Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2013 August 8

= August 8 =

Review of User:ScabraKing01/sandbox
How do i make a page without it getting deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScabraKing01 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello ScabraKing01! You have written in your sandbox that you want to put pictures on your wall.  Wikipedia doesn't have walls, but you do have a user page at User:ScabraKing01 that you can make look interesting, as long as it's about your Wikipedia activities.  If you want real wall, you should try facebook.  You can add images to your user page or to other articles that you make by uploading them at Wikimedia Commons first, but they must not be copyrighted pictures.  There are already many images there that you can add.  There's a good article about images at Uploading images.


 * If you plan to make an article to put into the encyclopedia, you can work on it in your sandbox, which you have already started to do. When it's done, add this to the top of the page: .  In this way, it will be reviewed and it may be declined, but it won't be deleted as long as it doesn't have copyrighted material, and you can improve it an submit again until it is right.  I am going to remove the submit box from your sandbox, because you haven't yet written your article.  Good luck! &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 04:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Your submission name here
Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Graham Wardle I found article in pending with note no-inline. I edited article to put the inline reference and saved it. It does show in history log but do I need to doing something to remove that note in pending list?Heartlandtvfan (talk) 16:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Graham Wardle
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Graham Wardle I found article in pending list with note no-inline. I edited article to include inline references and saved it. Do I need to do something else to remove that note? Thank you Heartlandtvfan (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I recommend leaving the note so the next reviewer will see it and know the problem has been fixed. LionMans Account (talk) 20:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Review of Articles for creation/Hawks (band)
My submission for consideration was turned down. I would appreciate some specific direction as to how I can improve the article. I am wondering if what I've done so far was acceptable, but not in significant quantity or possessing appropriate variety (referring to sources quoted mostly). I believe the subject meets some of the requirements that determine notability - #1, 2, 5 and 11.

All my sources are independent of the subject. I suspect that some of the sources are not considered reliable as they were reviews written for sites like AllMusic, PopMatters, etc. - or biographical in nature appearing on a site that awards artists (The Iowa Rock and Roll Hall of Fame specifically). Are reviews in general not considered reliable? Is the use of biographical material inappropriate? Point me in a direction that will benefit me in improving the article. Any help or suggestions that anyone can offer will be appreciated. Thank you!THX1136 (talk) 16:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * There are a couple of problems with this draft. Several of the given sources don't mention the band at all. Conversely, multiple claims are not supported by the given sources, in one case explicitly so ("no source has been located to support this"). The "Otho" section still has no sources at all. I also have doubts about the reliability of some of those sources, especially Rate Your Music, I don't Listen to Punk Anymore and Glorydaze Music. Reviews published with a reputable publisher are considered reliable enough; reliability depends much more on whether the publisher exercises editorial oversight or not. I expect that's not quite easy, but it may be worth the effort to look for additional print sources from the 1980s. Huon (talk) 23:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the input Huon. In my Des Moines Register source article much of what I've included in the article is supported. I do understand the need for other supporting sources and am undertaking to locate additional ones. One thing I've come across is that in many mentions about the group and/or their albums on the internet the same source - AllMusic and "Spaz" Schnee - are quoted almost verbatim. This renders alternate sources unusable in my mind. I do have verbal information to support nearly the whole article, but that is considered original research and thus unusable. Example: I have an email from John Ryan, the producer of the TSOO album, about the single release (the one you mentioned), but I assume I can't use that. I came across an internet source which has an article written by Tom Werman - the producer of the first album - where he comments on that album. From what you've shared with me that article may be a waste of time to even include or use as a source due to it's "unreliable" nature since I cannot know the nature of the editorial oversight.


 * From your view how can I judge the reliability of a source on the web? What things should I look for? Most sources I've used are reviews of the albums with brief background on the band that would appear in music reviews. In your mind, how much weight does the Iowa Rock and Roll Hall of Fame induction hold as far as notability is concerned? Is that a worthy source? Again, thank you for helping me understand this better. I appreciate your time.THX1136 (talk) 02:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * First of all, sources need not be available online - print sources such as the print editions of newspapers or music magazines are acceptable as well.
 * Judging the reliability of online sources is something of an art form. The easiest test is self-description: Do they describe themselves as a news source? Does the website list an editorial staff? Do the staff member profiles show that they have some sort of relevant education or experience, or are they random people with self-granted titles? For example, if they have an editor-in-chief who previously worked as an editor for Rolling Stone that's a very good sign. If they say, "this is a fan-made group blog about great 1980s bands", not so much.
 * Another indication is whether the source is commonly cited in other undisputably reliable sources, and if so, how. If the New York Times routinely has statements such as "As reported by John Doe in the Music Rag...", then the Music Rag likely would be reliable. If they write "The gossip site Music Rag alleges that...", that's not so good a sign. If nobody else seems to take note of what that publication writes, ever, that's not a good sign either.
 * We have a Reliable sources noticeboard that you can ask in cases of doubt; please be as specific as possible ("Is source X a reliable source for claim Y in article Z's section on W?"). See also WP:Identifying reliable sources.
 * A specific example: I Don't Listen To Punk Any More calls itself a blog, it's hosted by blogspot, the author is only identified as "Joe", and he doesn't list any relevant expertise or the like. Verdict: A self-published blog without editorial oversight, not a reliable source. Huon (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help! I have a better grasp on the topic of sources and their reliability now. Thanks also for pointing me to the pages here that can help also. I appreciate your time.THX1136 (talk) 00:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Green Building Initiative
I need some help editing the Article for Creation/Green Building Initiative. It was turned down because it sounded too much like an advertisement. To me it reads like any other Wikipedia article and the majority of the cites sources are third party sources. Could I get some more specific suggestions about how I need to edit this article to get it accepted? Thank you. Hannah 50.53.109.120 (talk) 17:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd say you cover the GBI's various programs in far too much detail and the GBI itself in far too little. For example, I couldn't even tell when it was founded. And while your sources may be independent, I have doubts about their reliability - in particular, Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source, and links to other articles should not be used as references. Press releases are also not considered reliable, and press releases by the GBI aren't independent either. Huon (talk) 23:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ezriel E. Kornel MD (Neurosurgeon)
I am in the process of creating a page for Dr. Ezriel Kornel. It says that the material is copy written from Back Talk on Air.com, but it is not infringement, WE are the ones who wrote the copy for backtalkonair.com. All the material is correct and factual. How should we proceed?


 * Several issues. First of all you may want to have a look at Wikipedia's guideline on conflicts of interest. Writing about the star of a show you work for is not a good idea. Secondly, unless you released the rights to backtalkonair's content under a free license that allows everybody to re-use and modify it for any purpose, including commercial purposes, copying that content to Wikipedia is still a copyright violation. The website you copied content from says "all rights reserved". Thirdly, all Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject; his own website clearly is not such a source, and its tone is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Thus the content would have to be rewritten significantly, and it's probably easier to rewrite it from scratch than to bother with licensing the copyrighted content. Huon (talk) 23:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Sugarman
How do I add reviews, and other relevant facts about the artist? Artist profile was declined but the artist has album reviews and airplay internationally.

~Jim Sfarnas Davidjames Entertainment Management ~ ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgsacu (talk • contribs) 17:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * See WP:Referencing for beginners; that page explains how to easliy cite your sources. Huon (talk) 23:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Effective decision rate
I submitted my first article to wikipedia about two weeks ago. It was rejected. The editor gave so very good feedback. I have totally re-written the article, and am ready to re-submit it. But I do not see any way to re-submit the article. Can you help me re-submit this article? Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smoorephd (talk • contribs) 22:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I have submitted the draft for you, and I have also gotten rid of the duplicates, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Effective Decision Rate and Articles for creation/Effective decision rate. At a glance, though, the draft still reads far too much like an essay, with the entire first two paragraphs not mentioning the article's topic at all. Of your three sources only one mentions an "effective decision rate", and that one doesn't discuss it but only mentions it in passing. That's not enough to establish that this topic is notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Huon (talk) 23:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)