Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2012 December 12

= December 12 =

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gilbert Hitch
RE Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gilbert Hitch

In his reply to my submission [MatthewVanitas] said "Do you have some sources which prove the statements re his military service, marriage, secretaryship, etc? Such sourcing is required, to ensure that readers can check the facts against the sourcing for WP:Verifiability. Fix the footnoting situation for the basic facts of his life, and this will be ready to publish"

In the form of a link to a 'Prayer in chamber' I have managed to get online substantiation of his marriage to Mavis Blutcher in 1974 on Norfolk Island, and also of the administration positions he held.

Mavis lives on Norfolk Island and is not contactable. I am unable to obtain a copy of marriage certificate as I am not next of kin.

I am attempting to obtain a marriage certificate of HITCH's marriage to Moira HITCH nee STOKES.

Will this be enough to satisfy the verification of his biographical details? Sintch (talk) 00:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't quite think so. Wikipedia content should be based on published sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper articles about Hitch. The marriage certificate would probably be considered a primary source, and while such sources are acceptable for uncontroversial facts such as his marriage, we shouldn't base entire sections only on primary sources. Basically, if something isn't covered in secondary sources, it's probably not all that important in the first place. See also WP:WEIGHT.
 * I also couldn't verify Hitch's service aboard HMAS Katoomba. The source given for his military service is some sort of record entry, but it doesn't provide any details. Huon (talk) 01:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * As an example of the kind of thing that is admissible, here's one of the few hits I get on GooglBooks for "Gilbert Hitch norfolk":


 * Annual report on the Territory of Norfolk Island - Page 57
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=5DQsAAAAIAAJ
 * Norfolk Island - 1980 - Snippet view - More editions
 * Norfolk Island. February 2 Mr. Peter GrifWh, Legal Adviser, departed and Mr David Wallace of the Attorney-General's Department took up duties as ... Mr. Gilbert Hitch carried out the duties of Chief Administrative Officer until 4 May 1981.}}


 * Okay, cool, it verifies the date he ended serices as the CAO. That's one fact documented. However, for overall WP:Notability we need to see that somebody, somewhere, published some serious examination of his significance, whether governmental or as an artist (ideally both). Basically, Wikipedia should never be the first place to "make someone famous" or introduce facts about them to the world. As an encyclopedia, we're supposed to gather widely-spread information about things already proved to be significant, not uncover new truths. It may well be that there are good news and magazine articles about him, or mentions of his artist career in books not available online. If those exist, those could substantiate WP:Notability. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou Matthew and Huon. I have now culled much of the trivial biographical content as it was deflecting from the purpose of the article which was to record HITCH's contribution to the philatelic history of Norfolk Island. Sintch (talk) 02:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David Jay Reed
Hi mrt3366. Thank you so much for accepting my David Jay Reed article. However, there are two points I would like to discuss. First, In the box section on the right side of the article, the information concerning his occupation is Lecturer at Rochester Institute of Technology. In actual fact he is now Head of the Art Department of Beijing Huijia Private School in China. This is verified by the article written by  which is reference no 8 in the article. Can I change this? Is it a major or minor change? If I do, then do I need to cite the above reference? Second, I believe you rated it as a start article, but I'm not sure how to improve it. All my references are legitimate, the article follows a chronological path and I have tried to keep it as neutral as possible. Does it just need more information? Hope you can clarify. Thanks once again for accepting it. Joe Joebzz (talk) 02:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course you can update the infobox, and there's no need to cite a source in the infobox since the new content is supported by the (sourced) article text itself. It's not a minor edit; "any change that affects the meaning of an article is not minor", and correcting his current position certainly is a change in meaning.
 * Regarding the rating, you may want to have a look at WikiProject Biography's quality scale. Going by their examples the Reed article could probably be considered C-Class, but I'm not really an expert on ratings and mostly don't bother with them at all. You might want to ask Mrt3366, the reviewer who classified it as "start", for his rationale.
 * I noticed one minor issue that might be improved: The external links currently have very short, meaningless descriptions (or none at all); for example, one is simply named "David". A short description of what those links point to would probably be helpful (for example, the first is his official website, and the description should probably say just that). An image would also be a nice feature, but a free image probably is difficult to come by.
 * More information would of course also be helpful, provided it's supported by reliable sources. But it's better to have a short, well-sourced article than a longer one with dubious sources. Huon (talk) 03:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Huon. Do you ever sleep? Thanks for replying to my questions. You have helped me in the past also, although you have probably forgotten by now with all the other correspondence. The sections under 'links' was not what I originally wrote as the links. It was either changed by mrt3366 or a bot of some description. I thought it was just something I had done wrong, and that is why it was changed. I also thought it was strange. If you look back on my original submission I had full descriptive link titles. I will try and change them back to the originals. I assume this is a minor change. Also, when I make a change, does the article go back into the 'articles for submission' section, thus pulling the article from the site, or does it just remain, as is, until the change comes through? Thanks once again. Your previous suggestions are what finally got the article posted. Joe 63.141.199.225 (talk) 02:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Once an article is posted in the mainspace, it doesn't return to AfC space. Please go ahead and improve the article; there's no waiting period for edits. Regarding minor edits, personally I reserve those for typos and the like. Other users mark more edits as minor than I do, but in principle it's more problematic to mark non-trivial edits (that others might want to see) as minor than the other way around, expecially when you use descriptive edit summaries for your edits so others can get an idea of what you did and decide whether they want to look at the edit itself. Huon (talk) 02:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nikolai Petrovitch Troubetzkoy
Hi

I just checked my draft page on Nikolai Petrovitch Troubetzkoy. I guess I need help with the photograph I posted because it was removed. I thought I had followed directions and licensed it. What can I do to include the photo? There are no photos of Nikolai P. Troubetzkoy (alone) on the web. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Nikolai_Petrovitch_Troubetzkoy

Thanks!! Pianoancestry (talk) 03:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC) Irina Booth


 * Commons:File:Prince Nikolai Petrovitch Troubetzkoy.jpg was deleted from the Wikimedia Commons on December 4 because it was missing a license since November 23. I cannot look at the deleted content and I'd expect images of people who died in 1900 might by now be in the public domain - but that's not a trivial question and could depend on the date of death of the photographer and on both Russian and American copyright law. If you can provide licensing information you might want to ask INeverCry for help, the Commons admin who deleted the image. You can also contact him on Wikipedia (User talk:INeverCry), but it's more of a Commons issue.
 * On an unrelated note, the majority of the draft's sources seem to be written by Troubetzkoy's relatives and descendants. I doubt they're the reliable, independent sources we're looking for. You should also use inline citations and footnotes to clarify which source supports which of the draft's statements. Huon (talk) 03:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Contributions by 71.198.250.56
where are all my submitions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.250.56 (talk) 16:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Your submissions are here. Your AFC submissions appear to be patent nonsense or unintelligible content, so will probably be speedy deleted. It strikes me that you might be very young, perhaps under 10? -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   16:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Frank Richardson
Hello, I have a re-submit article ready. I want to include ,say three, photographs of the individual (Frank Richardson) now in this revised article. I cannot find any help within Wikipedia on how to include photos in an article. Can you advise please? The article is Frank Richardson, an addition to his name in City of Salisbury Police. TimothyWF (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You need to use the File Upload Wizard to upload pictures. Before you do this, you must make sure you are the copyright owner of the protographs, otherwise they may be speedy deleted. Once you have uploaded a file, you can use the "Embedded file" icon at the top of the window you see when editing, which will guide you through adding it to the article. Hope that's of use. -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   17:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Joseph Michael Bruno
How do I submit my article for review/posting. not working! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruno.melanie (talk • contribs) 17:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You article is queued for review. As you can see on the review box, there is a severe backlog of over 1500 articles, so the review may well take over a week. As it is, I can't pass your article at present, as too much of it is not backed by reliable sources, meaning that we cannot verify that anything in the article is true. Your username also suggests you are related in some way to Bruno, which can create a conflict of interest. In general, you should avoid editing Wikipedia articles about your family and close friends. -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   17:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hindi WordNet
Hi,

Thank you for a quick review of this article. The article is currently rejected stating "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources".

The proceedings in which the paper (1st reference in the article) is published, are available on-line (e.g., at various libraries listed here: http://mirlyn.lib.umich.edu/Search/Home?checkspelling=true&inst=&submit=Find&type=isn&lookfor=51163816). This reference paper is also cited by several others, as can be seen on the google scholar page: http://scholar.google.co.in/scholar?q=%22a+WordNet+for+Hindi%22%2C+GWC+2002&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5

Please do not reject this article. We are the same people who created the page on IndoWordNet. We are looking forward to make this work available to the international community of natural language processing.

Warm Regards, Salil — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salil.r.joshi (talk • contribs) 17:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think there are enough independent sources to establish the topic's notability. The only reference is co-authored by the main organizer of IndoWordNet who preumably is involved with the Hindi WordNet as well. Since the Hindi WordNet and IndoWordNet seem closely related, I'd instead suggest adding the relevant information in a section of the main IndoWordNet article. That article could do with quite a bit of improvement anyway; most of its current sources are primary sources or don't mention IndoWordNet at all, and they don't even say what they're cited for. I'm tempted to nominate it for deletion. We certainly don't need another badly sourced article on the same topic. Huon (talk) 18:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, first of all, it is not the 'same' topic. Hindi WordNet is a project started as an independent work, similar to WordNet. IndoWordNet is a multi-lingual linking project similar to EuroWordNet. Since WordNet and EuroWordNet are both on wiki, I can not see a reason to say that IndoWordNet and Hindi WordNet should not be. Coming to the point of independent sources and notability, I would again bring your attention to EuroWordNet which cites similar sources as in our case as reference. P. Vossen is the contact person for the project, and the only reference in that article is a paper by him. The second reference in that article is only the website of their project. The references which we have mentioned (in both Hindi WordNet article and IndoWordNet article) are from peer-reviewed international conferences. They are of course verifiable. IndoWordNet is cited by several independent researchers as can be seen here: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=975384347232485705&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en. I would therefore ask you to remove the comment for deletion which you have put in IndoWordNet article, and request you to accept this article presenting Hindi WordNet. Salil.r.joshi (talk) 03:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If the EuroWordNet article also cites insufficient sources that don't indicate notability, we shouldn't use it as a pretext to create more badly sourced articles, but we should either improve or delete it. I'm sorely tempted to propose EuroWordNet for deletion as well, but it generates roughly a hundred times the number of Google Scholar hits, and unlike with IndoWordNet, at least some of them seem to be articles not authored or co-authored by Vossen and published in peer-reviewed journals, not just in conference proceedings (I distinctly remember asking you for evidence that these conference proceedings are peer-reviewed; to my knowledge they usually are not). Thus improvement should be possible, and I've tagged the article for cleanup. If you can show that independent, reliable sources cover IndoWordNet and/or the Hindi WordNet in significant detail, please go ahead and improve the article and the draft based on those sources. Huon (talk) 06:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, I think that there some confusion regarding journal articles and conference articles. It must have skipped my mind to reply you on your previous query since that article (on IndoWordNet) was accepted that time. Conferences for computer science (LREC - the reference in IndoWordNet article, GWC - the reference in Hindi WordNet article, etc) are peer-reviewed similar to journal articles. GWC : http://lang.cs.tut.ac.jp/gwc2012/call_for_paper/ (says that Anonymous papers need to be submitted to the EasyChair website), LREC: They remove the review procedure from the conference website once the conference is over, so I can not find the details, but you can see here to know that this is a peer-reviewed conference. Most of these conferences undergo a procedure known as 'double blind-review' in which the author names and any information which might reveal author's association is removed before it is reviewed. EuroWordNet has huge support from europian nations, and hence receives more attention. I do not see this as a reason for not including IndoWordNet on wiki. Salil.r.joshi (talk) 04:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Thomas Michaelsen
How do I add an image under this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmich5555 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Please look at my response to the article on Frank Richardson further up the page, where I have given instructions and advice. -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   20:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)