Help desk
< April 19	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 21 >

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.

April 20

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Banff International Research Station (BIRS)

Sorry, I've submitted revisions again :-\. Could someone please delete all but the most recent submission? Is there a way that I could do that myself?

I've added a bunch of 3rd party references, including links to news media, government websites, and funding agencies.

I would like to upload images -- logo for BIRS, photo of the facility --, but apparently my access level isn't high enough. How can I make that happen?

Thanks!

Brentkearney (talk) 00:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done by Davidwr with this edit. You can easily do so yourself: The submission messages are created by code like this: {{AFC submission|||ts=20130420002109|u=Brentkearney|ns=5}} Remove excess instances of this code, and you'll get rid of the duplicate submission templates.

The logo is likely copyrighted and not released under a free license. Wikipedia's non-free content criteria say that such logos may fall under fair use, but that they must be used only in articles proper, not in drafts. Thus we cannot upload the logo yet. Once the draft is accepted, you can either use WP:Files for upload, or your account may be old enough that you may use the File Upload Wizard yourself - that only takes four days and ten edits.

Regarding the photos of the facility, did you take them yourself? Do you own the copyright? Are you willing to release them under a free license such as the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License? If so, you can upload them to the Wikimedia Commons via their Upload Wizard. If the images aren't freely licensed, we cannot accept them because free equivalents likely could be produced.

Regarding your references, you still cite multiple unreliable sources such as the blog or press releases. For Wikipedia, sources are reliable if they are subject to editorial oversight and have a reputation for fact-checking, something most blogs and all press releases don't share. You could cite the BIRS' own press releases for uncontroversial details such as the founding date, but claims of "remarkable growth and success", for example, do require a third-party source that has indeed remarked on the success - or more precisely, that claim would even require a third-party source that called the success remarkable. Huon (talk) 01:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Prof. Arun Kumar Sinha

Hi

Can anybody give me feedback about this article "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Prof. Arun Kumar Sinha" submitted by me for a review. It was earlier declined on technical grounds for being 'blank submission'. Some of the editors have made it cleaner. Can anybody suggest, how does it read--good enough for acceptance. How to improve.

awaiting a response. thanks.

Saramohanpur1940 Saramohanpur1940 (talk) 04:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say there are currently two problems with this draft: The sources and the tone. Five of the ten sources are authored or co-authored by Sinha himself. Aboureading is a blog, and while blogs are borderline because they are often self-published and not subject to editorial oversight, what we cite are the comments - definitely not a reliable source. Both The Extraordinary Saga of an Ordinary Person and The Strong, Brown God apparently were written by Sinha's sons and should be considered primary sources, not the third-party sources Wikipedia content should be based on (and quoting the latter in its entirety is a copyright violation). The Centenary Year Presentation seems to have been written by members of the college in order to celebrate the college - that would again be a primary source. That leaves us with a single reliable, independent source: The Times of India obituary. That is not enough to base an article on, and once again we should summarize in our own words what the sources say, not quote them verbatim. Furthermore, large parts of the draft currently don't cite any sources whatsoever. You should try and find more good sources: Newspaper articles about Sinha, or peer-reviewed scholarly papers discussing his work (written by others, not by himself or his sons!). For the technical details of adding Wikipedia-style footnotes, please see WP:Referencing for beginners. If some of the draft's content cannot be verified from such sources, it should be removed.

So much for the sources. The second issue is the draft's tone. The draft currently reads like an essay and repeatedly expresses the author's opinion. Wikipedia articles may cite other persons' opinions when they are relevant (say, "John Doe writing in the Journal of Anglistics, called Sinha an exemplary scholar."), but they should not express opinions of their own. Huon (talk) 15:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Houn, I am so very thankful to your comments. Largely, I agree with you. The article "The Extarordinary Saga of an Ordinary Person' is about Prof. Sinha's father written by Prof. Sinha's elder brother--and published in a reputed newspaper of its time way back in 1965. That source, I think should be given more waightage and some quotation from it to just underline the family environment of Prof. Sinha should be in order. However, I will try to find some more independent sources.

Tone, I would review again so that there is some objectivity in presentation. I hope to continue receiving your guidance. Thanks again for making the write-up look neater.

best Saramohanpur1940 Saramohanpur1940 (talk) 07:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NEW EDUCATION POLICY 1986

WHAT IS THE HISTORICAL EVENTS THAT TOOK TO CREATE NEW EDUCATION POLICY 1986 AND WHAT IS THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN IT? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.204.99.163 (talk) 08:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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. Two further issues: You shift key seems to be stuck, and it might help if you added which country you're inquiring about. The answer might depend on that. Huon (talk) 15:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:KFFOWLER/sandbox

I'm not sure that I have managed to submit my latest article because I cannot find it listed in the queue for review. Maybe there is some confusion over its title. It should now be Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The M. Elizabeth Osborn Award. It is a revision of my earlier submission of an article titled Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/M. Elizabeth Osborn which was rejected. The new article is focused on the award itself, named for Ms. Osborn, although of course much of the copy (about 50%) is the same and might perhaps cause some confusion. My question is simply, Is the new piece in line for review? Thank you! KFFOWLER (talk) 18:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have submitted it correctly; I've moved it to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/M. Elizabeth Osborn Award since the award is more commonly referred to without the leading "The". I don't think the draft will be accepted, though, since it is heavily based on primary sources, several sources mention neither the award nor Osborn, and the content about Osborn is far too detailed for an article about the award; see WP:COATRACK on that. Huon (talk) 18:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Huon! I appreciate the quick response and also your advice. I will do some further editing in hopes that by the time it is reviewed it can meet standards. KFFOWLER (talk) 19:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Published poetry containiong contest winners in the years 2007-2008

Just after the twin towers were attacked and the '911' call for war was made. I wrote a poem about about the toweres. I let a freind read it and she submitted it to a poetry contest. I recieved a letter saying that my poem would be published in a book of poetry, consisting of winners. I no longer have a copy of the poem. It was under my married name Dawn Adams. However I am unsure if she added a middle initial or name and I'm not sure she spelled my last right. Here are the possibilties: Dawn Adams, Dawn Addams, Dawn M. Adams, Dawn M. Addams, Dawn Marie Adams, Dawn Marie Addams.

My question is: How do I find this book? My only copy of the Poem was destroyed in the fire. It was named 'Twin Towers' or 'United we stand' somethng along those lines. Is there any way for me to find this poem and or the book so I can order it. It was either the same year as the towers wre attacked or within the next year. I wrote it the day of the towers, and it's possible she even put it there then.

Can you help me find it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.250.252.208 (talk) 20:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can help you with that; I'd say your best bet would be asking your friend about whom she sent the poem to. I tried searching with Google Books, but without either the exact name of the author or the poem's title that's like searching for a needle in a haystack. Anyway, this is not the right place for such questions; you may want to ask at the reference desk instead. Huon (talk) 21:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/European Young Chemist Network

Dear,

I would like to get some advice regarding my writing style concerning the following article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/European Young Chemist Network.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyoungchem (talk • contribs) 21:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That tone sounds rather promotional ("was given the opportunity to build on its success seen at previous congresses", for example), and you don't cite any third-party sources. You should summarize what independent sources have to say about the network in a dry, neutral tone. You may also want to have a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest. Huon (talk) 21:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]