Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 March 17

= March 17 =

Request on 10:47:35, 17 March 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Vikash rajendran
Draft: Supreme sundar, He is a well known stunt choreographer of tamil film industry, i have submitted lot of article. still i couldn't get approval. please do me a favor and assist this article and get approved

Vikash rajendran (talk) 10:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, Vikash. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.  I took a look at your draft and found that only one of its eleven references do anything more than simply mention the subject's name.  Two of them don't appear to even mention him at all.  And the one exception has nothing more than a one-line quote from the film's director.  This isn't enough to construct a well-sourced article on this choreographer.  But there's a second problem here, too.  Because your references do nothing more than verify his association with a few particular films, where have you gotten all of the personal detail that appears in the draft?  Unsourced personal information is not acceptable in a Wikipedia article and, without it, your article will be nothing more than a short list of films.  I think you really need to follow the advice given to you by the several reviewers who have declined your draft -- you need to locate reliable sources that are independent of the subject AND that discuss him in depth.  Without that, it is unlikely that your draft will be accepted for publication.  I hope this response has been helpful.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 12:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

14:31:46, 17 March 2017 review of submission by Wirewool
Hi, I am very happy to have had my pages on William Pittman Lett accepted for inclusion on Wikipedia. It was my first time doing this and very much a learning process. I got an entry level grade and would like to improve on this if possible. I will be adding some images once I have source approvals to include them on Wikimedia. However, I think the real isuue that the reviewer would have had concerns my references. I think that this is a unique situation. I have read and understood all the Wikipedia guidance on suitable referencing and know that it is preferable to cite second or third party sources rather than primary sources.

My problem is that there are almost no second or third party sources; those that exist do not deal directly with Lett but cover matters such as the generality of what the job was for a City Clerk in 19th century Canada. I have cited all these sources and provided links where available. Without being pretentious, I am the sole global authority on Lett and have written his biography and transcribed and compiled all of his poetry. I deliberately limited references to my own work except where the reference afforded the reader direct access to transcripts of his poems and correspondence. I therefore had no choice but to use primary sources in 19th century newspapers and the Archives of Ottawa and Canada.

The question therefore is whether it is reasonable to give a lower grade under these circumstances. If the references were the issue, could this grade be revisited?

I did try to use links to other material on Wikipedia without overly "peppering" the article and I did find these links very valuable in eliminating much explanatory and backgrounding text.

I tried to write in an encyclopedic manner, eliminating all personal commentary except where the observation or opinion is made by the other parties cited.

Perhaps it is too long an article, but then my purpose was neither to sell a book nor make money nor promote myself. Lett has been forgotten by historians and the academics of Canadian literature for a number of reasons, principally that his contributions to the development of Bytown and Ottawa were "behind the scenes" as the City Clerk. His poetry was written in a typically excessive Victorian style; he never published an anthology of his poetry beyond "Bytown and Its Old inhabitants" which was written in doggerel form. His literary importance is that he was the first and only 19th century current affairs "blogger" of Ottawa with the newspapers and oratory as his media. He provide the 19th century bridge to the Confederation School of Canadian poetry. I wanted to bring him to the attention of the Canadian and global public using Wikipedia as one means. I judged that the length of the entry did him objective justice.

I would like advice on what more I can do to improve the article and get it a "better grade". If this is not possible, then I would leave it as it is, with the addition of suitable images.

I am a fan and frequent user of Wikipedia in a suitably cautious fashion.....it continues to provide me with "sign-posts" to dig into deeper as I research a topic.

Your help would be most welcome. Thanks! Wirewool (talk) 14:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)WirewoolWirewool (talk) 14:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC) FINALLY, MAKE SURE TO CLICK THE "Save page" BUTTON BELOW OR YOUR REQUEST WILL BE LOST!!!-->}}


 * Hello again, Wirewool. Our apologies for the great delay in response.  When you ask about "better grades", I assume you are asking about the quality assessments that are attached to articles.  Here at Articles for Creation, we generally assess newly-published articles only as "Stub" or "Start-class", and leave the more-refined assessment to the associated WikiProjects (in your case, these would be the projects for Canada and Journalism).  If you would like such an assessment, the place to ask would be on one or both of the relevant project Talk pages.  Before making that request, you might want to read the Assessment section included on most project pages; they set forth the various criteria that would be used in the assessments.  But you should also be aware that most projects view these assessments as maintenance tools, wherein the projects get a better feel for the average amount of work that is needed to improve the articles within their scope, and where improvement efforts might best be directed.  If you are interested in an assessment that will be generally viewed as one of distinction, you will need to seek assessment as a "Good" or "Feature" article.  The easier one to attain is the "Good article" status, for which WP:Good articles will be useful reading.  I hope this response has been helpful.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 11:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)