Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2018 March 6

= March 6 =

11:50:45, 6 March 2018 review of submission by Silviafemme
Thank you for the feedback. I modified the wiki a bit. I included more independent references and ISBN numbers for the writer's independent work. To note, some of the anthologies were published by Random House. What could I do if I have some print media about the writer that can't be found or linked to online? emsfor (talk) 11:50, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi . Generally speaking, there's no need to cite a reference for the fact that an author wrote a particular book. Instead, just give all the bibliographic information (year of publication, title, publisher, isbn/oclc) in the list item. You can use a cite template to do so, but needn't make it an inline citation by using ref tags. I've reformatted one work as an example, and encourage you to do the same with the remaining works. There are several advantages to doing it this way. A major one is that it keeps the references section focused on the sources of substance, and avoids cluttering the section with non-independent sources where the only information you're referencing is what's on the title page.


 * It looks like you understand that you can cite an online news source as.


 * For a print copy of a source that isn't online, cite it the same way, but omit the url and access-date: . Template cite book, cite magazine, cite journal, and so on work the same way. There is no need for sources to be online. --Worldbruce (talk) 20:09, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Request on 12:30:07, 6 March 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by 197.232.70.177
Can we get help in creating the page for Victor Mochere

197.232.70.177 (talk) 12:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

16:11:42, 6 March 2018 review of submission by Trokanmariel
My submission was rejected. May I ask why? Thank you Trokanmariel (talk) 16:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, Trokanmariel. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.  The best source of information as to why your submission was declined will be the reviewer who already looked at it.  You can find that person's name and Talk page link in the "decline box" near the top of your draft.  But before posting here, I took a look at the draft and found that I too would have declined it.  There are no references and, indeed, no indication that the subject is anything other than something that you invented yourself.  If not (i.e., if this really is a known problem-solving technique), then you'll need to show this by citing textbooks that discuss it.  And after you do that, you'll also need to re-write the draft so that it takes on an encyclopedic tone because, as it stands right now, the tone is unencyclopedically conversational.  I hope this response has been helpful.  If you have any questions, feel free to ask.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:21, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Trokanmariel (talk) 16:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC) Hello NewYorkActuary. I appreciate your time and effort. I'm not sure I agree about the criticism of "unencyclopedically conversational", however, in the event that the article can't be referenced, what might you suggest I do? Loop deduction isn't a subjective process, but is an objective framework for deciphering truth. An equivalent of Loop Deduction would be to use a paint brush to paint a wall, or to let go a glass cup so that it breaks. I also find the idea that planets need teddy bears as an extremely fascinating and exciting course of inquisition. What are your personal thoughts on the matter? Once again, thanks for the help Trokanmariel (talk) 16:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trokanmariel (talk • contribs) 16:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello again, Trokanmariel. The question of "encyclopedic tone" can be very much a subjective one.  But I doubt that many experienced editors here would consider the current version of your draft to have such tone.  Instead, most would point to something such as Mathematical proof as an example of an article that meets the standard. But this issue is far overshadowed by your draft's complete lack of sourcing.  I agree with the advice that you've already received from  -- if you can't demonstrate that "loop deduction" is a problem-solving technique that has been recognized by reliable authoritative sources, then it is extremely unlikely that your draft will be accepted for publication.  We can look more closely at the issue of tone after you've made that demonstration.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

19:22:08, 6 March 2018 review of submission by Manurachna

 * , what is your question, and what page are you asking about (please provide a link to it)? MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:39, 6 March 2018 (UTC)