Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2012 May 26
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < May 25 | << Apr | May | Jun >> | May 27 > |
| Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages. |
May 26
[edit]ugandas zi code
[edit]if some one ask me for ugandas zip/postal code how would i say — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.0.4.86 (talk) 07:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. Please consider asking this question at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what the Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps. Pol430 talk to me 08:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I have a problem here,
I have just written up two articles "Role of Douglas Haig in 1918" and "Reputation of Douglas Haig", both submitted 20 May 2012.
Douglas Haig was Britain's commander-in-chief during much of the First World War. His role in the war has always been highly controversial, to the point where he was a public hate figure for many decades. You only have to look at some of the debate on the talk pages. I am working hard on this to give the man a full biography which reflects up-to-date works (the existing biog was flagged with a "bias" tag over a year ago, before I began work on it).
They have just been declined by a reviewer.
The first has been declined on the plain wrong grounds that it is not "notable" (which is as silly as a British reviewer claiming that Eisenhower, MacArthur, Patton or Robert E. Lee are not "notable") and is not referenced to "independent sources" - I am trying to include references to as many up-to-date books as possible, but the article is in fact already extensively referenced to books written by history professors in the last twenty years, including flagging up a number of minor controversies between them.
I have been working on Haig's main biog on wikipedia, on and off, for about a year, and most of what I have added to it has stayed in place - which means that it must have met the approval of many of those who have looked at it.
The second has been declined on the grounds that it ought to be "merged" with the existing biog. The point of the two spin-off articles (and lots of famous people have spin-off articles) is that the main article has grown too long and there simply isn't enough room to expand it further. Hiag's role in the controversial battles (the Somme in 1916 and Third Ypres/Passchendaele in 1917) are just skated over in the main article at the moment, as is the Hundred Days victories in 1918 which are covered in more detail in the spin-off article for 1918.
The problem is that the man's role is so central to Britain's World War One role - as much top-level political decision-making as front line command, far more so than any WW2 general in the UK or the US, that there just isn't enough room to get it into one article.
I should like to have this reviewed please.Paulturtle (talk) 11:08, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- No one is saying Haig isn't notable; the question is rather whether his role in 1918 is notable enough for a stand-alone article. (For comparison, we don't have Role of Robert E. Lee in 1865.) With sources such as Peter Hart's 1918: A Very British Victory that may actually be the case, but on the other hand, much of the information may be placed in related articles such as Spring Offensive and its sub-articles on the separate battles. My advice right now would be to raise the issue at Talk:Douglas Haig, 1st Earl Haig and ask for community consensus on the best place for this information. The Military history WikiProject would probably be a good place to ask for more community input on that question. Consensus may also turn out to be that this level of detail is excessive - while Wikipedia is not paper, it cannot be expected to offer the level of detail provided in dedicated textbooks. Huon (talk) 12:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe so, although given the way wikipedia grows and spawns it's probably only a matter of time, and it's just a pity to see solid, well-researched information rejected on the plainly false grounds that it failed the "golden rule" of using "independent sources". Lee's military role isn't riven around with disputes about the intrigues with which he attained his command, disputes over whether he should be sacked or subordinated to a foreign (?Mexican :) )supreme commander, why the politicians allowed Antietam and Gettysburg to happen, and the decisions he took at those battles or even how much damage they inflicted on the enemy - not to anything like the same degree. Nor was it the case until recently that Lee was damned as an incompetent in popular mythology - scapegoated for the war itself - whilst nowadays one encounters a smaller group of somewhat better-informed enthusiasts who sometimes need to be gently reminded that myths grow up for a reason and that the man had his faults (which is why the article got slapped with a bias tag). The bigger point still stands that taking Haig's role in WW1 as a whole and his reputation after the war one we are still left with a topic a bit too big for a single article.
- The military articles on 1918 are a bit thin so I've no objection in principle to moving a lot of the detail there and then try to compress the reputation bit back into the main article.Paulturtle (talk) 13:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- The title is not a good one at all - it could easily be read as if "1918" is the name of a movie or a play. Roger (talk) 13:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
First: I am NOT Petra Aigner Second: my contribution for "Petra Aigner" was denied as unsignificant by Millermk90 (talk). Third: Please notice, that all informations on her significance are now provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leontari1 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- All the sources you provide are primary sources: Websites of organizations with which Aigner is affiliated. To establish notability we need significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, for example independent news coverage of her award or scholarly articles discussing her work (written by others, not written by Aigner!). Huon (talk) 22:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)