Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2013 August 31

= August 31 =

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Traditional (clay) architecture in Iran
Dear Mr. Vantias,

I received your message concerning my article. My book is pubished and I am introducing the subject and the title of my book in Wikipedia. I do not earn money for it, and the review of my book is for free in the Amazon, KDP.

To give an introduction of book title and cover page and the name of author is normal in Wikipedia. Why are you saying that your team writes only article? If you searched in wikipedia for Gone With the Wind, a full description of the book and author appear. I plan to create a page just like it to introduce my published book.

Sincerely yours, Dr. Manoochehri — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.71.210.106 (talk) 07:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)  (User:Dr. Hossein Manoochehri, Ph.D.)


 * Hello Dr. Manoochehri, the issue is that it is not clear what the intent of your draft is. Are you writing a Wikipedia article about historical Iranian architecture, or are you writing an article about a specific book thereon, which you have written and has been published? If the latter, please be aware of our policy WP:Conflict of interest (as we do not permit articles that serve simply to advertise one's book) Also be aware that all articles about books must meet the standards of WP:Notability (books); this policy states that a book article must include substantive external critique and analysis. That is, it is not enough to say, for example, " The History of Apples was published in 1983", the article writer must demonstrate that the book excited commentary among botanists, maybe was used to reform the apple policies of the Department of Agriculture, etc. So those are the standards we require.


 * If we are still misunderstanding your intent in drafting an article, please clarify. MatthewVanitas (talk) 12:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sachin Garg
✅ Hi,

Is my page for Sachin Garg under review again? I don't see the yellow box saying 'under review'.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kushagrabatra (talk • contribs) 08:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello Kushagrabatra, your article is not currently under review; if you are ready for review please hit the RESUBMIT button at the bottom of your pink box, and it will create a new yellow box. The yellow box may appear at the bottom of your article at first, but will eventually migrate to the top.


 * Before you Resubmit, have you read the guidance given to you about WP:Footnoting your sources? I will make an example footnote for you just so you can see how a footnote is coded. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/2012 Wimbledon Championships – Men's Singles final
Hi,

I think it is unfair that you are rejecting my article for the 2012 Wimbledon Championships – Men's Singles final, when there is one for the 2008 Wimbledon Championships – Men's Singles final, the 2013 Wimbledon Championships – Men's Singles final, the 2012 US Open – Men's Singles final, the 2012 French Open – Men's Singles final, and the 2012 Australian Open – Men's Singles final.

Why do those five other finals get their own pages but the 2012 Wimbledon final, which is more historic than any of them except the 2008 Wimbledon final, is getting summarily rejected. It is totally different from the page for the tournament draw that you cited.

Your criteria for rejecting my article would have to apply for those other five pages but you are only applying it to my article.

Can you please consider retracting your rejection in light of this double standard.

Thanks for your consideration, Praline97 8:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Your article was rejected because it was a copy of an article that's already in mainspace. LionMans Account (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Walford Lloyd Gealy
Hello Dori Smith has declined my submission - I do not understand what he/she requires me to do to rectify the article. Can you help please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.4.54.29 (talk) 12:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Please read the text of the pink Decline box: The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.


 * What Dori means by that is that you have made statements and claims about Gealy's career and impact, but have provided no WP:Sourcing at all. It would not be fair to Gealy to simply allow anonymous people to come and claim facts about him, to do it right every stated claim must be backed up by a news article, academic paper, cite from a published book, etc. that mentions said fact about Gealy. The tutorial WP:Referencing for beginners may be helpful to read. Does this answer your question? MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Leukemia Ball
My first try. I added references but there are no books, just newspaper articles. But the articles require a payment to view entire article. Your thoughts on this please?Chrismoss8713 (talk) 14:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Newspaper articles usually are reliable sources, and a paywall doesn't change that - we expect our readers can find them in a sufficiently well-equipped library. You don't seem to have added the sources yet, though. Huon (talk) 01:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Amateur Astronomers Association of Princeton
Hi,

I need more specific information on why this article was not accepted: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Amateur Astronomers Association of Princeton

The reviewer, Tazerdadog, said the following:

''This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms, that are designed to promote or show-off the subject.''

I will try to provide more independent, reliable, published sources; however, I am stumped about what to do about the tone. I tried use only necessary adjectives and and adverbs, and to stick to facts. The tone appears to me to be similar to the tone of accepted articles about other astronomical associations. If someone could suggest where to change text, I would greatly appreciate it.

Thank you for your help,

LordStark45 (talk) 23:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Some examples: Most of the "Famous members" section's content is completely irrelevant to the Astronomers Association, and the title itself is debatable - is Dyson really "famous" in the greater scheme of things? Says who? Listing the topics of the various monthly lectures also provides no information whatsoever on the Association, and unless individual talks have been the subject of more significant third-party coverage than routine events coverage in a local newspaper, I don't think they should be mentioned individually at all. The "50th Anniversary Celebration" section reads like something I'd expect in an Association newsletter, not in an encyclopedia article. Huon (talk) 01:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)