Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2016 April 28

= April 28 =

Request on 01:57:17, 28 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Ivymgardner
Hi. I am writing this article for a client and could really use some help identifying independent sources.

Ivymgardner (talk) 01:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello! You say here that you are writing this article 'for a client'. Autobiographies are frowned upon on Wikipedia as per WP:AUTOBIO as all articles written on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (WP:NEUTRAL). For any article, you must demonstrate its notability before you can have the article approved. I would recommend you read the descriptive comment by the reviewer on your article. Independent sources must be completely independent of the subject. They must be about the subject and not written by the subject. Third-party sources are useful as independent sources; for example, newspaper articles function great as independent sources as it shows media coverage of the subject. However, you need to ensure that the article you write shows the importance of the person and please remove all promotional or peacock terms used on the article. st170etalk 14:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

04:30:42, 28 April 2016 review of submission by Markadley
Hello all, I'm a bit stuck with my page. I've separated all the references that directly refer to the Drugs Wheel from the external links as requested. If there is an issue with using the images from a copyright perspective I can remove them, but I haven't had a response to the resubmission. If someone has any pointers as to how to take this forward I'd be very grateful. Kind regards Mark


 * The draft is not currently submitted for review. Try clicking the bright blue button in the big pink box on the draft. That should create a big yellow box on the draft, most likely at the bottom, to the effect that it's pending review. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The images are plainly marked NonCommercial, so they must be removed from Wikimedia Commons. See the bold text in the first sentence of Creative Commons copyright tags. Worldbruce (talk) 06:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * It is frowned upon when people attempt to create wikipedia articles about their own work. Wikipedia is not a personal SEO device that people get to use to improve their search engine results.  While your cause may be real, your self promotion on Wikipedia is not welcome and so your article needs to be speedy deleted.  from the drugswheel.com site "The Drugs Wheel by Mark Adley is licensed under ..." --Potguru (talk) 14:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

06:15:14, 28 April 2016 review of submission by Netasif2004
My article was recently declined. I was in stage of writing it. I have references but they were in hard form and i was in a stage of scanning them. Netasif2004 (talk) 06:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi . Wikipedia doesn't need the sources scanned, but it does need them cited. See Referencing for beginners and Citing sources. There is no point in submitting the draft until sources are cited; an unreferenced draft will always be declined. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

07:38:32, 28 April 2016 review of submission by Hachemjohnny
My draft article have been rejected, I'm a new editor and this is my first article submitted to Wiki, can you please advise on how this article might be improved?


 * There appears to be insufficient evidence for notability. The relevant criterion is WP:CREATIVE. A musician must do more than get his compositions performed. They must attract substantial critical attention from third parties. A quotation from his publisher is not independent. The newspaper articles appear to be extravagant praise, not reliable criticism.  Refs 8 and 9   are youtube recordings of broadcasts in Arabic, without written text, all that I can tell is that the information about him   appear in  very short segments lasting less than a minute. In addition, anarticle which puts the name of his agent in the first paragraph is likely to be regarded as overly promotional.  DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

14:22:41, 28 April 2016 review of submission by Boris0102
Hello, please, help me with completing my article. I can't understand how to put pictures in the article. There are pictures in Russian version of article but I don't know how to use it. And also it would be great if somebody check article. My english is not perfect, sorry, but I don't want to leave there any mistakes. Thanks you. Boris0102 (talk) 14:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

15:58:52, 28 April 2016 review of submission by AbbyHughes13
I have sited articles sharing about John O'Leary as a credible inspirational speaker and author. How can I make this read more like an encyclopedia entry so that it is approved? The more specific you can be the better - I'd love to take your recommendations and make edits today. Once I do - how do I resubmit for review?

AbbyHughes13 (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello Abby. From what I have seen in the references you've provided and other coverage available, the book appears notable. There are multiple reviews available, and it is a bestseller. The problem is, you have created this draft as a biography of the author, but it contains no biographical information whatsoever, apart from his date of birth and the fact that he is a motivational speaker and wrote a best-selling book, On Fire: The 7 Choices to Ignite a Radically Inspired Life. As such, I agree with the reviewer's comment on the draft: "This is like an advertisement for the author. Explain why he's notable. This article is wholly focussed on his new book". The book came out in March. O'Leary has been on an extensive tour promoting the book. Is a Wikipedia article on the author part of that campaign? Or perhaps for publicising his work as a speaker and thus increasing his bookings? If that is the goal, then it will prove difficult to write an acceptable draft, especially if you are at all affiliated with O'Leary's company, his publisher, or his publicists. My advice is the following:
 * Make the draft article about the book itself, which at this point does pass the criteria for inclusion. The page WikiProject Books has a section on Article structure which gives a quick guide to the basic structure used for a book article on Wikipedia and the type of content and sourcing required. The Background section of your draft article can give the biographical details on the author. These can be sourced to the extensive article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
 * Have a look at some existing book articles which have been rated as "Good Articles" for ideas, e.g. I Love Bacon! or Help at Any Cost.
 * If you do decide to go ahead and focus the draft on the book with a sub-section on the author, let me know and I can move it to Draft:On Fire: The 7 Choices to Ignite a Radically Inspired Life. Alternatively, make it clear in the present draft that this should be the title when/if it's accepted and moved to article space.
 * If you decide to keep the draft as a biography of the author with a subsection on the book (although less preferable in my view), then it needs to be a a proper biographical narrative. Some examples you could follow include Lanfranco Rasponi and Michael M. Crow. The pages Manual of Style/Biographies and Manual of Style/Words to watch have tips on producing the appropriate style and format for biographical articles.
 * Don't rush it. It takes quite a lot of time to produce a neutrally written, well-sourced, and adequately informative article, and even more so if you are a new editor. Don't submit your draft until it has an appropriate structure, reasonably fleshed out. It doesn't have to be "Good Article" standard, but it needs to be much more than a book jacket blurb.
 * If you are at all affiliated with John O'Leary, his company (Rising Above), his publisher, or his publicists, you need to read Conflict of interest for guidance when editing under those circumstances.
 * Hope that helps. Voceditenore (talk) 07:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Request on 16:21:16, 28 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Kirsty A Jennings
Hello,

I resubmitted my changes to the page a month or so ago, and still seem to have been declined. I am not hugely technical and find all of this quite intimidating. I thought I had removed the language that was not permitted, and provided examples of ETO being mentioned in other media etc.

I'd appreciate some help on this. I did receive a message from someone offering to help me for £200, I'm not sure who it was, but it does seem rather against the spirit of Wikipedia to receive such a message, so I assumed it was not legitimate.

If someone had the time to help me then I would be very grateful. I see no reason for the publication not to be an entry, as there are other Adult Trade publications entered into Wikipedia.

Many thanks in advance,

KirstyKirsty A Jennings (talk) 16:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Kirsty A Jennings (talk) 16:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello Kirsty. You're right about the offer of help for a fee. It's a well-known scam (see here for more). I'm going to frank with you here. The problem is not the lack of technical expertise with Wikipedia markup. The problem is that the draft is still hopelessly promotional, and it is very obvious to a neutral reader (even the 2nd revised version) that it has been written by someone closely associated with the magazine. One of the prime reasons why editing with a conflict of interest is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia is because it is virtually impossible to write a neutral, non-promotional article under those circumstances or to even see the promotionalism that is obvious to anyone else. Having said that, this publication may well meet the criteria for inclusion, and you may wish to have another go at producing an acceptable draft. I have left several independent sources you can use and advice on how to rewrite this completely on the draft itself. I'll repeat the basics here:
 * Shorten this draft drastically to one (or at most two) concise paragraphs giving only basic, neutrally worded, factual information about the publication's history and activities (trade shows, ETO awards, etc.)—minus all self-serving claims, minus all references consisting of the company's Facebook and Twitter accounts, minus silly PR-speak like "garner", and minus all inline external links. All references should appear as inline citations using the format. Use references like the following, which are independent of the subject:
 * Daily Telegraph (21 November 2004). "The gentrification of sex toys".
 * Borlik, Todd Andrew and Voss, Georgina (2015). Stigma and the Shaping of the Pornography Industry. p. 111. Routledge. ISBN 1136741763
 * The Brighton Magazine (17 August 2006). "Taboo Adult Boutique: 'Best Independent Retailer 2006' Award"
 * Gardiner, Melanie (13 August 2015). "Australia’s Sexpo gets new moves for UK market". Exhibition World
 * Jeys, Anna (27 Jul 2005). "Hot stuff at NEC!". Birmingham Mail
 * Do not add any information that you cannot reliably source to independent publications like these, apart from simple statements about ETO's circulation as of 2016, the names of its Publisher and Editor-in-chief, and the location of its editorial offices. The circulation figures can be referenced with a citation to ETO About but must be minus self-serving claims like, "steadily increased over the last few years", and it must be made clear in the text of the draft article that these circulation figures are "according to the ETO official website". The location of the magazine's editorial office (Cwmbran, Wales) and the names of its Publisher (Lee Schofield) and Editor-in-chief (Dale Bradford) can referenced to ETO Contact, but no fluff about these two people—just their names—and no other staff should be listed.
 * In short, forget everything you've ever learnt about writing company press releases or website copy. An acceptable encyclopedia article for a commercial operation needs to be thoroughly and independently sourced, concise, devoid of adjectives, utterly neutral, matter-of-fact, and boring. Voceditenore (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

18:16:04, 28 April 2016 review of submission by Jslee1301
Jslee1301 18:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jslee1301 (talk • contribs)


 * Hello Jslee1301. I presume you are inquiring about the rejection of User:Jslee1301/sandbox. It was rejected because the draft was completely blank apart from your signature. Perhaps you didn't mean to submit it for for review and were just experimenting? In any case, we cannot help you unless you provide details of what you are trying to accomplish with your draft. This help desk is for editors seeking advice on drafts. If you just need help on finding your way around, I suggest you post your questions at Teahouse, a friendly place to help new editors become accustomed to Wikipedia culture, ask questions, and develop community relationships. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 05:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

20:12:04, 28 April 2016 review of submission by Toreeva
I try to submit the article which I rewrote, since the comments I got from the prev. submission (it looks promotional, even though notability OK). Please verify and help me if the article still has the promotional tendency. Should I add something, or delete anything? If yes, please help me with it. And also help me with the grammar or with the structure of the sentences, if you will find any. For example I'm confused when I should use the "emigrated" or "immigrated"? Just fix it without asking me. Thanks for any help.Toreeva (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC) Toreeva (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , I accepted the draft because I believe it has a good chance to survive if nominated for deletion. However, it still requires copyediting, I have worked a bit on the article, but I am not sure I have time to go through the whole article now.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)Thanks a lot!YmblanterToreeva (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)