Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 July 13

= July 13 =

10:07:12, 13 July 2017 review of submission by Mrngcuegee
Dear JCC / Help Desk, Thank you for your reply and information. There are significantly more individual notable sources added to the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Shrewsbury_International_School_Hong_Kong. Please review again at your convenience. Yours, Mrngcuegee Mrngcuegee (talk) 10:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Right now, there are about 800 submissions in the queue ahead of yours.  I expect that it will be some three weeks before a reviewer gets a chance to take another look at it.  Thank you for your patience.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

12:50:29, 13 July 2017 review of submission by EloDinglasan
EloDinglasan (talk) 12:50, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi! I am Elo Dinglasan, one of the people working on the PNRI wikipedia article draft.

Our first sandbox was speedily deleted, with one of the reasons being a CoI. However, we're not at all endorsed by the PNRI. We're doing this for a class project, and we chose the PNRI because we wanted to help alleviate the stigma towards nuclear research here in the Philippines. If it is for a class project, would that still merit a CoI?

Another problem I think we may have is that though the language (I would like to think) is far more neutral than our first attempt, I'm wondering if the form itself might seem too promotional. Are there subtopics in the article that do not fit in the encyclopedic form?

Thank you for your time, I hope to hear from you soon. :)


 * Hello, Elo. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.  Our apologies for the delay in response.  Before posting here, I took a look at your submission and, frankly, I found it well-nigh unreadable.  Some of the problems can be addressed by improvements in layout and formatting.  If you haven't already done so, you might want to work through our WP:Tutorial, which will provide the basics on producing an article with an acceptable appearance.  I was also troubled by your citation style, in which the footnotes provide only the author name and page number.  The reader then has to search through a lengthy list of sources to find the relevant one.  Although this is not a prohibited method of citation (I use it myself when there is a small number of sources), it is problematic here.  This can be addressed by using the sfn template, which provides links from the "short" reference to the full listing. But the problems go deeper than the mere appearance of the draft.  The organization of the material appears chaotic and far too much of it wanders off the main topic.  Specifically, there is too much discussion of the science itself, when the main topic should be the Institute.  And much of that science is presented with language that will be understood only by specialists in the field.  As just one example, can we really expect the average reader to know, or even care, about the "phase identification of a crystalline material"?  This kind of technical detail really has no place in the article.  And another major problem is the great reliance on "primary" sources.  Pretty much all of your references are either to the Institute's web site or to publications of the Institute or to governmental documents concerning the Institute.  Compare this with an article such as United States Atomic Energy Commission, which shows a good deal of evidence that the organization has been discussed in detail by sources unrelated to the Commission.  In your case, this might be a problem (i.e., getting in-depth discussion by non-related reliable sources), but it is a problem shared by a lot of our articles on government agencies and institutes.  The authors of those articles usually address the problem by adopting a "less is more" approach.  You can do that here -- describe the Institute (in broad terms), mention the Executive Orders under which it operates, and specify the operational sub-divisions (with a very brief layman's description of what they do).  This approach is likely to produce an article that visitors to Wikipedia will actually want to read. And finally, an article on the Philippine Nuclear Research Institute already exists and so, for this reason alone, your draft will never be accepted for publication.  Instead, feel free to expand the existing article with the material that you've created (after, I hope, taking my comments here into consideration).  Good luck with the process.  If you have any further questions, feel free to ask.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Request on 13:28:48, 13 July 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Hiteshy2h
Hiteshy2h (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, Hiteshy. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.  Our apologies for the delay in response.  Did you have a specific question?  NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

15:13:48, 13 July 2017 review of submission by Karibsouders
First, thank you for reaching out to me. I am requesting assistance because my edits keep being declined and I don't know why. Who decides what materiel's don't constitute proper sources? I also have the following message at the top of the page: This article reads like a press release or a news article and/or is entirely based on routine coverage. Please expand this article with properly sourced content to meet Wikipedia's quality standards, event notability guideline, and/or encyclopedic content policy. (July 2017)

Thanks!! Kari

Karibsouders (talk) 15:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * This is in reference to Gavin Becker. I'd considered bringing this to the WP:BLP noticeboard. I've reverted some contributions by the above editor, and think much more paring of the article will be necessary. I've explained the issues and templated the article; much of it is a recitation of concerts and dates, and these events are not themselves notable for the most part, nor do we need to know that a concert 'sold out', especially if that hasn't been supported by the linked sources. I've asked, but received no response, as to whether WP:COI is a concern; perhaps the article's creator is merely a fan. My suggestion is that Karibsouders refrain from editing and allow experienced and objective users to review and amend the article. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

16:32:26, 13 July 2017 review of submission by Vlaurentius
I would like to know how to place a picture. The picture I am placing is rights free and for some reason the comment of wikipedia is that wikipedia is not sure if it can be placed last but not least I want to place a grid on the right side with basic information on the inventor/person. How do I select a grid in which I can place birth, birth place, occupation etc.. VL 16:32, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, V. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.  Our apologies for the delay in response.  Uploading images can be a complex process.  You can begin learning about it by reading WP:Uploading images.  Note that, in some cases, an image cannot be added until the draft has been accepted for publication, so this might not be the first thing that you want to do here.  The second part of your question addresses what we call an "infobox".  In your case, you probably want to use infobox person.  Clicking that link will take you to a page that describes how the infobox is used. But neither of these two things will make any difference unless you address the more basic problems with your submission.  Your submission fails to exhibit any familiarity with even the basic aspects of drafting a Wikipedia article.  If you haven't already done so, I strongly urge you to work through our WP:Tutorial, which will provide you with the information needed to craft an acceptable article.  You might also take a look at some of our better articles on inventors, such as Joseph Swan or Isaac Singer, because doing so will show how the techniques provided in the Tutorial are applied in practice.  And finally -- and this is of utmost importance -- it is simply unacceptable to provide your sources in a single clump at the end of the draft.  By doing so, you are telling the reader that, if they want to verify any particular statement, they need to search through all of the sources in hopes of finding the right one.  This is not an acceptable practice, especially in a biography of a living person.  Instead, the statements need to be associated with particular sources.  You can learn more about this by reading WP:Referencing for beginners. I hope this response has been helpful.  If you have any further questions, feel free to ask.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:18, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Request on 17:14:14, 13 July 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by AlexW0005
I submitted an article about Larry Sharpe (politician) he is referenced in other wiki articles and I wanted to create a biographical article explaining who he is, he has run in high profile races like for vice-president US and currently for Governor of new york city. but im being blocked due to our notability standards for politicians, and im usure what exactly I need to add to my article to get past that.

AlexW0005 (talk) 17:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , Sharpe pretty clearly does not meet our notability guideline for politicians: Sharpe sought the nomination of a minor party for a major office, and didn't get it, so he wasn't even in the general campaign. Unless he has had significant political activity not mentioned in the curent draft, he is not going to get in on his political achievements alone. So the only apparent way for there to be a valid article about him is the general notability guideline. Has there been significant independent non-local coverage of Sharpe? Independent published reliable sources that discuss Sharpe in some detail? Multiple paragraphs per source, at least? Not blogs, not press releases or stories that are based on PRs, not Q&A interviews, not anything by Sharpe himself or his close affiliates, not directory listings or passing mentions. If there are, these could be used and cited in the draft.
 * Some sugestions:
 * The first paragraph of the "Early Life and Career" of the draft is unsourced, sounds rather promotional, and is not really relevant in my view. It might be better removed.
 * As per WP:DOB exact birth dates for living people should usually not be included, and never if unsourced.
 * Refer to the subject by his last name alone after the first sentence of the article: Always "Sharpe" never "Larry".
 * Don't use "currently", use a specific date ("as of March 2017"). Consider how the text would read if approved and then not edited for 5 years. What would "currently" then mean? This isn't a news story, but an encyclopedia article.
 * Don't use "it is said" or "rumored" or the like unless you can say who is saying it, and cite a source.
 * I hope this is helpful, for other articles if not for this one. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)