Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2012 July 4

= July 4 =

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Critics&
I am just looking for a bit more feedback on this article to see if it is good enough now to re-submit, or to get more details than the original reviewer gave as to why it might not be accepted.

I did rewrite the article portion, but after an exhaustive search online, I don't have more info I can add to it. As for the reviewer's concerns about the award listings, I'm not sure if the main concern was that some of the winners listings are incomplete, or that the table wasn't sortable.

Regarding incomplete awards listings, I found as many winners as I could online. I was just hoping someone would see the incomplete listings and add to them, the same as if someone saw an article was a stub and had information to add. Is that a no-no? If I can find more info online I'll certainly add it, but I did a pretty comprehensive search already. (The only way now that I could add more is to start buying back issues of adult magazines on EBay that look like they might have some info to add, and I don't really have the money nor the desire to do so.)

Or was the main problem with the listings the fact that they weren't sortable? I can certainly change that, but the reason I formatted them the way they were is I looked at the other contemporary awards lists (AFAA, XRCO and AVN) and formatted these pretty much the same way. I considered formatting them like the Oscars, but they're not sortable either. (And I admit the XRCO and AVN award pages are butt-ugly! I've fixed up AFAA page quite a bit though.)

Any help you can offer is appreciated; I'd just like a bit more clarity as to what was expected and would be enough to stop the article from "taking some criticism" and get accepted next time I submit it. Thanks!

Pumik9 (talk) 02:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)Pumik9


 * That the tables aren't sortable is no reason not to create the article; that's just a style issue that can be resolved later. But I don't think we need to have multiple tables with just one or two entries each - my suggestion would be to only present tables for those awards where we have near-complete information (best film, director, cast, supporting cast, possibly erotic scene) and to summarize what other awards were given without giving the few winners we know. If we later know more, we can create tables for those other awards.
 * I'm actually more concerned about the text than the tables. For example, the paragraph about other awards seems rather off-topic, and its lone source cannot confirm the post-1977 awards mentioned in that paragraph. We also don't have a source describing the trophy. Bringing the text in line with the references should make the article deletion-proof; every other kind of criticism can be solved via editing. Huon (talk) 09:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sortable tables really would be a waste; what are you going to sort?  However, please don't point to disambiguation pages with terms such as Best Actress, etc.   A Wiki-link to a single subject could be useful, such as Gang Bang, but I do not thing it is really necessary for the word Music.   It's a bit of a sticky mess; I'm not sure of the best way to arrange your article.   :- ) Don  17:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a wiki-table would be better. I entered a sample under Best Film to look at. You may of course delete it.  :- ) Don  17:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bank of Internet America
We appreciate the feedback and would like to get the referencing right as suggested by you. We therefore request you to highlight parts of the article where you could not validate the information we presented. Bank of Internet is a renowned bank in the United States and it is not covered in Wikipedia. The information we provided is essentially chronological; this is our understanding of how Wikipedia presents information. We look forward to your help in getting the referencing right so that Bank of Internet is covered by Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwaite87 (talk • contribs) 06:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Those references are primary sources, but Wikipedia requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the article's subject, like newspaper articles, to establish a subject's notability (see also WP:CORP for a corporation-specific notability guideline). Content should not be based on primary sources.
 * You should also use footnotes so our readers can easily verify which reference supports which part of the article, and you should link to the specific web pages, not just to an organization's homepage - from those homepages I couldn't verify any of the article's claims I looked for, not even that the company headquarters are in San Diego.
 * Furthermore, the article text currently reads like an advertisement. For example, the bank "is considered to be the oldest internet-based bank"? By whom? It offers "competititve interest rates"? Competitive to whom? Says who? Such claims would definitely need to be attributed to secondary sources. Huon (talk) 09:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lumiere &
I'm getting quite confused about how to resubmit an edited article and also how to contact someone, preferably my reviewer, about this fact. I have just added a number of references to the article 'Lumiere & Son Theatre Company' and have titled it 'Lumiere & Son Theatre Company (amended version)'. I have previously twice submitted an amended version containing added references but on each occasion the version appears to have lost its references en route to the Articles for Creation location. It may well be that although I saved the amended page I didn't save it in the right way. Is there a right way? Anyway, 20 minutes ago I resubmitted, with references designed to confer notability, as advised. I have no idea if the refs stayed attached to the text. I then decided to write to the reviewer (Athleek123)and was referred to something like 'Gold Standard". Is this Athleek's new name? I have no idea if my mail to Athleek/Gold Standard went to the right place.Please excuse me for writing a number of times to various destinations that seem promising. I would be grateful for further help. Genepez (talk) 10:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you're doing, but it looks as if you're not saving the references you add (there's no wrong way to save a page, but you can preview a page without saving it - maybe that's the problem?). You did re-submit the draft, though without the references. My suggestion would be to add the references (and save them!) without re-submitting the article. I'll keep an eye on the page and re-submit it once the references have been saved, if necessary. Maybe you'd like to edit the sandbox a little to get used to editing pages and saving your edits? When you save your changes, they should appear both in the page history and in the list of your contributions.
 * Athleek123 has indeed been renamed Gold Standard just today. I have moved your message to the right place, User talk:Gold Standard. Huon (talk) 11:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

why my article was declined?
I've created new user in wikipedia and added an article. I will be happy to know why my article was declined. Thank you.

Wkofer (talk) 12:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Strengthening learning algorithms


 * As the reviewer said, the draft is so short that we don't really need an entire article for that content. Instead, you could merge the content into our article on machine learning, which is closely related. As an aside, the draft does not provide enough explanations of technical terms; I doubt a non-expert could understand it. For example, "bagging" in this context probably does not deal with putting items in bags - at least not literally. I can't even tell what it means to "strengthen" a learning algorithm. Huon (talk) 15:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Steve Schlanger
Is there a way you can edit the article and add the sources correctly if I provide some additional ones here in this space?

Thanks.

Sessoccer Sessoccer (talk) 13:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Technically yes, but that's a little beyond this page's purpose. Why can't you add the sources yourself, just as you did with the others? Huon (talk) 15:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Draft for Jason Brooks
Jason Brooks is an American music producer and DJ. He was born and raised in Baltimore, Md USA. He is a chart topping music producer, re-mixer and songwriter,international dj and creator of Futuro Sounds.

He's worked under many pseudonyms in the genres of Hip Hop and EDM. Under the name Jason Papillon he co-founded the successful production and dj team Soul Providers and Élan Records with Ian_Carey. Soul Providers first vocal release "Rise", charted top 10 in a number of countries and gained gold status in multiple countries. He co-produced/remixed many of todays classics and anthems for Spinnin Records, Defected, Hed Kandi Kontor and others

As an EDM Dj, he has been touring the world since 2000, primarily with former partner Ian Carey as Soul Providers until their split. Brooks, now solo is known for his upfront hands in the air style of EDM at times incorporating surprises at his live Dj shows.

He moved on from dance music and gained successes in the Hip Hop world, real estate and fashion industries. After recovering from a mild stroke in 2007 leaving his face paralyzed, Brooks began to build his name in the EDM scene slowly taking Dj bookings and remix work. Then in 2010 he lauded his "Rebuild and Resurface" campaign.

With the help of Todd Gardner, David Tobon, and Will Pereira he launched his imprint Futuro Sounds.Legacy "Handz Up High" and Jason Brooks "Control the World" gained notoriety due to strong DJ support, XM radio and the "Control The World" music video June 2012 Jason began hosting his monthly radio show Jason Brooks presents…, Each show is a live recording of him, from around the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dj jason brooks (talk • contribs) 19:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Firstly, this draft should go to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jason Brooks. I can move the content there if desired, or you could just create that page yourself. Secondly, the draft currently does not cite reliable sources. Significant coverage in sources independent of the subject is necessary to establish Brooks' notability (see also WP:MUSIC). Thirdly, you might want to read our guideline on conflicts of interest. Writing an autobiography is strongly discouraged. Huon (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * On second thought, I found the draft and moved it to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jason Brooks - there was an unnecessary whitespace in the title. The draft does have some references, but Brooks' own website is a primary sources, and Futuro Sounds is not just a primary source but also looks rather empty to me. The Baltimore City Paper is the type of source we're after, but it does not confirm all the article's content (and because the footnote is in the references section and not in the article itself, it's hard to judge what statements exactly it's supposed to support). Huon (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/List of The Everly Brothers songs
Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/List of The Everly Brothers songs

The article has been declined, but it could be re-submitted if I provide sources for the notability (as I unterstand). Where can i deliver these source? I don’t know exactly what the reviewer means. Shall I improve the references? One of the references is a link to allmusic.com, where it is written, that The Everly Brothers are an important rock act, that has influenced many others and they had several number #1 hits. Is this no sign of notability? And because the Everly Brothers had recorded nearly 400 songs from 1955-1987, I thought an overview would be helpful. In the “List of songs by authors or performers” are articles of less important artists. So how should I do this - “provide sources”? More references?

Thank you. 178.12.32.70 (talk) 19:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The references you currently have are, excepting Allmusic, only primary sources. Secondary sources (independent of the Everly Brothers) explicitly discussing the songs performed by the Everly Brothers as a set are what's required to satisfy the notability criterion for lists. These sources should be provided in the list article itself. For a well-sourced song list I'd refer to the list of The Beatles songs, which has multiple secondary sources covering the Beatles songs.
 * I agree that many of the articles in that category are in much worse shape than your draft, but while other stuff exists, each article has to stand on its own merits. Huon (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Steve_Schlanger
I can add the sources, but you had mentioned you can edit it, correct? If so, can you go ahead and edit and then I will add the sources afterward?

Sessoccer Sessoccer (talk) 20:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I don't quite understand what you'd like me to do. Could you please be more explicit? Huon (talk) 21:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Taos Mountain Trail
YourDraft name here" Writer222 Why is this still viewed as an essay? I have rewritten the article and added references to every paragraph or more. Not sure what to do. Writer222 Writer222 (talk) 22:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)Writer222


 * While you give many references, some of them do not say what they are cited for. For example, the very first one doesn't say anything about high mountain traders and their trade partners. And no. 3, "A forgotten kingdom: The Spanish frontier in Colorado and New Mexico, 1540-1821", doesn't even mention the Taos Mountain Trail at all, for all I can tell - all instances of the word "trail" I found referred to something else, often the Santa Fe Trail. A page number would also be helpful when a 100-page book is used as a reference. The last reference does not mention trails at all.
 * The draft seems a collection of loosely related facts and stories, parts of which are supported by good references but other parts of which only have sources that don't even mention the trail. Using the latter kind of sources to write content about the trail is a kind of original research known as original synthesis, and it's not acceptable for a Wikipedia article. You should probably add basic geographic facts (where exactly does the trail run? Taos is probably at one end, but where's the other? Is there a modern route along that trail?), make sure that the content is actually supported by the references provided, provide page numbers for the books you cite, be a little more precise in your wording (for example, "legend has it" - whose legend? Who recorded it?) and omit the incidents that aren't really relevant to the trail itself (for example the people fleeing along the trail in the wake of the Taos Rebellion). Huon (talk) 23:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)