Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2013 March 28
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < March 27 | << Feb | March | Apr >> | March 29 > |
| 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. |
March 28
[edit]Please check this
[edit]Dear editors: I am new at reviewing, and I would appreciate it if someone would check my work on this submission: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Taxonomy for Psychological Interventions Thanks, I just want to make sure that I did it correctly. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- Looks excellent to me. The comment is a nice addition to the appropriate canned response. Huon (talk) 13:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Ridzine (talk) 06:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)Rida Nadeem
- How may we help you? I had to decline your draft because it was largely unsupported by reliable sources. To be considered notable, Khan must have been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources such as newspapers or reputable film magazines. Ridzine might be a reliable source, but on its own it's not enough. Huon (talk) 13:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
text copied from another Wikipedia article
[edit]While reviewing this article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Family of Secrets I came to realize that it is very similar to a section of this article: Russ Baker and that an editor who had worked extensively on the Baker article (although not the originator) had created the Family of Secrets article. I was going to tag it as duplicate, but perhaps this is the editor's way of suggesting a split of the Baker article. What should be done here? —Anne Delong (talk) 11:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, this is a proposal to split the Russ Baker article. I'd say we should review it on the merits; if the book is independently notable, it should indeed receive an article of its own. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2013 March 17#Review of User:Bn/sandbox for the author's comments on the duplication. Huon (talk) 13:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll leave this one. I guess one of the problems of Afc is no talk page, but I suppose a comment at the top of the page would make the intentions clear. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Strange redirect
[edit]Dear editors: I was reviewing a page User:Articles for creation/W. Drake McFeely (2nd copy), which can't be moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/W. Drake McFeely (2nd copy) because that title is already taken up by a redirect back to the first article. Is there such an editor as User:Articles for creation? I am confused. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- There is no User:Articles for creation; the draft's author, Brooklynbooklit, had moved the page. I've moved it back (we can move articles over redirects if the target has a trivial edit history) and will leave a note at the author's talk page. Huon (talk) 12:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks again! —Anne Delong (talk) 13:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
two connected submissions
[edit]Dear editors: Could someone with more experience sort out this pair of submissions: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hookson and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hookson (company)? It seems that one user started an article about the company, and another user has taken over its developement on a separate page, creating partial duplication. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
And a similar thing has happened with Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Perfect City and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Perfect City (musical), which have been edited by several people, unless it's the same person without logging in from several computers. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- I've declined Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hookson (company) as an advertisement and left a comment about the other copy of that draft and the licensing issue. I've also declined Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Perfect City (musical) as a duplicate since Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Perfect City is currently submitted for review. I haven't checked that last one. Huon (talk) 19:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
Thank you for your reply to my question below and have put my responses below:
I am querying why the reference sources quoted and the article for submission keeps getting declined when these are valid external sources and when other authors who have fewer cited sources and fewer books published by reputable and international publishing houses are accepted. This is a genuine attempt to create an information source for users. Pauline Rowson is also listed as a notable alumni on an existing Wikipedia page.
In answer to the points you raise in order:
The references
Her biography at lovereading.co.uk
Answer: it is a site that recommends books to book lovers.
Her biography at FantasticFiction.co.uk, which does not show any evidence of editorial oversight either. It might be a reliable source; I'm not entirely sure - but much of that biography seems to be cropped from other reviews or articles, and it would be much better to cite the original sources.
Answer: It is a well used bibliography website and they take the author bios from the author websites
Her own publisher, clearly not an independent source.
Answer: Surely an international Publisher is a reliable source. Perhaps I have put this information in the wrong place?
Besides these problems, the sources don't actually support all the draft's content - for example, none of the sources (not even the Wikipedia article) mention Rowson obtained a Diploma in Marketing or that her books were translated into Indonesian.
Answer: OK fine understand what you mean here.
You do have some sources that are truly reliable and independent, such as the Portsmouth News, and that might be turned into references, but currenty they're just mentioned as external links.
Answer: I will look at this and move them to the Reference section
Furthermore, it would be a great help to both the reviewers and to the readers if you could use inline citations and footnotes to clarify which reference supports which of the draft's statements.
Answer: Is there a relevant section you can refer me to on how to do this.
Local news sources - wasn't really sure if they were sufficient to pass the article, being all restricted to Portsmouth and a few other places, rather than nationwide coverage. If you've got anything like a book review in The Telegraph or The Guardian, that would be an excellent source to use.
Answer: There are two book reviews from one of the major publications in America 'Publishers Weekly' which is surely notable and as worthy on the same level as the UK's Guardian and Telegraph. I have put them on External Links so will move them to References and hope that helps.
Thank you.
Arogerspr (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia requires reliable, published sources that are independent of the subject, sources that are subject to editorial oversight and have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, sources like newspapers or reputable literary magazines. Books published by an international publisher might be reliable sources, but the publisher's sales blurbs are not independent sources on the authors because the publisher is likely to be biased in the authors' favor - it has a financial interest in promoting them and their works, and the publisher's website isn't subject to the same kind of editorial oversight as the published books. Similarly, if FantasticFiction.co.uk takes the biographies from the authors, it cannot be considered an independent source - basically, the subject has written her own biography. Publishers Weekly is indeed a good source, but you shouldn't just move the links but summarize what the reviews say about Rowson - that they call her seventh book "slow-moving" but laud the eighth for "convincing characters and a coherent plot", for example.
- Regarding footnotes: See Help:Footnotes and WP:Referencing for beginners. Huon (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
@ :Huon|talk]]) Hello, Huon: Thank you for your response to my query about the article I submitted for review (Eleanor Spiess-Ferris). I appreciate your clarifying the status the the article as currently still under review. Please also let me address one possible objection you mentioned, that being your comment about the official Website of the artist being cited, and also that of her son. Neither of those are "primary sources" for other than elementary data. As you may have noted, I have a dozen+ other citations, all from reliable newspapers, established art magazines, books and other independent media sources, all of the kind you suggested. Perhaps the confustion stems from my mistake: I should have not added the official Websites to the citations list, but only included them in my "other sources" listings. Thank you again. Kindest regards, Umberto3000 Umberto3000 (talk) 17:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'd call the claim that "She has received numerous major art awards and citations" anything but elementary data - citing Spiess-Ferris for that claim seems rather self-serving. If those are indeed major art awards, surely they were covered by third-party sources? Furthermore, the current sources don't actually support all the elementary data they're cited for - neither her own website nor her son's mention her husband's name or the fact that she lived in Albuquerque before returning to Chicago.
- Also, according to Google Books, Spiess-Ferris is the co-author (or even the sole author) of "Eleanor Spiess-Ferris: An Artist's Journey". The only sources for her job at Evanston Art Center are herself and her employer - no secondary source for that. The only sources for her poetry are herself and her publisher - no secondary source. Wikipedia content should be based on reliable, independent sources. Major parts of this draft are based (if you can call it that) on herself and organizations she's affiliated with.
- As an unrelated aside, if you cite 260-page books, page numbers are helpful. As another unrelated aside, I'm not quite sure how one can misread "Wayne" as "Esynr", but it's interesting that both you and Eleanor Spiess-Ferris herself managed to do so. Huon (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)