Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2016 April 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< April 11 << Mar | April | May >> April 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.


April 12[edit]

03:37:51, 12 April 2016 review of submission by Pomsman Pomunoda Mudyanebanga[edit]

hi reader this is third time of creating a new account but all this accounts are being diclined and deleted which i cant even understand why seems like somebody is just following my back .the first was Pomsman Mudyanebanga ; the second was Orchestra opera the ostrich kings and now another account Pomsman Pomunoda Mudyanebanga my addition is being refused again so a cant undastand what is the use of wikipedia Pomsman Pomunoda Mudyanebanga (talk) 03:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pomsman Pomunoda Mudyanebanga (talk) 03:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pomsman Pomunoda Mudyanebanga - There appear to be several issues here. First, I think you are confusing articles, accounts, and userpages. It does seem that you have created two accounts: User:Pomsman Mudyanebanga and User:Pomsman Pomunoda Mudyanebanga. Using multiple accounts is strongly discouraged, you should ask an admin to merge the two under a single name. No one has deleted the earlier account, it is still there. The third account you created was User:Orchestra opera the ostrich kings, which was properly deleted, and blocked, since it violated Wikipedia's username policies. Using that third account, you created a page "User:Orchestra opera the ostrich kings" which was deleted since it was purely an advertisement, in violation of Wikipedia's policies. WP is an encyclopedia and gazetteer, it is not an advertising medium. Please read What Wikipedia is not. Hope this helps. Onel5969 TT me 12:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

08:15:28, 12 April 2016 review of submission by Mwmconnelly[edit]


Hello, I am trying to make this article Wikipedia user friendly and wondered whether it would be better to remove the Impact Reports featured, which are reports produced from the data held in Researchfish. The publications are independant publications which feature Researchfish, who uses it and why.

There have also been some comparison articles written independently for similar systems and I wondered if sourcing these would also help?

Your help would be gratefully received.

Regards Lisa Mwmconnelly (talk) 08:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

12:31:41, 12 April 2016 review of submission by Rouken[edit]

Hi there, I'm confused as to why my submitted article has been rejected for inclusion on Wikipedia. The first comment I received from reviewer SwisterTwister cited a lack of references as the sole reason for rejection, despite my having already included 18 references to popular, influential and highly relevant 3rd party sources. In response, I added 12 more references only for user Bradv to reject the resubmitted page because it apparently appears to read more like an advertisement than a Wikipedia entry.

Before I wrote the article, I studied a number of Wikipedia entries for very similar businesses so as to avoid exactly this issue, particularly the Sample Magic page. I'm struggling to see how my page is deemed more advertisement than Wikipedia entry when the Sample Magic page is not, especially considering I've included more references in total to a greater number of 3rd party sources than this particular page, which cites a smaller number of sources multiple times. Comparing my submission again to both the Prime Loops and Loopmasters pages, which are both flagged with issues yet nevertheless are approved entries on Wikipedia, I again struggle to see why exactly my article has been rejected. Any help in this regard would be greatly appreciated and I thank you for your time in advance. Rouken (talk) 12:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rouken: The initial references were not arms-length, reliable sources. That problem was compounded by adding more of the same, when what was needed was fewer but better. The only ray of hope was the Music Tech and Music Radar sources. I have declined the submission for the reasons explained at length on the draft.
Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality content and low quality content. Arguing that there are crummy articles in Wikipedia, so more articles like them should be added, is not reasoning that will cut any ice with experienced editors. The essay "Other stuff exists" may help you understand why. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

12:56:40, 12 April 2016 review of submission by Feerozhasan[edit]


Feerozhasan (talk) 12:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Feerozhasan: Hello, and welcome to the Help Desk. Do you have a specific question about the draft? I have declined it because it is written in too conversational and non-neutral a tone, and because it does not cite any references indicating where this information comes from. As a result, the draft does not show whether the subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. You may wish to read this page about how to write your first article. I would suggest also looking at this page about using references in Wikipedia or checking out the video on that page. Thank you, /wiae /tlk 13:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

13:55:46, 12 April 2016 review of submission by Riotmuffin[edit]


Hello - I am looking for advice regarding how to modify this draft such that it meets the standards for inclusion. I have already included references to reliable, substantive news coverage of the subject, who meets the criteria listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28people%29#Additional_criteria under "Any Biography" and "Creative Professionals."

Thank you.

14:12:14, 12 April 2016 review of submission by Norac Eeb[edit]


Can you delete a draft contribution once created?


Norac Eeb (talk) 14:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it was entirely your own work you could have tagged it for speedy deletion with {{db-user}}, but not in this case because other editors have also contributed to it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

14:27:08, 12 April 2016 review of submission by 1983jg[edit]

I'm trying to submit an article for a very good and quite famous composer here in the UK. I'm new to Wiki and followed all the rules when siting references and creating the article, however, it has now been refused twice due to 'notability issues'. This can't be right surely? He's won international awards, all cited and referenced, and had commissions from some of the World's leading ensembles and Orchestras, also referenced. Many thanks for your help. 1983jg (talk) 13:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC) 1983jg (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 1983jg. Higgins is notable, but that is not shown by the draft's sources. What is needed is in-depth coverage in arms-length, reliable, secondary sources. The review in The Guardian only gives Higgins about two sentences. None of British Composer Awards, World of Sound, PRS for Music Foundation, or Rambert is arms-length. An organization giving someone an award, selling their music, or working with them has a vested interest in promoting them. World of Brass and The Cross-Eyed Pianist do not meet Wikipedia's definition of reliable sources. I'm skeptical about 4barsrest.com. They may be a reliable source for the fact that the recording won the "4barsrest CD and Newcomer of the year award", but is the award worth noting in an encyclopedia?
Unreliable sources are toxic to the draft's prospects; get rid of them. Sources that are not independent may be used, but sparingly. Maybe keep British Composer Awards, but try to replace the other three. I've added a further reading section with five reliable sources (newspapers and a book). Use them to replace lower quality sources and for additional content to expand the draft, but don't lean too heavily on the interviews, which are to some extent primary sources - Higgins talking about Higgins. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi WorldbruceThanks for the great advice. I've implemented your suggestions and resubmitted. Fingers crossed for a successful outcome!

14:40:00, 12 April 2016 review of submission by Cbass717[edit]


Hey all, just wanted to inquire about some more specifics as too which sources in particular were not reliable enough. Were some sources adequate, or were all of the listed sources inadequate? Aside from the sources, is there anything else about the article that doesn't meet the sites requirements? Just curious so I can work to improve.

Thanks


Cbass717 (talk) 14:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cbass717, for the most part you should avoid using the subject's own website as a source. It may be used sparingly for uncontroversial "basic" information such as addresses, dates, etc. Wikipedia doesn't care much about what a subject has to say about itself, the opinions of outsiders such as journalists or academics are what makes a topic notable. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:28:35, 12 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Femme Nuit[edit]



Femme Nuit (talk) 15:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I have now tried several times to add the article - improving and adding references. I am now asked to delete all external links from the draft. Which ones are we talking about here? It would be super helpful if I knew exactly what external links we are talking about (how do I know which "external links are referred to?). I am totally new to this and this is my first try with adding info on women in the arts. Thanks in advance Femme Nuit (talk) 15:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Femme Nuit, the links referred to are those embedded in the article text that are not references, they simply take the reader to a different website. Some of them might actually be usable as references, but if not they should simply be removed. A few of the most directly relevant external links can be listed under an "External links" section below the References. See the external links guide for further details. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:01:17, 12 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by BWhitesides[edit]


I have been struggling to create a Wikipedia page for a prominent Bangladeshi scientist for some time now, and I have found several references from the Bangladesh Academy of Science, the Botanical Society of Bengal, the University of Calcutta as well as his own published works in reputable journals yet my article keeps getting rejected saying I need yet more sources.

Here is a link to the draft article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dr._Syed_Hedayetullah

I am writing this article at the behest of Dr. Hedayetullah's PhD students who want to honor his legacy and his accomplishments in Agriculture in Bangladesh and it is such a disappointment that I cannot even get their mentor, a prominent scholar in the country which have links to prove it, a basic wiki page.

I created the original text of the article from his obituary which was printed a long time ago (it is not on the internet), and while I wish there were more sources on the internet the 6-7 that I've found are as good as it's going to get and I've seen many many pages with less.

I find this incredibly frustrating as I have provided numerous sources and links and cannot even get approved, while other Bangladeshi scientists have much fewer referenceS and they are approved, such as these people:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nurul_Islam_(economist) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arun_Kumar_Basak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashesh_Prasad_Mitra https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Qudrat-i-Khuda

Can someone please help me and Dr. Hedayetullah's PhD students get his article over the finish line? He IS clearly an important notable figure having been the Director of Agriculture, Founding Fellow of the Bangladesh Academy of Sciences, and Founder of the Botanical Society of Bengal and Agriculture College, Dhaka.

I would obviously provide more references if I could, but he died 40 years ago. Please help!

BWhitesides (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BWhitesides. As a fellow of the Bangladesh Academy of Sciences, Hedayetullah passes the professor test, so you can assume that a biography of him will eventually be included in Wikipedia. You write that you "created the original text of the article from his obituary". It is vital that you cite your source. It doesn't matter if you can't provide a url for it. Just fill in a {{cite news}} template with enough information that a reader could find it in an archive - at a minimum the title of the article, the name of the newspaper, and the date of publication. Otherwise the 75% of the draft that cites no sources will have to go. It isn't a matter of needing many more sources, just a case of needing to identify the source(s) of the current content.
Fixing the following would improve the draft, but these shortcomings will not prevent its acceptance:
  • A smidgen more context is needed. The target audience is the average high school student. The draft generally does a good job in this regard, for example: using the word "botany" to prepare the reader before throwing "cytology and cytogenetics" at them; talking about "rice research" before a long list of unfamiliar varieties, and then following through with what is unique and important about each variety; linking the uncommon term haor. Consider adding a small number of links (no more than say 10) to the subjects a reader would most likely need more information about in order to understand Hedayetullah. The text may not be read online, so don't rely solely on the links, but don't repeat large portions of other articles either. A single sentence about what jute is and why it's important to Bangladesh, or a single word in parenthesis, e.g. "haor (wetland)", would usually be enough context.
  • Avoid unnecessary capitalization. Don't be led astray by sources that capitalize Every Important Word.
--Worldbruce (talk) 17:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

17:42:03, 12 April 2016 review of submission by Wdjones8585[edit]

I am having a hard time understanding why my submission violates the articles for creation. Could you be more specific? There are several other pages that I find that use similar citation practices, such as Trapit and WePay. Wdjones8585 (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:19:54, 12 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Marysdogs[edit]


Hi, could you tell me what formatting issues I'm handling incorrectly? And ideally how to address them in the visual editor? Thank you! (A couple relatively minor style details are obvious, and I'm going after them, but there's probably something else going on. Thanks so much!


Marysdogs (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marysdogs, don't worry too much about formatting, as long as the text is readable the layout can easily be fixed. Incorrect formatting is not a valid reason to decline a draft. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I've just reviewed the draft and accepted it, the article is now at Michael Goldberg (writer). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2016_April_12&oldid=1077821190"