Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 July 2
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < July 1 | << Jun | July | Aug >> | July 3 > |
| 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. |
July 2[edit]
15:28:36, 2 July 2017 review of submission by Dave Truesdale[edit]
I am new at this and don't understand what the reviewer, DrStrauss, has asked me to do. I am hoping someone can be very specific, hopefully with an example directly from the draft I can use as a template. DrStrauss has asked me to turn WP:EL into WP:CITE, but when I went to the WP:REFB page I just got more confused. Thank you. Dave TruesdaleDave Truesdale (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- Hi DaveTruesdale, your draft has a lot of external links and further reading items which is good but we tend to prefer inline citations. This can be done by using the citation toolbar in the editing interface as I see you have done with some other references. For example [10] on nuclear power could be turned into a citation using said toolbar like you have done with other references. You may want to have a look at WP:42 as your draft probably needs more references which are independent and reliable for it to pass. Thanks, DrStrauss talk 17:45, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- Hi DaveTruesdale. I would go even further than DrStrauss. I believe the best recommendation in this case would be to discard the external links section entirely. The draft uses the section to list Cohen's patents and papers. Wikipedia doesn't normally list either of those things for scientists (there have been exceptions in the past, but that's my sense of the current state of the art). Wikipedia does usually list any books a person wrote, but in a "Works" section above the references (see Isidor Isaac Rabi for an example). Although in principle any of the patents or papers could be used as references, they're primary sources. Primary sources are difficult to use correctly, and Wikipedia (in contrast to publishers of scholarly research) emphasizes the use of secondary sources.
- After you get rid of the distraction of external links, focus on the much more important issue of sources. There's no one-size-fits all rule for how dense citations must be, but the draft doesn't have enough. The entire 1000 word biography section cites no sources, leaving the reader (and reviewer) wondering where on earth all that information came from. Contrast the draft with good article Harold Urey. After the lead (which is a summary of the article, so it generally doesn't need to cite sources - they're cited in the body) Urey generally has at least one citation per paragraph. Also remember that Wikipedia is mainly interested in what reliable sources have written about Cohen and his work, not what Cohen has written himself.
- To give you a specific example of what WP:REFB is talking about with regard to references, I've improved two references in the draft, using cite newspaper/journal templates, to clearly show the reader where the information came from. There are templates for other media, such as {{cite book}} and {{cite web}}. I didn't tackle any of the other references because it wasn't clear exactly what they were supporting or whether the content was even suitable for an encyclopedia biography. (The Berlin Project seems considerably off-topic, for example). --Worldbruce (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
17:34:46, 2 July 2017 review of submission by Pri D[edit]
I have written an article on a leading publishing house from India (Leadstart Publishing). But it has been declined. Could you please help me and tell me why, and also what can I do better to get this approved? Thanks much.
Pri D (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Pri D (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- Hello, Pri. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. I've taken a look at your submission and see that you have certainly verified the existence of the company, as well as it several imprints. However, Wikipedia articles about companies almost always require evidence of notability that goes far beyond merely proving that the company exists. And that's what your submission is missing. You've shown that there is a good deal of press coverage regarding some of the company's authors, but that isn't at all the same as demonstrating that the company itself has received substantial coverage from independent reliable sources. And when they're not addressing the authors, your sources tend to be either directory listings or press releases. In one case, it's an interview with a company officer. None of this adds up to the significant third-party coverage that we expect to see for a Wikipedia article about a company. I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:54, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- Hello NewYorkActuary. Your response has shed good light on my draft and my question. Thank you so much for your detailed response. I shall see what I can do better with my draft and resubmit it. thanks again! Pri D (talk) 19:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)