Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2013 September 9

= September 9 =

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Appcelerator
The draft article I've been piecing together about the tech company Appcelerator has just been declined for the second time. Unfortunately, the reason—notability—doesn't make any sense to me, since I've cited 56 sources, the majority of which have significant coverage of the company and come from well-regarded independent publications like Ars Technica, The Next Web, TechCrunch, and ReadWrite. Any thoughts? —N at Appcelerator (my conflict of interest) 05:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Your most recent rejection was done by a drive-by reviewer who had no experience. I have undone his review and put a warning on his talk page. Your article is now awaiting review again. My gut feeling is that DGG has made good points, but they don't specifically prevent the article from passing. I would need to check the references carefully to confirm there is significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources before making a decision one way or the other. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   10:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed, DDG made some valid points, so I made some changes to try to address them. Hopefully a better reviewer will be able to evaluate that. —N at Appcelerator (my conflict of interest) 21:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Blake Northcott
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Truthsneekerz#Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation.2FBlake_Northcott_concern

Hi, I listed the authors work as a source in this article. If I can contact her, would that be considered a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthsneekerz (talk • contribs) 12:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * No, a reliable source is a source that is widely acknowledged as having a good editorial control and taking good care in what it publishes without bowing to pressure of any one individual. Newspapers, magazines and books (by which I mean books about her, not written by her) are generally (but not always) good examples of sources. Basically, Northcott could claim she's unquestionably notable as she's the greatest author of fiction since William Shakespeare, but without a reliable source to back that up, it can't go in. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   12:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I have her published work as a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthsneekerz (talk • contribs) 12:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Then that's something written by her, not something written about her by a neutral and reliable third party, so the answer is - no, in this context, that is not a reliable source. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   12:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I added an interview with her as a source. Also, the original reviewers page says: This account is a suspected sock puppet of KnowIG and has been blocked indefinitely. Please refer to editing habits, contributions or the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer for evidence. This policy subsection may also be helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthsneekerz (talk • contribs) 12:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that happens from time to time; being a sockpuppet means that the person was using more than one account name secretly; it doesn't necessarily mean that the review was bad, but it makes it difficult to contact the person.  In case of doubt you can submit your article for a fresh review, and I see that you have done so.  About the interview:  If the reviewer is a professional journalist, then his or her remarks will be taken as reliable, but what the author says about herself or her own work is not "independent".  Book reviews would be better if you can find them.  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 13:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Furneaux Cemetery -- Posting Declined
I am working on the Historical Preservation Advisory Commission with the City of Carrollton. I am an appointed Commissioner by the City Council. We are trying to post our Historical Site Narratives and the first has been declined.

User:HPACCarrollton/Furneaux cemetery

I'd like to get some feedback on why this was declined.

Regards,

HPACCarrollton (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It looks like your article was deleted due to a copyright violation of this page. Put simply, you can't just copy and paste another site directly into Wikipedia. The simplest way to overcome this is to simply rewrite the article again in your own words. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   14:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Contact Gallery, Norwich, 1986-1999
Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation/Contact Gallery, Norwich, 1986-1999 Hello, My submissions for this article have been declined on three tries this year. After the submission in June I received some helpful advise from Huon about referencing ,although my computer would not allow me to use the instruction video in Referencing for Beginners so I have read what I could and thought that I had understood. I did some further research because I felt that I needed better sources and discovered the wonderful Norfolk Records Office. I cited this source in my last submission because virtually all the facts from this submission can be verified from there. The historic facts can be read from their website and the other details, for example, the exhibitions quoted can be verified by visiting the Records Office in Norwich and manually searching the archive, some 14 boxes.

My question is then is this source acceptable? If it is then do I have to lump together all of the paragraphs and put the citation at the end? If it is not acceptable then I will have to severely reduce the content and signpost the reader to the Norfolk Records Office's website where they can read their historical account of the gallery, if indeed this is acceptable.

I really do want to have this article accepted and not to be declined a fourth time to frustrate again the assessor with my ineptitude to get this right. Your advice will be very welcome. (Woodbutts (talk) 14:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC))


 * I've had a look at the article. You are using cite journal and cite book correctly - the article is properly sourced, and there is absolutely no requirement that references must appear on the end of a Google search and anyone who tells you otherwise is just wrong. So I think in terms of formatting and templates, you don't have an issue there.
 * The problem with your references at the moment, is that they're not necessarily independent of the gallery. For instance, this book you have referenced is a book by Norwich 20 Group. Unfortunately, it's also published by the group, which means it's a self-published source. The trouble with self-published sources are that there's no guarantee that any editorial control or restraint has been exercised over it - the book could claim that Norwich 20 Group is the most valuable organisation in the history of modern art, and nobody would be able to stop them. For that reason, self-published sources are largely not acceptable. You'll have the same problem with the various artist blogs that mention the gallery - they're all self-published and not independent, unfortunately.
 * As for Norfolk Records Office, well it depends on exactly what information is held in the archives. The best sources you could expect to find there are old newspaper clippings (if my experience of searching files in The National Archives is anything to go by). Your cited file, SO 230 however, contains direct correspondance between the gallery and Norwich City Council. The problem you've got here is, while the information is reliable (we tend to assume city councils publish things in a responsible manner), it's not independent coverage. Norwich City Council has to have records of every charity or non-profit organisation that they deal with. Therefore, the file here is not actually anything special or out of the ordinary.
 * Now, that's the bad news. The good news, though, is that it appears there are some genuinely independent and reliable sources that talk about the gallery. If you follow this search link, you'll see a number of books and journals that talk specifically about the gallery. I think the problem you're going to have here is gathering up enough coverage to ensure that the gallery is genuinely notable - and it's just difficult when each source devotes only a few paragraphs. This source seems to be the best one, but unfortunately it looks to be a self-published source again! However, I can quickly see that many independent books and journals such as The Artist, Ceramic Review and Who's Who in Art do cover it.
 * At the end of the day, this is a really frustrating case. If you piece together all of the offline sources that cover the gallery, you might well have enough for the submission to pass, but it's hard to tell, and without doing a lot of research, it's hard to guarantee you'll be successful at the end. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   15:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

References window
I am trying to put in references to the following article but I can't get the window with references fields to open after I have selected a citation source. This is the article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Russell_Frederick_Bretherton&action=edit JamesRussellBretherton (talk) 15:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello, JamesRussellBretherton. I presume that you have selected the citation template you want to use from the list that appears on the left side of the screen after you click on "Cite".  I tried it from my computer and it works fine.  Most of these gadgets use Javascript, so if you have it disabled for some reason this could be causing the problem.  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 15:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi there, James. I find that adding the references using the "Cite" button can be very fiddly, doesn't work one everyone's computer/browser, and is not helpful for complex references. I do it my hand. I've fixed all the references for you now in the sense that they now appear as proper footnotes, although some could be improved with more detailed bibliographic information. I've also made some of them more complete. My view is that this should be moved to article space now. The subject is clearly notable, supported by the entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, an entire chapter devoted to him in another book (for which I have provided full bibliographic information), and the two journal articles. Voceditenore (talk) 15:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Zonal Ne.P.H.R.O. score
I want to change my title to Zonal Ne.Ph.R.O. score (just change the capitalization and punctuation). How do I do this?

[Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Zonal Ne.P.H.R.O. score]]

Baumgartenadam (talk) 15:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I have moved the draft, but unless there are third-party papers that discuss this score I expect it's still too new for an encyclopedia article. See WP:N for the notability guideline. Huon (talk) 03:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Merryl Ruth Goldberg
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Merryl Ruth Goldberg

I'm in the sandbox and I'm saving periodically as I edit my article. Is it going to be reevaluated each time I hit Save? Applebeam (talk) 22:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * No. Only the newest version is (or here, was) reviewed. When you have addressed the reviewer's concerns you will have to re-submit the draft; the "submission declined" message box has instructions on how to do so. Huon (talk) 03:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)