Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2013 July 24

= July 24 =

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Red Wedding
Hi,

I don't understand why my article about the film "Red Wedding" is systematically declined. I have added many information and references (much more than many film pages) and don't know what else I can do. Can you please help me with this ? Thanks.

Julien — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tipasa Production (talk • contribs) 03:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It was declined only once - not "systematically". You have added many sources and improved the draft a lot since then. I have just reviewed it again (only the second review) and it is ready for mainspace. However, there is an existing redirect blocking the move so I have requested administrative action to clear the blockage. The article will be moved soon. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ Huon (talk) 11:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Margulan Seisembayev
Hello! Article which I edited was declined again with note that it's not "adequately supported by reliable sources". Can you please clarify that because in article right now we have few different sources of information including Reuters, Financial Times, Bloomberg and local media, plus links to websites. Why all this sources are not reliable and what I can add at the moment? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asylbek Omirkhanov (talk • contribs) 04:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Which source says Seisembayev founded the golf championship? Which source says he has a law degree? The source cited for the claim that Seisembayev was "justified and freed from paying any compensation" doesn't actually say so - in fact it mentions an arrest warrant issued for him. The source for the atlas is a primary source. His family isn't mentioned in the sources at all, for all I can tell. So yes, you do have some third-party sources, but they don't suffice to support the draft's content. Huon (talk) 18:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sansad Ratna Award
hi

I have created an article on Sansad Ratna Award for the top performing Parliamentarians of India. This is the only Award for such Parliamentarians. This is happening for the past 4 years. Even the Constitutional authorities have participated and given the awards. This was declined for the first time. I added more references of national media and images. Can you kindly review and approve the article. If any further improvement is needed, please guide me.

Varsha1990 (talk) Varsha 05:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * At a glance all your sources look like routine news coverage; few of them so much as discusses the methodology (and that section in the draft cites no sources); most are just announcements of the winners, at most with a quote from a spokesperson. The first three sources don't even mention the award by name, and I don't think I saw a source for the award's renaming. Other sources are highly redundant; in fact one of them is a reprint of another. Citing a half-dozen sources which all report the same few facts about the same event isn't really helpful. My suggestion would be to remove quite a few of the sources and keep only the best few, those which actually discuss the award in some detail, and to make sure that all the draft's content is actually supported by sources. Despite the multitude of sources (or maybe even because of it, there are far too many details where I can't tell which source supports them. Huon (talk) 18:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/EXNESS
Hello, The submission of my article was declined several times, and I rewrote it also. Could anyone please give me any exact advice about the article? Which parts are not suitable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julia.tretyakova (talk • contribs) 09:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with the reviewer that the draft is unduly promotional. For example, the "many awards" are vague, and for all I can tell those are entirely inconsequential awards that are handed out literally by the dozen, and no one but EXNESS and the organizations handing out the awards bothered to report them. The draft's sources are rather dubious, with disclaimers such as "Forex Magnates has not verified the accuracy or basis-in-fact of any claim or statement made by any independent author". That's the explicit opposite of what Wikipedia considers a reliable source, and I don't see any more mainstream news sources or financial magazines among the draft's sources. Huon (talk) 18:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/McCallie Rocks, Australian Antarctic Territory
Earlier today I attempted to ADD a further citation to my Article. I do not know whether I have been successful in doing this.

Essentially, the complete details of the citation are as follows:

"The Distribution and Estimated Abundance of Adelie Penguins Breeding in Prydz Bay, Antarctica" Michael D. Whitehead and Gavin W. Johnstone, Biology Section, Australian Antarctic Division, Channel Highway, Kingston, Tasmania 7050. Australia Proc. NIPR Symp. Polar Biol.,3,91-98,1990. See http://polaris.nipr.ac.jp/~penguin/polarbiosci/issues/pdf/1990-Whitehead.pdf

The name McCallie Rocks is explicitly referred to in the citation.

I have also carried out further editing of the text in the body of the Article.

A further issue related to the use of the HTML language is the command which needs to be used, just below the heading, to separate the geographical coordinates in terms of degrees, minutes and seconds of latitude and longitude from the following degrees and decimals equivalent of both latitude and longitude.

Bmurphy99 (talk) 11:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I have added the reference. You may want to have a look at WP:Referencing for beginners on how to easily create nicely-formatted footnotes.
 * The coordinates are displayed via the coord template at the top of the article. The coordinates in the article were wrong according to the source (which provides coordinates both in minutes and seconds and in decimal fractions of degrees); I fixed that. I don't think we need to bother with giving the coordinates in both systems. Huon (talk) 18:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/User:Predheini/sandbox - aka "Genetics of warfarin resistance"
Dear HelpDesk personnel, A short while ago I tried to submit a new Wikipedia article for consideration/approval. This was done from my sandbox at: User:Predheini/sandbox, but I now see an alert at the bottom of the page in the yellow "Review waiting" box that says "Warning: This page should probably be located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/sandbox (move)." When I clicked on "move", I was directed to a page that says the page can't be moved. It may be the case that I previously started a new page called "Genetics of warfarin resistance" by clicking on a make new page URL when I was researching if there was already any entry by that name. Also, where can I follow the progress of my submitted page if it doesn't appear in the pending AfC area?

This is my first authored Wikipedia page in a specialty area of my expertise - I'm a Biophysicist doing basic and medical research on the enzyme that is the target of warfarin. I've found it exceedingly hard to get the table information into the page so far and am having trouble finding answers to simple questions about setting up the page layout so that it appears like any normal Wikipedia page. Also, understanding where I am at any moment when using this Wiki editor window is also difficult. I've tried digging around both in the Wikipedia help pages (which are too full of jargon for me to easily understand) and also tried looking for help using Google and YouTube, but can't find much useful BASIC information about setting up and editing a simple page. Can you point me in the right direction?

Thanks, in advance, for your help! -Carville Bevans Predheini (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, your draft is now at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Genetics of warfarin resistance where you can continue to work on it. A reviewer has already given an opinion that the large "tables" of "raw data" are unsuitable for a Wikipedia article. You need to first explain in fairly simple language what the article is about and its significance. I'd like to reccomend that you request some specialist help from WP:WikiProject Genetics, many of the contributors there are also researchers like you so they understand the problems you are experiencing. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I have tidied up the tables and written some little prose, but there's still far too little context for laypersons to even understand what the draft is all about. For more details on tables you may want to check Help:Table, but prose is far more important to the draft than prettier tables. Huon (talk) 19:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/McCallie Rocks, Australian Antarctic Territory
Can you please assist me by showing McCallie Rocks in the following existing (sub)category:

Bmurphy99 (talk) 12:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Phasegram
Hi!

The article concerning the "phasegram" was rejected on the grounds that the information is supposedly not verifiable. The reviewer must not have looked properly: The phasegram method has been thoroughly documented in a peer-reviewed paper in the journal "Royal Society Interface". This manuscript is open source, everybody can download it from http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2013.0288 (that is one of the reference in the AfC).

When I re-submit the Wikipedia article for creation it gets automatically rejected. That is a problem: I claim that the provided information meets Wikipedia's criteria and that the article should therefore be accepted.

Can somebody please help and resolve this issue?

Thanks, best regards.

BratschistHenri (talk) 15:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, I rejected the article because it only had the one source (the paper you mention) which just showed the technique had been developed, not that it was accepted and used. There were links to a website, but these too were not independent of the creator of this method. If the technique is at the stage where there is just the one paper on it, I think we need to wait before writing it up on wikipedia. There was another problem, which I didn't spot- the article very closely matches the abstract on the Royal Society website, and as such has had to be declined for copyright reasons. Rankersbo (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The article, as it turns out, is licensed under CC 3.0 BY, a compatible license with WP. I removed the deletion tag and added a note. But the rest of the comment remains valid. You would need to indicate in the article this more clearly. add at the bottom of the article replacing "attribution details" by a link to the article. But it won;t be accepted until other people refer to it. What I suggest you do about the other problem, is to withdraw it by  , and  then write it again when there are references referring to the concept. DGG ( talk ) 18:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks DGG Rankersbo (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

It is usually best to start by fixing pr

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Slosh
Hi there,

I just wondered if you can give any reason as to why my article was rejected? 86.147.171.55 (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Because you cited but a single source, and that source has little to do with the draft's content. It doesn't discuss the dance in any detail. It doesn't even say that "traditionally" slosh is danced to a tune written in 1972 and thus doesn't confirm what it's cited for. Also, I would have expected "traditions" for something resembling a line dance (and if it isn't one, what's the difference?) to go back more than 50 years. When was the Slosh invented, what was it inspired by? Has it spread beyond Scotland? The draft doesn't tell, and these are pretty basic questions that should be easy to find sources for. Maybe there are books on dancing that discuss the slosh in some detail, or articles in reputable magazines? Huon (talk) 19:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gil Gutierrez
On the first reference I entered I got a message that wikipedia had issues with spam on that site. It told me to shorten the link and I did but now you can't see the footnote I created. This same article is repeated on the blog of Doc Severinsen but I was trying to avoid blogs.

I have edited before but never created a wikipedia page and am still unsure if I did the other citations correctly with footnotes.

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gil Gutierrez

Thank you. Candice Candice Michelle Lopez (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The footnotes should be put directly in the article text, immediately after the statement the source is cited for. They'll be displayed in the "references" section by the reflist template, and the references section should contain nothing but that template.
 * Examiner.com is indeed blacklisted. It's not a reliable source, and since its editors are paid per page view, linkspam is an issue. I'd suggest finding a better source for that statement than either Examiner.com (which doesn't have much editorial oversight) or blogs. Huon (talk) 01:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Star Furniture
In May I created a page for Star Furniture. It was denied due to copyright issues but I have since corrected those issues. How to I resubmit? Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Star Furniture

GraceCarter (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, it looks like your draft is at User:GraceCarter/sandbox. The best way to do that is to move your draft to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Star Furniture and then add the template  to the top of the page.  Howicus (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Can't make references
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ronald Goetz I am unable to create references. I hit cite, then use the scroll down, but no template occurs. Rebecca Clancy RebeccaClancy (talk) 20:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ronald Goetz
My article is rejected again. I am not sure if it is because I didn't format my references correctly (I am having trouble using the reference tools so I put them in parentheses) or that my references are of insufficient quality. Can you advise? Rebecca Clancy RebeccaClancy (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Maybe you have deactivated JavaScript? While the Reftoolbar is a great help, you can add the references manually. They consist of two parts: The footnote is created by tags. Within those tags, the text of the footnote is created by a citation template such as cite book or cite web - the template pages explain the available parameters. An entire reference would then be created by something like this:
 * On an unrelated note, I'd remove the vast majority of the publications. If some of those have been the subject of third-party discussion, we should highlight those and summarize what they say (ie what research of Goetz' has been discussed), but listing everything Goetz has ever written is overdoing it - Wikipedia is not a library catalogue.
 * Regarding the quality of your references, two of them look like the same private website to me that is not reliable by Wikipedia's standards (I combined those two), the very first one is an obituary by his own university, not quite as independent as we'd like our sources to be, and the fourth, the Festschrift, is only cited for its own existence, not for whatever it has to say about Goetz. So it is indeed an issue of quality, not of citation format. Huon (talk) 01:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding the quality of your references, two of them look like the same private website to me that is not reliable by Wikipedia's standards (I combined those two), the very first one is an obituary by his own university, not quite as independent as we'd like our sources to be, and the fourth, the Festschrift, is only cited for its own existence, not for whatever it has to say about Goetz. So it is indeed an issue of quality, not of citation format. Huon (talk) 01:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Mordecai Island
Mordecai Island, is one of the British Commenwealth Islands apart from Darwin Island, Chester Island. The Ẹṩṡḁḇị(Ezzabie) was the Sword of Mordecai Island and it is the powerfullest, sharpest sword ever made(it was made in 3 May 1056(At Mordeai Kingdom Isle)to June 14th 1056) and was used by Ryan Chucks.



The Leaders were Mike Sife(Si-ye-fe), Elizabeth ||. At 1999-2001, the population was 170, but at 2010-2013 is 486'3467.

It was a WW2 Island were the Battle of Mordecai Shored took place against UK and Anglo-East Germany Republic and it had 278 bunkers and hideouts.

Till 1986, Rebbecca Soldan persuaded the island government that no war is alouded, just peace and quiet. Her Speech was(in English): 'Mordecai Island Government, Is hould allow to all of the island people should have Peace and Quiet to expand the population. But was causes destruction and deaths for the cities, towns and the enviroment, and we have to pay the British for more money. We are losing than expandin the population. You could beleive' and the Government agreed because she was beuatifal sexy woman. Until it growed bigger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.122.238.172 (talk) 21:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This content should be at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mordecai Island, not here. This is a place for questions about the AfC process.  Howicus (talk) 21:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Final David Lerner Designs
Hi, I have created a draft of this article and wish to submit it for review, but cannot figure out how to do that. How can I have it reviewed? (And the sources are turning out weird at the bottom--there are 4 sources, each listed after the sentences they belong, yet the bottom is showing 1, 5, 6 for some reason).

VivianKGomez (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Thanks, Emma VivianKGomez (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You can submit your draft via the green "Submit your draft when you are ready for it to be reviewed!" button in the "Article not currently submitted for review" message box. However, I don't think the current sources suffice to establish that the company is notable enough for an encyclopedia article, and they don't even confirm all they're cited for. In particular, press releases are not considered reliable. Furthermore, the draft's tone seems unduly promotional. Huon (talk) 01:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)