Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 February 4

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.

February 4

00:10:45, 4 February 2019 review of draft by Rsgoodlawster

• Rsgoodlawster (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Goodman Department Store (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

{{SAFESUBST:Void|00:10:45, 4 February 2019 review of submission by {{SUBST:REVISIONUSER}

• Rsgoodlawster (talk · contribs)
  • No draft specified!

FIRST TELL US WHY YOU ARE REQUESTING HELP ON THE LINE BELOW THIS LINE. Take as many lines as you need. -->}} Thank you for your help. I started the process of doing a short Bio of Goodman Company Stores in November 2018. I have shortened the article considerably, edited it 10 times and now think it complies with the writing style required. Yet I cannot seem to move the article forward. What would be the best course to follow from here? Rsgoodlawster (talk) 00:10, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Rsgoodlawster (talk) 00:10, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

00:17:14, 4 February 2019 review of submission by GIGI ROSE MUSIC

• GIGI ROSE MUSIC (talk · contribs)

Hi there, I am trying to publish a wikipedia page and it has been declined. Am I able to get some assistance to ensure its publishing?

Kind Regards

GIGI ROSE MUSIC (talk) 00:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi GIGI ROSE MUSIC. Your article was declined as it lacks any reliable sources. All Wikipedia articles must demonstrate the subject of the article has received WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. Also, we don't allow external links in the body of articles. Just remove the external links and then source all the statements in the article to reliable sources (e.g. profiles of the subject in The Australian, broadcasts on the subject aired on ABC, or biographies published about the subject in books from major publishing houses like Random House or Oxford University Press) and you should be set. As a helpful tip, however, you may want to read WP:AUTOBIO just in case you and the subject of the article are one-in-the-same. Chetsford (talk) 01:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

07:18:25, 4 February 2019 review of submission by Vgoel7443

• Vgoel7443 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Focus Softnet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi,

My article about Focus Softnet has been rejected citing the reason: "makes enterprise solutions to manage business operations, human resources, and customer relations - This not a venue for promoting your business"

I would like to clarify that the above mentioned line was written to explain the nature of software that company develops.

However, if you think it violates Wikipedia rules, I want to remove that line and simply mention 'ERP solutions' instead.

Would really appreciate if you can guide me in this as this is my first Wikipedia article. Vgoel7443 (talk) 07:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

No subject

Extended content ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 11:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

To Improve Team Performance: Do a Root Cause Analysis (RCA) and Diagnose the Problem Before Gunning for a Solution Felix Joy Kollasserry, Ph.D The Executive Director wanted her team fixed and wasn’t particularly worried about how I was going to do it. The team in question was a collection of his best and brightest. Expectations were very high. But the team had underachieved in spectacular fashion from its inception. And now, it had reached a tipping point where the team was going to be dissolved if their performance did not improve over the next few quarters. In other words, “terminations”. I listened to the Executive Director intently as she described missed deadlines and unachieved financial benchmarks. I took notes as she described the friction that had erupted between team members. I nodded as she talked about the profound disappointments that was building over the team’s growing list of failures and gross value violations and matters of jealousy within the team. She wanted a full-on intervention. Do whatever it takes, she told me. For the sake of the firm, and for her own peace of mind, the Executive Director needed this team to live up to its original expectations. You only know if a team has a weak link by doing a Root Cause Analysis and full diagnostics before unleashing any team intervention. Felix Joy Kollasserry, Ph.D Before we could find a solution, however, we had to address another pressing issue: the Executive Director did not know exactly why the team was underperforming. Was it a question of leadership? Was the team unclear about its mission or the expectations? You can’t fix a team by applying some sort of generic team-dynamic “Band-Aid” teams are complex entities and there is no one-size-fits-all cure for these kinds of road blocks. I told her that I preferred to do a detailed Root Cause Analysis and a diagnostic study of the team in question before prescribing an intervention. In my experience, it is very hard to fix something if you don’t know the exact problem you are confronting. You have to be clear on what you are attacking and chasing before you take a corrective step in that direction. At first, she was hesitant, preferring instead to have me throw everything at the problem. But I insisted, and when all was said and done, it was a good thing I did. As I drilled down into this team’s dynamics, I found that much of what she had told me was true: this was a group of very talented individuals. Each of them had a track record of success before they were pulled together. And the leader was solid and rooted. Leaders can always be better, but they understood her role and expectations, and she was sending her team all the right signals. So I drilled a little deeper by doing a detailed interview with each team member. What emerged was a picture of a group of talented individuals that was struggling to get along with one particular team member. On his own, this man was a proven winner. As part of this team, however, he was a toxic distraction who sucked the life out of the group- a better word can be a narcissistic character who can be good own his own but not functional in a group. I went back to the Executive Director and strongly recommended that she not employ any intensive team training. Instead, I recommended that she address the one team member, which she did. And within a few months, the previously underachieving team was hitting all its marks again. Isn’t this story inspiring ? Sometimes, the only hindrances in your life are a few toxic individuals, and once you get rid of them you are going to fly high, it is just the wind and you, and sky will be your limit. This anecdote is a strong reminder of two inescapable realities about the team dynamic. First, truly great teams do not have weak links. And second, you only know if a team has a weak link by doing a root cause of the problem and a full diagnostic before unleashing any team intervention. In today’s business environment, the margin between “just okay” and “top of the game “ is extremely tight. Competition is fierce, and no thriving business can afford to waste months waiting for a team working under great expectations to figure out a way to get along. You can certainly upskill underperformers. Effective group dynamics and accountability are not second nature for everyone. Sometimes, even good teams can benefit from basic training to become great teams, as long as everyone is willing to work together to be better. But in those instances where potentially good teams are being held back by one or two weak performers, and there is no common vision, the solution is clear: remove the weak links and replace them with people who excel in a team environment. However, the key lesson in the story I told above is that you should never guess the reasons why a team is not performing. You need to first identify the source of the underperformance. Otherwise, you will find yourself spending tons of money paying for generic team training that is not going to fix your specific problem. When we can just do a small operation to remove just the cancer or toxic cells, why do test every organ to see if they are functional? A RCA/diagnostic is not necessarily an industry best practice. There are many firms offering team solutions that will just go straight into training with the hope that the process will reveal specific problems and solve the issues. That is not going to produce the best results. A Root Cause Analysis and a comprehensive diagnostic will reveal the level at which every member of the team is performing. Are the team members really lacking, are they average, or are they described as high-performing? And then there is the issue of leadership. Team leaders must be strong, not only as individuals but also as the people who set an example for accountable team dynamics. In our experience, if you have a very strong leader but a mediocre team, you still have a chance of making dramatic improvements in overall performance. If your leader is weak, however, there is very little you can do apart from replacing that individual and trying to get the team back on track. In those instances where you are dealing with weak leadership and weak team mates, you may find that it is futile to spend time and money on remedial training. It will most likely require a lot of time and resources for little improvement. It is one of the reasons why we discourage organizations from managerial intervention solutions. In instances where a team is truly dysfunctional, despite what many consultants will tell you, it is simply not cost-effective to try and fix a truly awful team. You need to dissolve them and start your search over again, and find a new group with new leadership and hopefully, a common vision for this new team. More importantly, no matter what specific team training you are considering, a Root Cause Analysis and diagnostic must precede the deployment of a solution. RCA can be at two levels- (i) people level: individuals creating problems within a team, and (ii) process level: where the processes we create are not transparent and not engaging all team-members, which can create gaps and misunderstandings. The diagnostic therefore often reveals a simple fix, such as the removal of a weak link, a toxic faction, a negative influence- that eliminates the need for a more intensive intervention. An intervention without a Root Cause Analysis and diagnostic is like operating without looking at the patient history, files and images of the issue at hand. It is an approach that will likely fail. Felix Joy Kollasserry, Ph.D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felixjoy 2001 (talk • contribs) 07:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC) To Improve Team Performance: Do a Root Cause Analysis (RCA) and Diagnose the Problem Before Gunning for a Solution Felix Joy Kollasserry, Ph.D The Executive Director wanted her team fixed and wasn’t particularly worried about how I was going to do it. The team in question was a collection of his best and brightest. Expectations were very high. But the team had underachieved in spectacular fashion from its inception. And now, it had reached a tipping point where the team was going to be dissolved if their performance did not improve over the next few quarters. In other words, “terminations”. I listened to the Executive Director intently as she described missed deadlines and unachieved financial benchmarks. I took notes as she described the friction that had erupted between team members. I nodded as she talked about the profound disappointments that was building over the team’s growing list of failures and gross value violations and matters of jealousy within the team. She wanted a full-on intervention. Do whatever it takes, she told me. For the sake of the firm, and for her own peace of mind, the Executive Director needed this team to live up to its original expectations. You only know if a team has a weak link by doing a Root Cause Analysis and full diagnostics before unleashing any team intervention. Felix Joy Kollasserry, Ph.D Before we could find a solution, however, we had to address another pressing issue: the Executive Director did not know exactly why the team was underperforming. Was it a question of leadership? Was the team unclear about its mission or the expectations? You can’t fix a team by applying some sort of generic team-dynamic “Band-Aid” teams are complex entities and there is no one-size-fits-all cure for these kinds of road blocks. I told her that I preferred to do a detailed Root Cause Analysis and a diagnostic study of the team in question before prescribing an intervention. In my experience, it is very hard to fix something if you don’t know the exact problem you are confronting. You have to be clear on what you are attacking and chasing before you take a corrective step in that direction. At first, she was hesitant, preferring instead to have me throw everything at the problem. But I insisted, and when all was said and done, it was a good thing I did. As I drilled down into this team’s dynamics, I found that much of what she had told me was true: this was a group of very talented individuals. Each of them had a track record of success before they were pulled together. And the leader was solid and rooted. Leaders can always be better, but they understood her role and expectations, and she was sending her team all the right signals. So I drilled a little deeper by doing a detailed interview with each team member. What emerged was a picture of a group of talented individuals that was struggling to get along with one particular team member. On his own, this man was a proven winner. As part of this team, however, he was a toxic distraction who sucked the life out of the group- a better word can be a narcissistic character who can be good own his own but not functional in a group. I went back to the Executive Director and strongly recommended that she not employ any intensive team training. Instead, I recommended that she address the one team member, which she did. And within a few months, the previously underachieving team was hitting all its marks again. Isn’t this story inspiring ? Sometimes, the only hindrances in your life are a few toxic individuals, and once you get rid of them you are going to fly high, it is just the wind and you, and sky will be your limit. This anecdote is a strong reminder of two inescapable realities about the team dynamic. First, truly great teams do not have weak links. And second, you only know if a team has a weak link by doing a root cause of the problem and a full diagnostic before unleashing any team intervention. In today’s business environment, the margin between “just okay” and “top of the game “ is extremely tight. Competition is fierce, and no thriving business can afford to waste months waiting for a team working under great expectations to figure out a way to get along. You can certainly upskill underperformers. Effective group dynamics and accountability are not second nature for everyone. Sometimes, even good teams can benefit from basic training to become great teams, as long as everyone is willing to work together to be better. But in those instances where potentially good teams are being held back by one or two weak performers, and there is no common vision, the solution is clear: remove the weak links and replace them with people who excel in a team environment. However, the key lesson in the story I told above is that you should never guess the reasons why a team is not performing. You need to first identify the source of the underperformance. Otherwise, you will find yourself spending tons of money paying for generic team training that is not going to fix your specific problem. When we can just do a small operation to remove just the cancer or toxic cells, why do test every organ to see if they are functional? A RCA/diagnostic is not necessarily an industry best practice. There are many firms offering team solutions that will just go straight into training with the hope that the process will reveal specific problems and solve the issues. That is not going to produce the best results. A Root Cause Analysis and a comprehensive diagnostic will reveal the level at which every member of the team is performing. Are the team members really lacking, are they average, or are they described as high-performing? And then there is the issue of leadership. Team leaders must be strong, not only as individuals but also as the people who set an example for accountable team dynamics. In our experience, if you have a very strong leader but a mediocre team, you still have a chance of making dramatic improvements in overall performance. If your leader is weak, however, there is very little you can do apart from replacing that individual and trying to get the team back on track. In those instances where you are dealing with weak leadership and weak team mates, you may find that it is futile to spend time and money on remedial training. It will most likely require a lot of time and resources for little improvement. It is one of the reasons why we discourage organizations from managerial intervention solutions. In instances where a team is truly dysfunctional, despite what many consultants will tell you, it is simply not cost-effective to try and fix a truly awful team. You need to dissolve them and start your search over again, and find a new group with new leadership and hopefully, a common vision for this new team. More importantly, no matter what specific team training you are considering, a Root Cause Analysis and diagnostic must precede the deployment of a solution. RCA can be at two levels- (i) people level: individuals creating problems within a team, and (ii) process level: where the processes we create are not transparent and not engaging all team-members, which can create gaps and misunderstandings. The diagnostic therefore often reveals a simple fix, such as the removal of a weak link, a toxic faction, a negative influence- that eliminates the need for a more intensive intervention. An intervention without a Root Cause Analysis and diagnostic is like operating without looking at the patient history, files and images of the issue at hand. It is an approach that will likely fail. Felix Joy Kollasserry, Ph.D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felixjoy 2001 (talk • contribs) 07:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

09:39:56, 4 February 2019 review of draft by Jimdye05

• Jimdye05 (talk · contribs)
  • User:Jimdye05/sandbox/Mike Dye (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Jimdye05 (talk) 09:39, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

Can you tell me why article isn't being published?

What can I change to make okay ?

Thanks

JD

You already have a draft at Draft:Mike Dye to work on. Read the feedback. Legacypac (talk) 12:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

13:24:28, 4 February 2019 review of submission by Tszyeung1988

• Tszyeung1988 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:O'Darien Bassett (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

What happened, why did the topic still didn’t matched with Wikipedia’s requirement? What else were still missing?

Thank you.

Tszyeung1988 (talk) 13:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

14:58:35, 4 February 2019 review of submission by Demonwindshuriken45

• Demonwindshuriken45 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:JD Ca$h (Rapper) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Demonwindshuriken45 (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Demonwindshuriken45: - this is functionally an advertising piece. It doesn't list anything demonstrating musical notability and its own source is soundcloud, which is both primary, non-reliable and non-independent. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

15:02:03, 4 February 2019 review of submission by Tromendus

• Tromendus (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Tromendus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Tromendus (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

15:06:31, 4 February 2019 review of submission by Tromendus

• Tromendus (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Tromendus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

i changed it from an autobiography!! Tromendus (talk) 15:06, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Tromendus: - you can't change something from being an autobiography if you continue to edit it. It being "he did" vs "I did" doesn't change that - it remains autobiographical so long as you write about your own actions Nosebagbear (talk) 19:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

15:29:50, 4 February 2019 review of draft by Timothy mathis

• Timothy mathis (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Outdoor Dirtbags (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am not sure why this was rejected as a joke - the term “dirtbag is used ironically within the subculture, but it is a well documented designation for a subculture within the outdoor community, and a designation that’s used extensively in the most popular outdoor publications - including Outside Magazine, Trailrunner Magazine, Climbing Magazine, etc. The term is used with a similar sense of irony within the subculture as identifiers like “punk rock” or “queer” which were originally applied as slurs but became accepted identifiers.

It has only recently become a widely used term (mostly since the 2000s), but it’s been in documented use since the 1960s (at least) as a designation for a recognized group of people, and usage of the term has increased in recent years as the outdoor community has taken shape as a more cohesive entity.

Timothy mathis (talk) 15:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bkissin: - just pinging the closer since I wasn't immediately sure either way of my response, so I thought I'd at least draw it to the reviewer's attention. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

15:59:18, 4 February 2019 review of draft by Marinepark

• Marinepark (talk · contribs)
  • User:Marinepark/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Marinepark (talk) 15:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure how to verify my personal information because I am the source and records of where I lived and went to school are public record. There could be some confusion to that because my last name growing up was William Hogg which I changed to Bill Hoag when I became a professional actor.

All my credits as an actor have been verified on IMDb and are also public record. So I'm not sure how to further verify this information. I hope you can let me know exactly what to do to officially get published on Wikipedia.

Thank You - Bill Hoag

Hi Marinepark. Autobigraphies are strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. Trying to write one here never ends well.

Wikipedia's content is determined by what has been previously published. Editors may not use their personal knowledge or experiences. Encyclopedias summarize secondary sources. The use of primary sources, such as birth certificates, phone books, and census records, is unacceptable or severely restricted. IMDb, being user-generated, is not a reliable source, but verification of credits is not usually a sticking point. If someone wants to verify that Bill Hoag is in such-and-such a film, they can play that film's credits.

Credits are not enough. The draft needs to cite multiple, independent, published, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage of Hoag to demonstrate that he is notable (satisfies Wikipedia's inclusion criteria). WikiProject Film/Resources has suggestions about where to look. If you find the necessary sources, it would be better to take them to Requested articles instead of writing the article yourself. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

18:43:49, 4 February 2019 review of submission by Amgray19

• Amgray19 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Research Administrators Certification Council (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am requesting a re-review, because I addressed ALL criticisms previously received. I have cited all known literature references. There is even a reference to an exam that RACC administers, which has its own page, yet this page cannot exist? The exam would not exist without the organization. Thank you, it's frustrating to work so hard on something, address each critique received, and still be rejected for what feels like a subjective judgement of notability. Thousands upon thousands of people have taken this exam, it is a gold standard in the U.S. for research administration, much like the CPA exam for an accountant. Thanks. --Amgray19 (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Amgray19 (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

n.b. to reviewers - Despite the time delay which would usually indicate a fresh review being desired, I believe this actually is a request for a re-review of coffman's rejection. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

19:48:23, 4 February 2019 review of submission by New Bedford Symphony

• New Bedford Symphony (talk · contribs)

- Draft:New Bedford Symphony Orchestra

We are trying to create a Wikipedia page for the New Bedford Symphony Orchestra but have been rejected twice, once by SportingFlyer and then by k.e.coffman, for reasons that we do not agree with pertaining to our sourced references. There are several symphony orchestras of similar ilk with published pages that have fewer or no references (e.g., Cape Cod Symphony and Waltham Symphony). We would like to have our page published and are frustrated by these rejections which seem to have no basis. Please advise us as to what we can do to expedite the publication process. New Bedford Symphony (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi New Bedford Symphony. Please clarify what you mean by "we". The policy on Wikipedia is "one user—one account". Usernames should not be shared by multiple individuals.

Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality articles and poor quality articles. The existence of articles that do not meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines does not mean they are welcome here. It may simply mean that no one has gotten around to deleting them yet. They are not a good excuse to create more such articles. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why. If you wish to learn from example articles, be sure to use only Wikipedia's best.

The basis of the declines is given in the large pink boxes at the top of the draft and in the comments below them. One section of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) deals with a source's audience. "Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary."

The independent coverage of NBSO is overwhelmingly local. Maestros in America, New England Conseratory, and Boston.com make only passing mention of it. Please clarify the place of publication of the Steuben Advocate and The Times Record. Are they international, national, or at least regional media, and do they contain significant coverage of NBSO? See WP:BFAQ#COMPANY for your best course of action. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

21:19:22, 4 February 2019 review of draft by PsyberTeller

• PsyberTeller (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Yo-kai Watch 3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

PsyberTeller (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Adding Citations Help?

PsyberTelle Greetings to you. Pls read the grey panel housed by the pink box. Click on the blue highlighted text for further info. We need at least 3 independent, reliable source where by the sources talk about the subject in length and in dept and not only merely passing mentioned. Also pls read WP:Your First Article, reference for beginners an Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything. Once you have done that then you could resubmit. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:58, 5 February 2019 (UTC)