Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2014 January 2

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.

January 2

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Margaret Damer Dawson

Resolved

Please can you tell me how to submit this article? Pressing the buttons suggested seems to make no difference.Nina Bosley (talk) 08:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Nina Bosley

Hello, this is now fixed. There was a problem with the formatting on the references. Rankersbo (talk) 09:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sunil Baboo

Dear Matthew,

I am Sunil Baboo, and you are writing an article based on my life, my family, and my collections.

While I appreciate your efforts in culling info on my life, I do believe there are few corrections that need to be done.

I would like you to contact me at:

(Redacted)

I will share more info, photos of my collections, etc.

Do revert.

Best regards,

Sunil Baboo C/3, Cedar Grove Apartments Dena Bank Colony, 2nd Main, 3rd Cross Ganganagar Bangalore 560094 INDIA 59.92.164.21 (talk) 09:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

We do not accept autobiographies. I've also redacted your email address; posting it on a high-visibility site is a spam magnet. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/St. Martin of Tours School (St. Martin's)

Resolved

Whenever I click Save to submit my article, I get the gray message box "Draft article not currently submitted for review." What am I doing wrong? Nettamorelli (talk) 14:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)nettamorelli

Hello Nettamorelli, and welcome to Wikipedia. The reason why you did not see any change is that you had an unclosed reference tag that was eating up the bottom of the display of the page. I have corrected it here and your article will get reviewed. Due to the current backlog of submissions to review, it may take several weeks before we get to your submission. Please have patience. Thank you. Hasteur (talk) 14:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

THANKS! Nettamorelli (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)nettamorelli

Review of User:Uktraveleditor/Sunstart Holidays

as a newbie on Wikipedia I posted some information about sunstart who I used to work for and have found that it has been deleted but cannot find what was wrong with it, could someone please advise me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uktraveleditor (talk • contribs) 14:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Olson_Communications

I was recently informed that my article ( Olson Communications) was declined - the reason given was that This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability. I think that's a little ridiculous given I provided ample sources about articles published both in and out of their field by independent third party publishers. These sources range from nationally distributed print magazines to web journals and articles. If that doesn't constitute notability then I serious question the standard. These publishings did not incidentally mention Olson, they published entire articles dedicated to them and their research and granted them awards for their contribution to the field.

Please help me to understand this Golden Rule so I can make edits accordingly.

Thank you Irothenbaum (talk) 16:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Irothenbaum I've looked at your submission and see multiple problems with the sourcing.

1. Some of those references are by Sharon Olson who is asserted to be one of the founders/orginzers of the company so there's a direct conflict of interest and not independent.
2. Almost all the references mention Sharon Olson in the context of a trendsetter, but not the company.
3. The 2 awards that the company gave to other instutitions only mention the company in passing

These suggest to me that there still needs to be more effort placed on why is the company notable. Not the individual publications, not the founder, not the awards that have gone to other organizations.

Also I observe that you have inline external links. This is not a good idea as we try to reserve the body of the text for links to other wikipedia articles, which I see that you've done. Please consider moving the external links to an extrnal links section.

Also I observe that you use several branding marks (Trademark, Registered symbol). It's considered poor form to put these kinds of marks in a neutral wikipedia article. Adding the marks suggests that the article is trying to sell something instead of being a neutral description. Hasteur (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jeremy Richard Scott

I am doing wrong in my article (Wikiopedia Talk:Articles for creation/Jeremy Richard Scott. The reviewer said that my references and external links were not readable and to use the {{cite web}} format...which I did. When I click on them they work for me. Please help.

ZZZBar (talk) 16:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)ZZZBar

I'm referring to the external links. They have to be converted to citations, which is preferable, or proper external links format has to be used. Gryllida (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

User:HasteurAlso please note that it's not which you did, it's which Hasteur did, after my review. [1]. Gryllida (talk) 01:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Review of User:Mastercraftsmen9317/sandbox

Added references, reorganized and cleaned-up the page significantly. Is it acceptable for posting? Mastercraftsmen9317 (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Your sources are laughable, in part because two aren't "references" and a third is apparently a master's thesis he wrote. We require multiple third-party sources that have no ties to the subject and discuss him at length. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wings Airways

Looking to create a page on the Juneau Alaska based floatplane tour company Wings Airways. 2 previous attempts have been rejected thus far.

Your draft seems to be located at User:WingsTaku/sandbox. The next step is to add references! Read Wikipedia:VRS to learn what sort of references are required, and then Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners to see how to add them.

I will also note that your draft currently sounds rather promotional. If a reliable independent source talks about how very safe the company and its aircraft are, that can be included. If not, it's best to leave it out.

Please also read Wikipedia:COPYPASTE and Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. You cannot copy sections of the company's website into Wikipedia, as you have done in part of your draft. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Biodiversity Offsetting

Hello Wikipedia

My questions are:

1. My new (subject to approval) 'biodiversity offsetting' page has both 'article not submitted for review' (in a blue box) and 'article awaiting review' (in a yellow box) appearing as the page's publishing status. I'd like it to be reviewed and the ambiguity of these contradicting statements is causing me stress. Please help?

2. In addition, should my biodiversity offsetting article be approved, how do I get a redirect from the search term 'biodiversity offsets'? This term currently directs users to 'biodiversity banking' (which is a different thing and quite a minimalistic page). This question is a bit 'chicken and egg', as much depends on the approval of my biodiversity offsetting article and I wasn't sure if redirects should be organised afterwards or in parallel.

NB: My intention is to link the biodiversity banking page with the biodiversity offsetting page, eventually.

I look forward to enlightenment,

best wishes and kind regards,

Beth

--B.Rose writing & editing (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The blue box is wrong and can be ignored. The yellow box is correct. It is best to create the redirect after the article itself is accepted; I believe you can do so through Articles for Creation. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Robert Joseph Bublitz

Thanks you for your prompt reply suggesting specific changes that will improve the quality of this article. Four reviews were added from readers which are directly internet accessible from the article. Hopefully these improvements will allow the page to be accepted. Thanks in advance for your time and quality review. Mastercraftsmen9317 (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

If it's User:Mastercraftsmen9317/sandbox that you're trying to get accepted, you should add {{subst:submit}} at the top of the page in order to resubmit it for review. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Help with references

Title of article: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Kenneth_Chan

What can I do to make a profile on a CEO stronger? What types of references should I use? I've done CrunchBase and LinkedIn. Any other suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tehror (talk • contribs) 22:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The best type of source on a CEO of a fashion company would be a newspaper, magazine or major established fashion news website that has done an in-depth profile of the person. Not just an interview, and you would need several. LinkedIn is of no use at all for proving notability; Crunchbase nearly as bad. Another strong source would be if, after the person's death, a newspaper such as the The Times or The Guardian publishes an obituary of the person talking about their impact on, or achievements in, the fashion industry (or the online merchandise industry in general) during their lifetime. Some newspapers, especially in the USA, publish obituaries on a paid basis, so which newspaper it appears in makes a large difference. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Janssen and Bechly Brewery

Hi, this article was recently declined, needing improved independent references.

I did provide independent newspaper articles, but they were in German language as the facility was located in the former East Germany. Could this have been a factor?

This is a historical company, so there is no commercial benefit for the article. The benefit to Wikipedia readers is a cross reference of the history of this company.

Thank you, Eyeze (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Foreign language references are acceptable. They can sometimes be a disadvantage if it is more difficult for the reviewer to establish the exact nature of the source (e.g. whether a newspaper is national, regional or local in scope). In this instance both of your newspaper references seem to be from the same (local? regional?) newspaper, so there is an issue of exactly how many independent reliable sources have covered the topic in detail. I can't access eventom from here so I'm not sure if it's a reliable source; the various pages showing examples of what the bottle caps etc looked like are pretty certain not to be reliable sources (nor presumably have significant coverage). Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I understand. I have added a Russian Federation article to help establish multi-national notability, and have expanded the content somewhat. The section on memorabilia is not intended to establish notability, but rather serve as a useful cross reference for historians. The Russian and German language references can easily be translated into English when using Google Chrome as a web browser. Thank you for your re-consideration ! Eyeze (talk) 03:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Please add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the page to resubmit it when it's ready. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thanks ! Eyeze (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC) But declined again. Any suggestions ? Eyeze (talk) 02:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)