Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2013 February 21

= February 21 =

LA Jay - Reference Query
Hello again,

Well, I am not using two references to link LA Jay to the record, one reference has all his credits, and the second reference is to support the claim for where the singles placed in the music charts.

Can I just go straight to the source and reference records themselves? Is that permitted? Surely that reliability is less disputable .. ?

Thanks, Alice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlicePS (talk • contribs) 01:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The records themselves obviously are not independent sources, but primary sources. Wikipedia content should not be based on such sources, and they wouldn't contribute towards LA Jay's notability anyway. As I said above, we're after news coverage or articles in reputable music magazines - sources with a reputation of fact-checking and accuracy, subject to editorial oversight. Huon (talk) 06:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lee&
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lee& I think that I may have accidentally submitted an old version of the page for review first and not realised it. It would appear that there are two versions of it waiting for review, the older version has a last line which reads "In the later parts of 2012 Lee’Mon returned to the studio to complete their debut record set for release in early 2013."```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilby59 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I have removed the old draft. You may want to reword the introduction, though: The article doesn't describe any major controversies. The draft seems to play on their mystique more than the sources do. Huon (talk) 06:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks Huon. I'll have a look at my sources, I may not have referenced them in enough detail if that's the way it comes across. Should I wait until it is reviewed before I make any changes ?

Regards Wilby59```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilby59 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * You can make the changes right now; the better the article is when a reviewer takes a look, the better the chances that it will be accepted. Huon (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

General Question
How do I change the title of a page that I have submitted to AFC? (minor change) JYResearch (talk) 03:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd probably just add a note at the top of the draft and leave it to the reviewer to move it to the correct location when the submission is accepted. Huon (talk) 06:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Frederick German Detweiler (1881-1960) me here
Detweiler's The Negro Press in the United States has been cited in a number of other works. The reason that I went to the trouble of preparing an entry, however, is precisely because his other work -- notably "The Rise of Modern Race Antagonisms" -- has not attracted attention, but SHOULD. In this paper, published March, 1932 in the American Journal of Sociology, Detweiler makes the case that classification of human races was not some ancient phenomenon but rather came into vogue around the same time that Carl Linnaeus was working to establish the discipline of taxonomy in classifying fauna and flora.

Thanks for the inline citations, but we need to see strong evidence that Detweiler and/or his work has been discussed in reliable sources. Many of the sources here are primary sources written by Detweiler so they don't count. Sionk(talk) 22:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.178.88.125 (talk)


 * Unfortunately Wikipedia cannot accept articles on topics that should have attracted attention, but have not. Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as news coverage or books about (not by) Detweiler or discussing his work. Huon (talk) 06:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I had a look at this, and have added multiple references to independent sources, enough to satisfy notability and verify the facts of his biography. I have now moved it into article space at Frederick German Detweiler. His book, The Negro Press in the United States, is quite widely cited and is still considered a major source on the subject well into this century. His obituary was syndicated by Associated Press and appeared in the New York Times, amongst other newspapers. Voceditenore (talk) 14:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ruby TV series
[table removed]
 * Your draft does not cite any reliable, independent sources such as news coverage or reviews in reputable TV magazines. To be considered notable, a topic must have received significant coverage in such sources. Thus I have declined the submission. Huon (talk) 06:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

How to site References in a professional Way?
Hello friends I am interested in posting Wikipedia but I am having problem with siting references I want to make my references look more professional and organized but I cannot figure out why the red button shows up with the caution like and should have tag or something I want my references to be a no follow and appear like 1. Ny Times edition 2200, Page three etc and link or something like that I want the text in the table display my references in no like[5][6] if you are getting what i am willing to peruse please tell me how to make that happen?


 * See WP:Referencing for beginners and Help:Footnotes. You already mention all the basic ingredients: Immediately after the statement you want to cite the reference for, you add code like this: That will generate the small numbers. In the references section, the reflist template will display the footnote text. The refbegin and refend templates are meant for another purpose, not for footnotes.
 * I would have added an example to your sandbox, but none of the New York Times articles I checked even mentioned the company - which is less surprising when we consider that the archived articles predate the company's founding by half a century or more. To be considered notable enough for a Wikipedia article, the company itself must have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of it, such as news coverage or articles in reputable trade magazines. Huon (talk) 14:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

References for LA Jay
Hi,

Okay - I understand regarding the primary/independant sources. Thank you.

But, I still feel like the references should prove the notability of his work though? I know you say that notability is not "inherited," but can you not credit an artist for producing notable work? The big press pieces that discuss releases such as "Bizarre Ride II The Pharcyde" may not discuss LA Jay directly, but they do his work, and then there are other sources to prove that the work is his.

Thanks, Alice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlicePS (talk • contribs) 11:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * If the big press pieces that discuss Bizarre Ride II The Pharcyde don't discuss LA Jay's contribution to the work, the obvious conclusion is that his contribution was not all that significant. I pointed out WP:SYN before; we should not combine multiple sources to make a point that none of the sources makes. For example, I'm pretty sure I could find lists of credits mentioning the lighting technicians that worked on an Oscar-winning movie, but that doesn't make Joe the Lighting Technician notable enough for an article unless we have a source explicitly crediting Joe's work with the film's success. Huon (talk) 14:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Teacher quality
Hello,

I've revised the article Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Teacher_quality incorporating the feedback and talk from both reviewers. It is ready for resubmission. How do I do that?

Douglarkin (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)Douglarkin


 * On the lower of your two red "decline" boxes, there's a message saying "When you are ready to resubmit, click here." Click on that link provided, and it should be automatically resubmitted to the queue. Please be aware there is a substantial backlog at the moment, so it may be a week or more before your submission is reviewed. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   16:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/George Fuller Miller Sr.
I don't understand why there's a box at the top of my article that says, "Article not currently submitted for review" but there's another box, actually 2, that say, "Review waiting". Is it or isn't it awaiting review?

mcpoo726 Mcpoo726 (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It is waiting for review. The grey box is wrong, and can be ignored. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The "not currently submitted" message was a technical artefact that usually gets removed automatically by a bot; I've gotten rid of it now. It doesn't interfere with the submission anyway; as long as there's a "review waiting" message, the draft is awaiting review. However, you may want to have another look at the draft's references. Quite a few of them are primary sources such as Miller's autobiography or the Arizona Boys Ranch Newsletter on Miller's involvement with the Arizona Boys Ranch. Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Some other references are so vague that I wouldn't know how to find them, for example "Interview with George Miller, recorded by Roger Hart, 1979". You should also add a lead section that summarizes the draft's contents and quickly explains what Miller is notable for. Huon (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Review of User:HazelMerlino/Landmark Plc
Hi there I just wondered if I had submitted my article [User:HazelMerlino/Landmark Plc]for review all ok? Many thanks for your time Hazel HazelMerlino (talk) 18:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes that's waiting for review. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The draft needs much better sources. Many sections cite no sources at all, many of the sources you do cite are primary sources such as Landmark's own website, and worst of all, the sources may even disagree with what they're cited for. For example, the fifth source, Company Check website, Wimbledon Degree Show, doesn't mention a 12-year track record, the projected turnover of £14.8m and the lack of corporate borrowings, but rather says the company has "'liabilities' worth £5,684,350" - given a net worth of just about £64k, that looks like quite a bit of corporate borrowings to me. Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as news coverage and articles in reputable trade magazines. To be considered notable the company must have been the subject of significant coverage in such sources, and that means more than just a business directory entry or one line in a list of 1,000 companies. Huon (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Mydolls / Submission declined on 5 January 2013 by FoCuSandLeArN (talk).
Hey again,

I (davidrad) have re-edited the Mydolls entry thoroughly, but every time I click save, it just reminds me of the old rejection.

How do I re-submit the piece for new editorial review?

Let me know, David! Davidrad (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that has been addressed via IRC; the draft is now re-submitted. Huon (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)