Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2013 November 14

= November 14 =

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ātmaprajñānanda Saraswati
Help me out to improve the article. It says the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. To my knowledge it is not written from a first or second person perspective. what types of peacock terms are used ?

--Stallion444 03:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stallion444 (talk • contribs)


 * "Swamini Ātmaprajñānanda deeply appreciates the knowledge/intellectual heritage/tradition in India" - which independent reliable source said so?


 * "People are in for experience and miracle, and do not want to study" - what does this have to do with a factual biography of a living person in an encyclopedia?


 * "One cannot bypass Sruti" - this is a statement of opinion, not a factual piece of encyclopedic information backed by an independent reliable source.


 * ... and much else similar.


 * There are also three lengthy sentences about the person's material being available on YouTube. This needs trimming. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Auckland Nuclear Accessory Company
I have created this entry for an important historical company (in my opinion) to do with the nuclear accelerator industry worldwide. What can I do to have it accepted ? I have tried to find supporting doccumentation and added those links but clearly it is not enough. Where can I find more material? Vector1 nz (talk) 07:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Vector1 nz. I've added more references to it to establish notability and moved it into article space at Auckland Nuclear Accessory Company where you can continue improving it. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Spire
I was wondering if I could change the name of this instead of just being Spire, but instead to change it to Spire (company). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johne1323 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes that is sensible. You can't move (rename) pages yet, but it is fine to leave this for the reviewer to do if/when the article is accepted. The reviewer will know they have to do this, as there is already an article spire on a different topic. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dental Savings Plans
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dental Savings Plans Not sure how to take it to the next step of having the article reviewed? I have the article saved, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Dental_Savings_Plans

KellyWhalenPR (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Please see the messages  on  your  talk  page here: User talk:WhalenPR.  Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)


 * WhalenPR, at the bottom of the grey notice on the top of your draft page click on "Submit your draft when you are ready for it to be reviewed!". However, if you submit this now it will be almost certainly rejected. It is a rather blatant advertisement for DentalPlans.com (a client of Whalen Public & Media Relations?) masquerading quite unsuccessfully as an article on a general subject. The only example of "providers" that you give is the following:


 * "Among the companies that sell dental savings plans, DentalPlans.com is largest in the nation, offering consumers the freedom to choose a dental savings plan from more than 30 of America’s most trusted networks, like Aetna, Cigna, Careington, Signature Wellness, and UNI-CARE. Finding a local dentist is easy–more than 100,000 participating dentists across the country participate in at least one dental savings plan."


 * You also provide no references to support any of the other assertions in the draft (the rest of which reads like a brochure to get people to buy these plans in general), simply some general external links. If you want to write an encyclopedic article on the subject of dental savings plans in the United States, fine. But it requires considerably more work than this and there is no need whatsoever to mention any commercial sellers of these plans or their brokers. Voceditenore (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Your submission name here
Despite submitting my page for review, the page still says at the top that the page has NOT been submitted. Can you double check and confirm whether or not it has actually been submitted?

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cardinal Peak Engineering — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aking1309 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, that has been submitted. You can ignore the "not submitted" message because it is incorrect. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)