Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2015 March 19

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< March 18 << Feb | March | Apr >> March 20 >
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.


March 19

edit

02:43:10, 19 March 2015 review of submission by QUSRAAFCAF

edit


I need to get my draft to main page for review and publishing see

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:QUSRAAFCAF#Brief_History It is user draft section and comes up on a web search for "Queensland University Squadron"


QUSRAAFCAF (talk) 02:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@QUSRAAFCAF: I have submitted the draft for review on your behalf, and it can now be found at Draft:Queensland University Active Citizens Air Force Squadron. Please also see the note I left on your talk page about your username. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:56:45, 19 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Nancy Goovaerts

edit


Hi! My name is Nancy Goovaerts. I am the Corporate Communications Manager of the UNIVEG Group. I have submitted a self written article about the UNIVEG Group. But unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included - so called- copyrighted information, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. This entire draft was written using my own words and structure. Can you please provide feedback so this article gets approved?

Nancy Goovaerts (talk) 14:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nancy Goovaerts: The page was deleted by ThaddeusB both because it was "Unambiguous advertising or promotion" and because it was "Partially a copyright violation". I can't see the deleted draft, but the copyright violation was likely text that appeared either to be identical to or closely paraphrased from corporate literature.
The reviewer also felt that your submission appeared to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. You should also review the guide for editing with a conflict of interest. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:53:42, 19 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Frankmalcolmkembery

edit


I recently submitted to articles for creation but the reviewer declined to accept it at this time due to it not being adequately supported by reliable sources. Please can you explain in more detail what reliable sources is supposed to be and why my article did not have reliable sources. Yours sincerely Frank Malcolm Kembery frankmalcolmkembery 17:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

@Frankmalcolmkembery: Because your article is the biography of a living person, every statement of fact in the article needs to be backed up by an in-line citation to a reliable source that verifies that the information is correct (see WP:RS for definitions of what counts as a reliable source). However, even if you make these changes, I'm not sure that Frank Malcolm Kembery meets the standards of WP:MUSICBIO. Please read over WP:MUSICBIO and make sure your article qualifies before resubmitting. Thanks. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

18:04:11, 19 March 2015 review of submission by Group IFC

edit

My page was refused as the references were not strong enough. The awards that the organisation has won are totally independent - would these not work as references? Any help on how to get better references would be greatly appreciated. Group IFC (talk) 18:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Group IFC: Please see WP:CORP for what qualifies an organization as notable. You need to cite significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. A listing on an award page is not considered significant coverage.
Also, please read the notice I left on your talk page about your username. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

18:10:21, 19 March 2015 review of submission by Magnet321

edit


Magnet321 (talk) 18:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC) This is all wikigobble. Try again! Your wiki code is indecipherable. This is deliberate mechanism to discourage contributors. Magnet321----[reply]

18:14:32, 19 March 2015 review of submission by Dstonewpi

edit


I need the headling of the article to read: Howard D. Morgan, not World Press Institute. Dstonewpi (talk) 18:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dstonewpi:   Done --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I moved your draft to Draft:Howard D. Morgan, but I had to decline it because it appeared to be a copyright violation. Please see the message on your talk page. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

20:09:35, 19 March 2015 review of submission by Dstonewpi

edit

The story was rejected because it took material from the World Press Institute web site. Howard Morgan is a member of the board of the WPI. He authorized the biography that we submitted. I am a staff member at the World Press Institute. So I don't see any copyright problem. Please advise. Dstonewpi (talk) 20:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The page the text was copied from, http://worldpressinstitute.org/bios/howard_morgan.htm, clearly says "Copyright © 2015 World Press Institute" at the bottom. Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere, unless it explicitly exists under a compatible licence and is written in an acceptable tone—this includes material that you own the copyright to. In order to use that text on Wikipedia you would need to follow the instructions at WP:Donating copyrighted materials to release it under a compatible license. However, most information on organizations' websites is designed to be promotional, and therefore isn't written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. You're much better off rewriting the information from a neutral point of view, making sure that the text refers to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

22:32:15, 19 March 2015 review of submission by Chersky

edit


Chersky (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to trouble you but I should be very grateful for clarification of the problem with references mentioned as the reason for the rejection of my article in its present form, especially as this was not something mentioned by the previous reviewer. Is the problem that the references have not been entered correctly (many of them being bibliographical references to the subject's published work and appearing as such)or that there are insufficient references in the final section(or both!). It would be a great help if you could give me one or two examples of specific incorrect or inadequate citations and point me in the right direction.

With thanks

Prof Alex Chersky

Chersky (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of problems. The one that @Onel5969: mentions at the top of the Draft is that for articles about living people, "Contentious material, whether negative, positive, or neutral" must have an inline citation; and, for all articles, "Any statement that you believe is likely to be challenged" must have an inline citation. I'm not too sure that many parts of your Draft would be caught by this, but certainly things like "he bought out for one pound from its majority shareholders and operators after they had proved fraudulent" is a strong claim to have completely unreferenced.
Second (and perhaps related) is promotional wording. I am guessing it's true that Early Greek Warfare was revolutionary, but if Wikipedia is to use such a strong word then it needs to cite an independent reliable source that says so. Likewise we don't need to say that Ted Wright is "distinguished". "brilliant pioneering work" is a little too emphatic to stand uncited. Then later "a revolutionary all-on-film total immersion course", teaching "the best English speaking and pronunciation skills".
Third is a rather pointy tone. "Regrettably the teaching unions still call the shots, and the country’s educational attainments and social mobility languish low in international rankings". This is more an opinion than a statement of facts about Greenhalgh's life. "...not waste time teaching phonetic alphabets that, unlike the notation of music, will never be used". This is a point of view and should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice in this context. It would be acceptable, of course, to say "Greenhalgh took this approach because he believed that phonetic alphabets, ..." et cetera.
As a general note, rather more inline citations, especially to sources independent of Greenhalgh and his publishers, would be helpful. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 22:54:25, 19 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Steve23546

edit


my article was declinedand im not sure why and i dont understand there help to improve it

Steve23546 (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your Draft Draft:Nick Merico needs more and better references. Take a look at Nick's co-star Paola Andino to see the quantity and quality of references that might be needed to establish Nick's notability in Wikipedia terms. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2015_March_19&oldid=1123769503"