Revision as of 18:26, 21 July 2013

• WP:WPAFC/HD
• WP:AFCHD
• WP:AFCHELP

• This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
  • For questions on how to use or edit Misplaced Pages, visit the Teahouse.
  • For unrelated questions, use the search box or the reference desk.
  • Create a draft via Article wizard or request an article at requested articles.
• Do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page.
• Watch out for scammers! If someone contacts you saying that they can get your draft published for payment, they are trying to scam you. Report such attempts here.

• Top of page
• Table of Contents
• Today's posts
• Bottom of page

July 15

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Your submission name here

Is this article http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Savannah_Phillips that I wrote waiting to be reviewed? Debrafir (talk) 01:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes it was. Since you asked, I have declined it because the sources weren't good they were blogs and simlar semi-official stuff. However: I have done a bit of work on the sourcing, and resubmitted the article for review myself, but if you think of any more improvements you are free to do so before a reviewer gets round to looking at it. Of course now I've worked on it, I don't want to review it myself. Rankersbo (talk) 13:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/WECAN SOCIETY

Please review this article and publish as soon as possible — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombhaduri (talk • contribs) 07:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• As stated on Misplaced Pages:Requests for undeletion#WECAN SOCIETY, your article was deleted because it was a copyright violation. Please see further information on that thread. Ritchie333 11:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/BICS

I have created an article page on BICS, the notable international carrier service company of Belgacom. the article has been rejected and no reason was provided. can you please let me know how can I correct? thank you for your time GFScib2013 (talk) 09:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC))

I've had a look at the article, and some of the sources, and I think you may be better off expanding the existing article on Belgacom, which contains a brief mention of BICS within it, rather than creating a separate article from scratch. Ritchie333 11:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

dear Ritchie, the page shall be different because the two companies are focusing on totally different markets. Belgacom is hte National Telecommunication company and serve the consumer market, BICS is actually a global wholesale provider of B2B services. In addition, BICS is also not belonging only to Belgacom but also to Swisscom and MTN that is why I feel is sensible and correct to create a separate page. Can you please reconsider? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scib2013 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

It's just a suggestion. I found it a bit odd that no reason was given, there is always a reason given. In this case the original submission was (or appeared to be) blank. We need content to an article to judge it, we don't pre-vet topics before you write an article. The article you have written has never been submitted so has never been declined. Rankersbo (talk) 13:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem you have is that most of your sources are from BICS own website, or from Belgacom's. What we need, though, are independent sources that report specifically about BICS as a separate entity. This source in your submission is probably the best one, as it's an independent news outlet, but that talks about making international phone calls cheaper, and saying nothing about being a "global wholesale provider of B2B services", which, to be honest, doesn't really explain what BICS is or what it does to a casual layman reader. Normally, I'd take coverage in two separate articles as being a good sign that a new article should be created, but the existing Swisscom article is problematic, as its tagged as an advertisement and there are no references to independent sources. There doesn't seem to be any coverage that explains why BICS is important outside of the context of being part of Belgacom. Ritchie333 13:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

dear , the BICS sources are there to provite info support if the reader wish to know what the product are in detail. If preferred I can remove them. all the other sources are public press releases (Bloomberg Businessweek, Telegeography, www.cellular-news.com, Telecompaper). Specifically the Telegeography source id there to refer the merger that happened from MTS ans BICS. In addition we provide also a source of European Community website to further document hte company creation. Regarding the definiton, of BICS being a "global wholesale provider of B2B services" we have now added "global wholesale provider of TELECOMMUNICATION B2B services" Belgacom is a public company and the company figures are released eve year in the Belgacom year report so this can in my opinion be considered a public and reliable source. I also would like to point the attention to the reference n.9 "BICS enables first intercontinental 4G/LTE Data Roaming relation". www.cellular-news.com, which is technically a very notable achievement. I understand that the text must be comprehensible buy the casual reader, but to this purpose, the several complicated technical names that have been explained by means of Wiki links. Could you please provide me with some additional improvements you would like to see? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scib2013 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with citing BICS directly for basic facts, but you can't have an article that relies only on them. The company figures are public and they are reliable, but they're not significant (in the context of being notable enough for a standalone article), nor are they independent. You need all three of significant + independent + reliable for a source to count towards notability. After all, every public company releases figures - this isn't special.

As a first task, I would recommend finding as many independent sources as possible, and basing your article around that. I'm reluctant to give a specific figure, but Gallions Reach Ferry, which I created recently, cites six sources, of which five are independent, and that's probably the bare minimum I would consider for an acceptable article stub. After all, if creating the first trans-continental 4G provider is a "very notable achievement", I would expect news coverage appear in The Times, The Guardian and The Independent, or the rough equivalents thereof in relevant countries. So that would be a good place to start. Ritchie333 14:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

dear Richie333 I have added relevant sources including Wall Street Journal, Businessweek Bloomberg, Telecom Page, European Union Site. Is this enough? Please remind this is not a consumer industry so the company and the news are very relevant from a technological stand point. Thank you for your comments. GFScib2013 (talk) 13:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scib2013 (talk • contribs) 08:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The Bloomberg source is material submitted by the company, and not acceptable to show notability. The others are essentially press releases. The company is probably notable , so if you have WSJ sources, add them. It is indeed difficult to demonstrate notability of B-to-B companies here, but I doubt we want to relax our rules just now, since so much of what is submitted as articles amounts to advertising. If you do have sources, rewrite the article, using paragraphs not outlines--WP is an encyclopedia, not a powerpoint presentation. DGG ( talk ) 19:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

dear Richie333 I tend to disagree with the comments as it appears that our direct competitor ibasis (http://en.wikipedia.org/Ibasis) has its own page although they are fully owned by KPN that has another completely separate page (https://en.wikipedia.org/KPN) As BICS is an independent company, owned by Belgacom, Swisscom and MTN, I dont see how we should be present and related and only to Belgacom page. We have no advertising in the page, but If you think some paragraphs are not suitable I can still change them. Please let me know. Scib2013 (talk) 14:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Scib2013

can anybody please help?

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Your submission name here

No, I still can't find it. I saved the page link but it's now redirecting me to this answer. Please could you send me the link again as I can't access it from here and I'd like to print it out I remember that Pol430's reply was much more helpful than the generic one from the second Wikimarshall who declined it. Many thanks NigelMatador45 (talk) 11:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The reply in question has now been archived from this page by a bot (automated computer program), and can be found about half way down this archive page; Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2013 July 4. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/ThrillMe

Hi there

I asked a question here about a week ago. Did anyone read it? I can't find the text of my question now

Best wishes

Nigel (Matador45 (talk) 13:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC))

Yes the question was answered by Pol430 on 4th July 2013. Your question and the reply are still visible further up this page. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Sarah Franscesca Green

hi there!

As I am new here, I have submitted my article for creation and I do not know what happens next. How long does the whole process take? Will I be notifying? what shall I do nextCissy theo (talk) 13:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

You haven't submitted your article yet. You can do this by adding {{subst:submit}} at the top of the article. Because I can verify Prof. Green has been the Professor of Social Anthropology at the University of Manchester, she is inherently notable per point 5 in our notability guidelines for academics and your submission should be accepted. Before I do this, I note the article has some personal details such as date and place of birth which are not cited to a source (her CV at the various universities do not mention this), which you may want to clear up first before submitting. Ritchie333 14:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

thanks for that! It was very helpful indeed. I have one more question: I want to have the name in bold letter and I used ' ' 'Sarah Francesca Green' ' ' but it does not appear as bold. what shall I do?Cissy theo (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Huon has fixed this by removing the spaces between the apostrophes. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Thomso (festival)

Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Thomso (festival) has been rejected due to less content and can be included in Indian Institute of Technology page but similar page off our technical festival with less content has been accepted. http://en.wikipedia.org/Cognizance_(festival). Please consider to review my submission.

Apsdehal (talk) 14:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)apsdehal

The principal difference is that Cognizance cited The Hindu, a major national newspaper, as its source, whereas your article cites Twenty 19, which appears to be a self published site, where anyone can print promotional information. I would look for similar sources like The Hindu - major national newspaper or magazine coverage. Ritchie333 14:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Sarah Franscesca Green

Thanks for your message. It was indeed very helpful. One more question please: I wanted the book titles to be in italics and I used the following style ' 'Borderwork: a visual journey through periphery frontier regions' ' but they do not appear in italics. I also wanted the actual name to be in bold, and i used the following style' ' 'Sarah Francesca Green' ' '. but again it does not appear in bold. what did I do wrong? thanks in advance. sissieCissy theo (talk) 22:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

You have spaces between the apostrophes. '''Sarah Francesca Green''' will give Sarah Francesca Green, similarly for italics. I've fixed that issue in the draft, but the main problem is the lack of third-party sources; much of the content doesn't seem to be verifiable. For example, I don't think we have sources discussing her schooling or her interest in gender. Huon (talk) 23:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Just to elaborate on what I said above, and on Huon's point, while I said that I could pass your article here and now, I would have to remove all uncited information and you'd lose about 75% of your work. Our biography of living persons policy means we must remove unsourced information on living people that may be challenged or questioned. That's why I left the article unsubmitted, to give you a chance to source this information. Ritchie333 08:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

thanks again. I am quite confused though; have you fixed the problem with the bold letters and the italics, for I can still see the old version. More importantly: I totally understand your worries about sources information. Yet, her interest in gender cannot be questioned as her first book which is referenced is exactly on that. As for her schooling, ok this cannot be referenced but it cannot be questioned. what else do you think might be a problem? thanks in advance. sissie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cissy theo (talk • contribs) 14:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Ever since the Misplaced Pages biography controversy (well worth a read), we have set very high standards for biographies of living people. Anything that might be open to question must be attributed to a reliable source. Birth dates and places are particularly susceptible for this - to give an example I've worked with, it was widely thought that Keith Moon's birth date was 23 August 1947 for about 25 years, but it subsequently transpired this was false. We must make sure the article is right. Ritchie333 11:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

July 16

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Ord_Minnett

Hello,

I submitted another change to the article I am trying to create - Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Ord_Minnett - on 11 July 2013‎ at 02:41. I have not received a response. Can you let me know if my amendments are ok and if not, what I need to do?

Thanks, Michelle

Ords (talk) 01:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Dear Ords: It seems that you have not submitted your article for review. Just click on the "resubmit" button in the large pink box at the top of the screen. You shouldn't have to wait long, because there are only a few articles in the reviewing queue right now. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Not sure exactly how I find that version of the article though - ?? I can see it in revision history but how do I get to the revision I made? Sorry... Ords (talk) 02:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

It seems you found how to resubmit it. However, it has now been declined as being too promotional. Content like "Important to Ord Minnett's success has been the firm’s ability to attract some of the very best minds available at the time. The alumni of Ord Minnett is an impressive list and includes names such as..." may be related to that.

Another issue is that the article has no wikilinks in it at all at the moment. See WP:WIKILINK for more information on how to add wikilinks. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

question of article sources declined

Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Akosua_Adoma_Owusu

I'm writing regarding the article linked above.

It was declined for the following reasons:

This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.

What you can do: Add citations (see Misplaced Pages:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject.

Then the reviewer added a number of links:

You are encouraged to make improvements by clicking on the "Edit" tab at the top of this page. If you require extra help, ask a question at the Articles for creation help desk. There is also a live help chat with experienced editors. Find sources: "Akosua Adoma Owusu" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images. Declined by Bonkers The Clown 0 seconds ago. Last edited by Bonkers The Clown 0 seconds ago. Reviewer: Inform author.

I am unsure whether these links are proving the point -- that the sources are inadequate or that the reviewer is advising me on which sources would be appropriate. They link to sources I referenced in the article.

Tsf4 (talk) 06:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello Tsf4, what you are describing is the standard box that appears on all declined articles. The first bit (in the blue-grey box) is the reason Bonkers The Clown declined your article, because it was felt that the sources you provided didn't show that the subject of your article is a notable person. The second bit (on the outer pink box) appears on all declined articles, it's a set of tools to help you find more sources, or information on how to write a good Misplaced Pages article. It's not specific to you, they are tools that we think people in general writing articles will find useful. Rankersbo (talk) 08:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not surprised you're questioning why the article is declined - your article cites a number of reliable sources such as SF Weekly and Film Quarterly, so it would appear on the surface to suggest that Owusu is at least borderline notable and your article should have passed. However, I'd have to investigate all the sources more closely to make a definitive decision. In my view, reviewers declining an article should clearly explain why the sources are problematic - in your case, some sources such as blogs are not suitable, but the two sources I mentioned above would appear to pass muster. Ritchie333 08:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I have looked around for sources and have added a new source and cited a brief bio from the Rotterdam Film Festival and can verify that Owusu has received an African Movie Academy Award. The awards appear to be internationally recognised as significant, and so this makes her inherently notable per our notability guidelines on people, specifically "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." I have passed your article. Ritchie333 09:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Rejection of References

Hi, My page has been rejected many times, for several reasons, but most recently for the references. This is the page Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Randall P. Dark: HDTV Pioneer. I have reviewed the referencing information, but I am just stomped on how to get this approved. Can someone just walk me through?

Darkmania Productions (talk) 14:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Dear Darkmania Productions: Checking your article's history, it appears that it has been rejected three times because it doesn't have sources that show that Mr. Dark has been written about extensively by journalists and other authors. It appears from your user name (which by the way, breaks Misplaced Pages's policy that editors must be individuals and not representatives of companies or organizations) that you are closely connected with Mr. Dark and may have difficulty in writing about him from a neutral point of view. However, right now the problem is sources: These must be written about him, not by him or anyone connected with him. Any assertions of expertise, accomplishments, etc., must be backed up by these independent sources. If he really is a well recognized expert, these should be easy to find. If they don't exists, then Misplaced Pages shouldn't have an article about him. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Skidmore Studio

Hi, I am writing re: the Skidmore Studio article (http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Skidmore_Studio ). The article was declined but I don't understand why. Everything is factual and linked to an outside source. I notice that when it was declined, it said "see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics." Skidmore Studio is not a music-related topic at all, it's a company - a design studio. Could that be why it's being declined? Please let me know what I can do to get it approved. Thanks! S9frey (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The article seems pretty up to scratch. Moving. Insulam Simia (/_contribs) 18:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

iPourIt

iPourIt is a self-pour system that allows patrons at a bar to pour their own beer. The system was developed by Brett Jones and Joseph McCarthy and it is based out of Santa Ana, CA.

History

Jones and McCarthy met when they worked together at a travel business for students. A negative experience which kept them waiting for their beer at a bar prompted McCarthy and Jones to devise a system were patrons would no longer have to wait for the bartender to take their order. And in 2010 the pair came up with the idea for a self-pouring system. The iPourIt team launched a pilot (testing) program at the Basement Lounge, a nightclub in Long Beach, where the team fine-tuned the system.

How it Works:

When the patron enters the bar, he or she can request to receive the wrist band for the iPourit system. The bartender takes the patron's ID and comes back with a wrist band (and the ID) and informs the patron that the limit for the self serving system is 32 ounces.(Note: If the patron requests more beer after the 32 ounces are consumed, the bartender reserves the discretion to reactivate the wrist band for another 32 ounces.) The patron puts on the wrist band and heads to the iPourIt wall system. The hand is placed with the wrist band plate facing the "activation plate" from the pouring system. The activation plate is activated by the wrist band, and the patron can dispense the beer by pulling down on the lever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by P.Elva Cutri (talk • contribs) 19:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. If you would like to start writing a new article, please use the Article wizard. If you have an idea for a new article, but would like to request that someone else write it, please see: Misplaced Pages:Requested articles. I hope this helps. - Happysailor 20:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Tools4ever

I recently submitted a page and it was declined. Would you be able to tell me if their is anything I could change for it to be accepted. Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Tools4ever Thank you.

DianaParisotti (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Diana

The message in the decline box was pretty clear about the unsuitability of the sources. Almost everything in all of the many references has been written by or for the company. What's needed instead are news reports, magazine articles, software reviews, etc., that are written by journalists and other authors, not connected with the company, in publications that have editorial oversight rather than those which print just press releases, etc. If the Tools4ever has never been covered in these types of publications, then it doesn't meet Misplaced Pages's notability requirements. If it has, then please add them and remove some on the references to company produced material. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Jane Emerssen

Hello again. Based on the content of my article it's difficult to see what other sources could be provided. The reviewer has given no hint as to what these might be to verify the bona fide nature of the content. It is most unhelpful. Giving personal identifiers in relation to the Open University or Society of Authors is obviously out of the question. So what else is needed? Do I have to scan the articles used as references and forward these? If so, how do I achieve this vis-a-vis getting it to the right part of the Misplaced Pages site? I find navigation a nightmare and filled with incomprehensible terms that mean nothing to me. I have an amazon.co.uk author page. Is that any use?Stoneraise (talk) 21:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

An Amazon author page is not helpful because Amazon exercises no editorial control over those author pages and doesn't do any fact-checking - it's not a reliable source. What we need are reliable third-party sources that are subject to editorial oversight, such as newspaper articles or reviews in literary journals. Such sources need not be available online and you don't need to scan anything; in fact most of the sources for the "literary career" section look fine to me (including how you cite them, though page numbers might help).

But where does the "biography" section's content come from? Some of it is from the author's homepage (and it's so closely paraphrased that it raises issues of copyright), but the Misplaced Pages content is much more detailed. As the most basic question: Which source confirms that "Jane Emerssen is the pen name of Judith Johnstone"? The author's website doesn't, and I doubt any of the "literary career" section's references do. Also, while primary sources such as the author's website may be used for uncontroversial details such as, say, the fact that she lived in Carlile for the first ten years of her life, they should not be the sole basis of large amounts of content, and they should not be used to source claims that might be considered promotional, such as the success of her local government career. Huon (talk) 23:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Looking at worldcat, the one fiction work written as Emerson isn't in it. If it were, the LC authority file would show the pseudonym. The other fiction is less than book length, & not in Worldcat; the notability would depend on the nonfiction. The notability for an author is best demonstrated by substantial published reviews from reliable independent book review sources such as major newspapers, which does not include amazon or blogs. The existing refs aren;t usable as such reviews. Equally important, given that the article was written under the pen name, which was used for one fiction work only, it would appear the purpose of the article is promotional. If you decide that the article cannot presently meet our standards, you can facilitate matters by placing at the top a line reading : {{db-author}}, and it will be quickly deleted. DGG ( talk ) 19:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to both for guidance. Will look at these problems and try to fix them when I come back from vacation.(Stoneraise (talk) 21:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC))

July 17

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Murphy Rocks, Australian Antarctic Territory

Under References I am attempting to insert the following:

==References==
 {{reflist}}
 <ref> Name approved by the ] and forms part of the </ref>

What is wrong with the way I have set this out ?

I have another article for creation McCallie Rocks which I will not attempt to revise until I get this one right.

Murph Bmurphy99 (talk) 03:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The main issue was that your reference came after the {{reflist}} template that's supposed to display the footnotes - there it won't get displayed. It should instead be put directly after the statement it's cited for. I fixed that, rewrote some of the content so it's not just copy-pasted from the (copyrighted!) SCAR Gazetteer, and added a link to the Gazeteer to the footnote. I couldn't tell where the second half of the content comes from; it seems partly redundant and should be merged with the first half to give a coherent whole, and we should cite a source for those facts which aren't supported by the SCAR Gazetteer. Huon (talk) 03:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Robin mcnair

Hi

I'm trying to create this page for Robin McNair http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Robin_mcnair

But it was turned down as not having adequate sources but I believe it does have good sources including obituaries from three broadsheet newspapers and multiple other sources?

Please advise what changes I need to make as this is the first article I have ever created and I've found it very difficult.

Thanks, Ian IanBrumpton (talk) 09:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• This isn't my area of expertise, but certainly I would expect having official obituaries in The Independent, The Telegraph and The Times enough for your article to pass. My understanding on the notability of RAF personnel is that you need to be at the rank of Air commodore (three up from Squadron leader) to get a "free pass" at notability. I would strongly recommend looking at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history and particularly their notability guide for military personnel as the project is (imho) staffed with very knowledgeable editors on this subject (as can be seen by its track record of creating featured articles) and may be able to help you. Ritchie333 11:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • It's sufficient. I would accept it, but first please make sure that none of it is copied of closely paraphrased from any of the sources. DGG ( talk ) 17:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • It is very hard to judge when the references are not used as inline footnotes and also not available online. How much and what the sources actually say about the subject is then anyone's guess - is it a mere passing mention or a comprehensive biography? Perhaps the referencing guidelines need to be looked at for such situations. In this specific case could we request the draft writer to use inline cites with direct quotes from the sources? Also to clarify which of the "sources" listed under "Citations" and "External links" sections are actually being used as References? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • actually, it's just the trivial job of moving the refs to the obits from the online link section. The referencing guidelines are, btw, absolutely clear that print sources are acceptable for everything in WP. If you've been reviewing on the basis that they are not, it's not that we need new guidelines, but that you need to review the existing guidelines. If they are challenged, we do give a quotation, for references are not supposed to be used unless the writer has actually seen them. There's no need for refs to be used as inline refs unless the material is challenged or controversial, or its negative material in a BLP. (The way to use obits as inline refs is just to refer to them in the article as needed, anyway. It's easy to do that in a straightforward article like this.) DGG ( talk ) 18:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I am fully aware and fully agree that that sources do not need to be online (I've even written a few articles with only dead tree sources) The issue here at AfC is that offline sources are not necessarily available to AfC reviewers - it is impossible to do a proper review without accessible sources, hence the request that the references be more explicit and specific; i.e. inline and including quotes. BTW I've just passed the draft - it is now at Robin McNair, please help get it into shape as car as categorisation, etc is concerned. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
      • While cleaning up after moving to mainspace I found that quite a few of the "external links" are in fact used as sources so I have converted them to inline references where apropriate. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Sam Jones

Hi,

I believe I have submitted a page correctly, but am not sure where to go to see the status of the review?

The page is Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Sam Jones

I have also made some edits since it was first submitted - will these be viewable for review?

Atoates (talk) 11:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

You have not submitted your article yet. You can do this by typing {{subst:submit}} (remember to include the curly braces) at the top of the page and saving it, which will bring up a yellow "awaiting submission" box. You can carry on editing the article while it's queued for submission - the reviewer will take whatever the latest state of the article is. However, at the moment I would say it's highly likely that your submission will be declined as it reads far too much like a CV and an advert for Jones and his companies, and doesn't cite any good sources such as major national broadsheet newspapers or independent magazines. Linkedin is particularly problematic, as anyone can create a profile on there - it's not special or important enough to have an article on Misplaced Pages, I'm afraid. Ritchie333 11:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Felix Giles (Anzac)

11:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Stevengreen1969 (talk)

That article is very short and almost devoid of context. If I hadn't heard the term "ANZAC" before I wouldn't have the least clue who Giles might have been or why we should care, and even so I expect there are thousands, if not tens of thousands, of members of ANZAC - what makes this one notable? Notability is not inherited, so merely being the son of a notable father doesn't help.

I'll try to rewrite it somewhat. The Northern Territory Library you linked to holds many reliable sources that can help, especially digitized old newspapers. Huon (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Sarah Franscesca Green

hi there!

my article has been declined due to lack of sources. i have added more sources and I wonder whether it is fine now to resubmit it so that it gets accepted. thanks in advance Cissy theo (talk) 13:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Page submission denied for being too commercial and not enough verification

Good Morning,

I need guidance on a page please.

The page is Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Glenn Neely

I received this reply back from Bonkers the Clown:

"This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Misplaced Pages's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Misplaced Pages, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies."

I am not sure what to fix. The page is about a notable person in stock market prediction and I proved that in the references that I provided. There are 19 references provided for an article that is only 626 words long.

2 of the references are books written by the person because that is how notoriety and expertise is shown in most fields. One book was self published early on in his career about a theory he was changing and the other was a extremely revised version of the first book because he adapted his theory. This second book was was picked up and sold through a book publisher.

3 references are from different pages of this person's website because they are more personal details and relating to his theory. I chose to include the information directly from what this person has posted on their site about themselves. This is no different than contacting the person and getting a personal interview with them for information for this page. But, I know that Misplaced Pages discourages writing about people you know or have had contact with, so I was trying to only provide facts from places that could be verified.

5 references are from publications that have deemed this person enough of an expert to publish articles created by him on his theory and his predictions of the stock market. No information was taken from these articles other than to establish that he is seen as an expert in his field.

5 references are from another person in the field that interviewed this person because he felt that he was enough of an expert in the field that it warranted a whole series of interviews on what the person's expertise and advice about the field.

2 references are from well-known sources in the investment field that have deemed this person an expert in the field. One of these sources is Investopedia, which is an investment encyclopedia. The other source is a financial news source.

2 references are negative references showing that this person is not always right about his predictions and that there are other points of view in the field that clash with each other. One reference directly states that the stock market at the time was making him look like an idiot because it was going against his predictions.

This article is no different than published pages that have been approved on other experts in this field like Robert Prechter, whose page also includes the books he has published and uses references from articles that he has written. Which is why I am so confused, I want to meet your standards and I thoroughly read through your guides and am using your article wizard to try and create this page, but I have apparently missed a step somewhere. I don't understand where the advertising in this page is at.

Can you please guide me to what needs to be changed or removed so that I can make the changes and resubmit again.

Thank you for your help on this, it is much appreciated.GlePa (talk) 14:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I just tidied up your references, many of them are highly problematic. In particular:

• Everybody can write books. To judge the impact and importance of Neely's we'd need not the books themselves but third-party reviews.
• In a similar vein, Neely's own website isn't quite an independent source on Neely and cannot establish that he's notable.
• That also goes for Neely's articles. We need what others have written about him, not what Neely has written himself.
• Interviews aren't quite as independent as we'd like our sources to be, and these don't even cover Neely himself in any detail. Furthermore, they were uploaded by Neely; I somehow doubt a truly notable financial analyst has to upload his own interviews.
• The Investopedia article doesn't mention Neely at all. I don't think the Financial Sense Archive's biography of one of that show's "Special Guests" would be considered an independent source, and it doesn't say what it's cited for anyway (it mentions that Neely traveled the Far East for Reuters, but not in what capacity).
• Planet Yelnick is a personal blog with no indication of editorial oversight; that's not a reliable source. Business Insider is indeed the lone reliable third-party source; it lists him among people who were made to "look and feel like idiots" by vastly inaccurate predictions. Somehow that didn't find its way into the Misplaced Pages draft; the source is instead cited for how Neely is "closely watched and analyzed by the media and investors alongside other market experts". That borders on deception and certainly didn't alleviate the reviewer's concerns about an unduly promotional tone.

So in summary our main source for Neely's fame and proficiency is Neely himself, with the single reliable third-party source pointing and laughing more than providing information on Neely. To prove that he's notable you'd need at least three to five reliable third-party sources that cover him in some detail, such as profiles of Neely in newspapers or financial magazines or published reviews of his books, and the draft should summarize what those sources have to say. In particular, the "Recognitions of Neely's Expertise" gives the impression that his expertise is recognized almost exclusively by himself; that's to be avoided. Huon (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Huon! This is exactly the guidance I needed to understand what I did wrong. Thank you so much for taking the time and giving me a detailed explanation. GlePa67.5.92.176 (talk) 22:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Sarah Franscesca Green

Dear reviewer,

I would be really grateful if you could be a bit more specific. The only part that is not referenced in independent sources is the part that deals with her life. there I put a ref to an interview of hers in a pod cast by the american anthropological association at the point she was invited to act as an executive programme president. Given that you accept that for living people it is usually the case that there are not biographies, what else can I use for referencing this part of my article? But perhaps there are other points that you consider as having problems as well. Could you please indicate them to me so that i erase them. Unfortunately I am running out of time... i would really appreciate your help!Cissy theo (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Hi. As previously stated, Misplaced Pages's general policy is to have articles on any full-time professor in a named appointment at a notable university. Since Prof. Green has held the post at several, your article should not have been declined. You should now find it has been accepted and can be found at Sarah Franscesca Green. Sorry about the confusion. Ritchie333 16:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• I frequently work with this sort of article, and I have accepted it. DGG ( talk ) 16:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Wuhu Island

Can anyone give me specific ways I can show notability with this, or did I pick something completely non-notable? --Nathan2055 16:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

It's probably notable. The review in Edge is a good source--If you can find one more such discussion, you're set, tho I would add a quotation of one of their somewhat skeptical comments and one of the praise, worded like "Edge called it 'Nintendo’s most significant new landscape of the past five years. " " The other refs are just descriptions. Also, in giving the references, give full author and title as well as the link. That the Edge review was written by their staff is what makes it a reliable source. DGG ( talk ) 17:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson

Is there a limit to how many times an article can be submitted for review? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mckenziecoey (talk • contribs) 17:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

No, although resubmitting it without addressing the last reviewer's concerns would be seen as disruptive. Huon (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Bombfell

Hey Guys,

I recently submitted an article and it was rejected. I wanted to hear some advice from experienced editors on how I can go about further editing my article for an acceptable submission. The article is about a small men's subscription fashion company that I have been a customer of basically since they started. I loved the service and the people that, as a periodic freelancer, I reached out to them and said can I write a Misplaced Pages page about you. They approved and provided me with several secondary sources about their company to help me. I really tried hard to write this neutrally and cited nearly everything from reputable secondary sources such as Time magazine, the Wall Street Journal, Tech Crunch, Bloomberg's Business Week, Forbes, Life & Style, and a couple things from their own media kit. If you could provide some further feedback on what else I could do I'd appreciate it. Thanks for your help!

P.S. if I did not submit this properly, I apologize I am a bit new to this formatting.

Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Bombfell Mrchucknorris (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd say the issue is not the quality of the sources but the tone of the draft. It reads like something written by their PR department, and not all of the content is supported by the given sources. For example, Forbes doesn't mention "personal stylists" (though Time does), Life&Style doesn't mention Lohan's brother but only "the men in her life", and TechCrunch says nothing about "all 50 states". (Bloomberg, by the way, is just a reprint of the TechCrunch article, so there's no need to cite two different sources for the same article.) It's also rather short on hard facts: We have the founding date, we have an approximate number of customers, we have the money they got in a seed round, and that's it. It's probably difficult to find more specific sources, but it'd be nice to have the revenues (probably in the low seven figures), the number of employees or the number of stylists, and the names of key personnel.

A comparatively minor style issue: The draft repeatedly says something "is reported". That's something of a weasel word: If the source is a reliable third-party source reporting facts, we can simply report those same facts as well. If it's a reviewer's opinion, we should attribute that opinion to the source (say, "Time magazine's reviewer said that despite first impressions to the contrary, the 'professionalism of the company was that of a sophisticated working man.'"). If it's not a reliable source at all, we shouldn't bother with what it reports. Huon (talk) 03:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Sarah Franscesca Green

I have a major problem that I just realised; my article about Sarah Francesca Green has been accepted but I just realised that because of using her middle name, now her name is not searchable in the web. I tried to remove the middle name from the heading but i can't. What shall I do?Cissy theo (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

This is a little tricky. There's a typo in the middle name; we definitely have to change the current title. Almost all the sources call her "Sarah Green" (in fact I don't think any of the sources give her middle name as "Francesca"; the most I found was a single "F."), so I was prepared to move the article to that title, but we already have an article on an unrelated Sarah Green. My suggestion would be to move this article to Sarah Green (anthropologist), to move the other Sarah Green to Sarah Green (author) and to turn Sarah Green itself into a disambiguation page that links to the articles on the various Sarah Greens (there's also Sarah Green (film producer)) - none of them strikes me as so much more significant than the others that she should get pride of place. I have propose these changes on the various articles' talk pages, namely Talk:Sarah Green and Talk:Sarah Franscesca Green. Huon (talk) 03:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Dissimilar Metal Design

Hello,

Submitted this article, and would like to know if someone could please provide me with information on where it stands in the approval process.

Thank you!

(TheArtOfRust (talk) 23:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC))

The draft currently isn't submitted for review, and it won't be accepted unless you can find better sources - your current footnotes don't say what you cite them for and only mention the company in passing. I've re-added the old "submission declined" message; it not only serves as a historical record until the draft is accepted but also contains the "Resubmit" button you can use to request a new review once you have made sure the content is properly supported by reliable sources. Huon (talk) 03:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

July 18

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Jenolan Caves House

Hi,

I would really appreciate some assistance with my article Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Jenolan Caves House, as it has been rejected twice. I am not certain what I am doing wrong.

I feel that I've changed the tone of the article to make it more 'encyclopedic'. However, if someone could point out some really clear examples of where I should be more formal, I am happy to change anything.

Also, I have been advised that my large quote might exceed limits of fair use. What is the maximum length for a quote? Should I paraphrase instead? Unfortunately, Robert Moores volumes are not available online, so I can't link to them.

How else can I improve my article? Happy to make any changes! Regards, CarolynMelbouge (talk) 00:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the quote, see Misplaced Pages:Quotations. I don't think there's a fixed maximum length for quotes, but I agree with Dodger67 that this one is too long for comfort. Summarizing the information in your own words would be much better. The same goes for the other quotes: Unless we're attributing a possibly controversial statement to its author there's usually no reason to quote our sources instead of paraphrasing them.

I don't quite see the purpose of the newspaper articles you list in several of the "history" sections. If those articles contain relevant information about the hotel, great, we should summarize what they say. If not, why list them at all?

Also, you should provide more footnotes, and you may want to have a look at WP:Referencing for beginners on how to easily create nicely-formatted ones. In particular, footnotes should not read "Same as above"; if another source were inserted in between that one and the one above, attribution would become incorrect. External links should not be used in the article proper; if the linked document is a source for the article text, please turn it into a footnote; if it isn't (say, the UNESCO's Greater Blue Mountains Area web page in the "location" section which doesn't mention the Jenolan Caves House at all), it's better to remove them outright.

The "location" and "tourism" sections sound rather promotional to me. We're not a travel guide (there's WikiTravel for that), and much of the "tourism" section in particular is unsourced opinion, irrelevant to the hotel or both.

I also agree with MatthewVanitas' comment on the sources; he even listed one that provides a historian's perspective and would do well to support some of the currently unsourced paragraphs. I haven't checked, but MatthewVanitas said there are much more books out there - then we should make use of these sources instead of relying solely on a single government report and vintage newspapers.

Finally a minor quibble: It might be nice to mention in the very first sentence that this is an Australian hotel; my first guess would have been "Canadian", and that misconception wasn't corrected until the third paragraph. Huon (talk) 05:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your advice. I will try again. My problem has been that while there are literally hundreds of books out there that mention Jenolan Caves, there is hardly anything about Caves House specifically. Because the caves are so spectacular, the historic hotel is overlooked. That's why I've used the abundant newspaper articles plus Robert Moore's document, which he wrote in order to start the heritage listing process. Although it's still a working hotel, Caves House went into a serious decline in the 60s and has never really been able to recover. I am trying to reawaken interest in it by stressing the reasons why it was heritage listed in 2004. Anyway, I will have another go at the article and resubmit, hopefully next week. Regards CarolynMelbouge (talk) 00:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

You may want to have a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest. "Reawakening interest" is not what we should aim for; we're an encyclopedia, not free ad space. Huon (talk) 22:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Cathy Luchetti submittal

Please give me more detail as to what specifically I need to change or amend to enable my Cathy Luchetti article to be approved. Thanks. Brian Wright, bwisok Bwisok (talk) 01:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Several sections of the draft, including the "early life" and "travels", don't cite any sources. Where does that content come from, and how can our readers verify it? The "frontier roots" section has sources, but many of them don't mention Luchetti and thus shouldn't be used in an article on Luchetti - at best we'd create an original synthesis of published sources, a form of original research we should not engage in. If her 19th century ancestors were an important influence on Luchetti's choice of career, we'd need a source that explicitly says so. Several other sources, including the very first one, also don't mention Luchetti and thus cannot help verify what they're cited for. Huon (talk) 05:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk: Articles for creation/NC Blue Lions

We've submitted an article, Misplaced Pages talk: Articles for creation/Blue Lions Outfit. My problem is that, moments after submitting the article, the Blue Lions leaders decided to discuss the content. How do I delay the submission until the committee is satisfied with the text?

~~BlueLionsGamers~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueLionsGamers (talk • contribs) 03:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The draft has already been reviewed and declined; it doesn't cite any reliable sources that are independent of the subject. We need such sources both to allow our readers to verify the draft's content and to establish that the outfit is notable enough for an encyclopedia article in the first place. Also, the draft's tone is highly inappropriate for an encyclopedia article; it reads like something you might expect on the group's own website (including the use of "we" to refer to the article's subject), and that's because it's indeed copied from that website. That's a copyright violation, and for that issue I've tagged the draft for speedy deletion. (The website since seems to have become unavailable, bu the Wayback Machine still found it.)

Two additional comments: Firstly, you may want to have a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest. Writing about your own organization would be such a conflict of interest and is discouraged. Secondly, if this organization is notable enough for an article, the Blue Lions leaders will not get to control the content; rather, it may (and will) be edited by other editors at will, as long as their changes are supported by reliable sources. If there's a risk of the leadership being unhappy with the article, it may be wiser not to write one at all. Huon (talk) 05:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Guido van der Werve

I don't see how I can improve notability: the subject is in the collection of various important museums, has been doing performances at a.o. the opening of the Chess Hall of fame in St. Louis and with the American Symphony orchestra. Won several awards and is noted in New York Times, L.A. Times and all leading art magazines.

• I have had a look at the article. As well as the news sources you cited, a quick search for "Guido van der Werve" also brings up several news hits, in English and Dutch. In my opinion, therefore, he is notable and I have passed your article. The next thing I would recommend doing is looking at our various citation templates such as {{cite news}} and {{cite journal}} to see how to better present your references - I have done the first three citations as an example. Ritchie333 09:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll work on it! Eaglebird74

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/DailyDAC LLC

Hi - an article I recently wrote was rejected for not having reliable sources, however, I cited and referenced major resources in my work such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, the White House, legislation, and IRS official documents so I am very confused as to why it would be rejected. Can someone please clarify?? Thanks.

The article is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/DailyDAC_LLC

Wikipediatalk:Articles for creation/FreckleTrout

FreckleTrout (talk) 12:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)FreckleTrout

• To be precise, your article was declined for not having significant coverage in reliable sources. Of the references given in your article, they are clearly reliable, being US Government documentation, but none of them appear to be have any significant coverage of DailyDAC LLC or Accredited Investor Markets in them. You need to have at least several paragraphs discussing the organisation in each source, preferably more. Ritchie333 13:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback and clarity! I will work on improving it. FreckleTrout (talk) 13:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)FreckleTrout

why my article decline

sir why my article Cool Herro A Pakistani Hacker was decline — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robin.segal (talk • contribs) 19:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

That draft apparently didn't cite any reliable sources and contained negative claims about a living person. We cannot have that lest we become guilty of libel. Thus the draft was speedily deleted. All Misplaced Pages content, but particularly biographies of living persons, must be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as articles in newspapers or reputable magazines. Huon (talk) 19:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Michele Clark

Hey Guys!

So my article was declined at Articles for Creation, I am super confused and would like some help to know what i have done wrong and what i need to change please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emilee33 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Several issues: First of all you had many of your references under the {{reflist}} template; those weren't displayed properly. I fixed that so all references are visible, but the footnotes shouldn't just be a mass in the references section, but they should be added immediately after the statement they're cited for.

Secondly, many of your sources are primary sources such as the websites of organizations Clark is affilitated with, or interviews where we basically have Clark talking about herself. Other sources, such as the Las Vegas Fox affiliate, don't mention Clark at all, or they provide only trivial coverage of the "Clark said..." variety. Blogs are usually not considered reliable. Some of the sources you added do look like reliable third-party sources to me and mention Clark in some detail, but right now the article isn't based on what those sources have to say about her; they're merely added as an afterthought. That will probably require quite some rewriting. Huon (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/National Business Officers Association

Hi! I'm having difficulty finding sources for my article that qualify as "reliable." Could you tell me what's wrong with the sources I've provided & give me an idea of where I should look for "reliable" sources? Thanks!

Sources are considered reliable if they're subject to editorial oversight and have a reputation for fact-checking. My suggestion would be to look for newspaper articles. Reputable trade magazines or peer-reviewed scholarly papers would also do, but I doubt such sources will cover the NBOA in any detail. Have you tried the Google News archives and maybe Google Books? Huon (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

wikipedia desk

find wikipedia talk desk submission name serves <Nuru>/<Nuru>

How may we help you? Huon (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

July 19

Review of Diego De Leo/Anne.Marie.Snider

Why was this articles declined? Were some of my links problematic?Anne.Marie.Snider (talk) 02:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

If you mean Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Diego De Leo AO, well...it's blank. There's nothing there at all. Howicus (talk) 02:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I have added a draft template so you can easily submit the draft for a review, but your current sources likely will not suffice - two are the websites of organizations De Leo is affiliated with, the other two are his own works. Misplaced Pages content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as articles about him published in newspapers or reputable magazines, or peer-reviewed scholarly papers discussing De Leo's work (written by others, not by himself!). Claims such as "high-quality" or "world first" definitely must be supported by third-party sources. Huon (talk) 07:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Jason David Yonai

Why was my wiki declined? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonYonai (talk • contribs) 10:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Your draft doesn't cite any reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper articles or reviews of Yonai's work in reputable music magazines. This is especially important for biographies of living persons, where content that might be considered either disparaging or promotional must be backed up with a reliable third-party source. Huon (talk) 10:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Northern League Cup

Is it possible to rename the name of my article from "Northern league Cup" to "Northern League Challenge Cup" prior to publishing? NEFootballArchivist (talk) 13:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• As you have more than 10 edits and your account is more than 4 days old, you should be auto-confirmed and hence able to do this automatically. I have moved the page for you in the meantime. Ritchie333 14:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Armand Jackson

Hello, i would like to know why this article has been refused. Thanks for your answer, anyone.

Stubok (talk) 15:43, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• The comment "needs reliable third-party references" is misleading - Allmusic is widely used as a reliable source on Misplaced Pages, though discogs is user generated and hence unsuitable. Armand Jackson certainly looks notable, the problem you have is being able to verify the claims made in the article. Do a search for his name on Google Books - you should hopefully find enough coverage in reliable sources to add to the article, so it can be accepted. In particular, A Blues Bibliography p.500 mentions his name and some sources covering his career. Ritchie333 16:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your help. Stubok (talk) 16:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Millis Transfer article

I have submitted and resubmitted an article on Millis Transfer. I was asked to cite outside sources (rather than a company web site) regarding the company's notable accomplishments which included certain awards they had won. I did this. However, the second editor said that the referenced article had been published from a press release. My confusion is that the organization that determined and presented the award is the one that generated the press release -- not Millis Transfer. How does that invalidate the information? Further, the first editor recommended I look at the Convenant Transport page for guidance. I see nothing on their page that meets the notability requirement PLUS their citations are from their own company web site. And yet, their article is published. I've read the "How to create an article" information on Misplaced Pages and feel I've satisfied the requirements. Please advise how to get my article the same consideration given to Covenant Transport's page. Thanks for your help. Bringstaff (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, Press releases are usually not good sources no matter who put them out. Also, take a look at Misplaced Pages:Other Stuff Exists. Just because the Covenant transportation page uses mostly primary sources, doesn't mean that primary sources are good enough for your article. Howicus (talk) 17:54, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

July 20

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Francis Duroy

I transtaled a wikipedia page of Francis Duroy which is already exist in French for long time. And I wrote that it's translated page at last. I don't understand that i need more reliable source for this page...Maybe I didn't mention well it's a translated page or else? Can you please tell me what I need to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Couple de musicien (talk • contribs) 14:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

You did mention that, but Misplaced Pages does not consider either itself or its foreign-language sister projects reliable sources, and the fact that there is a French article on Duroy does not imply that we should have an English article. I currently see no indication that Duroy meets our notability guidelines; see also WP:MUSIC. You'd need reliable sources that are independent of the subject to serve as the basis of the article. Huon (talk) 15:44, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Miriam Riggs/Mriggs23417

Hello, I am working on the "Floorcloth" Misplaced Pages page, and I am having trouble with my edits being accepted. I am doing this as a project for a college course, and it is my first time. How can I be sure that my submitted edit information will be acceptable for Misplaced Pages? I think at least one of my posts should be used; I feel that I have much useful and credible information to add. Thanks!Mriggs23417 (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2013 (UTC) Mriggs23417 (talk) 16:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:AFC is only for entirely new articles, not for modifications to existing articles. You can either modify the floorcloth article directly or propose changes on its talk page. Huon (talk) 03:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Villikins and his Dinah

I'm writing an article on a 19th century comic song which is based on a traditional ballad called 'William and Dinah'. Is there a way of formatting text so I can list the lyrics of each song side-by-side, rather than sequentially, so that it's possible for readers to compare the two more easily?

I would also like to upload an image I believe to be in the public domain, dating from c. 1850. The image is currently in the Lester S. Levy Collection at John Hopkins University (http://levysheetmusic.mse.jhu.edu/catalog/levy:049.075). Their copyright information states: 'Any music published in the United States before 1923 is in the public domain, so you are free to use these images in any way you like, including public performance. If you use any of these images from the Levy Collection, we ask that you credit us with the following statement, "Courtesy of the Lester S. Levy Collection of Sheet Music, The Sheridan Libraries, The Johns Hopkins University".'

Am I right in thinking I can use their image in wikipedia by uploading it to wikimedia commons first? And how do I best comply with their request for crediting them? RLamb (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

For side-by-side lyrics I'd suggest using the <poem></poem> environment within a table - see for example Jana Gana Mana#Lyrics: Code.

You'll indeed have to upload the image to the Wikimedia Commons; using their Upload Wizard is probably easiest. Once it's uploaded, the picture tutorial explains how to display it in articles. I believe the Commons should ask you for a source; that's where you can credit the Sheridan Libraries. If I'm mistaken, you can simply edit the image page at the Commons and manually add a line with the credits. Huon (talk) 03:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Adela Amador

This article was declined because 'Misplaced Pages is not an obituary.' Could you please tell me what this article needs so that it is NOT seen as an obituary? I don't understand why this article http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Adela_Amador is seen as an obituary and not as a notable person when this article, her husband, is seen as a notable person http://en.wikipedia.org/Harry_Willson, and they did much of the same things in publishing. Please let me know what I can do. Smtran (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, some of the most detailed sources are obituaries, while many of the others seem to mention Amador only in passing while they focus more on her husband. I expect that Amador is notable on her own, but right now the draft gives the impression that her death is the only event which caused others to write about her in any detail.

On an unrelated note, it would help if you provided links for the sources available online. I have added some, but it might be worth the effort to check whether I missed some. Huon (talk) 03:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/MichieHamlett

Hello,

My latest submission of a page (MichieHamlett) has been declined with the reason being that there is only one reliable source with other sources being related to the company or submitted by the company in question. The resources listed range from a government website to a newspaper to reputable peer and client review websites.

I'm not sure what else I need to do or change in order for my page submission to be accepted, can someone offer some help? Thanks in advance! Tbyers (talk) 22:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC) Tasha B.

The second, third and fourth sources don't even mention the law firm . Several others are just business directories, not reliable sources subject to editorial oversight. Much of the content does not cite any sources at all. A newspaper article may be a reliable source, but that doesn't help if the article provides no information on your draft's topic. Huon (talk) 03:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

July 21

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Just Punishment (Documentary)

Hi,

I created "Just Punishment (Documentary)" Misplaced Pages page, but when I hit "save changes", only half of it shows on the preview page (Release and Reception paragraphs are missing). Why is that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LouiseRR (talk • contribs) 04:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

That draft was deleted as a copyright violation. Only half of it showed because the closing </ref> tag for one of the references was missing the slash. Huon (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Thittuvilai

Sir, When can i submit my page for publishing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsmesajan (talk • contribs) 15:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The page was submitted, but I had to decline it because it cited no reliable sources, making the content unverifiable. On an unrelated note, why is the article illustrated with images of a German grave and an unidentified child? Huon (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk: Articles for creation/Catholic Church Reform

Hello, It has been over a week since I resubmitted our article for Misplaced Pages. Could you please let us know if it is acceptable as is or if there is any further change you require? Here is the link to our submission: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Catholic_Church_Reform

Thank you, Rene Reid Churchreform (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC) Churchreform (talk) 17:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

You haven't actually resubmitted your draft, and if you had, it would not be accepted because it's more of an essay than an encyclopedia article. I had a look at some of your sources, and none of those I looked at so much as mentioned the organization that's supposed to be the article's topic. Huon (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Deneen Borelli

Hello,

I recently submitted an article for Deneen Borelli, but it was declined. Could someone please explain why, so that I can make the corrections, if possible?

Thank you. Danaricc (talk) 18:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Patrick Low

Quality control volunteer User:Arctic Kangaroo declined moving Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Patrick Low to article space.

Special notability guideline WP:POLITICIAN, gives guidance on the notability of office holders:

Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature. This also applies to those who have been elected to such offices but have not yet been sworn in.

Low was a senior office holder at the World Trade Organization. Why shouldn't his holding an office at the WTO be recognized as an "International office"? Why shouldn't the existing references be considered sufficient to substantiate that "Patrick Low" met our notability criteria?

Note: WP:POLITICIAN says nothing about applying only to elected office-holders. Geo Swan (talk) 18:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• WikiProject Articles for creation
• Misplaced Pages help forums