Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2014 September 30

= September 30 =

04:29:01, 30 September 2014 review of submission by Ric1949
Ric1949 (talk) 04:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

This is my first attempt to submit and am not computer savy. What do I need to do to make this info assessable


 * I have left you a detailed comment on the draft. Computer skills are not really needed much, just a keen eye for detail and a steady hand. It is now located at Draft:Grover Cole. Fiddle   Faddle  10:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Request on 04:34:56, 30 September 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Helen7274
Hello, my article on Terrance Plowright has not been passed for submission on the basis of notability/lack of adequate secondary sources. Please can you tell me whether the following links are regarded as suitable examples of secondary sources:

http://www.bluemountainsgazette.com.au/story/1626175/new-honour-for-sculptor-terrance-plowright/?cs=12 http://www.bluemountainsgazette.com.au/story/727014/sculptor-terrance-plowright-invited-to-florence-biennale/ thank you helen Helen7274 (talk) 04:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Helen7274 (talk) 04:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The coverage is certainly about the subject and independent of him, though one invites sponsorship. I am unable to judge whether the BMG is WP:RS, but I would use these as citations for relevant facts in the draft. I would not wish them to be my sole source of referencing, though. Fiddle   Faddle  10:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I've had a look at your draft in some detail, now. I've left a couple of detailed comments on it which I hope you will find of use. There is work required, but most of the work in the draft is done. We are at the editing stage, something that almost always means the pruning of material. The gentleman appears to be to be inherently notable, so this is simply a substantial tidying exercise. You can do this and enjoy it. Fiddle   Faddle  12:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * If the person is notable and there are (as implied) no copyright violations or similar, then I will approve it. Helen, please resubmit it.


 * Helen, you may also wish to improve the formatting of the references, which right now are a godawful mess and sea of blue. Please see WP:REFB. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

04:55:22, 30 September 2014 review of draft by 203.177.203.206
203.177.203.206 (talk) 04:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * for reasons stated on the draft. Fiddle   Faddle  10:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

08:13:44, 30 September 2014 review of submission by Handlingequipment
I posted a page called PTM TECHNOLOGY that was denied publication. Apparently the reason was "promotional material". However I researched similar content in Wikipedia and followed the same pattern as in other companies so now I have no clue about the whys and hows of the refusal. I'd appreciate some help regarding the content to revise. Thanks

Handlingequipment (talk) 08:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * If you examine Draft:PTM Technology you will see that your presumed reason is not the reason I declined it. PLease look carefully at the real reason and work on the referencing. Your draft must pass WP:CORP to be accepted and references must be in accordance with my full comment left there.
 * Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles. Please show by your work that this one is acceptable.
 * Comparison with other articles is not useful. We do not use poor articles as a precedent for other articles, otherwise quality will decline rapidly and we will move to idiocracy. Fiddle   Faddle  09:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

10:38:20, 30 September 2014 review of submission by Sandro.friedrich
Dear Sirs,

This article is about Martin Haene, who mainly works in the field of music for media (such as TV series, movies, games etc). His credits include major motion picture movies and well known TV-series; while it's true that a 'normal' consumer usually doesn't care about who did the music in e.g. a TV-series or even a major movie that is shown world-wide, it is certainly of interest for anybody who is working in the field of music composition, film making, directing or the like.

All listed credits are backed-up through IMdB, which requires proof of credit (such as cue sheets (these are spreadsheets by the production companies listing all music composers being used in a certain TV-show, movie etc), credit/name in the end credit of a movie, etc).

This is why I do not agree with Nonsenseferret's argument that the article is not relevant (see above why it is), and also that the listed credits/proof are not backed-up.

If his arguemnt of not being relevant would be true, then every topic that is not of major interest for the mainstream-consumer would be not relevant (ie every area of expertise), which of course would be completely against the idea and spirit of wikipedia itself. Also, the number of composers with major movie credits (ie movies by major studios that are distributed world-wide) is actually not that high; simply because there are not that many major movies produced each year, but way way more composers who would like to have their music in it. So if a composer has several major movie credits, this alone shows his relevance in that part of the industry IMHO.

If you should have the same opinion as Nonsenseferret then I'd like to hear a proper and factual explanation. Otherwise I would propose to let the article go online.

Thank you for your consideration; I'm looking forward to your reply.

Best,

Sandro Friedrich FrS (talk) 10:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

FrS (talk) 10:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I thought this draft was familiar. You seem to have ignored in your argument above the comment I left on the draft on 31 May, where I explain more for you. Please understand that IMDB is not a reliable source, and no amount of impassioned argument will make us believe that it ever can be. It is a user edited source, like Wikipedia and fails WP:RS.
 * Please go back, read my comment, and retyrn here, to this section, to ask for an expanded explanation if there are aspects of it that you still need to have clarified.
 * Additionally, as it stands, this is not an article, but is the framework for an article. The draft > Submit > Review > edit > resubmit > etc process is iterative. It is better to work with than against our reviewers because that means you will gain acceptance of an article if the topic passes our criteria. Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles. At present your draft will fail. Fiddle   Faddle  11:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

13:12:31, 30 September 2014 review of submission by IsarJoey
Dear Helpers, I just entered a text for Leo (Constellation) in the Visualization section in my sandbox for review and I'm not sure, that this worked correctly, for this is my first Wikipedia writing!

The reviewer I asked to get the embedded JPG-Picture by my e-mail for verification!

Can you please send me a short message in the talk section (???) to make me feel sure all written in my sandbox is in the reviewer's accessibility?

Thank you very much from Munich, the Oktoberfest a rambling loudly, your Josef Krem (IsarJoey)

IsarJoey (talk) 13:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * This is perfectly accessible, and now resides at Draft:Leo (Zodiac sign). Fiddle   Faddle  13:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

19:06:52, 30 September 2014 review of submission by Amlawalajuma1
Amlawalajuma1 (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * This message above is your sole contribution to WIkipedia. What help do you need? Fiddle   Faddle  22:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)