Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2013 June 12

= June 12 =

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jack Havoc
We'd like to resubmit this article, with new updates. Is there anyone we need to talk to do this, or do we just wait? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammysunset (talk • contribs) 04:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * There are instructions in the red box at the top, those will help (especially the "if you're ready to resubmit click here" link). However, it will most likely still be declined. The article does not have enough sources to meet WP:42, the notability guideline.
 * On another note, you say "we" in your comment. I assume you're referring to you and User:Jon Promer. If so, it's perfectly fine. Just make sure you only use one person per account, and one account per person. Sharing accounts is a no-no on Wikipedia. Charmlet (talk) 04:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Stanford PULSE Institute
This article 'Stanford PULSE Institute' seems to be stuck in review. It was improved and resubmitted more than one week ago. Is there a reviewer post that I have not noticed? Thanks. Phbuck (talk) 08:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It is correctly submitted, unfortunately the review backlog is running at about 12-14 days. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alankit Assignments Ltd../Chaya
My article has been rejected twice. Want to know what are the changes supposed to be made in the article so that it gets accepted next time?Chayanikab (talk) 09:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I added extensive "afc comments" and gave an extensive "decline" reason to your submission, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alankit Assignments Ltd. ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Alankit_Assignments_Ltd.&oldid=559659979 revision]). I also sorted your references by "quality" so you can get an idea of what makes a "good" reference and what makes a "not so good" reference.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  02:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk: Artices for creation/Magnetic materials
Those material that can be either attracted or repelled when placed in an external magnetic field & can be magnetized themselves, are magnetic materials.e.g iron or its alloys. Magnetic properties of material depend whether it has permanent dipole moment or not. If it has permanent dipole moment then magnetic properties depend upon orientation of dipoles. On the basis of orientation, magnetic materials are divided into five categories: Diamagnetic, Paramagnetic, Ferromagnetic, Antiferromagnetic and Ferrimagnetic

•	Diamagnetic material induce a weak magnetic field in opposite direction of applied magnetic field .In another way they repel a strong magnet. e.g Bismuth and carbon graphite. •	Paramagnetic materials are weakly attracted to magnetic field. e.g aluminium,copper etc. Paramagnetic materials like platinum become more magnetic when their temperature reduce to very low value. •	Ferromagnetic materials are strongly attracted by magnetic field.e.g iron,nickel etc.In ferromagnetic materials dipoles are oriented in parrallel direction.If strongly magnetic ferromagnetic material e.g nickel or steel are heated to high enough temperature then these material lose their magnetism.The temperature at which material loses its magnetism is called curie temperature and it is different for different ferromagnetic material. •	In antiferromagnetic material magnetic moments are oriented in opposite direction and equal in magnitude. Antiferromagnetic material are weakly magnetised in direction of applied strong magnetic field .e.g MnO, FeO etc. •	In ferrimagnetic material dipoles are in an antiparallel direction but not equal in magnitude e.g  magnetite(Fe3O4), garnet(Y3Fea5O12) etc. REFERENCE: http://school-for-champions.com/science/magnetic_material.htm http://www.irm.umn.edu/hg2m/hg2m_b/hg2m_b.htmlRenu choudhary (talk) 11:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

We already have a page about this topic: magnetism. Why not try improving it? &mdash; ACupOfCoffee@ 11:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alma Books
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alma Books was rejected because the references provided did not adequately evidence the subject's notability, new references have now been provided and new information has been added regarding awards that Alma Books has won. It seems that Wikipedia reviewer Aaron Booth is currently less active online, could someone else approve the submission? MDSRODRIGUES (talk) 11:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You can submit the article for another review by putting at the top of it. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ethnological Museum of Chittagong
Hello, need help about the page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ethnological Museum of Chittagong. I think it's complete, what do you think ?


 * From a quick look I don't see any obvious problems, but it will be properly reviewed soon. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Full of Copyright Violation, but now cleaned and accepted. Pol430   talk to me  19:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Oregon Ballot Measure 7 (1940)
I went ahead and moved one student's work for an Education Program project to the main space, but I hope I did not eliminate any important AfC steps in the process. If I did, apologies, but I am not terribly familiar with the AfC process. If someone is able to take a look at the article and its history to remove any banners or internal requests, assistance would be much appreciated. I am not sure how much additional work the students plans to contribute to the article, but the subject is notable and the article should be "wikified" to benefit the encyclopedia. Thank you for any help! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've removed the AFC tag and done some general clean up. If you are mentoring students through article creation, they don't really need to come through AfC. Pol430   talk to me  17:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Review of User:MCMUniversal
Hello: I am working on an article now that references some facts that are only verifiable in print form e.g. 1) billboard chart activity that preceeds the digital age. Is it acceptable to use a scanned copy of the actual page from the magazine or should I simply reference the issue and page number? 2) An Award presented by the Goveroner of a State that is in Certificate form. 3) An Award presented by the President of the United States that is in Certificate Form. MCMUniversal (talk) 16:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * A scanned copy would likely be a copyright violation. You should reference the issue and page number. See also the cite magazine citation template.
 * The awards presented by politicians would be primary sources; you should try and find third-party sources such as news reports discussing those awards. Furthermore, I doubt the awards would be considered published sources, so they're probably not themselves appropriate for Wikipedia. Huon (talk) 18:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Being
I was just wondering why my submission of the film The Being was declined and what it needs work on? --Paleface Jack (talk) 20:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Paleface Jack


 * That draft cites a single source, IMDb, which is not considered significant coverage nor subject to much editorial oversight. You'd need reliable third-party sources such as newspaper articles about the film or published reviews by reputable film critics to establish that the film is notable. Huon (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Guido van der Werve
Hello, I was trying to create an article about visual artist Guido van der Werve, it was denied although according to me the subject complies to the notability criteria (many awards, very good reviews in the New York times and other reliable sources by some of the most renowned art critics, voted nr. 1 international artist in the Netherlands in 2010 above Marlene Dumas..). Furthermore the artist is currently on view at the Museum of Modern art in NY. So I'm a bit at a loss here...

Thank you in advance! Eaglebird74 (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that van der Werve is notable, but major parts of the article don't seem to be verifiable from the given sources. For example, the "Life and Career" section (parts of which should probably be turned into the basis of a lead section) doesn't cite any sources. Regarding the reviews, it would be much better to summarize what they say about van der Werve than just to list them. Huon (talk) 22:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)