Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2014 March 27

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< March 26 << Feb | March | Apr >> March 28 >
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.


March 27

edit

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Breean_Beggs

edit

How can I tell if my submission went through? Can I find it under my account? Allershf1 (talk) 02:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your only contribution seems to be this question, so I suppose your submission did not go through. Did you have another account before? Anon126 (talk - contribs) 07:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's what it looked like to me, but I didn't want to submit the article twice. Thanks!

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael Grecco

edit

I have been unsuccessful in establishing notability for the celebrity photographer Michael Grecco in my article submissions. I added this reference http://www.photoworkshop.com/artman/publish/michael_grecco.shtml from an independent and verifiable source that covers Michael's career and accomplishments, in addition to references to verify the number of celebrities that have been his subjects, along with magazines he's done work for and awards he's won, but yet it has been deemed inadequate. Any advice or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. RonEwer 02:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

If you happen to be connected to Mr Grecco, please tell him I LOVE his work. JamesMiddleamericajames (talk) 04:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Ronewer. The important thing is to find material about him and his work, not simply material showing where his work was published. The following should do the trick:
A suggestion re the article is to keep the biography section brief and matter of fact. Refer to him as Grecco not Michael (per Wikipedia Manual of Atyle) and don't put in things like "of which the latter is now available as an eBook" (promotional). List some of the key subjects photographed in a separate section with date and publication, and only those with a reference. List his books in a separate section and reference each one with a review if possible. Hope that helps. Voceditenore (talk) 07:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi again Ronewer. Since I have access to HighBeam Research, I went ahead and added those references + some others, removed some of your references which weren't particularly reliable as sources but are OK for external links, and copy-edited the draft for encyclopedic style. It will probably be accepted later today. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 11:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
edit

In trying to get an article to be approved I have learned that Wikipedia judges anything that is posted on YouTube is "poorly sourced." I am wondering where I can post to ask for clarification for this ineffective, and narrow minded, policy. I want to know how one can get information that is correctly source, and released on YouTube, considered for an article.

The piece of film I presented as the source is sourced from public records, news articles, Center for Disease control data, and other historical documents. From the date of release, until today, not one human being has been able to discredit this particular film. It's not "poorly sourced." In fact, the hundreds of sources for the film, the links to the sources, are published on the films Facebook fan page.

My questions:

How does one source legitimately sourced information that just so happened to be posted on YouTube?

How do I source public records, and newspaper articles that are part of a closed archive system? Say, an article form 1987 that has been scanned and uploaded to non-publicly accessible database. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Middleamericajames (talk • contribs) 03:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Middleamericajames- It is Articles for Creation Help desk. We answer queries related to submission submitted at AfC. In regarding, reliablity and unreliablity of sources, you are advised to raise your queries at Wikipedia reliable source noticeboard. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 12:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you direct me to place I can report an editor who is attempting to harass me on my talk page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Middleamericajames (talk • contribs) 15:44, 27 March 2014‎

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gilbert Ling

edit

Hello

I am a new to wiki article creation and have spent many hours putting together my first article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gilbert Ling. I have tried to be as historically accurate as possible. I would appreciate any advice on getting this article accepted. davidwr has mentioned that article contains too much promotional material without making reference to any particular sections in the article.@Davidwr:. I am eager to make amends before full review takes place.

Regards PaulGWiki (talk) 05:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello PaulGWiki- Welcome to the Articles for Creation Help desk. Your submission is partially suitable for inclusion but the tone of submission is not appropriate and violates Wikipedia neutral point of view policy. It might lead the submission to be declined. As you ask to point to particular sections, I'd make an attempt to highlight some. In the lead, "His most notable achievements include: [..]", It can be re-written as prose,

Ling qualified for the sixth Boxer Indemnity Scholarship in 1944, a Chinese national scholarship for science students to study in a United States University. In 1947, He co-developed a device called "Gerard-Graham-Ling microelectrode" to measure the electrical potentials of living cells. He wrote, "Association Induction Hypothesis", a general theory of the living cell which contradicts the Sodium Potassium Pump and Sodium channel theories and "Polarized-oriented multilayer theory", used in the development of MRI Cancer Imaging.

Similar ways, it seems to me that whole submission is required to be re-written from a neutral point of view. The proposed article is about "Gilbert Ling", therefore mention of his friends achievement is irrelevant in this submission and should be removed. See, Wikipedia manual of style and Wikipedia neutral point of view and make changes accordingly. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Anupmehra thanks so much for taking the time to read the Draft Gilbert Ling article. I have amended the lead section to be prose and not bullet points, so thank you for that suggestion. I do not however agree with your assertion that the whole submission is required to be re-written from a neutral point of view. 80% of the article is historical biography and written in the format "In YYYY such and such factual thing happened to Ling". This is not opinion but facts and I have not added any tone of non neutrality to these statements of fact (see Early Life and Academic Career).

I do take your point about his friends achievements being somewhat irrelevant and I have amended the text accordingly, for example I have made it explicit the connection between Nobel prize winner Chen-Ning_Yang and Ling who collaborated in 1964 and came up with the Yang-Ling adsorption Isotherm. I have also replaced the word friend with associate in relation to Damadian and Ling. I also believe that having associations and collaborations with distinguished scientists is support for Wikipedia:Notability (people) so this is why they are mentioned and also to give a full and unbiased view. For example I have included links to Paul Lauterbur and Peter Mansfield as they are key figures in the History of MRI.


I would appreciate more specific examples where I have lost neutrality (and I honestly admit there must be many cases) and we can get more on the same page. I have read the Wikipedia manual of style and Wikipedia neutral point of view a few times now and trying to get my head out of the weeds as it were to see from a more mature WIKI perspective. You will have to bear with me and be patient as this is my first WIKI article and there has been lots to learn (and still to learn) to meet the requisite standards.


As to User:davidwr previous point that there is too much promotional material I can only guess that this relates to the Endorsement section which contains 12 quotations. This is definitely excessive but I wanted to build a solid case for notability and good quotations from fellow professional scientists does this. I will try and reduce this section to maybe 6 or so quotes (please advise). I do not know how to document Lings achievements in enough detail to be understandable in the historical and present context and for it not to be to some extent promotional. I have avoided using words of embellishment or praise, so called peacock terms (love that phrase) as per the writing standard so more examples would be useful to me here also.


Ling's main contribution to science is the AIH theory and I have not really promoted this in this article as it could possibly be a future wiki article. This may be a mistake on my part as his theory is complicated and difficult to put into plain English that people of different ages,backgrounds etc could understand. (reasonably big job for me :)). In writing this article I used Richard_Feynman as a template.


Can you also kindly point me to documentation as to the wiki article review process as I do not understand how it works. This is pre-formal review stage right so what is the multiple editors review/collaboration process that happens after this?

PaulGWiki (talk) 10:15, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@PaulGWiki: Thanks for coming here for help, and thanks to Anupmehra for responding. I wish I had the time to give this submission the attention it deserves, but since I don't, I asked you to come here for help. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PaulGWiki (talk) 02:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Rcbharti/sandbox

edit

what should be the profile format for wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcbharti (talk • contribs) 06:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rcbharti- Welcome to the Articles for Creation Help desk. I'm not sure what did you mean by "profile format for wikipedia", did you mean Wikipedia manual of style? Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Draft:Waris Mir by afirahamid

edit

hello i am resorting to the teahouse with hopes that i am given guidelines about what a "reliable" reference or citation is. i have submitted my page twice but everytime Aggie has declined it and i am at a loss about what to make of "reliable" sources. i have given reference of the official website of the man Waris Mir, given references of articles and columns written in English and Urdu daily newspapers written about him, i have given references of the awards given to the guy by the governments of two countries as per reported on the websites. i have given reference of documentaries made on the achievements and life of the man waris mir that were run on state television channel and private television channels what else could be reliable? there is a road and an underpass bridge with his name in the city he lived anbd is buried. isnt that notability enough? plz help. Afirahamid (talk) 06:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)afira hamid[reply]
:Hello Afirahamid- Welcome to the Articles for Creation Help desk. Your submission is declined because contents of the submission is not supported by reliable sources. Please note that, personal self-published media, blogs, facebook, twitter, youtube, etc. are not considered reliable sources. See, Wikipedia reliable source guideline and Wikipedia reliable source examples. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Afirahamid, Actually, your article is supported by good independent sources. You just don't make them clear from your referencing. The good ones are lost in a lot of references to the website about him, blogs etc. Stick to these 6 only from major newspapers in Pakistan (note I have also linked to the Wikipedia article on each newspaper, so the reviewer has an idea about the source):
Then use his website and the video clips of broadcasts about him as External links. Hope this helps. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 14:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Whayes43/sandbox

edit

I have submitted an article about Louise Gouёffic, who is a neighbor, a friend, and a colleague in a largely insignificant blog pertaining to municipal affairs in our Port Hope, Ontario, neighbourhood.

My article about Gouёffic is intended to be a biographical sketch of her life. Gouёffic herself is preparing an article that she intends to be a detailed presentation and critical examination of her work.

Dodger67 kindly reviewed my article and left the following comment:

"Comment: The subject is almost certainly notable but this article does not prove it. All the current references are to texts written by the subject - we need sources about her by independent reliable sources that discuss Gouёffic in some detail. Basically we don't care all that much what she has to say, we care what other people have said about her and her work. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)"

I'm confused.

There are not, to my knowledge, any sources "that discuss Gouёffic's work in some detail," but if there are, I am sure that Gouёffic will reference them in the article that she is preparing about her work.

My article is biographical in nature. (Mentions of her work in my article are, as I note in the article itself, "brief, cursory, and uncritical.") There are no "independent reliable sources" that discuss Gouёffic's family history and early life, her work in education as a teacher and principal, and the focus of her work, which is what my article attempts to do.

I have a question: Does someone (else) need to publish a biographical article (elsewhere) about Gouёffic before I can publish an article about her here?

Help! Please!

Whayes43 (talk) 13:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Whayes43- Welcome to the Articles for Creation Help desk. Your submission is declined because contents of the submission is not supported by reliable sources. I see, there's a comment left on the submission page by the reviewer that, subject seems to be notable but notability is not established in the submission page. Please note that, subject requires significant coverage in the multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources. Almost all sources cited in the submission is a primary source. We need "sources about subject", "not by subject". See, Wikipedia notability guideline. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Your submission name here

edit

Please can you explain to me why my article was declined?

Thank you Steve Tunney SteveTunney (talk) 14:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steve. Your submission Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Movie Maniacs was declined for the reasons given in and under the pink box on that page. Click on the links in the decline reason for more information. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Orange County Fair Speedway

edit

Hello,

I noticed my article has been moved from my sandbox and was just wondering what I would need to do next? I'm so new at this and just want to make sure I do everything correctly and by the book. I began writing my article last Friday and have slowly worked on it when I've had the time and thought everything was going okay...so much to learn to be a contributer.

I saw that my article was not categorized so this morning I added a couple categories.

I'm learning new things everytime I log into my account so forgive me for being a rookie. I just wanted to know what else I can do to help ensure my article is on track.

Thanks for any input, I appreciate your time and considerations.

Jeff Lambert (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeff, this submission has been accepted and moved to mainspace and rated as C-class, so you are making good progress (more than most people on this page anyway!). I see the logo has been deleted from Commons for copyright reasons; have a look at Wikipedia:LOGO to see if that helps in replacing it.
I would remove non-encyclopedic phrasing like "steeped in history". I do also feel the later parts of the article are a little promotional in tone in how they talk about exact start times of current events - the page would instantly become out of date if events were re-scheduled to start at 7:30pm instead of 7pm, for example.
Incidentally, your Google Books links don't take me to a specific page of the book. So it's a good idea to also list the book's ISBN, publisher, author, year of publication, the page number the information is on, and any other information that may be of use. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 15:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I will go and look closer at your suggestions and start making those improvements. I agree with everything you mentioned. I appreciate the feedback. Thanks again.

Jeff Lambert (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One more question if I may. How long does the article take to show up in results when typing the name in a search engine? I typed "Orange County Fair Speedway" and it doesn't come up but when I added the word "wiki" after it, I found the article. Does it not show up because of its rating? I was just wondering how I can get the article to show in search engine results? Thank you for any additional information.

Jeff Lambert (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeff. Most search engines take a few days to catch up with Wikipedia content. As far as I know, they don't understand or take account of the article's current quality rating (although they could, and maybe some do). They do take into account whether an article is "live", as yours is, or whether it's still in Draft or in Articles for Creation. You may find that the response of search engines improves over time. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Writing articles

edit

Is it possible to write two articles and send them to the editors, or does one have to wait? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wnicholas70 (talk • contribs)

You can work on as many drafts or articles at the same time as you like. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Draft:A. M. Robinson

edit

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/A. M. Robinson

The article that i have created has subjected to having no claim of notability. If you just type "A. M. Robinson" in google you will be able to see many results, How do i tell wikipedia that she is a famous person? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haiderwm12 (talk • contribs)

Hi Haiderwm12. A good way to try to prove notability of the author is to add references to reviews of their book in independent reliable sources like newspapers or literary magazines. Information about the author (or their book) published by someone connected with them (for example, their agent, or booksellers, or their publisher) are of no use for proving notability.
It might be difficult to prove notability if the person has only written one book; but it's not necessarily impossible. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 19:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Texas Premier Soccer League (TPSL)

edit

I have removed the contact details as explained.

What else needs edited?

Tulipknife (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It needs better sources. The websites of the league and the teams in it are not independent thus they do not prove notability. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2014_March_27&oldid=1096418850"