Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2012 December 25

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 25

Help

Hi, I have no idea why my article submission was declined. Is it regarding the references? I have put some references there, what's wrong with them? they are reliable source. I even found some articles which don't have the references at all.Why? Would you please advise? Many thanks for your help.

Wikipedia talk: Krisna Setiawan

Caroline1965 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caroline1965 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I have some doubts about those references. The first is a primary source, the Prince Claus Fund writing about its own activities. The second is a wiki, not a reliable source. I couldn't find the non-English sources or OZIP, but the Jakarta Post articles had rather little in common with the draft's text. For example, I couldn't find any source cofirming that Krisna studied piano with Bubi Chen, and the "music styles" section seems pure original research.

You should probably use inline citations and footnotes to clarify which source is supposed to confirm which of the draft's statements, and claims not supported by the sources should be removed. If you could find an independent source such as a newspaper article for Krisna's invitation by the Prince Claus Fund, that would help with the notability issues. Huon (talk) 02:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bruce Mann (oncologist)

Hi, Help Desk -- re Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bruce Mann (oncologist) I've reworked this article to make it more clear that Prof Mann is notable. I thought it would be apparent just from his position that he's notable, but apparently it was obscure. First of all, he's not primarily an "academic" as the rejection note suggested: he's the "Big Boss" for cancer care at the two largest (and conjoined) public hospitals in Melbourne and the director of the Breast Service for the largest women's hospital in Australia. He's very widely recognised in Australia -- he was elected head of the national cancer association -- so I put this info up front in the first paragraph to make this more clear. New draft:

"Bruce Mann is a leading surgical oncologist in Australia, widely recognized for his leadership and expertise in the treatment and integrated care of cancer.[1] He has served as President of COSA, the Clinical Oncology Society of Australia (the top national professional organisation for cancer care in Australia),[2] and has been appointed to a cluster of eminent posts, including Director of Cancer Services and Infectious Medicine for the Melbourne Health Cancer Service,[3] as well as Director of the Breast Service at the Royal Women's Hospital, which is the largest specialist women's care hospital in Australia;[4] and Director of the Breast Service and Advanced Surgical Training at the Royal Melbourne Hospital."

I also added quite a few internal links: e.g., to the Royal Melbourne Hospital and Royal Women's Hospital, both of which have Wikipedia articles, where Mann is the head of the cancer service for both, as well as director of the breast service, and advanced surgical training. So he's about as "notable" as somebody can get in his field. AND he's an academic, widely published, etc., on top of all that.

The thing is, I can't find an article "about" Mann, in the sense of paragraphs, just lots of citations of his invitations to speak in conferences, etc. I think this might be partly because he's universally seen as a modest person, despite his immense responsibilities and influence: he's famous for never putting himself forward as an individual. But I would argue that the eminent positions he holds should speak for themselves. He's held or is holding some of the top professional posts in cancer care in Australia. Please tell me you agree that such a person is "notable". Tafkira2 (talk) 04:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately articles about Mann are exactly what we need. For example, the source [1] for the excerpt you cite doesn't actually call Mann a "leading surgical oncologist" nor says he's widely recognized for his leadership and expertise. If we want to call him a leading expert, we need a source that says so, and if we want to say he's widely recognized as an expert, we need not just that but a source that explicitly says he's recognized - and of course the source should be both reliable and independent of Mann. Mann's biography sounds as if such sources should exist, and I doubt his "famous" modesty would keep newspapers from reporting on him. Huon (talk) 13:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, really, but I just don't agree. The source that explicitly says he's recognized as a "leading" figure is Australia's entire professional community of oncology surgeons who elected him president of Australia's national professional body, not to mention the two eminent hospitals which appointed him the head of the entire cancer service for the public hospital sector of a major Australia city. These eminent bodies can hardly be held not to be "reliable" or "independent" sources regarding his reputation: they are the absolute and only valid measure of it. I did worry that Wikipedia editors might look at footnote 1 to confirm his reputation as a "leading" figure: it my mistake to put it there, as it was directed only at the "coordinated care" part. What I thought would be clear, though, was what followed: the rest of the paragraph, which compellingly confirms his "notable" stature.

Anyway, although Mann is a doctor and director of services first, and a professor as well, not working from the academy primarily, I note that the guidelines for "academics" lists as two criterion as:

• 3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE).
• 7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity."

This fits Mann: president of COSA, the top professional society in his field, and having a major public role outside academe. (Don't tell me that, because people are eminent in Australia rather than Europe, they don't merit articles. That would be extremely bad for Wikipedia. Although, again, Mann is recognized in international bodies as well.)

I'm really concerned about something here -- indeed, a wider issue, which I hope I'm not abusing this space to raise. Not all professional fields are prone to attracting publicity in newspaper articles. (Yes, Mann is quoted in numerous newspaper articles about cancer care, because he's the top guy in the field and people ask him what he thinks of things, but the articles are not about him.) This raises a real question for Wikipedia: I really hope Wikipedia doesn't decline to assuming that newspaper coverage or on-line media publicity is the measure of someone's importance. We have to be more sophisticated than this, and recognize that some people become "notable" in their fields in other ways. Especially, doctors, scientists and other specialists become famous in their professional fields through recognition by their colleagues, who are not prone to write about each other directly but to indicate esteem in certain ways, such as repeated invitations to conferences, elections to leadership roles in key organisations, high appointments, and so forth -- all bestowed on Mann, for example. This is, not least, because it's considered somewhat crass to write about each other as individuals, because the science is supposed to come first. And quite frankly, giants in the field sometimes aren't recognized because the public often just doesn't understand that they are giants: how much of the climate change science do you or I or the local journalist grasp, for example, well enough to know who are the towering figures in its more technical research? The scientists who invented the atomic bomb didn't have newspaper articles written about them either in 1942: that doesn't mean they weren't extremely important and internationally recognized at the time, well worth a Wikipedia entry. If we held to the newspaper article standard, and didn't appreciate how these fields actually operate, such giants would be systematically ignored. This would be bad for Wikipedia, I believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tafkira2 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The "general notes" of WP:PROF also say: "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject." That's precisely what we seem to have here. Your claims about Mann's renown are currently unverifiable.

However, while I'd still expect that news coverage, maybe on the opportunity of one or another of Mann's various appointments, should be easiest to come by, that's not the only type of acceptable source. For example, if he were to be honored with a Festschrift, that might serve and would presumably include a biographical sketch.

But ultimately we might just have to wait for better sources to become available. To use your own example, I'd expect it took quite a while for encyclopedias to add articles on Oppenheimer and his colleagues. Without secondary sources there's no way for us to ascertain that Mann is indeed the towering figure you say he is - unfortunately your word is not enough since it would constitute original research. Huon (talk) 00:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I really appreciate your patience with this, Huon. And good point about Oppenheimer. But still, I'm just confused about this sources business: if what we need are impartial, independent proof that someone is recognized as notable, short of a festschrift, wouldn't the top positions to which he's been appointed be good enough? That is, the very fact that he's been appointed to these high-powered jobs (which I document) would seem to me to constitute reliable and independent evidence that he's important. And I'm not asking anyone to take my word for those jobs: I've documented it. I know you keep saying we need third-party sources but the point of that is triangulation and confirmation, and in this case I just don't see why that's needed because you don't get these jobs unless you're notable. Anyway, I see lots of entries in Wikipedia about people who seem less eminent than Mann: e.g., from some work I was doing earlier today, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._Crawford_Young and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Buchanan. I'm just not okay with letting this go ... I don't think it's fair. Hope you understand. Tafkira2 (talk) 02:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I can help here. When you say in the article something like "he is the leading figure in his field" you are stating your own opinion based on the fact that he is the head of the professional organisation and various other positions and achievments. You should actually just say he was elected the head of the organisation. State only the bare facts without your own conclusions or opinion - allow the reader to form their own opinion about him. However, if for example a newpaper article, or a professional journal, reporting about his election to the position said "he is the leader in his field" then you can include the statement - with a direct citation to the news article. Roger (talk)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Igor P Kaidashev

Please advise me how can I improve my article. Thank you. Julian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julian Rivage (talk • contribs) 11:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

"Bat writing style" isn't in itself a reason not to accept a submission, but your draft doesn't show Kaidashev has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as news coverage or scholarly articles (written by others) reviewing his work. We need such coverage both to establish his notability and to allow our readers to verify the article's content. You should also use inline citations and footnotes to clarify which source supports which of the draft's claims.

Regarding the writing style: Most of the draft is currently just a list of bullet points; the sentences even lack verbs. It would be much better to turn it into running text. Huon (talk) 13:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Review of User:Jack Ridge/sandbox

Subject title needs to be Tic Tac Putt draft name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Ridge (talk • contribs) 14:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

My User name is Jack Ridge. I want tyo create an article about a gmae invented by my brother William "Bill" Ridge. I have created the text in my Jack ridge Sandbox. I just want the title to be TIC TC PUTT. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Ridge (talk • contribs) 14:28, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I have moved the draft to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tic Tac Putt, the preferred location for drafts awaiting review. However, the draft currently does not cite any reliable sources. We require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as news coverage or reviews in trade magazines, both to establish the game's notability and to allow our readers to verify the article's content. As the inventor's brother you might also want to read our guideline on conflicts of interest. Huon (talk) 01:21, 26 December 2012 (UTC)