Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2014 November 1

= November 1 =

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Louis &
My name is Lavern Jones Lemons. I am the oldest daughter of blues singer Louis Blues Boy Jones. Where are you all located? I had my cousin Phil O'Neal to submit this Bio on my Dad to Wikipedia in August 2013. I recently discovered the article was on Wikipedia but it was not finalized. My father in now in The Texas History Handbook and officially on Wikipedia. All ten of Jones' songs are on YouTube. My book will soon be published. Also in Jones' hometown of Galveston Texas they will soon honor my father by naming a street after him. I attended two hearings at the Galveston City Hall recently to advocate for my Dad's music and his legacy. I thank the Mayor, all City Officials and everyone involved because of each of you Louis Blues Boy Jones legacy will live on. I thank every listener in places all around the globe that still enjoy my father's timeless music. I appreciate everybody for showing so much love and respect for his legacy. He is not forgotten!LaVern Jones Lemons (talk) 03:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

08:51:47, 1 November 2014 review of submission by Leveleaf
Hello, I have edited the draft on Nino La Civita, including sources. Could you please let me know if the article is fine for publication? Thanks a lot! Leveleaf (talk) 08:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for making the appropriate changes! This draft has been submitted for review again and is now in the queue. We can't simply review your article for you because you've requested it at the help desk. You need to wait until a reviewer gets round to reviewing your article, it's only fair! Please note, though, that this could take up to several weeks or even a month since there are over 2,500 submissions waiting for review. Thanks for your cooperation! st170etalk 21:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

09:04:06, 1 November 2014 review of submission by Fbell2
Hi there Hell in a Bucket. Thanks for the note to let me know the above page had been declined. I understand from the note that this may have been because the tone needs to be more formal and neutral and that source material may also have been an issue. It would be great to get more information about this as I thought I had met the three standard Wikipedia criteria. I would be grateful for any further guidance. Fbell2 (talk) 09:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Over all it's the way it's phrased, the section ethos stands out to me as somewhat spammy and likewise the programs and events. A few tweaks to how it's worded and the result will likely be different. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 09:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I understand - thanks for coming back to me. I'll give it a go! Fbell74 (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I've revised the two sections ('Ethos' and 'Programs and events') and hopefully this helps to improve the tone. If you have an opportunity would you mind having a look? Thank you in advance. Fbell74 (talk) 05:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello Fbell74. Just a note that it is highly recommended to resubmit the draft for review by adding to the top of it, as this means it will definitely get reviewed at some point. Requests for feedback here are sometimes missed. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks Arthur goes shopping - that's really helpful; I'll do that. Much appreciated Fbell74 (talk) 01:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Louis &
Please correct my mother's name. It should be Louise. The letter (e) missing from he name. Thank you kindly.LaVern Jones Lemons (talk) 11:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * ❌ The article that you have provided has since been deleted. st170etalk 21:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

11:20:20, 1 November 2014 review of submission by Rosekelleher
Yesterday I created and submitted a draft article about Piero Heliczer. This morning I went back in to make a few more edits, and when I did a Google search I found that "MacCreator" had copied my draft to the main space. The history showing I created and edited the article were gone. But my draft article was still there where I left it; I might have wasted a lot of time continuing to edit it, not realizing the article was in the main space. I'm sure this is not accepted practice. Can anything be done? Rosekelleher (talk) 11:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Rosekelleher (talk) 11:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The draft has not been moved and there is no main space article Piero Heliczer. It appears someone copied and pasted your work. The error has been corrected, as you will see if you visit the red link. Fiddle   Faddle  13:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * @User:Timtrent Okay, thanks. Rosekelleher (talk) 13:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

13:11:33, 1 November 2014 review of submission by Lizrioshall
My draft has been rejected because it "reads like an advertisement"; however, I have used unbiased language and included several verifiable sources. How can I change my submission so that it's accepted? Lizrioshall (talk) 13:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Your article does read like an advertisement. I'd advise you to rewrite your article and do it in a neutral tone. For example - 'Lightswitch is an award-winning international lighting' should not be the start of the article. Unless it has been internationally acclaimed and has multiple, verifiable, secondary, reliable, independent sources, then please change it and remove the promotional 'peacock' adjectives. You don't even have any sources to back this up. Instead of writing that 'it has been recognised...', simply write that 'it has received awards from....'. You say 'more than five Illumination Awards' - include the exact number! This is Wikipedia, not an advertisement section of the newspaper. Remove all irrelevant and unsourced content. st170etalk 21:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * You've been trying to write this article since June. As it stands, it's a puffed-up piece of marketing hyperbole. It is about as far-removed from 'unbiased' encyclopaedic writing as it's possible to get. Also, unless you have a few more references like the Chicargo tribune one, this group isn't notable enough for Wikipedia. I get the distinct impression you're wasting our and your time with this one. Try again when they've made more of an impact on the world. Bellerophon talk to me  23:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Dear Editors, While I appreciate the contributions you make as volunteers on the Wikipedia site, I find your comments to be more hurtful than helpful and very discouraging for a first-time writer who is trying her best to adhere to the nebulous and often confusing guidelines. St170e, you claim that my article uses 'promotional peacock' adjectives and cite the language 'award-winning' and 'international' as problematic. I fully understand Wikipedia's rules about unbiased language and recognize that all statements should be factual, but I would argue that these are indeed facts. Lightswitch is 'award-winning' as it has won awards from the lighting design and entertainment industries, including the Illumination Awards I reference in this current draft, and many others which I included in my first draft (and removed in an effort to sound less 'like an advertisement'). Other than providing sources for every single award Lightswitch has won, is there a way to get Wikipedia to approve this language? Lightswitch is also in 'international' firm as it has offices in North America and Asia and frequently illuminates projects in other countries. Thus, it is international both in its location and in its scope.

Bellerophon, you state that 'unless you have a few more references like the Chicargo [sic] tribune one, this group isn't notable enough for Wikipedia....Try again when they've made more of an impact on the world,' a statement that is entirely subjective and rather offensive in tone. I have provided links to several mainstream, consumer publications, but most of Lightswitch's media coverage is in the trade press, as it is a specialized design firm. Does Wikipedia recognize trade magazines as valid references? Does it have stated rules about what it considers an appropriate media source (e.g., readership or distribution stats that a publication must meet to qualify). Also, are there hard and fast rules for what constitutes having made 'an impact on the world'? This seems to be the most subjective criteria of all. I really do want to 'follow the rules' here, but I'm having a hard time understanding them because they seem to be subject to the individual preferences and temperament of the editor who is reviewing the article. In doing my due diligence, I based my article on other similar Wikipedia articles that have been published on lighting design firms, such as Nautilus Entertainment Design, which employs similar language and sources (both in number and type) as my article. Is there something that the writer of this article is doing that I am not?

Lastly, as a professional writer and editor who has published--and has helped other writers to develop and publish--hundreds of articles in various print publications, I find objection with the tenor of your editorial dialogue. Editors are supposed to encourage writers and give them clear, unbiased feedback that helps them to develop their story. Based on the tone of your comments above, your objective appears to be to discourage writers from publishing on your site by disparaging their writing and insulting their topic of choice. I understand that Wikipedia receives a tremendous amount of article requests and you must be selective, but that does not give you license to try to intimidate or scare off writers by attacking their work. At this point in the process, I would greatly appreciate some clear, unbiased answers on what I can do to publish my article and would very much like to engage in a civil and polite communication going forward.

Thank you again for your help. Lizrioshall (talk) 15:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

13:39:41, 1 November 2014 review of submission by 207.97.167.53
Requesting to see the reasons why my draft was declined at the Articles for Creation section. What edits should I make or include to have it reviewed and published?207.97.167.53 (talk) 13:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC) 207.97.167.53 (talk) 13:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The reasons are given on the article in the purple box in the middle of the pink one Rankersbo (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)