Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2013 July 4
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < July 3 | << Jun | July | Aug >> | July 5 > |
| 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. |
July 4
editReview of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ISATT, The International Study Association on Teachers and Teaching
editneed some help editing this
- Could you please elaborate? What kind of help do you need? Regarding the tone issue for which the draft was declined, I'd say it focuses much too heavily on the ISATT's dreams, mission and vision and far too little on the hard facts of who they are and what they do. In short, it reads more like a storyteller's tale than an encyclopedia article. Huon (talk) 01:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
[Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cr0kesselhaus]] Hello, first of all sorry for my bad english. I'm not a native speaker so be patient, please. I don't understand the reason why the article (Ralf Köttker) is rejected. All Informations mentioned in the text are based on the source i've given. Is it necessary to have english sources? The article is also available on german, seen here: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralf_K%C3%B6ttker Cr0kesselhaus (talk) 07:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- It is not necessary to have English sources. It is necessary to have independent sources. The employer of a person are not independent of that person. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thank you for your response. So if I find other sources, like newspapers and stuff, it might be good enough? Cr0kesselhaus (talk) 12:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, if multiple newspapers discuss the person in significant detail, then it is very likely that he is notable by English Wikipedia standards. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
hi there question may be qualified as a stupid, however i do struggle with footnotes, it doesn't seem to be saved as i intended, so my question is: to edit my article that has been rejected (because of the footnotes) do i start to write it again? it doesn't seem to have option edit any more :/
- Click on edit source to edit the submission including footnotes. I have removed the current version as you have copied it from the subject's website and mission statement. This is not allowed on Wikipedia. If you own the copyright to the material in question, read WP:DCM. If not, please fundamentally rewrite the text in your own words and from a neutral point of view. Pol430 talk to me 18:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
HI,
Why mu article was decliened any special reason please explain to me .
Thank you— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yhazide (talk • contribs)
- Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/KF Business Consulting was declined because it had no independent sources and almost no content. Please see WP:VRS for what sources are required, and Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners to see how to add them. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Dear Wiki
After waiting for over a month, I have now had this article rejected twice and I am becoming a little confused. Could someone please give me clear guidelines on where it is falling short? My first gatekeeper told me that some of the article was too colloquial and gave me examples which I corrected. These had originally been quotes which I had paraphrased but this had not been made clear so I altered or deleted them.
This time round I have a different gatekeeper and s/he is still unhappy but I dont know why. The comment below is too vague to be helpful. The website/technology I am describing is a brand new content discovery service using facial coding technology in an entirely new way and so is of interest to people working in this field. If the concern is that it is part of a business, I have used as my template all the other businesses listed on wikipedia working in similar fields, such as Flooved, Valve and Rotten Tomatoes. If Flooved is acceptable I am baffled as to why my own piece is not. Flooved is just a list of founders and partners with a brief summary of what they do. By Wiki's terms and conditions, it is a blatant advertisement.
Also, this reviewer appears to misunderstand the nature of my quotation as they come from a variety of reliable, independent journalistic sources, including France, UK, online business site and Israel reporting on their experiences of the website at its launch. None of them has been generated by the creator of the subject and it is insulting to suggest this is the case when they are so clearly documented and verifiable.
"This submission appears 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. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies."
Many thanks for any advice or help you can offer,
Nigel Matador45 (talk) 14:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Hello Nigel, the message you quoted above is a templated one. Due to the huge number of submissions Wikipedia receives it is necessary to use 'canned' decline reasons. Because of this some parts of the message may not apply to every submission. The two problems I see is that the tone of parts of the submission are not quite right for an encyclopaedia. The origins section in particular opens with sentence that's like something the marketing department came up with for their sales pitch and contains WP:SYNTH of the cited sources. Also, "The launch of ThrillMe at Cannes-based MIPCube garnered considerable press interest." needs backing up with citations to said press interest. The second problem I find is the lack of in-depth direct coverage of the subject in well known independent sources. There are a couple of good sources there, but there is also passing mention sources and blogs which do not lend any weight the the subject's notability. Pol430 talk to me 19:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Why was this redirect request declined? Links to Robert shea are redlinks, and this applies also to links from other sites. I don't see a reason for this not to exist, and the placeholder that appears for a redlink specifically says to create redirects for different cases. 109.64.138.111 (talk) 17:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- What links to Robert shea? According to Special:WhatLinksHere/Robert_shea, there are no incoming links to that page, so a redirect is not necessary, and since the mediawiki software already corrects for capitals in searches, again it's not necessary. All I can suggest is that if you're trying to add a link to Robert shea, that you add it with his name spelt correctly. - Happysailor (Talk) 17:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- I've seen links from external websites, IRC bots, et cetera. I don't understand what reason there might be not to do this. Might the page Robert shea be needed at some point for something? Does it cost anything to add a redirect? 93.172.25.165 (talk) 21:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
hi how can I add article I follow all the rule. please help me thanks
- No, you didn't follow all the rules. You have some "references", but they don't support the article's content. For example, none of your sources mentions "Filipino and German descent" or "vocal training for classical music". Wikipedia is not a reliable source to begin with. Conversely, the one event the sources all cover, her being booted from Miss Philippines 2013, isn't mentioned in the article at all. This leads us to the next problem: If that one event is all Roi is notable for (and the sources suggest it is), we shouldn't have an article on her at all but cover the event in the relevant article, here Binibining Pilipinas 2013. See WP:BLP1E for the relevant guideline. Huon (talk) 00:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
I am responding to the denial of the submission. In most libraries, when purchasing a book on gems or gemological information Royal Azel is noted and indicated.
I reviewed many articles that have encyclopedic value on Wikipedia. In the world of minerals and the associated gemstones, there are recognized names such as Tanzanite that are commonly used and their inclusion in wikipedia has immense value to the public. Mainly because the world of minerals and gemstones has so much misinformation, let alone commercial fraud.
The intent of the submission was to help provide the same facts as the wiki article on tanzanite. More importantly was I was using the historical information from the highly accredited Gemological Institute of America and the fact that the National Smithsonian Museum in Washington DC, in their natural history museum, Hall of Gems, identifies the mineral as Royal Azel, with the subtitle sugilite, in the same manner as Tanzanite with the subtitle zoisite, a base mineral name.
I suppose that when the many visitors to the Smithsonian Museum see this "Royal Azel" display, they might wonder, Hey let me look it up on Wiki pedia. I decided to submit the factual history related to Royal Azel as it relates to sugilite in the same manner the Tanzanite article does.
I would like to correct any errors that may exist. I tried to do my best not to make a "value statement" about Royal Azel or sugilite in the article.
Simply History and why it is in the smithsonian museum, by this name. What would I need to do to keep in alignment with wikipedia's other excellent article on Tanzanite? Thank you for your time on my communication Nextedit (talk) 19:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Funny how the Smithsonian link you gave doesn't mention the term "Royal Azel". My suggestion would be to include the most relevant information - that "Royal Azel" was a failed attempt to commercialize Sugilite as a gemstone - in the main Sugilite article, say in a section on commercial use, and to redirect Royal Azel thereto. The trademark is not independently notable. Huon (talk) 00:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)