Help desk
< September 24	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 26 >

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.

September 25[edit]

Review of [Anand Kumar Productions][edit]

hi,

I would like to know why my recent article was declined. and also could you please suggest me the ways to resolve my problem

Thanks Hash Entertainment — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.248.188.223 (talk) 05:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons for the submission Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Anand Kumar Productions being declined, and ways to address that, are listed in the pink and grey box at the top of that page. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dear Reviewer, I'm having a bit of a hard time with this article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Daniel Silver. I tried to modify it according to the comments of the reviewers but since it can take almost a month between a review and the other I would like to be sure that the next time is going to be accepted. In particular, I would like to know if the text still sounds promotional (every sentence is referenced with reliable and independent sources, like Artforum, Flash Art, the Telegraph, The Guardian, The Observer). A curiosity: while waiting for the review can I start writing the text in the Italian Wikipedia (my mothertongue)? Thank you very much for your kind support

valentina3000Valentina3000 (talk) 12:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Valentina3000, while you're awaiting review, I've made a few small format fixes. Please note those so that you can replicate them in the Italian version too for smooth layout, etc. Also, when you make lists of events/things/etc., I suggest using the ";" and "*" codes to get clear sections, so I've fixed the first two items on your first list as an example, so if you like that please replicate that formatting on the rest of your list.

Regarding promotional tone, most of the article is fine except for the passage Silver's work fluctuates between ancient sculptural archetypes and modernity.[1] His work looks at artefacts from Greek and Roman[2] to modern sculptors in order to find new directions within the language of figurative tradition.[3]. That reads way too much like a promo blurb, artist's statement, etc. What you can do to make this more neutral is indicate who says these things: "the Art Institute of Finland has described Silver's work as..." etc. You need to be very sure that "Wikipedia's voice" is not commenting on Silver's skill, value, or analysing him, but is simply stating indisputable facts. On a minor sidenote, phrases like "the artist" are also more promo-style, so I've changed those to "Silver".

Try cleaning up the formatting, and fix that second paragraph, and then give us a shout back here to have someone take another quick look. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Reviewers,

I made all the changes that kindly MatthewVanitas advised me to do in order for my article to be accepted but after two minutes of saving the article another reviewer, Hasteur, rejected it because "Reflists are not the way to format lists of a artists work. Please use a regular bulleted list."

I never wrote articles before and I don't understand the difference between reflists and bulleted lists but if it is just a matter of a minor formatting issue (this issue has never been highlighted by previous reviewers and I've been submitting this article repeatedly for months), why rejecting the article instead of telling me to change it?

I don't think it is fair to make me wait another month for the article to be reviewed because of a formatting issue that probably can be resolved easily, considered that another reviewer had a look at the article a couple of hours before my article being rejected again, without finding any issue in the referencing. Could anyone please help me? I'm a bit discouraged.

Thanks

This seems resolved; the draft has since been accepted. What Hasteur meant was that the lists such as the awards and the exhibitions should not make use of the {{refbegin}}...{{refend}} environment; that's only meant for lists of references and changes the font style in ways inappropriate for other article content. I have removed that, but I'd go a step further and remove most of those lists altogether; there is already a section discussing the awards with sources; that's much more appropriate than a bare-bones list. Similarly, it would be better to discuss those exhibitions which received significant third-party coverage than to list them all without context. Huon (talk) 13:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Web Theatre Room 408[edit]

Hello, I have been trying to submit an article but I have no idea if this is working or not. I recently got a message that the article had to be edited (now six months after I thought I had submitted it) but I have no idea what I should be improving. I have followed the instructions given but I do not understand what is wrong or even if there is anything wrong. Now I cannot seem to succeed in just submitting the piece again. Can you please help me?

Room 408 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herbergi408 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you ever submitted this page for review. To do so, just add {{subst:submit}} at the top. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 18:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of SCOTSMAN theory of sales qualification[edit]

Kindly explain the reasons for rejecting the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.27.202 (talk) 19:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons are very explicitly stated inside the pink box at the top of your draft. Have you read that explanation? If you have questions about the explanation, please specifically state what you would like clarified. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate Titles[edit]

I would like to create Article: PCN Technology Inc., but there is a deleted version listed a well as a temp version talk: PCN Technology Inc. I would like to use the Article Creation Tool, and I would like to do so without error. What is needing to happen before/after the creation, and what is the best order of operations to ensure no further mistakes?SHurley619 (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a draft at WT:Articles for creation/PCN Technology, the preferred location for drafts. Talk:PCN Technology, Inc/Temp is a redirect thereto. The article itself is largely blanked as a copyright violation and in its current state would likely be deleted since it's just a list of awards almost devoid of encyclopedic information. My suggestion would be to either clean up the article or to abandon it and to work on the draft instead. When it's ready you can submit it for a review by following the instructions in the "not currently submitted" message box. As currently written the draft reads like spam straight from the company's PR department, though. The BusinessWire source is a press release, not a reliable independent source, and dictionary.com's entry on Personal Communication Networks doesn't even mention the company. Huon (talk) 13:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dear Sir,

I'm trying to get a STUB article written on Living Medicine. But, unfortunately, I'm not really good at the technical stuff. Have watched some You Tube videos and read lots of info on Wikipedia. Is what I've done anywhere near correct? It is getting a little frustrating. Any advice is appreciated. Thank you, MaggieJellyFish567 (talk) 21:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is correctly submitted for a review, but in its current state it will likely be declined because it doesn't cite any reliable sources (such as, say, peer-reviewed medical papers) and its tone is anything but neutral. Huon (talk) 13:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kilian Albert Merz[edit]

Hi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Kilian_Albert_Merz

I am still trying to fix all necessary issues on that article but obviously it didn't work out so far. :-( Even though i've integrated all possible recources (independant 3d parties, magazines, associations etc) that are reliable. Can you please help me to bring this article live? because this artist / dj / producer just got signed again with a record label in the UK. Many thanks for your help & support. Kind regards Pati Rojas (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pati Rojas, part of the problem, as I note in my comments at top, is because you've coded your sources as just embedded links in the text, not footnotes, it's hard for a reviewer to see what your sources even are. I fixed the first one for you as an example, please take a moment and apply the same formatting to your other source links so they'll automatically list themselves in the References section. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/A Lick and a Promise[edit]

The reviewer who declined my new page did so on the grounds that the "album" it is about is not notable. It's true that I haven't seen much about it on the web, but I thought it should be included as it is a part of the discography for a band who IS included in Wikipedia (Silver Sun), and the rest of the albums in their discography have their own pages. For consistency's sake. If I was mistaken in that assumption, I can live with it, and I will keep my eyes peeled for an possible citations. I just was hoping for confirmation.

Many thanks!

Kishinthunder (talk) 23:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are mistaken in that assumption. The notability criteria for albums can be found at Wikipedia:Notability (music). Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]