Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2012 September 24

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.

September 24

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Basic Education High School No. 4, Botahtaung

Hi my last log in was around 10 pm (Singapore time) on 23 September (Sunday) and the status of my article was "Review Waiting". But this morning I've seen that the notification was gone, but no updated comment of accept/ decline was shown. Was there any error? I've revised the context several times after being declined first time. And now I think the context are quite comprehensive enough to best of my knowledge. And I could get more contributions from my old classmates once the article is visible to public. Thanks. Hnaungtagu1348 (talk) 01:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately your submission has been declined because it does not cite any reliable sources. Both Wikimapia and Wikipedia itself rely on user-submitted content and are not considered reliable. While notability standards for schools are notoriously low, we still need reliable sources to verify the article's content. My suggestion would be to look for newspaper articles. Huon (talk) 02:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

HI ... what do you mean by "standards for schools are notoriously low"? Can explain more please? Hnaungtagu1348 (talk) 04:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC) By the way I don't quite understand why this article without listing any references was already accepted. Hnaungtagu1348 (talk) 04:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Usually a topic must have received significant coverage in reliable sources to be considered notable (the general notability guideline). For (secondary) schools, however, the mere existence has often been taken as sufficient to establish notability - see WP:Notability (high schools) and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. The article's content must still be verifiable from reliable sources, though. Regarding Basic Education High School No. 5 Botataung: While other insufficiently sourced articles exist, that's no reason to create more. The proper course of action is either improvement or deletion of the deficient article, not its elevation to a new (low) standard of acceptability. Huon (talk) 14:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Christian Gays

Thank you for reviewing my article. I have to tell you that I first attempted to add an article many, many years ago, but after reading your guidelines I felt that my article would not qualify. Then the other day I happened across Wikipedia pages for Rainbow Christians, Gay Christian Network, Adam4Adam, Gay.com, etc, etc, my direct competitors, and I wondered why they would be allowed to post a page and I would not.

I understand that I don't have a lot of references. This is because the website speaks for itself and from what I read of your guidelines it said that links to the site are not encouraged, so I deleted all that I had originally posted.

If it is references that are the problem, please tell me what kind of references you want - or is there some other issue?

Thank you. http://ChristianGays.com (talk) 02:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC) Mary Pearson Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Christian Gays

Unfortunately Wikipedia cannot let the website speak for itself; we require reliable sources that are independent of the subject, both to establish the website's notability (see also WP:WEB for website-specific notability guidelines) and to allow our readers to verify the article's content. A link to the website may finds its place in a dedicated "external links" section, but the article's content should be based on other sources. Huon (talk) 02:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cherry Wainer

Hi, I'm writing this article about Cherry Weiner, but there's some information that is missing. She is a great hammond organist and there are many videos in youtube, but her birth date for example is an enigma. I'd like tu summit this article because I want wikipedia editors to help. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackvirwik (talk • contribs) 03:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately we'd need reliable sources about Wainer before accepting this submission. At Wikipedia, YouTube videos, blogs and forum posts, or even other Wikipedia articles, are not considered reliable. My suggestion would be to look for newspaper coverage; if we're lucky Google News has archived some old articles about Wainer. Or she might also be mentioned in textbooks about 1950s music. Without reliable sources, however, we cannot accept the submission. Huon (talk) 03:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Somebody said I was a great hammond organist at a gig on Saturday, but without multiple, independent, reliable sources stating this several times over, I can't have a Wikipedia article. Being a bit of an expert in this field, having worked intermittently on the Hammond organ and Leslie speaker articles here, not withstanding WP:IDONTKNOWIT, the fact I haven't heard of Cherry Wainer is a bit of a red flag. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Anand Krishnamoorthi

Hi,

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Anand Krishnamoorthi

I'm trying to create this page, but my entry just got rejected. I have access to the trophy and the original newspaper citation of the Hindu which covered the award giving in 2005 with the date, can I cite that instead?

Also to confirm does an IMDB account suffice as a valid source? Can anyone give me any more feedback on what I can do to improve the chances of acceptance of this article?

Guspooidli (talk) 10:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

While the original newspaper covering the award would be a good source, I'm a little surprised: The draft says the award was given in 1994, and the newspaper is from 2005?

IMDb is usually not considered a reliable source because there's very little editorial oversight; much of the content is user-submitted. While it might be acceptable for his sound credits, the rest of that sentence (and that paragraph) is unsourced.

Also, the Prasad Group's website would be a primary source on a lecturer at Prasad Academy, not the secondary source we're looking for, but it does not support the statement it's cited for anyway. And there are numerous other statements small and large that I could not verify from the sources given - Krishnamoorthi's screenwriting, for example.

If you indeed have acces to his trophy, you might be a little too close to the article's subject to avoid a conflict of interest. In that case it might be better to let someone less involved with Krishnamoorthi write the article. Huon (talk) 10:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Chandrika Balan

Dear Sir

Some time ago an article was created for Chandrika Balan. I wanted to add her picture to the article and had asked you as to how it is to be done. You had replied that the photographer can directly load the picture and I had conveyed the same to the photographer who is Chandrika Balan's husband. He has an account with Wiki but could not copy and paste the picture and had asked a question. Usually your reply comes per return but he says he could not get any reply. Could you advise me the method by which he can upload the picture so that I can communicate it to him.

Your help and cooperation is greatly appreciated. Thanks Panank (talk) 11:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Images cannot be copied and pasted to Wikipedia, but if he is the copyright holder and is willing to release the image under a free license, he can upload it to the Wikimedia Commons via their Upload Wizard. That should provide step-by-step guidance. Huon (talk) 11:45, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Astrological aspect (Hindu Astrology)

I had prepared this article having read the already existing articles Astrological aspect and Hindu astrology. In both these articles I found the essentials which needed to be high-lighted missing. Therefore, I thought of posting this article that you have reviewed but declined. The article Astrological aspect exists even though there is an article titled Western astrology. This being the case my article ought to have drawn your kind approval. The subject article if retained is bound to attract attention of more knowledgeable editors/contributors who I am sure would work on this and improve. I submit I am not an expert in the field of astrology.Soni Ruchi (talk) 12:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm also not an expert in the field of astrology, and I found your draft gave so little context it was almost incomprehensible. Take for example this sentence: "Natural benefics owning evil bhavas, combust or in debilitation sign or defeated in planetary-war become tainted and prove contra-productive." That's rather early in the draft, and I have no idea what bhavas or combust are (the latter is explained in the astrological aspect article, and the Hindu astrology article explains both), and I doubt my idea of "planetary-war" is the correct one. Trying to clarify such questions by looking at the sources wasn't really successful either: I did find an online copy of Prasana Tantra, but for all I can tell it's using "aspected" in the same meaning as our main astrological aspect article. If an aspect were an exchange of energy, what would "Mars and Mercury aspect the Moon in the ascendant" mean? I didn't find an online version of "Jyotishtatwam" - in fact, I found no indication that a 1927 book of that title even exists. The claim that the Varahamihira has been misinterpreted is sourced to the Varahamihira himself - while it would be an impressive feat of astrology for a work to state that it will be misrepresented (or a sign that the author couldn't clearly express his thoughts), I doubt that's the case. I found two different online versions of that work, and while their page numbering differs significantly, neither mentions aspects on p. 93. The more relevant seemed the Harvard College Library copy which at least mentions astrological houses; the other version discussed the location of the place of birth within the (physical) house. The misinterpretation claim seems to be original research in any case.

In summary, I'm not convinced that aspects in Hindu astrology are actually different from aspects in Western astrology - different in interpretation perhaps, but not in definition. If there are reliable sources discussing the interpretation of aspects in Hindu astrology, that might make for a paragraph or a section in the main Hindu astrology article, but I don't think the sources provided are remotely sufficient to establish ascendants in Hindu astrology as a notable topic of their own. I also doubt the sources are reliable in the first place. Huon (talk) 14:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

My dear Huon, nice meeting you. You have taken immense care to point out deficiencies in my draft, I agree I have tried to be as brief as possible, might be too brief, but we editors are there to assist each other. No one is perfect, at least I am not. I cannot even sort out for anyone the kind of astrological technicalities you have high-lighted. As regards the references I insist they are all reliable references; they are mainly most quoted ancient Sanskrit texts adorning Hindu astrology to which texts I was guided to by a practitioner of this science. The 1927 edition of Jyotishtatwam is still in my possession which I have to return to its owner. Brihat Jataka was written by Varahamihira, Tajika Nilakanti by Nilkanth and Jaimini Sutras by Rishi Jaimini of the Vedic era. B v raman who had written several books on Hindu astrology is an authority on this subject as is Gopesh Kumar Ojha http://www.flipkart.com/Gopesh+Kumar+Ojha Kindly do not fault these texts or authors. On the contrary both of us can work on the article and improve it. RegardsSoni Ruchi (talk) 02:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Huon,I have now revised this article. I am eagerly awaiting your opinion.Soni Ruchi (talk) 08:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I've had a look at the changes, and while they certainly are an improvement, I'm still not sure we wouldn't be better off with a section in the main Hindu astrology article. The sources may or may not be reliable; they tend to be hard to find and difficult to read. For example, even the Library of Congress does not carry the Jyotishtatwam (the British Library apparently does, but that won't help American readers). The LoC does carry the Brihat Jataka in multiple versions - but not the one you cite. The Brihat Jataka and the Vedic texts are a little too old for my liking anyway; aren't there more modern texts on the topic that would be more accessible to laypersons? When we say that Varahamihira's text has been misinterpreted, we definitely need a secondary source for that claim ("we are told" is a case of weasel words we should avoid - told by whom?).

What I don't quite understand is the example horoscope you added. What is that supposed to tell the readers about aspects in general? Huon (talk) 16:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear Huon, I am here to thank you twice, firstly for your opinion, and secondly, for your making me learn astrology. I have now come to know that astrology is a very wide vast field for us to explore; the main article Hindu astrology only superficially touches some of its salient features. In case what I have written is to be merged as suggested then the main article would require much elaboration for bringing it up to the same level, not that I say it is not possible to do so, it is possible, but then a great deal of effort would be required which in the present circumstances seems beyond my understanding and ability. By relying on standard Sanskrit texts of Hindu astrology instead of opinions etc., of others, I have attempted to bring out and high-light the essence and the much-needed to be understood intricacy involving astrological aspects as per Hindu astrology, hence the example culled from a reliable book and cited, even though I know an encyclopaedia merely informs it does not teach. There are several books written on this subject but they cannot be treated as texts in the manner Surya Siddhartha, Brihat Parashara Hora, Brihat Jataka, Phaldeepika, Saravali, Jatakalankara, Jatakaparijata, Manasagari, Prasanatantra, Jatak Tatwam, to name a few, are.; of course these texts are very old. Given expected expansion of my learning one day I might be able to write on these texts and create separate pages. I have removed the “weasel” claim and substituted it with an important information regarding aspects. What is your opinion now I am eager to know? Regards.Soni Ruchi (talk) 03:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Review of User:Danjo99/sandbox

I seem to have put my request in the wrong place User:Danjo99/sandbox it was meant to be an Article for creation about Ann Wild OBE. I am not able to move it because my account is too new. I am not sure now how to move it to the appropriate place.Danjo99 (talk) 14:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I've moved the draft for you; it's now at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ann Wild. One unrelated issue: We should refer to Wild by her surname, not by her given name. An OBE isn't sufficient to call her "Dame Ann", and even if it were, she'd still be better-known by her surname. Compare for example John Major who I believe is by now entitled to be called "Sir John", but is referred to as "Major" throughout the article. Huon (talk) 14:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Eneida Lulaj

how to download a photo for an article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.242.27.187 (talk) 14:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

If the photo comes with a free license, you can upload it to the Wikimedia Commons via their Upload Wizard. However, your draft does not even have an assertion of notability and appears unsuitable for Wikipedia. Before bothering with an image you should show that Lulaj has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of her. Huon (talk) 16:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Review of Articles for creation/Rich Wolski

Hi everybody, I posted this page 9/17 and I'm trying to figure out why it hasn't gotten published yet or why I haven't received any tips on things I should fix before its published. I did get one message to clarify the ownership of a photo which I did, but my question is did I submit it correctly and should I just chill out till I hear back or did I do something wrong? (It's the first new page I've posted, and at the top it says in a grey box "Article not currently submitted for review) but at the bottom it says in a yellow box "Review waiting" so I'm not sure if I got it into the review cycle ok. Any tips are greatly appreciated, and thanks for your time--Chris Chriscarrolljcc (talk) 19:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The draft is correctly submitted for review; the "not submitted" message is a historical artefact that can be ignored. But there's a massive backlog of unreviewed submissions, and it will take more time until yours gets reviewed, probably about a week or so.

I don't think your draft shows enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to establish Wolski's notability. His blog and Twitter are not independent, and YouTube or Vimeo videos are usually not considered reliable. Huon (talk) 23:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)