Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 August 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< August 28 << Jul | August | Sep >> August 30 >
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.


August 29[edit]

00:15:05, 29 August 2017 review of submission by Treaty6Prod[edit]


I just need to know exactly what I need to add or change so this will be accepted..

Treaty6Prod (talk) 00:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Treaty6. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. I don't think acceptance is going to be merely a question of adding or changing things. The more basic issue is that your subject does not appear to have received in-depth coverage from reliable sources that are independent of it. And without a demonstration that such coverage exists, it is unlikely that an article about your web series will be accepted for publication. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 04:27:49, 29 August 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Dancemed[edit]


My article on Clinical Pilates has been declined as it "does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Pilates." I am after some feedback in regards to getting it published. If I simply expand on the article will that be deemed as sufficient content for a stand alone article? The purpose of the article is to demonstrate the difference between "Pilates" and "Clinical Pilates" as they are both different. Any advice and/or feedback will be appreciated. Thanks! Dancemed (talk) 04:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dancemed (talk) 04:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be more constructive instead to contribute to the existing article Pilates. Maproom (talk) 07:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

06:20:58, 29 August 2017 review of submission by Opendra Yadav[edit]


Opendra Yadav (talk) 06:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My articles on Kumhara Dharapani was declined as i was prior to it thinking it is alright. please give and idea why this all happened. I think the wiki isn't known about my articles on Kumhara Dharapani either they don't know what it is. It is a small collaborative town like market in Dhanushadham munucipality in dhanusha District of Nepal. and every things preferred and forwaded are accurate to my knowledge. Can anyone associated with these issue solving, provide me with riht things — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opendra Yadav (talk • contribs) 06:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Opendra Yadav: Hello, Opendra. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the great delay in response. The reason your submission was declined was stated rather clearly by the reviewer -- you haven't supported your writings with sources that are reliable. But this is actually an understatement, because you haven't supported your writings with any sources at all. The entire submission reads as if it is your own personal impression of the town. This is not going to be enough to have the draft published on Wikipedia. Instead, you need to find information that has been published by reliable sources. You can start by looking for government sources (the most recent census will be a good place to start). Also, has the town been discussed (not just mentioned, but actually discussed) in the country's major newspapers? If so, that's great -- collect what is being said in those newspaper articles and add it to the draft. This will likely take a lot of effort on your part, but the draft will not be published without making this effort.

Also, your submission shows a complete lack of familiarity with even the most basic elements of Wikipedia's Manual of Style. I strongly urge you to work through our WP:Tutorial, which will provide you with the basic skills that you'll need to craft an acceptable article. You might also want to read WP:Your first article for more tips and suggestions.

I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

10:44:40, 29 August 2017 review of submission by Vale rvrsnsts[edit]


Hello there. This is my first wiki page ever. I'm not sure about the refrences...the band has like 90k likes on facebook, played concerts all over europe and really deserve this wiki page. But all the infos I could find are listed in the references section. I wanted to create this wiki page, so everyone as easy access to all of these informations! I hope, it's worth publishing.

Vale rvrsnsts (talk) 10:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined for the reasons given on the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 10:46:41, 29 August 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Eastcoasted[edit]


Why was this declined? Howell is a long established broadcaster and there are even references to him in CNN International Wikipedia pages. No explanation was given for the decline. If declined for a technical reason, please so state so a page can be created.

Eastcoasted (talk) 10:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eastcoasted. The draft was declined twice in 2016 for the reasons stated on User talk:Eastcoasted. It was deleted in November 2016 as an abandoned draft, one that no one had edited for six months. If you intend to continue improving it, you may ask at WP:REFUND/G13 for it to be restored.
However, having been in one's profession a long time, being good at one's job, or being in the public eye are not sufficient reasons for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Unless and until the draft cites significant coverage of Howell in multiple, independent, reliable sources, it will not be accepted for publication. You may find it useful to study some of Wikipedia's best writing about journalists: Ike Altgens, Louise Bryant, Margaret Fuller, and Peter Jennings. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

10:49:24, 29 August 2017 review of submission by InternationalSupporter3[edit]

I have recently attempted to create a page for the Sparta Rotterdam footballer Ragnar Ache. The request has been declined and I would ike to know why. InternationalSupporter3 (talk) 10:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi InternationalSupporter3. Thank you for your contribution. All content on Wikipedia must be verifiable. The usual way to do this is to attribute material to reliable sources by using inline citations. See Help:Referencing for beginners for how. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

13:00:10, 29 August 2017 review of draft by Ttufftruckparts[edit]


Ttufftruckparts (talk) 13:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi we just submitted our first article and do not see any of our reference links. We copied and pasted our article from a word document that has all our words that have links. Why are the links not showing up now and what do we do. No one answers your chat? Thank you

NOTE: Draft has been deleted and the user has been blocked. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

15:34:48, 29 August 2017 review of submission by Heritagemonster[edit]

Hi all at Sulfurboy's suggestion I'm asking for help with resubmitting my article. I know it is a bit thin to say the least and need more refs. I might struggle with the citations and references but the reference is, I thought, independent and verifiable but I didn't put in the ISBN number so may benefit from that? Henry Syer Cuming is referenced in another Wikipedia page and he has published in the 19th century under British Archaeological Society. Thanks for your patience in advance, possibly I pushed the submit button too early and sent a more stub like entry than intended! Advice on next step much appreciated. Heritagemonster 29 Aug 2017 16.33 UK

Heritagemonster (talk) 15:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Heritagemonster. Your self-evaluation of User:Heritagemonster/sandbox is spot on. Citing a single reference is weak in terms of demonstrating notability. Novice editors are usually advised to cite at least three independent, reliable sources. The cited source is a book, but it's only 24 pages, and the single citation doesn't specify which page number(s) the material came from. It's much more convincing if there's at least one inline citation per paragraph, and they tell the reader that this bit came from page 12, this bit from pages 2-3, and so on. You can use the "Find sources" links within the pink box on the draft to search for additional reliable sources. This article in an academic journal might be useful.
I've left a welcome package of links on your talk page. Another useful one is Wikipedia:Your first article. Before pushing submit again, browse those links to see how to improve the draft. It may require a bit more work, but it looks like the topic will be a nice addition to Wikipedia. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

17:03:52, 29 August 2017 review of submission by Osprey57[edit]

If I understand correctly, the entry about Jennifer Sinor was declined because there are not enough outside sources, such as more published reviews of her work. How many published reviews must an author have in order to be considered important enough to have a Wikipedia entry? Must all references have online links? What about reviews that are in printed works that are not currently available online -- can they be listed as references even though one would have to go to a library to find the publication since it is not online? It looks to me that Sinor has only a couple fewer links to reviews than some other up-and-coming authors who have Wiki entries. Her latest book has one more review that can be added to this post and one of her recent essays won runner-up in a contest held by the Creative Nonfiction Foundation but the latter is not posted online and can be only be referenced by giving the magazine issue. Would that count? Also, some of her earlier works have been recognized but that info is not online and again only the journal issue can be given. Would any of this count? Thank you very much for your help!

Osprey57 (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Osprey57. You are correct about the reason the first draft was declined. There is no fixed number of independent reliable sources that is sufficient. The draft cites 1–2. The alumni blurb, like bios on publisher sites, is assumed not to be independent. The UPR interview contains some analysis by the interviewer, but a lot of the 60 minutes is Sinor talking about Sinor. Novice editors are usually advised to cite at least three independent reliable sources. If you can cite a few more than that, it may improve the draft's chances, but cite a very large number, and reviewers may become reluctant to put in the effort to review the draft. Quality matters more than quantity. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources to get an idea of the hierarchy. Reviews in scholarly journals are best. Reviews by professional critics in reputable outlets like The New York Times or The Washington Post are next best. Off-line sources are fine.
Wikipedia discourages non-linear biographies. Covering works in reverse chronological order is more CV-style than encyclopedia article style. I recommend using citation templates to format the references and the list of works. Some have been done as examples for you. Be sure all opinion is clearly attributed rather than stated in Wikipedia's voice. Pay attention to the Manual of Style. Try to reduce the number of entries in the external links section. Ask of each: does this add something that isn't in the sources already cited? If no, remove it. If yes, can it be turned into a reference? --Worldbruce (talk) 20:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

20:50:08, 29 August 2017 review of submission by Cristinaclcardoso[edit]


I've been working on this article for a long time now, and I think I've changed everything that was "wrong" with it. I would like to please ask for a review because I would love if this article could be published soon. Thank you.

Hi Cristinaclcardoso. The draft is in the pool to be reviewed. Based on the current backlog, you can expect a review within 4-5 weeks. --Worldbruce (talk) 20:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you!

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2017_August_29&oldid=798822935"