Help desk
< November 13	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 15 >

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.

November 14[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David Jay Reed[edit]

Hi Huon I originally clicked on the 'Edit' section of your answer to reply, before I realized that there was the new question section at the top of the Help desk. So, I will re ask the question. If I have doubled up, I do apologize...

Thanks so much for the quick reply and trying to help me to understand a little more. The last source for the 2007 exhibition that you questioned is from reference No 8 <Majteles, Debra: David’s text at odds with the image. Arts, The Maccabean. Your Voice in the Community. 20 July, 2007 Pg 9>, as she talks about the 2007 exhibition as well as life of the artist. It is also a entry in the Gallery East site <http://www.galleryeast.com.au/prints/reed/main.htm> The 2006 exhibition is from the Cynthia Blasingham reference. I think what has happened is that you have no way of knowing the content of the articles I have sourced as they are mostly in hardcopy and not available on line. I actually have pdfs of all the articles in question. Is there some way I can get them on line to you? It may clear up a lot of issues. Thanks again. JoeJoebzzJoebzz (talk) 05:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have just replied to your comment above. No apologies necessary; whether to start a new section or to reply to a previous discussion is something of a judgement call. If the previous discussion is too old there's a risk that a reply to it might get overlooked; other than that, both options are fine. Huon (talk) 06:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Iris (scientific software)[edit]

Hi,

Please could you advise a noob on whether the following is suitable for submission? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Iris_%28scientific_software%29

Many thanks for your time, Bblay (talk) 10:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The draft doesn't cite any independent sources at all. We require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper coverage or reviews in scholarly journals, to establish a topic's notability. In fact, Wikipedia content should be based on such sources. Without them, the draft cannot be accepted. Huon (talk) 11:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi,

Can you please be more specific as to exactly why you do not think Dan Hosker's article is qualifying for notoriety? I have provided several sources of nationally and regionally published articles backing my work. Simply googling his name will back everything in this article as well. I'm not trying to be difficult, but don't really see an issue with my submission. If you could be more specific as to the reasons, I will provide you with whatever you need.

Thank you,

Justin Wierbonski — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinrobert87 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles seem almost all to be blog entries and opinion pieces, not true news coverage, and several apparently were written by personal friends. The latter are not independent sources. (There's one exception, a Miami New Times piece, but the entire Miami New Times website except the blogs seems to experience some kind of difficulty that makes the article currently unavailable.) Opinion pieces are usually taken to be reliable only on the author's opinion, not on matters of fact, and they don't suffice to establish Hosker's notability without more reliable sources to back them up.

Furthermore, the article should use inline citations and footnotes to clarify which of the references supports which of the article's statements. I don't think any of the sources support the claim that Hosker's "ability to mesh with the almost indescribable playing of Bill Orcutt of Harry Pussy was a feat in itself" or that he "was known as one of the most prolific and experimental musicians in the South Florida music scene" - known by whom, by the way? See also WP:Referencing for beginners for more detailed help on the technical side of referencing. Huon (talk) 16:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Harald Lamb Mooney[edit]

Hello Harald was my 2nd cousin - which is why I wrote about him & his father John Mooney. What else do you want to know about them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.26.185 (talk) 14:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you might want to read our guideline on conflicts of interest. Writing about close relatives is discouraged, especially when you write because they are your close relatives.

What the draft lacks are reliable sources such as newspaper articles that establish Mooney's notability and that allow our readers to verify the draft's content. I currently don't see even a claim of notability. Mooney was born, received an education, worked and died. So what? Why should he have an encyclopedia article? Huon (talk) 16:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality of Nyzzy Nyce[edit]

I'm new to Wikipedia as a contributor and my first submission seems to have a neutrality tag on it. Does this stay on their forever and if not how is it removed? My first submission is Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nyzzy Nyce

Smitag01 (talk) 14:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That neutrality tag can be removed when the underlying issues have been resolved, but right now parts of the article read like puffery. For example, his rap battling "quickly created buzz around the city"? Says who? Such a claim would need a secondary source. Similarly, the claim that Hip Hop for the City is "one of the largest community driven and collaborative Hip Hop based music projects in the world" doesn't seem to be supported by the given sources - one of the organizers called it "the largest community-driven and collaborative hip-hop-based project that’s ever come out of Fort Wayne", not quite the same thing. These are just two obvious examples. Huon (talk) 16:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help with "Public support/criticism" section of the "Tar Sands Blockade" article[edit]

Hi!

Wikipedia editor Nthep reviewed my submitted article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tar Sands Blockade and said that the article needs a lot more information on public reactions, specifically support and criticism, for the Tar Sands Blockade. My trouble is that I'm having a hard time finding reliable sources, actually any sources, be it newspaper or otherwise, that actually discuss public reactions to the Tar Sands Blockade in a comprehensive manner. I suspect that one of the reasons this is is that the Tar Sands Blockade, being a controversial protest campaign involving many public illegal actions, is being reported on more often by those who would support it, whereas the mainstream media is largely silent on it. I could use suggestions on how to reliably demonstrate what public reactions to the Tar Sands Blockade are. If there aren't any reliable sources, I don't believe this article isn't ready for Wikipedia because it has gathered much controversy and has had many news articles written about it (not to mention because actress Daryl Hannah and 2012 US Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein got arrested supporting the Tar Sands Blockade), thus I think it's noteworthy.

Nthep also suggested that the article appears to be written in a non-neutral tone... while I can somewhat see that, I largely don't. A friend has suggested that including motivations for the Tar Sands Blockade at the beginning seems biased, and suggested moving it to a section within the rest of the article. I also see that my use of phrases like "solidarity actions" instead of the more neutral "events" could be part of it. Could you offer more insight on how to achieve a neutral tone?

Thank you!

Mnek (talk) 14:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)Mnek[reply]

I don't see how "controversial protest campaign" and "no reliable sources on the reaction" can both apply. Where's the controversy? Especially when the campaign engages in public illegal actions, shouldn't those receive mainstream coverage? Won't at least some those sources indicate the level of public support enjoyed by the campaign?

I just checked the news sources on Jill Stein's arrest, and the mainstream newspapers covering the event, such as the Washington Post or the Tennessean, don't mention the Tar Sands Blockade - at least not by name. And this Washington Post article explains that Tar Sands Blockade is just a small group among a wider protest - something I wouldn't have learned form the draft which happily subsumes unrelated protests against Keystone XL under the Tar Sands Blockade banner.

Regarding the non-neutral tone: The draft relies heavily on sources associated with the Tar Sands Blockade itself or with the wider environmental cause. Much of the draft's bias could be resolved by getting rid of those sources in favor of more mainstream news coverage. We may end up with a shorter article in the process, but the current draft's level of detail seems excessive anyway. 16:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

What will you say about Tropical Depression 17W and Tropical Depression 18W[edit]

For them, it is only a start class. How about you?Hurricane trackers (talk) 15:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, it would help to include links. I assume you speak of Tropical Depression 17W (2010) and Tropical Depression 18W (2010), but I have no idea who "they" are - the "start" classification was added by The Anonymouse who accepted the submissions. According to the WikiProject's assessment scale, that indicates "an article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and, most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources." That seems appropriate. Personally I don't think either article satisfies our notability criteria because neither tropical depression has been the subject of significant coverage; unless such coverage in reliable sources can be found, they should probably be deleted. Huon (talk) 16:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/peter niven (jockey)[edit]

Hello,

I submitted the above article for review about one week ago and have just noticed that I should have used capitals for his christian and surname. Is it possible for me to alter this or will the reviewer do it for me?

Thanks,

Gomach Gomach (talk) 15:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was already accepted, and the reviewer correctly capitalized the title: It's now at Peter Niven (jockey). Thank you for your good work!

Technically, you could have moved the draft to a new name, but since accepting the submission involves a page move anyway, I'd say it's unnecessary to move the draft around (which leaves remnants of its own) just to fix such an obvious typo in the title. If the draft had been accepted and moved to a wrongly capitalized title in the main article space, another move to the correct title would have been necessary, of course. Huon (talk) 16:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/William Algernon Churchill[edit]

I do not understand the reason given for not accepting this new page. it states We're sorry, but we cannot accept blank submissions. and I do not understand what it means by a blank submission. Please could you explain? MrArmstrong2 (talk) 17:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The submission was reviewed on October 13 when it looked like this: No text at all. The draft's text was only added on October 29, more than two weeks after the draft had been submitted for review and reviewed.

But I doubt the current draft's sources, a probably self-published genealogy website and a bookseller, are reliable sources, and the draft seems to draw on other, undisclosed sources anyway. For example, the sources don't give the dates for Churchill's posting in Stockholm; the draft does. The draft also says Churchill's brother was "entrusted with the last message from Queen Victoria to the Duke of Orleans in 1901" and cites a source which mentions neither Queen Victoria nor the Duke of Orleans. The brother's Times obituary apparently does mention that message, but how is John A. Churchill's message delivery relevant to William A. Churchill in the first place? The sources also don't say Churchill's book is "still the standard reference work on early European paper and papermaking".

So in summary Churchill may be notable enogh for an article, but we need much better sources to show that he is: Newspaper articles or maybe a published review of his book on papermaking. Huon (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ChemWindow i[edit]

Editing Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ChemWindow i

Why does my title say ChemWindow i when it should just be ChemWindow? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkernan1 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MatthewVanitas probably made a mistake when he moved the draft to the present location. That should be corrected when the draft is accepted; I don't think it's worth the effort to change the draft's name right now.

I have some doubts about the references, though. The various Scientific Computing articles mention the software in passing without providing any details. The paper by Li, Wan, Shi and Ouyang seems much more comprehensive, but is hardly used in the draft and flat-out contradicts it regarding the development date. The draft should also use inline citations and footnotes to clarify which source supports which of the draft's statements; see WP:Referencing for beginners for the technical details. Huon (talk) 20:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]