Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 January 5

= January 5 =

02:11:23, 5 January 2017 review of submission by Ch rob
Help with notability

Hi ; I'm trying to update the article, and have consulted the Notability guidelines, as suggested. I am an independent developer - unrelated to the developer of Sage - who has worked with this library, and (perhaps obviously) feel that it is of note. It seems that there might be several potential issues, and I'm trying to figure out how to deal with them - first, there is the fact that all three referenced articles were authored by the same person, Mr. Bosch. This is true, but they are all peer-reviewed articles, two of which were developed in concert with existing customers, regarding existing commercial work, and all three were presented at simulation industry conferences. Second, it could be seen as an advertisement, but given that it is offered as open-source work, and that the notability page refers to "cleaning up" a page so it doesn't read like an advertisement. Might this be a reasonable avenue? Before embarking on this effort, I read other pages for simulation and modeling class libraries in the open-source world, and the Ptolemy Project seemed to set a bar I could clear. Is there some element of Sage that I could describe, that might help it to become accepted on the same grounds as that of the Ptolemy Project? Additionally, I've found other references to HighMAST (which became Sage, as the proposed article describes) which (refereed journal implications aside) may appear more independent, but are less informative, and less authoritative, than the ones listed. Would including one or more of those, help? Please let me know what I might do to help make this article suitable for publication.

Regards, Ch rob (talk) 14:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC) Ch rob (talk) 02:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey Ch rob. The article Ptolemy Project may be a fine guide if you are trying to get the formatting right, but with only a single source, it's definitely at risk of being nominated for deletion. Part of what we're trying to do here is make sure that's not where your article ends up.


 * The problem with having only three sources, all written by one person, is that it establishes for sure that this one guy thinks this is worth writing about, but it doesn't establish that there's any other writers out there who agree. For all the reader knows, this Peter fellow may be the only one who's ever heard of the thing, and if that's the case, then it probably doesn't belong on Wikipedia.


 * Just looking at your first two sources, it's not entirely clear where the first one comes from, and it isn't really in depth coverage, similar to the second, which does mention Sage, but seems to only do so briefly and in passing. What you're really looking for are people who thought it was important enough to write about, and not just mention when they're actually writing about something else. But that doesn't necessarily need to be from a scholarly peer reviewed journal to be considered a reliable source, it could just as well be a news report, or a review in a publication direction at people in the field, but it does (in most all circumstances) need to be in some sort of publication, and not just something somebody posted online, like a blog or personal webpage.


 * Hope this helps some. Timothy Joseph Wood  14:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Timothy Joseph Wood . I’m not sure that it’s been the source of other published articles, though there is an article that was published on the topic of the Pfizer project on which I worked. I could probably find that, but it might not be helpful, as it doesn’t call out Sage explicitly. The overall project was in the millions of dollars, and Sage had a substantial role – probably close to six or eight man-years of development and integration work. It’s also embedded in a climate modeling application marketed by ClimSystems (an environmental consultancy out of New Zealand), and has been part of a NATO logistics application for eight or nine years, by my understanding. Also, it’s at the core of Ventana’s new product.


 * But none of these customers have written about it. It’s an embedded component, an engine within their software…


 * These seem pretty clearly to suggest significant non-Bosch entities who have experience with it, and think it’s notable, so … what can I do to get over this hump?


 * Thanks for your help in this matter.


 * P.S. Would you recommend that I *do* or *do not* add citations to the two papers and one web directory that reference it?

Ch rob (talk) 15:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

06:04:01, 5 January 2017 review of submission by Artichokeflowers22
Hello! I am looking for assistance on how to improve the article I am creating on the Acorn Image Editor. I have based the general format of the article on comparable image editors that are listed under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raster_graphics_editor such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixelmator and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affinity_Photo, but have so far received declinations based on notability and reading like an advertisement. I have increased the number of references to reliable and notable sources since the first draft. Many other image editor application pages list out the features of the application, so not sure if this is why it is deemed to be too much like an advertisement. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Artichokeflowers22 (talk) 06:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey Artichokeflowers22. I know it can be a bit confusing, but those are actually pretty bad articles to use as a guide, and honestly, are liable to be deleted if there aren't better sources available. They may be fine as far as formatting, but they're pretty weak on establishing notability.


 * Affinity Photo: Only contains two sources, and only one is independent.
 * Raster graphics editor: Contains zero sources
 * Pixelmator: Has lots of sources, but nearly all of them are to the developer itself.


 * So, part of the purpose of AfC is to make sure your article actually doesn't look like these, sitting out there with poor or no sourcing waiting for someone to nominate for deletion, and to help ensure that when it is published, it's solid as a rock, and sailing through Wikipedia requirements.


 * But poking around online, it looks like there has been a bit of coverage that hasn't been included in the draft yet, and it seems likely that even more are out there, so maybe a few more sources will push you over the line.


 * http://www.cultofmac.com/147639/acorn-is-a-fine-image-editor-for-everyone-50-mac-essentials-46/
 * http://arstechnica.com/apple/2009/01/mac-based-image-editor-acorn-bumped-to-version-1-5/
 * http://arstechnica.com/apple/2010/04/developers-concerned-that-mac-os-x-downloads-page-may-vanish/
 * https://www.lifewire.com/acorn-5-toms-mac-software-2259815


 * Hopefully this helps. Timothy Joseph Wood  13:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

That helps a lot. Thanks so much!

Artichokeflowers22 (talk) 00:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

11:21:55, 5 January 2017 review of submission by Nikitashah5
My submission was declined.I wanted to know the reason for this. Nikitashah5 (talk) 11:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey Nikitashah5. The draft currently in your sandbox doesn't include any references to verify it's content or establish the notability of your subject. For a guide on how to include references, see Help:Referencing for beginners. Timothy Joseph Wood  13:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

11:59:01, 5 January 2017 review of submission by Zubzer0
Regarding the latest rejection of the dartf page, I would appreciate some clarification on notability criteria. Specifically, I would like to know why journalists's interviews with the company, published in major Lithuanian news portals, do not add to notability. I have found another example here: http://verslas.lrytas.lt/rinkos-pulsas/karine-technika-nato-pajegoms-gaminama-ir-kaune.htm Another article here, this time reporting about upcoming investors in Lithuanian market: http://ekonomika.tv3.lt/naujiena/keturi-uzsienio-investuotojai-i-lietuva-atnes-113-mln-litu-31261.html#ixzz2AJOWsdRq Both articles seem independent and noteworthy to me. Would they be appropriate to add, and if not, why not? Thanks! Zubzer0 (talk) 11:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey Zubzer0. This...is actually a topic of some disagreement among editors. See Interviews. One the one hand, it can be argued that it contributes to notability, since someone obviously thought they were important enough to interview. On the other, the actual content of the interview is similar to a press release by the company, since it consists of direct statements by a company representative.


 * Maybe more to the point, I'm not sure it really matters, since there appears to be quite a bit that's been published about the company. So I wouldn't worry about removing interviews from the article, as long as they're used properly (e.g., don't report the opinion of the CEO from an interview as anything other than his opinion). Instead I would concentrate on incorporating all the other coverage that the company has gotten. Timothy Joseph Wood  13:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

13:58:28, 5 January 2017 review of submission by Samusaran
Samusaran (talk) 13:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC) Why is the article that i made deleted, some of them wasn't copied


 * Hey Samusaran. It looks like your sandbox was deleted because it was a misuse of Wikipedia as a web host. Depending on what the content was (which I cannot see since I'm not an admin), you can request to retrieve it at WP:REFUND, but you should note that Wikipedia is not to be used for storing information or text that is unrelated to the encyclopedia. Timothy Joseph Wood  14:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

15:17:40, 5 January 2017 review of submission by Leigh Page
Hi, I want to post a photo on the link, Igor J. Koralnik, which was just posted. It is a photo supplied by Dr. Koralnik in an email. How do I do this? Can I supply the photo to someone to post. Regards,

Leigh Page (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Leigh Page

Leigh Page (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, Leigh. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia.  The process for adding images to an article can be complex.  You might want to start by reading WP:Uploading images, which will offer guidance on the process.  But right now, the best way to improve the article is to address the problems that already exist -- the article has some substantial violations of our Manual of Style. In particular, your footnotes all need to be re-formatted, for which WP:REFB and WP:CIT will be useful guides.  Also, please see the "Formatting" tab under WP:Tutorial for information on how to get the section headings to conform with our Manual of Style.  And on a different note, the article is a "dead end", meaning that it contains no Wiki-links to any other article here on Wikipedia.  I hope this response has been helpful.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Request on 21:12:57, 5 January 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Marika Hansen
We would like to have advice and assistance to improve Major reviews of the article.

Marika Hansen (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, Marika. I've left some comments on the draft.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

21:36:50, 5 January 2017 review of submission by Hjelpertil
Hi I submitted "steady state (pharmacology)" because it did not excist as a page on it own in the English Wikipedia. It does have its own page in the Norwegian version, but that is linked to the whole subject of pharmacokinetics where steady state is mentioned. Tried to help and hope I did something right. With the best of intentions Andreas

Hjelpertil (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, Hjelpertil. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.  Right now, your submission is little more than a duplication of material that already exists in the article on pharmacokinetics.  If you think that the pharmacology definition of steady state should have its own article, then that's a discussion that you should have with the folks who edit the existing article.  You can initiate that discussion on that article's Talk page.  I hope this response has been helpful.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

23:40:36, 5 January 2017 review of submission by Fosteryourself
Draft:Boxing_Bear_Brewing_Company

Hello, I've created an article page, but can't seem to find the correct tone and content to be approved by a Wikipedia reviewer. Is there any help or editing/finishing you could give me to get our article page to get approved? I noticed some other Wikipedia pages in our community with similar writing setup/styles/industry facts have been approved, so I'm a little confused as I think Boxing Bear has more information and award winning stories that would benefit an encyclopedia of knowledge for the beer industry. Especially, since a lot of it happened in 2016?

Some examples I was looking at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosque_Brewing_Company       https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marble_Brewery_(Albuquerque,_New_Mexico)            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canteen_Brewhouse

Please help me, as I'm not the best formal writer, and I'm not sure how to edit my content to what you'd prefer.

Fosteryourself
 * Hello, Foster. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.  Before posting here, I was over at your submission and made a few illustrative edits.  Specifically, I re-wrote your lead so as to reflect an acceptable encyclopedic tone.  This "just the facts" approach to writing is what will be required in the other sections of the draft, as well.  I also note that some of the material that I removed had been taken verbatim from the company's website.  Even if you are the person who actually wrote that material for the website, the fact remains that a copyright is being claimed by the company and the material can not be copied over to here.  If the remainder of the draft contains similar copied material, it will all have to be removed.  Regarding the more general question of how the article should be written, the examples that you cited are not good examples to follow, because I suspect that, if ever they were nominated for deletion, they would not all survive that nomination.  Instead, you should be striving to follow the examples of some of our better-quality articles on breweries, such as Boddingtons Brewery, John Smith's Brewery, Stones Brewery, Webster's Brewery or Worthington Brewery.  Each of these will offer good examples of appropriate tone; they will also serve as templates for structuring the article and for assessing what type of material ought to be included (and vice versa).  Finally, I applaud your use of the cite web template for formatting your footnotes.  However, you don't seem to have quite developed the knack for correctly using its parameters.  I modified one of the cites to the Alburquerque Journal to illustrate how these parameters should be used.  Of course, similar corrections will be needed for the others.  I hope this response has been helpful.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)