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

= March 28 =

Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation/InfoMás
Hi,

I was very happy to see that the article I submitted was approved, but when I search for it on wikipedia or google, it does not come up. Is it viewable to the public? Am I missing a step? Thanks!

Buildingstar01 (talk) 15:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the problem is, the article is >here< and the redirect works from Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/InfoMás.  :- ) DCS  16:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you. For some reason I am unable to tag the article on other pages. For example I tried to tag it in Bay News 9. I put InfoMàs and the response was that the article did not exsist. Any suggestions?

Buildingstar01 (talk) 18:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it is because the little apostrophe thing above the "a" points left on the article, but right in the article you tried to link to. Which one is correct?  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  22:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I should have notice that. It worked perfect and is now corrected on the page as well. The correct way to wriite it is InfoMás. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buildingstar01 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and created a few redirect from pages like InfoMas and Infomas as well. Glad we were able to fix that up for you :)  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  21:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Community Integration
I just entered a draft of an entry for the encyclopedia titled Community integration and received a notice that it was not accepted, but could be submitted with revisions as specified. The full markup of the article has not been completed (suggestion was to enter references as "footnotes"), and I am awaiting other comments on the content. I would also like to move to headings which would change the content order and paragraphs. Am I proceeding correctly with your process on a talk page?? I have entered edits before to several pages, but this is my first account attempt including a new category for the encyclopedia. Your response would be helpful. Thank you for your assistance. I could in fact link all your community integration (i.e., integration into the community) entries, too, if necessary. JARacino (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Julie Ann Racino
 * You are proceeding correctly, if I have read your concerns right. The submission is on a talk page purely of technical reasons (unregistered editors, the most common users of this system, cannot create non-talk pages). Now, one thing that would definitely help you is if you more the footnotes so that they appear next to the sentences and such that they actually source. I have moved the reflist so that the full list can now be seen. If possible, please move the 32 references into the prose so that we know what is being sourced. Was there anything else?  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  20:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. The article is still in editing, including the addition of content, headings and so forth (in draft, asking for comments, and awaiting finalization by the author). For example, I have not added Paul Carling and a mental health reference yet from that period of time. I also placed it here so my colleagues cited, including Paul Wehman and David Towell who are on facebook with me, could directly or indirectly also comment on a talk page. I would also like to add some annotated bibliographies (unpublished, and so forth). However, wikipedia has blocked any comments on the article, and neither myself or the content can be reached easily from google (I was blocked 4 times). Can it be switched back to a draft editing version (on talk)?(I have opened a wikipedia account).
 * Hmm...I'm not quite sure what you are referring to. You are trying to edit Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Community Integration, right?  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  22:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The current article can be edited and is technically a draft (has not yet been published). If you or your colleagues wish to talk about it, the AFC comment template is available or your can use a user talk page. What exactly do you mean by "blocked any comments on the article"? A412  (Talk &bull; C) 00:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe I am looking for a social science editor who may be able to confirm that certain categories important in my field, e.g., supportive living, supported employment or community integration are covered (or not) in the wikipedia encyclopedia. I would like direction on how to add the category versus create an article on the subject matter; I can add existing articles on the subject matter (e.g., inclusion, deinstitutionalization). My google was blocking entry to wikipedia, for some reason; my community integration entry states it has not been accepted and has not allowed me to edit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JARacino (talk • contribs) 19:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC) JARacino (talk) 18:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)Julie Ann Racino

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/War Memorials Trust
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/War Memorials Trust

I don't understand why this is not being accepted. Could someone offer me some advice please?

I have used independent, reliable, published sources throughout the article, with the exception of a few links to the 'history' section of War Memorials Trust's website (which from the guidelines is allowed). This was the problem with submitting it last time so I don't know why it's also now being flagged as an advertisement (which it isn't).

WMT are the only charity in the UK that deal solely with war memorials and have a large amount of expertise in that field, so that should make it significant enough for an inclusion.

Thank you for any advice.

WarMemorials (talk) 08:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the advert label was a bit harsh but where the article needs tightening up would be around what it has actually achieved. too many of the references are either not much more than press releases e.g. the Yorkshire Post reference or about intentions e.g. InMemoriam 2014.  The article currently has a lot about it's structure but not what it has done. I'd love to see this article in mainspace and I don't think it needs too much work to get it there. NtheP (talk) 09:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

NthepThank you for your feedback. I will try and add more information about what they have achieved through the grant schemes etc. I think these figures are in the accounts.

The In Memoriam 2014 project is underway and there have been articles about councils etc taking advantage of the project on BBC News etc - should I reference this? I haven't found any figures about how many memorials have used In Memoriam 2014 so far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WarMemorials (talk • contribs) 10:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi WarMemorials! The UK War Memorials Trust is a worthwhile subject, and I have no doubt you'll bring this article to fruition. In rejecting the article, I noted it sounded like an advertisement. What I meant, reflecting what NtheP alluded to is that when an article about a group like this doesn't speak to what it does and to its accomplishments, but rather primarily speaks of its structure, then it comes off a bit like a brochure, like an ad essentially. My advice would be to hone in on what really makes the UK War Memorials Trust notable.  What does it do? What has it accomplished?  Write around that, and set the filler aside. Then, of course, source that puppy to death. The articles you have found from the BBC--for example--would be great to that end. I hope you find this constructive. Dalisays (talk) 17:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Norrtheast of England Process Industry Cluster
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Norrtheast of England Process Industry Cluster I don't understand the latest comments on this submission. As the author I have tried to present an organistion that has produced good results in line with the findings of academic studies for economic clusters. I have verified these results from refernces that are independant of the organisation itself and discussed the activities of the organistion that have underpinned the outcomes. Is this comment from an academic who dislikes the way normal people write? Gairderek (talk) 09:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with the reviewer about how it sounds like an advertisement. Statements such as "Despite being in existence for just six years, NEPIC – the regional cluster for the chemical and process industries in the North East – has now contributed more than £1 billion of added value to the regional economy" may be true and verifiable, but sounds biased. See WP:NPOV. Worse are these statements "A key part of the success of NEPIC" and "In all of these areas, significant results have been achieved through the cluster", which are not even backed up. Also note that only notable and worthwhile information should be included, there are too much material which is irrelevant. So to make this a viable article on WP, please re-write it in a neutral tone, and drastically cut it down so contain only important, central, verifiable facts (and not your opinion), and from this skeleton, maybe add additional information on. The reviewer do not "dislike the way normal people write"; what is normal to you would be abnormal to another, and WP have guidelines to ensure the whole of WP are written in a similar manner. Please do not accuse the reviewer out of your frustration, if you do, please mask it by writing it in a formal tone like so. Kinkreet~&#9829;moshi moshi&#9829;~ 10:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Gairderek! Kinkreet provided some highly constructive feedback that should be useful as you work on the article going forward.  But, I might add:  Keep in mind, that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so articles must strike a neutral tone....this means sometimes we have to adapt our writing style, considering this vary narrow purpose. The initial denial of your article does not reflect the quality of your work in any way---you have def put a lot in to this, it just reflects this reality. Dalisays (talk) 17:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

HI Dalisays & KinKreet and the other reviewers, Thank you so much for the advice that evryone has given. I now have a better understanding of the requirements. I will work on it over the next week or so and look forward to your comments on the the revised document. Gairderek Gairderek (talk) 10:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/WDCW
Hello,

I was wondering what specific parts of this article I should edit so that it doesn't read like an advertisement? I tried to make sure everything written was fact-based and cited independent sources for every claim. Below are the wiki pages for other ad agencies that I used as a guide. It would be helpful to know what parts of my article differ from these.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firstborn_(digital_agency) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AKQA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GSD%26M_Idea_City https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moxie_Sozo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barker/DZP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodby,_Silverstein_%26_Partners https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McKinney_(advertising_agency)

Thanks, Andrew — Preceding unsigned comment added by RudyWillingham (talk • contribs) 17:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * From a look, there are a few sections which seem especially like advertising-


 * 1) "giving them both traditional and digital advertising capabilities."
 * 2) the "leadership" section
 * 3) "WDCW’s high-profile campaigns"
 * 4) the first two lines of "awards" seem somewhat irrelevant

Fix these and it should be good. A412 (Talk &bull; C) 23:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)