Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 November 10
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < November 9 | << Oct | November | Dec >> | November 11 > |
| 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. |
November 10 edit
15:55:57, 10 November 2017 review of submission by Asmazda edit
Please let me know why my article "Appeon" was declined. Thank you.
Asmazda (talk) 15:55, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Asmazda: I'm afraid you have not satisfied Wikipedia's WP:GOLDENRULE. The sources you've provided are not WP:INDEPENDENT nor WP:RELIABLE. ~Kvng (talk) 17:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
.
Baddowsam (talk) 16:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Baddowsam I'm afraid you seem to have completely misunderstood the meaning of independent source. You have referenced the organisation that gave the award to the subject and the subject's employer. Those are the very definion of not independent. An independent source is someone who has no connection at all to people, organisations and events described in the article. A mainstream newspaper or a magazine - with no connection to radiography or the NHS - would be an acceptable source. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
16:41:53, 10 November 2017 review of submission by Kindness33 edit
- Kindness33 (talk · contribs)
Hello, I was wondering if you could tell me when the page "Ursula Hayden" will be reviewed? I submitted it over a month ago for review. Thank you!
Kindness33 (talk) 16:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Kindness33: The draft is now progressed to Category:AfC_pending_submissions_by_age/Very_old where drafts may get attention from some of our braver reviewers. There is a general sentiment flowing against WP:COI and WP:PAID submissions so many of our WP:VOLUNTEER reviewers are reluctant to take these cases. Sorry for the delay and thanks for your patience. ~Kvng (talk) 17:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
19:42:05, 10 November 2017 review of submission by Lesterking edit
- Lesterking (talk · contribs)
- No draft specified!
Lesterking (talk) 19:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Not sure why my page was not approved.
- Hi Lesterking you need to actually read the decline, the grey block in the pink box at the top of the page. It contains several links to further information and guidance. The short answer is that it has no references at all. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:06, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
20:17:34, 10 November 2017 review of submission by Niallmcg edit
Hi. I need some help to figure out why this page keeps getting declined. The reviewers have not provided me with any help or advice. Its has been declined as not having adequate references but I have 6 references, one which is a peer reviewed paper in a scientific journal and the other is a text book. This is page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Faculty_of_Dental_Surgery,_RCPSG . I would be more than happy to make it better but without any actual feedback I can't make it any better than it is.
Thanks in advance.
Niallmcg (talk) 20:17, 10 November 2017 (UTC))
- Hi Niallmcg, I can't speak for the previous reviewers, but I can identify a problem or two. You never clearly define the subject. Is it one specific department of dentistry at a specific university? Is it a "learned society" (apologies for the lack of a better term) of dentistry? It seems to have some role in setting the exams for dental students, but is this for the entire country or only at one, or a few, dentistry schools? You never define what "RCPSG" is, do also check the rest of the draft for any other unexplained "alphabet soup". Your draft jumps straight into detailed minutiae without first clearly introducing and defining the basics. Hope this helps. Basically it needs a good introduction. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi Dodger67. Thanks so much for your feedback and advice. I have now added a introduction and changed the name of the page to the full title rather than using RCPSG. I have also spelt out a few other abbreviations and found some more references. How does it fair now? Should I resubmit? link to page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Faculty_of_Dental_Surgery,_Royal_College_of_Physicians_and_Surgeons_of_Glasgow Thanks again for your help Niallmcg (talk) 21:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Niallmcg: Instead of trying to create a new article, have you considered improving the existing article, Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow? A new stand-alone article has to meet a notability requirement and that's going to be tough with the narrow topic scope you've chosen. ~Kvng (talk) 15:31, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi @Kvng . Yes i had thought about adding to the page already existing but I would argue that my page is a notable topic given that it is an internationally recognised faculty and I have included a number of good references at this point. If you look at what is already existing on wiki for another UK surgical college the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faculty_of_Dental_Surgery refers to The Royal College of Surgeons in England and the their faculty of dental surgery. This page already exists but has less references and I would say less quality than the draft I am putting together about the Glasgow College. My references are reliable (the main reference is a peer reviewed journal paper), significant( in that the paper was the front cover of the journal, but also I have a text book reference), I have also included a Lancet article that gives evidence for the history of the Dentists act and the laws allowing the college and subsequently the faculty to come into existence. Again a further example of another Royal College with a page for their dental faculty is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faculty_of_Dentistry_of_the_Royal_College_of_Surgeons_in_Ireland. Poorly referenced and little information.
So I think it does meet the notability criteria and this is not a narrow topic as it covers the history of a profession over many many years. Niallmcg (talk) 16:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Niallmcg: please be aware that not all material has been thoroughly reviewed against policy and the existence of poor-quality material is not justification for adding more of it (see WP:OTHERSTUFF). But that's not necessarily what's going on here. I haven't reviewed your draft so I'll take your word for it that there's a good case for notability. I just thought I would point out that improving an existing article then WP:SPLITTING it into separate articles may be an easier path for you to take. ~Kvng (talk) 22:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)