Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 July 14
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < July 13 | << Jun | July | Aug >> | July 15 > |
| Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded 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 14 edit
Engineering question edit
Assume you have been contacted by an engineering student who have lost his/her results work that was saved on a flash disk. Explain how you can help such a student to recover or back up his or her work ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TUMWEKWASE TOMOS (talk • contribs) 14:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- Hello, Tumwekwase. The thing is ... I have never been contacted by engineering students who lost work results from their flash drives. And I don't know what I would tell them if they ever did contact me. Sorry I can't be of more help. You might try asking at the WP:Reference desk. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia's users will not do your homework for you. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
20:26:44, 14 July 2017 review of submission by Hollykatharine edit
I have made improvements to the page for Augustus Post and I believe it may now meet the requirements of a higher class in the grading system. It was originally given a C. Is it possible to get it reviewed again to see if a higher grade might now be appropriate? ~~hollykatharine
Hollykatharine (talk) 20:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- Hollykatharine, once a darft has been accepted and has become a full article, it is no longer under the jurisdiction of the Articles for creation project. Any editor may review any article, but most often a user from one of the projects listed on the talk page. You could ask for a review there. However, The differences between "Start", "C", and "B" don't really matter that much. There is no formal process for any of these levels, and there is a good deal of subjectivity in the reviews for them. "A", "GA" (Good Article) and "FA" all have formal review processes, in which one or more uninvolved editors goes down a detailed checklist of standards to be met. (Only a few projects use the A level.) I will try to take a more detailed look at the articel this evening. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Hello, Holly. Congratulations on getting your submission accepted for publication. We generally don't get too involved in assessing the quality of articles, because that's something done by the individual WikiProjects (they do it as an aid to monitoring which of their articles need the most attention). So, you might want to ask for assistance at WP:WikiProject Aviation. You also might consider nominating your article for Good Article status at WP:GAN. If you do the latter, be prepared to trim down the excessively long list of "known for" items. That infobox field is usually intended to hold a very brief description -- here, something as simple as "Aviation pioneer". I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
21:28:28, 14 July 2017 review of submission by Jsavasta edit
Hi! I was told my page didn't contain enough outside sources and read more like an advertisement. I'd love to make these changes so my page can get published but I'm not so sure what reads like an advertisement and what doesn't. I think I used many outside sources like Forbes and USA Today. I hope you can help! Thank you so much! Jsavasta (talk) 21:28, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Jsavasta: Hello, J. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the delay in response.
We here at Wikipedia often use the word advertising in a broader sense that you might imagine. For us, it means an article that appears to be little more than an extension of a company's web site. And I think that's what the reviewer had in mind when they used the word to describe your submission. There's a good deal of discussion of the web site's content, but relatively little about the company itself. I haven't gone through all of your sources, so I don't have an opinion as to whether there is enough material in them to justify an article on your company. But, "more company history, less web content" is the direction you should take. By the way, there is almost never anything encyclopedic about documenting the company's financing. All companies get their financing from one source or another and there is rarely anything notable about the particular source. If a big investment played a significant role in the company's history, then a sentence in there might be appropriate, but a separate section for it? No.
I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
21:33:27, 14 July 2017 review of submission by Diyar Kurda edit
- Diyar Kurda (talk · contribs)
Diyar Kurda (talk) 21:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- Hello, Diyar. Did you have a specific question? NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)