Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2014 June 27

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation‎ | Help desk‎ | Archives
Help desk
< June 26 << May | June | Jul >> June 28 >
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 27

edit

00:46:48, 27 June 2014 review of submission by Katiemorgan1995

edit


I would like to know why my Glenbernie Orchard was Declined. Katiemorgan1995 (talk) 00:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Katiemorgan1995: The reason is posted in the purple box at the top. Ask again if you don't understand that explanation. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

08:35:24, 27 June 2014 review of submission by Vestigia

edit

Thank you for editing and accepting my article on Maria Grazia Giammarinaro. I have responded to the requested edits above the article and was wondering how long it might take for those changes to be reviewed and for the qualifiers to be removed. I have re-organized the text and added further sub-headings to make it more accessible, I have un-orphaned the page linking it to other wiki pages. I hope that is enough if not please let me know what else needs to be done. I am working on getting permission to use a copyright photo or else a photo that is free. Thanks! Vestigia (talk) 08:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Vestigia: Since your submission has already been accepted, we don't deal with the article any longer. Please see the help desk or the Teahouse. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

16:03:25, 27 June 2014 review of submission by Swmirsky

edit


S. W. Mirsky 16:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I've tried before but could not get an answer. Maybe it's partly to do with my own inexperience negotiating these pages. In any event, I have submitted an article twice before and seen it rejected both times by different "editors" with the same concern, that I made use of YouTube videos in my links. I have tried numerous times to explain that not all links are the same. Their objection to my usage seems to have hinged on their belief that I was providing the links as sources, to document my statements in the text. But that is not the case. The YouTube links are exemplary, not documentary in their purpose. They are intended to provide pictures (in this case videos) of what I am referring to or describing in the text. As such they are there because the old saying that a picture is worth a thousand words is generally true. I'm an experienced writer (and author) and know the difference between sourcing and illustrating. As of now I have taken another crack at the article, submitting it once more although, having initially purged the text of most YouTube links, I found myself putting in many new ones precisely because I want the reader to SEE what I am talking about and not just have to imagine it based on my text. I believe the links enhance the text's clarity and usefulness because interested readers who want to know just what it is that I'm describing actually looks like can easily click on the footnote which will take them to a place on the Internet where they can see for themselves. Sourcing and exemplifying are different functions and so serve different purposes in writing. I hope wiki's editors can see this and make the distinction. Thanks.

S. W. Mirsky 16:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

@Swmirsky:   Declined Please understand that this is an encyclopedia and we have guidelines on content. We're not here to cater to an imagined audience. That said, you have only a handful of reliable sources and they either don't assert what the article claims or they source a point that has no mention of Yun Mu Kwan. I recommend you cut all the nonsense sources and the content they support. Whatever you have left might be ok. Remember, verifiability, not truth. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand and thanks for explaining. Yun Mu Kwan is a real system that is among the earliest forms of Korean karate. The sources I cited do mention Yun Mu Kwan though at times it is only briefly BECAUSE the style phased out of existence in Korea so early in the march to taekwondo. I have included MANY links to information relating to the development of Yun Mu Kwan however, both to the original style and to its later successor systems. I have also used a lot of YouTube links to SHOW what I am describing or referring to. Not every link is a source link. Sometimes they are illustrative and that's how I mean the YouTube links. If you are taking them as supposed sources, then I can understand your discomfiture. But that is because they are not sources meant to document the veracity of what I've written but PICTURES intended to illustrate what I've described. Now I can certainly remove all the YouTube videos but in my opinion that would impoverish the article since something like karate, which is what this article is about, is best shown, not described. Of course, wikipedia is a written venue but, since it's an Internet based venue I am trying to take advantage of that unique facet for this article, i.e., provide the kind of "live" action images that best attest to different aspects of the martial arts, including both what contributed to the early development of the style under discussion AND what led to its subsequent development.

Anyway, I appreciate your taking the time to provide this feedback and your frankness. I hope you will take my own frankness in response in the same spirit.

Thanks. S. W. Mirsky 23:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

16:09:46, 27 June 2014 review of submission by Calr93

edit

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

On my current article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Our_Father I was wondering if it would be possible to change the display title from 'Our Father' to 'Our Father (film)', I don't know how to do it myself, thank you.

Calr93 (talk) 16:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Calr93: Don't worry about it. If your submission is accepted it will be moved to Our Father (film) because Our Father is a disambiguation page. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

17:43:56, 27 June 2014 review of submission by AngeloDemo

edit


hi! i added links to the article " JOE GULLA".. in hopes of removing the "ORPHAN TAG"... i was not sure how to actually remove the tag! please advise... also, i will be adding more links as they week progresses! thank you!

AngeloDemo (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@AngeloDemo: You misunderstand. The "orphan" tag indicates that no other articles link to Joe Gulla. Also, this help desk is only for draft articles. See WP:HELP. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

17:57:42, 27 June 2014 review of submission by Bhuvaneshan R

edit

SBOA schools are a group of top schools in Tamil Nadu. When there are articles about the Chennai and Coimbatore SBOA, then why Madurai SBOA was declined? Bhuvaneshan R (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bhuvaneshan R: First, you can't point to other articles to excuse problems elsewhere. Probably half of all Wikipedia articles were created before this AfC process was started and they likely fail our various criteria and should be deleted. Secondly, the citations from The Hindu are just mentions. They're not about that school so the school isn't probably notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More specifically: we consider all secondary schools and all colleges notable enough to have an article, provided there's a good reference to show they actually exist. However, in these articles some of the material is not really suitable: we do not list awards below the national level, and routine details of curriculum and activities should be limited. It's easier to do it than explain it, so I'm going to revise & accept the article. DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

20:29:37, 27 June 2014 review of submission by Sergioke

edit

Sergioke (talk) 20:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC) WHY???[reply]

  • Sergioke, I'm afraid you'll have to be more specific. What exactly don't you understand? — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 22:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

22:47:10, 27 June 2014 review of submission by 50.141.183.90

edit


Hello,

I drafted a page that was reviewed and was not approved. The comments suggested that article contained references to the company's own website. If I removed these and re-submitted the article, would that be sufficient to get it approved? If I need to add additional sources, what kind should I add?

Thank you,

Liz50.141.183.90 (talk) 22:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

50.141.183.90 (talk) 22:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We require references from significant coverage about the entity, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Primary sources are sometimes acceptable, but must be used sparingly and only for things that are trivial verification of simple facts where sorces are unavailable anywhere else. It is always wiser never to use primary sources. Fiddle Faddle 23:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2014_June_27&oldid=1113333158"