Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2012 August 17

= August 17 =

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Syabas Technology
Hi, I just received comments of the written article is marked as advertising, I reference the written format of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roku and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Select-tv in writing out the article. Please be advise on what should be changed to get my first written work published? []

and the sources i cited are from reviewers/ editors of reputable magazine and review company not related to the company

(Siegheart2012 (talk) 01:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC))


 * The draft's tone is inappropriately laudatory and uses what I call marketingspeak. The word "solution" almost raises red flags on its own - unless it's a consulting agency or maybe a lab, it doesn't sell solutions but products. As an extreme example, take the history section's first sentence: "Since its inception, the company quickly emerged as an early leader in the development of digital entertainment middleware solutions for consumer electronic manufacturers." Says who? Not the lone source provided for the entire section, and I'm not sure about that source's reliability anyway (it looks like the website of a conference to be held in 2013; I doubt it has the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy required to be considered reliable). And what is "quickly"? How about a date? This is a vacuous statement that sounds good without providing much information (and for all I can tell that information is flat-out wrong to boot - they don't develop products for other manufacturers, they are a manufacturer). The rest of the history section bears no greater resemblance to what that lone source says. Even the sources for the awards section often don't confirm those awards - Hardware Bistro (which again I'm not sure is a reliable source in the first place) doesn't mention a Gold Award, Planète Numérique doesn't mention a Silver Award, the source for the Video HomeVision award isn't the journal but an image on the company's own website, and so on. Even counting that image I could verify only four of the seven awards.
 * In general, the draft focuses on the company's products and provides very little information on the company itself. For example, we don't have any revenue figures or the number of employees.
 * The last two sources, Business Wire and Marketwire, are press releases and definitely not reliable. NetworkedMediaTank, the second source, looks like the company's forum; not a reliable source nor an independent one.
 * Newspaper coverage of the company (as opposed to reviews of its products) would go a long way in establishing its notability and allowing us to write some well-sourced content about the company. Huon (talk) 02:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Review of User:MarmP/sandbox
I would like to add the Infastech company logo as a header to the information section of my submission. Please advise how I can do this. Also, need to connect the links on each key word in italics to other existing Wiki and internet sites that are already in the public domain

Thank you, Peter Marmach — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarmP (talk • contribs) 03:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The logo is almost guaranteed to be copyrighted and not to be released under a free license. That means it cannot be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons, but must be uploaded to Wikipedia itself and be used under the doctrine of fair use. However, Wikipedia's policy on non-free content requires such images to be used in at least one article, a not-yet-accepted draft is not enough. Once the draft has been accepted, you ca ask for the image to be uploaded at WP:Images for upload; once it's uploaded, the picture tutorial explains the wikicode for adding it to the article.
 * I didn't see any key words in italics; links to other Wikipedia articles are created by pairs of square brackets: Fastener will give Fastener. See also Help:Link for more help on links.
 * The draft needs to show significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (ie, not the company's own website) to establish the company's notability. Right now the content is not verifiable, and the draft will be declined. My suggestion would be to look for articles about Infastech in newspapers or trade magazines.
 * The "major brands" section provides no context and is practically useless. What's the difference between Infalok and Octolok? What are Infalok and Octolok? Are there reviews of these products published in reliable sources? If not, we're probably better off with a description of the products in general terms than with a list of product names. Huon (talk) 09:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Smash Studios
Hi to the folks at the Help desk,

I am in the process of submitting my first article, and seeing some questionable notices on my page, wikipedia talk:articles for creation/Smash Studios. I am seeing a notice at the top saying the article has not yet been submitted for review, and one at the bottom saying that it has. I am ready to submit it, and would like to ASAP, but I am quite confused by the process, as you may see by the state of my page. I would immensely appreciate some help in simply getting the article submitted for review and launched! Thank you for reading, and I look forward to hearing from you soon.

All the best, Ace6255 (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You can ignore the "not submitted" box at the top. Provided the yellow "awaiting review" box is on the page, it means the article has definitely gone in the queue for review, which I've done. Unfortunately, I can't pass it as it doesn't have have references to reliable sources yet. Have a look at the links on the box that's now at the top of the article for suggestions. -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   15:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)