Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2014 October 1

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< September 30 << Sep | October | Nov >> October 2 >
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.


October 1

edit

02:37:06, 1 October 2014 review of submission by Rogecr

edit


Hi there, the first time that I submitted this article, the reviewer gave me very clear objectives to address to address for resubmission. I thought I had addressed them, but the article was rejected again, and I'm not clear why it was rejected the second time. Would you please give me some examples of what should be changed? I'm new to Wikipedia (writing, at least!) so I may just be missing something in the process. May thanks for your help!

Rogecr (talk) 02:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Writing in a dull enough manner for Wikipedia is a skill that takes a bit of learning. Your draft is a lovely narrative, using phraseology which is good for magazine articles. And that is great if that is the target audience. The problem with this tone is that it is easily possible to misconstrue it as promotional. I'd appreciate Cutest Penguin's thoughts here since they declined it and pushed it back to you. It is not mandatory for a reviewer to leave a comment in addition to a review, but it is preferred when things like article tone are involved.
The hints I have for you are "Dull-but worthy" is the tone we need. in our terms this is WP:NPOV. However exciting and interesting a topic is we must rely on the reader to generate their own enthusiasms from the bland text we provide. Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles. For me this one is borderline. CP disagrees. It is fine that we disagree, by the way. That is why many sets of eyes can be very useful on a review. Fiddle Faddle 12:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

04:21:19, 1 October 2014 review of submission by Helen7274

edit

Timtrent (aka FiddleFaddle?)

Thank you for your extensive comments and helpful suggestions. It seems that I have much work to do <deep sigh>. Perhaps a good place for me to start would to dramatically reduce the article and use only facts to which I can apply secondary sources. I can then add to the article later? Your comment about most of the references referring to the works rather than the man, is valid.

Thanks also for the info regarding the formatting of the references - I know they're a '...mess and sea of blue', but didn't know how to fix that. Lots to learn!

regards - helen

Helen7274 (talk) 04:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Helen7274 (talk) 04:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC) Helen7274 (talk) 04:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the fun of Wikipedia is learning how to do it. We try very hard to give as good a set of pointers as we can when we review drafts. Yes, cut, cut, and cut again. This is heartrending initially, but the material you have written is never lost. It remains in the article history, form where it can be scooped out and reinserted at the right time. Secondary sources are vital to acceptance. Even so, WP:PRIMARY shows you the limited ways you may deploy a primary source. Work steadily and slowly. The only deadline is the one you set for yourself. Think always "How does this look for me as a reader?" but do not prettify for the sake of prettification. Above all, expect the next submission to be pushed back for work, too. The process is iterative. Just continue to do your best and continue to ask for the help you need. Fiddle Faddle 09:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

07:46:22, 1 October 2014 review of submission by Angeliquemagno

edit


Hi Wikipedia Team,

I'd like to check how I can upload a table with a logo and some details on the right side of our entry?

Appreciate your assistance.

Best regards,

Angelique Angeliquemagno (talk) 07:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You probably mean an infobox, such as {{Infobox Company}}, bit you need to look, first, at the quality of your article, which I view as promotional and to read WP:CORP which I view this as failing. You see to have a conflict of interest. This is heavily deprecated in the main name space (articles) but is tolerated in the WP:AFC process. The article YuuPay Secure Pte Ltd is potentially going to be deleted. You either need to improve it significantly and fast in order to save it or to start again using WP:AFC. Fiddle Faddle 13:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

08:05:58, 1 October 2014 review of submission by SitalTech

edit


I would like to ask regarding a new article that I'd like to publish, it is currently in my sandbox, got declined twice 1th time was declined for This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Since it is a new technology, the only source I could apply is the Patent number then, it was declined for - This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the general guideline on notability and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.

How can I tell the world via Wikipedia that this technology exists? please help, thanks! Nissim

SitalTech (talk) 08:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot. WIkipedia is not a media outlet. It records items that pass WP:GNG only. When this emerging technology is notable and reported in WP:RS then will be the time for an article. Fiddle Faddle 09:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

12:54:13, 1 October 2014 review of submission by Walkerbigtalker

edit


How do I change the name of the entry from Ian Walker to Ian Craig Walker?

How can I clean up the reference section for this entry? As you'll see, there are a number of blank references I'm looking to eliminate the references from 10 onwards.

How do I get only the first 9 references in the entry?

Thanks in advance for your time.

Walkerbigtalker (talk) 12:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined with full rationale on the draft. Please read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY which may apply here. How do you eliminate the spare references? You delete them. Fiddle Faddle 13:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

19:11:32, 1 October 2014 review of submission by RodeishaV

edit


RodeishaV (talk) 19:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I have this article that I think might be ready for submission

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Draft:Insight_Consultancy_Solutions

Can you tell me if it works, and is in compliance with wikipedia, and how long it might take for it to be accepted if that is the case? I would like to know what I need to change if it is not in compliance?

Thanks so much RodeishaV

In its current form it looks unduly promotional to me. If submitted, it might take several weeks for it to be declined telling you so. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

19:53:16, 1 October 2014 request for review by SusanCummins

edit


https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Draft:Lisa_Gralnick

I have started to work with a number of people to add representative American Jewelers and related subjects to Wikipedia. I have made my first entry on Lisa Granlnick which is waiting for review.

What I want to know is how do I create a second draft page while I am waiting for the first one to be approved.

SusanCummins (talk) 19:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You visit WP:AFC and click the link to create an article. Fiddle Faddle 20:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2014_October_1&oldid=1135421703"