Help desk
< July 24	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 26 >

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.

July 25

10:36:53, 25 July 2016 review of submission by Quarataz

Quarataz (talk · contribs)
- No draft specified!

ashutosh bhardwaj (talk) 10:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article is User:Quarataz/sandbox, and it was declined as a test edit. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:01:10, 25 July 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Aosterga

Aosterga (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Andrew Cox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, my article for creation was deleted. Why are business owners not deemed notable?

Aosterga (talk) 13:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC) Aosterga (talk) 13:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aosterga. Like all topics, business owners are only notable if they have received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Australian Financial Review and Australian Broadcasting Corporation are independent, reliable sources, but what they contain about Cox is a long way from in-depth coverage. A book-length biography is non-trivial, but "ISM is controlled by Melbourne-based businessmen Andrew Cox and Peter Sidwell" is a passing mention. AFR's coverage is slightly better, but still extremely thin. The best one could build from these two sources would be:

Andrew Cox is a businessman and owner of private investment firm Imperium Group. The group acquired the T.G.I. Friday's franchise for Australia and New Zealand in 2002. It also owns hotels and other businesses. In June 2015 it became the majority shareholder of the Melbourne Rebels rugby club.

That's mostly about the company instead of about him. Where did all the biographical information in the draft come from? --Worldbruce (talk) 00:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

13:53:16, 25 July 2016 review of submission by StevenInMA

StevenInMA (talk · contribs)

My second review submission was rejected and I'm confused for two reasons for the rejection. First, it was rejected because my reference to a company named Ipswitch and the link to ipswitch.com was not considered to be "reliable" and may have been confused by the reviewer with an IP Switch which is not the case. Also the reviewer says "a number of the references" but doesn't tell me which ones. Is there any way to find out which ones "don't appear to be reliable"? I'm a little frustrated, I'm feeling like someone has told me that "your computer program doesn't work, it's the output" and doesn't give me enough information to find and fix the problems. I apologize if I'm coming across upset, I'm trying to make the article complete and reliable, and I appreciate any help I can get! Thanks! -steve

StevenInMA (talk) 13:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi StevenInMA. Writing a new article is one of the most difficult, time consuming, and frustrating things an editor can do on Wikipedia. There are a million easier and more rewarding ways to improve the encyclopedia. User groups are a particularly challenging topic to write about. Few are notable. No articles about them are classed good or higher, and some probably should be deleted. We empathize.

Put yourself in a reviewer's shoes. The first thing they see is that the first sentence includes an external link, which is not allowed in the text of an article. It needs to be converted into a reference or removed (it's already duplicated in the external links section).

The reviewer sets out to verify the first sentence of the body, "On December 9, 1986 as The Boston Novell Users Group..." Crap, the author hasn't bothered to give a page number. So the reviewer searches for "Boston Novell Users Group", which returns a single hit, on page 2, which turns out to be a false positive. So they slog through the publication and finally find a blurb in the calendar section on page 42: "Dec. 9, Boston - NetWare Users Group. Contact: Glenn Fund." Making information hard to verify and getting the name of the organization wrong is a bad start. The second reference doesn't specify a page number either, but using what they learned from the first reference, the reviewer is able to find it.

On to the third reference. Wikipeida?! That's user-generated, so it is not a reliable source, and should not be used as a reference. Problably an internal link, using double square brackets, to Bob Frankenberg was intended.

The fourth source has a few sentences quoting Josh Turiel, who in turn mentions a Greater Boston Network User Group meeting. It doesn't prove that Turiel was president of the organization, but does support that at the meeting he discussed "the Chihuahua Pack dubbing of Novell's Wolf Mountain and Microsoft's Wolf Pack clustering technologies." The reviewer is non-plussed. So what? Presumably at least one topic has been discussed at each of the organization's 350 monthly meetings. What makes this one special? Is the president notable? Is either product notable? Did the discussion affect sales of a product? Did a company change a product as a result of the discussion? What effect has BNUG ever had? What lasting mark on the historical record has it made?

The next three paragraphs cite no sources, so the reviewer wonders if it's original research, which is forbidden.

The fifth reference is cited in the middle of the sentence, "BNUG's President Emeritus, Glenn Fund, started the group from its inception through 1995, a period which saw the group evolve from a dedicated NetWare-only group to an organization covering networking issues of all sorts." The source fails verification; it doesn't mention anything about Glenn Fund, BNUG, or anything else in the sentence. The author may be missing the point of citing sources.

Most reviewers will have given up on the draft by this point. So far they have seen nothing more than passing mentions of the organization, and even those are in trade journals that don't carry the weight of say The New York Times, The Boston Globe, or an academic journal or book from MIT Press. Nothing about the remaining references suggests that they will be any better.

If a few articles can be found that talk about BNUG as directly and in as much detail as this article in The New York Times talks about the Boston Computer Society, then the draft has a good chance. Otherwise it isn't going anywhere. Now to break the news to the author while still being welcoming and encouraging. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:49:06, 25 July 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Adamcurley

Adamcurley (talk · contribs)
- Draft:SmileyCookie.com (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am requesting assistance with my wikipage for SmileyCookie.com. I have rewritten and added reliable sources to my article and am now awaiting review. Could you please look over my article and verify that it meets all the necessary critereia to be accepted? especially in regards to my sources/citations. Thank you.

Adamcurley (talk) 14:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adamcurley. The draft is in the pool of submissions to be reviewed. It will probably take about three weeks. If you want something to do while you wait, check out other ways to improve Wikipedia. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I declined it as reading like an advertisement, because it looks to be more about selling the cookies than about describing the company. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

15:32:41, 25 July 2016 review of submission by Mihikak1

Mihikak1 (talk · contribs)
- No draft specified!

Hi there! I'm working on creating a Wikipedia page for Brown Bag Marketing, an integrated marketing agency located in Atlanta, GA. I received a comment on the draft saying that the references were not valid because social media sites aren't regarded as a real source. I have found other sources that speak to Brown Bag's notability including Agency Spotter and the Atlanta Journal Constitution. Can I use these as sources? Additionally, I was looking at the Wikipedia page for Moxie, another marketing & advertising agency, and noticed they included no references. Is this also an option? I ask only because I have pulled from the creative team here at Brown Bag in order to make the page. Looking forward to hearing from you!

Mihikak1 (talk) 15:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mihikak1. If, as your question implies, you have a connection to the the company you are writing about, it is imperative that you follow the instructions I've left on your user page and formally disclose that connection.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution is infinitely better than a social media site. Academic and journalistic sources are preferred to commercial sources, so Agency Spotter does not sound promissing.

Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality content and low quality content. Don't reason from bad examples. The existence of bad articles is not a good excuse to create additional bad articles. Moxie (company) cited 21 references from the time it was created in 2009 until May of last year. Content doesn't necessarily get better over time.

I strongly advise that you consider WP:BFAQ#COMPANY before continuing with the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

17:54:12, 25 July 2016 review of submission by Arianawist3

Arianawist3 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Jonathan Silver (sculptor) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I keep updating Jonathan Silver's wikipedia page, hoping it gets approved. Will the information be saved even if its not approved? Its been 9 days as well, is there any way to know when it will be reviewed? Thank you Arianawist3 (talk) 17:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arianawist3. If you are concerned about content being saved, it is best to back it up off-wiki. The review process is iterative, so being declined does not normally result in the draft immediately being deleted, but there are exceptions (such as content copied from elsewhere). Editors must write using their own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and will block persistent violators.

With the current backlog, reviews are generally being performed within three weeks. You can monitor how many drafts have been waiting longer than yours here, where drafts are listed from oldest to newest. At present, about 230 drafts have been waiting longer. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

20:15:38, 25 July 2016 review of submission by Kai e'Kael

Kai e'Kael (talk · contribs)

Hello, Not clear why this is considered a neologism. Page "Maker_culture" was accepted, a Fixer is a subset of Makers. This is described in several articles how they are different, can provide if needed beyond items listed in Fixer_culture draft. For me, reading the article from Make the first time opened my eyes that I am a Fixer myself, I've always wondered why with all my abilities with various items I fail to create anything. But if my wife says so and so doesn't work, I fix it quickly.

I'm hoping to have this page spark others to add more content. We Fixers need something to fix, creation is hard. :)

Thanks.

Kai e'Kael (talk) 20:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kai e'Kael, welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk. Maker culture cites books from Stanford University Press and MIT Press, The Wall Street Journal, The Economist, and dozens of other reliable sources. One could debate whether those sources address the subject directly, but a Google search for the term returns plenty of reliable sources that clearly do, such as The Atlantic, Time, and NPR. In contrast, the only reliable source the draft cites is one article in Make. That's why it looks like a neologism. To overcome this, provide strong evidence of substantial use and press coverage in independent, reliable sources.

If it's too soon for a Fixer culture article, or if you just need things to fix, Wikipedia has plenty of backlogs. Check out some of the millions of ways to improve the encyclopedia. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, there's already more than one link in the page (note the Fixer manifesto), should I populate the page with more links and resubmit? --Kai e'Kael (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links from within the text of the draft are not allowed, so they have been converted into internal links or removed. The fixer manifesto on github and the links to sugru.com are not reliable sources for demonstrating that "fixer culture" is not a neologism, so they should be removed. By all means add any reliable sources, such as books and academic papers, that talk about the term. You might have better luck writing about this topic at Wiktionary, which has different inclusion criteria from Wikipedia's. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

20:31:03, 25 July 2016 review of submission by Rotide123

Rotide123 (talk · contribs)

Hi, I would like to fix the date retrieved thing on my sources, but I do not know how to. Also, how can I create this page from my sandbox into a draft? Thanks. Rotide123 (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rotide123. I've fixed the date-retrieved errors for you. For future reference, study MOS:DATEFORMAT. "July, 25 2016" is not a valid format because the comma is misplaced. "July 25, 2016" is a valid format.

I think the most common way to turn your sandbox into a draft would be to click the bright blue "Submit your draft for review!" button in the large gray box at the top of your sandbox. That does not, in and of itself, move the content to the draft space, but it's common practice for a reviewer to move the submission to draft space before beginning their review.
An alternative would be to step through the Wikipedia:Article wizard, pasting from your sandbox everything from below  into the wizard at the appropriate step. That would have the advantage of immediately freeing up your sandbox for work on something else.

--Worldbruce (talk) 04:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]