Help desk
< May 18	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 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.

May 19[edit]

Sunday 6:00hrs: I unchecked the relevant box in Preferences. Let's hope it did the trick (Rafaelcarmen (talk) 05:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)) 6:05hrs: re prev. Something definitely changed but I wonder why my username appears in red? (Rafaelcarmen (talk) 05:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)) 6:07: when I hover over my (red) username, it says 'does not exist'. Something still seems amiss (Rafaelcarmen (talk) 05:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC))(Rafaelcarmen (talk) 05:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Red links indicate that the page the link points to does not exist, like this one. In your case, your userpage was only created a few minutes ago by User:Maproom; now your username should be blue, and the pop-up message should no longer say that your userpage doesn't exist.

The existence of the user page is not related to the existence of the user; users need not have user pages, and technically editors could create "user pages" for users that don't exist (though that would make no sense). Huon (talk) 05:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this, Huon. The tildes problem seems to have been settled now. As for ‘does not exist’, that is exactly what I get when I hover over “Mutualawe” username in the top right hand corner of the (red) box in which he (she?) declines my AfC. Ok, it might just be a technical glitch, but why should an editor who declines AfCs have a username which flashes red (just as mine did, until this morning). (PS: unlike you, guys, mutualawe does not seem 'Open for Questions, either?) (Rafaelcarmen (talk) 06:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]

I have already commented on Mutualawe's editing and the problems he caused. He hasn't made any edits since you contacted him, so possibly he's just away for the weekend - though he seems to be active only irregularly. A lack of a userpage is by itself not necessarily indicative of a lack of experience; for example, veteran User:TheRedPenOfDoom doesn't have one either (he has a very active talk page, though). Some people simply don't have much to say about themselves and thus don't need a userpage. Huon (talk) 03:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Vashishtha Narayan Singh[edit]

Hi,

I could see that my article on above subject has been rejected. I would like to mention that the article in the present format is very different than the one I had submitted (it has undergone major edits by author named "Vigyani" since my submission about two weeks back. I had supported my article with reliable references that included one from the archives of University of California Berkeley and other from a recent article from the news paper "Times of India" which is a paper of great repute in India. I wish to let the people know about this great mathematician from India and I would be grateful if the article is reviewed in the form I had submitted it. Thanks, Ranveerj Ranveerj (talk) 08:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The University of California Berkeley is not considered an independent source on its own alumni. Vigyani's edits have greatly improved the article, and while it's now a borderline case (the reviewer apparently felt it didn't quite establish Singh's notability), it certainly wouldn't have been accepted before his edits. Compared to your last version, Vigyani added another two Times of India articles, tidied up the references, brought the formatting in line with Wikipedia's standards, expanded the list of bullet points into running text, and added section headings. None of that would have reduced the chances of acceptance; quite the contrary. Huon (talk) 03:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Toddington Rover under 15 2012/13[edit]

How long till my article is reviewed?

TRFC U15 (talk) 13:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your article didn't cite any sources. Sorry for such a long delay for a short messages. Shii (tock) 14:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why my article was not accepted ?[edit]

I am unable to understand why my article entitled Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Axial_fan_design has been deleted. I had not copied that from anywhere and had written that majorly from a book named "S. M. Yahya". The comment says that the book wasn't a reference at all inspite of me giving the page nos. that I used. Please help me in making me understand this and what can I do to make it getting accepted. Thanks. Prj1991 (talk) 13:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the reviewer was simply wrong to say your draft is not a suitable subject for Wikipedia, it is a completely suitable subject. I have thus reversed that rejection and will now review the draft according to the correct criteria. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have done the review and left a fairly detailed note about referencing for you. If you need any further assistance please come back here. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article showing as current[edit]

Regarding this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_Safety_Steps

I have updated the page above adding a number of new citations as per editorial request. For some time now it has been showing as 'current' (when I click on my 'contributions' tab). Is there a significance to this and is there anything else I need to do to further validate the information? Many thanks Richard --Richb0101 (talk) 15:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I'm looking at my contributions, if I click on the date of the version of the article I want to look at, rather than just clicking on the article name, I will see at the top of the article text like this: "This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Demiurge1000 (talk | contribs) at 15:52, 19 May 2013. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version." This is normal and expected behaviour - is this what you're seeing? If so, it has no significance.

There are no problems with the article indicated at the moment - others may wish to comment more about what could be improved.

Was any of the text of the article copied from websites elsewhere? This is to be avoided - see WP:COPYPASTE and WP:PARAPHRASE. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Onandjokwe Lutheran Hospital[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Onandjokwe Lutheran Hospital

Good Day,

we are a group of students, working on a Wiki article: Onandjokwe Lutheran Hospital, we would like to find out when this article will be reviewed. the article was resubmited on 10 May. will it be possible to have this article reviewed by 24 May 2013?

kind regards, Anna Hanghome hanghomea@gmail.com

DurNam 16:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanghomea (talk • contribs)

There's currently a backlog of about two weeks' worth of unreviewed submissions, so I can't guarantee the draft will be reviewed until then. And in any case I don't think it's ready for the publication yet. It reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. It veers wildly off-topic; for example the founder's number of siblings is not at all relevant to our readers' understanding of the hospital or its history. It's highly redundant; for example, it mentions the fact that King Kambonde of Ondonga allocated a piece of land for the hospital no less than thrice (though once it gives the King's name as "Martin Kadhikwa" - what is correct?). Several sections cite no sources, and while the "Leadership" section does have inline citations, it could do with footnotes - see WP:Referencing for beginners on how to easily create well-formatted footnotes. I don't see the relevance of the Nel and Beudeker lines, some of which seem to be contradicted by the following text (for example the "Change does not cause mistrust or suspicion" line is followed by two separate instances of change that were not well-received). It would take quite some editing to turn this draft into a viable article. Huon (talk) 03:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

How do I add subtitles, e.g., "Personal Life," "Career," etc.? Thank you! YananDing466 (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like this:

== Personal life == (note the lowercase first letter of the second word)

== Career ==

That's two equals signs on each side of the subtitle. A smaller subtitle is three equals signs. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for creation/Krishnendu Mukhopadhyay,[edit]

why is article, Articles for creation/Krishnendu Mukhopadhyay,is not getting reviewed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babendra (talk • contribs) 19:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not getting reviewed because no-one has submitted it for review. To submit it for review, add {{subst:submit}} at the top of the article.

At present, though, it does not appear to have any inline citations to independent reliable sources that discuss Mukhopadhyay in detail, and it will therefore be declined. Please read WP:42 and WP:REFB, and correct that problem before submitting it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References Jean-Philippe Lenclos[edit]

Hello,

I am currently trying to create a submission about the color-designer Jean-Philippe Lenclos that is really a translation of the original French wikipedia entry. The article has been submitted as Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jean-Philippe Lenclos . I first submitted it and it was rejected due to lack of references and citations. I went through it again and added some of the references I used, but it was rejected again for a lack of references. The bulk of the information in my submission is a direct translation of the French wikipedia page. I thought that the French version was rather vague so I added some more information from the references provided as well as direct contact with Lenclos himself. His son had asked me to translate the French wikipedia page and it was my idea to add more information to make the English version a bit more substantial. I'm not sure how to go forward at this point in order to make this translation suitable for the wikipedia standards. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Meaghan Farrell

MeggFarrell (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You currently don't cite any reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as articles in newspapers or reputable arts magazines. You mention that some books about Lenclos have been published; those might also serve as sources. The French Wikipedia, however, is not considered a reliable source (neither does the English Wikipedia consider itself reliable), nor is Lenclos an independent source on himself. Without reliable third-party sources we cannot accept the submission. Huon (talk) 03:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dear Wikipedia, I am concerned that this submission, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Yael Neeman, has been declined under the "umbrella" of inadequate reliable sources, when the actual problem is that the article checkers do not understand the references, because of the language or the culture barrier. For example, I have included three separate references from Haaretz Newspaper, which is Israel's most respected daily newspaper. There is an additional reference from Globes newspaper, also a widely respected economics paper, with an article about Neeman's family and her success. In addition, her nomination for 2011 Sapir literature award (Israel's most exclusive literary award) is presented on the Sapir official website - a government website, as well as in Haaretz newspaper. I have also included a reference declaring her winning an award from Israel's Ministry of Culture and Sport - also an Israeli government web site. If you check the article thoroughly you will see even more such references. How can it be that this submission has been declined for inadequate referencing? Could it be that Wikipedia is unable to approve a submission without an English reference? I have read the reference guidelines many times, each time honing this submission. The references are neither blogs nor biased links. Please explain. I'd be happy to provide answers to any questions you may have concerning this. Zahar65 (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a website is hosted by the government that does not make it reliable, nor does it mean that it provides significant coverage of Neeman. Haaretz is better in the first regard, but their 2011 Sapir award article doesn't even devote an entire sentence to Neeman - that simply isn't the significant coverage we're looking for. Neither is the Februrary 2011 bestseller list. For all I can tell Mita'm and Asia are not cited for what they write about Neeman but for Neeman's own writngs - those aren't independent sources. Neeman's publishers, whom you link to in the article text itself (which shouldn't be done at all) are likely to be biased in their author's favor; they are not independent sources, and neither is the interview published by a bookstore website. Huon (talk) 03:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added two more articles (one entirely about her and the other a third about her) from Yedioth Ahronoth's (Israels most widely circulated newspaper) website, YNET. In your response you didn't make mention of the Globes article, in which half is devoted to Neeman. I would like to count the number of reliable sources, according to your answer, and then I would very much appreciate it if you could let me know specifically how many more are needed. 1- an Entire article about her and her latest book in Haaretz. 2-the Globes article. 3 and 4 - the Ynet articles. Also, the government website is not just "hosted" by the government, but is a Ministry of the Israeli government itself. Is that an official rule of Wikipedia that a Government website is not reliable? These are besides the many mentions I also included, for prizes and awards. Thank you.Zahar65 (talk) 05:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no official rule on whether government websites are reliable or not; that depends on the specific website. See WP:RS on what sources are considered reliable. For example, the CIA World Factbook is commonly accepted as a reliable source of statistical data. The government reporting on its own activities (such as here on its own award), however, would be considered a primary source, and third-party coverage such as the Haaretz article about the same award is much preferred.

There is no fixed number of reliable sources either; the general notability guideline is deliberately vague in calling for "significant coverage". But the article text should be based on what those third-party sources have to say about her, and all of those sources seem to deal primarily with the same book, We the Future. The book might be more notable than the author. Huon (talk) 18:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]