Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2014 July 19

= July 19 =

11:03:52, 19 July 2014 review of submission by Mike-eastman
I wish to edit this article and get it published and corrected on Wikipaedia. Mike-eastman (talk) 11:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC) Dear Sir, I have tried to edit a page I recently created called 'Katch 22'. the true and factual story of the band I formed in London in the 1960's. I have uploaded a pdf file of the autobiography taken from the official website (all my own work), but cannot find the article or upload anywhere. Can you tell me where I can find it to continue working on it. Kind Regards, Mike Eastman.Mike-eastman (talk) 11:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I looked and cannot find it either. How were you logged in when you created it? What did you call it? Fiddle   Faddle  12:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah, your talk page tells us what happened to it. You let it languish for over 6 months and it was deleted. Please see WP:REFUND if you want to work on it further. Fiddle   Faddle  12:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello Mike. The upload is on Wikimedia Commons at . Voceditenore (talk) 12:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure which page Timtrent saw that was deleted as a stale draft, but Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Katch 22 still exists. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

16:48:21, 19 July 2014 review of submission by Mansur alina
I am trying to create the infobox for the page, fill all the fields, but after saving the page it doesn't appear at the right. Why i is so? Mansur alina (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * That is because you are doing it wrong. Specifically, you need "Template:" before "Infobox" and you need to specify which infobox you're using. I fixed it with this edit.


 * You may wish to choose a different infobox than Template:Infobox scholar because it does not provide many fields. (Some of the fields you have entered are not available, for example).


 * Erofeyeva looks likely to be notable by English Wikipedia standards according to WP:ACADEMIC. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

22:03:24, 19 July 2014 review of submission by Anicabananica
I am wondering why my article was not approved. As it is my first time posting, I would appreciate any and all advice. Thank you. Anicabananica (talk) 22:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, please view the decline reason on the draft page itself at Draft:Hot Club of San Francisco. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Anicabananica. The key problems that need rectifying are that you must ensure that the article maintains a neutral point of view and avoids peacock terms, that are designed to promote or show-off the subject. I suggest that you click on those blue links and read those guidelines carefully. The problem is that the article is too evaluative and reads like pre-concert publicity, whether you intended it to or not. For example the article cannot say in Wikipedia's voice:
 * "Although the members of the Hot Club of San Francisco could, if requested, turn in a perfect copy of a Reinhardt-Grappelli record, they choose to extend the tradition with innovative, often witty arrangements."
 * Ditto:
 * "And where some Hot Clubs, devoted to flashy virtuosity, stun audiences with speed-of-light solos, the HCSF understands that gypsy jazz is two parts deep lyricism, one part Louis Armstrong, so they swing hard but never indulge in pyrotechnics for their own sake."


 * Those are opinions not neutral facts. It's OK (desirable in fact) to say stuff like that if you are writing an article for a jazz magazine or reviewing a performance. But it is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article.


 * Another example of peacockery:
 * "Since the HCSF is made up of multi-talented players, a performance may find them swapping instruments in the middle of an up-tempo performance."
 * The neutral way of expressing this (provided you have an independent source to back it up) is to simply say that each of the members plays several instruments and often swap instruments between themselves in the middle their performances.
 * If you are an admirer of the group, try to completely forget that. Write a short, neutral, boring article, devoid of adjectives and evaluations. Give a brief factual history of the band and its members, where their name comes from, where they perform, and their discography. Reference the performances/recordings to reviews, but do not quote them. Sections devoted to snippets of out-of-context, cherry-picked accolades are a real no-no. The reason I'm telling you all this is that this is a notable group, as can be seen from the three references I've added to the lead section. It is worthwhile rescuing it. Hope that helps. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 06:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)