Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2014 May 23

= May 23 =

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ecotourism Australia
I am wondering why my article submission 'Ecotourism Australia' was declined and how it can be improved to be accepted. Jdatea (talk) 01:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The reason for it being declined is provided on the submission page itself. In addition, it is worth being aware that in most cases, in order to be accepted an article submission needs to have references showing that the topic (i.e. the organisation in this case) has been written about in detail in multiple independent reliable sources. Your submission does not currently meet this requirement (what we call the General notability guideline) because the references you've provided are to sources either written by the organisation itself, or by a conference it is involved with. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Review of Draft:Donavon Hill
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Donovan Hill

Hello,

We would like some more information as to why this article lacks context. There is a limited amount of information as the topic of this page has been amalgamated with another and no longer exits without the topic being compromised.

It is a page about a Architecture firm and is completely relevant to this context.

Hope to hear from you soon.

Will Ausarch gkjdwc (talk) 02:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * First, you have two separate versions, one in draft and another in articles for creation. Shall we assume you want the former rather than the latter?  Second, I don't personally agree with the "lacks context" critique. Your submission(s) lack reliable sources and have no claim to notability.  If there's a limited amount of information on the topic then the article probably shouldn't exist.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 03:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello Chris,

Thanks for your help - yes the correct piece is the one in sandbox drafts

Ausarch gkjdwc (talk) 05:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Purps (Producer)
I was wanting to know EXACTLY what I need to do in order to get the mentioned article approved.Guerilla323 (talk) 03:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Remove all the unreliable sources (99% of the websites you listed) and all the content based on those sources (99% of the article). Find reliable sources and write content based on that. If you do exactly that, this article will be accepted.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 03:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Your submission name here
Dear Wikipedia Help Desk,

I recently posted an article for review Michael Warren (Singer) It was declined but I'm not really sure why. It said because of copyedit issues. I am new to Wikipedia so if someone could help I would be very grateful.

Kind Regards 16caseyh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 16Caseyh (talk • contribs) 05:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello Casey. You've actually created two drafts with almost, but not quite, identical names:


 * Draft:Michael Warren (Singer) has been declined for "please copyedit", which does not make a lot of sense as a decline reason, especially since any need for copyediting is definitely not the most serious problem with the draft. Apologies for the confusion caused by this.
 * Draft:Michael Warren (singer) has not yet been declined and is awaiting review.


 * The first thing is probably for you to decide which of these two drafts you're going to continue working on. They seem very similar.


 * The second thing is to improve the quality of the sources you are providing in the draft. Wordpress, PR Newswire, Instagram, Facebook and other Wikipedia articles are of no use in proving the notability of a musician by Wikipedia's standards. Better sources to use would be things like articles about the musician, or reviews of his recordings or performances, in newspapers or recognised published music magazines (either printed or online).


 * Wikipedia also has a notability guideline for musicians, at MUSICBIO. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Review of Draft:Welcome Chinese
Hello, Please, can I have more explained about the references issue of the article?HeavyRiff (talk) 07:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My guess is the reviewer was referring to the two sections that need more footnotes. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 12:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John_Meed
Hi there Thankyou for your kind comment following the rejection of my article. I'd really welcome some help with editing it so that it meets the requirements of Wikipedia - I thought I'd done my best with referencing etc. but obviously not! Thanks in advance John https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/John_Meed Johnmeed (talk) 08:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The references are fairly well formatted, but it's questionable as to whether enough of them are reliable independent sources that discuss Meed or his work in detail. For example in the current version, references 7, 10, 14, 15 and 16 are to material produced by Meed himself. Reference 2 only has a single sentence about one of Meed's recordings, and there's nothing to confirm the website in question is a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards. Reference 6 may not be about Meed or his work? Reference 9 is a local website that has merely republished material written by Meed which he sent in to them. Reference 11 is the website of a festival that Meed played at, which has only a couple of sentences about what he played there and then a republication of material Meed himself sent to them. Reference 13 is a parish council's website relating how he played in their village hall - this is not really a reliable source. And so on.


 * Material written by Meed himself should be mostly separated out into a "Selected works" section so that the independent reliable sources are not obscured by the non-independent ones. Then add more sources like the current reference 5, '"Album reviews". R2 Rock'n'reel 2 (31). Jan/Feb 2012.'.


 * If you are John Meed, you should also read Conflict of interest. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Review of User/Wipedia: Pareto's Remainder/Sambs/sandbox
I want to edit my sandbox article.I submitted it but now can't get back to it. How do I get back to my sandbox article? Sambs ````--Sambs 12:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)≈≈≈≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sambs (talk • contribs)

Your sandbox is at User:Sambs/sandbox. In future if you lose track of a page where you have done something you can simply look for it in your Contributions log - the link is in the menu at the top right of the page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Draft:Bluff Europe
Hi there,

I've had this draft sent back with the comment that it reads too much like an advertisement. As it's my first article I was hoping to get some more direct advice on which elements of the draft are problematic, so I can make the necessary changes.

Thanks.

109.149.32.218 (talk) 13:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello there. I'll list a couple of obvious ad-like examples, but basically the submission also lacks extensive coverage in independent and reliable sources that attest to its notability.
 * "Bluff Europe is the most widely-read consumer poker magazine in the UK and Ireland", "the magazine caters to the poker enthusiast by providing content from online poker stars", "is a pioneering print and digital publisher in iGaming". FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 12:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Draft:iGaming Business
Hi there,

I've had this draft sent back with the comment that it reads too much like an advertisement. As it's my first article I was hoping to get some more direct advice on which elements of the draft are problematic, so I can make the necessary changes.

Thanks.

109.149.32.218 (talk) 13:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Same answer as above. Please read WP:COI. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 12:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Review of Jody Adams
Hi,

I am trying to create a wikipedia page for Chef Jody Adams. My submission was declined. I see there is another Jody Adams with a wikipedia page that is a basketball coach. How am I able to create a wikipedia page for Chef Jody Adams? I can be reached at jacki@rialto-restaurant.com. Thank you.

This is Chef Jody Adams fyi - http://www.rialto-restaurant.com/chef-jody-adams-team/chef_jody_adams/

Best, Jacki — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.94.141.33 (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Jacki (talk),
 * I'm happy to help. I've emailed you.  Julie JSFarman (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Your submission name here
Thank you - I appreciate your response and will review the guidelines in more detail. Cheers - Z. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zuziwiki (talk • contribs) 16:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Zdenek Hanka
Thank you - I appreciate your response and will review the guidelines in more detail. Cheers - Z. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zuziwiki (talk • contribs) 16:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Review of Draft:Neuron ESB
Would it be possible to get specifics as to what makes this an "advertisement"?

The definition and history sections are fact based, do not contain any subjective or sales language, and links point to third-party articles and news wire releases.

Please help me pinpoint what needs to be edited or deleted.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BobFranklinCampbell (talk • contribs) 16:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Your submission name here
I added all the reverences and you still reclined them why? =[ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmango516 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello there. Your submission seems to cover topics that already have Wikipedia articles. It is also written like an essay, and has no independent nor reliable sources. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 12:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ashley Ebner
Hello - I'm trying to submit this page for review. I Wanted to get some assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.118.26.99 (talk) 19:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Your submission is currently in the review queue. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 12:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Review of User:Grand&
I'm a new editor, and just submitted my second article for review-- it's on a business related to another article I worked on last week, on Ailene Fields. Since another editor had red-linked the company in that article, I decided to give it a shot. So even though I have no connection to the business, living on the left coast and being a retired academic, the greatest challenge is of course a neutral PoV, as many secondary sources seemed to be more public relations than objective reporting.

I had a concern with the "no original research" rule: there were a couple of items I would have included in the info box, like the number of employees and the net profits of the business, but there does not seem to be a published source that includes that data. So my first question is about the prohibition against original research: is it ever okay to contact a source for that type of information, which seems to me to be aligned with the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia?

Last, there are many interesting photos on the various web sources I consulted, but none on Wikimedia. Is there any shortcut to check the copyright status of photos posted online?

Thanks for your help. Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 23:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I took a look at your submission. It felt too much like a ad and not a neutral description of the company.  Image use policy is the rules for use on wikipedia, however if you're unsure of the copyright status of a image, assume that it is. Hasteur (talk) 13:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Paul Julian (meteorologist)
The article I came onto, to assist in its improvement, is:. It appears from the Talk, that the most recent rejecting Administrator reviewed not this, the latest revision (the only one that I have worked on), but rather re-reviewed an earlier twice-rejected draft. He was likely and understandably angered by being asked to re-review a shabby piece of work. (The earlier had three citations, one a dead URL, and was rejected for these citation issues.) But the recent and valid draft for review (that hasn't been reviewed) has 16 citations, an added infobox, sections and TOC, etc., see the link provided. This submission has to be good enough for a stub, is it not? (It was patterned after long standing meteorologist articles that are already in place.). How do I get a timely objective review of this draft article, that actually looks at the full review-ready draft (at the link)? Please, facilitate in any way that you can, including by pressing the correct button to prompt a review. I am a content expert, not a wikitech person. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I have asked for feedback at a related WikiProject.


 * There are suggestions that the submission dating issues may have been fixed. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:35, 24 May 2014 (UTC)