Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2013 December 5

= December 5 =

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Victor Fajardo Garcia
how do I submit the accompanying photographs with the submission?Bofico 99 (talk) 00:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Where did you obtain the photographs from? Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jamestown Revival
The title of the submission is Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jamestown Revival I have referenced the 2 accolades with links to online proof. Does the music I have listed also need references. Or are the references I listed not meeting criteria? 174.47.116.250 (talk) 01:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The list of musical works being unreferenced is not a particular problem. It seems to me that the issue is more that the references currently provided do not clearly establish that the group has received significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. VRS has some more information about this. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Psymentology
Hi, I start an article about Psymentology and it was deleted. Would you please help me to create an article with this subject on wikipedia! MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC) Thank you, Seyedehrahman (talk)seyed


 * Hello Seyed, there are a few issues.
 * Please format your article at least basically like a Wikipedia article. That is, no heading before the article starts, the title term should start out your very first sentence, and you need to give a clear who-what-when-where-why in the first sentence or so. "30 years ago" is not helpful; what if nobody changes that and ten years go by? Be specific, 1982? 1983?
 * You almost have footnoting format right, but not quite. Good first try though; see WP:Referencing for beginners for some tips.
 * The absolute most important thing: you must meet the guidelines of WP:Notability. That is, you must show with footnotes that multiple, uninvolved/neutral/objective, reliable/reputable published sources have discussed your topic. Not a site promoting it, not Taheri's homepage, but we need to see things like (for fictional example): the magazine Psychology today writes an article about it, or "Trends in Neo-Psychology" by Professor Smarts of the University of Beirut discusses Psymentology for several paragraphs on page 137. Some things like that. If this is a "new idea" and "hasn't gotten enough coverage yet but it's really important and will be famous someday", then that's not enough for us to publish an article.
 * I took a quick glance, and I'm only seeing a few mentions of Psymentology/Faradarmani online (Taheri's own work doesn't count as WP:Notability for its own self); can you find more and wider coverage of it? Can you find serious/professional publications in other languages online that give us more substantive coverage of it?
 * MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, the Decline has nothing to do with whether we think Psymentology is correct/accurate or not. All that matters is a body of objective coverage of the topic, so for Wikipedia purposes it does't matter whether someone writes a serious theory about development of volcanos or a theory that unicorns live in the Arctic: the key is WP:Notability, having a body of published literature that has observed and discussed the concept. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Why it’s Smart to Buy Baby Products Online?
If you’re expecting a baby’s birth in a short while, it’s time to make a list of baby products and head to the store. Though it is an exciting feeling for a first time parent, the expenses that your little angel will incur will be challenging to deal with. There are so many things to consider and prepare like baby’s food, milk, diapers, toys, clothes, vaccinations and more.

Earlier, the only option to shop for baby products was to leave your home and visit a store. Nowadays, the Internet has completely revolutionized the way we spend money. There are many online stores available, which provides the best baby products in a wide range and various brands. Besides, they also save our precious time as we don’t have to go outside for buying baby products.

However, the procedure of determining the right toys at an online store seems baffling for many parents. So many queries arise in the mind of moms-to-be as they are not aware what to look for while buying baby products. There are also online shopping sites, which provide safe and useful information about leading products for babies.

Online baby shop Melbourne is one of the most popular destinations, which offers competitive prices on all kids’ products. It is indeed the best online store for busy parents, who barely have time to go shopping for their little angel. Their services save you from hunting local stores and you feel privileged to have baby products delivered at your doorstep.

Here are some of the most attractive benefits of shopping from this store:

Big Choice: With an online baby shop in Melbourne, you can choose from a wide range of products and get them at a discounted rate that is given on some products, without bearing the weight of bags filled with clothes while shopping in the mall. They have wide range of products that is not possible to store in the general stores. If you are planning to buy a crib for your baby, you are also allowed to compare between different cribs that the shop is showcasing. This helps in choosing the best one based on your budget and need.

Maximum Comfort: Unlike other general stores, an online store is also open for 24 hours and seven days a week. Hence, you don’t have to worry about with whom you should leave your children while shopping. You can shop after you put your kids to bed or at the comfort of drinking your morning coffee. This is the most convenient service and shopping experience.

Valuable Inputs on Child Care: Apart from providing exceptional services and products, this online store also provides valuable inputs on child care. Their expert advice always proves to be very beneficial for mothers in bringing up the child safely.

Quality Assurance: You are assured that the toys that you buy from this store don’t contain any hazardous material, which may cause any kind of harm to your baby. It is vital to have surety as the market is bombarded with cheap toys that are made of materials that harm the baby.

Reviews from other parents: All the products showcased in the store have reviews from the parents who have used them in the past. Such reviews make it easy for you to choose the right products for your child.

No pushy sales persons: Shopping with an online store provides you with the freedom of going slow and shop at your own pace. There are no sales persons following you or unruly shoppers pressurizing you. You will only buy what you want and not by being forced.

Excellent Return Policy: The thing that sets an online store apart from others, is its return policy. It always empowers you to exchange the goods in case you are provided with wrong size or items. This proves to be a great resource to save time.

And the best part is that, just by sitting in front of your computer and getting access to Internet you get all these services at one place. Sounds great, right? Then why step out in the local store to shop for toys, pram or any other baby items. The greatest benefit among all is the time that you will get to spend with your child. No other thing can match the benefit of spending time with your child. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iansmitth (talk • contribs) 03:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You did receive feedback on your draft, but you deleted it. I've reinserted the feedback so that you can read it; the feedback doesn't get deleted unless & until the article is accepted. - David Biddulph (talk) 03:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

User:RP1957/Les Pianos mécaniques
My article has not been accepted dur to lack of references. I fail to see how you can have references when simply writing a synopsis of a novel. The main entry for Henri-Francoise Rey has very little in it anyway, and a book synopsis is not the place for such things anyway. I responded to the fact that Les pianos mechaniques was underlined in red, encouraging someone to write about the novel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RP1957 (talk • contribs) 08:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It is possible that whoever made Les Pianos mécaniques a redlink did so in error. Either way, for topics to have articles about them on Wikipedia, they should already have received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. For a book, this might be in the form of reviews in newspapers or magazines. Wikipedia has a notability guideline for books at NBOOK. You may also find Referencing for beginners useful in adding the references. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Warner/Chappell Production Music (November 20)
Hi, I feel like I did everything right and provided lots of credible sources but my article was declined. I mean, how do you get more credible that Billboard Magazine? It's the go to industry source for the music business. I know that sometimes Wikipedia won't let you post an article for creation if it is coming from the same IP address as the company you are writing about. I guess they see that as promotion. Could you please help me figure out how to get this article created. It's very important to our company. Thanks. WarnerChappellPM (talk) 15:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * A few points:
 * Billboard may be a good source, but that's only one single source with almost all your other footnotes being to the subject itself. WP:Notability does not mean "find one single objective mention", it requires a body thereof.
 * Oh wait, user is banned for promotional activities. Point remains. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Review of User:PrecisionEditorial/sandbox
Hello - I recently created a new user account, PrecisionEditorial, and used it with the intent of creating several new articles about authors and books. I have reviewed books for Library Journal since 1980. When I posted the first article for review, I received a message saying it might be weeks or months before it could be reviewed and placed. This raises two questions. First, what does it take to become an editor? I’d like to help improve Wikipedia, which I use all the time. Second, as soon as PrecisionEditorial is a recognized user, may I then post the article that is now pending directly to the active area? I am certain it meets all the guidelines for inclusion.

One more question: as the article was created in my user sandbox, the current title Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/PrecisionEditorial/sandboxis obviously not what it ought to be Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David W. Ball. I assume there is a way to update this article title at the appropriate time?

Thanks

Melinda PrecisionEditorial (talk) 22:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I think this question would be better asked at the Tea house it seems more there sort of thing. You can edit straight away, an editor is a basic level user. My recommendation would be to concentrate on reading and fixing existing articles before going for a full article written by yourself. Start small and work up- learn what works and what doesn't- that's my advice. Rankersbo (talk) 08:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)