Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2016 May 17

= May 17 =

04:12:20, 17 May 2016 review of submission by Flashpepi
Flashpepi (talk) 04:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC) Hi,

I have just created (to-day in my sandbox) an article on the sculptor 'Marc Clark'. I have submitted it for review but now relaise I may have done it the wrong way. There is already a page for 'Marc Clark' which is emty but I did not now how to enter the text and then ask for a review so I cretaed a new page in my sandbox.

Should I have just entered the text on the already created empty 'Marc ClarK' and waited for an outcome? Or, if my submission is accepted, will it be placed on the page already created.

I hope this makes sense I am new to this,

thanks,

John Jackson


 * If you submitted your sandbox as an article and the reviewer accepted it, they might move it to Marc Clark, or to Marc Clark (sculptor) to avoid confusion with various people called Mark Clark. But as it is, it will certainly not be accepted, as it has no references at all. References are needed to establish that the subject is notable. Maproom (talk) 09:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

09:40:07, 17 May 2016 review of submission by Attilazkedei
Hi, I was wondering why my article was declined? "This article needs to be fundamentally rewritten" is too vague for an explanation. Could you be more specific? Tell exactly what are the problems, so I can start correcting them right away!

Thank you,

Attila Attilazkedei (talk) 09:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Here is what it says in the rejection notice, in the blue box within the pink box at the top of the draft:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.
 * Maproom (talk) 10:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

10:06:49, 17 May 2016 review of submission by Thumperward
Hey,

I've been asked to have a look at Draft:Cloudreach as I'm an experienced Wikipedian. To me it looks pretty reasonable written and sourced, but the AfC was declined. The reviewer hasn't responded to requests for clarification on his talk. Can someone have a look and suggest what, if anything, needs to be fixed for it to be moved to mainspace? Thanks! Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not surprised it was rejected. The article does not start by saying what the company is notable for, instead it lists its trading partners (twice). And most of the references are to unacceptable sources, including the company's own web site, and Youtube. Maproom (talk) 10:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought I'd weigh in on this too. The article is rather promotional in nature and talks more about notable customers and the 'praise' that the company has received rather than talking about the company itself. After reading the article, ask yourself, why is this company notable? I'm still stumped and I've read over it twice. st170e talk 10:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The wording of the draft sounds familiar. As a sysop, can you tell those of us who aren't admins, "To what degree does this draft resemble the article deleted as a result of Articles for deletion/Cloudreach?" Thanks! --Worldbruce (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I've put the deleted material up at User:Thumperward/Draft:Cloudreach. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Reviewers are instructed that, "The core purpose of reviewing is to identify which submissions will be deleted and which won't ... Articles that will probably not survive [a listing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion] should be declined." So seeing what previously did not survive AfD is a helpful point of reference, although of course any given deletion discussion may not be representative of the process as a whole, and policies and guidelines do evolve. Worldbruce (talk) 15:22, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, notability generally implies coverage from reliable secondary sources. The question is whether or not said coverage exists, at least in terms of whether an article is viable, as opposed to how it's presented (at least so long as it's not blatantly promotional). As for the inclusion of primary or unreliable sources, that's what I'm getting at: would just removing these be better? The submitter didn't receive any advice on how to actually fix the problem when the draft was declined, which is why I'm asking. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * In my experience, the enumerated partner levels are not encyclopedia-worthy accomplishments, so I'd advise the author to take a hard look at the sources that mention them. If they're only covered by non-independent sources, ones that do not fit Wikipedia definition of reliable, or media of limited interest and circulation (especially trade rags that depend heavily on the involved parties for sales and advertising), then remove any mention of them. That would simultaneously reduce the perceived promotionalism and make any remaining reliable secondary sources stand out. Axe the clients section as promotional. Client wins that were key to the company's history are already discussed in the history section. I'm also skeptical of the awards and accolades. Are these awards covered by anyone other than the giver and recipient? Add the following independent, reliable, secondary source, and base the bulk of the draft on such sources:  --Worldbruce (talk) 15:22, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

11:18:04, 17 May 2016 review of submission by Keng Papon
Keng Papon (talk) 11:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

11:19:02, 17 May 2016 review of submission by Keng Papon
Keng Papon (talk) 11:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The draft in question is User:Keng Papon/sandbox. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Both this draft and Draft:Surachai Chantimathorn contain peacock language. Please do not work on two copies of drafts on the same person at the same time, and please use neutral language in drafts.  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Request on 12:31:02, 17 May 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Ibrahimuhd
Ibrahimuhd (talk) 12:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

13:37:49, 17 May 2016 review of submission by Effeld
As requested during a previous review, I added several sources as required. The last reviewer denied the article because the reviewer said the sources only list winners and I need some sources that mention the award (not winners of the award). Two of the sources (#3 & #4) as requested, include the award in articles that help authors find various award programs. Since this is what was wanted, I'm at a loss to figure out what else I can do to get the article added. I tried contacting the reviewer (Hermera34) a few weeks ago but have not heard back. Help!


 * What is being asked for is references to independent reliable sources with significant discussion of the awards. Quite likely there is no such significant discussion to be found, and there is nothing you could do to get the article accepted. Maproom (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

18:05:02, 17 May 2016 review of submission by Seedsforchange
I want to make the S M Sehgal Foundation page stronger. I have added a couple of links and I will add more links to and from other pages. However, in light of the caution not to make too many links, how many do I need to add before the "Multiple Issues" note on the page can be removed? And how can that be accomplished? Also note, I am a bit unclear on how to send and receive messages regarding help issues. I want every editor who has helped me with this to know how much I appreciate their help. Thank you very much. Seedsforchange (talk) 18:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Pictogram voting comment.svg|20px]] This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. For questions about improving existing articles, you're better off 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.
 * That being said, the short answer to your question is that anyone (including you) may remove a maintenance template if they believe that the problem has been resolved. If you feel the article follows Manual of Style/Linking, you may remove the line . For this article, that would leave a single maintenance template, so you could removed the   and closing   from the lines before and after the Orphan maintenance template. If another editor (or bot) happens to look at the article and thinks it's still underlinked, they'll simply add back the maintenance template.
 * An alternative is to do nothing. The maintenance template adds the article to Category:All articles with too few wikilinks, where volunteers will find it eventually (there's a 19,000+ article backlog), improve the linking, and remove the template if appropriate. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

20:30:45, 17 May 2016 review of submission by 68.2.123.163
Can someone rewrite this please? Thanks! 68.2.123.163 (talk) 20:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ❌ This page is for questions about the Articles for Creation process. We cannot re-write articles on demand. Please consider doing this yourself; be bold and make the step! Other editors will surely help you if you make the initial efforts. st170e talk 22:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

23:17:50, 17 May 2016 review of submission by 68.2.123.163
How does this look now? 68.2.123.163 (talk) 23:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)