Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2012 June 22
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < June 21 | << May | June | Jul >> | June 23 > |
| 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 22[edit]
Status of my article 'Radha Vinod Raju'[edit]
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Radha Vinod Raju
I created an article 'Radha Vinod Raju' for AFC. How many days take for submission ? Vikian (talk) 04:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikian (talk • contribs) 04:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Accepted While there is a massive backlog and the oldest articles awaiting review date from June 10, I saw that your draft was well-sourced and accepted it right away. Thank you for improving Wikipedia! Huon (talk) 07:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Can someone advise me on how to make the draft article mentioned above suitable for contribution? I am merely trying to give my rugby club a presence of Wikipedia, one which I can then build on over time.
Stevie huge (talk) 10:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Most importantly, your draft needs reliable secondary sources such as newspaper articles. Wikipedia content should not be based on primary sources such as the club's own website. Furthermore, significant coverage in secondary sources is required to establish a topic's notability. You should also use inline citations and footnotes so our readers can easily verify which reference supports which part of the article.
- I also found the draft rather technical. It should be written for a general audience. I, for one, didn't quite understand these details: "The 4th XV completed all their fixtures and finished 4th in Minor East 2." I gather some team played in some league, but what team exactly, and what league? If we have articles on the leagues and the team system, some links to them would definitely be in order. As an aside, you don't have any links; wikilinks are created by square brackets: [[Grosvenor]] will link to Grosvenor. More help on links is availabe at Help:Links. Finally, the draft's last sentence about the club's vision sounds rather unencyclopedic. I expect most clubs have some similar "vision", but unless it has been discussed by secondary sources, it tells us very little about the club. The "long and proud history" also seemed laudatory and debatable - I'd say any club founded after 1950 is too young to have a long history... Such a statement would need to be attributed to a secondary source. Huon (talk) 11:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Help
Re: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Matthew Mitchell (producer)
I've had it bounced back a few times now regarding inline citations. I thought I had done this, I have the citation ref numbers, I have the list at the end and I also have external sources at all. I'm not sure where it is that I'm drawing a blank. Please advise what extra I need to do for this as I thought I had met all requirements.
Many thanks
Alison Anderida1971 (talk) 11:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- The main problem to me seems to be that the sources you have don't actually cover Mitchell in significant detail. For example, the Variety review of the Nutcracker or the Tony Award website don't grant him an entire sentence, and the Olivier Awards website doesn't even mention him. That's not the significant coverage required to establish Mitchell's notability. On the other hand, parts of the article are not supported by sources at all - for all I can tell, only two of his awards and very few of his production credits are sourced. As an aside, "references" should actually be referred to (preferably via footnotes). For all I can tell, that's not the case with quite a few of yours. Furthermore, one of those references is a Wikipedia article, but Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source. Huon (talk) 11:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Since the original response to my first submission remains as a historical record even after it has been edited, how do I know when my edited version has been reviewed?
SessoccerSessoccer (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
How do I know when my revision to the original submission has been reviewed?
Sessoccer Sessoccer (talk) 14:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- When it had been submitted, but no longer has a "review waiting" message, it has been reviewed. You can also check the page history. Your draft hasn't been re-submitted since it was declined on June 19, though. Huon (talk) 16:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
yo109.204.82.155 (talk) 14:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
The draft I submitted has been rejected on two grounds: lack of evidence for the notability of the subject and lack of verifiable sources. Re notability, there are few companies that survive successfully for over two and a half centuries and become a household name (in this case, in the UK at least). By the 1960s it was "common knowledge" in Edinburgh that the company was the city's biggest employer. Re sources, it is really not possible to find secondary sources on this subject other than the company's own histories. So the question is, should Wikipedia have an article on Younger's, as a companion to the page on McEwan's (which is historically far less notable), or should the information be simply unavailable on the above grounds. As I feel sure many people do seek information on this company, and presumably draw a blank at present, it seems a shame that this article cannot fill that void. Kim Traynor (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately "common knowledge" is not acceptable at Wikipedia; we require reliable published sources which are independent of the article's subject. I cannot believe that there are no secondary sources on a 250-year-old company. Surely it has received some newspaper coverage during those 250 years, perhaps an article on the occasion of its 250th anniversary? Maybe even textbooks on the history of Scottish breweries? Admittedly those references may be difficult to find, but that's no excuse to base the article on original research. Huon (talk) 16:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
How do I use this article as translation for: http://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B8%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87%D1%96
I haven't yet translated properly the full text of the article in English, but first I was to make sure that I can have this article as translation of the original article in Ukrainian.
Please let me know how I do this, so there will be a link on the left side of the original article saying that there is also an English translation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asatler (talk • contribs) 15:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Translating articles from sister projects in other languages is fine in principle, but I believe this particular Ukrainian article doesn't have either footnotes or that many sources. While per WP:NOENG Ukrainian sources are acceptable (though English sources are preferable), I don't think those three external links serve to support all the Ukrainian article's content. In that case you'd have to either find additional sources or shorten the article. I don't read Ukrainian, so I may be wrong, but it would still be helpful if you added footnotes so our readers can verify which source supports which part of the article. Huon (talk) 16:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I'm trying to make an Article, for the Mexican Ultimate Club Fenix. A lot of the facts I got them because I play on that team. However I trying to retrieve some facs from some websites. My question is the following: if a lot of the facts are from my experience on the team, does that still doesn't make the standard for an article?
The article name is Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Fénix UNAM (Fénix UNAM)Laramos 24 (talk) 19:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately your personal experience counts as original research and is not acceptable for Wikipedia - we require reliable published sources that are independent of the article's subject. Our readers wouldn't be able to verify your personal experience. Huon (talk) 21:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation page != article[edit]
This was declined on grounds that it contained insufficient information for an article, but it was a request for disambiguation, not for a new article. 31.18.251.44 (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think we need that disambiguation - there's not much ambiguity among the articles you link to. One doesn't even exist (and therefore should not be linked on a disambiguation page), another two are specific models of bus monitors which are unlikely to be mistaken for the general term (or vice versa). Yet another is a monitoring system for (omni)buses that's never actually called a "bus monitor", and I don't see how it could be confused with the others. That leaves Bus Monitoring and bus analyzer, and for those hatnotes should suffice - maybe we could even merge them. Huon (talk) 21:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Also, the page I suggested a merge to is a similar (but more inclusive) disambiguation. --Nouniquenames (talk) 22:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Resubmitting article for review[edit]
I would like to resubmit Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Thomas Giovine now that I have added several references. I thought I had correctly re-submitted it, but it has not been reviewed a second time. How do I make sure that it has been submitted for a secondary review? Thanks, Tagiovine (talk) 20:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- The article has been correctly resubmitted. There's a "Review waiting" message, and it's categorized among the Pending AfC submissions (the very last line). But there's a massive backlog, and the reviewers simply haven't yet found the time to look at your article again. Please be patient.
- As an aside, I don't think the sources show sufficient coverage of Giovine to establish his notability. The school website and the IAPD website don't even mention him, the New York Times quotes Giovine on the stock market, but provides very little information on him, and the GFI website doesn't mention anything about him but his job as CEO of Giovine Capital Group. That leaves us with Bloomberg, and I'm not sure the Bloomberg profile alone is significant enough. On the other hand, parts of the article, such as Giovine's swimming accomplishments or his responsibilities at Republic New York Corporation, are unsourced. Huon (talk) 21:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)