Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2012 April 30

= April 30 =

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jerry Burling
Reviewer:

Regarding the submission of "Jerry Burling," please be specific on what was not verified so changes can be made.

Terminoman (talk) 12:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You have deleted your draft article so presumably you have answered your own question and/or no longer want to proceed with your article. Information (particularly about living people) needs to be verifiable, but the subject also needs to be notable. IMDB is sometimes useful for verification of facts, but counts little towards 'notability'. Sionk (talk) 12:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Declined article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alessandro Liberati
Hello and thanks to SarahStierch for indicating me this help desk. The one in the headline is my first article written for Wikipedia. I submitted it four times, each time trying to follow reviewers' suggestions to overcome some common (I believe) errors that first-time editors may incur in.

In the last review I have been asked to consider the neutral-point-of-view issue more thoroughly, by referring "to a range of independent, reliable, published sources", and to avoid "peacock terms" in order to achieve a more formal tone. I wrote back to the reviewer trying to get more specific suggestions, explaining that I was a bit confused as I supported the information provided in the article with 18 references, 15 of which are open access material and can be easily checked. Most of this material is represented by obituaries, all written on peer reviewed and indexed (see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/) medical journals. Some of these journals do have high impact (see medical journal impact factors at http://impactfactor.weebly.com/medicine.html) and certainly could (should) be considered independent and reliable sources, like for example the British Medical Journal, the Lancet (the obituary on the latter journal is an open-access article), or the Cochrane Collaboration website (as for independence, the latter organization also refuses private sponsorship).

I also asked whether using quotations from independent, reliable open access material is acceptable, and whether quotations reporting favourable comments are acceptable or fall under the definition of peacock terms missing formal tone. I specified that I could remove those quotations in case this can help formality. The reviewer didn't give me furter suggestions, just stating that my article sounds like a tribute. Frankly, I don't think that making statements without answering to requested suggestions is polite. Conversely, I'd like to say that another reviewer (DCS) has been very helpful.

I re-submitted the article, taking the former quotations out, hoping this can help formality. I reported what is available from secondary sources, mostly open-access material, making an effort to provide the corresponding links so that they can be easily checked, as such information does not represent my personal opinions. I hope to have used an encyclopedic style, or to be closer to it.

I would like to thank you for any further suggestions I can get. I think that Wikipedia is a relevant and needed initiative, and quitting would make me feel to have wasted my and reviewers' time in some way. I am sure that, within Wikipedia, these kind of efforts are highly appreciated.

Thank you again --Jshapely (talk) 14:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Saint Clement Academy (Ottawa)
My article about an existing school ( Saint clement Academy Ottawa) was declined because of shortage of reliable soources to verify the facts. I am completely new to Wikipidia and I need to know if the school's website can be a reliable source? Or else what do I doJoanne707 (talk) 18:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the school's website can be taken as a reliable source about itself. However, it cannot be used to demonstrate notability for the school, which is an equally, if not more, concern. For that, independent, reliable sources are required. Also, see the golden rule. A412  (Talk &bull; C) 22:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Frederick Douglass Family Foundation
Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation/Frederick Douglass Family Foundation

I recently submitted an article for creation and it was turned down because the subject didn't meet your notability requirement. Here is the comment by the reviewer:

"A lot of sources, but they are about things other than the actual subject of the article. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)"

The references I included under the "Reference" heading are to support statements made in the article. Under the heading "Articles", I included 6 independent stories about the subject of the article, 1 CNN television interview and 1 NPR radio interview. These are all clearly about the subject of the article and the work being done by the organization. If it's just a matter of adding more stories, then please let me know how many I should include in order to prove notability.

This article is about the family of one of this country's heroes, Frederick Douglass, and their work continuing his legacy to abolish slavery. How can the reviewer say that it is not a notable subject? If you do a Google search, you will find hundreds of independently published articles about the organization and its founders, Kenneth B Morris Jr. and Nettie Washington Douglass.

I did a comparison search on Wikipedia for an example of other anti slavery organizations you've published: Not For Sale Campaign, Free The Slaves, Coalition Against Trafficking in Women (CATW) and there is a lot less information to prove their notability than what I've provided. For example, CATW has 2 references and 4 external links.

Please let me know how many more independent articles you would require to prove notability and should they be listed under "References" or "Articles."

Here is a link to the AFC page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Frederick_Douglass_Family_Foundation

Thank you. Wikiswift (talk) 20:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jerry Burling
Please review again the revised article titled "Jerry Burling." The article has been edited and sufficient book references have been added.

Thanks.

Terminoman (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * To get it re-reviewed, add to the top. Asking here will not expedite the review.  A412  (Talk &bull; C) 22:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Question
how do you reference something if you are the only source ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Busception (talk • contribs) 22:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You cannot do that- that would be original research. If there are no other sources about a topic, then it is probably not notable enough for Wikipedia. A412  (Talk &bull; C) 22:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)