN of mainstream news. Okay sorry for the rambling will fix the broken link issue as soon as i have time. Thanks for all your suggestions!Oniazuma (talk) 00:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- Firstly, I just had a look at the sources whose links were broken. The first is an interview, which is of dubious use because it's effectively Joseph Eve speaking about Joseph Eve - there's no indication of fact-checking by the interviewer, and the publication doesn't seem all that reliable to me. Another is a primary source, the NIGA report written by Joseph Eve themselves.
- Secondly, the criterion for notability is "significant coverage in reliable sources which are independent of the subject". Being quoted for the industry's revenue figures is not significant coverage; it tells us nothing about Joseph Eve.
- Thirdly, when the source quotes a company member on some industry figure, concluding that this quote somehow steers regulation is original research (which is forbidden on Wikipedia). If we want to claim that Joseph Eve steers or influences regulation, we need a secondary source which says so.
- Fourthly, currently there are no secondary sources for the Senate hearing. If that's the most important event in the company's history, I'd expect some newspaper coverage.
- Fifthly, I cannot tell what conversation you had on the help chat, but according to the draft's history, Czarkoff declined the article once, on July 27, and there were neither declines nor significant improvements to the article afterwards. There may have been some mistakes earlier, but not later (unless we consider heather walls' attempt to accept an article on an apparently non-notable company a mistake).
- Finally, while you say that "figures are what the meat of the practice is about", the article is pretty much devoid of figures, such as revenue figures for Joseph Eve itself, or the number of employees, or just the founding date. Those would be important facts on any company. Huon (talk) 13:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello! I'm just trying to get an idea of long it might be before someone reviews my submission? Can I make it live in the mean time? Thank you! Lisavn (talk) 20:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- There is currently a backlog of articles waiting to be reviewed - previously it has taken a few days, but at the moment it may take a week. One issue I quickly noticed with the article is that some of the references seem to be blog sites, or don't really talk about the club in depth, which might indicate a problem with notability, particularly if the club has only achieved local, rather than regional or national news coverage. Based on that, I wouldn't recommend moving the article into the main namespace (which is what you probably mean by "making it live") as it would have a risk of appearing at Articles for Deletion at this point for the above reasons. Hope that helps. --Ritchie333 (talk) 20:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- To expand a little on what Ritchie333 said: The only source which provides a little more coverage is the "Most Improved Rock Club 2004" article, and even that does not confirm everything it's cited for. Few of the others do. Two don't mention the Cafe at all. Only one source doing more than mentioning the name is probably not enough to satisfy the notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
- To provide just two examples of the loose connection the draft has to its sources: All sources spell it "Cafe Du Nord" without the accent on the "e" (so does the Cafe's own sign), and according to the "most improved" source, it was sold in March 2003, not in 1993. Here the draft goes against the sources; most other content is simply unrelated to them and not verifiable. Huon (talk) 21:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- It seems there already is an article for this. I have to be honest and say that the main article has a strong chance of being listed at Articles for Deletion as well, as it is only two sentences long, and the web references only mention the club in passing. Your draft is actually better as it currently stands, but even so, there needs to be a lot of work finding more reliable sources for this to survive, I'm afraid. --Ritchie333 (talk) 21:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Apparently submission was blank. As of right now, it's no longer blank...unless I am missing something. How does one resubmit? Mct mht (talk) 22:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- I did it for you. The submission is supposed to be on the talk page, don't worry about it. If the submission is accepted the reviewer will make sure it lands in the right place. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)