Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2015 July 29

= July 29 =

00:06:31, 29 July 2015 review of submission by Mvanmeer23
Hi! I submitted my first article and it was rejected for too many references. I can fix that, but I have three quick questions that I can't seem to figure out.

1. The person I am writing about has published several books. I linked them to their respective Amazon.com pages, but those were rejected as being too commercial. I'm guessing that linking them to Goodreads would be the same problem. One of them has a review; but apart from reviews on Amazon, the other books don't have independent reviews. Most are e-books and don't have ISBNs; although two are paperbacks and do have ISBNs. What is the best way to document these books? Also, she is mentioned in several books, but I have the same problem. I linked to Amazon and gave the page numbers she's quoted on.

2. I have a photo of her and the name of the photographer who is happy to confirm that she took the picture and that it can be part of the public domain. What exactly do you need from her to verify that she took the picture and is willing to turn over the rights to Wikipedia and the world?

3. I asked a previous question here, and the response was really great. She said I could reply to her answer, but there is no reply button and I can't figure out how to reply. I want to thank her. If I want to reply to YOUR answer, how would I do that?

You can see that I'm a newbie; but I'm trying to learn and to do it right. So any suggestions you can send my way will be appreciated. :-)

Thanks, Mary

Mvanmeer23 (talk) 00:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I have left a comment on the draft intended to help you.
 * Books may be referred to with their ISBN. Placing the magic word ISBN next to an ISB Number creates the relevant links to all booksellers and sources.
 * For the picture, that is your last concern. Read WP:Donating copyright material. It is only really relevant after and if the draft is accepted. Fiddle   Faddle  09:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

00:50:28, 29 July 2015 review of submission by 149.254.180.115
I feel as though I am so close to getting this article spot on for approval :) at first I received the decline reasons as not showing notability but I think I've succeeded in doing that. What I would like to ask is, what can I do to ensure that this article meets the acceptance requirements?

Many thanks

149.254.180.115 (talk) 00:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * References. For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Places where references are requested are marked in the draft.  Fiddle   Faddle  09:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

== ==

Request on 04:25:19, 29 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by RAJIV KUMAR BHARDWAJ (PURI)
REG MY ARTICLE: ORIGIN & SIGNIFICANCE OF “PATITAPABAN” OF “LORD GOD JAGANNATH”.

FIRST: IT'S ALREADY COMPLICATING ENOUGH - COPY PASTE ETC- WELL DID IT ALL AT MY BEST GUESS, HOPE THIS MESSAGE REACHES PROPER PLACE. 2ND : AS INFORMATION TO AN IMPORTANT PLACE (LORD GOD JAGANNATH TEMPLE, PURI, ODISHA (EARLIER: ORISSA), INDIA. IS WORLD FAMOUS. THIS MONTH ONLY THERE WAS AT "RATH YATRA" FESTIVAL, ABOUT 40 LAKHS PILGRIMS. 3RD I WANTED TO HELP IN SHARING INFORMATION, FOR WHICH I GAVE A LOT OF TIME & RESEARCH - AS I HAD SEEN YOUR REQUEST TO POST ANY INFO ETC. ALSO IT WOULD HELP MANY PEOPLE. 4TH I PRESUMED & FEEL IT'S TRUE THAT ALL MY EFFORTS, TIME & RESEARCH IS FOR FREE & ONLY FOR PUBLIC BENEFIT. A KIND OF SELFLESS SOCIAL SERVICE. SO IT IS CLEAR - MY CONTRIBUTION WAS NOT FOR ANY PERSONAL GAIN. 5TH : I GOT THIS MESSAGE:- Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Timtrent was: This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner. 6TH: I AM NOT ANY WRITER, IN FACT I EVEN TYPE ON COMPUTER WITH ONE FINGER. BUT I UNDERSTOOD IT WOULD BE REVIEWED BY SOME PROFESSIONALS - EDITED BY THEM - VERIFIED THROUGH OTHER RESOURCES - AND FINALLY BE DISPLAYED FOR PUBLIC BENEFIT. WELL WHAT I FEEL IS, WEATHER IT'S LIKE AN ESSAY OR STORY OR AN encyclopedia article. MAIN MOTIVE IS TO BRING TO THE PUBLIC AUTHENTIC INFORMATION. 7TH : I AM FOUNDER SECTARY "SARASVATI SISU MANDIR - MARUTI NAGAR, PURI, ODISHA, INDIA". GURUDWARA, ARYA SAMAJ, VHP, RSS & SUCH OTHER VOLUNTARY SOCIAL GROUPS NUMBERING NEARLY 18. I FIND HARDLY ANY TIME TO GO THROUGH MY E-MAILS. FINDING TIME TO VIEW REVIEW FACE CONDITIONS EDIT, VIEW REVIEW FACE CONDITIONS EDIT, VIEW REVIEW FACE CONDITIONS EDIT, VIEW REVIEW FACE CONDITIONS EDIT ETC IS QUITE OUT OF THE QUESTION. YES I DO GIVE TIME & EFFORT (WHEN I CAN) IF IT BENEFITS MANY. 8TH : I HAVE DONE THE BEST I COULD IN PROVIDING WHAT I COULD IN MY WORK (YOU MAY NOT LIKE IT CALLED ARTICLE) "ORIGIN & SIGNIFICANCE OF “PATITAPABAN” OF “LORD GOD JAGANNATH”. I AGREE THERE MAY BE MANY WAYS OF PRESENTING IT, BUT (AS I TOLD YOU EARLIER IN THIS MESSAGE) I AM NOT A PROFESSIONAL OR EVEN SLIGHTLY A WRITER. I JUST GO WITH WHAT FLOWS THROUGH ME. I AM SURE YOU MAY HAVE MANY PROFESSIONALS REVIEWING ARTICLES & I SHALL BE GRATEFUL IF THEY CAN SET MY WORK IN THE REQUIRED FORMAT. YES YOU ARE ALSO WELCOME TO VERIFY THE FACTS (WHICH I AM SURE (AND AGREE) YOU WOULD DO SO BEFORE DISPLAYING MY WORK. OF COURSE THERE ARE SMALL IRRELEVANT VARIATIONS IN THE HISTORY DEPENDING ON VARYING OPINIONS - I BELIEVE YOU MAY SEE THROUGH THAT - & LIKE I DID - STICK TO THE MOST POPULAR NARRATIONS. IF SOME LINES DO COME UP - THAT HAVE A STRONG BASE TO BE DIFFERENT- YOU ARE MOST WELCOME TO CHANGE IT - I TOO WILL BE GLAD IF YOU SEND / MAIL ME THE SAME - TO REFRESH / IMPROVE MY KNOWLEDGE. 9TH : I AM ONLY INTERESTED IN HELPING ALL, I DO NOT MIND IF THIS IS DISPLAYED UNDER ANY GOOD WRITER OR EDITOR NAME. MY NAME OR CREDIT IS NOT IMPORTANT. IF YOU FEEL YOU CAN GO ON TO IMPROVE & DISPLAY MY WORK - YOU ARE WELCOME. I DO NOT THINK I WILL BE ABLE TO GIVE MORE TIME. I AM HAPPY WITH WHAT I LEARNT IN MY RESEARCH, THE PRACTICE OF TYPING & THE KNOWLEDGE I GAINED.

RAJIV KUMAR BHARDWAJ (PURI) (talk) 04:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Several points in reply:
 * Please use your one finger technique to type in sentence case. ALL CAPITALS is offensive and considered to be shouting. It is also unreadable
 * No-one here is likely to pick up your essay and format it. If you think it can be turned into an article it is up to you as contributing editor to do this.
 * No-one is concerned about any "Do you know who I am!" stuff. If you have hardly any time to do anything, editing Wikipedia is probably not a hobby you will enjoy
 * Wikipedia requires topics that are suitable for its remit. It is an encyclopaedia and records what others have reported on. It doe snot take original research, however well intentioned.
 * I realise this is not the answer you wish to hear. Fiddle   Faddle  09:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

09:55:30, 29 July 2015 review of submission by Richard Falkner
My article for creation 'Experteer' was declined on July 22nd due to the fact that it sounded promotional and the flow of the article was not good enough. Now I have made the required changes by eliminating the perceived promotional words, please let me know if this article now seems fine or further edits are required.

Richard Falkner (talk) 09:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Your article needs references to reliable published independent sources, to establish that its subject is notable. I have checked the first five references, and none of them gives any indication of notability. Maybe there's some good references somewhere further down the list: if there are, I suggest you remove the unacceptable ones, to make the good ones easier to find. Maproom (talk) 21:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

10:02:45, 29 July 2015 review of submission by Elsie Birech
I would like to resolve the issue of disambiquity. The title James Smart is already in use. The james smart i am writing about though is a kenyan journalist.

--Elsie birech (talk) 10:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC) Elsie birech (talk) 10:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Call this James Smart (journalist). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

11:34:13, 29 July 2015 review of submission by Tim B Haigh
I have submitted my first article for review and his been declined for :- "The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations." However, I am unsure as to what the problem is and thought that I had done this. Would someone be able to point in the right direction and explain what I have done wrong? Many thanks. The article is at :-  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Professor_Nicholas_J_Lowe

Tim B Haigh (talk) 11:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You do have inline citations. Though I would like to see a reference for the birthdate, and his family, as Wikipedia should only reproduce personal information that is already published. Also some of those awards are not very award-like, such as Who’s Who Among Executives & Professional, where you likely pay a fee to get an entry. Also "President of the British Cosmetic Dermatology Group of the British Association of Dermatology" is a role not an award. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

12:46:49, 29 July 2015 review of submission by Duch0404
Hello, I am new to editing in Wikipedia, and my article was declined, so I am requesting help. Sulfurboy (thank you for the review!) declined the article GrapeSEED because it read like an advertisement, and he suggested I ask for help here. I tried to write facts only. Can you please help me determine what is too subjective or what language is too much like an advertisement? If I had to take a guess at fixing it, I would remove the links to press releases and maybe the Training and Support section. The main body includes facts only, no adjectives, and it does not suggest that the program is good (just describes the history and what it is). Any help is appreciated by this newbie, thank you!!

Duch0404 (talk) 12:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Do not just guess. Do that thing! Then you will be able to see the wood from the trees. Fiddle   Faddle  16:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

13:36:22, 29 July 2015 review of submission by Works712
Hi,

I've been trying to create a page for Nicole Williams who is a career expert, best-selling author, and the CEO and founder of a career development company called WORKS (which has been named one of the top 10 websites for millennial women). It keeps being rejected because the "references do not adequately show the subject's notability", and I would really like some advice on how to fix this.

She has published 3 best-selling books, was the official career expert at LinkedIn for 3 years, founded her own company, and has been featured in hundreds of articles for many prominent news sources such as the new york post, the new york times, the washington post, the wall street journal, forbes, and the financial times, along with many other magazines/newspapers. She has also had multiple appearances on the TODAY show, Good Morning America, CNN, Good Day New York, and Fox News. She was even the co-creator of the television series Making It Big.

I would really appreciate more specific guidance as to how to show her notability through the references (I have already read "guidelines on the notability of people" and understand that secondary sources are needed). However, there are not tons of "independent" pieces written about her; does that mean that she can't be considered notable or worthy of an entry? It really seems like being asked to appear on and being featured in such popular outlets shows that she is worth listening to and knowing about.

Thank you so much for any help/suggestions you can give me! Works712 (talk) 13:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I have left a comment on the draft. Fiddle   Faddle  16:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

14:50:31, 29 July 2015 review of submission by Steve Humble
I have added details required about my 'notability' as a creator of 'learning maths outside the classroom'. Evidence is given of maths walks and other activities. I'm know world wide as 'Dr Maths' and have written a regular newspaper article - 200+ articles over 8 years

I have given references as requested.

Could you please help me with what extra I need to give.

Thank you

Steve Humble (talk) 14:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You have a love of external links within the text. You seem to be blind to advice to remove those, though you have certainly handled a slew of other stuff, at least to an extent. You need to be aware that links to "Get it here" locations are viewed as spam whether money changes hands or not. Reviews go better when the prior suggestions are incorporated fully. You have a WP:COI, an enormous one. so your work will be handled more rigorously than another editor's until we have helped you rip it away. This is not a free ride.
 * What most experienced Wikipedians wonder when someone pushes their autobiography here is why? What possible good will this do your career? I think you need to read WP:ACADEME to start to understand how this site differs from Academe and other areas where reputations are made on publicity of work. We record notable items reported elsewhere by independent reliable sources. Fiddle   Faddle  15:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

16:17:57, 29 July 2015 review of submission by MyStromer
I'm hoping you can help me. My article was rejected due to my references. I have additional references but some of them are in German. Is it ok if I use these as well?

Also, one of my pics was taken down. I'm not sure why it was?

Thanks!

MyStromer (talk) 16:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi MyStromer yes please use the German ones, particularly if they are better quality than the ones you have already used. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

17:42:37, 29 July 2015 review of submission by Rdickeychasins
Why was my draft was denied as being "not notable" enough? According to the notability guidelines on your FAQ page, we meet all criteria. The organization Blueprint Earth is very similar to the Critical Zone Observatories (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_Zone_Observatory), who have a page. Furthermore, we have more sources and sources of a better quality than this page and many other pages already in existence. So why was a Blueprint Earth page denied? Thank you for your time! Rdickeychasins (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * First off, the discussion will only revolve around your page. Other pages existence or quality does not matter when it comes to your page. See WP:INN. The problem with your page is that it is not well source. First, the press release should be removed. Secondly, we need to see sources that actually are reliable and substantially or primarily cover the subject. Seems that most of the sources that are credible only mention the subject in passing. Please review WP:42Sulfurboy (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * No precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into idiocracy. There are substantive reasons on the draft itself. If you have questions after reading this please do return here and ask them. Fiddle   Faddle  18:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

18:00:59, 29 July 2015 review of submission by Abhi2434
I am trying to create a page, but after a number of editing, I still cannot pass the page. Can you help me in this regard please. The page is at Draft:Insync Abhi2434 (talk) 18:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It seems that has given you advice via IRC. Perhaps your first port of call is on their talk page to discuss the advice you were given and how it has been implemented?  Fiddle   Faddle  18:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

22:41:34, 29 July 2015 review of submission by Sulmarkmack
Hello! The page draft that I submitted for the company Sullair has been reviewed back in February and was declined because apparently it reads like an advertisement, but does not give any reasons why. When writing this article, I took great care NOT to do this, only to document the company and its history as accurately as possible. I also reviewed and compared several other similar company articles with this draft and I cannot understand how this article reads like an advertisement. Can someone please illuminate me on this, as I do not even begin to know what I would do differently in order to have this article accepted. Please also note that I am not employed by Sullair. I thank you in advance for your input. Greg Sulmarkmack (talk) 22:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Please scroll up. I replied to your prior question and an unusually skilled editor deleted an entire tranche of material. I ave reinstated it. The old link on your talk page ought to work now Fiddle   Faddle  23:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)