Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2015 April 24

Help desk
< April 23 << Mar | April | May >> April 25 >
Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.


April 24

edit

00:47:01, 24 April 2015 review of submission by Stephen Singer

edit


My article on "Joe Wallach" or "Joseph (Joe) Wallach" was created. His career and success began in Brazil but the page on him in Portuguese is not correct. How can I remove the few lines of inaccurate copy in that section and replace it with what has been carefully documented, cited and referenced in English?

Stephen Singer (talk) 00:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephen Singer: Your question is well outside of our scope, as we deal with Articles for Creation, which is when someone wants to make a new article for the English-language Wikipedia. If you're fluent in Portuguese you can edit Joe Wallach [pt] yourself. In case you're not, I've tagged the pt article with a notice that it can be improved from the corresponding English-language article. An editor working on pt.wikipedia.org will eventually take care of it. Worldbruce (talk) 01:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

01:02:51, 24 April 2015 review of submission by Stephen Singer

edit


I created the English version of the "Joseph Wallach" living bio page under my name, Stephen Singer. I want to transfer that to the Portuguese "Joseph Wallach" as the one there has inaccuracies and errors. I have translated the English bio into Portuguese but I can't read the language to follow the codes. How can I accomplish the transfer of the English page which is already created? It is fully cited and translated.

Stephen Singer (talk) 01:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephen Singer: If you cannot read Portuguese, how can you translate to it? Fiddle Faddle 08:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

10:30:59, 24 April 2015 review of submission by Rivistaangelicum

edit


This article is no less notable than other articles on the same subject matter. See, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustinianum_(journal) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa_Theological_Journal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliotheca_Sacra https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Theological_Review

I do not understand why those articles qualify but not this one.

Rivistaangelicum (talk) 10:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rivistaangelicum: We need you to prove it to be notable. That is what the reviewers are telling you. We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. We do not compare one article with another on Wikipedia. Precedents are never set. Each stands or falls on its own merits. Fiddle Faddle 10:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rivistaangelicum (talk) 12:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC) It is a journal that has existed for almost 100 years. It is the product of a University that is already listed in Wikipedia. I have cited an article mentioning its signifcance and book giving a detail of its history. I have cited the Library of Congress to show the publication history. Please help me to understand what other information you would need to show its notability.[reply]

Academic journals are a specialist field with a patricular notability standard so I will request WikiProject Journals to assist with this. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have merged the draft text into the university article in accordance with the review advice by members of WikiProject Journals. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

12:16:01, 24 April 2015 review of submission by Birkwad

edit


Hello all and your thanks for your group wisdom. I'm looking to better crowdsource the title of the current article I am working on and have resubmitted (see link). It was stated by the first reviewer that the subject was not notable enough, so we converted it to an article about an event, though a recent commenter seems to think we should go back to a biographical title. What do you all think?

Birkwad (talk) 12:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Birkwad - as the article has been accepted into mainspace, let the community at large decide if the title should be changed, or not. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

14:01:59, 24 April 2015 review of submission by Ann1apt

edit

{{Lafc|ann1apt=Ann1apt|ts=14:01:59, 24 April 2015|link= Valeri Larko

I have revised the text of the Valeri Larko article. It is in a more neutral tone and with additional citations. How soon can it be reviwed and the banner objecting to the article as a "news release" be removed? I believe the article now adheres to Wikipedia's standards.

Thank you, Ann1Apt— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ann1apt (talkcontribs) 14:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ann1apt: the article is not a draft and does not require a review. Any editor may remove this banner assuming they have a genuine belief that the issue is solved. Fiddle Faddle 16:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you @Timtrent for the update. Can you remove the banner? I believe the issue is solved. The article is lean and well cited. I am a professional academic, a professor of Art and Art History at a college in New York, and understand the needs of academic and encyclopedic writing, so I'm at a loss as to why there's problem with the Valeri Larko article. Thanks for your help. Ann1aptAnn1apt (talk) 18:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


@Ann1apt sentences such as "But it is the Bronx, which captured much of Larko's imagination, with the borough's mix of decay and vibrancy, its pockets of economic survival within swaths of urban neglect." and "Her work once again included such icons of sprawl as fast food restaurants, gas stations, and webs of utility wires, while continuing to explore the industrial landscape." are still problematic. Such evaluative and opinionated language must be directly quoted and referenced, or if they are simply the opinion of the Wikipedia editor who wrote it (presumably you) they must be removed or revised to present only the naked facts. Encyclopedic writing is an acquired skill, some of the basics are: kill all the adjectives unless you can specificically defend each one's use, never express or imply an opinion, report just the dry facts (the opinions of recognized authorities are reported as fact); Jane Doe, curator of the Big City Gallery, said in an interview with Arty Tarty magazine, that the artists recent work is "rubbish compared to her work from ten years ago".(reference) I hope this is useful Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger (Dodger67 Thanks for the advice. I'll revise. Ann1aptAnn1apt (talk) 22:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


@Roger (Dodger67 Hello again, Dodger 67. I've just revised many elements of the Valeri Larko article. It is considerably leaner, with only the facts presented. Can an editor have a look at it, and remove the banner with the "news release" reference? I think the article is as direct and unadorned as it can be. Thanks for you help! Ann1AptAnn1apt (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the new banner requiring addtional citations, several new citations have been added to the Valeri Larko article. I believe this is now sufficient, so please remove the banner. Thanks you for your assistance. Ann1aptAnn1apt (talk) 14:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

17:54:00, 24 April 2015 review of submission by Shee20

edit


Hello - I am trying to respond to an email I received about an article to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. However, it appears that address is not working as my email has been kicked back to me twice. Can someone help me?

My inquiry stems from my attempt at uploading a photo - File:Bill Austin Head Shot.jpg. Peripitus left me a message explaining I needed to provide approval from the owner.

Thanks,

John Sheehan (shee20)

Shee20 (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Shee20:   This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. Please consider asking this question at the Wikipedia:Help desk. - This is where editors will try to answer any question regarding how to use Wikipedia. Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for any help related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps! Have you followed all the requirements at WP:PERMISSION to the letter? That is my suggestion, but the main Help Desk will probably be of more assistance. Thanks, wia (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

18:15:45, 24 April 2015 review of submission by Betsuni

edit


The submission was rejected for lack of formal tone and neutral tone, in need of a wider range of reliable references, and use of peacock terms. I wrote it as neutral as possible, only stating facts. I made sure to use a variety of references from major publications both online and hard copy publications. I'm unsure how to proceed in improving it. The only things I can think of are the use of the words 'well known' in the beginning, the 'King of Comedy' moniker. and the description for the Avenue of Stars. Would those be the areas in need of revision? Thanks.

Betsuni (talk) 18:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

18:41:31, 24 April 2015 review of submission by Meera Kaul

edit


Meera Kaul (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have a problem being posted wondering what i can do from here. if i can get a step by step that would be great!

@Meera Kaul: What problem are you referring to? Something involving the Draft:Meera Kaul article, presumably? You'll need to explain your question in detail so that we can give an informed answer. Thanks, wia (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]