Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2012 September 25
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < September 24 | << Aug | September | Oct >> | September 26 > |
| 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. |
September 25
[edit]Review of User:Beginings/Hidayat Khan
[edit]I am writing an article for Hidayat Khan which got deleted 2-3 times. I am new to wikipedia and have written basic information. I do not know how to add references. Please let me know. When i add under Ref. a link to another website from where i took article, the code shows in the main page rather than just the link. Beginings (talk) 08:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Begining Article is Begining/Hidayat Khan
- See WP:Referencing for beginners. Wikipedia considers itself not a reliable source; links to external websites are produced by single square brackets. For example, "[http://www.google.com/ this link]" will look like "this link" (and links to Google). You need to show that Khan has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of him to establish his notability, and reliable sources are also required to allow our readers to verify the article's content. For example, the article says Khan composed the music for Kama Sutra: A Tale of Love, but IMDb (which is usually not considered reliable) disagrees and says he was just one of the players while Mychael Danna composed the music. Huon (talk) 13:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Once you've made changes recommended by the editors, how do you load the article back up again to be reviewed? I've saved the changes, but was expecting a notification to say my Article for Creation is waiting review. Thanks. DrLilliput DrLilliput (talk) 11:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- You can resubmit it either by following the instructions in the 18 July decline message (use its click here link), or you can manually resubmit it by adding {{subst:submit}} to the very top. However, I don't think you have sufficiently addressed the last reviewer's concerns. The draft still reads like an essay, and major parts are at best marginally relevant to the article's topic. For example, the attack on Lübeck had nothing whatsoever to do with the hotel (even less whether or not Lübeck was a legitimate target), and at least one of the sources for the Bath Blitz section doesn't mention the hotel at all. Similarly, the coverage of John Wood is much too detailed; we have an article on him that can be referred to; only those details directly relevant to the hotel should be mentioned in the article on the hotel. Even worse, sentences like "Wood was undoubtedly a driven visionary and perhaps very difficult to do business with" are editorializing and not of value to the readers. Is the difficulty of doing business with Wood relevant to the hotel, and if so, how? If not, why mention it? And is it equally possible that he wasn't very difficult to do business with? If so, why mention it? If not, why add "perhaps"? The draft is rather full of adverbs like "thankfully", "sadly" or, as here, "undoubtedly". These express a personal opinion and should be avoided. I also have my doubts about the sources. I don't have access to many of the books, but do all of them really discuss the Francis Hotel? Even if I had access, checking them would be quite a task since you don't give page numbers. Huon (talk) 13:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
The article about Manuscript Pen Co Ltd is being created/edited by me, Malissa Stockbridge, shareholder (via Highley Pens Ltd) and Director/Company Secretary of Manuscript Pen Company Ltd ("Manuscript"). It has been rejected at the moment because of what appeared to be infringement of copyright, however, all relevant copyright/trademark information included in the original article belongs to Manuscript.
The D. Leonardt & Co trademark 2794 belongs to Manuscript Pen Company Ltd. Can I provide Wikipedia with proof of ownership so that this trademark can be included on this Wikipedia article? Manuscript owns the copyright on our website. Can I refer to product pages on the Manuscript website? or do I just give the main website address?
I am editing the article to remove any content which is not impartial but would be grateful for your assistance with copyright issues Malissastockbridge (talk) 14:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia articles may not use copyrighted text except in the form of brief quotes that are deemed necessary to make a particular point. It does not matter that you might be the owner of the copyright or that you are employed by the copyright owner. You may mention trademarks in the article but you may not include a trademark symbol (® or ™) in the text. However you first need to read the rules regarding conflict of interest. Roger (talk) 14:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- Technically Wikipedia articles may use copyrighted text if it has been released under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License by the copyright holder and confirmation of that release has been submitted to "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org". However, it's often easier to rewrite the text so that it no longer violates copyright. The draft's main problem was its complete lack of reliable sources that were independent of the subject. All but two were the company's website, another was a website about a former owner written by a company employee (you, I believe), and the last one was a history of the trade written by that former owner. A trade history like that last one would be a good source if its authore weren't as closely linked to the business. My suggestion would be to look for similar sources with less of a connection to the company you want to write about, and maybe for newspaper coverage. Of course it might be wiser to leave the article to be written by someone else because of your own close connection to the topic, as pointed out by Roger. Huon (talk) 14:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Could someone please help me determine why the proposed BRHC entry is not submittable on the basis of citable references when these are:
http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Reading_Hockey_Club http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Southgate_Hockey_Club http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/East_Grinstead_Hockey_Club — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrmoosehead (talk • contribs) 16:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- While other insufficiently sourced articles exist, that's no reason to create more. Your draft at least has some secondary sources, but they don't provide significant coverage of the club, and per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, routine news coverage of sporting events is insufficient. Even worse, your sources don't even say what they're cited for - for example, the statement "The mens 1st XI reached National League status in 2010 to much acclaim" is sourced to the local paper which mentions that they didn't win any of the awards they had been nominated for, but doesn't say anything about acclaim. Many of the basic facts, such as the founding date, the number of teams or the claim that the number makes them "one of the largest in Yorkshire", are entirely unsourced. Huon (talk) 17:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Accessing the article through search engines
[edit]Hi,
I created an article for James Sandler (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/James_Sandler), which can be accessed through wiki, but not by just googling the subjects names and "wiki", which was possible at one point.
Is this a google issue, or is there something I can do in the article to make it more prominent?
Many thanks!!! Bobfish23 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobfish23 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Bobfish, this is a search engine optimization question, but at this point it boils down to the fact that Google visits websites every few days (time depends on the website's activity as well as how often it is updates). Only once the Google crawler visits that page does it show up in Google. Give it a week and it should show up. The page would get more prominent with inbound links from other websites going to that page, but Wikipedia being Wikipedia, that's likely a non-issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 21:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
I wrote Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Elisabeth Peltier and I am willing to improve the article in order to meet Wikipedia's guidelines, but I don't see how to respond to the reliable source denial. The explanation box lists Google Scholar as a reputable source, and already included a link to Google Scholar in my original submission. Please let me know how I can improve this article.
Thank you,
21:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- That's a misunderstanding: The link to Google Scholar is meant to help find sources; Google Scholar is not a reliable source on its own (and even if it were, it doesn't have much to say about Peltier). The other sources you provide, her employer's website and the paper she wrote, are not independent sources. What we need is significant coverage by unrelated sources writing about Peltier so we can establish her notability, and to allow our readers to verify the article's content. For example, how can I verify that she was born in Louisiana? None of the sources say so. Which source says that the "more litigious environment in the United States provides a reason for higher auditing fees"? Is that a result of Peltier's own research, or a well-known fact of basic economics (that I'm unaware of)? (As an aside, more litigious than what? Going by the name, ADRs are issued only in the US, aren't they?) The draft also provides very little context and no links to other articles. I ha no idea what an ADR is; a link to American depositary receipt would have been helpful. Such a link could be generated by code like this: "[[American depositary receipt]]" gives "American depositary receipt", "[[American depositary receipt|ADR]]" gives "ADR" (same link target, different text). But that's less important than the issue of sources; we cannot accept an article which does not establish the subject's notability. My suggestion would be to look for newspaper coverage or for academic papers discussing Peltier's work (written by others, not by herself!). Huon (talk) 22:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)