Help desk
< June 10	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 12 >

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.

June 11[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mark Andrew Forester[edit]

Some months ago I submitted an article that was not accepted for lacking relevance and sufficient 3rd party citations.

I have since completely revised the article, following WP's published guidelines. I would like the article reevaluated, but seem unable to identify the process for accomplishing this. The article currently is listed as "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mark Andrew Forester."

Any direction that will lead to the publication of this subject is greatly appreciated.

mg

Tforest1 (talk) 00:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have doubts about many of the sources. For example, Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source, and "markaforester.com" sounds like a primary source. Others, such as the Crimson White article or the HBTV news piece, are reliable secondary sources, but mention little beyond Forester's name - that's not really the significant coverage required to establish his notability. Furthermore, several sections have no references at all. Huon (talk) 01:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/William A. Whitcombe[edit]

Good evening

Can you let me know the review outcome for this latest submission ?

Many thanks

Andy

68.173.2.138 (talk) 04:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no outcome yet; due to a massive backlog of more than 600 articles it may take some time until your article will be reviewed. Please be patient. Huon (talk) 11:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gift of the Givers Careline[edit]

I have just reverted a massive copyvio by the creator of this draft at Talk:Gift of the Givers - he/she simply copied a large chunk of content directly from the subject's website.

If anything useful does come out of this draft process I'd like to request that it be added to Gift of the Givers rather than a new separate article, because Gift of the Givers is currently a very short stub and desparately needs more properly sourced and written content. Roger (talk) 09:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was itself a copyvio; I just blanked it. Huon (talk) 11:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Thanks. Roger (talk) 11:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "reliable resources"[edit]

Hi,

The reviewer has requested me to provide reliable sources for the article I was trying to create. I would like to know hy aren't the one I have given unreliable? Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks SriMudhraalaya (talk) 11:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)Asha[reply]

There are several issues with the sources at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lakshmi Ramaswamy: letsdosomething.in, srimudhraalaya.com and the source on the Bharat Kalachar awardees are primary sources (maybe there's some news coverage of the awards?). Several other websites linked to, such as Sri Krishna Gana Sabha and the World Arts West festival website, do not mention Ramaswamy, while others, such as two of The Hindu articles and the Centre for Cultural Resources and Training, are reliable secondary sources, but have very, very little to say about her - hardly the significant coverage we require to establish her notability. The best source is this The Hindu article - reliable secondary source, article about our subject. The Carnatic Darbar interview may also be worthwhile, but I'm not sure whether that website is indeed reliable - does it come with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Is there editorial oversight, or are the articles just user-submitted content? Unfortunately several of the article's sections are not supported by reliable secondary sources at all. Huon (talk) 11:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ward Morehouse III[edit]

The information from this article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ward Morehouse III comes from personal interviews and correspondence with the subject. I have known Mr. Morehouse for over twenty years and through his association have also been able to speak with his mother, Joan Marlowe, his wife Elizabeth, and his step-mother, the late Jean Dalrymple.

Stivemeister (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)Stivemeister[reply]

Only published reliable sources are acceptable to establish notability and verifiability. Personal anecdotes are not acceptable at all. Roger (talk) 13:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Weight Lifting[edit]

The reviewer left the following comment about this submission: Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Weightlifting instead.

The topic for weightlifting is different to Weight lifting as described in both articles. Weightlifting (all one word) describes the olympic sport of weightlifting, whereas weightlifting, either hyphenated or in two separate words describes general weights training techniques which can be competitive or non competitive.

The creation of a separate article entitled weight lifting was to resolve [in so far as can be done via wikipedia] the very issue posted by the reviewer, where it is confused with the Noun that specifically describes the Olympic sport, and not the generic training principles.

Neil985 (talk) 13:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weight training also already exists. Roger (talk) 13:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dan Davies[edit]

Can someone help me? I dont know what is wrong with my contribution, I have added the footnotes with the tool provided... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenray1980 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sources are not reliable: For example, Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source. Others are primary sources, for example the Scene article written by Davies himself. Yet others are simply irrelevant: A page of Mensa on qualifying test scores cannot serve as a reference for the statement that Davies qualified when it does not mention him. All these problems should be resolved by editing. But sufficiently many independent reliable sources about Davies remain that the article should be acceptable. It is currently awaiting review; please be patient (and please have a go at the problems I outlined). Huon (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Quadrant (company)[edit]

hello I have submitted a page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Quadrant (company) twice and understand it was not accepted the first time but I edited what needed to be edited and resubmitted it but the reviewer wrote back the exact same thing as the first reviewer but I thought everything was fixed now I'm not really sure what the problem is with the latest revision because I fixed everything they mentioned — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drsteam (talk • contribs) 15:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article has not been reviewed again since you resubmitted it on June 5; the decline message is still the old one. There is a severe backlog of more than 600 articles awaiting review, and it may take some time until your draft gets reviewed again. Please be patient.

I also saw that quite a few of your sources are primary sources: Sources written by Quadrant itself, by organizations it's affiliated with, or by its business partners. For example, the source for the award they received in 2008 is the organization handing out the award. Content should not be based on primary sources; maybe there is some independent news coverage of that award? Quadrant's own award is sourced to a press release, and those are not considered reliable by Wikipedia's standards. Huon (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any suggestions on where I would be able to find sources more up to standards for this particular subject because there is not that much available for it. Also alot are newspapers aren't they considered reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drsteam (talk • contribs) 13:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers are indeed reliable secondary sources, but I don't think more than four of your 16 references qualify: Bloomberg, Global Business, Special Chem and Rigzone (and I'm not even sure about those - for example, the Rigzone source is definitely not a newspaper article). The others all look like primary sources to me, and that leaves multiple sections without a single secondary source. As I said, content should not be based on primary sources; if, for example, no secondary source for the award they won in 2008 can be found, we should remove it from the article.

My suggestion would be to look for more newspaper articles. Maybe some coverage on their products can be found in scientific journals on chemistry or materials science, but I don't think that's likely - researchers rarely bother with mentioning companies.

If no further sources can be found, I'd suggest shortening the article to what the secondary sources actually support. It's better to have a well-sourced stub than a longer but poorly sourced article. Huon (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Naana Frimpong[edit]

Wanted to find out how i can get a domain for creating an article,, Please. Please help me create an article on Wikipedia

Thanks in advance Adjoa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naanaf (talk • contribs) 18:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion would be to use the Article wizard which explains creation of new articles step-by-step. Huon (talk) 18:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Brian Moore Short Story Awards[edit]

Wikipedia talk: Articles for creation/The Brian Moore Short Story Awards Hi, I've not been successful in getting this article approved and probably could use some help. I'm not sure even yet if I'm setting up the citations and references in the correct format and also not certain that they are acceptable, or whether I need some other types of references, like to print articles, rather than just to online content.

As I don't seem to be able to access much in print about the contest, I wonder whether citing the publication that was produced from the first annual award would be helpful. I got a bit confused then, as to how to put the reference in the text and whether to include it with the citations at the bottom of the page.

I'm also not sure I've got the tone right, though I've had no specific editorial comment on that. It's been properly challenging so far, but I don't want to give up now. The process is intriguing (if slightly confusing)and a bit of guidance would be very appreciated. I got a very kind email from an editor at the teahouse, but I don't seem to be able to send her a message at the moment as she is on and off apparently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preloadtitle=Review+of+%5B%5BWikipedia+talk%3AArticles+for+creation%2FThe+Brian+Moore+Short+Story+Awards%5D%5D# — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debington (talk • contribs) 23:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About the reference format: The preferred format are footnotes, which are created by use of <ref></ref> tags and a {{reflist}} template at the end of the article. But that's just a style issue.

The problem with the references you currently have is not that they are online (that's easier for most of our readers who would find accessing printed newspapers from Northern Ireland, for example, rather complicated), but that most of them do not provide significant coverage of the award. The low points are the Encyclopedia Britannica article and the Colby Quarterly article which do not mention the award at all, with many others just having a single half-sentence of the type "Person X won the Brian Moore award in 200X and...". Several others look like primary or unreliable sources. The Northern Ireland Screen article, for example, says: "This year we hope the event will be bigger and more exciting than ever." I have no idea who that "we" is, but that does not sound like independent coverage. I don't think Northern Ireland Screen comes with the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy necessary to be considered reliable, either, though I might be wrong there. The best reference is the CultureNorthernIreland feature, which provides much background on the award and seems published by an independent source.

My suggestion would be to look for newspaper coverage. You do have the 2004 Belfast Telegraph article, but unfortunately it is once again a primary source because the Telegraph sponsored the event and happily reports its own partnership. But since this is the most important literary award in Northern Ireland, I'm pretty sure newspapers will report every year on the contest, on the winners, and maybe on the award ceremony, even if they don't sponsor it. That would be the kind of independent sources we'd need. The publication that was produced from the first annual award, on the other hand, would definitely be a primary source. It may be worthwhile to provide bibliographical information (just as we would provide an author's bibliography), but it's not the kind of reference we should base content on.

The tone looked good to me, maybe a little too flowery at times: For example, "to shine a light on emerging writing talent in Northern Ireland" seems a complicated way to say "to promote new writers from Northern Ireland". But that can easily be fixed - better references are far more important. Huon (talk) 00:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]