Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2012 October 9

= October 9 =

Review of User:Ti66/sandbox
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Antonio Dacosta

This article was declined because, my reviewer wrote, the person in question is not notable enough. As I have included several books/catalogues published about this painter; as he was commission to paint the murals for several underground train stations in Madrid; as he is having a major retrospective show at the Gulbenkian Foundation in Paris next year and has been part of several Portguese exhibitions about pioneer Surrealists painters in Spain - I do not understand why he is not considered sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia entry. Ti66 (talk) 06:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I found the sources you gave in the draft extremely hard to find. However, we already have an article on António Dacosta which seems based on the same sources (though with additional details such as ISBNs). Instead of writing a new draft on Dacosta I suggest you improve our existing article. Huon (talk) 10:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Dr. B. K. Nayar
Hello,

I submitted an article on Dr. B. K. Nayar, which was rejected with this comment: " Comment: You did not add any sourcing to this article, so it is still not at all ready to publish. Please read WP:Notability (academics) and ensure your article meets the checklist there, and only then resubmit."

I am not sure what kind of sourcing I can attach, since this is the biography of a person known in scientific circles. I have cited a book that he has authored, and I could cite a newspaper article that was in a non-English language, but the news article carries only part of the information.

How can I get the article published?

Thanks, Ranjith Nayar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranjithnayar (talk • contribs) 06:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * To prove he is notable, the sources must be written by authors other than himself. Newspapers, biographies, magazine articles, etc tend to cover this well. They do not have to be in English. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Have you had a chance to read WP:Notability (academics) yet? That will honestly answer 95% of your questions, so please let us know if you've read that yet, and if so what parts you'd like us to clarify. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Why was my page denied?
Hi

I'd like to know why my page was denied and what I can do to make it meet the wikipedia standards?

Regards Sonal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.79.135.170 (talk) 07:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * We'll first need a link to the submission, as it was not made under the IP address you're currently using to edit. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/IndoWordNet getting rejected
Dear Sir,

I see an article describing IndoWordnet getting rejected repeatedly. This is unfortunate. The article presents a multilingual resource which is making high impact on the research community working on Natural Language Processing, particularly in India. Since this resource is still under construction, it is not widely covered in newspapers, but I see that the 1st reference provided by the creator of the article presents an independent, peer-reviewed publication on the subject.

In this regard, I would like to draw your attention to the article on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EuroWordNet, in which the only verifiable source mentioned is the paper on the topic itself, which is much the same in the case of this IndoWordnet article.

If you believe that there are certain sections within the article which need verification, then please point out those sections instead of summarily rejected the complete article on IndoWordnet.

Thanking You, Salil.r.joshi (talk) 10:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC) Salil Joshi


 * That first reference is a talk given at a conference. Such talks are not peer-reviewed. Furthermore, its author seems to be the person behind IndoWorldNet; thus it's not independent either. As I said back in June, other insufficiently sourced articles may exist, but each submission must stand on its own merits. If the resource isn't widely covered in truly independent, reliable sources yet, I'd suggest waiting until such coverage becomes available.
 * Regarding sections with verifiability issues: Practically the entire draft has either those issues or is irrelevant to IndoWorldNet. For example, the sources for the "background" section predate IndoWorldNet and thus cannot mention it - using such sources to draw inferences about IWN is a case of original synthesis, which is not acceptable. The only references for the "genesis of Indian language wordnets" section are conference talks by the inventor with no secondary source in sight, the "principles of wordnet construction" doesn't cite any sources at all, and so on. Huon (talk) 11:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Huon,
 * The first reference is not a talk. It is a peer-reviewed paper published in that conference. The PDF of the paper is available at:
 * www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2010/pdf/939_Paper.pdf
 * If there is a problem with the author of this article and creator of the actual IndoWordNet (PS: it is not IndoWorldNet) being the same, please let me know about how I can change the authorship or create a new article with the same name and whether it will solve the problem. In my opinion, this is very small issue since the above published paper is a proof enough.
 * The section on "genesis of Indian language wordnets" has a valid source of a conference paper (5th reference) and the paper is available "In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Global WordNet, Mysore, India, January 21-25, 2002". The sections of "background" and "principles of wordnet construction" provide an insight into the concept and therefore are a part of this article.


 * Thanks,
 * Salil.r.joshi (talk) 12:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Please present a source for the claim that those conference proceedings were subject to peer review. To my knowledge conference proceedings usually are not, and Bhattacharyya was not among the invited and keynote speakers who would probably have been subject to greater scrutiny.
 * I'm not quite sure what you mean by "creating a new article with the same name". There's no problem with the authorship of the Wikipedia draft (that I'm aware of); the creator or spokesperson of IndoWordNet (sorry about my incorrect spelling - I thoroughly misread that!) is the author (or at least co-author) of those conference talks, making them less than independent sources. I don't think you can write duplicates of those articles published in the conference proceedings under another name without committing plagiarism (and just pasting another name on an article written by the IWN contact person wouldn't mysteriously turn it into an independent source anyway), but there's nothing to keep you from working on our draft here at Wikipedia and no need to create another draft on the same topic.
 * As I said above, citing sources that don't mention an article's subject is a special case of original research and is not acceptable; neither is content without any sources at all. If that's relevant background information for IndoWordNet, we need a reliable source that explicitly says so. If our sources on IndoWordNet don't mention it, it canot be all that relevant. Huon (talk) 13:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Yuval Avital
Hello dear Wikipedia Staff,

I've already edited an article about Yuval Avital, according to your editorial indications. I hope it works. As far as regarding the various sources, the main resource for this article actually is Yuval Avital himself in which I am in tight contact. Many important episodes and details don't have a bibliographic reference, nonetheless I believe that they are a fundamental contribution for this voice. If necessary I can contact mr. Avital and ask him to write a letter in which he can confirm the truthfulness of the info written.

To conclude I want to write you a reflection of mine regarding your previous note about the length of the article (which in the new version is cut more than half): the instrumental potential of wikipedia, as a source of democratic information system, is given due to the fact that no voice should be more important than another. While in Enciclopedia Britannica for editorial reason the length of the title "Greece" will be 10 times longer than the title "bells", Wikipedia, being an Internet-based unlimited information system, solves this problem. The problem with the reference system is that commercial-oriented voices backed up by marketing system will always have stronger references than highly refined cultural voices. For this reason the voice "Lady Gaga" have 300 references an a very long Wikipedia title while the value I tried to submit has only a dozen of references even though that I am more than ready to argue the Miss Gaga musical supremacy over Avital.

Since Wikipedia writes itself not only for present time but also for centuries to come, I think that a reflection regarding this point should be made.

Best Regards,

Raffaele Bellan


 * Unfortunately Wikipedia requires published sources; tight contact with the article subject is not enough. Neither will a letter from Mr. Avital suffice unless that letter is published (and even then it would be a primary source while Wikipedia content should be based on secondary sources). Let me put it this way: If I claimed to also be in close contact with Mr. Avital and that he sent a letter confirming what I wrote to the Wikimedia foundation, how could our readers tell that you are right and I am wrong? How could our readers tell that the facts related in Mr. Avital's letter are correct? After all, he has an obvious conflict of interest.
 * I'd also say the article length is still excessive. Many of the draft's sections still don't cite any sources at all and should probably be removed outright. And quite a few of your sources, such as the RomaEuropa festival website, are not reliable by Wikipedia's standards because they don't have any editorial oversight and no reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; others provide only trivial mentions. The magazine articles about Avital, such as the one in domus, and newspaper coverage like the Haaretz piece are the kinds of sources the article should be based on.
 * In summary, while Wikipedia is indeed not limited by the constraints of a paper encyclopedia, it still aims to summarize what reliable secondary sources have written about a given topic. As the reviewer said, this is especially important for biographies of living persons. This is no reflection on Avital's musical quality, but solely on the amount of sources available. Huon (talk) 12:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/FNZ
Hi there,

I wondered if there was any way of screening my article to check that it is suitable for Wikipedia? I have tried to use sources throughout and it is general / neutral.

The article in question is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/FNZ

If there is anything I can do to speed the process up please let me know.

Thanks Alasdaircmunro (talk) 14:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * There is a way of screening the article, and you're using it already. It has been submitted for review and will be checked by a reviewer.
 * When I had a look at your draft I noticed some issues. Firstly, while many of your sources are just the reliable sources we want, some seemed problematic: BusinessWire publishes press releases, not news articles with editorial oversight. IT Candor seems to be a company's blog, not a news source. And while I couldn't quite find out what F5 does for a living, they don't look like a news organization either. Secondly, the draft heavily engages in what I call marketingspeak. Take for example this sentence: "Out-of-the-box technology and services are combined with the ability to customise the go-to-market proposition." That's just a complicated way of saying they customize software according to their customers' needs, isn't it? If not, what is it supposed to mean? Even worse, I found it rather difficult to ascertain what FNZ does in the first place. A "utility provider of technology and administration services" could be anything from a software company to a janitor-for-hire. And when I read that FNZ "administers over £21 billion of assets", for a moment I believed that they actually managed those assets instead of providing software for those who do. (As an aside, the source for that claim is yet another press release.) Some of that problem seems to be inherent in the industry - as I said I found it no easier to ascertain what F5 does, and the reliable sources on FNZ use similar language. But some clarification would definitely be helpful for a general audience. For example, the draft currently does not have any links to other Wikipedia articles - if we have an article on whatever is FNZ's line of business, a link to that article would be great (I just had a quick look, and we do have articles on wealth management and asset management, but that seems to be what FNZ's customers do, not what FNZ itself does). The same holds for many other technical terms that may be unknown to a general audience (for example, what's a "tax wrapper"? A link to "wrap account" may be of some help).
 * While there's nothing you can do to speed up the review itself (and the review process is currently massively backlogged, so please be patient), you can address the issues I pointed out before the reviewer looks at the article, making it less likely that your draft will be found unsuitable - if I had to review it right now, I'd be tempted to decline the submission because it reads too much like an advertisement and relies too heavily on the unreliable sources. Huon (talk) 15:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback Huon. Appreciate the advise. The only thing that I am unclear on following this feedback is around the sources. You mention that this is a problem with the industry as a whole, does this mean that the sources within the industry are not credible or potentially ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alasdaircmunro (talk • contribs) 16:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * What I meant was that even sources such as, say, CityWire, which for all I can tell is a reliable news organization, use similar technical terms, though not quite as concentrated as the draft. I expect that's because they're written for specialists who will know what "technology and investment administration" means in that context - to me, technology administration could be almost anything, and investment administration sounds like wealth management to me but apparently is something completely different. There's nothing wrong with the source itself, but some clarification for non-specialits, for example by links to relevant Wikipedia articles, would definitely be helpful. For example, Investment Europe, another reliable source, calls FNZ a "platform technology provider" - while our article on platform technology definitely isn't the best, it provides some idea of what they do - it's not development of platform games or construction of oil platforms... ;-) Huon (talk) 16:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Some advice someone gave me early in my "career" here at Wikipedia could be useful to you: Most articles should be written at a level suitable for readers with only a high school education. Only articles about highly technical scientific subjects (not a general article about a company) should exceed that level. In that case however, the "difficult" parts should be linked to other articles that explain the concepts. Roger (talk) 22:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Huon, Roger, Thanks again for the feedback on the FNZ article. I have updated this again, removing all of the 'marketing talk' and linking throughout to other wiki pages. Appreciate that this is up for review still, but if either of you could have a look again in the meantime and let me know if there is anything else that stands out to you that would be great? Many thanks, Alasdair - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/FNZ

Hi

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Steve Uncles
This is a candidate for the Kent Police Commissioner Elections, how do we get this entry live ? 16:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EnglishPassport (talk • contribs)


 * Greetings EnglishPassport: your article is heading a good direction, but right now when it gets to the front of the Review queue (running a few days behind due to backlog) it won't be accepted as-is due to the unclear Referencing. I suspect you have the right materials and info, but the presentation is unclear. Here's what I suggest: withdraw your AFC Submission by just typing a "t" after the upright after each "{{AFC submission||". Like this  That will turn them back to Draft, so no Reviewer will come by and Decline the article.


 * So going to Draft buys you breathing space, what you want next is to carefully read Referencing for beginners, see how good clear references work (linked online ones are best, but not mandatory).


 * Convert to Draft, give the guidelines a read, make the appropriate edits, and re-submit, and you should be good to go. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Review of Red River Solutions Page Draft Copy
I started to create my clients page for Red River Solutions and simply wanted to save and come to the information at a later time. It appears it's submitted for approval. How can I get back to edit and complete the article/information. It is incomplete and written very scantilty.

HopeMalone (talk) 16:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Since you've stated it's not ready and you don't want it submitted at the moment, I've converted it to Draft (big gray box). You can resubmit once it's ready. Since you state you're working for a client (not prohibited, but requires transparency and caution), I strongly advise you read Conflict of interest to ensure that you and your employer remain on good terms with Wikipedia. Hope both these things help. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

can't submit
I am having troubel trying to submit my article for reviewShawnewhite (talk) 18:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

HelpShawnewhite (talk) 18:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Shawne WhiteShawnewhite (talk) 18:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Shawne's article is Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Palms Bar West Hollywood


 * Shawne, your article is indeed submitted and currently in line for a volunteer reviewer, which could take a few days since we're pretty swamped right now. See the yellow box at the bottom of your page? That tells you it's awaiting review. For future reference, when asking someone to look at something for you, make sure to provide a link so we don't have to go hunting for it.


 * That said, if a reviewer gets to your article as it is now, he's going to Decline it, because you don't provide any WP:Sources or WP:Referencing. Such sources are mandatory, so please review How to write an article and note how one goes about finding and adding sources. Without proper sourcing, all we have is "trust us, this random guy on the internet said this article is accurate", so you can see why we set the bar higher. I recommend you withdraw your Submission for the moment, add references, and Submit again once you have them. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Wrong Assumption: Revolutionary Scientific Theories that Shape the Elusive Supernatural World
Hello,

I was just told that my submission was not suitable for Wikipedia. What should I do now, delete it?

Cheers,

Elustondo (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Absolute first things first, read WP:Notability (books). The article is a declined draft, so it can be easily worked on and resubmitted again, so don't fret it, and don't worry you have to delete anything. "Wikipedia has no deadline". Read the policy all the way through, understand what features a book article must have, and see if you can meet those items on the checklist. If not, maybe work on some other articles with easier sourcing until more press comes out about the book? MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Mathew,
Hello Mathew,

I really appreciate your response. To be honest with you, I wrote the article as a mean to promote a book that I published a couple of months ago. I'm not surprised that you rejected it, you actually did a good job!

I’m a scientist myself and I work very close with university professors. Unfortunately, they seem to “hate” Wikipedia. They claim that everybody can write anything (which you just proved wrong).

My book, which was actually peer-reviewed before publication, it is probably 90% based on information that I found through Wikipedia. The only thing I did was to verify that both the references existed and the information could be validated from other sources. It was a great way to start learning about different subjects! I first acknowledged Wikipedia when I submitted the manuscript, but the reviewers told me that Wikipedia was not a valid scientific source. I hope the scientific community will eventually see the benefit of having Wikipedia around.

I will wait and see if something good comes from my book. For the moment, thanks for your time and advice.

Best regards,

Elustondo (talk) 19:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * No worries, if the book is new-ish and there isn't much secondary press about it yet, you might want to put the article on hold (move it back to a WP:Sandbox on your own userpage for safety), and get a little practise working on some other Wiki articles of interest. Maybe find a small and underdeveloped article and bring it up to snuff with proper references?


 * So far as the academic utility of Wiki, encyclopedias at-large are WP:Tertiary sources, so shouldn't be cited directly in research. Wiki, like other encyclopedias, and like you noticed, is good for seeing ideas laid out, following back to the sources, and getting good info that way. Wikipedia is only as verifiable as its sourcing, which is why we fight the ongoing fight to make this critter properly referenced, and have increasingly high bars for WP:Notability to ensure we don't get a flood of "bio of my best friend from 8th grade" or "page for my garage band that's going to make it really big after we graduate". Many things, perhaps like your book, are literally "notable", but might not yet meet WP:Notability (books) until more press comes out.

Hope this has been a learning experience so far, and I hope you'll stick around and work on a few articles of interest, get a feel for the system! MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Review of Articles_for_creation/Michael_Northcott (continued)
I started a conversation here a couple weeks ago, re: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael_Northcott. Since then, I've added a rather large section detailing reviews of Northcott's books, which I'm hoping will suffice for noticeability. The reviewer mentioned issues with personal information as well. Some of the article information is based on an interview I did with Northcott, as the web sources which might have detailed this have since been deprecated (i.e. several UK-based online journalism sources). Should I just remove these details and add them back into the article later as I am able to locate secondary sources? I'm keen to get some form of the article approved as it has been several months in process. Thanks!

Kidwellj (talk) 20:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The book reviews need formatting, bt that is not a reason for not accepteing an article. They show notability as an author, so . I'm accepting it & will adjust the refs for you. ~  DGG ( talk ) 22:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Since Wikipedia requires published sources, you'll indeed have to remove what is based solely on an unpublished personal interview. If you know where those web sources were located, maybe the Wayback Machine can recover them, but that's a very long shot if you don't know the exact URL.
 * I'm a little confused by those reviews you mention: Unless I'm mistaken you list them, but you don't elaborate what they have to say about Northcott, his books, his positions, his arguments or his writing style. While our notability guideline technically only requires sources to exist, what's the point of listing them without using them? Huon (talk) 22:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

RE: Inquiring as to the reason the Skidboot wikipedia article was rejected.
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Skidboot

Notable media sources referencing Skidboot biography and feature film project

NBC UNIVERSAL subsidiary ‘Life goes strong’ writes story about Army Ranger Feature Film Project Skidboot Part 2 – The Movie http://play.lifegoesstrong.com/part-2-skidboot-movie

Renowned Texas Author Cathy Luchetti Signs Book Deal to Write the Remarkable Non-Fiction Story of World's Smartest Dog--Skidboot. Project Prepped for the Movie Audience http://markets.cbsnews.com/cbsnews/news/read/22323218/Renowned_Texas_Author_Cathy_Luchetti_Signs_Book_Deal_to_Write_the_Remarkable_Non

http://news.yahoo.com/renowned-texas-author-cathy-luchetti-signs-book-deal-070320015.html

Los Angeles Daily News http://markets.financialcontent.com/mng-lang.dailynews/news/read/22323218/Renowned_Texas_Author_Cathy_Luchetti_Signs_Book_Deal_to_Write_the_Remarkable_Non

Houston Chronicle http://markets.chron.com/chron/news/read/22323218/Renowned_Texas_Author_Cathy_Luchetti_Signs_Book_Deal_to_Write_the_Remarkable_Non

Boston Globe http://finance.boston.com/boston/news/read/22323218/Renowned_Texas_Author_Cathy_Luchetti_Signs_Book_Deal_to_Write_the_Remarkable_Non

El Paso Times http://markets.financialcontent.com/mng-elpaso.elpasotimes/news/read/22323218/Renowned_Texas_Author_Cathy_Luchetti_Signs_Book_Deal_to_Write_the_Remarkable_Non

San Francisco Chronicle http://finance.sfgate.com/hearst.sfgate/news/read/22323218/Renowned_Texas_Author_Cathy_Luchetti_Signs_Book_Deal_to_Write_the_Remarkable_Non

109.70.71.101 (talk) 21:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Please stay logged in to User talk:Skidboot so that we can reliably message you. When you aren't logged-in you show up as an anonymous IP address, so hard to figure out who's talking except by guessing it's you.


 * Skidboot, those appear to all be the same article, just syndicated and published by various papers using the same news service. It's not a bad ref at all, but as explained to you earlier, generally speaking film articles can't be started until principal photography has begun. Can you please confirm whether or not you've read WP:Notability (film) yet?


 * The cite you give above (it's all one article, so one cite), would be a reasonable cite to use in article about the dog Skidboot himself. Something like "And a movie is planned about his life [reference article here]". That'd be fine, provided there are other articles establishing the basics of Skidboot's life and importance. There appear to be several books which mention him, and presumably a bunch of news articles. Have you considered writing an article about the dog first, and once the film is released and getting reviews write the film article? MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)