Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2016 June 23

= June 23 =

00:36:59, 23 June 2016 review of submission by RoyBNZ
I recently submitted an article about Manuka Health New Zealand, who I have been foloowing with interest over the years. I based this article on similar wiki articles about New Zealand companies of similar size e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trimax_Mowing_Systems and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navman, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbard_Foods, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invivo_Wines and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canterbury_of_New_Zealand Can you explain more how to edit article without losing important factual information such as research and awards? RoyBNZ (talk) 00:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The article is Draft:Manuka Health New Zealand. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi . It's natural to learn from examples, but in doing so it's important to use excellent examples. Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality content and low quality content. Trimax Mowing Systems is decent, but the other articles you listed are awful. Don't expect an article patterned after them to be accepted - the existence of bad articles is not a good reason for creating more bad articles.


 * Not everything you consider "important factual information" is important to Wikipedia. Not every verifiable fact belongs in an encyclopedia. Get rid of the "Key brands", "Awards", and "Environmental performance" sections. That's the sort of material that makes the draft promotional. I'm sceptical of the "MGO Certification" and "Research" sections as well, but haven't pulled the journal articles to see how relevant they are to the company. For Wikipedia, the most important section is "History". It should be written in prose rather than as a bullet list. Support it with independent sources like the NZ Herald one, rather than with press releases. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

01:03:14, 23 June 2016 review of submission by CityGirl2
Hi there - all of my sources are legitimate and verifiable, but I didn't follw proper formatting at first. I followed the instructions carefully, added additional information and references, changed a few to internal links, and would like to resubmit. Initially, I'd like to know A) if I'm on the right track with the changes I've made, and B)why I keep getting "Check date values" messages on some but not all the 'Retrieved on' dates in my reference list. Further, this is not only information the general public needs to have access to, but is certainly relevant due to 2016 being a Presidential election year. I certainly understand the rules governing article creation/submission, and I'd like to follow those rules closely. I appreciate any assistance you can provide. Many thanks!CityGirl2 (talk) 01:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi . There are still three external links ([1], [2] and [3]) embedded in the body of the article. They need to be removed, moved to an external links section at the bottom, or converted into references, as the case may be. The date formatting errors show up at the end of the reference, after the retrieved date, but if you examine them closely you'll see they're referring to the date parameter, not the access-date parameter. The problem is that dates with leading zeros like "06 February 2015" are invalid. Instead use "6 February 2015". And don't abbreviate March. After fixing the aforementioned, I recommend you resubmit the draft, but continue to improve it while waiting for the next review. There are a number of Manual of Style problems, such as the absence of a lead and the placement of references relative to punctuation, that need fixing but may not prevent acceptance. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:24, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Request on 04:45:34, 23 June 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Sujatasinghofficial
Sujatasinghofficial (talk) 04:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Your draft has two main related problems. First, it doesn't have any references, and so it doesn't make any claim of notability, that is, in-depth coverage by independent reliable sources.  Not everyone is notable anyway.  Second, your draft is an autobiography, and the submission of autobiographies, while not forbidden, is discouraged.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:34, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

08:02:54, 23 June 2016 review of submission by 1.186.248.175
1.186.248.175 (talk) 08:02, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * What is the question? You haven't submitted a draft, at least not from this IP address.  Your only other edit from this IP address was an inappropriate edit that has been reverted.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

19:54:22, 23 June 2016 review of draft by KKirby55
Hi - I'm composing a page on a novel transdermal delivery modality - I have a picture illustration or two I'd like to add. How do I do that?

KKirby55 (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The presence or absence of an illustration will have no effect on whether or not the draft is accepted, so it's often best to postpone adding images until the draft is accepted. Whether a particular image may be used at all depends on its copyright status. Adding an allowable image is a two step process: first upload it, then use it in on a page.


 * Go to First steps and carefully step through the tutorial. When you get to "First steps/Uploading files", don't dive in too hastily. First follow the link on that page to learn about the different licensing options. Other useful advance reading includes File names and Manual of Style/Images, which will prepare you to answer important questions the upload wizard will ask you. If after that you have any questions or doubts, there is a dedicated help desk for image uploading.


 * Once you've uploaded an image, the picture tutorial can guide you through how to use it in an article. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)