Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2013 February 15

= February 15 =

Thanks for your response ...
Hi, When I wrote [Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/O'Reily House Museum], I was simply trying to make a contribution to Wikipedia. Like many, I use Wikipedia and so I hoped to add useful content.

As I mentioned, everything that I wrote was in my own words. Indeed, I do write a lot about the Placentia area. But the context will vary and hence, the words will weave together in a different manner.

While my tone was in no way "spammy," I quite understand if our institution is too insignificant to warrant mention in Wikipedia.

Again, thank you for your response ... all the best from Newfoundland and Labrador. Malitza (talk) 00:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, yes, your tone was spammy. For example, "the house itself emerges from a fascinating past" - that's pure opinion and does not convey any information whatsoever. Or "the long-awaited O’Reilly House Museum" - long-awaited by whom? The entire draft is chock-full of self-aggrandizing adjectives and adverbs such as "ideal" or "regally". This is hardly the dry tone we'd expect from an encyclopedia. But that might be resolved through editing - much worse was that the content, for all I can tell, was not based on reliable, independent sources such as news reports or maybe historical journals. A topic must have received significant coverage in such sources to be considered notable. Huon (talk) 04:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Added more references to my contribution but can't seem to figure out how to resubmit
Hello,

I submitted this contribution in January 21st Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Glogau_Photoaging_Classification

And it was rejected because it needed more references. I added more on February 1st and have tried to resubmit by walking through the steps provided but can't seem to actually submit it. Really appreciate any advice you can share on this!

Thank you,

Kristan (DrGlgoauComm (talk) 01:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC))


 * I have submitted the draft for you; you can submit it manually by adding  to the very top. The page also had two versions of your draft; I've removed one of them. However, Glogau wrinkle scale currently redirects to wrinkle; it might be more helpful to improve that article. In particular I'm very skeptical about the draft's mention of specific suggested medicines and/or make-up for treatment - not even the source mentions those, and they make the draft look like an advertisement for anti-aging medication. Huon (talk) 04:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Review of User:Dreamcave/sandbox
Dear Help

I have created an article in my user Sandbox and have posted it for approval. I realise that the name is still User/DreamCave/Sandbox (or something - can't check without leaving this window!) I want to call it Maggie Diaz. By the way, this is a living person, but I have followed all rules and they are aware that I am contributing article.

How do I rename the page?

Dreamcave (talk) 01:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I have moved the draft to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Maggie Diaz, the preferred location for drafts awaiting review. However, the draft's sources seem awfully insufficient - much of the content doesn't cite any sources whatsoever, several of the given sources don't even mention Diaz, and others are bare catalogue entries. Wikipedia content should be based on reliable, independent sources such as news reports or art magazines, and a topic must have received significant coverage in such sources to be considered notable. Huon (talk) 04:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for moving this Huon. I will look again at how I have presented this subject and references. All the text and information is from major media here in Australia and the sources include our Parliament, major art institutions, commentators etc. so it is just my lack of skill as a writer/editor and not the lack of worth of the subject! thanks again for the early alert! Dreamcave (talk) 05:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Article for Creation : LA JAY
Hey,

Thank you again for your feedback and time. I have footnoted my LA Jay entry, and added in references to the music sites and newspapers LA Record, LA Weekly, Wax Poetics and NPR - are those publications well-respected enough to deem his music noteworthy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/L.A._Jay

Thanks, Alice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlicePS (talk • contribs) 15:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * There are a couple of problems with these references. First of all, you list them in the references section, but for all I can tell, the draft's text is not actually based on these sources - all footnotes point to much less reliable "sources" including various other Wikipedia articles - and Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source. Secondly, it would be pretty hard to base the draft's content on those sources because most of them don't cover LA Jay in any appreciable detail - NPR, for example, only mentions him in passing in a single sentence. Thirdly, those sources aren't true news reports, but rather blogs hosted by news organizations, the modern equivalent of editorials. While such news blogs rank above entirely self-published blogs in terms of reliability, they should still be considered opinion pieces, and we might have to attribute any claims about LA Jay to the opinion pieces' authors. Regarding LA Jay's notability., I don't think those sources provide the significant coverage we need to establish that - we might just mention him as co-producer of The Pharcyde's first album instead of giving him a badly-sourced article of his own. Huon (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/America Unearthed
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/America Unearthed

How do you get your page published? I have been waiting a couple weeks since I created the page...

(71.195.22.181 (talk) 16:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC))


 * You had re-submitted the draft on February 5, and drafts are sorted chronologically by the latest submission (though they're not necessarily reviewed in a strict chronological order). Anyway, there's currently a massive backlog of almost 1,400 submissions awaiting review. I have had a look at the draft and had to decline it because the sources did not suffice to establish the show's notability: The first two didn't mention the show, the third was a press release (not an independent source), and the last four were all blog posts by the same blogger, self-published sources that were not subject to editorial oversight and thus are not reliable by Wikipedia's standards. Wikipedia requires significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, such as news reports or maybe reviews in reputable TV magazines. Huon (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Review of User:JoanWT/sandbox
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Constance Wagner JoanWT (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Constance Wagner

Yesterday (2/14/13) I was starting a draft of an article using the Wizard. A few hours later I could no longer find my draft. I've been looking for it for quite a while now with no luck. I hope I won't have to re-do it. Would you please let me know how to find it if there's a way? I did press "Save." JoanWT (talk) 21:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The place to look for your draft would be your contributions, but your draft is not among them. It might have been deleted, but firstly you would have received a note about the deletion on your talk page, and secondly, deletion would have left an entry in the page's deletion log, and I found no such entry for either User:JoanWT/sandbox or Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Constance Wagner. Thus you probably did not save the draft in the first place, and unfortunately there's nothing Wikipedia can do about that. If you're lucky you might be able to recover it from your browser's cache. Huon (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)