Revision as of 09:02, 16 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 8

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation

I submitted an article and it was rejected as not notable enough. What gives? This guy is a titan in the car industry, a television personality and a radio broadcaster. I wanted to write this because I Googled him and discovered that he is not on wikipedia (I never did figure out his year of birth, which is what I was interest in). I sourced everything to reliable neutral sources. How do I get this article published?

You need to show that subject was the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Most of your sources either are not independent, or they provide only trivial coverage of the "... said subject" variety.

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Jewel delRio Villaflores

Good Day. I have written an article about a Philippine-based singer/songwriter and submitted it a week ago. However, my article was declined 3 times. I have followed the rules and requirements in writing this article and I can assure you that the subject is notable. I have attached online news articles about the subject. Unfortunately most of the write ups are printed and cannot be found online. What can I do to get this article published? Thank you so much.

Here is the link of my article: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Jewel_delRio_Villaflores Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Jewel delRio Villaflores Iambigbird (talk) 03:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

What makes you think that Facebook and Myspace are reliable sources? You can read more about reliable sources at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources. Write ups not being online does not mean that they cannot be used as sources. You can find more information about citing sources at Misplaced Pages:References for beginners. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding uploading

Sir I uploaded 4 non-free images in indian soap opera. But the other user is editing and remove my uploads constantly. can i post images in other related aricle and change my summary. will it lead to copyright infringement?

This page is only for questions about the Articles for Creation process. Try the copyright questions page instead. Howicus (talk) 17:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Praj Industries

Hi my article is rejected again. Can you tell me which sections of my page require more references so that Article will get approved.

How about, all of them? Most of your sections don't cite any sources whatsoever. Besides, with the exception of the Forbes India article, your sources are mostly primary sources. Misplaced Pages content should be based on reliable third-party sources, with primary sources used only for uncontroversial, non-promotional details. Huon (talk) 03:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Maciej Tarnogrodzki

Hi,

I submitted article http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Maciej_Tarnogrodzki which was reviewed initially by Sarah Stierch. There was a comment from Sarah Comment: Sadly there is only one reliable source here. Surely there must be more news coverage about the subject. Team/club websites do not count. Thanks! SarahStierch (talk) 18:13, 20 May 2013

The article was corrected and new reliable source was added from national newspaper Irish Mirror as requested. From that time article was rejected couple of times after submission by other reviewers( not Sarah as I think she wasn't available) but without any explanation why. The issue was fixed for Sarah submission.

Can you please advise as I'm stuck with this article.

Thank you

Ewelina

Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Maciej Tarnogrodzki

Your article has been created! It is now at Maciej Tarnogrodzki. Good work. Howicus (talk) 17:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Çağatay Ulusoy

I will appreciate if you could advise what exactly to do and why the sources are not reliable? I need help to fix the page.Thanks

The vast majority of your sources are primary sources such as the official websites of films in which he acted, or they don't provide any significant coverage of Ulusoy, and if they do, that coverage doesn't make its way into your draft. For example, the Anatolian Eagles review is highly critical of the "uninspired ensemble acting", stating "the only actor trying to give a genuine performance" isn't Ulusoy. Interviews aren't quite as independent as we'd like our sources to be. Huon (talk) 03:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Pharming Group N.V.

I'm new to this so, sorry if this is posted in the wrong place!

I wrote an article : http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Pharming_Group_N.V. it was reviewed and rejected, I'm confused as to why.. the comments don't really make sense, at least I'm struggling to see the issues, could you help me by narrowing them down? Thank you :)

Sembleton (talk) 08:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

This is the right place. I agree that the decline reason provided by User:RadioFan does not seem to make a lot of sense. I suggest that the main issue with the submission is that it does not have references to multiple independent reliable sources that discuss the group in detail. WP:VRS has more information about this. You may also find Misplaced Pages:Notability (organizations and companies) useful. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Shall i have the privilage of knowing..What is the exact reason behind rejection of my article..

Misplaced Pages talk:Julien ngoy

The reasons that the article submission Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Julien Ngoy was declined, are explained at the top of the article submission. In particular, the submission only lists one source.

I would add that the wording of the submission is not very neutral, for example "Word has spread across Europe about his exciting talent and he is being regarded as one of the brightest upcoming talent in European football". Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/CCAvenue

Can you please suggest why this article has be not accepted. It has been covered in the newspapers also. It is big brand in the eCommerce market in India. Hope you heed kind attention to the matter.

The source in The Hindu only mentions CCAvenue in passing - it is not significant coverage. The source in the Times of India does not appear to mention CCAvenue at all? The yourstory.in source seems to be a broken link. The India Digital Review piece appears to be based entirely on a press release. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Rachel Abbott

I've tried make a submission twice. first time it was unsuccessful because there were no verifiable references, which is fine and understandable. The second time it was unsuccessful for the same reason although there are several verifiable references included. I don't really understand what else I could include to make it so it is accepted. Could someone help me out?

Thanks in advance, Che

Che Blessed (talk) 11:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

To prove notability, there need to be references proving that there is significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Just one or two is not enough. One of the strongest sources here is the Guardian piece. It is indeed very flattering about her, but has a total of only two paragraphs about her. For material of this length, more than one or two such sources are needed. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Permyak salty ears

I just don't understand why this article has been rejected for a second time by someone calling himself Arctic Kangaroo. All I have done is to translate the Russian language page of Misplaced Pages http://ru.wikipedia.org/Пермяк_солёные_уши into English. The first time, OK, I didn't give a reference to the Russian page and the person who checked it maybe didn't realise that it was just a translation. But the second time I submitted it I included the address of the Russian page at the end of the article under references. What else do you want? I wrote that after the article had been accepted I would remove that reference and cross reference the two pages on the left hand side under Languages.

See, other Misplaced Pages pages should not be listed in the references at all, since Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source. Remove those references, and add more independent, reliable sources instead. Howicus (talk) 17:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

"Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source" - that's interesting. Then why all the fuss about "reliable sources"?

Because we want our facts to be verifiable and not just hearsay. If the Misplaced Pages article you want to cite has reliable third-party sources that support the relevant claim, you can re-use those. If it doesn't, how do you know its content is correct? People could modify one article to say what they want it to say, and then cite it as a "reliable source" in another - that's obviously circular. Huon (talk) 14:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Jane Emerssen

Hi again. This is an add-on to my query of 5 July.

I want to emphasise it is not my intention to regard Misplaced Pages as a marketing tool. I am seeking a presence to establish the fact that 'Jane Emerssen' is an established author for those parties likely to be interested. I have chosen to write fiction under a pseudonym because my non-fiction work is still out there even though it is out of print, and I didn't want these books coming up on search engines because it muddies the waters - there is already another Judith Johnstone who writes on New Age topics.

I have copies of reviews relating to my non-fiction books sent to me by the Promotions Manager of How To Books, Regina Schinner, from 1993 up until 2005. These are a mix of journals and national newspapers in the UK. I can quote the dates and names of the publications if this helps with validation. Up until 2009 the various editions of my How To Books sold a total of 50,000+ copies and I am still in receipt of funds from Public Lending Rights and duplicating fees through the Authors' Licensing and Collecting Society.

I have also been a member of the Society of Authors since December 1990 and as a professional personnel practitioner I qualified as a Member of the Institute of Personnel and Development (IPD) in 1994. The Institute received its Royal Charter on 1 July 2000 becoming the CIPD and on 1 October 2003, full members were awarded charter status automatically. Although I have retired from full-time employment I remain a Chartered Member of the CIPD.

Does any of the above help me? If so, how do I go about incorporating it into my article?(Stoneraise (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC))

If you have better references, by all means add them. As it is, none of the references in the article are acceptable. Misplaced Pages requires independent, reliable sources to establish the notability of the article subject. Your own website is not independent of you, and neither is any site that's selling things, like Amazon. Howicus (talk) 17:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Wood Stabilization

I have written an article on wood stabilization which has been rejected twice as "This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article." The article is a science based record of wood stabilizing processes similar to any technical processes described in Misplaced Pages. I do not understand the comment that it reads like an essay. It is a hard line to walk, writing articles which do not overly plagiarize others works and yet not have it described as personal opinion.

I think this article would be useful to others who are looking for information on wood stabilizing. Thanks for any help I can get Edger66 (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Plagiarizing is where you take exact words, or almost exact words. As you assume, Misplaced Pages cannot accept plagiarism. However, repeating ideas in different words is not plagiarism. That's what you should do - write others ideas in your own words, and cite them. Look at examples of featured articles to see appropriate style, tone, and organization. ~Charmlet 23:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Intelligent InSites

Hi, I'd like some feedback on an article I wrote that got rejected on June 15th. I've since made some changes on making the content more neutral, formatting, and on references. I'd like to make sure the article is good enough for approval once I resubmit it. Could an experienced editor please provide suggestions/feedback for my article Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Intelligent InSites? Thanks! InSiteful13 (talk) 21:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Parts of the draft are still very short on references. The entire history section cites a single source, the "Environmental Monitoring" section none at all. One of your sources is press release (not considered reliable), another an interview with their CEO (not independent), yet others don't mention Intelligent InSites at all. Those sources should be removed. Huon (talk) 03:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

July 9

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Juliana

Hi, its been about a month since submitting an article, and its not published yet? What can I do to get my article published? Or do i need to wait more time? Thanks

Question: This looks to be the only AfC draft you've ever edited, and it was declined. Is there a draft I'm not finding? ~Charmlet 00:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Oxnylia

I see my article was declined, asking for better references. Before I edit and resubmit I want to confirm what needs to be changed, on the description of the article being declined, its says what you can do: Add citations, and above its mentioning verifiable referencing. My questions are am i suppose to change my references in general, or just the way i cited them, and are youtube, twitter, and website personal pages considered proper references? the link to the article is https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Oxnylia Thanks

I have done some copyediting, but none of sour sources were the kinds of reliable independent sources Misplaced Pages content should be based on. iTunes is a commercial website out to sell stuff; it should never be linked to. Oxnylia's YouTube and Twitter channels obviously are not third-party sources. What we're looking for are newspaper articles or reviews in reputable music magazines. Huon (talk) 01:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Epiphany Eyewear

Hello and thank you for helping me with this article for submission. I fixed all the cites and references which were the only things I was told were issues for the article to be approved. Today, someone else said it sounds like an advertisement. So, I removed anything that may lead anyone to think that. Please take a look at the submission and tell me what to do. I've worked very hard at this page and want to get it accepted. I need to know what exactly to do to to satisfy the review board. Thank you, 301man (talk) 00:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I've given some advice at my talk page. Huon (talk) 01:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/SpaceTEC National Resource Center for Aerospace Technical Education

Hi. I have added citations to http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/SpaceTEC_National_Resource_Center_for_Aerospace_Technical_Education in response to an issue with notability. How do I notify those who filed the declination of the article? AMKJR 01:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The draft is already submitted for another review. However, most of your sources are primary sources, not third-party sources such as articles in newspapers or reputable trade magazines. Press releases are not considered reliable. Huon (talk) 03:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Mike Joseph Bench Press King

Please can you help me to clear the submission up. You keep refusing because of references. Please can you clarify if its the way the reference are displayed and written or if the reference are not good enough. We have provided proof that he has won all the titles and he holds the records and am confused at the present time with what is exactly wrong with the page.

You also keep refering to the image but i have removed all images from the page to ensure this does not get refused again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Benchpressking (talk • contribs)

The last message about an image was on your talkpage in April this year. That relates to the image (now deleted), and is nothing to do with this article submission.

The article submission currently has a great many problems. However, what it's been rejected for so far is for failing to meet the requirements of Misplaced Pages:Inline citation which says that "Contentious material, whether negative, positive, or neutral, about living persons" must have an inline citation. I would say that claims like "Regarded by many as the best pound for pound Bench Presser the country has ever produced, Mike claimed nine World Titles" are contentious. You can read about how to add inline citations at Misplaced Pages:Referencing for beginners.

Another problem you have is that phrasing like 'With gritty "Eye of the Tiger" determination, Mike proved his mettle and bounced back following a period of gruelling rehabilitation and physio. The Bench Press King was back' is not neutral and encyclopedic.

A third problem you have is that of the references you have provided, some of them are not independent of Mike Joseph, and the rest do not appear to provide significant coverage of him.

The good news? If everything listed about his career achievements is true, he's probably notable enough for there to be a Misplaced Pages article about him.

You may also wish to read Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Paul Ygartua

Dear Misplaced Pages, I'm not disputing your decision to decline the article on Paul Ygartua. However, at this time, it may not be possible to provide any more reliable sources for this article as it stands. The books and websites provided are, I believe, the most informative and accurate on the details they support. However, before we drop it, if you believe there is some way of editing the article down that will allow it to be accepted please supply a short example. Sincerely, Paintedbike Paintedbike (talk) 08:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd say the article already is too short on information, not too long. Most of it is merely a list of works. There's nothing on his style or the critical reception. Huon (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

That's very helpful. Thank you. Paintedbike Paintedbike (talk) 15:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Automatic Systems

Hi, Unfortunately my submission of Automatic Systems article has been rejected because of references problems. Actually, my references are extracted from newspapers, specialist magazines and objective articles. When I decided to create this article, I used the wikipedia article KABA GROUP, which is a company operating in the same sector than Automatic Systems, as a model to make sure I won't make any mistake. Then, what am I supposed to change if I want to publish my article? Thank you for your help

Press releases from their collaborators are not reliable sources, especially not for such claims as "aknowledged as the world leader in secure entrance lanes and speedgates" (also, the link is broken and gives a 404 error). The Security Specifiers article was obviously written by Automated Systems themselves ("At Automatic Systems, we know..."). Bolloré is their owner. Those obviously are not independent sources. The "Key figueres" and "History" sections are mostly unsourced.

Not every other Misplaced Pages article out there is a good example to follow. You may want to have a look at our Good articles for how an article should look. Huon (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Digisocial

Hi,

I'd like to know what I need to improve on/fix in order for my article to be published. Thank you.

Miss Pappas (talk) 09:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

You'll need much better sources. Many of your current ones are blogs, which are not considered reliable. Are there any articles in major newspapers about this company? Huon (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of User:Jagdisha/Praj

Hi, We have submitted an article for Praj Industries. It was earlier rejected in February because the language used was thought to be marketing oriented. We have since made changes to the content and resubmitted the same, but now we are getting a message that This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. The references we have used include reputed publications such as Crisil, Forbes and Outlook India. Please let me know how we should go about getting the article accepted. One section I think may be causing an issue is Awards and Recognition. We can remove this altogether if it helps the article submission. I have also written to the reviewer, SL93, but haven't heard back from him, yet.

Jagdisha (talk) 10:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Most of your sections don't cite any sources at all, including the "history" and "business divisions" sections. Where does that content come from? And many of your sources are primary sources such as the Praj Foundation's own website on their philanthropy. I've told you so before. Huon (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

We have since added more sources for the content, but now we have a new rejection message saying that the article reads like an advertisement. If you could help me with any one sentence with regards to how it should read to get accepted, I will then rewrite the whole article in a similar tone. Your help would be greatly appreciated.

Jagdisha (talk) 14:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

This is much better, but two of your most heavily-used sources are Praj Industry's director report and a press release, sources written by Praj itself. The "awards" section is almost exclusively based on primary sources such as the websites of the organizations bestowing those awards - it would be much more impressive if others had taken note of those awards - say, newspaper articles.

The draft is also rather full of buzzwords. For example, unless they are consultants or chemists, they don't sell "solutions". And what's the difference between "Praj manufactures equipment" and "Praj supplies equipment manufacturing services", except wordiness? Huon (talk) 01:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Secret Society of Happy People

Hi. When I first submitted the article it was declined because of the tone. I tried to fix it and deleted all the information that made it sound like a "marketing brochure". However, the reviewer stated:" The good news is that your submission does seem to have a wide range of independent reliable sources, so proving notability of the organisation should not be a problem. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)" And now, after being submitted for the second time it's declined again, and this reviewer stated: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified." Can you please tell me what should I change in order to make it proper for Misplaced Pages, because I find the arguments contradictory. Thanks. (Ruzhica (talk) 12:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC))

Thank you for your patience and perseverance. This seems to be an error on the part of the most recent reviewer, because I simply cannot imagine how the Indiana Gazette, Syracuse Herald Journal, Santa Fe New Mexican, Madison Wisconsin State Journal, Kerrville Daily Times, Newsweek Magazine, and Chicago Tribune, are somehow all unreliable sources. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not think, though, that you have yet achieved a neutral encyclopedic tone. Encyclopedia articles do not address the reader in the second person ("you" and "your"). Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Secret Society of Happy People

Dear Arthur goes shopping, can you please review my article, because I did everything you suggested and yet the reviewer Techatology keeps declining it for unreliable sources. Thanks, (Ruzhica (talk) 13:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC))

Some of it is still written in the second person. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Copy Data

I declined this on June 6. The author recently posted on my talk page asking for another review. My concern last month was that the topic covered here is is too close to existing articles to warrant creating a brand new article.

I'm tied up this week and can't give a proper re-review. I and I'm sure the author would be grateful if someone else, preferably someone with some subject-matter knowledge, would re-review it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I have re-submitted the draft, which should see it re-reviewed shortly. However, at a glance I fully agree with your assessment: The article can't decide what it's supposed to be about, and it's redundant to existing articles anyway. Huon (talk) 15:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Jainism and Hinduism

Hello, The article was recently rejected. I placed a note on the reviewer's talk-page but didn't receive a reply. Can anyone elaborate on what needs to be improved in this article. The reason given was that this article sounds like an essay, but WP:NOTESSAY talks about original research. This article isn't original research or a personal essay. It only presents what is given in the source. Any help in improving this article would be much appreciated. Thanks, Rahul Jain (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd call it a content fork from our main Jainism and Hinduism articles. If specific aspects of Jainism have been influenced by Hinduism, that should probably be explained in the main Jainism article. Huon (talk) 23:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

But we have articles such as Buddhism and Jainism, Buddhism and Hinduism‎, Hinduism and Sikhism, Islam and Jainism etc. Can't the article "Jainism and Hinduism" created on the same lines? Rahul Jain (talk) 03:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

It can, but even while many of those drafts are tagged for problems of various kinds, the draft is not up to their standards. There's next to no information on the historical interaction between the religions. Almost all of your content is from a single source, and your summary of that source has lost much in terms of clarity. If you want to write an article on this topic, you should find more sources, and you should clearly separate it into sections on the historical relations and the comparative theology. The article currently is written almost entirely from a Jainist perspective, not surprising when the sources are Jainism, The Jaina Path Of Purification and The Jains. Are there no works on comparative religion that explicitly set out to compare the two? Huon (talk) 01:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/John Vinci

Hi. I created an article on architect John Vinci. It says it is not yet submitted for review. I did press Save and thought it was submitted. The edit page says to submit when ready, and I am ready, but can't figure out how to actually get it in the queue for review.

Please advise.

Thank you!

Suehax

Suehax (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I had submitted the draft for you but it was already declined due to insufficient sources. Your lone reference is a recording of Vinci's personal account; that's not an independent source. Once you have added better sources you can re-submit it via the blue "Resubmit" button in the "Submission declined" message box. Huon (talk) 23:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Richard Alba

I am trying to make edits and re-submit the following: Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Richard Alba

I have tried to re-submit it twice but nothing happens and then the changes are lost. I would appreciate any guidance. Thanks very much.

Marthawking (talk) 18:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)Martha King

I'm not sure I see the problem. The draft is correctly submitted for review. What changes are lost? Did you make sure to save your edits before submitting the draft? Huon (talk) 23:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Charles Lyman Flint

My question pertains to the most recent rejection of my article. I am not sure on how to proceed so it is time to ask for help. Thank you in advance.

Submission declined on 6 July 2013 by Nathan2055 (talk). 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. Declined by Nathan2055 2 days ago. Last edited by Nathan2055 2 days ago. Reviewer: Inform author.

cflint1634Cflint1634 (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

That draft is very short on sources, and the given sources don't say what they're cited for. For example, the source for the "early life" section doesn't discuss Flint's high school at all. So that information is not verifiable. Nathan2055's review also expresses concerns whether Flint is notable enough for an encyclopedia article in the first place. That too could be resolved by adding more reliable sources. Huon (talk) 23:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Oliver_Clark

HI,

While I understand the comments of the reviewer about my article, I am perplexed as to why someone who is mentioned on a number of wikipedia pages (eg http://en.wikipedia.org/Coast_(TV_series) or http://en.wikipedia.org/Nickelodeon_(UK_and_Ireland)#Former_presenters) doesn't warrant a page, where as many of the other people mentioned in the same context (e.g. James Gilbey -http://en.wikipedia.org/James_Gilbey or http://en.wikipedia.org/Paul_Barnett_(producer) both merit a page while both have fewer external references).

It's obvious that people who work behind the scenes on TV get fewer reviews than those who are in front of the screen, yet their work is no less important to the work created.

With reference to shows like Coast (which transformed the broadcasting landscape in the UK) it seems that the people who set the style, wrote the script and created the format should be recognised by wikipedia.

I'll do my best to find some more articles about Oliver Clark, but in the mean time, it would be great if you could re-consider the decision in light of the clear inconsistencies in the decisions regarding inclusion.

Kind regards

Angela.

Other insufficiently sourced articles may exist, but that's no excuse to create more - each submission must stand on its own merits. Almost all your sources are press releases; those are not considered reliable. Huon (talk) 23:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why press releases from the BBC (i assume you've heard of them) are treated the same as those by a two bit self-promoter. Also is it not odd that someone mentioned in Misplaced Pages is not considered notable enough to be included in Misplaced Pages.

Yes, we've heard of the BBC. Many of us, myself included, are British. Anyway, press releases are not considered independent of the subject, so they're not good references. Where the press release is hosted (such as on the BBC website) does not affect this. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 10:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok - I understand that, however as you may understand people behind the camera contribute significantly to the outcome of any given work, yet often receive no credit for the work they do (other than in credits or press-releases). That doesn't speak to their notability, just to the particular predilection of newspaper and magazine editors. The fact that the output of such people alone is not enough to afford them notability is testament to the fallibility of wikipedia, and is a weakness not a strength. Surely if a television programme (eg Coast) is notable enough to appear on wikipedia, then the people who created it should also be notable enough, after all the show is merely an expression of their creativity, and could not have existed without them.

Given that it is a matter of public record (as recorded in newspapers, on the BBC website and in wikipedia!) that Oliver Clark was the director of the first (and three subsequent) episodes of Coast, can you let me know exactly what it is that I have to write to convince you of his notability?

On Misplaced Pages, the general notability guideline is defined by whether third-party reliable sources have discussed the subject in-depth. So, actually, it does speak to their notability if they've never been discussed. Since you appear to have quite a few misconceptions about the way that Misplaced Pages works, I suggest you read WP:N. Once you've done that, someone else can answer any questions you may have. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 18:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: The fact that the output of such people alone is not enough to afford them notability is testament to the fallibility of wikipedia - this is not a failing of Misplaced Pages, this is a "failing" of media and academia in general, if you so wish to label it. If news media, trade journals, academic writers, etc. did more writeups on behind-the-scenes technicians, then Misplaced Pages would reflect that coverage. As a WP:tertiary source, Misplaced Pages cannot "reflect" coverage which does not yet exist, no matter how much one believes that in a just world such coverage would exist. Get media or academics to cover more media technicians, and we will undoubtedly be able to have more articles about them. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Something appears to have gone wrong submitting AfC "Bank Turn"

may have been a cookie issue but I'm not sure. Symptoms are, unlike promised, I'm still getting the "not submitted for review" box on the proposed article.

Pretty big fuss about a single (albeit necessary) redirect, though.

Repeat rationale: The current state of WP induces lack of clarity as aviation language generally uses "bank turn" (as seen in all aviation related articles) while (as to date) WP is only having "banked turn" and not resolving (redirecting) it to "banked turn".

Hence,

#REDIRECT "Banked Turn" 

is my proposed article content for "Bank Turn".

TIA for processing this, 217.81.177.111 (talk) 22:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The presence of "not submitted for review" where it shouldn't be, is normally a bug, and can be ignored if a "submitted for review" box also appears. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Do we really create Redirects for simple typos? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not completely understand the policies regarding redirects, but it is my understanding that they can be created for things like this, where it is thought to be common that people might enter the other text as a search query. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

We have a dedicated sub-project for redirect requests, WP:AFC/R. However, the fact that the article's claim that "bank turn" is a common alternative name is tagged as needing a citation doesn't inspire confidence. Huon (talk) 01:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

July 10

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Nothing More

I can't quite figure out what you mean by more resources I have found as many as I can, The album history came from the band directly. Also I can't figure out how to embed a picture.

If those sources are all that can be found, then the band simply is not notable enough for an encyclopedia article, sorry. "Directly from the band" would be considered "original research", something Misplaced Pages cannot accept.

Images must be uploaded (if they're freely licensed); once they are, the picture tutorial explains how to add them to an article. Huon (talk) 02:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Mike Joseph Bench Press King

Under

== References ==

I have your sample which is below: <ref>Name of author, , ''The New York Times'', date</ref>

I re-writing it with our details which is below:

<ref>Stans Gym, , ''Stans Gym'', date 10/07/2013</ref>

When I view the page all I get is a {1} but with no text beside it. Please can you tell me if this is correct. I am sorry about this but this is our first attempt of a wikipedia page.

• Please read WP:INCITE and WP:CITEFOOT as they give good direction on how to make the appropriate references. We need to have the references backing up prose in the submission in order to run a "verifyability" test over it. Hasteur (talk) 13:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Michael Wolters

Hi, I don't really know what to do any more. I have referenced important newspaper reviews who clearly refer to Michael Wolters' work. I have linked to his profile at Birmingham Conservatoire, where he is the Deputy Head of Composition. I have references from BBC pages who clearly state that that broadcast, commented on and even interviewed Michael Wolters. Why are these references not enough? They clearly confirm that he is a notable person. He's one of the leading composers in the UK. So, can you please tell me what's missing?

I'm also slightly confused about my article sounding like an advertisement. Could you please highlight specifically which sections you are referring to?

Hillary SpringfieldHillaryspringfield (talk) 10:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I have started making notes on the sources provided. Help from other reviewers is welcome. Please also continue to improve the article in line with the notes provided. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. That's been really helpful. I made the amendments straightaway and resubmitted.

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Artist Rajasekharan

Kindly do the reference footnotes. I tried a lot..But I was not able do it correctly. Kindly re arange. Regards RRajasekharan Parameswaran (talk) 11:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)ajasekharn

The draft was deleted as a copyright violation. Nothing to be done here. Huon (talk) 06:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Retina-X Studios LLC

Hi There, I published a article on Retina X Studios which I found a good company because I am a blogger and I researched on same. I also worked on other website in niche and found that other companies have wiki page so I gathered information on this company from web and submitted to Misplaced Pages. I tried to write as a third party still due to some issues my article was declined. I respect decision of editors still want to know which line they think is promotional. You can find my submission at https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Retina-X_Studios_LLC Look forward for reply. Thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannyruthe (talk • contribs)

Please remember to sign your talk page posts with four tildes.

I am curious. Please could you tell me the web address (URL) of your blog? Thank you. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/International Tourism Studies Asssociation (ITSA)

I would like to know why my article was declined at article for Creation. Thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by Woshisina88 (talk • contribs)

Please remember to sign your talk page posts with four tildes.

Your submission was rejected because it had no references. This is explained in the pink box at the top of the submission. You can click the links there to learn more.

Your submission is also worded in an excessively promotional manner. In addition, if any of it is copied from the website of the organisation, that is not allowed. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Note: IP who posted does not show any AFC in his Contribs. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

hi, can I know why my article denied? Thank's Maurizio Mangione

Please don't forget to sign your post at the end with four tildes (~~~~).

The article you linked to does not exisist. Please provide a better link to the article you take issue with. Hasteur (talk) 13:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Farid Dms Debah

Hello everybody. Someone can help me to arrange my article ? It's a translation from a french wikipedia article. This is a personality that has many awards in his profession. It's too much complicated for me to adjust my translation for english wikipedia. I wrote lot of english external links. I really hope it's good. http://fr.wikipedia.org/Farid_Dms_Debah (French Misplaced Pages)

I need your help !!! Thank you very very much :-) Katy

I have done some copyediting, but the main problem is that the references, with the exception of Le Parisien, are largely primary sources that cannot help establish his notability, or are otherwise problematic - IMDb, for example, is not subect to much editorial oversight and is not considered reliable. Much of the content cites no sources whatsoever. Some of the newspaper articles among the external links might help, but I can't read (enough) French and wouldn't be the best person to check what those sources should be cited for (if at all). Huon (talk) 06:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Sencha Inc.

Hi Wiki,

I do have permission to use the information at Sencha, Inc. I've requested that my page be undeleted (was deleted due to copyright issues). Please let me know what other changes I should make to the entry, so it will be accepted. Sgmarch (talk) 13:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

@Sgmarch: The permission with need to be sent to WP:OTRS following the procedures laid out at Misplaced Pages:Donating copyrighted materials and Misplaced Pages:Requesting copyright permission. When submitting the permission make sure to indicate that it's for the above mentioned deleted page. Once these have been recieved and verified by the OTRS team the pacge can be undeleted. Please be very sure that the permission conforms and is legitimate, as forging that kind of release is a very quick way to being prohibited from editing Misplaced Pages. Hasteur (talk) 13:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Michael Wolters

I incorporated Arthur goes shopping's suggestions *which I was very grateful about) into the new version of the article and then Prabash.A replied that nothing has changed. Arthur goes shopping said: Telegraph NfaN review: solid reliable source, four paragraphs about Wolters' work, so this is just about significant coverage. Guardian NfaN review: solid reliable source, entirely about Wolters' work (three longish paragraphs), so this is significant coverage BUT the article should note the overall negative conclusion of the review. So, according to the Misplaced Pages team I have solid reliable resources. AND I have incorporated the suggested changes. And then you're telling me it's the same. I'm very confused. Could you please tell me what else I need to do?

just to summarise: I have three reviews from The Guardian and Telegraph reviewing Wolters' work, BBC websites mentioning his work, his entries in the British Music Collection, an American Recorder magazine article on his work plus a link to sonosphere.org, which allows online access to a work that's exhibited in a museum. Surely, that'e enough?

HillaryHillaryspringfield (talk) 13:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Significant coverage in two reliable sources does not entail notability.

Reviewers are likely to find notability difficult to assess because there is such a melange of relevant and not-so-relevant sources referenced. For example, your source described as ""Sol Lewitt's Sentences on Conceptual Art". altx. Wikilink embedded in URL title (help)" is used to support the statement in the article "His work focuses on many of the principles highlighted in Sol Lewitt’s Sentences on Conceptual Art". But it does not support this statement, because it does not mention Wolters or his work at all, much less state any facts about what principles his work focuses upon.

The rest of the references have yet to have their relevance, reliability and significance properly assessed by any reviewer, as far as I am aware. Perhaps the review by User:Prabash.A was incomplete. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again for that. I'm mentioning more than two reliable sources though: The Guardian twice, the Telegraph, the Quietus, the BBC several times, a Recorder magazine. How many more should I find? I understand your Sol Lewitt point and will amend it. HillaryHillaryspringfield (talk) 16:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thus far, I've only looked at the sources that I've commented on. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I have now taken all less "important" references out and made things clearer. It would be great if you could take a look at my new submission. Thanks very much.

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) 11:26, 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/Mauriziomangione

I understand what you say, but I do not understand the difference between what I wrote and this article http://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_open-source_healthcare_software I'm a professor of 'universities of Pisa and are a CIO for Public Administration, I do not need to use a promotional tone. I know that my English is not good. Can I still work on the text to find the right way to present it, or just wasting my time? thank's best regards Maurizio Mangione

Mauriziomangione (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes you are welcome to continue working on the article submission if you believe you can meet the requirements listed at the top of the article submission page. At present your article does not appear to have any reliable independent sources.

You may also wish to read about Misplaced Pages's policy on WP:Conflict of interest. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Millis Transfer notability questions

Since a few editors have been reviewed my article on Millis, I'm posting my question here for whomever to address. I've been struggling with citing Millis Transfer's awards for environmental responsibility. I have outside references from publications but I'm told they originated from press releases. The information is acurate though and the publications that printed the information are well respected industry publications so I'm not clear why that's not a reliable source. Additionally, one of the editors directed me to look at a similar page created for Covenant Transport. It looks like all of Covenant's sources are their own web site. That company has not won any awards and or noted other "notable" contributions. I'm not saying I want anything done about that page, I am just unclear as to why Millis Transfer isn't comparable to that. I appreciate your feedback. Bringstaff (talk) 14:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I can't see any awards that would really establish notability on their own. A company paying its workers well is not hugely significant as far as notability is concerned.

Who suggested the Convenant Transport article as a good model to work from? Is it listed under WP:Good articles? Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Suzanne Romaine

Hi, I submitted an AfC Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Suzanne Romaine which came back declined because the reviewer said one of the paras needed inline citations; but I'm not clear which of the four types of statements that require inline citations this para is thought to contain: there are no direct quotations; since the article is not yet published no-one has challenged any statement; I can see no reason why anyone would challenge any of the statements, since the list of publications that follows demonstrates the areas of research referred to in the para; and none of the statements is contentious. Please advise! simontcope 15:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

This person does seem to me to be likely to be notable by Misplaced Pages's standards, particularly WP:PROF. I don't think it can reasonably be argued that describing the research as "extensive", or anything else in the paragraph, is particularly contentious. I have asked at User_talk:DGG for further advice. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Unquestionably notable. One of the provisions of WP:PROF is a named professorship at a major university. Nothing further has to be proven, and official sources are fine to prove it. The use of "inline citations" to decline articles like this is absurd--not even 3rd party sources are necessary, though they always help. DGG ( talk ) 19:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC) .

National Identities article submission

I confess to some puzzlement. I did what I thought was a routine thing, i.e., created an article about an academic journal that lacked a Misplaced Pages page Other, similar journals have articles, listed/linked on the page Nationalism studies. I did use outside sources, an article from a radio program interviewing one of the editors about the journal and one from the Times Higher Education describing the journal. I am puzzled.(Truegood (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC))

The Times Higher Education article is a solid gold source with extensive coverage. An interview with the editor is less useful for establishing notability, and the other sources are either not independent or are merely passing mentions. One or two more sources like the Times Higher Education one should be enough to establish notability in my opinion. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Hugh Murphy

Sorry - could really do with some help on this. My article has been declined because "it reads more like an advertisement" and the reviewer appears to believe that I have referenced material written by me. ( "not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed"). I have referenced everything that has been quoted, all of which are in published works and can be verified. Murphy died 15 years ago and as a Record producer he was held in very high esteem by the many famous people he worked with. I have a lot of material that I haven't been able to quote as they have been sent to me by email, letters etc therefore not published, and I have been unable to find anything anywhere that is detrimental to him or says anything other than he was a terrific person to work with. Being a Record producer is as much about the personality and the ability to get the best out of the musicians as technical ability, therefore I can't see why these quotes are not allowed. I can strip it right back to just saying which records he produced BUT this doesn't give any insight into the person he was. Can someone please tell me exactly what it is that the reviewer is objecting to? So many people in the music world were so pleased to hear that this article was being written about him that I really would like to try to get it accepted. Help please !! Ned1966 (talk) 17:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

There are two main problems: The lack of reliable third-party sources (your main source is an ebook that for all I can tell is effectively self-published) and the unduly promotional tone. As a random example, which source mentions his "extraordinary talents and abilities"? Do the Daily Mirror or the Guardian really discuss his "adaptability to working with various performers"? Which source says his funeral "was attended by many musicians who came to pay tribute to his talent and to his irrepressible personality", as opposed to people who used it as a social event to see and be seen? And so on... Huon (talk) 06:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Huon for getting back to me. I DO see where you are coming from re the ebook, so I'm contacting the author to find out who the publisher is. Once I establish that - is there any objection to using it as a source then? He interviewed a lot of people involved with Gerry Rafferty, all of whom knew Hugh extremely well so it is an ideal source (as long as not self published?) I also take on board the use of some of the adjectives describing him - it's difficult though, as much of these descriptions are either personal knowledge of him (I knew him as a young man back in the '60's) or came to me from his ex-wife, who was also the person who told me about the funeral. I don't think the many musicians who knew him, and knew the circumstances of his death, would have regarded it as a social event. I will see what I can do about "cleaning" it up. Ned1966 (talk) 09:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I have now heard back from Bryan Cooney - and yes - you are right - he did self publish, however he has written many books and is a well known sports journalist and has published other e-books (http://www.sportsjournalists.co.uk/sport-on-the-web/old-rascal-notes-his-50-year-journey-through-football/). He's pretty upset, asking if "wiki doubts his veracity" and is asking "Does this mean they are deeming Betsy Cook, John McBurnie and Jim Rafferty to be unreliable sources?"(His ebook is a biography of Gerry Rafferty). Ned1966 (talk) 13:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I have never heard of Betsy Cook, John McBurnie and Jim Rafferty, and I had not heard of Bryan Cooney either before I had a look at this draft, so I'm certainly not saying that Mr. Cooney's book is untruthful or inaccurate. However, assume for argument's sake that I self-published an ebook contradicting Mr. Cooney's. How are those of our readers who haven't heard of Mr. Cooney (and I'm generalizing from myself to the rest of mankind here but I expect that's the majority) supposed to tell that his account is correct and mine is wrong? Whether or not that's an issue here, there are enough topics with highly dubious self-published books to make Misplaced Pages by default require sources to be published by a reputable publisher. There's an exception to that rule if the author is an "established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications", but I don't think sports journalism would count as the "relevant field" in this instance. Huon (talk) 17:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from and I take your point about Bryan Cooney's book - but wiki is happy to accept quotes from newspapers, books, magazines etc - and we all know how they can get things wrong ! You could take this argument further and say that just because something is published doesn't prove it's correct. So I don't see the logic of not accepting published e-books. And you are right in saying that his expertise is not in the relevant field - although he has written several biographies they are of sports personalities. However I have now removed all the quotes from Bryan Cooney and also most of the adjectives describing Hugh Murphy. Incidentally, Betsy Cook has her own wiki page and both John McBurnie and Jim Rafferty are mentioned on many wiki pages, some in connection with Gerry Rafferty - although you may not have heard of them they are all famous in their own right.

Would you be kind enough to have another look and see if I have covered everything now? It doesn't say much about him as a person anymore but maybe there's enough there to make it worthwhile. Thanks for all your help. Ned1966 (talk) 18:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Greenhouse Product News

I'm being rejected because of referencing issue (as I'm suspecting is often the case for would-be Misplaced Pages authors). I've been through the site's referencing guides and read through all of the rejection notices. I just don't understand, based on those, why my sources aren't considered reliable/verifiable. They include independent sources. I've gotten two pages posted (Imaging Technology News and The Diapason (magazine)). These used the same types of sources as the ones I'm attempting to use for Greenhouse Product News and I really can't figure out what the difference is.

Gulpingguppy (talk) 18:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)Gulpingguppy (talk) 20:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm looking through all the sources you list that I can access:

1 scrantongillete.com - the publisher's own website so not an independent source

2 eplantsource.com - all it shows is that the publication does exist

3 lgrmag.com - the linked page doesn't mention Greenhouse Product News at all so why you even include it is a mystery

4 hrt.msu.edu - links to various articles published in Greenhouse Product News but doesn't say anything about the publication itself so like ref 2 it only proves the magazine exists.

5 mentormob.com - republishes an article from Greenhouse Product News, same as 4 it only proves existence

6 unh.edu - an article about a person listed in an article in Greenhouse Product News, again only proves that Greenhouse Product News exists.

None of the sources actually discuss Greenhouse Product News itself. You need to find an independent source that explains the importance/significance of Greenhouse Product News. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages:Articles for creation/Francis Bagfield

Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Francis Bagfield

I'm unsure as to why my article was declined. Clearly Barnsley midfielder Francis Bagfield is a notable athlete, and one more than worthy of a Misplaced Pages article.Dygaz (talk) 19:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Who says he is notable? What reliable sources have in fact taken note of him? Multiple independent sources must publish substantial information about him to support your claim that he is "worthy". "Worthiness" is not a consideration at all, it's notability that matters and notability depends entirely on sources. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Eric Lane

Can anyone tell me why this article was declined? Did it have to do with improper title formatting in the references?

Thanks.

(Aeberman33 (talk) 19:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC))

What the draft lacks is independent sources that discuss Lane himself in significant detail. While you're at it please get rid of the Amazon.com links, Misplaced Pages is not interested in advertising the professor's books, you should try to replace those links with references to published critical reviews. The reference title errors can easily be fixed, it's not a serious problem, I'll fix them for you now. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I've done a bit more than just fix the references. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Hello,

I have a question specifically regarding referencing. I wrote an article for submission, and it was rejected. I was provided with some suggestions for edits and one of the suggestions was to list more references, and or citations.

One of the citations requested is for work done with private furniture collections of bespoke furnitures. This citation is unable to be provided, as all of the transactions done have been through private collectors, therefore the sale is not public.

How does one go about providing a citation for this situation?

Additionally, most architectural projects do not have references, or online materials for metal providers. How else would one be able to prove work on projects?

Thanks in advance, any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Best, DMD

Dissimilarmetaldesign (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

This is one of the problems with writing about yourself or your company, which is not 100% prohibited but is strongly discouraged. First off, it's hard to be neutral; even subconsciously, people will praise themselves and leave out stuff they don't like about themself.

The other issue is, as you note, you personally know things about the company, but they can't be verified by anyone other than you. So for encyclopedic purposes, that information doesn't exist. Encyclopedias don't do interviews or cutting-edge research, we compile existing processed information. If your company did Project X, and the only way that can be proven is you attesting it or scanning a receipt, that's WP:Original research and not allowed. If, however, the Seattle Times interviewed you and noted "His company did Project X", then that we can cite, because we can footnote it saying "According to the Seattle Times". The Times is a professional paper who wants to get things right, so though they're not 100% accurate every single time, it's at least a WP:Reliable source we can refer to.

So when we ask for references, you can only cite the company itself for extremely basic and non-controversial info like founding date, location, etc. For anything like awards, criticism, list of accomplishments: it must be WP:Verifiable with published, professional works that are independent of you and your company, or frankly it just can't be added.

Does this sort of make sense? We can't take you personally at your word, nor believe everything a given company claims since they aren't neutral about themselves. We can only report what neutral, independent, reputable observers have stamped their "seal of approval" on. All good? MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Lana Z Caplan

Please tell me what needs to be fixed or altered in order for this to be accepted, I've altered things several times and I still do not know what else needs to be fixed. Thanks! :)

Anagram1001 (talk)

I'm not sure I see what the reviewer thought needed better sources - many of yours clearly are reliable, though many also are offline and thus harder to verify for most of us - that's not prohibited, though. One source that should be avoided is the Gallery NAGA website because that's her own representatives. That leaves the second half of the "work" section rather short on third-party sources. Huon (talk) 06:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/julie

Hello, thanks for your help, my article was declined, asking for better references. Before I edit and resubmit I want to confirm what needs to be changed, on the description of the article being declined, its says what you can do: Add citations, and above its mentioning verifiable referencing. My questions are am i suppose to change my references in general, or just the way i cited them, and are youtube, twitter, and website personal pages considered proper references? the link to the article is https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Oxnylia Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.4.209.254 (talk) 22:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions posted for you at Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Oxnylia. Also, if you have a Wiki account, please be logged in while communicating, otherwise it's hard for us to reply to you. MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

July 11

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Michael Wolters

ok, I have now had the comment: Would it be possible to clean up the references a little bit? APerson (talk!) What does that mean? In what way do they need cleaning up? As you can see there is a good list of reliable sources. Please tell me what to do next.... HillaryHillaryspringfield (talk) 07:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC) nw— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hillaryspringfield (talk • contribs) 00:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Note, article appears to be published: Michael Wolters. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Penguin General Cemetery

Hello I think, or at least I tried, to post this same query to the person who feedback to me overnight, but not sure if it uploaded - I'm a virgin to Misplaced Pages & my ignorance of using the website horrendous. Having said that, my little article has been rejected twice. First for incorrect referencing (rightly so I add) second for verification problems with said references. This bit I do not understand, & yes, I have waded through Wiki's instructions. In fact thus far I have spent 10hrs trying to get things right. All my cited references are in the State Library of Tasmania, some archival from the late 1800s & early 1900s. Others were locally produced booklets by the history group here (like a list of all burial records). The remaining are research by me published in international genealogy magazines, then complied into a compendium, also at the library. So I am wondering what else I can do in this regard. Is the article unpublishable as a consequence? On a separate matter, will it be easy for me to upload a picture I took of the cemetery to the draft. And finally, when I open my article on your site & hit the edit button, the editing function opens but does not allow me to use the templates (I found reentering the references easier than trying to edit them, which I still have not mastered). So my 10 hrs has largely gone into trying to edit the references. HELP please. Thanks. Baruinga (oops. I did not do the tilde bit when I tried posting to the last reviewer, so probably didn't get my query.) Baruinga (talk) 04:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll leave it to another to cover WP:Sourcing, but I fixed your WP:Sectioning for you to make it easier to read. And also you need to work on WP:Tone. Encyclopedic writing is very dry and factual, so lines like The little circular memorial garden, with its bench seat, commemorates the cemetery's tens of unnamed babies.Every person leaves footprints, their stories to be found and voiced. Honouring their lives ensures the survival of the community’s heritage... don't really fit in. Peachy-keen and okay for a magazine, newspaper column, etc. but that sort of editorialising or "stylish flair" gets in the way of the basic facts of an encyclopedia. While you're waiting on review, try to go through it with a keen eye to make sure you have a "Just the facts, ma'am" approach to everything. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Also note, there are some useful news articles that discuss the cemetery and its historical designation. These could help round out your sourcing by adding footnotable facts:

• http://www.examiner.com.au/story/1430083/cemetery-has-tourist-potential/?src=rss
• http://www.theadvocate.com.au/story/666568/council-to-fork-out-for-heritage-fight/

MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Bossalinis & Fooliyones

I have submitted Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Bossalinis & Fooliyones. It was accepted and moved to the main article space here yesterday. However, another user, Techatology (talk · contribs), added {{Refimprove}} and moved the article to Misplaced Pages:Articles for creation/Bossalinis & Fooliyones, saying "insufficient references (track listing)" here a few hours later. I think {{Discogs master}} at the "External links" section is sufficient. Additionally, you can find track listing here at BBC, for example. Either way, I doubt whether it is valid to move the article back to AfC just because of "insufficient references (track listing)". It clearly passes WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. Won't you please take a second look? 114.164.60.86 (talk) 04:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree and have moved the article back into the mainspace. I've left a message at Techatology's talk page. Huon (talk) 02:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Huon. 114.164.237.175 (talk) 18:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/ERKALE

Hi, I'm a bit baffled here. My article was rejected, but if you have a look at ANY article at List of quantum chemistry and solid-state physics software, you'll see that every one of them is as short as this one. Which makes sense, because there's no sense in typing out the same text three dozen times over for people who are not knowledgeable within the subject. That's why cross-links exist. Susilehtola (talk) 06:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree this decline reason wasn't really helpful or appropriate. There is another worse problem: All the draft's sources are authored by the same research group, which includes the prorammer. Those arguably are not third-party sources and don't really help establish the program's notability. For that we'd need sources from outside the programmer's own research group. Huon (talk) 02:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Michael Wolters

Hi, you said:

Submission declined on 11 July 2013 by Bonkers The Clown (talk). This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms, that are designed to promote or show-off the subject.

Can you please point out exactly where you think that this is the case? Do you think it would be better to take the "Reactions" section out and attach the notable references to the correspondent works in the work list? Please advise.

HillaryHillaryspringfield (talk) 09:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• I've no idea why that decline reason was used, but the article doesn't look too far off passing, as it contains references to Wolters in The Telegraph and The Guardian which talk directly about him, devoting at least several paragraphs to do so. The comments that have been left mentioning problems with unreliable sources and neutrality, particularly from Arthur goes shopping (talk · contribs), are fair comments that are worth listening to, but fundamentallty Wolters appears to meet the general notability guidelines. I will pass the article now. Ritchie333 11:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for passing it, Ritchie333. I'm relieved that you see it that way. One more thing...regarding neutrality: if this is referring to the section "Reactions", do you think it's better to remove the whole section? I'm presenting positive and negative points there and the overall point I'm trying to make, maybe not too successfully, is that his work divides the critics and I was trying to use the quotes in order to show that, not just to big him up. But obviously, that's not very clear. I'm grateful for suggestions from all you wikipedia people. HillaryHillaryspringfield (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• I passed the article because it contained the minimum standards necessary to have one - that certainly doesn't mean the article doesn't need further improvement. I would start by toning down some of the language, or at least attributing it to a source. For example, the sentence "Michael Wolters has maintained an outsider position in the world of contemporary music with works which deconstruct and question the traditional concert situation or which are designed for performance outside the concert hall." - this doesn't really mean anything much other than personal opinion - one man's "outsider position" is another man's "no hoper". However, the quotation "The music produced occasional striking moments, but not nearly enough to justify the resources needed for what, by definition, had to be a one-off performance.", being directly attributable to this Guardian source can go in, and the fact it's a negative review helps balance out the neutrality of the article, that should focus on the positive and the negative of the subject. By the way, tags are generally suggestions - if you think the issues addressed by the tags are resolved, just remove them. Ritchie333 16:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Anthony Curtis

Hi there

I'm trying to create an article on a living artist, called "Anthony Ewart Curtis RWA Visual Artist" I have uploaded several images of his work and these have IMMEDIATELY been jumped on with a big fat "NO!!" from the various people who take it upon themselves to patrol Misplaced Pages. No help, no advice....just, "NO!!" But, to be fair, a couple of well-meaning individuals have tried to add advice but it is all couched in Wikipedant terms which mean absolutely nothing to me. I have written the article and submitted it and IMMEDIATELY got... Yes, you've guessed, a big fat, "NO!!", no advice, no help. The article is in my "Sandbox" - it seems fine to me, nothing contentious, nothing awakward, nothing infringing copyright, nothing plagiarised. What I am struggling with here is that I keep getting the impression that I am hamstrung by the fact that this 85-year old man, who has worked very hard to avoid the commercial limelight whilst working at the cutting-edge of Experimental Art has nothing written about him, there are no sources to quote (plagiarise). I am getting a strong message that Misplaced Pages is merely a hashing together of other stuff that already exists, that there is nothing new at all anywhere in Misplaced Pages. So - here's the challenge to anyone who "works" for Misplaced Pages.............. How do I get an article successfully submitted that is essentially THE FIRST groundbreaking information about a person who, mark my words, will be considered amongst some of the very best Creative Artists working in Britain during the 20th & 21st centuries. Or will I just get the big fat, "NO!!" from another Wikipedant?

It seems a shame to me that genuine creativity is not recognised yet the likes of Kerry Katona (who?), Russell Brand and Graham Norton are lauded all over the Internet Shop.................

PLEASE, I would appreciate some help here, this is a serious project on which I have embarked

Steve Butcher

SJ Butcher (talk) 09:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

You are correct; if this is the first publication of ground-breaking material, then it is not appropriate for Misplaced Pages. Some alternative outlets are listed at WP:OUTLETDIR, or you could submit your work to a publication in the relevant field or pay to publish it yourself.

If the artist wishes to license some of his work, or low-resolution versions of some of his work, under the terms described at WP:CONSENT, then you or he could upload them to Wikimedia Commons here. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Birchmeadow Playing Fields

Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Birchmeadow Playing Fields

What is a independant reference?? What do I need to do to get this published??

Pippa.lewis Pippa.lewis (talk) 11:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Basically, we need to be able to prove that someone with a track record for fact checking and accuracy recognises the fields with the name you've given. We tend to go easy on places, and assume that if it's on a map, it's okay to go in. However, I've just checked contemporary Ordnance Survey coverage of the Telford area, and I can't obviously see anything called "Birchmeadow Playing Fields" near the Broseley area on 1:50,000 Landranger coverage (which is my de facto source for places in the UK). You'll need to find a map source like this. Ritchie333 11:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

See WP:Independent sources -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The guidelines for geographic regions, areas, and places may be useful reading too. Ritchie333 11:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Ariel Soffer

I submited an article on ARiel Soffer and I need help editing the ad, please review — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.162.86.65 (talk) 15:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "editing the ad"; Misplaced Pages is not the place for advertisement. I've done some copyediting, but you need better sources, and you should take a look at WP:Referencing for beginners on how to easily create nicely formatted footnotes to clarify which source supports which of the article's claims. Of your current sources, the Yahoo News link is broken and the source seems to be a copy of this press release, not a reliable source. The ABC Local website and one of the Life Extension Magazine articles are primary sources written by Soffer himself. The remaining source doesn't really say all that much about Soffer and largely quotes him instead of reporting on him. Quite a few facts given in the draft are unverifiable; for example I don't think any of the sources mentions poker. I don't think the current sources suffice to establish that Soffer is notable enough for an encyclopedia article in the first part. For that we'd need significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

I have also added a draft message box to the article that has instructions on how to submit the draft for a review, but if the issues with the sources are not resolved the draft will not be accepted. Huon (talk) 02:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Greenhouse Product News

I have been bouncing around Misplaced Pages for the last few days and I'm currently working on the above-mentioned article. Sadly, I have been rejected for the fifth time based on reference problems (my heart is bleeding, and it's terribly dramatic). I referenced two books that, all in all, seem to be very reliable sources and are entirely independent of the publication that the article is about.

I got this response on my current rejection--: "And please cite your sources using footnotes, instead of putting them seperately . The content in the sources must correspond to something in the article ."

Help me out, Misplaced Pages editors. Help yourselves out; you will be forced to deal with my apparent ineptitude until I can understand your standards. Gulpingguppy (talk) 15:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

When we say "The content in the sources must correspond to something in the article" the best way to do it is:

Roses are red and violets are blue.<ref>A. Gardener, ''The big flower book'' Green Publications, 2012. p.27</ref>

The reference goes immediately after the text it supports. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/The Vineyard Hotel

Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/The Vineyard Hotel Hi All

Can an experienced editor look at The Vineyard Hotel and identify the actual reasons it has failed in the initial submission? I've referred to mostly external sources for as much of the information as possible. Notability should be OK, due to the history of the building and winning a number of national awards. Similar pages for hotels include The_Lanesborough, Courthouse_Hotel, Goring_Hotel and Hempel_Hotel

Note two possible pages as spinoff - Sir Peter Michael - one of the founders of Classic FM, director of Cray computers, etc is the owner. Daniel Galmiche - michelin starred chef/tv personality is current chef. JonathanElder (talk) 15:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Many of that your third-party sources are problematic in one way or another. The first one is misrepresented (you claim Grace died in 1748 when the source says she married in 1774) and doesn't mention the house anyway. The second is a personal website without any indication of editorial oversight (making it unreliable), and it doesn't say what you cite it for (no mention of flats). The third also has reliability issues and is a bare-bones list entry; it also doesn't say what you cite it for . The fourth is not a third-party source at all. The fifth doesn't mention the hotel at all. The seventh is a press release, not a reliable source. Nos. 8, 9, and 10 mention the hotel only in passing or not at all, none of them writes so much as a single sentence. The twelfth suffers the same problem. For all I can tell you misrepresent the 13th; the Vineyard was nominated for best customer service but didn't win. That leaves us with the AA review and two organizations reporting on awards they themselves bestowed. That's not quite the significant coverage in reliable third-party sources we need, and the content that currently is based on those sources is negligible. My suggestion would be to look for news coverage (surely the opening of a luxury hotel made the news? Or the ten-year anniversary might have been an opportunity for a profile?) and travel magazines or guides, and to rewrite the content based on what the sources actually say. Right now the draft is missing what I'd consider basic facts for a hotel, such as the number of rooms. We could cite the AA for the extent of the wine cellar. Decanter.com discusses not just its quality but also the architecture. Notability shouldn't be a hurdle, but the quality of the sources, the lack of content, and the content's disjointness from what the sources say are problems. Huon (talk) 02:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Muhlenberg Greene Architects

My submission for the company Muhlenberg Greene Architects, a 93 year old architecture firm, with significant influence to the fabric of Reading, Pennsylvania, has been denied again. I have revised the previous submissions, according to comments, but the most recent denial has me stumped. "This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability." The firm is obviously influential and notable, and I have thoroughly referenced citations, using no less than 39 news articles alone, and removing references to the company's personal website, besides two blog posts. Could someone point me to specific problems with my article? Thank you! LvanS (talk) 15:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd say the problem with notability is due to the fact that few of your third-party sources actually discuss the company (as opposed to Frederick A. Muhlenberg or specific design projects) in any detail. So much of the firm's "influence and notability" seems to be bound to the person of Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg that it is likely more appropriate to improve the article on the man than to write a new one on his company. Huon (talk) 02:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Sepia (Restaurant) Article Help

Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Sepia (Restaurant)

Hello,

I am trying to write a short article for a Michelin Star restaurant, Sepia. I understand that much of the language is flowery and I am addressing that problem right now. However, one of the other comments I received was that I am not allowed to give hours of operation. However, I have been using another Michelin star restaurant's, Schwa, Wiki page as my template and they do have hours listed. The page also strikes as a very narrative tone. Is that appropriate to use? We are not looking to advertise the restaurant, we really just want it to be in the quick, easily accessible information that Wiki is known for. Please advise.

Thank you for your help.

Wagstaff

WagstaffWorldwide (talk) 15:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

That's the danger of just picking a random article about a similar subject as an example to model your article on - the example article may have serious problems and by following its example you end up introducing similar problems to the new article. When searching for examples to follow look for articles with at least an "A" class rating - you'll find it on the "Discussion" tab of the article in the "WikiProject" box. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

My submission on Cuzie was rejected

Hi. My name is Dave McDonald and I just published an article on Cuzie.com that was rejected. You cited that it looked like an advertisement. The thing is, I don't work for Cuzie in any way. I just found the site through my friend and quickly received a job offer after using the site. I was extremely happy with this and thought that I should create a page dedicated to the site because I feel it is an important one. I am a very recent Misplaced Pages account holder (I basically made my account to publish that Cuzie article), and maybe I did some things wrong. I thought I was writing about it in a neutral way. Could you help me? Thank you, Arctic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveMcDonald (talk • contribs) 16:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

My name is Arthur Wellesley and I think your article submission is written like an advertisement (for example "innovative and revolutionary"), misleading (you're seriously telling us that no other jobs website in existence allows the uploading of photos and video clips?), and also completely lacks independent sources.

You can read more about what sort of sources are required at WP:VRS. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Carlos Damas (2)

Hello, i'm trying to improve the folowing page: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Carlos_Damas_(2) This is about the best violin player ever born in Portugal, unfortunately almost all the sources are in Portuguese language. How to do!!! Thank's in advance!!! Caroline Adartists (talk) 16:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

If the sources are in Portuguese, não tem nehuma problema. Just cite your Portuguese news article or book exactly as you would any English source (you can use the "Cite" button at the top of your editing window). Sources are not required to be in the same language as the Wiki they're used on, though that would be helpful if possible. Oxala que esa ajude a você. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, also note you cannot cite Wiki articles on Wiki, that is circular reasoning. So you need to remove any footnotes to articles on English or any other language Wiki. After the article publishes, we can link the different language versions together, but you cannot cite Misplaced Pages to itself. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Matthew Vanitas, I made some changes, let's see if the article will be accepted. Caroline Adartists —Preceding undated comment added 23:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Stephen Felton

Hi I am not sure why my submission was declined. Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Stephen Felton I am trying to post about new artist in the New York Art World. This would help to increase their web visibility. This was my first one Thanks Artnews2013 (talk) 18:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

See the top of the submission for an explanation of why it was declined. It states:

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms, that are designed to promote or show-off the subject.

Do also note that Misplaced Pages is not the place to make entities more notable/visible. Thanks! Insulam Simia (/_contribs) 19:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Homologous behaviors

In his review (rejection) of my Article-for-creations (which has been given the name 'Homologous behaviors' although I intended it to be given the name 'Homology (psychology)'), Roger (Dodger67) wrote that my submission "provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter." However, the currently published (and analogous) page entitled "Homology (anthropology)" has the following as its entire content:

In anthropology and archaeology, homology is a type of analogy whereby two human beliefs, practices or artifacts are separated by time but share similarities due to genetic or historical connections. Specifically in anthropology, a homology is a structure that is shared through descent from a common ancestor. The concept was explored by the American archaeologist William Duncan Strong in his direct historical approach to archaeological theory. See also

Homology (biology)

My submission is much more comprehensive than this one; can you tell me why mine was rejected when this one was not? The major context for my new page will be provided by the page "Homology (biology)", which will link to my new page, and it seems redundant to include the information on that page on my new page as 'context' when that information is already present on the 'biology' page. Please advise.

Also, can you give me some insight as to how to change my top heading (title) to "Homology (psychology)" from "Homologous behaviors," which was assigned to it?

Thanks!

Dsmoore4 (talk) 20:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The article Homology (anthropology) was created in 2004. The Articles for Creation process did not exist at the time, therefore there would have been no way of rejecting it other than to delete it.

Your article submission has now been accepted, and I have also moved it to your preferred title. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Harry Willson

Hello, my article (http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Harry_Willson) has been submitted twice, and the first time it was declined because it did not adequately evidence the person's notability. I tried to fix that, and the second time I submitted the article, it was declined because it did not have reliable sources. I had nine different sources, many of which were news articles, but I don't know why those sources are not considered reliable. Please let me know what I can do to improve this article! Smtran (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

A search on Google for "Harry Willson Amador" turns up a few news articles you haven't yet cited, but generally speaking I believe this article meets our standards, so I have approved it. Note: under WP:Fair use since Willson is deceased you can add one photo of him to the article despite copyright. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Catherine Norton Sinclair

I would like to improve upon my work on Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Catherine Norton Sinclair by adding some photos and a bio summary table on the right. Can you give me some tips about knowing if the photos I've located are okay to use: http://digitallibrary.hsp.org/index.php/Detail/Object/Show/object_id/5846, http://www.picturehistory.com/product/id/15397. Also, how do I insert them?

Mark KeltyMarkkelty (talk) 21:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I think by "bio summary table" you mean an infobox. Please take a look at Template:Infobox person to see how to add this.

I can't access one of the photo URLs you give, and am uncertain on the other one, so I will leave others to comment on that. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The first image has a link to purchase the image, so I doubt it's copyright free. The original photo may be, but what you see there is a newer photograph taken of the older photograph in a frame. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Ted Sellers

Ted sellers is an African American internet entrepreneur who is best known as the founder of Business Marketing Power a top search engine optimization firm specializing in online marketing for startups. Ted Sellers has a true passion to lead, inspire and motivate. Ted Sellers founded Business Marketing Power in 2008. Ted sellers has worked at many start-ups, he continues to be part of many journey of online startups to develop the best web platforms. Some of his ventures include the following platforms; wordpress development, PHP, HTML5, Javascript, Java, XML, Adobe, CSS, MYSQL Smarty TPL, Website Accessibility & many more. Ted Sellers was born in 1983 in Baxley Georgia a city in Appling County, the second of three children. He attended Appling County High School in Baxley, Georgia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedsellers2002 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, the problem with your article is your only reference is "http://businessdirectory". As you can imagine a business directory is not a compelling example of serious coverage of Sellers' career. Please read the policy WP:Notability: for an article we require multiple, independent, reputable published works that cover the subject. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for creation/Medio

Hello I put an article up named Medio Misplaced Pages:Articles for creation/User:Winvite/sandbox and asked for it to be reviewed so I could improve it before submitting. After I put the tag for review up it was immediately declined by Techatology. I asked for further information and he could not have been more vague on how to improve my article, or what was specifically wrong with it. My post here shows that: TechTalkPage. I have spent an immense amount of time preparing this and I completely understand if there's something wrong with it, but I would like detailed information so I can fix it, not a pre-generated response. I have read the guidelines on notability multiple times through, so that is one of the reasons I don't understand it was rejected, because it meets all guidelines.

P.s. I did add aditional references since he posted that(not sure if those are enough or not) Winvite (talk) 23:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

There are some issues with the draft that should be fixed, but I don't understand Techatology's concerns either. You clearly give enough third-party sources to establish that the company is notable - seed funding is reported for many startups, but this is the first company in quite some time where I see news sources bothering not just with that, but also with the company's troubles and layoffs. That said, several of your sources don't actually say what you cite them for. The sixth source, VentureBeat, doesn't mention T-Online. The source cited for the layoff of "18 employees" doesn't give that number, and what it says about the reasons for the layoffs is completely unrelated to what the draft says. I haven't checked all the other sources, but that is a problem. Huon (talk) 02:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

July 12

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/King Kredible

hello i am asking that this page be created Wikinerd1200 (talk) 05:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

You have already created the King kredible article in mainspace. I'm not convinced this guy meets the guidelines for inclusion set out at WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO, but I'll keep an eye on it and see how things pan out. — sparklism 08:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I would advise you to move the article back into AfC space as soon as possible. In its current form it gives no indication of why it might pass the notability guidelines for musicians, since the artist is unsigned and has not generated any major, independent news coverage, such as an article in Rolling Stone. In its current form, it has a high risk of being speedy deleted due to a lack of indicated importance. Ritchie333 10:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/vedic astrology

Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/vedic astrology First tell me why my article was declined Please guide me which pages i need to create in wikipedia. I want to publish an article on wikipedia about vedic astrology but i don't know to publish this article what i need to do. I wrote this article by myself. So please help me to publish my article on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astrologynewsorg (talk • contribs) 05:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

You do not need to create any pages in Misplaced Pages. The article about this topic is at Hindu astrology. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

As Arthur notes, and as the alert at the top of your draft indicates, the article was turned down because we already have an existing article on the topic. Misplaced Pages does not maintain different articles by different people on the same topic. If there are issues you think should be covered, which are not currently covered at Hindu astrology, please contribute to the existing article. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Left hand, meet right hand: Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Bioscale

I addressed the issue the original reviewer had with the article (User talk:Techatology#Decline at Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Bioscale), but RadioFan claimed "With the exception of the Harvard Business Review and EPA the remainder of the references appear to be little more than reprints of company press releases". The Boston Globe, a newspaper with a 240k daily circulation, and the other independent sources apparently aren't good enough. What does it take? Two tablets? 70.79.73.253 (talk) 07:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

To me, this submission looks to demonstrate notability sufficiently. I'd welcome a second (third?) opinion. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I would decline the article if resubmitted in its current state. It only says what the company does, and where it got its money from. All companies make things, and they all need to be funded from somewhere, so nothing in the article indicates any particular importance for an encyclopedia article.

Misplaced Pages has a large, and ever increasing problem, with people trying to use it as an advertising service for their company. Therefore, the notability guidelines for companies are quite strict, and although the sources you have given are reliable, they are not necessarily independent. A particular problem with press releases is that papers and journals generally print any press release without comment - the source has not decided that the corporation is in any way special or worthy of note by doing so. Therefore, press releases are generally unsuitable. The best kind of source is one that reports about the company, but includes some sort of criticism in it. Ritchie333 10:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Aren't you making a big assumption here and veering off into OR-land? I find it difficult to believe that the Globe, recipient of 21 Pulitzer Prizes, or DC Denison (described here as an "Assistant Business Editor") stoop to publishing press releases. Lori Valigra, the Boston Business Journal writer, and Xconomy's Ryan McBride seem to have pretty solid journalism credentials as well. 70.79.73.253 (talk) 08:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing intrinsically wrong about a news outlet printing press releases, so I don't understand what your concern is. A good way of deciding whether a source is independent is to see if it contains any criticism. Most reviews of a product or a service do at least try and mention any issues, even if they're minor and the review overall is favourable. Ritchie333 13:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong if the outlet prints them labeled as press releases. You're claiming something entirely different: that PR is being published under the bylines of reputable reporters. Also, these aren't reviews, but news articles. Why would you question reporting about the opening of a facility or a new round of fundraising because of a lack of negative aspects? Would you also dismiss an article about a fatal accident because it wasn't balanced by positive reporting? 70.79.73.253 (talk) 07:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Kopex

Hi - why I can't put Polish wiki article about company as a source to english article about the same Comapny? My article was declined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackisback1912 (talk • contribs) 09:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• Your article has been tagged for speedy deletion as it is a copyright infringement of another site. Misplaced Pages articles must comply with the CC-BY-SA 3.0 licence, which basically means you cannot simply reuse information from another site without explicitly authorising that the information may be freely used and commercially resold. Please do not recreate it in this form. Other wikis are never acceptable as a reliable source, unfortunately. Ritchie333 10:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/William Osborne (writer)

Hi,

Can you tell me the exact sources that are deemed unreliable (Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/William Osborne (writer) Also, if I cannot find a source for a piece of infomation can it still be submitted? As I have seen articles on wiki that are not always referenced.

Thanks

Dan

Daniel Emmerson (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd say that about half of your sources are unreliable by our standards, namely IMDB, doublecluck.com and the Historical Novel Society. That's because these sites are either based on content added by random members or because they're affiliated with the subject. While lots of Misplaced Pages articles are either not referenced at all, or not very thoroughly, we have a policy about articles on living persons that demands special care with regards to reliable sources for such biographies. That aside, we need independent, secondary sources to determine a subject's notability. Not all writers are considered notable by Misplaced Pages standards, but in-depth coverage by reliable sources such as magazines and news reports may be a sign of notability. So you might want to look for more of those sources. De728631 (talk) 20:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Cathy Luchetti

Please, editor Techatology, be more specific on what needs explicit links or references to verify Cathy Luchetti's attributes, actions, accomplishments, what have you. I have revisted the article and find nothing--at least nothing obvious--that isn't substantiated by reference to significant sources. Are you claiming the LA and NY Times aren't significant sources? Bwisok (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

He was referring to the fact that the Works section and the Honors section have no inline citations in them at all. ~Charmlet 01:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Peter Rand (author)

Hi! I revised my article on Peter Rand on May 23rd in accordance with your suggestions, but I have not received any notice that it is being reconsidered. How can I get this article published at this point? Thanks! Ryau01 (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Ryau01

First, I fixed the link. Second, any article requires reliable, independent references to establish the notability of the article's subject. Right now you article does not have those. Take a look at the link in my last sentence for more info. Howicus (talk) 04:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Keith_N._Schoville

Hello,

I am working on the page Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Keith_N._Schoville. Several editors have flagged it as "Advertisements masquerading as articles" and needing to be more neutral in tone. One editor with the Online Chat said that it was too "friendly".

The subject in question is an academic and I have attempted to impartially list their academic works and to establish notability. Can you provide some concrete suggestions for ways to make it less friendly and to address the editors findings? I have studied the Misplaced Pages style suggestions with some care but it is not clear to me what is wrong or how to improve it.

Thank you! Bruce Kissinger (talk) 18:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

A few quick initial impression:

• "Dr. Keith Norman Schoville (March 3, 1928) was born in Soldiers Grove Wisconsin." is not a WP:Lead section, that's just chronologically the first thing that happened in his life. A Lead is more like: John Smith (1902-1941) is a Northern Irish adventurer and poet known for his anthology Poems I wrote and for his 1933 discovery of the Amazonia Foo tribe. The Lead should give a basic who/what/why/when/where that full encapsulates the high points of why we should bother reading about this person.
• Misplaced Pages doesn't generally call people "Mr." or "Dr.". It is of course key to mention he has a PhD, and to give his full name (Keith Norman Schoville) in the first line, but thereafter he should be "Schoville", not "Dr. Schoville" as his title is a given and its use implies a biased deference.
• This sentence is problematic: According to one source, "These talks, and a subsequent set of talks entitled the “I Dissent” series, serve as a model for ways in which Christian faculty can engage the ideas and structures of the university today". First off in this context you really should mention the source by name, since it's some other religious organisation so has its own agenda. Secondly, if this is a group that would be expected to agree with him, is their praise that Notable? Now, if this org or whatever member of it who said this is an important person, then it might be worth saying John Smith, head of the 3-million strong Fooian Church, said that Schoville's work "has had an extraordinary impact on my ministry" The way it's currently written (quote of unclear speaker on a site of a like-minded group), it's not really any better than "Acme Corporation says that Acme's New Designs Division is the most innovative and spectacular design shop on Earth." It just comes across as an attempt to shoehorn in compliments for no real educational purpose.

MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Al Schema

I am wondering how one Misplaced Pages master editor can say "Really, really good progress. Just looking at some of the comments, you've done a lot to improve this article. Just one thing: the "Early Life" section cites no sources. Other than that, stellar article" to another saying "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" all in two days time? I am at a crossroads right now to even give this site any more time if this is the way people will be jerked around by some. Thank you to the helpful and considerate on here so far. 8:11pm CT, 12 July 2013. PArnold.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Al_Schema

Unfortunately I tend to agree with the "notability not established" camp, and I expect TheOneSean didn't check the sources in sufficient detail when he found that one section didn't cite any sources at all.

To establish someone's notability we need to show that the person has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper articles about him. Many of your sources are not independent (such as his own Alderman web page or articles he co-authored), many others don't mention him at all or only in passing. There are also concerns about the sources' reliability, but when the sources don't say what they're cited for it doesn't really matter whether or not they're reliable. For example, the "Crystal Cave" source doesn't mention Schema at all and thus cannot confirm that Schema has taken up a project at that cave. Huon (talk) 17:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

July 13

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/importance of computer networking

respected sir/madam, can you please give me the reason as to why my article was rejected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikhit123 (talk • contribs) 03:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Greetings, as the tag at the top of your article notes, what you submitted is an essay, not a Misplaced Pages article. As a parallel, Abraham Lincoln (a basic biography of facts about his life and career) is an article, whereas "Abraham Lincoln Was the Greatest American President" is an essay (one person's perspective on a topic). If there are facts about the topic that are currently missing from the existing article Computer networking you can add them there. What I would suggest, go to Talk:Computer networking and tell the editors working on the article what you think should be added, and if they agree go ahead and add it. You could try adding it directly, but it may be that others would disagree with your additions, and you would end up having to discuss it anyway. But the main point is "essays are not articles" and we do have a current article Computer networking which you can contribute too instead. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Northeast of England Process Industry Cluster

Hi there I am adding links to relevant pages for the article Northeast of England Process Industry Cluster and I would like to add the acronym NEPIC to the title is this possible? Gairderek (talk) 10:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

You want to rename the article to "Northeast of England Process Industry Cluster (NEPIC)"? That's technically possible (see Help:Moving a page), but I don't think it's necessary or beneficial. People looking for the article will likely use either the full name or the acronym, not both, and we'd deliberately and needlessly make the article title less concise. According to the naming criteria an article title should be "no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects", for which "Northeast of England Process Industry Cluster" is entirely sufficient.

If you just want to create links to the article that add the acronym, that's also possible, via "piped" links: ] will link to the article and be displayed as "Northeast of England Process Industry Cluster (NEPIC)". If you use the new VisualEditor to create the links, as opposed to editing the source, creating such links is even easier: Write the text you want to have displayed, select the part of it that should be turned into a link, click VE's "link" symbol, and enter the target article's name into the dialog box that pops up. Huon (talk) 17:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

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

I have my article edited with endnotes and ready to resubmit. However, I worked on it in a Word File and have the bold, italic and endnotes embedded in the document. Is there a way that I can submit it to Misplaced Pages in this finished form? I'm worried about inserting this into your program for fear that the links to the endnotes will all be lost.

Thank you for you help, Rene Reid (Churchreform (talk) 14:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC))

I have reworked my article in a Word file complete with endnotes that are numbered in the body of the article and linked to the source. I don't know how to keep this format when I paste the article into your box. May I submit my article in the Word format? If not, please instruct me how to insert the endnotes.

Thank you, Rene Reid Churchreform (talk) 15:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I have rewritten my article in a Word file which is already formatted with bold, italics, and most importantly the endnotes. The endnotes are numbered in the body of the article and linked to the source. When I copy and paste this into your box, I lose all of the endnote numbers and links. I can redo the bold and italic notations but I don't know how to do the endnotes in your program. Is there a way for me to submit the article in a finished format to you in a Word file? If not, please instruct me how to do endnotes. The above description doesn't show me how to do that.

Thank you, Rene Reid (Churchreform (talk) 15:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)).

Greetings, generally speaking endnotes are created by placing the tags <ref> at the start of your citation and </ref> at the end of it, and placing the citation right in the body of the text where you'd like the actual little blue footnote number to appear. Then, at the bottom of the article you type {{reflist}} and that template will automatically number and list out all the footnotes you've pasted in the body of the text.

If you want a longer read, WP:Footnotes gives some more details, and there's a coding called WP:Refname you can use in order to create multiple footnotes to one book. NOTE: do not use "Ibid" or similar as a footnote, since paragraphs may get moved around over time, and the order of footnotes changed (which is also the great thing about Wiki footnotes, they automatically renumber themselves if the order is changed). MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Suleika Jaouad

Hi there, I'm wondering how to prove that New York Times columnist Suleika Jaouad is notable enough for a Wiki profile. Her columns/videoseries have been nominated for a duPont award and an Emmy Award. Here is my submission Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Suleika Jaouad

Resserpeizzil (talk) 22:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

To be considered notable, Jaouad must be the subject of significant third-party coverage in reliable sources. Interviews or her own writings are not considered independent sources, and passing mentions such as list entries don't help establish notability. Of your current sources only the Glamour magazine article may help in that regard, but "significant coverage" means more than one source; we usually require at least three to five good sources of at least a paragraph about Jaouad. News coverage of her award nominations could help, unless it's just a NYT report along the lines of "One of our own gets an Emmy nomination" - that probably wouldn't be considered a third-party source. Huon (talk) 22:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

July 14

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/nidhi bhanushali

why was my submisiion of article declined. article name was Nidhi Bhanushali — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yash poudel (talk • contribs) 01:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

You cite a single source, the subject's Facebook page. Facebook is not considered a reliable source, especially not for promotional claims such as "cutest girl of Indian television" or "the most prominent actor". Misplaced Pages content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper articles about her or reviews of her work in reputable TV magazines. Huon (talk) 03:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Suleika Jaouad

Hi there. Thanks for your help yesterday. I've added new references to Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Suleika Jaouad to ensure Suleika's notability. Is this article well enough referenced now? Thanks! Resserpeizzil (talk) 15:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The new sources are much better, but you took quite some artistic license when summarizing them (or more precisely, you have not at all tried to summarize what the sources have to say about Jaouad, but to find sources that vaguely sound like they might support your pre-written text). For example, a report on one talk by Jaouad is pressed into service as a source for the statement that she "regularly speaks at medical schools, hospitals, wellness centers, corporate conferences and universities". The source doesn't say so at all. The sources for "frequent contributor to NPR's Talk of The Nation and All Things Considered" are also just anecdotes that don't discuss how frequently she contributes. Conversely, multiple third-party sources mention Paris, the draft does not. You do have third-party sources mentioning Jaouad's boyfriend and her place of residence, but the one you cite for those statements does not. So I'd say there's quite some work to be done to get the draft's content in line with what the third-party sources actually say.

Whether the new sources are ultimately good enough is hard to tell. Some are opinion pieces, others don't so much report on Jaouad but use her to give a human face to a more general issue. Personally I'd say these sources don't yet suffice to establish that Jaouad is notable, but others might disagree - it's something of a gray area. Huon (talk) 18:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for creation/Vithal Venkatesh Kamath

I can't understand why u rejected my submission. Can I know the reasons. What else should I do for ur acceptance?Svpnikhil (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, there are a few problems:

• You need to be more careful copyediting your work: you often fail to capitalise words that should be capitalised (people's names) and then capitalise words that shouldn't be capitalised (like "is a Versatile Personality"). And do not use ALL CAPS (like you do on "ORCHID"). Please take a look at a basic grammar article to refresh your memory: http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/capital.asp
• Next, you need far stronger WP:Sourcing. Right now all you have is a blog, the website of the hotel he owns, and a page which is just a synopsis of a book he wrote. Also, they are not footnoted, but just lumped at the bottom of the article.
  • Find better sourcing; if he is important, has he been covered in news media, or academic books? Where you say he invented an extremely popular idli plate, is there some proof of that in news media? Note that blogs, forums, Facebook, etc are not valid sources, and Kamath's own webpage can only be used for very basic and non-controversial info like birthdate/place (you also didn't mention what year he was born). If you're not sure what's reliable, see Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources.
• Find as much media or academic coverage of him as you can, and add only those facts which are supported by the sources to the article. And all serious claims must be footnoted to something.
• When you have proper sourcing, do not manually type a "" etc. but instead use Misplaced Pages automated WP:Footnoting. There's a "Cite" button at the top of your editing window which gives you Templates for "cite news", "cite book", etc.

Let us know if you have further trouble. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:09, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Also note another user gave you pretty much this same advice: User_talk:Svpnikhil#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Katya Sourikova

Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Katya Sourikova

Hi, I recently submitted an article 'Katya Sourikova' but have so far been rejected because "This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability" and that I did not meet the criteria. But the article lists two notable sources. As required: "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself." The two sources being 'Cadence Magazine' and 'Jazz Dünyasi Magazine' is there something else I am missing? Or do I need to provide extra information about the two magazines? Any help is very much appreciated.

Tim

Tfarmstrong (talk) 22:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I think more sources than those two would be needed. I can't tell how good the Cadence source is since there's no link. The Jazz Dünyasi Magazine reference is very brief, and doesn't really show that Sourikova is notable. Howicus (talk) 23:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Copyrighted material

I'm trying to submit an article on Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Globodera ellingtonae in the US/kuznia for a class project. The article was rejected due to copy right violations but I don't understand where the issue is so I can fix it. Can you offer any advice?

Thanks! Rita Kuznia (talk) 23:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• WikiProject Articles for creation
• Misplaced Pages help forums