Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2012 April 26

= April 26 =

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ralph Lester Shaw, C.M., B.Ed
Regarding my proposed article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ralph Lester Shaw, C.M., B.Ed

The reviewer states that Ralph Shaw appears not to be a notable person. Mr. Shaw was awarded the "Order of Canada" which is perhaps the highest honor that Canada can bestow. In addition, Mr. Shaw has twice received medals of honor from Queen Elizabeth II. The Governor General of Canada web site, run on behalf of the ultimate source of power in Canada, references Mr. Shaw in their official recipient list. I have included references to the Governor General's site as well as to other references, all of which are independent of Mr. Shaw.

Please explain how Mr. Shaw could possibly be deemed "not notable" despite the honors that he has received from the country of Canada.

Merville (talk) 00:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ - congratulations!  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  23:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Rejection
My proposed article on the Hatcher Scale has been rejected for 'lack of reliable sources.' Since I cited the book that details the origins of the Hatcher Scale, by the creator of it (Julian Hatcher, _Textbook of Pistols and Revolvers_), and the available information on the Thompson-LaGarde tests, I fail to see what more in the way of sources is possible.Saintonge235 (talk) 03:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you need independent sources. While the book itself is great, it doesn't help you to establish notability for obvious reasons (otherwise every book could call itself notable and be done with it). Please add third party sources and resubmit, or just add the material to Julian Hatcher.  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  23:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

So if I add sources showing that the Hatcher scale was regarded as important, that will make it acceptable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saintonge235 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Fern Communications Ltd
Regarding submission article Fern Communications Ltd, can you help?

1. Please tell me which part of the submission are not neutral? I'm happy to edit it, but I can't really see anything other than saying that "Fern Communications is one of the United Kingdom's leading suppliers of two-way radio communications equipment." Shall I change it to say that "Fern Communications is a supplier of two-way radio communications equipment in the United Kingdom."

Please let me know what other aspects are not neutral, and I will be happy to edit them. Is describing the company's radio equipment as "providing reliable two-way radio communication" considered to be puffery?

Everything in the piece is accurate and based on fact. When, for example, it says that "Each trial conducted was a success, with every rescue organisation reporting that for the first time they experienced no breakdown in radio communications", that is actual fact.

2. References Regarding the References proposed, the articles are all real and published by the many oil and gas trade magazines dedicated to the industry. I don't understand why 17 of the 19 references to publications, including newspapers and oil and gas trade magazines and news portals have been deleted. Are newspapers not acceptable sources for references? The following publications have been deleted from the submission:

-Business Weekly, a serious technology/industry magazine in the UK -Offshore magazine, an oil & gas trade publication in Houston that is highly respected and in business for 80 years. This is a top tier internationl trade publication. -AMEinfo.com, an oil and gas news portal published in the Middle East -Hart's E&P, published in Houston and also a top tier internationl trade publication. -Lowestoft Journal, a local newspaper that reports on business activities and news in England. -www.securitypark.co.uk - a news portal dedicated to emergency services industry news in the UK -Scandinavian Oil & Gas, an oil and gas trade publication that is widely read in Scandinavia published for 25 years -Petroleum Africa, published in Houston and reports on industry development in Africa and the Middle East -www.rigzone.com, probably the most widely read online oil and gas news portal

The approach to this submission is based on the wikipedia page entitled Weatherford International, which cites its own website and annual report in its list of references. Therefore, I assumed it would be alright to cite Fern Communications' website to support the fact that it provides various services and equipment, and is based in the UK.

Thank you! Sharon Roe Fern Communications (talk) 09:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all, the references hadn't been deleted. They just weren't formatted correctly and show weren't showing. Anyway, I've accepted the submission, and so congratulations :) One note though; your username does violate our policy as it promotes (in the loosest sense of the term) Fern Communications. Please create a new, personal account and remember that each account needs to be limited to one person. Thanks,  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  02:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Committee for the Coordination of Statistical Activities
I have followed your advice and added footnotes as recommended.

I now see that the drafted entry (CCSA) has been created by another user (and without the footnotes which was requested by the editor).

Will this then get overwritten once he editor has approved the re-submission ?

Many thanks for your kind feed-back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Europeancentralbank (talk • contribs) 14:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm...where did this article get created? I don't see the other version.  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  23:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The other version is at Committee for the Coordination of Statistical Activities (CCSA), which should probably be PRODed/AFDed. A412  (Talk &bull; C) 02:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I have re-submitted the CCSA article including the footnotes as requested. the other version is on wiki (english) once you type in CCSA. Europeancentralbank (talk) 07:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

It may not be too consistent that I am first requested to add footnotes and then reliable sources, when this is not requested on the same definition which has just been added in the meantime elsewhere (see link)... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_for_the_Coordination_of_Statistical_Activities_(CCSA) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Europeancentralbank (talk • contribs) 14:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)