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

= November 21 =

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bayesian programming
Dear reviewers,

The review system seems quite obscure to me. Consequently, I have 2 simple questions:

1 - Is my article (Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bayesian programming) correctly posted for review ? is it presently pending review ? (I think it is but I am not completely convince about that).

2 - Is it possible to invite people to review an article ? Is it even possible to invite them to become reviewers and review an article ?

Thanks in advance.

Erreip (talk) 10:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, your article is correctly posted for review and it is still pending. No, there is no option to invite people to review. Reviewers are a different class of WP users and it takes time to become one. Maybe you can ask someone on their talk page or such, but I may be wrong on that. Jaideep.writer (talk) 11:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dead Underground
Hi. Can you tell me if my article is meeting all the standards or any suggestions. I have added some of the independent news reviews as said before. Jaideep.writer (talk) 11:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nederburg
HI There,

I hope you can help, the page that I am trying to submit seems to cut off content after 2 paragraphs.

I hope you can help me in understanding what is causing this?

Thanks so much Kate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kate Haslewood (talk • contribs) 13:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅Have a look now- there was a problem with your references. Instead of a start each ref had two starts. Rankersbo (talk) 14:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Articles for creation: Sibyl Heijnen
I understand from the comments that I have to find sources that have nothing to do with art yet cover this artist's work? Such as, say, Japanese newspapers, but not art magazines, art books or museum publications? (Unfortunately, I don't read Japanese.)

I am sorry, but this just does not make a great deal of sense.

If I browse Wikipedia, I see many pages for people who are much less noteworthy than this artist and who do not meet these criteria either. Look, for example, at the page for Hans Krondahl. You'll see that he has similar yet fewer literature references, including one writer who also wrote about Sibyl Heijnen) and is not quite of the same caliber. Surely, I don't have to tell you that there are quite a few other pages in Wikipedia and even quite a few that make the page about Hans Krondahl stand out positively.

So in other words, visual artists - even if they are world-renowned - have to become targeted by the press like Hollywood movie stars before they can be included in Wikipedia, these days???

I shake - and scratch - my head.

That would signify a devaluation of Wikipedia, in my eyes. Is Wikipedia heading in, for example, the direction of a celeb/gossip magazine in order to be able to include mass-targeted ads at some point? I have seen similar developments in what used to be good news media, so I would not be surprised. I am very interested in hearing your feedback on this.

Angelina Souren (talk) 21:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Angelina Souren. Your understanding of "Independent sources" is a bit too "broad". Art magazines and books are in fact the ideal sources, as long as the writer or publisher has no connection with the artist - such as a website of a gallery that is selling their work, such a gallery has a financial conflict of interest to not be as critical as a neutral commentator might be. You can use sources that are connected to the artist for uncontroversial information such as about the artists education or where they live - the kind of facts that are not potentially critical or promotional. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that feedback. I really appreciate it. Meanwhile, I have also been thinking that maybe the "verifiability" can be a practical problem. I happen to have the book that I have referred to a few times, which is an international book about the artist, published in Japan (not a catalogue), but I have been trying to get my hands on an article published in the US, a book published in London, and two Japanese articles. It pointed out to me that there can be a problem with verifiability regarding sources that are not readily available online.

The only source that I listed that can be seen as too close (as it is a booklet published by the artist herself, with a cover made of industrial tarps) is "Waving Space", but it is not an essential source, as most of the information is available from various sources. None of the sources I listed sell works by the artist and they are the kind of sources I did indeed think Wikipedia prefers, so I was getting quite confused.

There is for instance a gallery in Long Island that sells works and a gallery in Tokyo, but they are not mentioned.

That said, creating something for Wikipedia is a learning process. It is much more comparable to scientific writing than to journalistic writing, and it takes a while to understand what is required. Also, I initially made a mistake about a year ago, when I listed the sources such that it looked like they were written by the artist because the sources had the artist's name in the title, and my references were incomplete. (My mistake. That was sloppy.)

I'll see what I can do. Thanks. Angelina Souren (talk) 14:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Peter York Solmssen
I need help with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Peter_York_Solmssen I have a number of articles from reliable sources (with a paragraph or more about Peter Solmssen) referenced in the article(Reuters, new York Times) as well as German reliable sources (Handelsblatt, manager magazine, and Die Ziet). Can you suggest any way to make these stand out, since the main criticism I am getting why this is not published is that Peter Solmssen is not notable? thanks,RebeccaHS (talk) 23:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The article has now been accepted and is at Peter York Solmssen, I also cleaned up a few minor issues. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)