Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2013 March 1

= March 1 =

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Captain D. Michael Abrashoff
Subject requests no wiki page so please cancel/scrub/abort/delete/deny/discard/eradicate, etc. Thanks.

JTShim (talk) 05:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC) Thanks.

JT


 * I've tagged it db-g7 on your behalf.   —  Jeff G. ツ  (talk)   05:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Abhay Jodhpurkar Page creation Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Abhay Jodhpurkar
I have furnished references from many newsletters. Could you please kind enough to publish this page. When will this page be published?


 * There's currently a massive backlog of more than 2,000 unreviewed submissions; it may take a few weeks. Please be patient. However, I'm not all that impressed by the references. Two seem to be mere window dressing added after the fact, not cited for what they say about Jodhpurkar. K M Conservatory is a primary source, and a Google Image search clearly is not reliable. The sources also don't seem to back up the draft's content; for example, none of them mentions Godfather, and Kadal and Kadali seem to be 2013 movies, not 2012 (are they Tamil and Telugu versions of the same film, or are they actually different films?). Huon (talk) 13:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Compassites
I had created an article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Compassites. I would like to know how long it will take for the article to be reviewed. I wanted to upload the company logo which I am unable to do right now Compassites (talk) 12:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * There's currently a massive backlog of more than 2,000 unreviewed submissions; it may take a few weeks. Please be patient. However, the current draft is written from a clearly non-neutral point of view; it reads like an advertisement. See also WP:MISSION. Press releases are not reliable sources; neither is YourStory. The Bangalore Mirror article is a local news piece about employees planting trees that isn't actually used for its content. You should use inline citations and footnotes to clarify which source supports which of the draft's statements; see also WP:Referencing for beginners.
 * You may also want to read our guideline on conflicts of interest. Writing about your own company is discouraged. And you username is in violation of Wikipedia's username policy because it's the name of the corporation. You may want to change it; otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Huon (talk) 13:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund
Hi, can I just move this page myself? I'm not a new editor. I used the article wizard but I should have done this in my sandbox and just moved the page myself. But now that it's pending review, I want to make sure I do things correctly. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You can, but I'd strongly suggest improving the references. You might want to use footnotes instead of just having external links in the article proper. Furthermore, one of your references is an opinion piece, others are primary sources, and none covers the PAC in appreciable detail - not all that surprising since the PAC is less than a month old and, for all I can tell, hasn't done anything yet. I don't think it satisfies WP:ORG and should probably for now be covered in a section of the main Tea Party Patriots article. Huon (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Huon, I will do as you suggest. I've already moved the article, as you are probably aware by now. I plan to clean it up today. Thanks for the help. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mihai Grunfeld
[Draft removed.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hispanic Studies Asst (talk • contribs) 16:53, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * That was a copy of your draft. What do you need help with? First of all, you currently have two copies of your draft on the same page; you should remove one to avoid confusion. Next, you may want to provide additional sources to clearly estalish Grunfeld's notability. He must have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as news coverage, reviews in literary magazines, or scholarly articles in peer-reviewed journals discussing his work. In fact, Wikipedia content should be based on such sources; this draft clearly isn't. Huon (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

how can i insert image in my editing article?????
how can i insert image in my articlr?? --Anowar 17:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anowarul Islam (talk • contribs)


 * You may have to upload the file first; afterwards the picture tutorial explains how to add an image to the article. However, you need reliable sources that are independent of the subject much more than you need an image - in its current state the draft will likely be declined because you don't have the sources necessary to establish the organization's notability. Huon (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rocket Fuel Inc.
Wikipedia Help - On Feb. 4, I created an entry about Rocket Fuel Inc. You quickly got back to me and said the entry read like an advertisement. I cleaned up the entry and resubmitted it on Feb. 5. I resubmitted it (I think), but was not able to click the "click here" button per your instructions because the edits were on a different page. I was afraid to leave that page and lose my edits. It does show up in View History, though, so I hope it is indeed there.

Does my new entry exist, and if so, is it being reviewed?

Thanks in advance, siliconvalleywords Siliconvalleywords (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The draft is submitted for review, but we're currently severely backlogged, so it may take some time. Please be patient. In the meantime, you might want to have another look at the draft and its sources. I still think phrases like "harnesses the power of artificial intelligence", "drives optimized results" and "dramatic growth" make this draft sound like an advertisement. The external links in the draft proper are all primary sources and should be removed outright, excepting only a link to Rocket Fuel's own website, which should be placed in a dedicated "external links" section. You should use inline citations and footnotes to clarify which of your references supports which of the draft's statements. At a glance the "references" mention Rocket Fuel only in passing - or not at all. The New York Times article is among the better sources and provideds some hard facts that we should use instead of all the PR buzzwords. Huon (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Huon, THANK YOU for your excellent feedback. I will remove all of the articles I put into references--dumb mistake. I will try to fit in the NYT article somewhere, though. Because Rocket Fuel is a relatively young, private company, very few in-depth articles have been written about it. So footnoting will be difficult. I removed "harnesses the power...," but kept the other two phrases. "Optimizes results" seems to be exactly what Rocket Fuel is noted for. It doesn't just provide results, it provides far more appropriate, usable results. Also, I cited "dramatic growth" because RF has more than doubled its size and revenues every year since its founding. This has happened because clients are so happy with their optimized results. Best, siliconvalleywords (leslie) Siliconvalleywords (talk) 23:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * If RF has doubled its revenues yearly for the past four years, then say so (and provide sources) - that's much more informative than "dramatic growth", which is purely opinion. I, for one, fail to see the drama in RF's growth. If "optimizing results" is what RF is known for, it should be easy to find an independent source that explicitly says so. If, on the other hand, some of the content cannot be verified from reliable, independent sources, it's probably not all that important anyway and should be removed. Huon (talk) 00:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

placement of new article Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research
Hello

I have been notified that the article Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research has been accepted. However, it only shows up if "wikipedia" or "msfhr" is added to the title. In both cases it appears well down the list of hits. What can I do to make it more visible? Ideally, it would appear immediately under www.msfhr.org, but at least on the first page of hits.

Any advice will be much appreciated

Writerred (talk) 20:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You mean placement among Google search results? There's nothing we can do about that, nor should we even try to write our articles with search engine optimization in mind. Huon (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)