Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 July 30
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < July 29 | << Jun | July | Aug >> | July 31 > |
| 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 30
edit18:04:00, 30 July 2017 review of draft by Kiholmes
edit
I'd like help ensuring an the objectivity of an entry I created, now in draft at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Board_of_Certified_Safety_Professionals#cite_note-5.
This was originally a section in another article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certified_safety_professional, but that article has a variety of extraneous information globbed onto it.
I tried to clean it up, but was a bit ham-fisted, for which I apologize.
Could someone assist me in finishing the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Board_of_Certified_Safety_Professionals#cite_note-5 article, and maybe reviewing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certified_safety_professional?
Thank you.
Kiholmes (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Kiholmes: Hello, Ki. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the delay in response. Articles about industry groups often face difficulties here at Wikipedia, because most of the material written about them is geared to the professionals in that particular industry, and not the general public. Rescuing your article might be possible, but it's going to take a lot more effort than merely listing the sponsoring organizations and the various certifications that are offered. You might take a look at some of our better-quality articles on industry groups, such as the Public Relations Society of America, the Japan Medical Association, and the Entertainment Software Rating Board. I doubt that there will be enough material on the BCSP to make articles as extensive as the ones I just named, but reading them can give you an idea about how to structure an acceptable article, as well as what types of material will prove useful. On a less urgent note, I see that you've place all of your references in the form of "bare URLs". Doing this runs afoul of our WP:CITE, which requires that you provide essential bibliographic detail to the reader. With a bare URL, you are telling readers (including reviewers) that, if they want to learn this information, they have to leave Wikipedia and find out for themselves. Later today, I'll head back to your draft and re-format one of the cites with the {{cite web}} template, which you can then use as a example for the rest. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello there!! I'm hopeful to add a few more names to the American female novelists list (there are a ton of dudes! we need more chicks!!) and am starting with the first one I have the most info/articles/sources on.... But the lovely reviewers and RileyBugz mentioned I need to delete unsourced things...but I am not sure what is considered unsourced and yet OK to put on there - was looking at like...Jamie Ford's author wiki page and tried to emulate it in terms of neutral points of view and independent sources, but maybe I still missed a few obvious pointers...so please help!! So excited to be part of this and to eventually figure out how to be more of a reviewer on here to help out wiki!! Cheers!!! Matkadomu (talk) 20:21, 30 July 2017 (UTC)matkudomu
Matkadomu (talk) 20:21, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Matkadomu: Hello, Matkadomu. Thank you for you submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the delay in response. Regarding sourcing, the "Early life" and "Personal" sections are completely unsourced. If you can't find reliable third-party sourcing for these sections, they will need to be removed. And the Kinney's Housekeeper section is completely unsourced. I see that you do have the Chanticleer review cited in the lead paragraph, but that's the wrong place for it. It should be used as a reference in the section about the book (generally, the lead paragraph should simply be a summary of the information that is presented (with sources) in the article itself). Also, before posting here, I did some general clean-up, but there's more to be done -- you've overlooked placing all book titles in italics and the section headings should be in sentence case (i.e., only the first word is capitalised unless a later one would be capitalised for some other reason). Having discussed these preliminary matters, there is the much larger question of whether you have demonstrated that the subject has achieved encyclopedic notability. I don't think you have. We are told that the Housekeeper book is the subject's primary claim to notability, but this statement appears to rest only on the book having received an award from the non-notable Chanticleer Book Reviews web site. And that site appears to be one that exists mainly to provide services to promising new authors. It does so by writing (to use their own words) "REVIEWS that get RESULTS" (capitalisation in the original). And it charges the author $400 for the review. Frankly, I just don't see why Wikipedia should have an article on this author. But, I expect that you disagree and I look forward to hearing your comments. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- @NewYorkActuary: Hi NewYorkActuary!! Thank you for your response and follow-up. No worries on delays, nothing about this is urgent. :) Your response is wonderful and very very helpful - thank you so very very much (particularly because I'm so stinking new at Wiki in terms of article starting). You're completely right about some of my formatting (still learning) and I didn't realize the Chanticleer review isn't big enough to matter - I thought the prize was separate from the review, but I may have misunderstood the award. As for sourcing the "Early Life" and "Personal" sections, I'd noticed that many authors don't have any sources for that information, but it makes sense it's needed for a new article (And maybe people go in after the article is made on those other authors and add in that kind of unsourced info?) Darn - here I am all on my rampage to add female authors and I picked one I met at a housewares show because it was book AND products and there seemed to be a lot of links/sources when I Googled, so I was thinking it would be an easy one to start with! Hahaha...watch, now this author isn't actually notable as an author at all, but as a freaking cookware person (I did think it cool she was the only woman making copper wares in the USA)...which means I have to go back and find an author with different (better?) sources. Thoughts? Should I just go look elsewhere or is this article at least partially salvageable and I take out most of the author stuff? And then I'll have this experience to go and find another chick author... You rock - seriously - thank you for your help and time in my growing pains... Matkadomu (talk) 06:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)Matkudomu
I had submitted my article titled Brodha V for review last month and it was declined by @DrStrauss for formatting issues. @DGG and @RileyBugz pointed out that they were minor issues and they listed the article back for review. I made the required changes as well and have been waiting since a month for review however, my draft keeps getting pushed back. If one of you can please take a quick second look I'd be really grateful.
Please help since I am in a time crunch and I know that the article is in good shape, and needs to be published because there have been a lot of queries.
Nramesh (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Nramesh: Hello, N. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the delay in response. It appears that you neglected to actually re-submit your draft for another review. You can do so by clicking the "re-submit" button in the box near the top of the page. Given the current backlog, I expect that it will take a few weeks before a reviewer gets a chance to look at it. In the meantime, you might want to address the concerns raised by the reviewers -- your current draft does not satisfy our Manual of Style in several respects and it is not written in a neutral encyclopedic tone. I encourage you to read through WP:Your first article and our WP:Tutorial (especially the section on Formatting). As for writing in an encyclopedic tone, take a look at some of our better articles on musicians, such as Ayumi Hamasaki or Frederic Chopin. Doing so will give you an inkling as to the neutral tone that is expected. By the way, what "queries" are putting you in a time crunch? Here on Wikipedia, we generally don't have any deadlines. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Dear :@NewYorkActuary: thank you so much for getting back to me. My article was declined earlier on the day you reviewed it and I am having trouble making the edits the reviewer suggested. I went through the pages you suggested and I feel like my page also has the same tone as them or maybe I'm blind to my work and unable to see the difference. Could you please help me edit the article or provide more feedback? Is there any way I can request for the article to be edited by someone more experienced than me to get it done? Many thanks in advance! Nramesh (talk) 23:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)