| Revision as of 22:58, 7 July 2013 editHuon (talk | contribs)Administrators51,324 edits →Your review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/GradSave: reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:03, 7 July 2013 edit undo5.56.23.145 (talk) →notebilityNext edit → | ||
| Line 125: | Line 125: | ||
| :: Multiple editors disagree that any of the references "clearly" satisfy requirements. This submission has been rejected 8 times and deleted through an AFD process. It is not going to be accepted. Please stop submitting it.--] (]) 22:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC) | :: Multiple editors disagree that any of the references "clearly" satisfy requirements. This submission has been rejected 8 times and deleted through an AFD process. It is not going to be accepted. Please stop submitting it.--] (]) 22:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :: : and none have give a single reason, why is this? | |||
| == A kitten for you! == | == A kitten for you! == | ||
Revision as of 23:03, 7 July 2013
|
Downsize Fitness: Help with Neutrality
Hey, I have been scanning over my article again and am looking for anything that has a promotional tone. You said you noticed some things I was hoping you could point them out, or let me know what the issues are. Is the article allowed to reference goals of the firm? Also I put the "press section" in external links. Is that appropriate? Thanks very much for the help!
IntelCapital
A user whose only edits are to AfC is not one who is intending to become part of the community. As far as the links in the article ... well, at some point soon it will be accepted (in which case it will be cleaned up) or rejected and deleted. If that's how they think they can promote their business, more fool them. Daniel Case (talk) 19:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- It was rejected, and I notice that they haven't edited in ... 5 days since then. Nor have they edited anything else since then. What, exactly, would a block accomplish at this point? Daniel Case (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- Protect Misplaced Pages for one. Uphold username policy. This editor is implying that they represent this company. I've reported many of these over the years as I new page patrol and I've never had something so blatant rejected. What does ignoring it accomplish?--RadioFan (talk) 20:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Acronym overkill
Re: WP:Acronym overkill, when I saw the link addition, I thought it was going to be a duplicate of WP:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG! but I'm glad to see it isn't! ;) Just thought that might amuse. –Quiddity (talk) 21:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- That is pretty funny. The essay is my measured reaction to reviewing articles with so much acronym abuse. It's pretty obvious, especially in some parts of the world, that tacking an acronym on the article is seen as magically providing notability .--RadioFan (talk) 21:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Farms and Farmers (FnF)
You wrote: The claim that this organization is "commonly referred as FnF" is not supported by the references. Reference 1, which is an article in the Times of India (leading national newspaper in India), clearly mentions "...In February 2011, they founded an NGO, 'Farms n Farmers (FnF)', which does everything..." Even Reference 4 states "...I present to you Farms n Farmers (FnF) – a nimble...." These are just a few of the multiple times the acronym FnF has been used in the references. Please consider the submission.
- Some references (Times of India, iit) mention the acronym but they do so to allow its use throughout the rest of the article in a shorter form. This is a very common practice in news writing. You are free to refer to it as FnF in the article for the same purpose.
- Some references dont refer to the acronym at all (the government of India). However, the claim that the organization is widely known as FnF is not supported. This isn't an acronym like NATO or laser. Each reference refers to it at least initially by the full name which indicates to me that this is what it is commonly known as.
- Either way the name proposed in the article is unacceptable. Parenthesis are to be used for disambiguation which is not necessary here since there is no other conflicting article by that name. Either the name will be "Farms and Farmers" or "FnF" and it's pretty clear that the full name is the more appropriate here per WP:TITLEFORMAT. Please also look over Misplaced Pages:Acronym overkill for a more detailed description of how excessive acronyms can harm an article.--RadioFan (talk) 23:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Financial Intelligence Unit Network (FIU.NET)
Dear RadioFan, Thank you for reviewing my very first submission. I've added the the citations you sugested. Please be so kind to further review and advise me. Very much appreciated. Djulant64 (talk) 11:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Rather than create a new article, I'd suggest you merge what you've created into the existing financial intelligence. Anyone can edit there and there is no need for the formal review process.--RadioFan (talk) 12:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
HogMaw (band)
Dear RadioFan,
Thank you for reviewing my submission, "HogMaw (band)". I appreciate your feedback.
I'm hoping you'll consider that, in the world of progressive bluegrass, the subject of the HogMaw article appears to meet the Misplaced Pages requirement for Notability.
HogMaw meets criteria #12, a band that "Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio...network" by its frequent appearances in Folk Alley, which has 105,000 subscribers nationwide and thousands of listeners on NPR. The article references the Folk Alley appearance, but does not overhype Folk Alley's significance (which might seem like hyperbole or promotion).
By playing on the main stage of the Philadelphia Folk Festival as the result of a competition, HogMaw joins a select group of musical acts, including Bob Dylan, Levon Helm, and countless names, established and emerging. This fact qualifies HogMaw as notable under criteria #9, "Has won or placed in a major music competition." While fans of other kinds of music may not have heard of the Philadelphia Folk Festival, the festival's longevity (mentioned in the article) and size (mentioned in the article), cumulatively evidences the significance of the band.
Finally, Progressive Bluegrass is significant enough to have its own entry. A review of the article for Progressive Bluegrass shows that band Railroad Earth has no more apparent prominence or press coverage than HogMaw, yet has its own entry. In fact, HogMaw has more press and citations.
This review has been helpful for me, and I will continue to try to improve the article based on your suggestions. For example, DelFest is cited by the Progressive Bluegrass article and has its own article. One of the references for the HogMaw article mentions that the band has also played DelFest, further evidencing its significance in the progressive bluegrass community. I will make the change and add to the article to reflect this performance.
I'm also confused about the referencing. I took pains to reference every fact in the article, and all are verifiable. All but one is independent, and to the extent that the HogMaw article references the band's statement (the fact of Dom Flemons' involvement in the band's latest album), the claim is not one of opinion, but of verifiable fact demonstrated in the YouTube video from an independent source. Such techniques are best practices in journalism and law, and I'm trying to figure out why Misplaced Pages wouldn't find it acceptable. Please clarify.
Thanks again for your feedback. I hope with your help I can get the article where it needs to be to be included on Misplaced Pages. Jdubbleu (talk) 19:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC) jdubbleu
- A couple of things here. 1) My talk page isn't the place to make your case. Improve the article to make these things readily apparent instead. 2) I'm not seeing any of what you claim above supported by the references in the article. The references used there do not establish notability for this musical group. They appear to be mostly blogs or other self published sources The only reasonably reliable source is the blog produced by the York Dispatch copy editor, that at least appears to have some editorial oversight. Your biggest problem here seems to be with reliable sources, please look over Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources. 3) The quality of other articles really doesn't matter at all here, issues with those should be addressed there. The goal isn't to create articles whose quality is of the lowest common dominator, but to create as good of an article as possible.
IMACD
Dear RadioFan, In the second version of the article I changed its contents according to your first comments. Indeed, I went to check immediately the wiktionary principles and could not see how to fit this article there. So I rewrote it. It is no longer a "dictionary" entry but deals with misconceptions by many specialised engineers on the importance of these services and the outstanding and very disquieting issue of recycling the huge amounts of waste generated by these services. Finally, and maybe I should explain this somewhere in the article - the business of IMACD is a huge industry world-wide and is thus notable in that respect and is completely absent from wikipedia. Would you care to re-read the final submission?
Your review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/GradSave
Hi RadioFan, I had helped Lroma006 with the GradSave draft and had hoped we had resolved the spam issues; yet that's still why you declined it. Any advice on what still needs to be improved in that regard? Huon (talk) 22:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- The article reads like a glossy brochure for the company. It's not written from a nuetral point of view, rather a promotional one. I'm surprised an editor with your experience isn't seeing that.--RadioFan (talk) 22:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
It's as factual as it gets. Where do I need to change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lroma006 (talk • contribs) 22:54, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
- That's rather vague. I've tried to describe their operations in as bland a tone as possible. Could you point out a specific example of what you consider a promotional point of view? At worst there's a few "allows" and "enables" that could be reworded, but if that's not what you mean, then I'm indeed not seeing it. Huon (talk) 22:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
notebility
Dear RadioFan,
Thanks for taking time to read my article. I've read http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:N and my sources satisfy the claim of notability according to Misplaced Pages guidelines. You've said that "No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability" http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:No_amount_of_editing_can_overcome_a_lack_of_notability, however I didn't just edit I added content and references. Did you miss this? Did you read the feature news article on my subject in Portuguese language? Can you be more specific about the reason why you claim non-notability of my subject?
"The only way you can show your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material."
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:No_original_research
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:N outlines 5 general criteria for a subject/article be noteable and worthy of its own article
General notability guideline
oooooooooooo 1) Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
X (check/pass) -> the above requirement is clearly satisfied in my references
oooooooooooo 2) "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
X (check/pass) -> the above requirement is clearly satisfied in my references
oooooooooooo 3) "Sources", for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected. Sources are not required to be available online, and they are not required to be in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
X (check/pass) -> the above requirement is clearly satisfied in my references
oooooooooooo 4) "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent.
X (check/pass) -> the above requirement is clearly satisfied in my references
oooooooooooo
5) "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Misplaced Pages is not, perhaps the most likely violation being Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
X (?) I'm not sure what this means.
Thanks again. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Jordan_Older
- Multiple editors disagree that any of the references "clearly" satisfy requirements. This submission has been rejected 8 times and deleted through an AFD process. It is not going to be accepted. Please stop submitting it.--RadioFan (talk) 22:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- : and none have give a single reason, why is this?
A kitten for you!
Thank you so much for the help with the Richard Green article.