Help desk
< March 11	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 13 >

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.

March 12[edit]

Review of User:Sandyschram/sandbox[edit]

Dear Help Desk: I am not sure if my article submitted from my sandbox for approval for posting is in the right place. A warning on the bottom after the notice of pending review says it should be moved but I cannot move it, receiving a notice to that effect when I try. My article is in my sandbox, my account login is sandyschram. I did get the notice that it will be reviewed, but that notice also came with a warning that I cannot do anything about. Please clarify. Sandyschram (talk) 02:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Sandy Schram Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sanford Schram[reply]

The preferred location for the draft would be WT:Articles for creation/Sanford F. Schram, but that place is already taken by an old draft from 2012 (the sources almost universally have the "F."; so should we). Thus I have moved the draft to WT:Articles for creation/Sanford F. Schram (2) instead.

However, the vast majority of the draft's sources are the websites of organizations Schram is affiliated with: His publishers, his employer, the university he graduated from. Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as news coverage or articles in peer-reviewed journals discussing Schram's work (written by others, not by Schram himself!). I believe the only truly independent source is The Chronicle's blog, and while a blog hosted by The Chronicle is more reliable than a random blog from the internet, it should still be considered an opinion piece that isn't subject to The Chronicle's full editorial control and thus is less reliable than we'd like. Besides, notability requires more than one independent source anyway.

If you are Sandy Schram, as your username suggests, you may also want to read our guideline on conflicts of interest. Writing an autobiography is strongly discouraged because it's difficult to maintain a neutral point of view about oneself. Huon (talk) 09:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sean Bell (Pitcher)[edit]

Hi, I'm sending this message regarding the article I created, Sean Bell. It went into revision and I was wondering, Bell is a baseball player and in Wikipedia it appears under every player a small table with stats and divisions. I would like to know how can I develop one? Let me know,thanks.1remains (talk) 02:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe what you mean is the {{Infobox MLB player}}. The template page explains the relevant parameters and gives an example of use.

On an unrelated note, your draft currently doesn't cite any sources; its content is unverifiable. If that isn't addressed, we cannot accept the submission. Huon (talk) 09:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

To the Helpdesk, Wikipedia

Dear Team,

I would like to follow up on the above article submission. It's been a while (almost 2 weeks)since I have submitted my article for my review. Kindly let me know the status of my article.

Thanks

Best Regards, Ritwika Gupta (Ritzdotcom (talk) 05:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

The article is submitted for review, but we're severely backlogged with about 2,000 drafts awaiting review.

At a glance many of the sources seem rather problematic. For example, the Tagore Society is probably not a reliable source, and it doesn't mention Gupta anyway. The NDTV and Zeenews pieces are copies of the same text, and all they have to say about Gupta is of the "Gupta said X, Gupta was quoted for Y" variety, which isn't quite significant coverage. Facebook and blogs aren't reliable at all; besides, unless I'm mistaken, you're the author of the blog you cite, and citing yourself is not a good idea; see WP:SELFCITE.

Worst of all, the draft is largely a copy of http://indianactor.webs.com/ - a copyright violation. For that reason I had to decline the submission and nominate it for speedy deletion. Huon (talk) 09:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/I want to create a new article, help![edit]

Hello!

I'm a student studying at Ewha Womans University, which is located in South Korea. This is my second time creating an article at Wikipedia (first one: 'Nye Initiative') and this time, I wanted to make an advanced page about a well-known Professor at Ewha Womans University (and Harvard University). I want to make the page look similar to 'Jasper Kim' (another professor at Ewha) but I'm having trouble figuring out how to make the sideboxes, categories, etc. Could someone help me out by showing guidelines? Are there toolboxes that I could use to create a Page or should I copy&paste html text by editing other pages and just insert text into those versions?

Please help me out, thank you!

Sincerely, Ewha ohsoo (talk) 08:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are some introductory tutorials you may be interested in, for example WP:My first article as a general introduction to article creation.

The sidebox is called an infobox; in this case, the relevant one would probably be {{infobox scientist}}. The template page explains the parameters and gives examples of use.

Categories are created by code like this: [[Category:Korean scientists]]. However, drafts shouldn't yet be added to mainspace categories; until it's ready for the main articlespace, you should comment out the categories with an extra colon: [[:Category:Korean scientists]] will add a link to the category page (Category:Korean scientists), but it won't yet add the draft to the category proper.

You'll probably want to create the draft via the Article Wizard; that's the closest we have to a "page creation toolbox", though it won't do everything you want. Copying code from other pages is indeed a good way to add the elements you like. I've also added a belated welcome message to your talk page that contains some additional links you may find helpful.

In my experience the most important part of writing an article are the sources: If your subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources such as newspapers or articles in peer-reviwed scholarly journals discussing their work (written by others, not by your subject!), everything else can easily be resolved, and experienced editors will gladly help you with any technical issues that might arise. Huon (talk) 10:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/History of catecholamine research[edit]

This is the start of an English edition of Coranton's ″Geschichte der Catecholaminforschung″ in the German Wikipedia. Please have a look and tell me

(1) should citations in a foreign language be italicized and/or placed in quotation marks?

(2) what is recommended for writing the references?

Any help would be welcome (including the hint that the article may not be suitable).

Thank you. Coranton (talk) 10:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no policy against using foreign language sources, though generally we would prefer if equivalent English ones were available. The guidelines for citing journals state what you would expect to include, while the guidelines for inline citations show you how the actual markup you need for the citation. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New article stuck in 'userspace'[edit]

Hi, it seems i cannot submit my new article properly, it is stuck in my 'userspace':

User:Telasam/Source_Sandals

Please let me know how to submit properly - or please move it to Articles For Creation, bc i think, that is what i'm not authorized to do!

Best, Sam. Telasam (talk) 11:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your article has already been queued for submission. I have, however, moved it to the more appropriate location of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Source Sandals. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice, thanks Ritchie! Can I keep editing? Sam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Telasam (talk • contribs) 11:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Feel free to edit it while you wait for it to be reviewed. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Val Murray Runge[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Val Murray Runge

I was seeing what the status of this review was?

Thanks!

Jimborads (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your article is queued for submission. There is a substantial backlog of over 2,000 articles to review, so it may take a couple of weeks. Please be patient. In the meantime, I would try and get some other sources outside of the National Institute of Health, and basic product information pages (which don't directly relate to the article's subject). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Abraham and the Idol Shop[edit]

What is the process like to get my submission reviewed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jportnoe (talk • contribs) 14:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft is submitted for review, but we're severely backlogged, and it may take some time until a reviewer will look at your draft. In the meantime, you may want to have another look at the draft's references: Quite a few of them are primary sources such as the original religious texts; Wikipedia content should be based on secondary sources such as scholarly articles about the religious texts. Huon (talk) 15:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello,

I recently created an article on architect and designer Marc Thorpe, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Marc Thorpe

The declined article note mentioned that I do not have sufficient references?

I would like to know how to add additional references and additional information to make the profile acceptable.

Thank you.

Claire Pijoulat ClairePijoulat (talk) 15:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The references should be added right after the statement they're cited for, not just in the references section. I've moved the {{reflist}} template below the references so that you can see the footnotes displayed.

Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are indepentent of the subject, such as news coverage or articles about thorpe in magazines on architecture. The current sources are mostly either the websites of organizations Thorpe has worked for (or with), which we don't consider independent, or interviews where Thorpe himself is the source of information - also not independent. Huon (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello,

I check on my article's progress now and again. I see that this identification "AfC pending submissions by age/4 days ago" is not incrementing. Is my article in limbo?

Also, does an article go to the back of the line if it is edited after submission?

Thanks, --Tad unger (talk) 15:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question, the dated "X days ago" categories seem to be broken. However, the draft is not in limbo as long as it's categorized in the main Pending AfC submissions category. That category is sorted by submission date, though drafts are not necessarily reviewed in chronological order. As a corollary, you can edit the draft while it's submitted without costing it its "place" in the line, but you shouldn't submit it again while it's still awaiting review - if you submit it twice, the latest submission will count. Huon (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The category says: "For technical reasons, articles which have not been recently edited or purged may be in a more recently-dated category than they belong." So apparently that's a known technical issue; I'd ignore it. Huon (talk) 16:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Phrudman/Path intelligence[edit]

Hi,

Sorry, I'm sure I'm being really dumb here but I cannot for the life of me find out how to add the typical "corporate" table on the right hand side at the top of the page that I just created. I have read through the instructions and can't see how to add it, I just want to add the elements the same on all corporate pages like "Founded", "Founders", etc. but I couldn't see in the instructions how to add it?

I saw how to indent a table but it still appears underneath the intro text, not to the right hand side of it, I would massively appreciate any advice and help on this so I can create the most professional looking page?

Kind Regards, Paul

Phrudman (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That table is an infobox, here specifically {{infobox company}}. The page on the specific infobox template will explain that template's parameters and give examples. However, your draft needs reliable, independent sources much more than an infobox. Huon (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

I want to delete this!!! Please I don know how and I need to do it soon!!!!!

~Maci — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maciscott (talk • contribs) 22:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged it for speedy deletion G7 (author request) and courtesy blanked it. I expect an admin will delete it soon. Kilopi (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nick Thomas-Webster[edit]

Hello

Can anybody tell me what "reliable" sources are please - this article quotes newspapers, law journals, public records, court cases etc but is still deemed as unacceptable - can anybody offer further advice.

many thanks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Nick_Thomas-Webster

AssocAM (talk) 23:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a single newspaper, The Stage, that covers Thomas-Webster in some detail. EmpLaw Online reproduces that same article. Keystone Law mentions the same incident in passing. That's it; the remainder doesn't mention him at all, isn't reliable (that would include IMDb, blogs, Wikipedia itself, manpaper, and whatever http://www.africafilmfest.com/ is supposed to be) or does not even devote a single sentence to Thomas-Webster. I'd say WP:BLP1E applies: Thomas-Webster is notable only in connection with his legal efforts regarding British employment law, and the incident should be covered in a relevant article.

The draft does not cite any public records or court cases, but those would probably be considered primary sources anyway.

Furthermore, the draft reads like a puff piece, and very little of the content, even of the content which supposedly does cite sources, is based on what those sources actually say. For example, no source mentions Thomas-Webster's connection to the Booths, his Iraq War service, or that his actions "have been seen as a milestone in paid employment in UK Films". Huon (talk) 01:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]