Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2013 April 11

= April 11 =

Review of User:Kareemhamadeh/sandbox
How do I upload photos — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kareemhamadeh (talk • contribs) 01:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Have you taken the photos yourself? Do you own the copyright? Would you be willing to release them under a free license such as the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License which allows everybody to re-use them for any purpose, including commercial purposes? If so, you can upload them to the Wikimedia Commons via their Upload Wizard. Once they're uploaded, the [[WP:Picture tutorial|picture tutorial explains how to add them to the draft.
 * If the images are not freely licensed, we cannot use them - we expect that free images of living persons exist or could be created, and under these circumstances the non-free content criteria prohibit the use of non-free images.
 * That said, your draft currently does not cite any sources. Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper articles about Andujar or articles in reputable sports magazines. Without such sources we cannot accept the draft. See WP:Referencing for beginners for an introduction on how to add references. Huon (talk) 09:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

How to add copyright information to already uploaded image
I created and uploaded this image independently but upon uploading it I had forgotten to insert the copyright information. Is there anyway I can add the copyright information without resubmitting the image? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Imazaquin_Line-Angle.png Thank you! (Aradi7 (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)) Adam aradi7


 * The file page can be edited the same way as any other page - there is an edit tab at the top, then you'll see a place where you add the information. 08:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Someone Kindly Help Me Understand How to Get My Article Published
Hello,

I have been trying to get this article Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Cupid_Media published since October last year. I'm not even sure anyone looked at it after I made the suggested changes. Kindly let me know what I need to get it accepted.

Thanks.

Stellamwangi (talk) 07:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You have not resubmitted it for review since the last review, so it is not in the queue at all. However, it would still be declined as it appears you have not properly addressed the problem that has caused it to be declined twice before. The draft does not have enough references - in fact only one section has any cites at all. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Moreover the whole page includes too much boldings and "big" tags. Please remove ALL except the very first. The external link in the lead is also no good style and should be removed. (It would get deleted as "written like an advertisement" if it wouldn't be submitted to the Articles for Creation project). mabdul 08:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Re-submission
04 April 2013: I have re-submitted "The Organization Workshop" AfC with the OTRS ticket number 2013031110006434 permission attached (Rafaelcarmen 08:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC))


 * Great. A note to that effect has been added to the draft, which has been re-submitted for review. Is there anything else we can do for you? Huon (talk) 09:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Huon, for your comment & action taken (Rafaelcarmen 11:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafaelcarmen (talk • contribs)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Christian Seidel
Hello, after previous conversation I made some changes to the draft Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Christian Seidel. Here is the last correspondence:

...Thank you again. I added the footnotes and references and hope the article fits the conditions for release. Please let me know if there is still something missing.CTC2 (talk) 14:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC) Is there anything else that I have to do so that the article can be submitted? I see it is still waiting for submission... Please let me know. Thanks!CTC2 (talk) 15:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC) ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
 * To be honest, the draft's references are something of a mess. A press release is not a reliable source. I'd expect at least some of the sources should be available online, but you have provided no links, making verification unnecessarily difficult. I believe you translated some articles' titles from German into English, which makes identification vastly more difficult and thus isn't helpful - I couldn't find any trace of the dpa reports about Seidel, and I'd expect the 2011 one to still be available via Google News. Then there's the list of references that aren't footnotes - are those actually used? What for? Or are they just a "further reading" list? Both the reviewer and later the readers will appreciate it if you make finding the sources a little easier. Furthermore, I doubt all those sources are really all that relevant to Seidel. For example, you cite a half-dozen sources on the Diana biography that predate the Seidel-produced TV movie. They probably won't provide any relevant information on Seidel. That said, you should submit the draft for review; the old "submission declined" message box has instructions for re-submission. Despite all those problems, Seidel appears to satisfy the notability criteria, and while I wouldn't be comfortable accepting a draft whose sources I mostly couldn't even find, once that's fixed, the draft should be up for a review. Since we're rather backlogged at the moment, my suggestion would be to first submit it and then clean up the references - it will probably take a week or two until a reviewer takes a look. Huon (talk) 03:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I cleaned all the foreign footnotes, but the problem really is that the article is mainly based on these resources. How does Wikipedia deal with the use of foreign resources? Should I mention them? Are the resources given now enough? Can I resubmit the the draft anyway? CTC2 (talk) 20:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This seems to have gotten worse. Before, it had references that I couldn't find. Now it doesn't have those references at all. Firstly, foreign-language sources are acceptable; see WP:NONENG for details. Secondly, if the sources really aren't available online, offline sources are also acceptable - however, as I said I would expect 2011 dpa reports to be available online somewhere. You can resubmit the draft, but right now there are too few sources left to establish Seidel's notability. Neither of the remaining sources covers Seidel in any appreciable detail, and they don't serve to verify much of the draft's content. Huon (talk) 00:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Huon. Thank you for your patience! I undid the deletion of the foreign sources, cleaned them up a bit and requested re-submission as you suggested. Hope it will be Ok now. What do you think? CTC2 (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

One "source" I'd definitely remove is the RandomHouse press release - press releases are not considered reliable. Luckily we only cite it for something that's backed up by a better source anyway. The last pararaph of the "Life and career" section is very short on sources; we should probably get rid of most of that (unless you know reliable sources supporting that content). I'd also say the Luna Luna coverage is unduly promotional, and the most impressive-sounding claims don't cite sources. For example, we would need a source explicitly connecting Seidel to Warhol. Other than these issues, which should be fixed comparatively easily, the draft looks good to me. Huon (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/TRANSCEPTA
I may have become confused and mistakenly submitted multiple draft versions of this article, Articles for creation/Transcepta, for review. How do I delete the extras? I also see two errors in the citations. How do I correct before review? Please advise. Thank you.EInvoice2013 (talk) 15:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You'll have to be a bit more specific. What errors are you seeing, and what did you expect to see? As it stands, many of your references are from the company's own site or are press releases - these are not the independent source required for an article to be considered notable and pass. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   16:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * There is only one version of the draft, and it's correctly submitted for review - in that regard everything looks fine. I also don't see any errors in the citations, but as Ritchie333 says many of the sources are either not independent or not reliable (that would include blogs without editorial oversight such as Oracle's blog, for example). Huon (talk) 17:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kooma &
I need to ask about references. I see the *, but I don't no what to click or type after it. Know how to work it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.215.230 (talk) 18:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually it's better not to bother with the "*" at all, but to add your references inline, right after the statement they're cited to support. See WP:References for beginners for an introduction. In short, you should use code like this:
 * Kooma & Lio did important stuff in 2011.
 * There are quick and easy ways to format the references much more nicely than I did here; again, have a look at WP:References for beginners. Anyway, what I did would look like this:
 * Kooma & Lio did important stuff in 2011.
 * You'll also need a "References" section whose only content is the reflist template; that will display the footnote automatically. Huon (talk) 18:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kooma &
Huon? I saved my article draft, Kooma & Lie, but I can't find it when I search it. Do you think that happens because it is only a draft? I don't have an account yet, but if I log in and save it, will it save for good? And thanks for the reference help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.215.230 (talk) 19:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * There is a saved page at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kooma &, which indeed won't turn up if you search for Kooma & Liu until the draft is accepted (it currently is not submitted for review). Right now the only content is a single line with far too little context to tell what Kooma & Liu is, plus the reference I made up as an example. By the way, the reflist template must be under all the references; otherwise it won't work properly and the footnotes will not be displayed. In particular, if there are multiple reflist templates, they will interfere with one another. I have fixed that. Huon (talk) 19:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)