Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2014 June 19

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation‎ | Help desk‎ | Archives
Help desk
< June 18 << May | June | Jul >> June 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.


June 19

edit

14:25:17, 19 June 2014 review of submission by Hurtisjr

edit


I don't understand how being the first at something in a US state is not notable. This is history. The Oregon Historical society recognized this as a notable event in Oregon history. What does being local have to do with it not being notable? This African American accomplishment in a US state is notable. I would think Wikipedia would allow others to be made aware of this accomplishment. Please advise. Thank you.

Hurtisjr (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is the coverage being local (and limited) that is the point, not the business being local. Wikipedia articles should include references to significant coverage of a topic in multiple independent reliable sources. Without such sources, the notability of the topic for inclusion in an encyclopedia is not proven. Wikipedia does not reproduce everything that is ever mentioned by any local historical society, otherwise we could just copy all of their web pages into ours, which would not produce a useful result.
It is quite possible that the bakery was also written about in detail by multiple different local or regional newspapers during its history. If so, including references to these might be enough to establish the topic's notability. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

14:43:18, 19 June 2014 review of draft by Pat Kelso

edit


Pat Kelso (talk) 14:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon my obtuseness, but when I attempted to send for review my Sand Box newly edited, Perspective projection, subsection of Perspective (Graphics), there seemed to be a message at the top of the site that said it had not gone through for review but then at the bottom there is a message indicating it is in the queue for review. Am I in the right place to pose this question? Pat Kelso (talk) 14:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Pat, this is a bug with the process. Your article is correctly submitted for review. In other words, the message at the bottom is correct, and the message at the top is wrong and can be ignored. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

15:27:22, 19 June 2014 review of submission by Helen SFPR

edit


I am confused as to how my article about Sally Fischer Public Relations may appear biased. I have seen other articles about PR firms on Wikipedia that use their own websites as references, and they have been published. How, then, does my article appear biased?

Helen SFPR (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer mentions reading like an advertisement as the main reason for the submission being declined, but I think this is slightly misleading. The bigger problem - in my opinion - is the other issue that the reviewer has highlighted, namely a lack of references to independent reliable sources that make clear the notability of the organisation. And here there is indeed a problem; of the references that actually mention the organisation, five of them seem to consist entirely of material provided by the organisation itself. Almost all of the other references either do not mention the organisation, or mention it only in passing.
Using existing Wikipedia articles as examples is rarely useful unless those existing articles are of recognised quality. You can find a list of recognised Wikipedia Good Articles about businesses at Wikipedia:Good articles/Social sciences and society#Businesses & organizations. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm just checking back to see the response to my original question and I don't know how to return to the response page. Disregard this)

Helen SFPR (talk) 19:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

20:32:10, 19 June 2014 review of submission by 75.144.208.10

edit

I have attempted many times to create a wiki page for Polin Water > Parks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Polin_Water_Parks , yet it > keeps being denied to “unreliable” sources. I am flabbergasted as to > how this is possible, because our sources are in fact, more reliable > than those found on pages in similar categories. Take these two slide > manufacturer companies for example: > > > White Water West: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WhiteWater_West > > > Pro Slide Technologies: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProSlide_Technology > > > Can someone please tell me how these slide manufacturer pages were > approved, but Polin’s has been repeatedly denied? > > > Also, I keep receiving the comments that the page sounds like an ad. > How is this possible? The page has 4 small sections a history, > location, their products and awards. What about the page, exactly > screams ad? Nothing says “we’re the best, contact us for prices!” it’s > simply facts. I do not know what else to do. Please help. 75.144.208.10 (talk) 20:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer mentions reading like an advertisement as the main reason for the submission being declined, but I think this is slightly misleading. The bigger problem - in my opinion - is the other issue that the reviewer has highlighted, namely a lack of references to independent reliable sources that make clear the notability of the organisation. And here there is indeed a problem; of the references that actually mention the organisation, thirteen (or perhaps more) of them seem to consist entirely of material provided by the organisation itself. In addition, the InPark Magazine item about the 100 fastest growing companies appears to be a press release or derived from one, and thus is not independent either.
Do take a look at Wikipedia:VRS for the basics of what Wikipedia requires to establish the notability of a topic.
The reviewer also pointed out that the draft at present consists mainly of a list of products whose details are incomprehensible to anyone not knowledgeable about the particular industry, and that this contributes to making it read like an advert. I would agree this concern is a problem.
Using existing Wikipedia articles as examples is rarely useful unless those existing articles are of recognised quality. You can find a list of recognised Wikipedia Good Articles about businesses at Wikipedia:Good articles/Social sciences and society#Businesses & organizations. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

21:30:01, 19 June 2014 review of submission by Donaldjstewart

edit


Donaldjstewart (talk) 21:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to wikipedia. I'm trying to submit a page from my sandbox and verifying that I submitted the page correctly— Preceding unsigned comment added by Donaldjstewart (talk • contribs)

Hello Donald. That draft is not currently submitted for review. Once you have finished working on it, you could submit it for review by adding {{subst:submit}} at the top of it.
You should read Wikipedia:VRS to find out what you need to add to the draft, and also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 21:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, I was confused at the 'submit' page, and thought that I should just paste my contribution below that, but I did not...I just added {{subst:submit}} at the top of my page in sandbox and it seems to have been submitted...thanks again

Review of Draft:Dirk-Achim Pajonk

edit

  Acceptedmove to Dirk-Achim Pajonk as physician and olympic article 86.15.162.137 (talk) 22:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not accepted yet - wait your turn. Please do not use "accepted" templates in posts here - they will not influence the reviewers. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2014_June_19&oldid=1120014372"