Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2018 August 21

= August 21 =

03:12:05, 21 August 2018 review of submission by 216.8.172.118
216.8.172.118 (talk) 03:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

06:45:56, 21 August 2018 review of submission by 202.131.108.4
202.131.108.4 (talk) 06:45, 21 August 2018 (UTC) May i know what is the exact meaning of the second line ....... clarity needs to be provided more
 * Hi IP user. I actually disagree with the reviewer's comments; but only specifically about length. Wikipedia articles can be stubs, so the length isn't the issue with the article. However, the reviewer noted that the article only has three references. The subject does not have a DOB on the article, but I'd assume the subject was still alive? If so, it needs to pass more stringent rules regarding WP:BLP (Biographies of living people). I'd suggest if you could find a couple more suitible reliable secondary sources, it would be much more likely to be accepted. (I'd also suggest finding a DOB for the subject, if possible).  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

07:48:55, 21 August 2018 review of submission by KeralaWikiman
KeralaWikiman (talk) 07:48, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


 * This seems to be a correctly accepted AfC, so I assume this section is moot. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:13, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

08:33:10, 21 August 2018 review of submission by Lien Darkwood
yo y the heck is Sapan Verma not qualified to be on wiki huh?? You think only you foreigners are good enough huh??? Lien Darkwood (talk) 08:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

- firstly, accusing reviewers of racism probably isn't a great start to your early days in wikipedia.


 * Secondly, Sapan Verma may, or may not, be sufficiently notable (which is all about reliable media coverage, not importance or being "qualified"). However you need to provide reliable sources that discuss him in detail. Referencing for beginners is a good place to start. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:52, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Request on 08:57:56, 21 August 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Hotwheels59
I would like the page Dakota Jane to be reinstated please, as I now have some articles citing her importance in the motorsport industry. I am sadly really out of my depth with my computer skills. I asked on the help page and I thought I had done it correctly but still no reply. If someone could talk me through it that would be great, sorry to be a pain! I know she would really like to get the page up but as she is constantly at races she doesn't have the time to do it herself. I am also not sure how I add the references! many thanks. hotwheelsHotwheels59 (talk) 08:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Hotwheels59 (talk) 08:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Greetings to you. First of all, it would NOT be good idea for Dakota Jane to write about herself as she would have a conflict of interest - see Autobiography. For a article to be accepted in Wikipedia, the subject needs to be notable. The content needs to be cited by independent, reliable sources where by the sources talk about the subject "directly" in length and in dept and not only merely passing mentioned. Sources such as homepage, facebook, listing, interviews, affiliated wit the subject (Dakota Jane), user generated sites and etc would considered not independent and / or reliable and can not demonstrator the notability of the subject. What we look for are sources such as from major newspapers, academic journal, reliable magazine (TIME, Economists and etc.). Also please read WP:Your First Article and referencing for beginners to familiar yourself on how to write an article and citing in Wikipedia. Thank you.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think what CASSIOPEIA meant to say was that " it would NOT be good idea for Dakota Jane to write about herself". Theroadislong (talk) 09:17, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, yes I missed the "NOT" on my previous message and added in now. Thank you for noticing and informing. Appreciate it Theroadislong. Thank you.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Dear Cassiopia thank you for your reply, Dakota did write the content herself, the new citations we have are from independent sources, i.e. magazine articles and respected organisations. I work as her assistant and take instructions from her with regard to setting up the wiki page.  Many thanks for any help you can give me. I have to go out for 2 hours ,so I will check back to see what you suggest.  Hotwheels Hotwheels59 (talk) 09:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC Hotwheels59 (talk) 09:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, Please re-read my message above as I missed out the "NOT" (should be it would NOT be good idea....) since Dakota and you (who affliated to Dakota as a paid editor), both of you have conflict of interest here. Wikipedia strongly discourage editors with COI to edit/add content to the affected page. It a Dakota is notable enough, other people will write about her. You need to disclose your COI on the article talk page and your user page. Please see you talk page message and follow the instruction accordingly. Thank you.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 11:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Cassiopeia, I am even more confused. Dakotas bio is taken from an interview that she gave to a magazine and so of course I wrote she did it herself because its her own words.  I am an assistant but am unpaid and am a motorsport fan only trying to set up a wiki page which I thought would be easy, but I am way out of my depth. Am at point non plus now because I have no idea how to get the page back up, how to add the citations or even to add the fact I am unpaid, really sad, I thought wiki was a really nice thing to do!  please advise how I should proceed, I feel like I'm in a minefield with a sniper!  Would really appreciate some practical advice. thanks HotwheelsHotwheels59  Hotwheels59 (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi , (1) Ok if you are an unpaid employee of Dakota then it is not a paid editor but you are still have COI here as you know/affiliated to Dakota for such you still need to disclosure you COI. (see link on your talk page) (2) Dependent source (such as interview) can be the source to validate the content but it could not use to demonstrate the notability of the subject. Content obtains directly from from the subject / or sources affiliated with the subject are considered NOT independent. (3) please read Your First Article and referencing for beginners to familiar yourself on how to write an article and citing in Wikipedia. (4) We need three independent, reliable sources in the article to demostrate the notability of the subject. (5) You dont need to create a new message every time you reply the message, just click edit on right this message title "on 08:57:56, 21 August 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Hotwheels59", and scroll all the way down and start typing. . Thank you.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 12:31, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

10:21:26, 21 August 2018 review of submission by Nsevistr
Thank you very much for the multiplicity of instruments and helps for the new arrived. I would like to ask if it is possible to change the title of the page approved, as it was in the draft. The approved one is Observatory on Digital Communication, but it should be OCCAM - Observatory on Digital Communication.

Nsevistr (talk) 10:21, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Title of the article could be changed before it is published or it is in draft stage, if you do not have the right to do that yet, just pop by here or WP:Teahouse and request. I take it that you meant changing from Observatory on Digital Communication to OCCAM. If a abbreviation of a name is common, which one would easy find many hits on search engine, that it would be use for the article title such as UN, FIFA and etc. I have quick search on Google, and Digital Communication would be the choice over OCCAM. Thank you. <b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 04:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Nsevistr (talk) 08:20, 22 August 2018 (UTC) Thank you very much for the kind answer! I would like to keep the complete form with both: OCCAM-Observatory on Digital Communication. They always go hand in hand, it would be much more precise. Can you help me to change it? Otherwise, I am going to follow your advice and go to WP:Teahouse. Thanks!

15:07:36, 21 August 2018 review of submission by Shadwell Basin
My article on this leading (but now elderly) writer has been declined only on the grounds "Please Format in accordance with WP:MOS"

I thought I was following Wiki house style, but plainly not. I'm happy to make changes, but can you tell me how to reformat my draft please? Preferably by reference to some of the existing copy?

I have not put in a list of contents because I do not know how to do so (nor to include images). If I know how to do either, I would do them.

Thanks from Shadwell Basin by the Thames in Wapping.

Help, Please! Shadwell Basin (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi,, I've set up a basic contents table for the draft as it currently is, however that may well not have been the (only) manual of style (MOS) reason that was significant to cause an article rejection. I'll page , as I think it would be helpful if he could clarify which specific areas are most in need of work (sourcing etc), as the MOS document is rather hefty to navigate on your own. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, Greetings, you could add the publications with ISBN as per reference here - ISBN (Template parameter) and add Infobox - see here "Blank template with basic parameters" under Template:Infobox person. Thank you. <b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 03:39, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't gone into checking the references etc - my comment was pedantic and cosmetic - The section headings need to be fixed and the publications section at the end needs to be moved into the article and formatted properly Gbawden (talk) 06:15, 22 August 2018 (UTC)