Help desk
< March 21	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 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.

March 22[edit]

User:Illinoismusic/sandbox[edit]

Also, the article User:Illinoismusic/sandbox seems to have material copied from http://www.music.illinois.edu/about/about-our-history and from other parts of that web site. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thanks. Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 00:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Spireon, Inc.[edit]

I'm confused as the last time I submitted this for approval, it was declined for lack of citations only. Now the feedback is that it is reading like an advertisement. I only added citations ... what changed the feedback to reading like an advertisement? Please provide some feedback so I can understand what makes this seem like an advertisement.

Thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corinnat (talk • contribs) 05:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since reviewers are rather busy, they tend to use canned responses, and only the one for the draft's most pressing problem. That may depend on the individual reviewer's priorities. As to why it seems like an advertisement, take this sentence: "With leading market positions in the fleet, transportation and automotive telematics markets, Spireon, Inc. specializes in developing strong business relationships with leading companies worldwide, enabling it to offer affordable world-class risk mitigation, mobile resource management and location based services to its customers." That's an unsourced mass of marketing buzzwords. For all I can tell, it says: "Spireon deals in cheap logistics, and it's picky about its customers." Or this: "The solution was designed to [...] optimize performance." Wow, really? Not to be deliberately suboptimal? Besides, unless they deal in chemistry, I doubt they design solutions...

The sources are also problematic. I've tidied up the article so that the footnotes are actually displayed, but there are very few reliable, independent sources, such as a newspaper article or an article in a reputable trade magazine, among them. Patents definitely are not reliable nor independent sources - you can patent almost everything, including a perpetuum mobile. Press releases also are not reliable nor independent. The Fleet Owner article is probably the best of the bunch, but it doesn't say anything at all about how "trucking customers use Spireon’s FleetLocate Trailer and Asset Intelligence product". Major parts of the draft still don't cite any sources at all. Huon (talk) 06:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Henry Edward Bedford[edit]

I guess I need additional guidance regarding my submission, which was now declined by a second reviewer: Sionk writes "This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia."

Yet I believe the subject article meets the basic criteria (multiple independent sources) as well as points 4 and 5 of additional criteria for Creative Professionals as outlined in the Wikipedia Notability Guide.

Could a reviewer please advise.Tjthomas67 (talk) 14:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's probably a case to be made for notability here.

There's a few things you should fix. First, "He also can be found online on Askart.com and Artprice.com" is not really the right way to write a Wikipedia article. Take some of the information about him on askart.com and add it to the article, then use an inline citation to reference that information, the same as you have for other parts of the article.

Second, your fourth reference, with a link described as providing material from "American Art Annual 29. 1932", actually goes to a webpage containing an extract from the newspaper Brooklyn Daily Eagle. So there's some error here that needs fixing. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Where can I find an article that explains what is snowboarding? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.86.68.209 (talk) 18:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend Snowboarding. It's completely different to Waterboarding. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot submit a draft for an article that already exists in mainspace. The draft must be deleted and you should rather try to improve the existing article. Roger (talk) 22:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This draft must be deleted as a content fork of an already existing article but I can't find the relevant Speedy tag. Roger (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Susan S. Elliott[edit]

I have been editing an article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Susan S. Elliott. The reviewer said the article still needs to be "wikified". I thought I had done that ... Can someone tell me what else I need to do? Apparently I just don't "get it".

Thanks! SauterV (talk) 18:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)Vicki Sauter[reply]

I agree that the article is wikified enough that it shouldn't have been declined for that reason (it's not a valid decline reason at all), though some section headings would be nice. I'd say the draft's main problem is that its sources are primary sources such as Elliott's own website or interviews with her, and that several of the sources don't actually say what they're cited for. For example, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch does not mention Elliott's first computer, and her guest column in the same newspaper doesn't say she "was assigned the Brown Shoe account in St. Louis." Thus major parts of the draft are not based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Huon (talk) 19:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Oclouse/sandbox[edit]

When I create a post, where can i give it a title? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oclouse (talk • contribs) 20:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The way you've done it is fine - if a reviewer accepts it, they can see what the title is intended to be, so they would create it at a title like "SEAL Systems". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/York Risk Services Group Inc.[edit]

I work at this company and I want this page to have information exactly as the company website. Can you publish this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pradeepanandapu (talk • contribs)

No, Wikipedia is not a place to put copies of your company's website. Sorry. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]