Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2016 September 22

= September 22 =

01:27:17, 22 September 2016 review of submission by Petertoi
Hi help desk!

Hope you can help. My wikipedia entry about a family operated apple orchard, which is a well known late-summer / autumn camp and school field-trip destination here in Ontario, as well as successful and noteworthy business, has been rejected twice.

The first reviewer provided very helpful advice on what to do to get the wikipedia entry posted, which I followed, but then was rejected by a second reviewer who rejected the post without any helpful feedback.

Am hoping to get some more constructive tips for improving the article so that it can be posted.

Feeling a little dejected here, especially due to the negative comments left by the latest reviewer.

Any other thoughts? Peter

Peter Toi (talk) 01:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello Peter Toi, what is needed is to prove that people not connected to the Orchard are discussing it. This is done by including references to independent, reliable sources on the article.   For example, here is an article in The Globe and Mail that significantly discusses the Orchard:  As Canadian as selling apple pie to Americans.   Find more sources like that, and it will show the orchard passes the company notablity threshold.  Happy editing! --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 08:23, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, will pull in a few more sources and hope for the best. Thanks for your help 1Wiki8 ...........................!

Peter Toi (talk) 22:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

13:35:53, 22 September 2016 review of submission by Vicarage bobby
I am having trouble making the main heading "Leila Locke" appear in the larger text format.

also - as you can see, the majority of references are from very few publications - how can I make the numerous footnote links scattered through out the article all have the same reference number for the same publication?

thanks!

Vicarage bobby (talk) 13:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

14:08:41, 22 September 2016 review of draft by Milo2u
'''I am curious as to the "right" stage of development to submit an article for review ? We have created an article that is 75-80% complete - needing image placement and references to be added to move very close to completion. Submit now or complete more of the details as mentioned ??? Thank You...''' Milo2u (talk) 14:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * An article is never ready for submission until the references are in place. The draft in question does not yet have the references in the form of footnotes.  Also, the draft needs to have work done to make its formatting consistent.  Images are not necessary to submit an article for review.  They can be added to an article while it is pending review, or after it is accepted into article space.  However, if the references are not complete, the article will probably be declined because of the references.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

16:12:19, 22 September 2016 review of submission by Villeneuveclaire
Hello , I am working for the company TECHNICOLOR S.A., which owns the license for the trademark THOMSON. We prepared inside the SANDBOX of our TECHNICOLOR colleague, Claire VILLENEUVE, (in copy of this message), the contents of the translation in ENGLISH:  of the Wikipedia page,  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Villeneuveclaire/sandbox#References_.5Bchange_.7C_modify_the_code.5D which already exists in FRENCH, under the name : : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomson_(marque)

However we received the following comments for this TRANSLATION: We should provide << significant coverage about the subject with content which must be verifiable information from third-party reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject>> We don’t understand this comment. Could you please tell us how to create a Wikipedia page that is just a translation in a language that does not yet exist: ENGLISH, of a Wikipedia page that exist already in FRENCH, and in which we could include the text in ENGLISH  we have prepared in the SANDBOX above? Thank you in advance for your help Yours Stéphane

Villeneuveclaire (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Bonjour . I'm afraid there are two problems here. One is that the different Wikipedias are all independent and have their own norms and policies. Just because there is an article on a subject on the French Wikipedia, it does not automatically mean there can be one on the English Wikipedia. Translating a Wikipedia article involves a bit more work than just translating the text: you also need to make sure the translated article fits the policies, guidelines and formatting of the new Wikipedia. For example, on en-wiki we tend to be more strict about notability and referencing than many other wikis, so you would need to make sure your translated article met our standards.
 * The second problem is that as an employee of Technicolor you have a conflict of interest and should not really be editing articles related to the company. I would suggest you use Requested Articles to request that somebody else does the translation. Joe Roe (talk) 01:08, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

18:19:23, 22 September 2016 review of submission by 83.101.67.8
The article may be abridged at will, but apparently it needs to be created in order to solve the Wikidata problem of two entries on the Wikidata: Corneille Cacheux (Q19921939) https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corneille_Cacheux and Cornil Cacheux (Q15967201) https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornil_Cacheux - Wikidata help suggested to create the English-language Wikipedia article to be able to merge the 2 Wikidata entries. They are really the same person!

83.101.67.8 (talk) 18:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You can just merge them using wikidata's merge function, there doesn't need to be an English Wikipedia article. Joe Roe (talk) 00:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you did it. 83.101.67.8 (talk) 08:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

19:01:10, 22 September 2016 review of submission by 2604:2000:E016:A700:9910:BEF0:88FC:B7A4
The reviewer declined as not notable. But sent me wp guidelines that say that this person is notable - by competing in the Olympics. Is this reviewer sufficiently educated to perform reviews? Who else is being declined who should not be?
 * I agree in this case that the subject does appear to be notable because they competed in the Olympics. I suggest that you enter an AFC comment to that effect and resubmit.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Not every reviewer knows all of the details of all of the guidelines. User:MarkTraceur - Please read the sports notability guidelines and look at the Olympics sections.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I explained on my talk page to the submitter that I should not have declined for notability, but WP:RS, because the sources submitted did not seem reliable to me. I invited the submitter to re-submit, and I imagine they are going to. I won't re-decline. --MarkTraceur (talk) 20:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Even if someone is ipso facto notable, that notability must be confirmed by reliable sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * But it is.

I pointed out to Mark that just as his first decline reason was incorrect, his later second decline reason was also incorrect. Mark said that he decided it was not a reliable source without doing research. I pointed out that it is used as a source in over 39,000 wicki articles, many serving as the satisfaction of the persons notability (by being in the Olympics), and gave him a link to those articles. I also pointed him to 2 discussions on wp on a noticeboard. Those discussions say the source is reliable. I am concerned if we have people saying no to articles for bad reasons. This I think is an example. It cannot be a good way to encourage new editors.

I spelled this all out for Mark, giving him the links, here .. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MarkTraceur#18:59:38.2C_22_September_2016_review_of_submission_by_2604:2000:E016:A700:9910:BEF0:88FC:B7A4

2604:2000:E016:A700:9910:BEF0:88FC:B7A4 (talk) 23:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

19:59:39, 22 September 2016 review of submission by Russellmclendon
I recently submitted an article for creation, and it was initially declined. I have since adjusted the way the article is built and sourced, based on Wikipedia's guidelines for notability and sourcing requirements. It now cites only reliable outside sources -- including a number of newspapers, magazines and published books -- and omits sources associated with the subject. But I'm not sure if these changes suffice, as there's a backlog in articles for creation. Is there a way to find out if these changes might help, or if there's more I should be doing while I wait? I understand this forum is for assistance in editing and submitting, not for requesting a review -- I just want to make sure I'm doing all I can from my end. Russellmclendon (talk) 19:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

20:24:26, 22 September 2016 review of submission by Walrus Boot
It appears that someone made a change to the footnotes section. I can't tell what needs to be fixed. Thank you, Mark
 * In looking at your draft, the references do not appear to have been in the form of footnotes, and that is why it was declined. You need to make the references into in-line citations.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)