Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2014 June 4

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation‎ | Help desk‎ | Archives
Help desk
< June 3 << May | June | Jul >> June 5 >
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 4 edit

Looking for guidance and help for creating good wikipedia page edit

Hi Wiki,

Our wikipedia was tagged as copyrighted information and promotional. Do you have a guide or helpful resources in creating page for our organization?

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks,

--Designthatrock (talk) 01:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Designthatrock, your deleted draft Draft:Limitless Ventures Inc. was a blatant copy of http://www.limitlessventures.org/about/.
The fact that you cannot even see how promotional and inappropriate the text was for an encyclopedia is a prime example of why Wikipedia strongly discourages editing with a conflict of interest. If you want some guides please read the following:
Voceditenore (talk) 06:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Draft:Asia Pacific Vision edit

Dear sir or madam,

I am confused why the article was declined, perhaps there's something I can fix and resubmit again? Thanks.

Warm regards, Paul Hongkong2015 (talk) 02:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear sir or madam, I'm not sure why my article was declined. Is there anything I can do about it? The link to my article is

Draft:Asia Pacific Vision

Many thanks for your help in advance.

Regards,

Paul Mak

Hongkong2015 (talk) 06:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Paul. I don't blame you for being confused. This was a draft about a clearly real news agency but was declined with the following reason given:
The proposed article is not suitable for Wikipedia. Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles on fictional subjects should cover their real-world context and contain sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance—not just a summary of the plot.
The reviewer (User:JustBerry) was using an automated script and most probably checked the wrong reason for the decline by mistake. My impression from the four references you've used is that this subject probably would meet the criteria for inclusion (See WP:ORG). I suggest that instead of simply listing them in a separate section, you add them as inline citations (see Help:Referencing for beginners) and perhaps find more sources, e.g. "Faux better or worse: fact and fiction are blurring as the taste for faux-news rises." in Television Asia (April 2004). Also be aware that Wikipedia articles about companies, especially if written by editors associated with those companies, come under special scrutiny (and rightly so). My advice would be to shorten the article, and make it it as matter-of-fact, neutral, and boring as possible, i.e. written in encyclopedic style. It's current style is not too bad as company articles go, but there's still room for improvement. Voceditenore (talk) 07:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also ask User:DGG, who is especially experienced in reviewing articles like this, if he has some further input on this. Voceditenore (talk) 07:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


First, I must apologize for the bad reviewing. Our use of this script is an anachronism--it is too susceptible to error, and anyone qualified to review should be capable of writing a proper delete reason that explains the proper reason in detail. Myself, I almost always write a custom message and almost never use the script. The sooner we get rid of the entire current AfC structure, the better our reviewing will be. The problem with the article, as I see them is primarily the rather informal promotional tone, It will help to remove all, or almost all adjectives. Then let me know on my talk page. DGG ( talk ) 09:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with DGG's use of comments. This reviewer was indulging in a series of unlikely reviews. and had been discouraged. I hoped all had been caught. Hongkong2015 you deserve our apologies. Accidents happen, even in the best regulated houses. Fiddle Faddle 11:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Draft:4INFO edit

*confused* First I made the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:4INFO with about 250 citations, then https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Drumlineramos does what I thought was an awesome job wikifying it, & now it's rejected because of not enough citations. I'm also confused how to leave Drumlineramos a message. TY! MarkMillerITPro (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MarkMillerITPro. I am the reviewer who declined the article today. I can only review what I see, and I hope my comment on PR (etc) is useful for you. To send a message to Drumlineramos you simply visit their talk page at User talk:Drumlineramos, create a new section and ask your question of them.
It is by no means unusual for Wikipedia editors to disagree, but our overall objective with the WP:AFC route to to do our utmost to ensure that an article that is accepted is unlikely to be challenged for WP:N or WP:V, and references in WP:RS that are about the entity and independent of the entity are vital in this. Being nominated for deletion hurts. Being declined is simply a delay. Fiddle Faddle 18:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Timtrent.*chuckle* Cool. TY!

MarkMillerITPro (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Timtrent that an article accepted at AfC should be able to pass AfD, but when uncertain, I usually accept it. There often is doubt, because even after many years of experience there, I am not able to predict what would necessarily happen at AfD, where decisions are sometimes rather peculiar, or at least random. A possibly acceptable article should not depend on my personal guess, and I think it best to let it take its chances . Additionally, articles exposed to view at AfD often do get improved during their process there; certainly they have a better chance of getting community attention there than they do here. (Some editors have said that a 50% chance of passing AfD is good enough to accept--I try to use a higher standard of at least 60%, but numbers aren't all that meaningful.) DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Timtrent.:Hi DGG.:Hi Drumlineramos. Today I stumbled on an article I hadn't seen about King of SMS and AdMob of SMS. I added it. Anyone willing to take a look & let me know it's ok?

MarkMillerITPro (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Timtrent.:Hi DGG.:Hi Drumlineramos. Then I remembered another article, & I've added it. It's citation #13. imo that would help with "significant and independent coverage of the org". Could you 3 or someone else take a look & let me know if that was helpful?

MarkMillerITPro (talk) 18:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Timtrent.:Hi DGG.:Hi Drumlineramos I stumbled on an article I had seen before, that also may help with "significant and independent coverage of the org". Altho I added it, it's citation 16, imo it's a little clunky how I wrote it, and you may have a better idea.

MarkMillerITPro (talk) 18:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Timtrent.:Hi DGG.:Hi Drumlineramos I think I fixed the clunkiness. Let me know if you think the draft needs something further. TY!

MarkMillerITPro (talk) 18:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was doing something else today & found yet another article regarding notoriety. I think this draft is ready for publication. TY! 22:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

  • I looked at it, and, since it appears there may be sources for notability on the basis of market share, I made a preliminary pass at editing it to remove the unusually extensive promotionalism. Listing every imaginable see also and category is promotionalism . Giving a "for example" illustration of the firm's advertising technique is promotionalism. Listing more of its social marketing sites than its own website is promotionalism,

I have not yet checked to see which of the references are based of press releases; possibly most of them are, in which case they will need to be removed. I think it would probably pass AfD, but I am reluctant to accept an article with such sources. I am not sure why I contributed this amount of work to an article in a subject in which I have no interest, except perhaps to demonstrate the almost inevitable low quality of coi editing. DGG ( talk ) 01:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I looked at the edits. No problem from my perspective.

MarkMillerITPro (talk) 01:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Timtrent.:Hi DGG.:Hi Drumlineramos Last night I did find a reference that had byline PRWIRE, & switched that out to a more reliable source. Anyone willing to take a look?

MarkMillerITPro (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • @MarkMillerITPro: I'm going to stay away, I think. I try not to get too close to articles I review. If you think it is ready after listening to various pieces of advice, simply resubmit it. You can continue to improve it after resubmitting. Fiddle Faddle 16:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Probably because you are a decent person" That's what I thought your motive was. I'm father of large blended family. very messy. very close. Lots of opinions. I'm inclined to wait and see if anyone else will take one more look & possibly accept it, because I've been thru submission 2xs, & it sits there for more than 30 days each time is how I experience it. Is it not likely to be accepted without submitting again? Thanks! MarkMillerITPro (talk) 16:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

that afcs take 30 days to improve is in one sense our fault, but it is an almost inevitable failing because of the shortage of competent reviewers. If every really experienced editor took a hand and did a few on a regular basis, we could deal with it better. But in a project like WP there's just no way to get people to do anything they do not want to. The fix will therefore have to be to the process, and the best immediate things I can think of are1. to simply accept acceptable articles, rather than sent them back for minor improvements which could be made after acceptance, 2. to remember to remove G11s and test pages immediately, 3. and strongly discourage people from submitting hopeless articles repeatedly, all these would reduce the workload by at least half. A proper process first separates out the obvious, so there is time to spend on the ones that need it. DGG ( talk ) 00:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Timtrent.:Hi DGG.:Hi Drumlineramos I didn't notice DGG's comment about needing another 2008 reference, & found another reference tonight. TY!


Hi Timtrent.:Hi DGG.:Hi Drumlineramos or any other help person.

I tried to change the "categories" to that cleaner boxed look, but when I go to preview, I can't see the categories. I'm reluctant to save the "code" unless I see the results. Anyone willing to "box" the categories on this article? MarkMillerITPro (talk) 18:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help request edit

The article I drafted Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The African Americans: Many Rivers to Crosswas declined because I improperly used in-line citations and subheadings. Before I try to resubmit, can I get some help on this?

Thanks! Kmburke76 (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)Kevin[reply]

@Kmburke76: Thank you for coming here. As the reviewer in question I'm not sure how best to answer your question. Is it that my explanation was unhelpful, or do you need more technical help? I do not visit this page regularly, so, if you need a fast answer from me rather than from others, please {{ping}} me Fiddle Faddle 17:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neither was reason to delete the article. The only reason I do not accept it immediately is that it is written as a press release,and I wonder if it is not copied from one. Please omit judgments and adjective, use fewer & shorter quotations,and rely less on Gates. As for headings , see Help:Cheatsheet.(hint: look at the code of exiting articles) But this could have been improved later, trivial matters of style are not a reason for rejection. As for references, we prefer but do not require that every significant fact have a source that is obvious, and it's preferred that every paragraph at least have one. But except for BLPs, they are required only for facts likely to be challenged, and I do not see any. Except for a BLP, or a contentious article, this too is a matter of improvement, not rejection. Articles do not have to be perfect, justgood enough to holdup at AfD. DGG ( talk ) 19:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of submission by Technical 13 (contribs•talk) edit

What does everyone who monitors this page think of the new header for each section for those that use the ask link in the header? I did it for multiple reasons, first, it's a pain to find which section they commented in when there are multiple "Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Your submission name here" sections. Second, since we are dealing with mostly new users here, it will be nice to have a nice big link to their contributions in the header (in case they actually sign and are using the default signature). Third, since we are scattered with submissions in User:, User_talk:, Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/, Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/, Draft:, and Draft_talk: now, it would be just too unmanagable to leave it as "Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/" or even change it to "Draft:". So, I eliminated that element all together. I'd be happy to add a preload template that will allow them to add a link directly to their draft in a {{La}} style template if that is wanted and people think it will be appropriately used. (I might even be able to create a custom substitutable template that will check if there is actually anything on the page they list (and try to find the most plausible namespace if it's not quite where they say it is), but that will take me a little of experimenting)... Let me know what you all think. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 16:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a good idea (or something like it), Technical 13. But wouldn't it be better to post this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation for more input? Most of the people here are very busy just replying to queries about submissions. Voceditenore (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Technical 13, your original heading here read:
Review of submission by [[User:Technical 13}}|Technical 13}}]] ([[Special:Contribs/Technical 13}}|contribs]]•[[User_talk:Technical 13}}|talk]]
Did you intend those stranded curly brackets and non-working links? I've edited to what I think you meant it to look like. Please change it back, if it's not what you meant. Voceditenore (talk) 16:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ye, thank you, and I've fixed it in the preloadtitle in the actual link. Thanks again.. The reason I posted here instead of there, is you are the people that have to see them and navigate with them all the time.. You are the directly affected audience. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 17:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but with a question. What happens when the same editor opens a new section every tome they come here. Some of the editors here are very new and not yet in 'flying solo' mode. I agree (in advance) that it is a smaller problem than the one you are solving. Fiddle Faddle 17:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I considered that, and the only possible solution is to add a time&date to each header. If it's wanted, it can certainly be done. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 17:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, so I've started to work on the preload template (and more specifically the template it will rely on for the links to the draft [{{Lafc}}]) and you guys can check them out and follow my progress as I work on them. Time for me to head to class now, but I'll work on this more later. The preload is at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/preload. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 14:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I almost forgot to mention, I've also added a navigational box in the lower left corner of the page that will be static as you scroll up and down through the requests so it will be easy to get to the top, toc, today's requests, and bottom of the page. I can expand that or collapse it upon request. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 14:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Draft:Sébastien Dewaest edit

  Accepted Moved to Sebastien Dewaest for me, recreate again — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.162.137 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 4 June 2014‎ ‎ Delete moved to restart a Sebastien Dewaest will becomes a article for users — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.162.137 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 4 June 2014‎

Hello 86.15.162.137. You cannot accept your own article unless you are an autoconfirmed registered editor, but today I accepted it and moved it to article space. I also created a re-direct for it from Sebastian Dewaest. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 06:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of submission by Abbeyokuns (contribs•talk) edit

Hi Reviewer,

please does it mean when i write something in the sandbox it can go live to become an article..? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbeyokuns (talk • contribs) 20:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Abbeyokuns. Work in your sandbox will only go into article space if you move it there or if you submit it to Articles for Creation and a reviewer accepts the draft and moves it into article space. However, your sandbox is visible on Wikipedia (and to some search engines). I see that User:Abbeyokuns/sandbox was deleted because it contained copyright material from http://www.vanguardngr.com/2014/03/player-can-bribe-keshi/. You cannot paste copyright text anywhere on Wikipedia, including your user pages. If you want to work on a draft, you will need to write it in your own words. Voceditenore (talk) 07:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2014_June_4&oldid=1128136709"