Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2012 April 29

= April 29 =

WARWICK EVANS
Hi New to all this. I have made two requests for clarification. My article about the Cambridge industrial designer has been knocked back due to lack of references. But, it has over a dozen references. I have asked for clarification on this point, but answer comes there none.

Is the solution to be found in the 'Reference' button to add the actual reference text, please?

Thank you

Jhoward2003 (talk) 05:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * We need a bit more information about the person. Specifically, why he meets the notability criteria at WP:CREATIVE? Also, you have provided internet links for some of the references, but these just seem to link to the home pages of those publications. Could you provide links to the actual articles, or pages that discuss Warwick? Pol430  talk to me 21:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Iraq War
What was the main objective of USA & its allies to invade Iraq in 2003? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.249.1.135 (talk) 09:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol move vote.svg|20px]] This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. Please consider asking this question at the Reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what the Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. You could always try  for an article related to the topic you want to know more about.  I hope this helps.  Pol430  talk to me 21:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Quantum Field Psychology
Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation/Quantum Field Psychology-The Thoton Theory

The article has been rejected after two edits-is there a particular part of the article that needs to be reworked or is it the article overall?

Thank you for your assistance Ronnie Schubert 69.127.113.150 (talk) 17:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree that it does read more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. See Guide to writing better articles for help on formatting and tone. It's a fairly lengthy page, but a thorough reading of it should give you an idea of what we are looking for. Pol430  talk to me 21:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Articles for Creation: Andrew Ostrowski
Hi, I copied/pasted my reviewer's comments below and I hava a compliant which I am also sending in to the Foundation. Several people who have submitted articles (myself included) to this reviewer have had their submission rejected for clearly unfounded reasons. In my example, Articles for Creation: Andrew Ostrowski, there are most assuredly pinpointed references validating 99% of what was written. Yet, the reviewer indicates that notability is lacking? This subject has had NUMEROUS published articles about him, the Relic Hunter group's TV show, the subject's published works, etc., all of which are clearly referenced, certainly meriting encyclopedic inclusion. Did the reviewer bother to access the references to verify this? Apparently not. I will evelate this to the Foundation, as this took me over 2 months of hard work to research! Any suggestions? Can it be reveiwed by another person? Thank you, Sanctus7--Sanctus7 (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I am entirely confused at the reason given, as there are clearly multiple references (43) supporting the subject's notability. I did as instructed in seeing the guidlelines on the notabilty of people and the golden rule, and this submission adhered to that in all aspects. There are multiple articles referenced in published newspapers, including the Staten Island Advance, from columnist Carol Benanti, The Am-Pol Eagle, which is overseen by an editor, Real Live Relic Hunter website, and the subject's own website. I have even detailed archival availablity where older articles are found! The information is most assuredly verifiable in the references. I've seen several other articles that are currently on live Wikipedia which have very little referencing. "Steve Bauer", for example, is a friend of the subject, of which I am to both, and I see virtually no references supporting his inclusion. "Alexandria Riordan" also has virtually no references yet has been accepted. Please supply me with precise pinpoint information so I can justify the information provided. This took over 2 months of hard work to complete. I am also posting this on the Teabook. Thanks very much, Sanctus7

The reviewer left the following comment about this submission: This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.


 * Sanctus, I have responded to your comments at my talk page. See User talk:Pol430. Please avoid cross posting on many different pages, as it makes it difficult to have one conversation. Also, whilst you are free the contact the Wikimedia foundation with your concerns, they do not have much input on content issues, such matters are decided by the community. The foundation only normally become involved where legal matters are concerned. Pol430  talk to me 21:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Question
It's not about my article. I feel eager to start reviewing Wikipedia AFC submissions. How can I get a good, safe start on doing this? Fanatical Submarine (talk) 22:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Have a good read of the reviewing instructions;
 * 2) Install the script mentioned therein;
 * 3) Add the reviewers talk page and this help desk page to your watchlist. Pol430  talk to me 22:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Enthusiasm is great, but I'd be inclined to suggest spending some time exploring Wikipedia and getting to know what is acceptable and what is not (I spent a few months writing and editing articles - sometimes successfully, sometimes not - before launching myself into AfC). Otherwise, stick to rejecting the very obvious bad submissions for the time being, until you find your feet. Sionk (talk) 13:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)