Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2012 August 16
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < August 15 | << Jul | August | Sep >> | August 17 > |
| 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 16[edit]
Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Jackie_Brookner[edit]
Hello! Here's my declined article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Jackie_Brookner
Would this article be o.k. if I remove the "What others have said about the work of Jackie Brookner" and/or "Excerpts from Jackie Brookner’s writing" sections? I'd be happy to do that, but should make clear that I thought it was o.k. to include them since I was modeling the article after that of another environmental artist, Patricia Johanson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patricia_Johanson). Are the quotations too lengthy or should I just remove them all?
Also, it would be helpful to know specifically which parts of the article don't have the appropriate encyclopedic/neutral tone so I can change them.
Thanks for the guidance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoraAaron (talk • contribs) 00:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Looking at other articles for guidance is always something of a game of chance. Other stuff exists that's not as good as we'd want it to be. If you're looking for shining examples, I'd point you to our featured artist biographies - the articles corresponding to the talk pages in that category are considered among the best Wikipedia has to offer. Now of course a brand-new article need not be of "featured" quality, but I doubt any of them has a "What others have said about X" section that's just a collection of citations. On the other hand, a section on the critical reception of Brookner's works would be a nice addition, but it should be more than just citations without context. For example, I cannot tell who the people we cite are - art critics, other artists, random commenters who mention her? Depending on who they are, they may serve as the basis of the section on the critical reception, or they might have to be removed if there's no particular reason why we should care about that person's comments on Brookner.
- As an example of the tone problems, I'd point to the second sentence of the lead. The lead should summarize the article (so that it can serve as a mini article for people interested only in a short overview). Yet this sentence about Brooker's philosophy is rather vague and contains no hard facts, only Brooker's opinions. I believe a summary of the international scope of Brooker's work or a short summary of the proposed section about the critical reception (or both), maybe highlighting her most prestigious award, would be more helpful.
- Parts of the article rely on primary sources such as Brooker's own website or her articles, or on sources not considered reliable, such as blogs (the official NEA blog may be reliable, but the NEA interview with an artist they finance is still a primary source). Reliable sources independent of the subject, such as newspaper articles, are what we're looking for. Even worse, parts of the article aren't supported by the sources provided. For example, the section on Native Tongues mentions the languages' repression under Franco, but the source it's supposed to be based on does not. Huon (talk) 02:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Prof._Jalees_Ahmed_Khan_Tareen_(J.A.K._Tareen)[edit]
Hi, I was trying to make wiki article on Prof. J A K Tareen, unfortunately two times it was rejected. He is one the good educationalist in India, has done lot for education and universities.
Second time rejection, reasoned that References are not from reliable source. May I know, What Kind of reference will be needed. I saw the following articles and It does not have many references.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._N._R._Rao http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V._N._Rajasekharan_Pillai
Can you advise me, what I have to do exactly to make this article. Help me..
Pondiunivc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pondiunivc (talk • contribs) 08:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- The problem with a lot of you sources is that they are either primary, meaning they're on the article's subject on site or are his own work, they're unreliable, such as blogs or other Wikipedia pages (the latter is never reliable), or a web reference is given without stating the exact page. As stated in the comments, you need newspaper articles that talk about Tareen specifically as their main subject, and discuss his work as stated in the article in some depth - at least three paragraphs. I'd recommend getting about four or five of these. Hope that's of some use. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
More references and articles have been included in an updated and edited version for the article "Steve Schlanger." What else do you need at this point?
Sessoccer Sessoccer (talk) 14:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- IMDb is usually not considered a reliable source, but the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and Swimming World articles (the latter actually is a reprint of an Open Water Source article; we should cite the original) are examples of the significant coverage we need. Now the draft should be brought in line with what those sources, the best we have, have to say about Schlanger. All the dubious sources, the unreliable ones and the unidentifiable ones (such as "2010 Open Championship Golf Release") should be de-emphasized or gotten rid of. We should expand the content we have good sources for (for example the Post-Dispatch allows us to write on Schlanger's educational background) and remove content we canot reliably source (such as Schlanger's work for VH1 or Animal Planet). Huon (talk) 19:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
rawplugs[edit]
what type of rawplug do i put into a concrete wall — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.250.113.12 (talk) 16:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- This is the help desk for Articles for Creation - you're in the wrong place. To answer your question, it depends very much on what weight you are planning to fix to the screws. I've recently repaired a drain fixture to my house and I can tell you that I personally used rawlplugs from B&Q to fit an 8mm screw with a similar masonry bit. However, this is really a question for the Reference Desk. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I need additional help apparently. I was pretty sure that the resources I was using for information would be considered reliable....other than the networks hosting the programs involved, and the personality's own resume, I don't understand where else I would get biographical information for a broadcast personality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soulspinr (talk • contribs) 19:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- The references are, in order, Agnew's own website, IMDb, a broken link and an interview on The Grid. IMDb is generally not considered reliable because it doesn't have much editorial oversight. His own website is a primary source (and so would be the networks hosting him). That leaves us with the interview, which is basically Agnew speaking about Agnew. To establish his notability, we need significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper articles about him. "Significant coverage" is usually interpreted as "more than one source which does more than mention him in passing", the more the better. Also, the article content should be based on such sources, and you should clarify which of the article's statements is based on which source by using inline citations and footnotes. Huon (talk) 22:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)