Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2016 October 19

= October 19 =

09:04:46, 19 October 2016 review of submission by SurreyMorph
I have this comment about my draft: "Provide reliable sources for his biography, including for his membership in learned societies. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:26, 12 October 2016 (UTC)". How do i provide sources for membership of say British Academy? His University website is given which states he is a member of these societies so is that not enough verification ie if the University is satisfied that he is in these societies, shouldn't Wikipedia be happy too? I based his draft on various other linguists in the same field and Geoffrey Pullum is also a fellow of the British academy but I can't see how his page has provided sources for membership more than the draft for Corbett has done. Please advise what you are requiring as i am at a loss! SurreyMorph (talk) 09:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That draft has 14 references, but they are all written by the subject or by his employer. What is needed to establish his notability is significant discussion of him in reliable independent published sources. Maproom (talk) 11:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Maproom's comment about notability applies to most articles. One reason Wikipedia has special notability criteria for academics is that in-depth independent sources about academics are often scarce. With 6,500+ citations, Corbett convincingly satisfies criterion #1. As a fellow of the British Academy, he satisfies #3. And holding a distinguished professorship at University of Surrey satisfies #5. So don't worry too much about notability; that isn't why the draft was declined. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * One way to reference being a fellow of the British Academy would be to cite: There is an important distinction between references and external links. When you include his university website in the "External links" section, you are telling the reader that they can look there to see his perspective on himself. When you include it only there, you are saying that none of the content of the article came from his university website. Anywhere you wish to use it as a reference, cite it using ref tags as you have cited other sources in the draft.


 * The pitfall in patterning a new article after an existing one is that Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality content and low quality content. The article Geoffrey K. Pullum is only one step above absolute crap. Arguing that Wikipedia contains rotten articles, so we should add another rotten article, will not convince experienced editors. If you wish to learn from examples, study Wikipedia's featured and good articles, such as: Samuel Johnson, Ahmad Hasan Dani, Benjamin Lee Whorf, and Steven Pinker.


 * As you rework the draft, aim to make it understandable to readers who are not experts in the field of linguistics. It may be necessary to replace jargon or add explanatory context. You may find the guideline Make technical articles understandable and essay Writing better articles useful. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

18:34:25, 19 October 2016 review of submission by Kate Robins
Kate Robins (talk) 18:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I never heard if anyone reviewed this. Look forward to your feedback. Thank you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kate_Robins/First_generation_students
 * Hello, Kate. Welcome back to Wikipedia.  I see no evidence that the draft was ever submitted to Articles to Creation for review.  Is that what you would like to do now?  NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

19:56:07, 19 October 2016 review of submission by Neuroquest
I want to know if my recent edits to the Chris Elizabeth Gilbert article got to you. My first submission was rejected, but I'm not sure whether the revision was sent properly

Neuroquest (talk) 19:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, Neuroquest. Thank you for your submission.  It has been received and is currently in the queue for review.  Please be aware that there is an extremely large backlog and that the next review will likely not take place for several weeks.  Before posting this, I did take a look at your submission and noticed that most of the references are in the form of bare URL's.  These should be re-formatted using the cite web template.  I also saw that you did not follow the style guidelines for our articles, particularly with respect to headings (for which see MOS:HEADINGS).  More substantively, there are large sections of the article that remain unsourced.  I also think that you haven't done a good job of demonstrating the opening claim that the subject has "pioneered innovative medical treatments".  I encourage you to address these matters in the weeks between now and when the article does get its next review.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)