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

= November 4 =

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/LA Progressive
I am writing to request some advice on getting an article created for a publication that I read regularly, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/LA Progressive. My submission has been rejected twice for two different reasons.

The first rejection came on October 30, 2012 from Abdullah Alam. His reason was, "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources". I understood what he was asking, added the sources and resubmitted for consideration.

The second rejection came on Nov 1, 2012 from "Charmless Coin". This time, the rejection explanation did not mention a lack of sources but instead the problem was the tone. The reviewer stated,"This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article".

I am happy to make the changes but I'm concerned about submitting a third revision and getting yet another rejection with a different reason for it not making the grade.

I was hoping you could give it a look and tell me what I am doing wrong.

Thank you,

Mlw143 (talk) 00:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)Mlw143


 * The reviewers who look at the submissions usually use canned responses that address the most severe issue - it may happen that the draft has other issues that get resolved one after another. Since the reviewers are extremely busy (after massive efforts we still have a backlog of several hundred unreviewed submissions) they don't take the time to look thoroughly for additional problems once they have determined that the draft currently isn't ready for the article space. I'm sorry for the frustration, but the alternative would bury the reviewers under mountains of additional work.
 * For example, the current reviewer focused on the tone (and I'll say something about that, so please bear with me), but the sources are still problematic. Many of them are primary sources such as the LA Progressive itself. Others, such as blogs and opinion pieces, are not considered reliable by Wikipedia's standards because they lack editorial oversight. Yet others such as Snopes don't even mention the LA Progressive. And the link that's supposed to point to the Daily Kos is actually a duplicate of the Talking Points Memo link. But Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject - in fact, we require significant coverage in such sources to establish a topic's notability. I don't think the current sources suffice to meet that standard. Has the LA Progressive been the subject of coverage in mainstream newspapers? That would be helpful.
 * Regarding the tone, the draft does take a very positive view of the LA Progressive. For example, it notes the LA progressive upholds "the long held tradition of advocacy journalism" (twice). Firstly, such a claim should be backed up by a secondary source. Secondly, that statement is rather vague. Whose tradition is that? Since when was it held? Don't we just mean that the LA Progressive is an example of advocacy journalism? The "controversy" section is another egregious example: First the draft engages in a lengthy explanation of Sarah Palin's background that's rather irrelevant to the LA Progressive. Then it one-sidedly reports the LA Progressive's uncorroborated coverage as fact (Snopes, for example, doesn't just report that the story exists but that by its very nature it is unverifiable) and finally engages in some quote mining by implying that BaileyWo endorsed the LA Progressive's accuracy when in fact he refers to a 63-page PDF "Vetting" file compiled by the Democratic Party in Alaska. According to the Jefferson County Republicans, Daily Kos removed its post on the subject - if that's true, it would be rather strong evidence against the story's reliability. A somewhat less severe example of inappropriate tone is the mention of the "concentration of newspaper ownership in the hands of a few" - I doubt there's any reliable source connecting that to the LA Progressive, and without such a source it becomes original research, something Wikipedia should not engage in.
 * And while that wouldn't stop the draft from being accepted, it would profit from some copyediting. I fixed a couple of (surprisingly systematic) typos, but there may be more. Huon (talk) 02:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Huon -- you obviously spent a considerable amount of time on answering my question. I will work on it, using your suggestions and resubmit.

Mlw143 03:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)mlw143 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlw143 (talk • contribs)

Forward and reverse genetics
what is forward and reverse genetics....plzzz elaborate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.178.169.79 (talk) 09:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Symbol move vote.svg|20px]] This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. Please consider asking this question at the Reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what the Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. You could always try  for an article related to the topic you want to know more about.  I hope this helps. See also forward genetics and reverse genetics. Huon (talk) 14:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ruggero Lenci
I would like to add two images of the patent and one of the prototype of 1984. How? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.37.43.200 (talk) 10:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * If the images are in the public domain or have been released under a free license such as the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License, you can upload them to the Wikimedia Commons via their Upload Wizard. If the images are copyrighted and haven't been released under a free license, Wikipedia cannot currently use them - even if they were to be added under the doctrine of fair use (and I don't think that would be applicable), Wikipedia's policy on non-free content requires such images to be used in at least one article - a draft is not enough. You can, however, request the copyright holder to release them under a free license - see WP:Requesting copyright permission. Once they're uploaded, the picture tutorial explains how to add them to the article.
 * The draft's main problem, however, is not a lack of images but the lack of reliable sources. Wikipedia does not consider itself or its Italian version reliable. To be considered notable, a topic must have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I'm not sure Lenci's own patents qualify as either reliable or independent (one might ask the reliable sources noticeboard about that), but I'm pretty sure they won't cover the inventor in appreciable detail anyway. Lenci's Italian article is insufficiently sourced as well; otherwise I'd have said we could just use its sources. Huon (talk) 11:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SHRI SHRI DURGA DEVYASTHANAM
{{infobox mandir

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shambhusharan (talk • contribs) 21:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * name                      = DURGA DEVYASTHANAM
 * images                    = maa durga.jpg

SHRI SHRI DURGA DEVYASTHANAM is a Hindu temple dedicated to the Hindu goddess durga is situated in fatehpur village in patna district,bihar.

durga maa Shambhusharan (talk) 21:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)shambhu sharan


 * The draft should be written on its own page, not here at the help desk. Do you have any specific questions? And do you know of any reliable sources that cover the temple? Huon (talk) 22:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)