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

= November 12 =

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/NewQuest Properties
Hi, I created a page [] based on information found in independent reliable sources, including news articles (not press releases) and government pages, and it was declined. I went into chat to ask why it was declined considering the info was based on that found in the sources and the person responding <+bjelleklang> said The sources appear to satisfy the notability criteria. Then it showed in chat [~chris@wikipedia/Bjelleklang] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] and no one else responded. Can you please help? Thanks.Forthea (talk) 14:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)ForThea


 * Some of the sources are indeed reliable sources, but this one is a press release (a government press release, but that doesn't make it more reliable), this one, the source for the most fawning praise, "is composed from multiple sources, including [...] user submissions", which makes it unreliable (and it explicitly says so itself), and this source openly states it was written by Holly Walsh, director of marketing and public relations for NewQuest Properties. I am not sure whether KGNB is reliable or not, but it doesn't mention NewQuest anyway. These sources are used for a heavy dose of praise - "leading real estate professionals", "one of the quickest growing retail development firms", "strategically located" and so on. All these statements sound good but ultimately provide no information whatsoever. They only serve to make the draft sound like an advertisement.
 * There are also statements I couldn't find any secondary source at all for, such as the claim that NewQuest "leases more than 12 million square feet in Texas". Where does that come from? And while multiple sources mention NewQuest's seat of business in Houston, the source actually cited for that very first sentence doesn't say so. (As an aside, the lead section should be a summary of the article proper; that's clearly not the case here.)
 * Conversely, some of the sources provide significant background information that didn't find its way into the draft: While Texas A&M University is cited for NewQuest's rapid growth, the reasons - a housing boom in Houston and low interest rates - are ignored.
 * In summary, there are clearly enough sources for an article on NewQuest, but the current draft uses several dubious sources to provide a one-sided positive image of the company. Huon (talk) 16:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/PIRA Energy Group
I have added references from cnbc, cnn, FT, and NYT..Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgmart (talk • contribs) 19:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I haven't looked at the FT article (that would require registration), but the NYT and CNBC don't provide any relevant information on PIRA and just quote an executive as an oil analyst. The "CNN" source is hosted on PIRA's own website, and while I lack the player they require, I doubt anything hosted by PIRA counts as an independent source. We require significant coverage, not just a few mentions in passing. Basically, we need other people reporting on PIRA, not PIRA people reporting on other stuff. Huon (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sid Griffin (2)
Two months ago I submitted an early version of this article on the musician/writer Sid Griffin Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sid Griffin (2). At the time I knew nothing about coding and hoped that the reviewer would add the necessary marks. The article bounced back to me for repair, of course. I resubmitted it yesterday, having learned a fair amount about coding. It came back to me again from an editor saying that there was already an article on Sid Griffin under review, which I suspect is just the first version. For this second version, I had re-keyed it completely and done it in Sandbox, which I hadn't used for the first version. Anyway, I hope this latest version, to which I've added some internal links for other articles, will be acceptable. I've been writing about music and musicians for several decades, with print credits ranging from Los Angeles daily newspapers to various rock journals. I know how to edit for grammar, punctuation, etc., but coding--Coding!--is a new experience, and some of Wikipedia's directions aren't the clearest.Billwasser (talk) 22:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC) Bill Wasser


 * You're right about what happened, and I don't think that should have happened - the old version wasn't submitted for review at all when the new one was declined. Still this is why it's better to improve the old version than to begin a new one from scratch: A lesser possibility of error.
 * I had a look at the new draft, but unfortunately it still has problems that prevent its publication. Firstly, three of its nine references point to primary sources such as Sid Griffin's own website and his book. But Wikipedia content should be based on sources that are independent of the subject. Primary sources must be used with care, not as the sole basis of significant amounts of content, and not for contentious claims. For example, if the only source for Griffin's award is effectively Griffin himself, that doesn't seem to be a notable award. A newspaper report on that award would show that others have taken note. Shotgun Solution is apparently a blog, not a reliable source. But even the truly reliable sources, such as LEO weekly are stretched beyond their limits: That article is cited for the etymology of Griffin's given name and for his college degree but doesn't support either claim. And AllMusic is cited for the origin of Flak Jacket but doesn't say the song was originally written for the Long Ryders. The AllMusic biography has quite a lot of other stuff to say about Griffin, but apparently we don't really make use of it. And the Perfect Sound Forever interview seems to be used as an external link (for more information see here), not as a source for anything our draft says - it may be indeed better suited for that purpose, but that removes yet another of the draft's references.
 * In summary, about half the sources are either problematic or not used as sources at all, and two of the remaining four don't say everything they're cited for. I haven't checked the print sources and cannot tell what exactly they say, but the Ugly Things piece is not listed in Bill Wasserzieher's list of articles, which doesn't inspire confidence.
 * My suggestion would be to remove or de-emphasize the primary sources, get rid of the blog, turn the interview into an external link, and rewrite the article content so that it's actually based on what the good sources say about Griffin - the AllMusic biography and the LEO weekly piece (which could do with a link to the online version and some additional bibliographical details - it's p. 14 of the July 2007 issue according to the cover). If you kow of additional reliable sources we could use, so much the better. Huon (talk) 01:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)