Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2015 August 13
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < August 12 | << Jul | August | Sep >> | August 14 > |
| 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. |
August 13
edit02:27:24, 13 August 2015 review of submission by SCIE2004
edit
SCIE2004 (talk) 02:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
How can I get my page to get approved? I read the comments and it said I need citing and sources. If I were to get the dates and information properly cited would it be approved?
03:23:05, 13 August 2015 review of submission by Kamishiro
edit
Kamishiro (talk) 03:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I've added several more References/Citations (from "secondary reliable sources") to this listing in the hopes it may finally result in the article being approved. Mr. Sinnicks is certainly notable based on all the Wikipedia criteria (and existing examples of less notable musicians already included in Wikipedia). I'm not certain what else could possibly be added that would not be redundant at this point.
Unfortunately, while many of these additions were appended to the existing list on the edit screen, they appear to have formed their own list after it - and I seem unable to fix it.
09:41:46, 13 August 2015 review of submission by LPFairley
edit
Hello,
I have made the changes requested by the reviewer and resubmitted for review a few weeks ago but I haven't received a confirmation that the submission went through. When I click on Save Page it doesn't seem to do anything. Any help on this would be greatly appreciated!
Thank you.
LPFairley (talk) 09:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- The reason that your submission attempts were continually failing, and the reason why you couldn't see the last part of your draft, was that you had an unterminated <ref> tag. A missing / character makes a lot of difference. Hopefully this edit will have cured it. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
10:01:57, 13 August 2015 review of submission by Rajcurator
edit- Rajcurator (talk · contribs)
My draft was declined due to not having adequate notability & some reference sites. If I add only below reference sites, write content around it and submit for approval, will they get approved?
- mca.gov.in
- abplive.in
- apparelresources.com
- business-standard.com
Rajcurator (talk) 12:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
10:44:10, 13 August 2015 review of submission by Sonofpercy
edit- Sonofpercy (talk · contribs)
My first attempt at writing an article for Wikipedia has been declined and I feel I need some advice about what to do next. The article is ’Draft:John Robert Wildman’, about an early 19th century English portrait painter, and the reason for the draft being declined is “This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.” I also received the following comments/suggestions: - “This draft relies on Primary sources a bit too much, parish registers and other civil records do not confirm notability, they only prove facts. Look for third party sources such as books or magazine articles.” Roger (Dodger67)(talk) 15:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC) and “Might pass notability, but is wholly improperly sourced.” Sulfurboy (talk) 05:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC). I have extracts from contemporary magazine articles – mostly reviews of John Robert Wildman’s paintings in Royal Academy exhibitions in ‘The Spectator’, ‘The Gentleman’s Magazine’ and ‘The Art-Union’, which praise JRW’s ability as an artist. I didn’t include them in the draft article because I thought this would be introducing too much detail. Might these be useful in demonstrating notability and, if so, how would it be best to introduce them into the article? The only reference to JRW that I have found in a book is curiously in Sheila Hancock’s 2009 autobiography, ‘Just Me’. In this she describes a painting by JRW of her great-great-great-grandmother which was used as publicity material for her appearance in the TV series ‘Who Do You Think You Are?’ Hancock has tracked down the current owner of the painting (in Florida) and describes it in some detail, referring to it as “a wonderful picture”. Again, I thought this too detailed to appear in a Wikipedia article, but would it help demonstrate notability? Any advice you can give me would be much appreciated. Sonofpercy (talk) 10:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Sonofpercy the contemporary magazine articles are probably the best sources you'll ever find, you should definitely use them insofar as they give any significant information about the artist. The book source seems to be only about one painting so it's of limited value, but still usable if you can justify a discussion of one work in the article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
12:47:11, 13 August 2015 review of submission by Jalthar Ateeq Ahmed
edit
Jalthar Ateeq Ahmed (talk) 12:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Jalthar Ateeq Ahmed, doyou have a question for us? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
This message is regarding the declined entry for Brenda Elaine Stevenson for not meeting the "notability" standards. She is a notable historian who has been recognized by numerous entities such as the Los Angeles Times, UCLA, the Guggenheim Memorial Foundation, the Organization of American Historians, WomensEnews.org, BWHxG (Cross-Generational Dialogues in Black Women’s History), UniteWomen.org, KCRW radio (and its blog, Zocalo), CBSDC, KPCC Radio, Backstory Radio (sponsored by the Virginia Foundation for the Humanities), C-SPAN, BBC, PR Newswire, and the National Humanities Center. Below you will find a list of over 50 websites that have featured her and/or her works and acheivements.
After reviewing this information, I ask that you please reconsider creating her entry on Wikipedia.
ResearchAssistant952 (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- The draft has comments from reviewers upon it. Have you interacted with them and determined why they have said what they do? DGG considers she may have notability, but is also concerned that this may be copied and pasted from elsewhere.
- The list you have presented, and that I have collapsed, shows a vast number of things coming form someone's newsroom. Generally that is PR material. We need something else. For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Fiddle Faddle 10:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- Though I worded it tentatively, she is clearly notable under WP:PROF, and also under WP:AUTHOR the review that notability was not adequately shown is simply incorrect, made in apparent ignorance of the WP:PROF standard. The reason I suggest the possibility of copypaste is not just that the material was indented as if copied from a publication which--unlike WP--indents paragraphs, but that it was written as a press release. Material about the routine facts of her career can be taken from an official CV, and normally is; it is among the excepts listed in the comment above. Material which makes any judgement of value needs a third party reliable source. Material such as who were the instructors in the department where she got the doctorate is inappropriate name dropping--we just mention the research advisor. The books should be listed, and verification provided by a reference to their listing in WorldCat, an excellent third party source. (we do not normally include articles from people in the humanities) Quotations from the reviews are normally not included in bios of academics, because they need to be representative, not cherry-picked. A review of any book normally includes some positive statement--and also some negative statements. It is normal for academics to include a reference to all published reviews, and to include reviews inacademic periodicals. All awards do need to be sourced to reliable third party sources.
- There is something even more important. You apparently have a conflict of interest , probably a paid conflict of interest. This must be explicitly declared , according to our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure. DGG ( talk ) 16:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I was under the impression that every article I cited were reliable sources and proved the validity of this article. Since it was declined I was hoping you could help me improve it so we can publish it. Thank you.
Jessicahatterman (talk) 18:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- I have left a comment on the draft about your sources. I hope you find it f use. Fiddle Faddle 19:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)