Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2012 October 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.

October 25

Social BPM - Articles for creation

Hello!

My reviewer is away for holidays during an undetermined period. Only cosmetic changes have been required to give green light publishing my article like the addition of sources used for my research on "Social BPM" but not mentioned in the sources.

Would it be possible for someone to pick up and approve my article?

Best Regards

Cheffounet (talk) 05:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

According to the reviewer the draft's content is not sufficiently supported by reliable sources. Unfortunately that's much worse than mere cosmetics; verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core policies. For example, the draft compares Social BPM to factory readers and cites a BBC article on factory readers. That article doesn't mention Social BPM at all. Can you give a source that actually makes the comparison? If not, that would be considered original research and would have to be removed. It might also help to use inline citations and footnotes; right now it's very hard to tell which of the references supports which of the draft's statements - maybe one of the draft's references does make the comparison to factory readers, but right now I'd have to read them all to find out.

Another less important issue: The draft is currently mostly a list of bullet points. It would be much better to turn that into running text.

Anyway, a resubmitted draft isn't necessarily reviewed by the same reviewer; someone else will perform the next review. Due to our backlog of unreviewed submissions that may take some time, though. Huon (talk) 06:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Marlene_Aguilar

hi please review my article. thanks.

Yco Mora (talk) 06:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I've submitted the draft for review; due to our backlog that may take a few days. I had the impression, however, that some parts of the draft are either unsourced or based on primary sources, including potentially controversial claims about Aguilar's relationship to foreign agents and drug lords. Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject to establish the topic's notability, to allow our readers to verify the article's content, and, for biographies of living persons, to avoid problems of libel. I haven't checked the draft in detail, but those issues should probably be fixed before a reviewer takes a closer look. Huon (talk) 15:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Steven Benjamin Damelin

Hi, I received an email this morning that my latest revision was still unsuitable but the reviewer Abdullah Alam left no comments on what needed to be revised. Please let me know.

Stevenbdamelin (talk) 13:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

First of all, if you are Steven Benjamin Damelin, as your username suggests, you might want to have a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest: Writing an autobiography is strongly discouraged.

The reviewer in fact did leave comments at the draft: He said it reads like an essay, and that it needs better sources. An example of the former problem would be the line on Damelin's "passion for both undergraduate and graduate education" - that reads like a personal opinion and doesn't really tell us much about Damelin. The number of graduate students Damelin has advised (with a reliable source, of course) would be much more informative.

The sources are much more of a problem; even personal opinion might be acceptable if it's based on a reliable source and attributed to that source (say, "John Doe commended Damelin on his passion for both undergraduate and graduate education"). But the sources currently are very hard to identify since almost all links are titled "Prof" (that's supposed to be the title of the source, not of its author or subject; please have a look at the template documentation for the parameters and their meaning); many of them, such as the NSF website, don't mention Damelin at all, and others are primary sources written by Damelin or organizations he's associated with. We require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, both to establish Damelin's notability and to allow our readers to verify the article's content. I'm not sure the current sources do so. The best source I found at a glance was the Math Genealogy Project; I'm not sure it's entirely reliable (it may rely on user submissions), but it does say what it's cited for. Unfortunately it's just a directory entry and doesn't say much about Damelin. The kinds of sources we want are newspaper articles, or possibly scholarly articles written by others, not by Damelin himself, reviewing his work. Huon (talk) 15:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Syler

My follow up submission does not seem to be showing up now. I resubmitted 4 days ago and now the resubmit notification at the bottom of the page is no longer appearing? Can you please assist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SylerDurden82 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Everything is OK; a bot moved the notification from the bottom (where it appeared for technical reasons) to the top of the draft. It's still awaiting review. However, I believe the problems with the draft's tone the reviewer noted still persist, especially in the first paragraph. As an example, take the sentence about the "war being waged at home". Wikipedia aims for a much dryer, less lyrical tone. Furthermore, that claim doesn't seem to be based on reliable sources. In fact, many of the draft's sources, such as the YouTube videos, aren't considered reliable by Wikipedia's standards; those should be removed in favor of better sources such as the reviews published in the Long Island Newsday. Huon (talk) 15:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dominik Tiefenthaler

Hi, I created my first article for a client, and somehow, instead of just putting it up, I put it in the "Articles for Creation" loop, even though I am a registered user. All I want to do is to erase it from the AfC backlog to free time and manpower for you guys, but I don't know how to do that... So if you could just get rid of it in there, that would be great. Thank you

Dyu Guy Dmys management Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dominik Tiefenthaler — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmys management (talk • contribs) 13:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I've nominated the draft page for speedy deletion; it should be gone soon. However, the article heavily relies on unreliable sources such as IMDb (which doesn't have all that much editorial oversight) or other Wikipedia articles. Other sources, such as the Golden Door Festival website, don't mention Tiefenthaler at all. The New Yorker article would be the kind of source we're interested in, but again it doesn't mention Tiefenthaler. The Südkurier articles also are reliable sources, but at most they mention his name in a photo caption without providing any details. I don't think that's enough to establish Tiefenthaler's notability, and the article should be improved as soon as possible to prevent a possible deletion on these grounds.

As an aside, you might want to read our guideline on conflicts of interest. Writing articles on your clients may be considered problematic. You also may want to have a look at our username policy; Wikipedia accounts are meant to belong to individuals, and names that suggest it's a shared account may be considered inappropriate. Since you haven't made that many edits outside the draft that's soon goig to be deleted, it may be easiest to abandon this account and create a new one. Huon (talk) 15:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Question about reliable sources for Cincinnati Comic Expo article

Hi,

I've created an article for the Cincinnati Comic Expo, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Cincinnati_Comic_Expo

which has been declined for not being supported by enough reliable sources. My question is why when Emerald City Comic Con has an article that doesn't cite any sources, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerald_City_ComiCon and Baltimore Comic Con has a published article that only cites two, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_Comic-Con

Thanks for your help.

Dotificus (talk) 14:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The simple answer is that the other article you point out are also problematic and should be cleaned up as soon as possible, or deleted if they cannot be properly sourced. But while other insufficiently sourced articles exist, that's no reason to create more; each submission must stand on its own merits. Surely there has been news coverage of the Cincinnati Comic Expo? Huon (talk) 15:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Scott Jay Kenyon

Hello - thanks for the opportunity to discuss the article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Scott Jay Kenyon, I am writing.

For the outside independent citations, I have added links to the list of Fellows of the AAAS, the list of CfA Fellows, the Web of Knowledge list of names starting with 'K' (for citations), several book reviews of the subjects book, several popular articles describing his work, and several more where he comments on someone else's work. It would be helpful to know whether this approach is reasonable and whether or not additional citations are required.

thanks again Seriouscallersonly (talk) 16:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't think the draft's current references are sufficient. They all fall roughly into one of three groups: Many of them are articles written by Kenyon (reviews of Kenyon's works written by others would be much better, but I didn't find any of those), directory entries listing him as member of some organization, usually published by that organization, and two popular science articles citing Kenyon for his work on planetary systems. The last two are the best ones because they are reliable sources discussing Kenyon's work, but they provide rather little information about Kenyon himself. The organizations' directories provide even less information on Kenyon, and his own articles are primary sources that cannot be used to establish his notability.

Even worse, the sources don't always support what they're cited for. For example the source for the claim that "Kenyon is widely known for observational and theoretical work on accretion disks [...]" is the Web of Knowledge list of names that doesn't mention accretion disks and doesn't say he's widely known - a claim that's rather hard to quantify anyway and should probably be avoided in favor of hard facts - has Kenyon won scientific awards for his work? Has he had some phenomenon named after him? Do others cite Kenyon's papers as foundational or significant on accretion disk research? On a more quantitative note, what's his h-index? Huon (talk) 17:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the additional feedback on the article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Scott Jay Kenyon. I understand some of the comments, for example citations, and it would be helpful to have a pointer to an example of how to use them appropriately. For example, Kenyon has an h-index of 62 which is pretty large for an astronomer age 55 and several of his papers are in the top 0.1% or less for citations of papers in a given year. How do I use this information? For prizes, I have some confusion. Kenyon is a Fellow of the AAAS which is an honor elected by peers in the AAAS. Only a small % of AAAS members receive this honor. I included that but it seems not to count - perhaps I have too many references and it gets obscured? For articles about a scientist's work, usually these are technical review articles about a specific subject - is it appropriate to include these? Also, it seems that book reviews are not useful - is that true? Sorry for the boatload of questions, but there are a bunch of scientists that have made important/defining contributions to star/planet formation with similar profiles and it would be very helpful to understand how to get their contributions into wikipedia.

Thanks again Seriouscallersonly (talk) 20:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

For help on citations, see Help:Footnotes and WP:Referencing for beginners. I'll take a closer look at the draft, but at a glance the citations themselves look pretty good - the problem is with the sources themselves, not with how they're cited. Take for example the AAAS fellowship: Right now the only source on that issue is the AAAS itself. It may be a high honor, but it looks as if no one but the society bestowing it cared. Did Kenyon's election to fellowship receive some newspaper coverage? That would go a great length towards showing non-scientists who may not have heard of the AAAS that it is indeed a widely respected honor. (As an aside, a link to our article on Fellows of the AAAS will also help.) Kenyon's h-index sounds truly impressive, but again we need secondary sources to have taken note.

Regarding his scietific work: I only now noticed the book review by Strickland; that's indeed a good source. The rest of the sources on his work, however, are Kenyon's own articles and abstracts, not idependent reviews. Technical review articles would be entirely acceptable if they discuss Kenyan's work (and mention that it indeed is Kenyan's work they're discussing, of course). Huon (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I've just had that closer look at the articles and its references. Some additional comments: Firstly, I'd suggest using one footnote per source. There are several footnotes that bundle two different sources each; as you can see by my above comment, when I found Strickland's book review I still hadn't noticed that the footnote contained a second book review. The first few references now use citation templates (mostly added by yourself) and can serve as examples for the rest. However, as I said many of the latter citations are to Kenyon's own papers and should be gotten rid of in favor of secondary sources. Secondly, quite a few of the references techically don't support the statements they're cited for. The source for the statement that "Kenyon is known for X" should indeed say that Kenyon is known for X - it shouldn't just be an example of Kenyon doing X. Also, one of the "dust bunnies under your bed" references quotes not Kenyon, but George Rieke for the dust bunnies. Even the book reviews don't say Kenyon's book is a standard reference - I don't doubt it is, but in 1988 when those reviews were written it probably wasn't yet. We should report what the sources do say; how about something like: "The book reviews the state of knowledge on symbiotic stars as of 1984 (Strickland). The comprehensive work filled a gap in the literature, with P.L. Selvelli of the Trieste Observatory calling it "splendid" and recommending it not just to beginners in the field and to specialists, but also to researchers interested in cataclysmic variables and planetary nebula (Selvelli)." My prose is rather clunky, but it's based on what Strickland and Selvelli say and should serve to convey Selvelli's enthusiasm. Huon (talk) 22:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

References

Hi! I submitted an article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Clue jr.:The case of the missing cake, for review a couple days ago, and it was rejected for lack of references. If anyone has any suggestions were I can find some good references for my article, that would be great. Thanks, B. Jakob T. (talk) 21:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

That's a good question. I'm not sure if there are board game trade magazines; something like that might have a review of the game. I just did a Google News search and came up with this. Unfortunately that looks like user-submitted content, not like a reliable source, and it was the only hit. A Google Web search produced some additional results that might be useful, but it may take some effort to determine whether they're just self-published blog posts or reviews that have been subject to some editorial oversight. Nights And Weekends may be worth a closer look.

I should say that I don't think we'll be able to find sources for all the content currently in the article. I'd expect that if we do find enough references, we'll end up with a much shorter article that doesn't provide details such as the game's contents or the precise times - on the other hand, those details probably won't really matter to someone looking for information on the game. Huon (talk) 22:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Jakob, here's what I'd really suggest: I don't think there's enough material out there for this one game to have a standalone article... but there's a whole section Cluedo#Other_games at the main Clue article that lists out the subsequent versions of the game. There are a few Clue Jr variants there, and as long as you can find pretty much any link documenting that version, you can add a small description there. To be direct, most of the info in your current article, other than the basic concept, is technical info that isn't vital to an encyclopedic understanding of this variant. I'd say a clear/short mention in the "Other games" section of Clue would be more useful, and definitely get more viewers, than a stand-alone article about one single variant. We can also steer even more folks to taht section by making a WP:Redirect so that people searching for your specific title would still find your short-summary in that section. How does that sound as a compromise to get the right coverage in the right place? MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Matthew! I looked under your link Cluedo#Other_games, and I found that the game is already listed under Clue Junior: The Case of the Missing Cake. So, I guess I don't need to add anything :( But, I'm sure I'll find something to write an article about soon. -B. Jakob T. (talk) 23:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)