Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2013 October 3

= October 3 =

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Zeoform
Hi

I would like to know if the wikipedia page, Zeoform, is being reviewed? I created this page about a month ago and have heard no responses about this. Please could you help me? When is it likely that it will get approved? I appreciate that wikipedia is non profit and run by volunteers but would love a progress update.

Thanks

Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeoform (talk • contribs) 03:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The page in question WAS User:Zeoform but it has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Zeoform. There is no submission template.  As I said on your talk page, you need to add  to the bottom to start the process.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  03:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It was submitted without changes and declined with suggestions for improvement. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  15:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mushroom Group
Hi - We have recently created a page for Mushroom Group, but have since noticed it not being successfully submitted. Both comments re: the unsuccessful Mushroom Group page submission note that Mushroom Records are a subsidiary company and has the same date it was founded as Mushroom Group, implying that they are the same. Mushroom Records, however, is a separate entity to Mushroom Group and is now a defunct company. Mushroom Records was one of the first two Group companies, but the Group has since started and still owns two dozen of Australasia’s biggest music and entertainment companies. Could you please let me know on how we can successfully submit, now knowing the differences I've mentioned between the two pages? Thank you. Thewillbarton (talk) 07:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Simply hit the blue "Resubmit" button in the pink review box. There is a review note about the subsidiary company on the page. BTW adding a few more sources would be helpful. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lucius Aurelius Marcianus
This article was declined on the grounds "seems very unsure of the facts". I am in some difficulty here as I understand Wikipedia does not permit authors to chose between rival sources, but only to present them all without indicating a preference. (For instance: is the Historia Augusta or Zosimus more likely to right about the murder of the Emperor Gallienus; which of the rival interpretations of the Greek text on the Plovdiv memorial am I to accept; etc, "The facts" relating to the history of the Roman Empire in the third quarter of the Third Century AD are quite often uncertain and contradictory and this is reflected in histories of the age. I am sure that it is not intended that the encyclopedia should not concern itself with the issues of that era. I only raise this matter as I am unsure what I should do to make this piece publishable.Pjbjas (talk) 08:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello, Pjbjas. My first impression is that this draft should be moved to article space. Furthermore, you are correct to state in the article where sources differ. Just to be on the safe side, I suggest you ask for an opinion from User:Cynwolfe, a very experienced editor in this area, or ask for a second opinion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * PS I've gone ahead and contacted Cynwolfe for an opinion . Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * That's beautifully written, Pjbjas; thank you. Is there a book, chapter or peer-reviewed paper that addresses as its main topic Lucius Aurelius Marcianus among your sources? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If it has suddenly become a requirement that every ancient Roman needs to have had an entire book, or chapter of a book, written about him as the main topic, we will be deleting literally hundreds of ancient Roman biographies as non-notable—not to mention medieval clerics, and Renaissance humanists, and the only modestly successful poets and novelists and artists of the 19th century. I'm perplexed by the rejection of this article on the basis of sources. It has excellent sources. Its sources are superior in relevance, range, and quality to those used in articles on major figures such as Mark Antony and Marcus Crassus. IMHO, the article has copyediting and style issues, but as I investigated further after leaving a comment, Pjbjas has written other biographies that are stylistically more conformist (though some issues remain), and should be able to address such points as the oddity of ellipses in subheads. (To answer the question, probably Zosimus: but the problems of the feared but unavoidable Historia Augusta are central to dealing with this historical period, the difficulties of which Pjbjas has stated accurately.) Cynwolfe (talk) 15:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * My concern is WP:SYN. The author is putting before us some of what history tells us about a person or persons with the names Lucius, Aurelius and Marcianus. It reads beautifully and I don't doubt their sincerity, but before agreeing to Wikipedia hosting this, I'd like to see what a named expert has to say about an historical person, Lucius Aurelius Marcianus. Pjbjas, is there an historian who agrees with your portrait? I have access to many of the sources you cite but it would simplify things for me, and help others without access to your sources, if you could point me to a source that supports your case - that adduces all or most of the evidence you do in constructing Lucius Aurelius Marcianus. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email)  08:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * See this entry on the Last Statues of Antiquity (LSA) Database at Oxford University. Voceditenore (talk) 11:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That'll do for me. Publish. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Atomic Reach
Hi, Thanks for your feedback. I've added another citation and included a bit more info but I'm still unclear as to how to cite properly. Can you please help? Thank you! Sharon Sharon12345 (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, How do I edit this entry for submission? Thank you, Sharon Sharon12345 (talk) 14:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Click "Edit" at the top of the page. You may wish to read Tutorial, Your first article, Referencing for beginners or VRS first or at the same time. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 15:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Do you mean, "how do I submit it"? If so, when you are ready for review hit the big green button that says Submit your draft when you are ready for it to be reviewed!. Do note, at the moment I'm writing, your article is not yet ready for review since it has only one reference. Please see WP:Notability for what our minimum sourcing requirements are. Also note you've almost but not quite got footnoting down; you coded it right, but the code block of text belongs immediately after the sentence it WP:Verifies, not just at the end of the article. So good start, but sources, sources, sources. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Review of User:Gray56/sandbox
✅ Leamington College for Boys was a grammar school in Leamington Spa, Warwickshire, England that opened in 1848 and subsequently became part of the North Leamington Community School in 1977.

I would like to create an article "Leamington College for Boys" but my attempt was declined, please help. Gray56 (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello User:Gray56/sandbox, the reason your draft was declined was because the page was completely blank other than the "Submit" tag. Did you perhaps not hit the "save" button when you finished the draft? People sometimes hit the "preview" button and don't notice the warning at top saying "this is only a preview, you must save your changes" and end up submitting a blank document. In whatever case, your draft was not on the page and so we could not review. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dag Alveng
hi

i am trying to create article about norwegian photographer and it is blocked could you tell me why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kotkowska (talk • contribs) 18:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It is Declined because:


 * You have provided no WP:Sourcing whatsoever, so we have no way to verify if the article is accurate or not
 * You have only written one single sentence about Alveng, which tells us nothing about why he is important, why we should read about him, etc. A single sentence is not at all enough for a biography. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Atomic Reach
Hi, I've added another source for my submission and I've tried to fix up the citations but I'm unclear about what to do. Can someone please help? Thanks, Sharon Sharon12345 (talk) 19:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Your references seem to be formatted correctly, although you repeat both of them unnecessarily. You could, if you wish, now submit the article for review. However, it is rare for a submission to be accepted with only two sources. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you. I have added another reference and have tried to submit but I was not able to do so. Can you please help? Thanks, Sharon Sharon12345 (talk) 16:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You submitted it successfully. Twice, in fact (don't worry, the duplicate beige "waiting for review" template won't do any harm).  Don't be alarmed by the purple "draft" template at the top, that's just an artifact of how the system works.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  17:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pyspread
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pyspread I have submitted an article Pyspread for creation that has been declined.

The comment says: "sources are not independent of subject".

After reading the help page on Wikipedia:Third-party sources, the following questions come to my mind: Why is it not "entirely independent of the subject being covered" as stated in Wikipedia:Third-party sources? (Martin Manns (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC))
 * 1) Obviously, the cited LWN.net article is not considered sufficiently independent as a source. LWN.net states that it has an editorial board (see FAQ section). The article has been written by Forrest Cook, who has no link to the project Pyspread.
 * 1) Would a first page Slashdot article with 300+ discussion posts be reliable enough as an additional resource?
 * 2) Would an article at a site such as Golem qualify as a reliable resource?


 * There are several issues with that LWN.net article. Firstly, their FAQ says it "was intended to be an attention-getting side project of a new consulting company", which doesn't quite say "reliable source" to me. While they apparently do have an "executive editor", they themselves use scare quotes for that job description - again something that doesn't quite inspire confidence. But even if it were a reliable independent publication, it isn't used as a reference anyway - it's merely added as an afterthought. And finally, a single reliable source is not the amount of significant coverage we need to establish that the subject is notable - that usually requires at least three to five sources.
 * Slashdot has routinely been found not reliable. I don't think any number of discussion points will change that. Golem.de, on the other hand, has a dedicated editorial staff with journalistic experience, and it should serve as a reliable source. Huon (talk) 22:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you Huon for your helpful reply. Martin Manns (talk) 08:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)