Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2014 June 20

= June 20 =

09:15:15, 20 June 2014 review of submission by 82.51.38.53
82.51.38.53 (talk) 09:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC) please you have something from Robert kitson the famos painter


 * You could try asking at Requested articles, but be sure to include details of independent reliable sources that discuss Kitson in detail, when asking there. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

09:26:38, 20 June 2014 review of submission by 101.161.56.131
Hi, I reviewed the feedback and added more links from news media to show 'notability'.

I was hoping to have a wiki page live for the Twins before the launch of their Debut EP. Is there something else I need to do ? Can you please offer assistance. Thanks

Peter_Aus

101.161.56.131 (talk) 09:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid they just don't meet the criteria at WP:BAND. Perhaps they will in the future. Bellerophon talk to me  22:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

09:50:48, 20 June 2014 review of submission by Not falling just floating
Hello. I would like to essentially re-write my page, in order to make it more academic and neutral. I also need to add many different pieces of information. How can I do this without being blacked by Wikipedia (for making too many changes at once)?

Thanks! Not falling just floating (talk) 09:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi. Wikipedia does not block (or black) people from editing for making too many changes at once. This can sometimes happen if you make large problematic changes to existing articles without properly explaining why, but since the page in question is apparently your own articles for creation draft, you can edit it as much as you like. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

10:35:34, 20 June 2014 review of draft by Jillmarston
This is my first attempt at writing an article and want to create a page for the school of which I am an employee. I want to create a info box to the right of my article and also a contents box but I can't see how to do this. My server is also blocking me from connecting to live chat. Help!

Thanks Jill Marston

Jillmarston (talk) 10:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Jill, please take a look at Template:Infobox UK school and see if that does what you need. Let us know if you need any more help with it. Your draft seems to have a Contents box already (this is generated automatically once enough sections exist).


 * Do also read Conflict of interest. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * With respect to COI, here's the problem: conflict of interest tends to produce promotional writing, as it does here. At least some of the material is copied directly from the school website. You can't do that here.   First it's a copyright violation, but, even if you give us permission according to the full formalities of  WP:DCM, the tone will not be encyclopedic and the material will not be suitable--as is the case, for too much of it is educational jargon or praise. It's much easier to rewrite.

Do not include praise of the school. That belongs on your website, not in an encyclopedia. Avoid all adjectives of praise, and just give the Ofsted data in a concise format.

I would advise you not to concern yourself about the template; if you don;t do it, someone will add it later--its one of the technical things that cause hangups. What you did to concern yourself about is maintain a neutral, encyclopedic tone.  DGG ( talk ) 09:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

13:25:20, 20 June 2014 review of submission by Bella3b65
Hi, I would appreciate any direction regarding the article above. I've spent over a year writing this article which is based on more than 20 different Canadian papers. At one point the entry was almost deleted because I was inactive for a while but it was restored with some minor edits. I assumed that the entry had basic approval then, and all I did after that was link the sources to actual pdfs of the articles online. I assumed it was better to link to the actual articles for proof than only citing them? I'm truly hoping that I can get this article approved without major editing. Can this article be looked at again and please consider looking at the actual articles cited to see that everything in the article is supported? Bella3b65 (talk) 13:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)Danielle

Bella3b65 (talk) 13:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The objections to the draft seem to be its promotional tone rather than material being unsupported.


 * Have you been able to find any sources at all that say even the tiniest negative thing, or even something lukewarm or neutral, about Rotstein? It is very unusual to see dozens of writers commenting on another author and none of them making even slight points of criticism. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I have left what I hope you will view as a helpful comment on the draft. There are unusual aspects about it, but none that you are unable to handle. Fiddle   Faddle  06:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

15:30:46, 20 June 2014 review of submission by Luizfernandobrito
Hello! I'd like to know why my article wasn't approved. There is a Wikipedia article in Portuguese to describe the same thing - the way to score a penalty kick called Panenka (https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavadinha). This move was created by Antonin Panenka, the footballer, and it is named after him. There are plenty of records of it in the internet, such as: http://www.givemesport.com/359715-antonin-panenka-the-simple-recipe-of-scoring-a-penalty http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/andrea-pirlo-panenka-penalty-andrea-3416154 http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1862842-history-of-the-panenka-penalty-in-15-slides Thank you! Luizfernandobrito (talk) 15:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello Luiz. You may wish to add these additional sources to your draft, perhaps together with some of the facts from them, and then resubmit. The notability of the topic needs to be clear to the reviewer, and existing articles in other Wikipedias do not contribute to this because all Wikipedias have their own criteria for inclusion, which may vary widely. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

19:04:25, 20 June 2014 review of submission by Helen SFPR
I have a question about this draft. It has been rejected several times, for various reasons. My next plan to improve the draft--and hopefully get it published--is to restrict the information to stuff that is relevant about Bortolotto Possati's life, rather than her business. Would that work?

Thank you.

Helen SFPR (talk) 19:04, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Her work as a businesswoman is what she is notable for, so needs to be covered appropriately in the article. Much less relevant, and less appropriate, are contingent facts such as detailed listings of the properties she is currently responsible for. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

22:38:29, 20 June 2014 review of submission by Technical 13
Does anyone have any suggestions to how I can improve this draft and get it ready for submission? I think there are enough sources in it, but I'm not sure what else I should do to it to make it mainspace worthy. Thanks — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 22:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Notability seems fine, which is always the biggest obstacle. The main issue is the text to references ratio is all out. There's a lot of information in there that is not supported by the references. You either need to find more references to back up the information, or cut the info out the article. The lack of citations for her personal life is particularly problematic and would prevent me from accepting it on BLP grounds. Hopefully, that helps? Bellerophon talk to me  08:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * , worded a little differently,  notability is likely, but it has to be shown better.   What is needed is reviews of her work in major 3rd party sources, cited to the specific performance or role. Digital Spy is a mere mention, and Metro is an interview where she can say whatever she pleases. The personal details must be coming from somewhere. They don;t have to come from a third party source, just a reliable source, it does have to be specified. I do not consider it necessary to add a cite for every fact or sentence here, as they will all presumably come from the same place, and none of them are likely to be at all controversial. Just add them and resubmit.    DGG ( talk ) 09:16, 22 June 2014 (UTC)