Help desk
< October 18	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 20 >

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 19[edit]

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

Hello,

I have created the article like "Amaithi". so please review itNiraj.bmsit 04:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks & Regards,

Niraj Kumar Thakur — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niraj.bmsit (talk • contribs) 04:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your article was reviewed several days ago, and was immediately declined because it had no information. An article of this sort in the main article space would probably be speedy deleted. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Niraj, you appear to have made a blank article at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Amaithi, yet on a completely different userpage you made a very small article about Amaithi at your userpage, User:Niraj.bmsit. The blank "Amaithi" article was of course declined, and the one you have on your userpage is too short, and provides no footnotes, to be accepted.

To help you out, I have added a WP:Infobox to your draft page, and moved it to User:Niraj.bmsit/Amaithi (2). In order to get this published, you will have to provide Referencing, so I suggest WP:Referencing for beginners as a read. Also, if you need any help with your article, please come to "the Teahouse" and volunteers there can give you helpful advice. Don't get discouraged, we can work together to make this a good article! MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heghts above mean sea level in wales united kingdom.[edit]

It would be very handy to have information on the highest and lowest terrain in wales uk. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.100.49.131 (talk) 07:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for questions about article submissions to the Articles for Creation project. Your question is better suited to the reference desk. The highest points in the UK are covered by List of highest points in the United Kingdom. There is no corresponding article for lowest points, though there are entries for specific places like Holme Fen. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to make a suggestion for improving the page Wales, I'd suggest going to Talk:Wales and raising the point there. Hope this helps! MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Matthias Bertsch[edit]

Dear Wiki-Reviewer, I have great respect for your work. So first I like to thank you ! My Question is about the review order. The article on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Matthias Bertsch has been added a while ago on 9. Okt. Sometimes it says, there are 1200 articles, another times only 700 articles to review before. Is there any order ? Since Prof. Bertsch is a candidate for an international position, it would be good, if Information on him could be found in english also. ( --Ziehharmonika (talk) 10:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC) )[reply]

Those numbers are the totals of submissions awaiting review. Drafts are reviewed in roughly chronological order, with the oldest drafts currently awaiting review dating from October 6.

Your draft currently does not show evidence that Bertsch has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are indepedent of him, such as newspaper articles. Your references include various publications by Bertsch, the websites of organizations he's affiliated with, and an article from the Konrad Adenauer Foundation that doesn't mention Bertsch at all. That's not enought to establish his notability. If no better sources can be found, the draft will probably be declined. Huon (talk) 10:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Articles get reviewed when somebody has a chance to look at them. Some articles (such as those that are blank or have no references to any reliable sources) are generally quicker to review and decline, so they tend to get done first. Your article is a little different, as at first glance the subject looks like they might satisfy WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR, but on closer inspection, I can't pinpoint any specific action that would automatically establish notability. One problem is that there are too many vague terms such as "He has authored books, articles[3] in print" - which books and article exactly? Just writing a book doesn't automatically mean you're notable. I would recommend seeing if you can find some news coverage about things he's done - which if Bertsch genuinely is notable it should not be hard. Don't worry too much if you can only find sources in German, as although we prefer English sources, we don't insist on them. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Anel Group[edit]

How will i restart the review process again, after the editing of declined article ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.45.12.196 (talk) 11:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The decline message says: "When you are ready to resubmit, click here. But I don't think the references you have provied are sufficient to establish the Anel Group's notability. For that purpose we require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Yours look like directory entries; neither writes even a single sentence about the group. They also don't suffice to verify significant parts of the draft. If you re-submit the draft in its current state it will probably be declined again. Huon (talk) 11:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please review it again now ?

I have reviewed it, but I had to decline it again because too much of the content is not verifiable. The lead section, wich is the only part that covers the company in any detail, is almost entirely unsourced. Where does the number of employees come from? Which source lists the regional offices? How can I verify the group's founding date? The various Reuters sources look like rehashed press releases, not like true articles, and they don't even mention the Anel Group at all, but only Anel Elektrik Proje Taahhut ve Tic. A.S. without providing any details. World Bulletin looks like a better source, but it is still based on a press release and has very little to say about the Group. Finally, the "Social responsibility" section only has a primary source which hardly mentions the Anel Group. Huon (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Submitting an article[edit]

I put together an article for submission and it was rejected. Once I made the necessary changes, I saved it but I have no idea how to resubmit it. Please HELP! :/

SPEAK the movie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/SPEAK_the_movie

Paolaseminario (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't make any changes to the draft, you just removed the reviewer's decline message and comments. Those should be kept as a historical record until the draft is accepted. I have reverted that edit; you'll find that the decline message contains this line: "When you are ready to resubmit, click here. But you should indeed address the reviewer's concerns. The entire draft is unencyclopedic in tone, and while one of your sources, the NYT review, is just the kind of reliable sources that are independent of the subject that we need, the other two are just a blog (which probably doesn't have enough editorial oversight) and a primary source, written by the society depicted in the movie and hosted at the movie's own website. Furthermore, you only point out that these sources exist, but the draft is in no way based on them. All Wikipedia content should be based on reliable secondary sources. Huon (talk) 21:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Brainwave Optimization[edit]

What are the next steps for our article about Brainwave Optimization? (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Brainwave_Optimization&action=edit) I have revised it and added all references. I also have tried to change our username from brainstate to me as an individual. So their are no conflicts. Please let me know our next steps? Thank you very much!

Apparently your haven't changed your username consistently; you've still asked this question as User:Brainstate. And a conflict of interest, if one exists, is not resolved merely by a name change anyway (though your user name may indeed have been a violation of our username policy).

Anyway, the article currently has some primary sources, including two copies of the same article by the inventors (that is not considered a reliable source on a medical topic, compare WP:MEDRS), and lots of sources that don't mention Brainwave Optimization at all. Only one, the ADRENALINE article, comes close to meeting our standards, and that still doesn't say much about the company. I don't thik it suffices to estabish Brainwaved Optimization as a notable medical procedure.

The old decline message, which I re-added as a historical record until the draft is accepted, provides a link to re-submission: "When you are ready to resubmit, click here." However, you should show evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject before you re-submit it or it will be declined again on notability grounds. Huon (talk) 22:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kid Tested[edit]

How do you get Wikipedia to create a page on an artists. I am in a band called Kid Tested from Cleveland, Ohio and we have been around for over 10 years. I am just wondering when and how I can help so that and article can be created..thanx.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.142.134.147 (talk) 21:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can use the Article Wizard to create articles. However, writing about your own band is discouraged because you have a conflict of interest. And you'll need to show that your band has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, both to establish its notability (see also WP:BAND for more specific notability criteria) and to allow our readers to verify the draft's content. I just did a quick Google News search, and all I came up with was a single article in a local student newspaper - that would be too little. Huon (talk) 22:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Roaring Lion energy drink[edit]

This email is response to a couple of failed attempts at creating an entry for "Roaring Lion energy drink"Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Roaring Lion energy drink. My question pertains to what further modifications need to be made in order to have this article approved. This article has now been declined twice for reading too much like an advertisement, which is confusing as it was based from the Red Bull wikipedia entry, using many of the facts in that article. Screen captures of both pages have been taken as for comparison purposes and it's difficult to distinguish where the "Roaring Lion" article is more of an advertisement than the Red Bull entry. ~ ~ ~ ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.16.106 (talk) 23:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That article has severe verifiability problems. I'm not sure why it mentions Red Bull's introduction to the US at all; that's definitely not based on the Red Bull Wikipedia article, and even if it were, it would still need a reliable source connecting it to Roaring Lion. You apparently mixed up the first two references because each says something about what the other is supposed to support, but doesn't back up what it's cited for itself. But even combined they don't confirm everything they're cited for. For example, neither mentions the "over 6,000 on-premise accounts". and while the first is a primary source, the company's own website, the second reads much like a press release - it even ends with the company's trademarked slogan. I have severe doubts about its reliability. I don't see that the third source, Energy Fiend, has any editorial oversight at all, and once again the content it's cited for has only a loose connection to what the source says. The fourth source, Health Canada, definitely is a reliable source, but unfortunately it doesn't mention Roaring Lion at all, and it doesn't mention the European Food Safety Authority either. If you cite a source for some statement, then firstly it should be a reliable source, and secondly it should actually support that statement.

In summary, while I expect significant coverage of the drink in reliable sources exists, you haven't shown it: Your sources are either dubious or don't mention Roaring Lion, and they don't say what they are cited for. And other problematic articles may exist, but that's no reason to create more. By the way, the Red Bull article, while it also has its selection of primary and dubious sources, also cites the likes of The Economist and Forbes, both of which cover Red Bull in depth. You have nothing comparable. Huon (talk) 02:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]