Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2015 July 17

= July 17 =

07:59:53, 17 July 2015 review of submission by JulesHawky
JulesHawky (talk) 07:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Looking at an example for George Mackay (actor) who states "he produced and directed his own production at the age of 5" there are no references to this claim. My article has been declined stating the references are not sufficient. I have noticed that other Wikipedia entries have links to You Tube and their own websites, is this no longer acceptable?

Many thanks for your assistance.

PAGE''' ]]) 17:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * So here's the thing: anyone can edit Wikipedia, and Wikipedia doesn't have enough volunteers to review the thousands and thousands of edits that are constantly being made. This means that bad edits can slip through the cracks and, despite the best efforts of volunteers like me, there are lots of bad articles on Wikipedia. Some of them are caught and either fixed or deleted, but you will always find some that are hanging around. Our goal here at Articles for Creation is to get your drafts to the point where they won't be deleted if someone comes across it, so we have to judge articles by Wikipedia policies such as WP:BLP and WP:GNG. --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|'''TALK

10:58:36, 17 July 2015 review of submission by Buzzy anslem
Buzzy anslem (talk) 10:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Request on 12:53:18, 17 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Domiknowledge
Because I just want to post my own summary.Domiknowledge (talk) 12:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Domiknowledge (talk) 12:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Domiknowledge - Please see Referencing for beginners and Notability criteria for musicians. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

13:52:21, 17 July 2015 review of submission by Daltonsocial6
Hi! I've had my draft declined a few times both noting "non-neutral," use of "peacock terms," and that there is not enough documentation on this individual. I was hoping someone could point out specific areas within my draft that I can correct. I have edited this draft to remove everything but the facts of which I found in credible sources such as Forbes, ABC News, Bloomberg, USA Today and Business Journals. That being said, it has been declined again. I'd really appreciate if someone can walk me through the areas that need to be addressed. Thank you! Daltonsocial6 (talk) 13:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * One observation off the bat: the Forbes on which the draft leans heavily is not Forbes magazine, but a forbes.com blog. It is a reliable source for the opinions of the blogger, but not for facts. Replace it with a reliable source. Worldbruce (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

15:13:19, 17 July 2015 review of submission by 99.246.164.106
On the rejection page it says "You are encouraged to make improvements by clicking on the "Edit" tab at the top of this page."

Is this what always appears (i.e. I should NOT interpret that there is interest) or does the reviewer have the option to say "You are NOT encouraged..."

Many thanks for your help 99.246.164.106 (talk) 15:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

99.246.164.106 (talk) 15:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * That text is part of the standard template. However, to avoid redundancy, the reviewing tool hides it on all but one of the rejection notices if there is more than one on the page. While a reviewer could hide that text by adding an extra parameter to the template, it is not part of the reviewing tool and isn't done in practice.

PAGE''' ]]) 17:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In other words, it doesn't mean that the reviewer has a specific interest in the article, but in general all reviewers are interested in getting users' drafts to the point where they wouldn't be subject to deletion once they are promoted from draft status. --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|'''TALK

15:43:22, 17 July 2015 review of submission by Tasmer
Is it possible to add the filmposter to the infobox? There would be one available at IMDb. Kind regards, Tasmer (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC) PAGE''' ]]) 17:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Film posters are copyrighted, and therefore can only be used on wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, Wikipedia only allows the use of fair-use images in articles, not drafts. Once your draft is accepted, you can add the poster. --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|'''TALK

Thanks, it worked! Tasmer (talk) 10:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

19:15:12, 17 July 2015 review of submission by Hulakamachaman
I am not sure why the page is being rejected seems to be notable and unbiased to me. Any help and/or suggestions would be much appreciated! Thank you. Hulakamachaman (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC) Hulakamachaman (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * First, you do not need a comprehensive listing of every single artist that ever performed at the event. Trim that down.


 * Second, the way you have formatted your references, and the presence of unreliable sources amongst them... for example blogspot... makes it difficult to work out which the reliable sources are. It might make it easier if you removed the unreliable sources like blogs, and also formatted your references to give more detail than just the title and link.


 * However, it does seem very likely that this event is notable by Wikipedia's standards. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

20:15:35, 17 July 2015 review of submission by Laurencejbest
Hi -

The article I drafted is starting to get review comments. I have a few thoughts in reaction to these comments that would perhaps add value to the review process. I'm thinking the best place for them is the draft article's talk page. Do you agree? Is there a better/approved way to do this?

Below is what I was thinking could go into the talk page. Thanks for your guidance.

Thanks for reviews so far by FoCuSandLeArN and The Average Wikipedian. A few notes:

1) Used the term "important" in regards to Pienkowski's research because I have access to the Web of Science subscription service, which reports that a number of his papers have been heavily cited in peer-reviewed journal articles. For example, his VIRUS-PARTICLES IN EARLY MOUSE EMBRYOS paper has been cited 116 times, and is still being cited forty years after publication. IDENTIFICATION OF HISTAMINE RELEASING FACTOR(S) IN THE LATE PHASE OF CUTANEOUS IGE-MEDIATED REACTIONS, published in 1986, has received 112 citations and is also still consistently cited. I also found the breadth of fields his papers addressed to be notable. I didn't reference Web of Science stats because the reports are copyrighted and not publicly available without a subscription. Any guidance on bringing in WoS stats would be appreciated.

2) I reviewed WP:GNG and WP:PROF during the drafting process, wrestling with the issue that the trajectory of Pienkowsk's career was not that of the typical researcher. Had he remained an academic, he likely would have achieved one or more of the WP:PROF criteria. However, he instead became a clinician and entrepreneur (likely providing the resources to also become a patron of the arts/cultural exchange). This trajectory led to kudos of its own (Eminent Scientist by Kosciuszko Foundation, recognition by Tennessee Legislature, media exposure in US and Poland, etc.), but not kudos typically found in WP:PROF. Again, any thoughts on this would be appreciated.

Laurencejbest (talk) 20:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * @Laurencejbest - You must in fact cite all your sources, regardless of it being subscription only or carved on the wall of an ancient pyramid. Most academic journals are available by subscription only yet they are cited all over Wikipedia and are commonly regarded to be the highest quality sources. By the way, if you need a source for which you do not have a subscription you can request a copy at the Resource exchange. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)