Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2014 February 18

= February 18 =

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Ram Bahadur Bomjon Controversy
Dear Editors, My article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/The_Ram_Bahadur_Bomjon_Controversy had been rejected on the following grounds:"It's not clear what the article's actually about. There's a controversies section in the [|Ram Bahadur Bomjon] article already, but most of these statements are unreferenced, and will never be accepted into the encyclopaedia as they are presented".I do not agree. These reasons can be checked by anyone, and will be hardly found true. I would like to ask if the author can ask for more people to review the article, eventually to review the review. Concretely, [|my article] very clearly states that it is about the wide range of controversies concerning Ram Bahadur Bomjon. The [|original article] mentions only 2 of them, and not linked to reliable sources. While I mention in [|my article] all known cases (15), linked to sources like Nepali TV news, French TV documentaries, and all the main Nepali newspapers. If this is called "unreferenced statements", then I am very surprised. The article contains about 40 reference links, and not to such tabloid sources like the [|Ram Bahadur Bomjon] article used (Hindustani Times justifying kindappings and tortures by the victim's "witchcraft", for example, see recent edit history). Moreover there are tens of extra media links confirming the statements, in the References section. One familiar with the articles on Wikipedia knows that this is hardly the case of all articles! Yet the reviewer still justified the article's rejection by "unreferenced statements". Another issue I cannot accept is his/her argument that the word "controversies" had been used in the [|already existing] Ram Bahadur Bomjon article: as I mentioned, there it shows only 2 out of about 15 known cases, moreover not linked to multiple reliable media sources, like [|my article] does (often confirming the statements by 2-3 independent sources in one chapter). Please re-review my article. I can only hardly "improve" a text which clearly describes the facts known by Nepali and international media and provable by police and government authorities. I did not want to interfere with the apparent purpose of the author of the already existing Ram Bahadur Bomjon article, which is near to a propagational text: listing under this existing article 15 very controversial issues (including violent attacks with sword, for example), proved by police and media (links in my article), would probably not be welcome by the author, who had apparently focused on creating a one-sided image, leaving out the widely known and discussed controversies, and "replacing" them rather with two long speeches, which are anyway part of all the official websites of Ram Bahadur Bomjon (of which they provide links). But if the editors/reviewer advises me to do this (to add the whole list of 15 controversies under the Controversies Chapter of the existing article on Ram Bomjon, I can do it, though the whole article will become very long then. Is it a usual argument to reject an article, on the base that its main topic (controversy) had been already - briefly and superfluously - mentioned in another Wikipedia article? If I rename the title for example the "Violent activity of Ram Bahadur Bomjon" or something similar, then it will be accepted? Yet the word "controversy" is less direct and giving more space to free assessment of the described affairs by the reader, and a few cases (document forgery, land ownership issues)simply are not violence, but are still serious controversies to leave out from an overview. It is a word I prefer to keep. How to proceed? Thank you, Marici Punarvasu (talk) 05:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Marici PunarvasuMarici Punarvasu (talk) 05:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes it is normal to reject any submission that appears intended to create a new article where there is already an existing article, with the intent of adding content that has not been accepted (for whatever reason) in the existing article. This is what we call a CONTENTFORK. Any missing material that can be reliably sourced should be added to the existing article about the person. However, any such additions must follow the Biographies of living persons policy and take into account issues of Due weight. Disagreements about what material is appropriate in the article about the person can be discussed at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/PIQC Institute of Quality
Dear Wiki,

At first, many thanks for reviewing my article. I have created an Article on "PIQC Institute of Quality" using Article Creation Wizard but it was declined. Please let me know how and where to improve so that my submission is accepted. Following is the link of that article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/PIQC_Institute_of_Quality Farhanshariff123 (talk) 06:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Replied on my talk page, where you also asked this. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/AxisLayer
Will you tell us how to submit article for the review ???

It say Draft article not currently submitted for review Please clarify us whether you received the article or not ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axislayer (talk • contribs) 08:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes it was correctly submitted for review, but I have just now declined it. Visit the page to see why, and click on the links provided there for more information. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Marcy P. Driscoll
Hi

I recently submitted an article about Marcy P. Driscoll but it was not accepted. Please provide me with some suggestions as to how I can go about getting my article accepted. EDID6503 Laura Taylor (talk) 09:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Laura. Your draft article seems to be located at User:EDID6503 Laura Taylor/sandbox. The main problem is that virtually all your references are written by the subject herself or are references to books in which one of her articles appears. You need references from sources completely independent of her which discuss her and her work, e.g. these reviews of her textbook:
 * http://www.jstor.org/stable/30220420
 * http://www.jstor.org/stable/30220101
 * Take a look at Wikipedia's inclusion criteria for academics. It's quite long, but I suggest you read it very carefully, as it provides a lot of guidance on establishing an academic's suitability for an article in Wikipedia and what sorts of references are generally required. Just a word of advice, I'd cut the article way back to a bare-bones, neutral description of the person and her career and list a few of her key publications. At the moment, the article reads like a student essay. The overly-long detailed interpretation of her various writings, especially since they are not referenced to third parties who have written about her work in depth, makes the inclusion of this material inappropriate, and frankly tends to prejudice reviewers' evaluations. Although. they're not perfect, you may want to look at these articles as models of what you should be aiming for: Yael S. Feldman and James V. Downton. Is writing a Wikipedia article part of assessed course work for a university course? If so, and if your instructor has not already done so, he or she may want to contact Education noticeboard for some support and advice. Voceditenore (talk) 12:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Southern
The page title 'Southern' already exists, how do I change the title of the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marathon Artists1234 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I have passed the article, which is now at Southern (band), which fits our naming conventions. However, I could only find significant coverage in three good, reliable sources, and this combined with a single EP release satisfies our notability criteria for musicians only marginally. Another editor may disagree and nominate the article for deletion. Also, your username suggests you are affiliated with the artist, which means you have a conflict of interest and should avoid editing the article - indeed, you will notice I copyedited most of it and removed some puffery as well as adding additional news sources. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   16:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont), thank you for your suggestions - I will take them on board. Marathon Artists1234 (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)User:Marathon Artists1234


 * I'd also recommend you change your username (see Changing your username for instructions), as your current name implies use by a corporation or business, whereas all Wikipedia accounts are for a single individual. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   16:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mark Daniels
Hi there. My submission entitled Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mark Daniels has been rejected but I can't seem to find out why so that I can edit it accordingly. In 'talk' it says that by looking g at my article I can see the comments of reviewers but I can't find them either! Any suggestions? Thanks Mr BassloMrbasslo (talk) 16:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You overwrote the original decline tag. I have restored it. I cannot unfortunately pass the article in its current state as it does not appear to contain any citations to reliable sources. Sorry. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   16:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jim Nyamu
I am writing for help with an article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jim_Nyamu located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Jim_Nyamu.

I have responded to 2 requests to change the referencing, and believe that the entry now conforms to current conventions for listing in Wikipedia. If it does not, I will be happy to continue making revisions until it does.

I highly doubt that you can answer when the listing might be approved, if indeed it deserves approval. However, if it is still deficient in some way, again, I will be happy to address those deficiencies.

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely, Kcroes (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * There are some small issues I can point out:
 * The YouTube video is probably not a reliable source, so the speech should include a reference to something else.
 * I have removed the statement "The dire predicament of elephants is detailed elsewhere in Wikipedia," because that is a self-reference, which should be avoided. I added a link to Elephant ivory in a "See also" section.  Anon 126   (talk - contribs) 22:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have deleted the Youtube reference, as the National Geographic article refers to his October 4, 2013, talk in Washington, DC. I also appreciate your "See also" reference to "elephant ivory." This is the real story, for which people like Jim Nyamu come to the fore. Kcroes (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)