Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2015 April 21

= April 21 =

00:01:47, 21 April 2015 review of submission by GMTEgirl
I created the page Draft:James Richardson (businessman) some time ago. It was originally rejected due to copyright issues which I corrected. I re-submitted the article with several different references, from reputable sources. It was then rejected again because it "reads like an advertisement". I am asking for help to get the article approved because as I recently new Wikipedia creator, I am unable to do so. Your assistance is much appreciated. GMTEgirl 00:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

GMTEgirl 00:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GMTEgirl (talk • contribs)


 * You can do this. I have left you a comment on the draft. Edit, resubmit, understand the comments, edit, resubmit and continue. 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. Fiddle   Faddle  09:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

00:18:23, 21 April 2015 review of submission by AshDoveJay
I now see that my references list did not adhere to the standard set by wiki. If there's anything else wrong with the piece, I'd appreciate more specific statements. AshDoveJay (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * with very specific points. This is a borderline advert for you and your services Seriously, why do you want a page on Wikipedia? Use LinkedIn Fiddle   Faddle  09:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

14:27:00, 21 April 2015 review of submission by Vyvienn
I haven't got the foggiest idea why this article should be less relevant than others that have been published (and frequently with unverified (!!) information). How do I prove "relevance"? All information contained in this article has links provided where said information can be verified. It relates directly to the article on David McComb and a forthcoming major biopic, which will hopefully create its own page at that time. To stuff all this material into the McComb article would make it huge and difficult. So if there are any actual, concrete tips or ideas on how to improve this article instead of the wishy washy rejection I received, I would very much appreciate it.

Vyvienn (talk) 14:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Vyvienn - The word "relevance" does not occur anywhere in the review note, so where you get it is a mystery to me. Please read the review note on your draft again and follow the links to the guide pages. Once you have done that you're welcome to return here for further clarification or assistance. By the way, the fact that there are some poor quality articles among the nearly 5 million already on the English Wikipedia is of no consequence to the process of assisting you to get yours into acceptable shape. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

14:27:19, 21 April 2015 review of submission by Haneedesigns
Hi. I am really struggling. I'd like to become good at creating articles and I appreciate your advice. My original article was rejected because I did not establish notability. Now I am being told that it reads like an ad. To be honest, I really disagree that it reads like an ad. I have listed only facts which establish the notability of the company. The company isn't really notable for anything negative except one thing which I just added. Let me know what you think? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:RXR_Realty,_LLC

Thanks again Haneedesigns (talk) 14:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I have placed a comment on the draft itself and notified you. There is work to be done. Enjoy doing it. Fiddle   Faddle  17:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

20:42:41, 21 April 2015 review of submission by Bodicacia
I'm a newbie and seek advice on how to make my proposed article less promotional. The subject is a model for a new kind of animal welfare service, but I avoided terms like "innovative" and "unique" in an attempt to maintain a neutral tone. Although still only a regional organization, this group has been profiled by the Associated Press and CNN (as well as every local news outlet in the area) so I thought it would be suitably notable. Thanks! Bodicacia (talk) 20:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * What I suggest you do is to engage in conversation with the reviewers who pushed Draft:Red Paw Emergency Relief Team back to you. 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.. Fiddle   Faddle  20:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

20:57:58, 21 April 2015 review of submission by 98.217.218.206
78:26 noted this This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.

Grace Kelly (musician) has a page and this album is noted on it. I created this page, Grace (Grace Kelly album), in order to have more information on a album in her discography. If the subject is notable enough for a wikipedia entry that includes a discography, then individual albums on that discography should be notable enough, yes?

98.217.218.206 (talk) 20:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

21:01:36, 21 April 2015 review of submission by Tapedave
78:26 is wrong. She has a musician page: Grace Kelly (musician) My entry is an album from her discography, which is on her wikipedia entry. Please help me here.

Thanks

Tapedave (talk) 21:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The draft had typos in its links to the musician, which made it appear that the musician was not notable. In any event, in order to justify a stand alone article in Wikipedia the draft must prove that the album itself is notable. A source that doesn't support the statement where it is cited, liner notes (not independent), and a producer's self-published bio are not sources suitable to prove notability. Refer to Notability (music).


 * If unable to prove notability of the album, I recommend merging any material supported by reliable sources into the musician's page, Grace Kelly (musician), and/or contributing it elsewhere (see Alternative outlets). Worldbruce (talk) 23:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

21:25:50, 21 April 2015 review of submission by Ann1apt
Ann1apt (talk) 21:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

My article on Valeri Larko was accepted in February. On April 19, a header was added describing the article as a news release and overly promotional. The article is written in a similar style to other articles on living artists, written by other contributors. Why is my Valeri Larko article being singled out as overly promotional, which it is not. I am a Professor of Art and Art History at a college in New York, and am therefore well acquainted with academic and encyclopedic writing and its form. Please explain the problem, or please revove the header/banner.

Thank you. Ann1aptAnn1apt (talk) 21:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not the reviewer or the person who added the news release template, but it seems like some of the text engages in synthesis of the artist's work, which contravenes Wikipedia's no-original-research policy.


 * For example, the paragraph beginning "Larko’s oeuvre broadened and deepened in these early New York paintings to include an urban fringe which was still very much alive and in use" reads like a synthesis of her work, as does the paragraph beginning "With the conclusion of the “Bronx Block” series" and the sentence "Larko transferred her focus to the urban core of the city’s boroughs, incorporating the topography, infrastructure, and abundance of graffiti-covered walls into her work". This could be remedied by reporting only on what others have written about the artist's work. wia (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)