Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 June 12

= June 12 =

06:58:49, 12 June 2017 review of submission by Beerch
Beerch (talk) 06:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi And thankyou for your help, i was wondering if i could get some feedback on the draft article submission Libby Birch This article libby Birch is awaiting official review and i wanted anyones feedback as to how it could be improved thank you.
 * NOTE: Comments have been left on the draft. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

07:53:00, 12 June 2017 review of submission by Edgarjstephens
Hi Editors of Wikipedia,

I had created a Wikipedia page titled CitiusTech Inc. in the month of May, and last edited it on 17th May. It said, at the time, that the page will be will be created in 2-3 weeks. It is still not up, even after almost a month.

Could you please help me out here by explaining to me what the issue is?

Thank you, Edgar Stephens

Edgarjstephens (talk) 07:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, Edgar. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.  Right now, there are about 350 submissions in the queue ahead of yours.  I expect that it will take at least a week before a reviewer takes a look at it.  Thank you for your patience.  If you're looking for something to do in the meantime, you might take a look at our WP:Community portal, which provides a list of already-existing articles that could use a bit of improvement.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

08:55:38, 12 June 2017 review of submission by JosephCaley
I am contacting you to wonder why the recent article I have submitted, TrustATrader, has been declined. It states that the reason was the article reads more like an advertisement than an encyclopaedic article. Are you able to tell me which parts read more like advertising? Is it certain sections or just the whole page in general?

I hope you are able to inform me of this so I can make the necessary changes and resubmit. Thank you. JosephCaley (talk) 08:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The draft was deleted as unambiguous advertising, so it must have been egregiously promotional. The company engaged a digital marketing firm to improve their online visibility. If the draft was an outgrowth of that, don't bother resubmitting, that's not what Wikipedia's for. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments. I was unaware that TrustATrader had hired a digital marketing agency in order to improve visibility. I am writing the article purely from a neutral perspective and have no intention of using the article to help with their online visibility. It is certainly not an outgrowth of that.

If you are able to specify which areas of the article need improvement, please do let me know. Is it the section regarding the other sections of the TrustATrader Group? I felt it was noteworthy to have these mentioned in the article, but if they are deemed advertising, I shall remove them.

Please do let me know. Thank you. JosephCaley (talk) 08:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

11:42:23, 12 June 2017 review of submission by Rudard
Thanks for your response. This is my confusion: there are several hundred news articles behind the Newspapers.com paywall that confirm the information but there's no way to directly link to them. Is there any way I can use them as references? Sorry if I'm being dense. Thanks for your help.


 * References need not be available online (freely or otherwise). To cite such a source, simply state all the bibliographical detail (author, title, date, publication/publisher, page number, etc.) that would allow a reader to locate the source. This is most easily done with a citation template, as described in Help:Referencing for beginners. Optionally, so long as the passage being cited is no longer than a few sentences, include it in the quote parameter. For example:


 * Bera won the All Woman Transcontinental Air Race a record seven times.


 * That is a complete enough description that someone could find the newspaper article - on paper, on microfilm, or in a database.


 * If you're citing several hundred news articles, you're probably doing something wrong. For typical Articles for Creation submissions, the sweet spot is probably 6-8 sources. If you're citing hundreds, you may be making a time consuming mistake - citation overkill, or misusing primary sources, for instance. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

17:05:21, 12 June 2017 review of submission by Mcarse
Question
 * Hello, Mcarse. Did you have a specific question?  NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:39, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

19:35:12, 12 June 2017 review of submission by Olgaken1
In response to your pointing out the need to document notability, I have a link to the catalog of her work currently with the Hermitage.

http://goskatalog.ru/portal/#/collections?q=%22%D0%90%D0%B2%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%20%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%B8:%20%D0%93%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%8C%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B0%20%D0%9B.%D0%98.%22&imageExists=true

It includes over 300 items. Would the inclusion of this be sufficient? Thanks
 * NOTE: Later today, comments will be left on the draft's Talk page. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)