Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2013 November 8

= November 8 =

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Raphael Frank
How do I know if my article has been submitted?248Garland (talk) 06:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It will have a yellow box with "Review waiting" on it. You haven't submitted it yet, when you want to click the green button and then click save on the next page. This will add a bit of code to your page that says its ready for review. Rankersbo (talk) 10:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Walters &
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Walters_%26_Cohen

This article was recently rejected for "references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability"

Can you advise me on how to improve it? I understand I may need more references, but how many more do you think? There isn't any part of it I can see that isn't referenced.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedoubleunit (talk • contribs) 10:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * At a quick glance I can see the following unreferenced content - the sentence "At the time of the award, 70% of the practice's architectural staff were women." and the entire section "A selection of notable projects". One of the problems with some of the references is they aren't actually about Walters & Cohen specifically - for example, this source you used is about Redbrook Hayes school, and Walters & Cohen is relegated to a brief mention in a sentence. The reference citing the BCSE award here appears to be a dead link, so I can't verify that it's true. You need to have more sources that talk specifically about Walters & Cohen and any awards it has received, and explains in detail why they are important. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   10:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ritchie333
 * Would you mind taking another look at it now? I have added a great deal more references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedoubleunit (talk • contribs) 12:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thedoubleunit, I've done some clean up of this article to conform to our Manual of Style and to copyedit for a more neutral approach. I've also replaced a few of the references with more pertinent ones (avoid using blogs as references always, and avoid using the subject's website or content provided by them as a sole reference for a particular claim, although it can be used to supplement the information). I've left a note on the article draft recommending acceptance. There are multiple awards, including RIBA awards, verified in reliable sources. However, if moved into article space, the article needs to be tagged for clean up of the remaining "bare URL" references. Voceditenore (talk) 14:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Comux UK
Hi - I'm astonished that the reviewer of my article on Comux wants me to add references that are "This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia."

It has these - at least, as far as I'm aware, Ofcom is pretty independent of Comux UK, as are the newspapers whose reports are referenced. As Comux is providing the biggest broadcast infrastructure implemented in the UK for years (and one of the biggest infrastructure projects in Europe) and as 10m UK households will receive services made available over the next couple of years by this infrastructure, I'd have said that the subject of my submission was pretty noteworthy, if ONLY (???) in the UK.

Please would someone rethink this rejection, or else explain to me in simple terms how noteworthy something has to be before it is noteable enough.

Many thanks Chris Webb

ps. I don't (professionally) give a crap as I have nolonger ANY involvement in this project, but on a personal note, I think it's a really interesting and useful broadcast service - far more so than many of the other trival dribbles about broadcasting that can be found across Wikipedia. Let's have some consistency here please !

Allina_spin 14:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher Sean Webb (talk • contribs)


 * Just because you think the organisation is important, it doesn't mean that everyone has to share your opinion, I'm afraid. I can't see any references to newspaper reports in your submission - certainly I would expect links to, say The Times, The Guardian and The Independent if that were the case, but a sample search in The Guardian returns nothing. Indeed, in this instance I would say that a satisfactory answer to your question of "in simple terms how noteworthy something has to be before it is noteable enough" is "mentioned regularly in the national broadsheet press".
 * As it is, you references largely either don't mention ComUX at all, or hardly mention the organisation (for example, this Ofcom source relegates it to a single sentence). A further search for references brings up articles such as this, which seem to resemble press releases - but we need neutral coverage. If you don't want the submission anymore, add  to the top of it, and an admin will remove it for you.  Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   15:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Christopher O'Connor
Hi,

I'm trying to create an entry but it wasn't approved. I enlisted outside help and they were able to get it listed but then it was taken down (apparently the person I used is a banned editor.)   Can someone help me?

here is the listing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Christopher_O%27Connor

Thanks so much!

Sebastiend15 (talk) 22:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Sebastien


 * Hello, Sebastiend15. It sounds like you tried to use a paid editor. Wikipedia has banned an over 300 of them recently, and quite rightly. I'm sorry to have to tell you that the draft in its current state does have not the remotest chance of making it into article space. As currently written, it is blatantly promotional (both of the subject and his company). There are zero references to reliable sources which are independent of him which attest to his notability or even verify what's in the draft. Three are copies of the same PR release. One is a listing of his company by the Better Business Bureau which does not mention him at all and says that the company is not BBB Accredited. Another is the company's self-description on Zoom Business info which does not mention him at all. One is a program book from a concert he promoted where he is among dozens of other people "thanked" on the last page. I suggest you read The answer to life, the universe, and everything to get a basic understanding of what is required for an article here. If you have any affiliation whatsoever with Chris O'Connor (either personal or professional), you should also read Conflict of interest for guidance when editing under those circumstances, Voceditenore (talk) 09:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/uDuck
I'm new here, and screwed up. The line that we're not supposed to delete above the article, well, it is deleted.

I am about to create this article, but wonder if you could put it in good standing, with the correct line of code in, so that when I'm ready, later, I can submit it. The submit box is missing.

Alternately, if I"m in the long queue for submission already, that's okay. It will only take a couple of hours to paste in the article as it should be.

I just don't know if I"m in limbo or the submission queue. Any help is much appreciated, thanks. Mint Lulu (talk) 22:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

OH... and one other question.... when I make my signature by inserting the tilde marks, WHERE do I do that? Anywhere? After references?


 * You don't insert the tilde marks on articles or on article submissions. You only insert the tildes on talk pages and noticeboards (like this one).


 * Your submission Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/uDuck is waiting to be reviewed. It is likely that it will be declined, firstly because it reads exactly like a press release, and secondly because the only source it cites is a single publication. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/uDuck
I'm new here, and screwed up. The line that we're not supposed to delete above the article, well, it is deleted.

THIS ARTICLE IS NOW COMPLETED, but I don't know how to submit it.

I don't know if I"m in limbo or the submission queue. Any help is much appreciated, thanks.

OH... and one other question.... when I make my signature by inserting the tilde marks, in my ARTICLE, WHERE do I do that? Anywhere? After references?

Mint Lulu (talk) 23:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, you don't do your signature anywhere in the article, that's just for talk pgaes. Your article was in limbo, but I have submitted it for you. Rankersbo (talk) 07:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)