Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2014 April 28

= April 28 =

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Eniac Ventures
Hi there, I hope you can please help me with the following:

I have been working on the page for Eniac Ventures, and my last submission seems to keep falling behind more entries every time I check its status. Is there a reason for this? Can I do anything about it?

Also, the article has been rejected previously because it is too promotional. It seems like the things that might be interpreted as promotional are also backed up with citations. What would be the best way to reduce any promotional undertones in these sections?

Any help you can provide would be really appreciated.

Thank you!

Loughlinrodd (talk) 00:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * First, there is no queue as reviews are conducted randomly. You're not falling behind. I took a look at the entry.  Here's an example:
 * "Although a relatively young firm, Eniac has been ranked in the upper echelon of early-stage venture funds. In 2013, the Firm's fourth year of existence, it was ranked as one of the most active Seed investors in the United States by private equity research firm CB Insights 2013 Seed Investors Report."
 * That's all kinds of promotional. The cited source lists Eniac as #15, with absolutely no other text. Using puffery like "upper echelon" and "most active" is an attempt to shade the truth. The longest paragraph is a name-dropping exercise.
 * Most of your sources are business news at the best. Many of them are PR releases. The Forbes citation is an interview with someone at Eniac, so it's not independent. It's very questionable if this business has any notability.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 02:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Madame Clothing
Please help me, I am trying to approve my article from the last 4 months. But unfortunately my article has been disapproved many times. I had been changed the content many times and given many useful references, buy my article was never approved.

I hope someone from Articles for creation/Help desk can helps me.

Please review my article.

Anilmehta9 (talk) 07:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * While I admit this must be a frustrating process, your efforts are trying to push a promotional piece. The subject does not appear to be notable and it likely never will be. For example, glancing at your Business Standard citation, the "news" article is a press release (kept in the newspaper's "announcements" section) so it's not even a valid source.  The rest of your citations are of questionable value, too. I think with help your submission will eventually be accepted although I don't think our encyclopedia will be any better off for it.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 08:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Benjamin Lasnier
How can I submit my article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllyEvansWiki (talk • contribs) 08:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Your submission has no sources. You must cite sources in order to establish notability. You can start with this sad article from The Guardian of all places. Be sure your submission sticks to verifiable facts not what you find on social media. It looks like it's too early for any real notability but I'd guess in six months this is who the kids will be talking about.  If you're going to claim notability through "music" publication, please take a look at WP:NBAND.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 08:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia_talk:Articles for creation/Crawl (film)
Hello. I recently created a new article for the film Crawl (2011), an Australian horror. I submitted it for review on the 3rd of April, I haven't heard anything back about it and it is still not up on Wikipedia. Is there something more I can do? Thank You. --90.208.221.36 (talk) 10:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Marthaedwards1
 * I've looked at the entry but I haven't reviewed it formally because I'm not sure if it meets WP:MOVIE. The rating on Rotten Tomatoes tend to lead me to believe it does, but your sourcing needs some improvement to guarantee acceptance.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 14:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

@:Chris troutman Thanks for taking a look. I can add some more references to help prove this. My next question is, where do I go to edit my article? It was originally started without having a user account, and was created on the Articles for Creation area for review and consideration for publication. However, I did create a new user account before submitting as I found out in order to upload a photo, a user account would be needed. I'm not sure where I need to go to find my article and edit it.. (Marthaedwards1 (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC))
 * It's in the section header... Articles for creation/Crawl (film) Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 16:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Zeb333/sandbox
thanks you my you could activate my account it will benefit each other in several link ways  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeb333 (talk • contribs) 11:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Review of User:Ayush Thalia/RAJAT gHOSH dHIMAN
when will it be uploaded? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayush Thalia (talk • contribs) 14:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * vandalism. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 14:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Unrest
I have submitted this article for review. However, for some reason part of the article (i.e., the "Development" subsection) does not show up when I preview and save the article. I can see it when I edit the article, but not when I preview or save the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devetter (talk • contribs) 14:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You were missing a fore-slash. Please add more sources as I'm not sure you've made the case for notability.  If you haven't already, see WP:VG/GL.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 14:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jan Flawn
Hi there - When I look at this page, it states two things: 1. That the article has not been submitted yet 2. That the article is awaiting to be reviewed.

Please can you confirm which of these is correct!!?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annakurijames (talk • contribs) 15:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, your draft has been submitted for review. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 18:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Review of Draft:Boston CitiNet
My submission Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Boston CitiNet

Was rejected because of a claimed problem with references. The reviewer asked that I use footnotes.

When I looked at the instructions for references, I thought that I did things correctly - by adding a references list per these instructions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources: A general reference is a citation that supports content, but is not linked to any particular piece of material in the article through an inline citation. General references are usually listed at the end of the article in a References section. They are usually found in underdeveloped articles, especially when all article content is supported by a single source. They may also be listed in more developed articles as a supplement to inline citations.

These are articles that support the general topic and are now explicitly linked to the content. CitiNet was covered by several publications like the Boston Globe and the Boston Herald but this was the early 80's and the articles do not appear in their archives.

Is there another problem with references?

Do I need to list the RealNet reference as a footnote?

Thanks,

MJKBoston

Mjkboston (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/National Medal of Honor Museum of Military History
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/National Medal of Honor Museum of Military History

My first article submission was declined because: 1. Initally I copied and pasted our museum history from our website history page. A copyright violation. It has since been rewritten. 2. Initally the references were not sufficient. New references have been added.

Will you review my edited article please? Is it now ready for submission and approval?

Blueway (talk) 18:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It was not rewritten. I removed the same copyright content again.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 18:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Review of Draft:Alex dey
Hello I would like to know what is the status for the article I have submitted Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Draft:Alex dey I don't know if it has been approved or not. I'm assuming that it is not, but I didn't found any feedback on why or how to fix it , could you help me please to know , what would be the next step so that article can get published ? Rresendez5 (talk) 23:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 11:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/4INFO
Thank you for commending me on all the verifiable references ®amos. The process of creating the article & getting all the verifiable references have been illuminating to me. I'm not understanding the violation of CSD A7 well, & feel inadequate to edit the article to comply further with Wikipedia. Anyone willing to edit it?

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/4INFO Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/MarkMillerITPro "Article still violates CSD A7. Although I commend the editor for the plethora of verifiable references, the article needs to read more like an encyclopedia and less like a advertisment. Please see Not Advertising and Manual of Style. ®amos 23:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)"

MarkMillerITPro (talk) 00:08, 29 April 2014 (UTC)MarkMillerITPro
 * If you're unwilling to continue work on the article, you might consider userfication of the article so the incubator can work on it. Beyond the fact that the entry is very promotional, the "Recent Milestones" section is hard for me to properly criticize. I think you're coming at this article from the wrong point of view and could certainly use the help of another editor.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 10:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

MarkMillerITPro — Preceding undated comment added 15:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * confused* incubator says that project is closing down. *confused* I'm not sure how to move the page there.
 * My mistake. I guess there's no other option, then. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 15:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * @MarkMillerITPro - The Article Incubator is indeed closing down - it is not accepting any new submissions. It was in any case only used for articles sent there as an alternative to deletion - so only article that were already in mainspace could go have gone there. The Draft space is replacing the incubator and will also become the preferred location for AFC submissions (as soon as all the tools and templates we use have been adapted for it. If you wish to continue working on your draft you can simply continue where it is - If you do not wish to continue working on it you can either move it to Draft-space or if you don't think it will become an acceptable article you can simply delete it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. Maybe I'll slowly try to improve it. Can someone edit the first few paragraphs, & perhaps I should just delete the recent milestones. Opinion? Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/4INFO MarkMillerITPro (talk) 15:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)MarkMillerITPro

Well, atter fighting with the AFCH script for 15 minutes, i can finally get my hands dirty and try to wikify this. Stay tuned! ®amos likes messages! 16:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

That sounded like a drumroll & I'm thinking that's a good thing. Altho I don't know what AFCH or wikify means. MarkMillerITPro (talk) 16:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)MarkMillerITPro

Ohhh! I looked up wikify. Woo Hoo! MarkMillerITPro (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)MarkMillerITPro

❌ Unfortunately, My Chemistry Final Exam takes precedence over editing Wikipedia. I will be back later. I submitted some changes, tell me what you think. Here is my notepad quick short list of my changes (its blunt, but its so i don't forget why i changed something):
 * These milestones aren't relevent to the article, and only serve to promote the company
 * The competeitors section is not needed, as the Categories (listed at the bottom) will 	already cover this.
 * "Key People" (other than the CEO) are not notable, unless they serve or have served elsewhere. If people are interested in finding out the entire board of directors, the website link will serve as the connection.
 * The first sentence has changed to a more neutral point of view.
 * removed "patent pending". Legal claims are not handled on Wikipedia.

And to note: AFCH = Yet another Articles for creation helper script. Easy way to help check references (which anyone can do) and get those nice looking templates on a page really quickly without really having to type anything. ®amos likes messages! 16:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

MarkMillerITPro (talk) 23:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)MarkMillerITPro
 * light dawns* *eyes opened* You are rockin it & lightnin fast. Thank you so much for working on it. Looks good to me. Yes, Chem exam takes precedence. I & my adult kids have all been finishing college these last 5 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkMillerITPro (talk • contribs) 17:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * jaw drops* just noticed "see also" new media. Cool! & that I hadn't signed.

I have posted my first draft of the article revision. If I could get another reviewer to go over this, I would appreciate it. ®amos likes messages! 21:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Wow, looks wiki'd pro'd. Thank you! *relieved*

MarkMillerITPro (talk) 23:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)MarkMillerITPro
 * confused* about being in these categories now AfC submissions by date/15 April 2014 AfC pending submissions by age/0 days ago AfC submissions by date/29 April 2014


 * confused* Does this mean I could add the logo back into 4INFO article?

Thanks for uploading File:4INFO, Logo, 2014.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC) MarkMillerITPro (talk) 15:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)MarkMillerITPro