Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 December 6

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation‎ | Help desk‎ | Archives
Help desk
< December 5 << Nov | December | Jan >> December 7 >
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.


December 6

edit

02:36:01, 6 December 2017 review of draft by Medical Imaging

edit


Hi. I just want to make sure I have put in enough references to (1) make the article a valid one, and (2) to make sure that the formatting of the references is correct. (I sense that it is not). I tried to copy a template and make necessary modifications but I think that it got messed up. Please instruct on how to correct.

Best Wishes, from Medical Imaging.

Medical Imaging (talk) 02:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Medical Imaging. I filled in that cite template for you; you weren't too far off. Ideally, there shouldn't be anything in the References section except the {{reflist}} template. The five inline references clustered there should be removed or re-positioned after the specific statements in the draft that they support. One other thing that leapt out is that the three team names use external links. Those links should be converted into references if they prove the fact that he played for the team, or removed if they just prove the team exists. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

06:36:02, 6 December 2017 review of submission by InternetFriend

edit


How can I improve this draft? InternetFriend (talk) 06:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, InternetFriend. Your references are presented as bare URLs and instead should be formatted with full bibliographic details. Please read Referencing for beginners. Also, you have way too many references for a draft article of this length. Reviewers find it irritating to see 17 references for a single assertion. Three is enough for almost all claims. Experienced editors sometimes call this "refbombing". It is far better to have six or eight high quality references in a draft than dozens of lower quality references. Please read Wikipedia:Citation overkill, and trim away all but the highest quality references, formatted and presented to properly display the bibliographic details, that show that this person is notable by Wikipedia's standards. This is a case where more is not better. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. I already submitted the article. Is it possible to cancel a submission? InternetFriend (talk) 06:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@InternetFriend: Hello, Friend. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Yes, it is possible to cancel your request for review and I'll be happy to arrange for that if you would like. But, with the current backlog, it will likely take the better part of two months before a reviewer gets a chance to look at your submission. So there's plenty of time to address the referencing issues without withdrawing the request for review. Let us know which course you prefer. NewYorkActuary (talk) 08:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@NewYorkActuary: Thank you for your feedback. I will try to address the referencing issues. Please don't cancel the submission. InternetFriend (talk) 14:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@NewYorkActuary: I'm still trying to address the referencing issues. I was wondering, how do I add a content box? InternetFriend (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@NewYorkActuary: I was able to add a content box. Please check back to provide more feedback.InternetFriend (talk) 17:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@InternetFriend: WP:CITEKILL is the most obvious remaining problem. Anywhere you're using 13+ sources to support one statement, trim it back to no more than about 3 sources. Chose the most reputable, most reliable sources, those that contain the most information about Karas, so long as together they fully support the statement where cited. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Worldbruce: I'm now working on the blood donation section. Thank you for your feedback. InternetFriend (talk) 17:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

13:21:55, 6 December 2017 review of submission by Catalin.viciu

edit


Hi, how can I make the page both in Romanian and English? Can I keep this version as the romanian version and make an english page?

Hi Catalin.viciu. This is the English Wikipedia and we only accept articles in English. The Romanian Wikipedia is a separate website and can be accessed at http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/. – Joe (talk) 14:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

15:28:31, 6 December 2017 review of submission by Robert L Mitchell2

edit


The article is currently in review. At what point can I add pictures to the article? Robert L Mitchell2 (talk) 15:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert L Mitchell2. The answer depends on the source of the pictures and their copyright status. Some photos may not be added until after a draft is accepted. Because the presence or absence of photos will have no effect on whether a draft is accepted, at this stage it's more profitable to focus on the text of the draft, its referencing, and formatting. You may find Help:Referencing for beginners, Wikipedia:Manual of Style, and Wikipedia:Writing better articles useful. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

17:25:21, 6 December 2017 review of submission by Chrisking1977

edit

Hi, I'm still very new to Wikipedia. I have created a draft page for someone I believe to be a very notable Canadian journalist. I had trouble getting his page published a few years ago, and am now trying again, this time with more evidence based citations. I just want to make sure I haven't forgotten anything so I can get through the approval process a little faster this time. If you have a moment, can you check my article and let me know if there is anything else I an do? Thank you so much for your help. Chrisking1977 (talk) 17:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Comments left on draft. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

22:07:23, 6 December 2017 review of submission by Danielweston007

edit


Danielweston007 (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Which exact information does wikipedia need proof of when creating an autobiography? Additionally, what sources are considered valid sources?

Danielweston007 (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Danielweston007. There are at least three issues here - the first is that biographies need to have inline references that show where the statements made about the person were sourced from - see WP:BLPSOURCES. The second is that of notability. All articles in Wikipedia need to be about notable subjects. Notability on Wikipedia is measured by the extent to which other publications have already written in depth coverage about the subject. You will need to show that there has been in depth coverage about Daniel Weston in multiple independent, reliable publications such as national newspapers, books, music journals etc. Thirdly, your user name matches the name of the person that the article is about, and the draft switches from referring to Weston in the third person (he/his) and first person (I/my). If this is an autobiography please read WP:Autobiography and take heed of the section about writing about yourself. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

23:34:38, 6 December 2017 review of submission by SheridanFord

edit


THIS WAS A MISTAKE. I did not intend to submit this for review yet. My WikiEdu course is composing a book article from our textbook. It is notable as a recent publication by leading scholars in the field of music. sheridanford (talk) 23:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry, SheridanFord, the decline doesn't affect anything and you can re-submit it whenever you're ready. I would say that it's rare that scholarly edited volumes are independently notable. If this is an exception, I would advise focusing on adding citations to reviews and other publications that discuss the book. It's unlikely to pass review if it consists entirely of chapter summaries. – Joe (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Joe (talk)

I finally realized that. Noticed the issue during class and panicked. lol. Also since black music texts are often out of print or rare, this is notable because 1) it's written by major scholars in the discipline and the book itself is It meets at least two of guidelines on notability for books, and I will add this to the talk page as well:

  1. The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable or significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement. . [The books contributes to Black Lives Matter + Misogynoir; it's rare that a textbook focuses on women as central figures in black music since the blues or antebellum period].
  1. The book is, or has been, the subject of instruction at two or more schools, colleges, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country. [The book is used and taught at University of Louisville, University of Maryland, Stanford University, and the University of Melbourne in Australia -- references found on Google here.

sheridanford (talk) 13:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2017_December_6&oldid=815004974"