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

= February 29 =

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dr. Vashishtha Narayan Singh
please any1 can edit it in proper wikipedia format. ifyes plz do it.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uttamsharma2309 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The main problem here is not that the article is not formatted correctly, but that it is not written from a neutral point of view and may not demonstrate sufficient notability. If it conforms to those two policies, it should be good to go. A412  (Talk &bull; C) 03:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Prestel Publishing
Hello,

I don't understand why my article on Prestel Publishing Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation/Prestel Publishing wont get published- it isn't an advert, can you let me know exactly what i need to change to get this published?? (Katielovesbooks (talk) 11:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC))
 * I see three problems here. One, as said by the first reviewer, this needs to demonstrate notability, specifically notabiltiy for organizations and companies. Two, the external links need to be converted to internal wikilinks. Three, it would help if you used in-line referencing to help demonstrate verifiability and notability. A412  (Talk &bull; C) 14:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Eckstein, Karl
Hi! Please, check my article Eckstein, Karl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Eckstein,_Karl) once again. Last time I had problems with sources. If it happens again, could you, please, explain what's wrong with them? As far as references №№ 6-11 are concerned, they are references of organizations and I still can't understand why they are primary and not independent, they are not to discuss Eckstein in any detail. Please, help me. Thanks in advance. Lerysik (talk) 13:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The references No 6-11 serve no purpose in this submission, as the URLs you have linked to, do not mention Eckstein at all. Unless those sites actually say that Eckstein is a member of those organizations then they should be removed. Only references 3 and 5 actually discuss Eckstein in any detail; normally we look for at least 3 reliable references that discuss the subject in detail, to evidence the subject's notability. Reference 1 does not contribute to establishing his notability because it is a primary source (his own webspace). If you can add one more independent, reliable source, that discusses Eckstein in detail then the submission can probably be accepted. Pol430  talk to me 18:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot)) I've added some new references and removed others (## 6-11). Hope they will meat the requirements and my article will be published at last)) Please, check it again if it's possible. Best regards)) Lerysik (talk) 12:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi can you please correct the article  Played for the ny express New York cosmos 1985 when they where trying to  come back. Ray claveka was the coach. Also played for tolido pride. Also I was awarded all american westchester c college 1981. Please check and thank you

Newly accepted article: Josh Burton
Hello! I have worked at WP:AfC/R for years, but I decided to try my hand at accepting/declining real articles today. My first accepted article is Josh Burton. Would any experienced folks like to review the article and let me know if I made the right call in accepting it? Thanks! --Andrew (User:90) (talk) 20:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The article looks well formatted, categories and AFC Project added. But I would definitely not have accepted the article. There are only a couple of very brief mentions of Josh Burton in the cited sources - in fact the vast majority of the coverage is about Josh's dad Steve Burton (you have to watch out which Burton is being referred to, but generally it is Dad). Sionk (talk) 20:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I went through and made quite a lot of 'easy fixes' to the article, which I always think as a reviewer is in ones best interest. For instance, running the bare urls through reflinks and making easy formatting fixes (excessive spacing, bolding etc). And, although I haven't yet had a look at the sources, as Sionk has so excellent examined, I would have hesitated to accept on the basis of the article's tone. Many phrases were, (and still are), quite colloquial and err on the promotional side. Also, the subject being referred to by his first name is a no-no. Even more care needs to be taken in this regards as this appears to be an autobiography, judging by the writers username. Something to keep in mind for the future. France 3470   ( talk ) 20:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all the input. I will definitely keep all these things in mind if thinking about accepting an article again.  Should the article be nominated for deletion (or moved back to Wikipedia talk space) due to the source issues?  I don't want to make that decision myself, as I have already taken one liberty with the article, so perhaps someone else could make the call.  --Andrew (User:90) (talk) 21:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't be disheartened Andrew, I encourage you to continue to contribute to article reviews at AFC (we need at the help we can get). It's all a learning curve and it is frequently not easy to make a decision on weather a subject is notable. Pol430  talk to me 17:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hardware Sales Inc
Hi! I am the author of this article. Is my first article, and I am using the article for Woods Coffee as a quality reference. I'm very interested in including the table on the right of the screen that summarizes basic info, how is this made? I would also love to receive feedback on the progress of this draft as a whole. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninesies (talk • contribs) 19:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you are referring to the infobox. If so, you are looking for the tempalte infobox company. GO to Template:Infobox company and copy the full template found there into the top of your submission. Then fill in whatever parameters you can. Examples can be found at Template:Infobox company.  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  19:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation/Hardware Sales Inc Thank you, Nolelover. I notice that I need confirmation to use all intended features of this article, namely uploading images. Is there any way to bypass the time/edit count requirements, or be overwritten into confirmed status? I am paid for my time on this website, and that is both my reason for urgency and validation as a contributor. I am not a delinquent.(Ninesies (talk) 20:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC))
 * Hmm...that's odd, because you should already be confirmed, with ten edits and four days under your belt. Perhaps try again in a little while? Now, are you employed by the hardware company or another entity?  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  20:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

You're right, complaining gave me the leg up I needed, we're all clear!(Ninesies (talk) 21:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC))
 * I'm glad that worked out, but who's your employer? Are you working for the company, or a third-party? This is rather important, as paid editing is really frowned upon here.  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  02:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

This user account is shared, some of the users are employees of Hardware Sales. I have read through the policy and understand the frown, but I am ready to defend my edits and the motives behind them. (Ninesies (talk) 15:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC))
 * It really doesn't matter if you can defend your edits, shared accounts are just not permitted and will lead to a block, even apart from the COI stuff. I very strongly suggest you stop using this account, and create one for each of you.  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  17:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Joseph Austin Benwell
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Joseph Austin Benwell. I have tried submitting the article for review using the 'click here' in the panel at the top of the page (and save), but a couple of days later the article still has 'Article not currently submitted for review' showing in the top panel. Am I doing something wrong? Thanks ¬¬¬¬ DMancestry (the tildes don't work on my keyboard) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmancestry (talk • contribs) 23:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I removed the old tag and moved the pending review tag up. For whatever reason they keep being placed at the bottom of the page and often don't seem to replace the current one. When in doubt feel free to just rearrange them manually. The article should be reviewed shortly, thanks for your submission. France 3470   ( talk ) 00:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)