Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2013 January 8

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< January 7 << Dec | January | Feb >> January 9 >
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.


January 8

edit

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Maggi Lidchi-Grassi

edit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Maggi_Lidchi-Grassi

Dear Wiki Team,

The article I submitted was refused and now its reviewer is out of station. I made a number of changes and would like to re-submit it. Would someone be so kind as to tell me in detail which passages - if any - are still questionable or insufficiently supported by references?

Thanking you so much,

Ulrich Wartenberg (talk) 09:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Ulrich Wartenberg[reply]

Unfortunately the vast majority of that draft is still insufficiently sourced. For example, the "Biodata" section cites an article in The Hindu as a source, but that article doesn't mention Lidchi-Grassi's birth, 1937, Witwatersrand University, Mozambique, or "the head of the Ashram, Mirra Alfassa, 'The Mother'". The only other section that gives any sources at all is the one about "Harmony" and "Samata", and at least one of those sources was written by Maggi Lidchi-Grassi herself - not an independent source. The entire rest of the article doesn't cite any sources whatsoever. Huon (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Huon,

Lots of thanks for putting in your time. I had hoped that for a less known writer it is understood that not every sentence can be backed up by a reference. After all, Maggi Lidchi-Grassi is still alive and can be contacted (I am corresponding with her), and all the other information too is verifyable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulrich Wartenberg (talk • contribs) 10:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia content must be based on reliable, independent published sources; we cannot expect our readers to just ask the article's subject (nor can we expect Lidchi-Grassi to put up with the hordes of people who might want to confirm the article's details). Besides, she would not be an independent source anyway. Huon (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance

edit

Dear all. Please may I request your help for the following articles I have proposed. There are some things I don't understand :

Many many thanks in advance for your help. Please do not hesitate to improve the articles directly. Best Regards. 78.239.175.7 (talk) 11:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In order:
  • Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/University Institute Professionalized's references are indeed problematic. The vast majority are primary sources such as various legal decrees; Wikipedia content should be based on secondary sources such as news coverage. There are a few secondary sources, but I cannot tell whether they were subject to editorial oversight, and they aren't really the basis of the draft anyway.
  • Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Systematic Paris-Region is rather full of marketing buzzwords: "Systematic deploys its technologies and solutions to two new market areas that are at the heart of the challenges of the twenty-first century companies" (unsourced, of course), "focuses its activity on the digital revolution for six markets with a strong social dimension" (also unsourced), "to promote the emergence of a thriving Free Software industry" (sourced to Le Figaro which, for all I can tell, is much more muted in its coverage: No "promotion" or "thriving" there, and a half-sentence is all the Figaro says on the topic at all). And while that's not a neutrality problem, I can't imagine what this sentence is supposed to mean: "ICT and health field will be in 2010 with an update of this document." - Was that copied from some source document? Does it announce an update to the Wikipedia article (in 2010!)?
  • Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cosmetic Valley both has unsourced, positive statements ("the Cosmetic Valley is an essential element of the attractiveness of the territory") and a generally positive tone throughout (Cosmetic Valley "boasts" the creation of over 1,500 jobs). While I can't access the Le Figaro articles behind their paywall, the interview in lEchoRepublicain doesn't confirm that it's "the most important French business cluster specialized in the production of consumer goods in the industry of perfumes and cosmetics in France", and even if it did, an interview with the President of the Cosmetic Valley would hardly be an independent source.
  • Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Benoît Lachamp: Lachamp seems to have made headlines only once: When he became director of Sup'Internet. Per WP:BLP1E, that's not enough to establish individual notability.
  • Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cancer Campus mostly seems to suffer from a translation that's so bad that at times it's difficult to understand. For example, I couldn't tell what this was supposed to mean: Cancer Campus is included in one of eight "project areas" identified in the "Grand Paris", the one of Valley of Biotechnology, south of Paris. For all I can tell the source doesn't mention eight "project areas", doesn't mention a "Valley of Biotechnology", and doesn't say, as the English grammar suggests, that "the Grand Paris" is "the one Valley of Biotechnology".
In general, while non-English sources are acceptable, it would help our readers if at least some English sources could be found. I don't think all those drafts had a single non-French source among them. And all drafts clearly show that they're translated by someone whose English was not quite up to the task. Unfortunately I cannot really improve them in that regard because while my English is rather good, my French is insufficient, and while I could fix the English grammar and word choice, I would probably deviate from what the French sources say. Huon (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your help. I have corrected the articles. Best Regards. 2A01:E34:EEFA:F070:2820:71E0:BFBC:9921 (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

edit

Hi- I had the following submission declined some time ago. Do I need to have this deleted? I would not wish to deprive someone with the same name of using this option. Thanks, Gomach (talk) 12:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/All the Wrong Reasons (film)

edit

After review of my submission I got this back - "This article fails WP:CRYSTAL as a film that is not certain to be released yet."

I produced this film and it will be released in theatres later this year or early in 2014. The film was also presold to The Movie Network and Movie Central (in Canada) for broadcast in 2014. The film will be released theatrically in Canada within 1 year of completion as per a number of contracts. The film will be completed before April 15, 2013.

How can we get a wikipedia page created before release?

Thanks 13:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Tony — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookiecocoa (talk • contribs)

  • The problem with your article is what WP:CRYSTAL describes. "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." As it stands, the sources are problematic - there are significant problems with reliability of using IMDB as a source, and referencing another Wikipedia page is never reliable. Your best bet is to wait until the film is released, to be honest. And there's no guarantee for anything happening in the future - The Movie Network and Movie Central could go out of business between now and then or decline a broadcast due to large cutbacks. You might think that's unlikely but it's not impossible. Finally, if you are involved in the film, there is a huge conflict of interest in creating this article, which suggests you really should find something else on Wikipedia to edit. If the film becomes notable after release, someone else will probably write an article on it. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2013_January_8&oldid=1135714607"