Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2015 September 15

= September 15 =

01:38:36, 15 September 2015 review of submission by EAS1978
Hello. I'm wondering if I can receive some tutoring on how to create more verifiable references for Don Louis Perceval. I was assuming, since he is featured in books alongside Maynard Dixon (a Southwest painter who has a Wikipedia entry), that he met the "notable person" requirements for Wikipedia. Would more or differently formatted references help to get a page on Perceval accepted? I look forward to your guidance. Thanks so much! EAS1978 (talk) 01:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Two things would be helpful, although they are not required. 1) Inline citations to what are now general sources would give readers a clearer understanding of where each part of the article comes from and, without obtaining the sources, an idea of how much depth each goes into on the subject. 2) The first book in general sources is 242 pages long, the third is 533 pages long. Specifying the relevant page number or range would also help. Worldbruce (talk) 18:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

06:15:05, 15 September 2015 review of submission by 93.118.151.141
93.118.151.141 (talk) 06:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi I had a question, what's the difference between making an article by myself and submitting a draft for publication? how can I distinguish these articles for each other in wikipedia?
 * One obvious difference is how much time it takes the author up front. Once the text is written, a registered user can create a new article on their own in a matter of seconds. By contrast, the delay between submitting a draft and having it reviewed averages days or weeks, and many drafts must be improved and resubmitted, often multiple times. The advantage to the author of submitting a draft is that if and when it becomes an article, it will have been improved by one or more experienced editors and will be a better, stronger article, far less likely to be deleted from Wikipedia.
 * Somewhere in their history, articles that have been approved through the Articles for creation process normally will have an edit with a summary along the lines of "(so-and-so moved page Draft:Article name to Article name: Publishing accepted Articles for creation submission (AFCH 0.9))". Usually they also have this template on their talk page:


 * Worldbruce (talk) 05:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

07:22:16, 15 September 2015 review of submission by Jamcyu
Hi all,

Just wondering why my page for Cassidy McFadzean was denied. A full-length book with Random House of Canada is not good enough for notability as far as poets and Canadian ones, for that matter? I'm also especially surprised since her book was reviewed by Publishers Weekly, and she was also interviewed on one of Canada's biggest national newspapers, National Post. I've linked to both of that review and interview under the external links section.

Jamcyu (talk) 07:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Notability for a person depends on what other people have written about that person. So no, having authored a book (or a hundred books) does not demonstrate notability.
 * Reviews are often the key to proving notability for an author, and you included one from Publishers Weekly among the external links. External links are by definition for material that cannot be worked into the article. Reviews of an author's work can and should be integrated into the article and cited as references. There are many good ways to do this, see for example: Maya Angelou, Anna Laetitia Barbauld, Emily Dickinson, and Stella Gibbons.
 * Multiple independent reviews in reliable sources are needed to establish notability. The difficulty with the National Post piece is its interview format. It is McFadzean talking about McFadzean, with little or no analysis by the interviewer. As such it isn't independent of the subject, and it's a primary rather than a secondary source. What is needed is at least one more source (and preferably several more) as good or better than Publishers Weekly. Worldbruce (talk) 17:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * okay, great. i'll add some more reviews of her work to try to establish her notability. thanks for the thorough response. Jamcyu (talk) 22:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Request on 09:48:25, 15 September 2015 for assistance by Pjbjas
I do not know if this is the appropriate forum, but I would welcome some advice on getting articles reassessed. I have recently completely rewritten Gaius Sabinius Aquila Timesitheus and would like its current status as Start-Class (which relates to its former format) to be reconsidered. (I realise that this might mean that it is placed in a lower class). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjbjas (talk • contribs)

Section created and misplaced question moved here from before TOC. Worldbruce (talk) 01:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Pictogram voting comment.svg|20px]] This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. For future reference, the Help desk is where editors will try to answer any question regarding how to use Wikipedia. Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. It helps if you sign your posts with four tildes ~.


 * Assessments from stub through B-Class can be made by anyone, but are usually made by members of WikiProjects that have the article in their scope. For Gaius Furius Sabinius Aquila Timesitheus, for example, that would most likely be WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, although it could also be WikiProject Military history or WikiProject Biography. If you want someone other than yourself to make the assessment (good form when you are a major contributor to the article), see the instructions at WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome/Assessment.


 * Quality assessments of GA and FA are made through a more formal process. Candidates are nominated by listing them at Good article nominations or Featured article candidates. Judgments are made according to the criteria at What is a good article? and Featured article criteria, respectively. Before embarking on the GA or FA path you may want to request a peer review. Hope this helps! Worldbruce (talk) 06:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Request on 15:21:25, 15 September 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Larissagaudet
Hi there, I am trying to publish a page about Riki Turofsky and have put together the content however it keeps getting removed and flagged. I work with Mrs. Turofsky and all of the info for her bio has been created by her and is completely factual. I would also like to include an image on her bio page and am having trouble uploading this into the editing area. I would really like some help on getting the page up and running with all the information included. Can someone please help me? thanks and all best, Larissa

Larissagaudet (talk) 15:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Pictogram voting comment.svg|20px]] This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. The correct place to discuss the content you are edit warring over is Talk:Riki Turofsky. For help uploading an image, please consider asking at the Help desk. That is where editors will try to answer any question regarding how to use Wikipedia. Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. You could always try [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=help&fulltext=Search searching Wikipedia] for any help related to the topic you want to know more about. Worldbruce (talk) 17:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

16:29:59, 15 September 2015 review of submission by Vivalasdivas
Vivalasdivas (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC) George Klein (Disc Jockey) Good morning. I am trying to edit this page. My submission has been declined. Can you tell me what I need to do to make it suitable for inclusion?Vivalasdivas (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Pictogram voting comment.svg|20px]] This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. George Klein (disc jockey) is an existing article, so is outside our scope. Judging by User talk:Vivalasdivas, the difficulty you are having editing is a technical one, which is also outside our scope. Please consider continuing the discussion on your talk page or asking this question at the Help desk. - This is where editors will try to answer any question regarding how to use Wikipedia. Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. You could always try [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=help&fulltext=Search searching Wikipedia] for any help related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps! Worldbruce (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

16:46:52, 15 September 2015 review of submission by VitaStCyr
Hello, I recently submitted an article about NeighborhoodScout and it was rejected for lack of notability. I know that NeighborhoodScout is a notable brand and worthy of an article on Wikipedia, but I understand why my draft may not convey its notability and I could use your help!

NeighborhoodScout is a recognized website brand that has served more than 40 million users since 2002, and has been published in several reputable media outlets such as the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Time Magazine, Forbes.com, and many others. It has also been featured in several published books, most notably a series of "Dummies" brand books from 2010-2012 like Home Buying for Dummies, Personal Finance for Dummies, and Investing for Dummies. As well as a 2005 edition of the Wall Street Journal's Guide to the Business of Life. It is also mentioned in various TV news and media outlets across the U.S. on a weekly basis because the site is a trusted resource for crime ratings (and other data) at the neighborhood level. News channels often refer to NeighborhoodScout's crime data to either spur contention in local politics or to fuel collaboration about how city officials and residents can help to reduce their crime. It is also the website brand that invented the location search technology that you see used on many websites today. i.e. Select criteria like 'walkable' and 'family-friendly' and have a list of geographic places that match those criteria delivered to the user. They invented and patented that technology back in the early days of the worldwideweb. Very cool!

When I was writing the article, I was focused on citing the sources that supported each sentence or paragraph. A lot of the time, however, those sources weren't the glamorous and notable sources I mentioned above like WSJ or NYTimes because those articles weren't written as fact-finding missions about the website's inception date, or about the website's revenue model, or history.

For instance, in this New York Times article called "Using Data-Driven Home Search" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/20/realestate/using-data-to-find-a-new-york-suburb-that-fits.html), the author is focused on telling a story about how homebuyers are using websites like NeighborhoodScout to get factual data about neighborhoods and to try to predict the future about an area's gentrification potential; and most of the data cannot be provided by realtors because of Fair Housing laws. This is a very interesting story and includes a photo and quote from NeighborhoodScout's CEO, but it is unrelated to the background story I was trying to provide in my Draft.

Another example is this article on Forbes.com (http://www.forbes.com/2007/12/06/housing-investment-property-forbeslife-cx_mw_1207realestate.html) that explores the best "Blue Chip" real estate investments using NeighborhoodScout's home appreciation data. Or this other Forbes article (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jmaureenhenderson/2014/07/31/from-a-roommate-matching-app-to-the-rise-of-the-tea-party-does-big-data-drive-social-segregation/) about how Big Data sites like NeighborhoodScout could be driving social segregation because of it's search technology that allows users to "self-select" to find places with top schools, low crime, and educated neighbors with the ethnicities of their choice. Again, both very interesting examples of NeighborhoodScout talked about in reputable and published sources, but weren't included in my Draft because these articles don't support the factual, background story about the site that I had intended.

What is the best way to convey the notability of the site with the help of these published media sources, if the books or articles do not directly correspond to the sentence or paragraph?

Do I include an additional section about 'NeighborhoodScout in the news'? Or a section about how NeighborhoodScout has spurred debates on the availability of Big Data to the public; or if racial data on websites like NeighborhoodScout violates Fair Housing Laws? Or how the site has been used as a resource for Neighborhood-level data for a wide range of media stories (like Top 25 Best Places to Retire, etc.)? Then these more recognized/reputable sources would be included. I appreciate any help you can give me about the direction with regards to conveying the brand's notability. Thank you, V.

VitaStCyr (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Deciding on a narrative and then seeking sources to support it is the wrong way around, and usually doomed to failure. Start with what a range of reliable, independent, secondary sources - like The New York Times and Forbes (not www.forbes.com/sites, which are unreliable blogs) - say about the website. Ignore sources that merely mention the website or where a company spokeperson merely provides a quote; you're looking for direct, in-depth coverage. The bulk of the article should be based on such sources. Only turn to non-independent or primary sources when you need them to fill in a non-controversial detail. Delete the patent information.
 * Contrast the draft with a couple of Wikipedia's best articles about websites: The Million Dollar Homepage and 4chan. The draft need not be as long or polished as those to be approved, but observe the range of sources they cite. Worldbruce (talk) 06:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Request on 17:09:11, 15 September 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by 2A02:C7D:B913:5D00:129A:DDFF:FEB4:F4CE
I am new to wikipedia and have tried twice to submit an article for record producer John Burgess, but have been rejected due to not showing notability. Is there someone who could please help me. John was an intrinsic part of the British music invasion of the 60s and is notable and known throughout the industry. I am not sure how else I can show this.Is there an editor I can employ to add more references to show this etc? Thanks

2A02:C7D:B913:5D00:129A:DDFF:FEB4:F4CE (talk) 17:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I would recommend re-reviewing the three comments already posted on your page. The large problem is we need to see substantial coverage in the media or other sources. The listed sources are either barely reliable or only mention the person in passing. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)