Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2015 September 28

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation‎ | Help desk‎ | Archives
Help desk
< September 27 << Aug | September | Oct >> September 29 >
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 28

edit

00:57:14, 28 September 2015 review of submission by Mystywave18

edit

Hi there, in response & follow-up to the questions I've send yesterday, I may ask a question. Give me some ways how to resolve this problem regarding to my article draft "Draft:Kenneth Earl Medrano", that when ever I resubmit it finally, my article will never be declined or deleted & already be accepted if ever please highlight the errors on it to the article & give me some guides from the expert editors as well. Give me an assistance of it. Thanks.

Mystywave18 (talk) 00:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, nobody here can guarantee that an article will not be deleted. The basis for accepting is merely that it has a reasonable chance of passing WP:AFD. Decisions there are made by the community, not an individual.
Second, about the article: the career section is over-personal: reduce it to objective material, and avoid all adjectives of praise. Most important, the section on the That's My Bae Twerk It Dance does not show notability because we have no idea whether this is a notable contest in the first place--this would need to be shown by our having an article on it. The list of films does not show notability , because none of them are major roles. Frankly, I suggest waiting until he is further along in his career. DGG ( talk ) 20:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

01:35:38, 28 September 2015 review of submission by Cckryerson

edit

I don't understand why my references aren't considered reliable, can somebody please help me with this? I followed the structure of other entries about similar academics, and I don't understand why they are considered notable and Dr. Bonato isn't. Cckryerson (talk) 01:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cckryerson: It is natural to reason from example, but safer to go by official policies and guidelines. The essay Wikipedia:Other stuff exists may help make it clear why that is so. Wikipedia is forever a work in progress that contains both high-quality and low-quality content. If you learn from an example, be sure to use one from the best content Wikipedia has: Portal:Featured content or Wikipedia:Good articles.
Which criterion in WP:NACADEMICS do you believe Draft:Anthony Bonato meets? Worldbruce (talk) 18:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 02:58:17, 28 September 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by James Galbreath

edit


Thank you for responding. It has taken me many days and hours to get a contact. I was an orphan (Choctaw) and beside a report from the State of New Mexico I went thru a terrible young life and now at 62 I want to register the report with Photos and my thoughts. I am color blind to a degree, suffer from a memories that would make Edger Allen Poe shake with fright. Passed back a forth from boarding houses, losses of siblings. I have to find a place to keep this for future generations in my blood line. When I have time I use my role # for medical help. Was diagnosed with post numatic stress (uneducated). Just to be denied is a honor. Please reconsider as I do not imbibe or smoke(anything - Oregon-). Chi Pisa La Chike Jimmy Don Smith was my first effort I regrouped and have made mistakes, witnessed a sibling being murdered, a shunning, a missing Father, a deceased Mother, being mutilated sexually. I hope this it not a place where only the educated and affluent are allowed in. Yakoke James Galbreath


Jimmy Don Smith (talk) 02:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not at all sure what has taken place here. I am guessing that you have placed a very sad personal history here as an article or a draft, and that it has been deleted. The problem, if I am correct, is that Wikipedia is not the place for personal reflections, however important they are, unless they have references. We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources.
I am sure you may view this as harsh, perhaps simply odd. But Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and cannot promote your cause, however good and just that cause may be. It is a passive beast and can only record what others have reported (in those references).
I'm sorry that this is probably not what you hoped to hear, and I am making assumptions based on what you have told us. There are sites online where you might record this information, but I am unable to advise on the best route for you. Fiddle Faddle 06:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 04:54:07, 28 September 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Kailashntalreja

edit



Kailashntalreja (talk) 04:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kailashntalreja: Hello, and welcome to the Help Desk. Do you have a specific question about the draft article that you would like to ask us here? /wia /talk 19:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:38:16, 28 September 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Frankzappatwin

edit


Article was originally declined because of a lack of references. I removed the original reference on the advice of the reviewer and added five additional ones. The first reviewer was helpful in offering advice. Second reviewer declined because of "Previous issues not addressed.". I felt that I did address the previous issue and left a message on the second reviewer's talk page requesting clarification; reviewer has not responded in eleven days. What do I need to do to continue? This is my first article and I wish to move forward with additional ones. Frankzappatwin (talk) 11:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frankzappatwin (talk) 11:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Frankzappatwin: Keeping AllMusic and adding the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame were good moves. Sandcastle V.I., however, is self-published, and discogs is user-generated. Neither should be used as a source, see WP:USERGENERATED. The album's claim of notability rests on charting, so Billboard would be a logical source to seek out. One technical note: citations mustn't be placed inside section headers, so move the one for the track listings into the body of that section. Featured album articles sometimes handle this by adding a sentence before or after the track listing table, as in Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band and Highway 61 Revisited. Worldbruce (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Worldbruce for the assistance. I will continue to work on it. Billboard is a tough one as I have found out. Frankzappatwin (talk) 10:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Frankzappatwin: In case you aren't already familiar with them, there are a couple resources that you might find useful:
Worldbruce (talk) 09:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

11:55:06, 28 September 2015 review of submission by Joebattimelli

edit

Hello, I recently received feedback asking to change all sources to third-parties for this article in order to increase notability. After doing this, the article is still being rejected. Can you advise why please?

Many thanks

Joebattimelli (talk) 11:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a promotional bio. He might be notable, but the way it is written doesn't show it. Don't refer to him by his first name. Use "Weed" or "he" The other interests section should be renamed "Honours" and trimmed down to significant ones, each of which needs a third party source. The "Speaking at events" paragraph describes items without encyclopedic significance. Remove it. Claims for his company should be removed: the Adweek articles is not a reliable enough source to prove he is primarily responsible. DGG ( talk ) 20:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

14:40:53, 28 September 2015 review of submission by Vincianep

edit


Hi, First of all, thank you for your help in the creation of my article "Water Art". Sam Sailor did everything well but changed the name of the article from "Anders Tinsbo´s sculpture near the Round Tower" into "Water Art" which is actually not the name of the sculpture. This sculpture don't have any official title. It is a Water Art sculpture meaning that it is a works of art including water. We could maybe rename the article "Water Art sculpture close to the Round Tower". What do you think ? Thank you!

Vincianep (talk) 14:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vincianep: I agree that the title Water Art is poor. How about "Anders Tinsbo Fountain"? Unless he has made more than one fountain, no further disambiguation is required. Worldbruce (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Worldbruce: Thanks for your answer. How about "Anders Tinsbo Water Art sculpture" ? Would you approve this title ?
@Vincianep: The ideal article title resembles titles for similar articles, precisely identifies the subject, and is short, natural, and recognizable. Sounds simple, right? Titles are governed by at least one policy (Wikipedia:Article titles), one naming convention (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)) and for this topic, two guidelines (Wikipedia:Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Visual arts).
A bronze plaque next to the base of the sculpture states "Vandkunst" with the artist's name and the year 1970. The literal English translation is "water art", and that's how Bing Translator translates it, but that is not a normal English expression. Google Translate renders it as "fountain".
Article titles should be based on what reliable English-language sources call the subject. One would normally look at what the cited sources say, but they are all in Danish. I haven't found the subject in English-language encyclopedias, art reference works, or even guidebooks, so time to do some Google searches for possible names. I tried each of "water art", fountain, and vandkunst, limiting results with the further query terms "Anders Tinsbo" Copenhagen -Wikipedia. Google news returned no news results. Google books returned no accurate matches.
Google web search, English pages only:
no results for "water art" "Anders Tinsbo" Copenhagen -Wikipedia
16 results for fountain "Anders Tinsbo" Copenhagen -Wikipedia
26 results for vandkunst "Anders Tinsbo" Copenhagen -Wikipedia
These sources may not be reliable; they certainly aren't the ideal type for this subject - art historians or critics.
If a topic has received little attention in the English-speaking world, so that there are too few English sources to consistitute an established usage, policy says to follow the conventions of the language in which the subject is most often talked about, in this case Danish. So I recommend Vandkunst. It requires no disambiguation.
It's wise to discuss article title changes, because there are many factors to consider, but you don't actually need anyone's approval to make a change. When you think you've identified the title that best adheres to all of Wikipedia's advice, simply follow the procedure in Wikipedia:Moving a page. Hope that helps! Worldbruce (talk) 02:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

16:36:57, 28 September 2015 review of submission by Goldencam

edit

Hi My article was rejected for the following reasons: This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.

So my questions are" 1. What's the issues with the references I have? I quoted newspaper articles, journals, university pages, and tv appearances, not blog posts. 2. Do I need to have references for each book she wrote? 3. Are there just not enough references, or is this person not considered notable enough. In other words, if I add 5 more references that list her as a parenting expert and references for each of her books and novels will that suffice, or will it still be declined afterwards because she is not "notable"? 4. This author is mentioned on the Grub Street, Inc. page, but her name is incorrectly linked to an actress, Lynne Griffin, with the same name. Upon perusing this page, there are many other others listed with their own pages with far fewer sources and much less information, such as Randy Susan Meyers and Jon Papernick, among others. Why are these novelist considered notable enough but this author is not?

Thank you for your help! Goldencam (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC) Goldencam (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Goldencam:
  1. The main issue with the draft's sources is lack of independence from the subject. Set aside the writings of Griffin. Set aside bio-blurbs from publishers, and other employers, which are not arms-length. Set aside any primary sources, such as interviews which are mainly Griffin talking about Griffin. That doesn't leave much, mainly a review in the Telegram & Gazette, which some editors will discount because it's in a local paper and not by a major reviewer.
  2. A list of an author's work does not need references (except in rare cases such as lost works, which because they're lost cannot be consulted to verify authorship).
  3. Based on the cited sources, Griffin is not notable and does not appear to be a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article. Whether five more references would change the picture would of course depend on the references. It would be great if they were reviews of her work in Publishers Weekly, The New York Times, The New York Review of Books, etc.
  4. Thanks for pointing out the incorrect link on Grub Street, Inc., it has been fixed. It is natural to reason from example, but it's safer to go by official policies and guidelines. The essay Wikipedia:Other stuff exists may help make it clear why that is so. Wikipedia is forever a work in progress that contains both high-quality and low-quality content. If you learn from an example, be sure to use one from the best content Wikipedia has: Portal:Featured content or Wikipedia:Good articles.
Worldbruce (talk) 18:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Worldbruce:

Thank you for your detailed feedback I really appreciate you taking the time to help! Goldencam (talk) 21:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Worldbruce: (or anyone else on here..)

I have improved the referencing and sources for draft:Lynne Reeves Griffin per your suggestions. I now have 5 Boston Globe Articles, the Boston Herald, the Seattle Times, the OC Register, Publishers Weekly, Entertainment Weekly, etc., but this article was still declined for "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources." If these newspapers are not reliable sources then what is? I am just not referencing correctly? I received an additional comment that "This looks good and I am willing to accept but the article could use some more sources." How many more?? Thanks again for your time and help! Goldencam (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

17:02:10, 28 September 2015 review of submission by Peacockdos

edit


Got answered my own question but don't know how to delete my help desk submission.

Peacockdos (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:15:26, 28 September 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Rtyyyii

edit



Rtyyyii (talk) 18:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rtyyyii: Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk. Do you have a specific question that we can help you with? /wia /talk 19:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 21:35:10, 28 September 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Scottmalexis

edit



Scottmalexis (talk) 21:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Scottmalexis: Good evening! Do you have a specific question that we can help you with? /wia /talk 00:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

23:48:59, 28 September 2015 review of submission by 32.212.210.87

edit



This is a beginning draft, I was hoping it would turn into something like S5 0014+81 wikipedia article where it would start off as a few lines and then turn into a better page by the end. The article about S5 0014+81 mentions a 40 billion mass black hole having a Schwarzchild radius of "47 times the distance from the Sun to Pluto". The H1821+643 article also mentions the same thing except the difference is 28 times between the Sun and Pluto. The mass of SDSS J102325.31+514251.0 comes from a polish news article about black holes and there are references about said object being a black hole of 33.1 billion solar masses in a separate wikipedia article mentioning the most massive blackholes. Thus giving an assumed Schwardzchild radius of over 25 times the distance between the Sun and Pluto with it being under 30 times the distance.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2015_September_28&oldid=684027388"