Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 July 31

= July 31 =

Request on 02:34:59, 31 July 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Navalaviator84
The reviewer suggested that the content of the submitted article be incorporated into the existing "CVW-17" article. The problem however is that the content of the new page does not belong in the CVW-17 article. The new article seeks to give the history of a Carrier Air Group which was established on 1 April 1944 as "Carrier Air Group 82 (CVG-82)", was redesignated to "Attack Carrier Air Group 17 (CVAG-17)" on 15 November 1946 and then again redesignated "Carrier Air Group 17 (CVG-17) on 1 Sep 1948. That Carrier Air Group was subsequently disestablished on 15 September 1958.  On 1 November 1966 (over eight years later) a new Carrier Air Wing designated "Carrier Air Wing 17 (CVW-17) was established. There is no relationship between the Carrier Air Group which was in existence from 1 April 1944 to 15 September 1958 and carried the designations CVG-82, CVAG-17 and CVG-17 and the Carrier Air Wing designated CVW-17 which was established more than eight years after the former unit was disestablished. The history of the former unit (CVG-82/CVAG-17/CVG-17) does not belong in an article the subject of which is the latter unit (CVW-17).Navalaviator84 (talk) 02:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Navalaviator84 (talk) 02:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, NavalAviator. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.  I'm a bit confused about what is happening here.  The material in your draft is virtually the same as the material you added last week to the Carrier Air Wing Seventeen article.  Do you intend that this material reside in two places?  Or do you intend to remove the material from the Air Wing Seventeen article?  NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)


 * {{replyto|NewYorkActuary]]The intent is to remove the material from the Carrier Air Wing Seventeen article as it does not relate to Carrier Air Wing Seventeen but to Carrier Air Group 82 which are not the same units. However, I do not now wish to continue with the Carrier Air Group 82 article as it makes more sense to put the material in an article titled "Carrier Air Group SEVENTEEN" instead (Carrier Air Group 82 and Carrier Air Group 17 are the same unit), a draft of which I have created and which is currently in review.Navalaviator84 (talk) 04:52, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello again, Navalaviator. Thanks for getting back to us on this.  Two points.  First, if you intend to remove the material from the Air Wing Seventeen article, it will better to do it sooner rather than later.  If the person who reviews the Air Group SEVENTEEN submission notices a duplication of content, they too might decline the submission for that reason.  And so, it might be better to forestall that possibility by removing the material now.  Second, if you truly intend to abandon the Air Group EIGHTY TWO draft in favor of the Air Group SEVENTEEN draft, it will simplify things if you request a deletion of the abandoned draft.  You can make this request by placing the {{tl|db-g1}} template (including the two curly brackets on each side) at the top of the draft.  If you have any questions, feel free to ask.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:15, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * {{replyto|NewYorkActuary}}Thanks
 * {{replyto|Navalaviator84}} I typed the wrong number -- I meant to specify the {{tl|db-g7}} template.  I've already made the correction at the draft page.  My apologies for the error.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

05:50:37, 31 July 2017 review of submission by Riccardo de Gennaro
Good morning everybody. I am experiencing a problem with 'Palmarés' section of the page I am creating and which is currently pending, waiting to be approved. I have added an image already available on Wikicommons next to "European championship 2017", but I couldn't manage to perfectly allign the small file (Gold world medal) and the words. In other words, I'd love the file to be positioned slightly higher: can anybody help me, please? This is how it is now: * European championship 2017

Thank you

Riccardo de Gennaro (talk) 05:50, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi . I've modified how the image is used in the draft. If the result still isn't the effect you're seeking, someone else may be able to adjust it further. Images like this are helpful when they simplify complex information, such as in a long vertical list of medals or where different levels of medals for different years are listed on one line, see for example Attila Vári. In Draft:Sara Cortella, the image, like the draft's overuse of bold, seems to be an attempt to add pizzazz rather than convey information. I recommend removing the image. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Worldbruce (talk) Hi, Worldbruce, and thank you for your help. The effect is what I was loooking for and I am happy about it: I will surely consider your suggestions, both about removing the image and not using too many bold words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riccardo de Gennaro (talk • contribs) 22:46, 1 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind that Wikipedia has a diverse readership, including the blind and colorblind. An icon of a gold medal may be meaningless to them, so it should not be used without the text "gold medal". See Manual of Style/Icons for other considerations. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

09:55:20, 31 July 2017 review of submission by PrajaktaN
Hello there,

I have re-edited this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:BookMyShow and have made possible necessary edits, added adequate references too. Before submitting it for review, would appreciate if the given draft is reviewed before hand for any changes/improvement.

Thanks,

PrajaktaN


 * Hi . The draft is in the pool, and will be reviewed in due course. You are welcome to continue improving it while you wait. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

15:47:57, 31 July 2017 review of submission by Robertgombos
Robertgombos (talk) 15:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello!

While improving various contemporary artist's entries (it's one of my two specialties) stumbled across Won Ju Lim, a Korean American artist with enough coverage (solid verifiable primary and secondary sources) and decided to create an entry since there are a few WP entries linking to the artist's entry (redlinks). So, I created Draft:Won_Ju_Lim. However, being the first article I create, I decided not to publish it directly to the mainspace, instead, I wanted an AfC opinion. The review box appended at the bottom of the draft and I'm not entirely sure if it should stay there or I should move it to the top. Any suggestion/help would be much appreciated.

I tried to find a free image verifying the main sourced listed on [| Public domain image resources] and I couldn't find any. Probably a fair use, low resolution, image could be used. To respect WP policy, I should wait to see if the article makes it into the mainspace or not. Is that right?

Cheers! Robertgombos (talk) 15:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi . Thank you for your contribution. I've moved the yellow "Review waiting" box to the top. It could have stayed at the bottom. Alas, it won't be possible to satisfy criterion #1 of WP:NFCCP because, since Won is living, a free image could be created. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:34, 1 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, ! I wasn't sure enough where the "Review waiting" box should be placed and I wanted to make sure that my AfC submission is properly tagged. When I created the draft I could of move it myself into the mainspace, but I wanted a second opinion on it. I see that the AfC group needs to review a lot of drafs. Robertgombos (talk) 14:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

16:36:53, 31 July 2017 review of submission by Eternalpatience
I am a student working on a series of articles about the development and evolution of influencer marketing as part of my internship. This article is about a marketer/CEO who coined the term in the 90's and with big tobacco's help launched this marketing technique. I have never written one of these before and the last reviewer was mean, unhelpful, and made personal attacks (even making fun of my username). Can you please help me get this article in shape, its part of my job/internship. And can you help me file a complaint with the last reviewer? Thank you very much. Eternalpatience (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC) Eternalpatience (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi . Examining ten sources at random, only "Mirrorball’s Blatter takes marketers to cutting edge" contains a significant depth of coverage of Blatter, and it's only referenced to support the statement, "In 2003 Blatter launched Mirrorball Group LLC". Two other sources contain brief mentions of him, and seven don't mention him at all.


 * I suggest you start over, using at least three independent, reliable sources that contain significant coverage of Blatter. Write a draft using only those sources. If, after you've squeezed everything you can out of those sources, the draft needs additional context for the reader to understand Blatter, then you may add a few of the other reliable sources from this version that don't mention him or barely mention him, but don't let them overpower the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:22, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

20:25:45, 31 July 2017 review of submission by Authority12345
My article written for the Stephens County Development Authority was declined for too many sources from the same place. The only thing is that the busienss is quite small and does not have many other sources online. How can I get this article published with as much information that is relevant but still use sources that aren't there? The main source is their website which has their information, history, etc. Thanks!


 * Hi . Would you clarify what you mean by "written for"? If you are writing an article at the behest of a business, you may have a conflict of interest. Most businesses and organizations should not have an article on Wikipedia, see WP:BFAQ. An encyclopedia article should not be a regurgitation of what they have to say about themselves - that's what their website is for. Wikipedia is not for adversiting, marketing, or public relations.


 * The bulk of any article should be based on multiple, independent, reliable sources that contain a significant depth of information about the organization. They've been around since 1965. Has any academic studied their effectiveness? Has any newspaper profiled them? Sources need not be online, but if there are no arms-length secondary sources there should be no Wikipedia article. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC)