Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2012 August 28

= August 28 =

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nubia Santomás
How do I create "reliable sources for a novel of fiction and the author wishes to be a pen name and not a revealed person in order to protect her family? Pritchett1 01:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Pritchett1  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pritchett1 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You don't create reliable sources yourself - that would be original research. Reliable sources about a novel would be book reviews published in newspapers or literary magazines, for example.
 * I'd also say the plot summary is far too long, and it's written almost entirely from an in-universe perspective; please have a look at Manual of Style/Writing about fiction. Huon (talk) 02:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Judith Fontaine
Dear Sir/Madame,

My article keeps getting declined because the sources are unreliable. I don't understand why they are considered unreliable. Could you please tell me why my sources do not qualify.

My article can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Judith_Fontaine

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Judith Fontaine

Thank you for your help.

Friedafon (talk) 03:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)Frieda


 * First of all, you should use footnotes to clatify which source supports what part of the draft. It's hard to tell which of the "References that need to be cited inline" is relevant to what.
 * The external links you give in the article itself don't mention Fontaine; since they're not references, you might want to turn them into wikilings to the relevant articles (ie "Atlantic, Elektra, Universal, BMI, BMG, and EMI") or remove the links altogether and leave plain text.
 * The references that need to be cited inline are also problematic. The link to http://www.exploretalent.com/gabrielleunon.php is broken; I assume its target is supposed to be http://www.exploretalent.com/gabrielle_union.php - but neither that page nor the other urls provided (sources no. 6 and 8) cover Judith Fontaine in any detail - the last doesn't even mention her at all. That leaves us with the newspaper articles. I don't have access to most of them, but if the LA Times article is typical, they also don't provide details on Fontaine but on the models she has employed. We need sources that cover Fontaine in some detail, not just sources that mention her name, or just her agency's name, or not even that.
 * The draft contains many very positive lines - "Her incomparable eye for spotting talent; her ability to create an image, and negotiate as a peer with giants of the music industry have earned her recognition and sucess levels rarely seen" - says who? A sentence like that definitely needs a source, and even then we should aim for a dryer tone and give facts instead of laudatory opinions. What talents has she spotted? What exactly makes her success extraordinary? Right now the draft reads like a puff piece. But of course the less explicitly flattering parts, such as her family background, also must be based on reliable sources. I don't think any of the sources you provided cover that. Huon (talk) 04:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Henrik Wenøe
Well, sooner or later, I'll learn and at this time I am quite ignorant. What does this mean: >>This sandbox is in the Wikipedia talk namespace. Either move this page into your userspace, or remove the User sandbox template.<<? What do I do? How do I do it?

Best regards Jesper


 * This message appears when you create a draft article in your sandbox, and it then gets moved to the main Articles for Creation area. Simply remove the top line that says User sandbox from the article, and the message will disappear. I've done this for you. I'm afraid I can't really pass the article in its current state as large parts of it don't seem to be attributable to a reliable source and go into detail which probably isn't relevant to the article's subject. The lead sentence of an article should state who this man is, what he does, and why he is notable for it. A personal conversation is never considered a reliable source - it has to be documented by an organisation well known for proper editorial control and fact checking. Hope that's of use. -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   08:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Portada Online, LLC
Hello, I would like to know what do you suggest to get my article published, apparently the references are not valid, but I do not possess any other articles/interviews or other. What should I do since the references I have are all links to other websites publications? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Secheverria (talk • contribs) 16:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ideally, you need several pieces about the article's subject from newspapers, books and magazines. They need to talk specifically about Portada Online as the main subject and go into it in some depth. See the referencing for beginners guide for more information. -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   16:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Judy Hall
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Judy Hall

Help!

I've written an article about Judy Hall and it's been rejected due to unreliable source, but I don't know what else to do??? Judy is WORLD famous in her field!

I can't believe this she has over 40 books published in several languages and the Crystral Bible is a million seller.

I used the piece on Cassandra Eason as a refernce and this has far fewer references than I gave.

Sorry about this biut it took me weeks to get the references and I don't know what else to do.

Penmansdays (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Many of the references are primary sources such as organizations Hall (we shouldn't refer to her by her first name unless that's her stage name or something to that effect) is associated with, or her own website. Others are not reliable; for example, the Norwegian astrologer's interview has no indication of editorial oversight; it seems to be self-published. The reviews of her books in BellaOnline are somewhat better, but they don't provide many details on Hall. (I don't think Goodreads is actually a reliable source; I suspect their review is at best user-submitted without editorial oversight, or possibly submitted by the author or the publisher. Most other sources are worse - The White Goddess is someone's private website, I believe.)
 * For such a best-selling author as Hall, I'd expect some coverage in more mainstream sources, such as newspaper articles. And we shouldn't list the coverage she has received; that coverage should form the basis of our article. Right now we say "she was covered by X" instead of "According to X, Judy Hall is... whatever source X has to say about Hall".
 * Finally, while other insufficiently sourced articles exist, that's no reason to create more; each submission must stand on its own merits. Huon (talk) 19:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Groopt
Thanks for having a look at the article candidate. May I please request some specific advice on the page that you rejected?

Background:

This entry adheres rigorously to WP standards. I took WP advice and used other authoritative, bona fide, approved and published WP articles as a robust model and editing template. I cited a range of independent, reliable, published sources. It exceeds with confidence Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject. It is encyclopedic and verifiable.

Some thoughtful examples of approved and published articles used as a specific, published model that exceed WP standards are below. Could you please look over these well-established, approved, confident and published WP pages? BTW, do they have peacock words?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xobni

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groove_Networks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jive_Software

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialtext

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yammer

There are hundreds and thousands of other examples for you. This entry matches them precisely. It is a standard, encyclopedic entry. IT is in this reliable format, tone and specific standard.

Could you please reconsider your rejection? The Groopt article candidate certainly meets and confidently exceeds all WP standards. If you have editing advice required to meet WP standards, it is welcome and encouraged.

Articles_for_creation/Groopt

Specifics:

There are major WP:NPOV issues with this, therefore I am declining it again.

I am striving to meet WP standards and achieve parity with the examples I furnishd and hundreds/thousands of others. If there are major WP:NPOV then it will be easy to identify just one. I can take it from there. Thanks in advance for you advice. If there is a specific peacock word, simply point it out. Thanks!

Please use reviewers comments in future.

I don't know what that is. Please advise. At your service. Thanks again.

I'll resubmit.

Most cordially,

jheuristic (talk) 18:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * First of all, I don't doubt that other problematic articles exist, but that's no reason to create more. Each submission must stand on its own merits.
 * Your draft's sources are rather weak. I'm not sure whether AppAppeal is reliable at all, and TechCrunch and Mashable are something between reliable news sources and blogs. Some newspaper coverage, for example, would go a long way in clearly establishing Groopt's notability. See also WP:WEB for a more specific notability guideline.
 * Also, your draft's content is at best loosely related to the content of the sources: The "products" section is unreferenced, none of your sources mention "activity streams", I couldn't find a source for the number of employees, and so on. The claim that it "was founded by fraternity members at the University of California, Berkeley" is even contradicted by the source - only half the founders were fraternity members. In short, I don't think your draft does a good job at summarizig what the sources have to say about Groopt. This goes both ways; for example, the sources explain that Groopt is basically free and how it generates revenue - but that didn't find its way into the article even though it's the most detailed information on the business model we have.
 * Regarding the specifics you mention: Those sound like quotes, but I couldn't find where they're from or what the context was. The NPOV comment doesn't seem to be from the edit summaries or comments left at the draft, and I have no idea what "reviewer comments" beside the decline messages the other "specific" might be talking about. Thus I unfortunately cannot help you with those specifics without further information. Huon (talk) 19:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Houn -- Thanks for your thoughtful and constructive remarks. I agree for the most part and understand your concerns. Adjustments will be made, more citations added and specific concerns will be addressed. Thanks again.

jheuristic (talk) 21:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Review of User:Chicon59/Atelier national de reproduction des thèses
While waiting for review, can I upload image files into the infobox (photo and logo)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicon59 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You can edit the article while it's awaiting review; the more you improve it before a reviewer takes a look the better. However, the draft needs better references more than images - I don't think it currently shows significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject: Both the law and the organization's own website are primary sources, and the "Administration centrale et bibliothèques universitaires" text doesn't even mention ANRT. That's not enough to satisfy our notability criteria.
 * Anyway, if the image comes with a free license, in particular one compatible with the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License, you can upload it to the Wikimedia Commons via their Upload Wizard, and once it's uploaded you can add it to the infobox; the infobox documentation explains how to do that. If the image isn't free, maybe it can be uploaded to Wikipedia itself via Special:Upload and be used under the doctrine of fair use; however, our non-free content guideline requires such images to be used in at least one article - a not-yet-accepted draft is not enough. Huon (talk) 23:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)