Help desk
< May 6	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 8 >

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 7

I need a help. Youth time

good day! it was a draft article The Youth time about movement, it was removed. Now I want to finish this article. prompt, am I need to edit articles in the last blank and then put up for discussion? thank you Tanya ZAV. (talk) 04:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the problem. There are currently three drafts, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Youth Time (YT) International Movement, Wikipedia:Articles for creation/The Youth Time (YT) International Movement and an empty one at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Youth Time. The latter never had any significant content; nothing was removed from any of those pages except a duplicate draft. The bot's copyright warning at the latter draft is a false positive and can be ignored, though it may be a good idea to delete that empty draft and to focus on the one that actually has some content. If you want to submit it for a review, you can follow the instructions in the "currently not submitted for review" message box: "If this submission is ready to be reviewed, click here." That will add an almost-empty section to the end of the draft; it won't blank the draft. You should not re-start new drafts but rather modify and improve the existing drafts; the best one is by far Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Youth Time (YT) International Movement; it would help if you used inline citations (see also WP:Referencing for beginners on how to easily create nicely-formatted footnotes). Huon (talk) 20:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Charlie Drew

Huon. My draft consisted of one line of bio information, a photo and two refs for the sole purpose of familiarising myself with formatting wiki inputs. I hit on a problem creating an Info box so I clicked on "HELP DESK" for assistance on a technical issue. In my book one line does not constitute a draft article so comments such as "would have been helpful", "would you expect our readers to look up...", plus all the !where's and what's" are totally irrelevant. If I had been ready for a review of my work rather than a novice trying to find my way round the syntax I would have clicked on "click here" next to the reference to submissions. I quote the line towards the top of the page "Thia is a draft Article for creation submission. IT IS NOT CURRENTLY PENDING REVIEW" My blocks. I fear I have come somewhat abruptly to the end of the road on this article unless another editor can show a bit more tolerance. I googled Wikipedia too complicated" and found that your leader, Jimmy Whales, has conceded to BBC News that the article creation process/editing is too complicatwd for many users and needs simplifying. I wait in hope. Sorry, no stars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malcolmdee (talk • contribs) 11:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for appearing too demanding; that was not my intention. I believe I have answered your infobox questions and pointed you to the relevant help and documentation pages that offer additional information. Do you need additional help regarding the infobox? If so, what kind of help?

My comments about sources have a very simple reason: Right now it's very hard to tell whether Drew is notable enough to be the subject of a Wikipedia article in the first place. If he isn't, you'd be wasting your efforts. If he is but you haven't yet added the relevant information to the article, you can of course ignore my comments and take your time to improve the draft at your leisure. Huon (talk) 20:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Foley

I looked at numerous summer camps that have pages on Wikipedia that do not link to any more "reliable" sources than what I put together for the Camp Foley page. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Camp Foley. I am curious why their pages get to exist but mine does not. I would like to put together a list of pages that I'd like to be removed if Wikipedia is going to follow the same standards that were followed for my page.

Kmstrobel (talk) 13:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)kmstrobel[reply]

The biggest problem appears almost all the references are to Camp Foley's site or promo pages run by the camp. The article needs independent, reliable sources. Typically, newspaper articles or magazine articles about the camp will work. LionMans Account (talk) 16:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/MOVING CRACK TIP TEMPERATURE VARIATION

I've been editing the article Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/MOVING_CRACK_TIP_TEMPERATURE_VARIATION. I don't understand all the new editor approval/disapproval thing. I have the following comments about this article, but there is no "talk" section.

The references check out, and I've just about finished looking them up and correcting them.
The title is all caps, I don't know how to change this, but it is ugly.
The original article had poor English, and I've done my best to improve it.
The subject matter seems important by the number of references, but the article doesn't state the context of this matter, nor link to anything in the context or why anyone would find this result important. I feel that it is, by looking up the references, but I'm no subject matter expert--the article could be improved by including this.
I edited all the equations to use math encoding.

Shawn@garbett.org (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for improving this article draft! I've asked for input from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I was trying to clear the queue so more time could go toward an article I have an interest in getting approved.

I think the article is possibly a subsection of the following Fracture mechanics. This provides a context that makes more sense, and it's a problem in that field. I would recommend this content be folded onto that page. Shawn@garbett.org (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Caution: I am not a subject matter expert) This article is about heat dissipation caused by plastic deformation at the crack tip. It is a real effect, especially for ductile fracture. The basic idea is described at Fracture mechanics#Irwin's modification in the heat dissipation term. I agree that the content of the article could be folded into that section. It is in a sense complementary to the content in Fracture mechanics#Irwin's modification, as that section is about predicting when a fracture occurs and this article is about the thermodynamics of crack propagation. As a standalone article, it would need more of an introduction and context before jumping straight into betas. --Mark viking (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much to everyone who helped with this! The article now exists at Moving crack (metalworking). Whether this is ideal is unclear, but for now this is

Resolved

and any remaining issues with the existence of this article can be resolved through ordinary editing. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/AG Hair

Hi, I submitted an article in the Sandbox, which has been declined based on "This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability", I am not sure what else I can do, as I have included coverage from press, magazines and awards, made reference to partnering companies and charity's.

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Heatherkennelly (talk) 18:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The partnering companies and charities are not independent sources on their cooperation with AG. Press releases such as that about the Ernst & Young award are not reliable. Unless they're hosted by a reputable news organization that exercises some sort of editorial oversight, blogs often are considered unreliable too. Furthermore, the first paragraph reads like puffery: "quality hair products", "large professional-only beauty retailers", "can be found in national beauty chains". That largely doesn't cite any sources, and I can't tell which third-party source mentions "Taiwan and Australia".

Regarding the notability issue, AG Hair might make the cut if the unreliable sources and the unsourced hype are removed, but for all I can tell, we have very little information on the company itself (no revenues, for example, and while one source mentioned the number of employees, the draft doesn't), with most sources reporting on rather peripheral activities such as their aid for education in Africa. I'd call it a borderline case, and the reviewer apparently felt it didn't quite make the cut. Huon (talk) 20:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Fort Worth Transgender Support

I wanted to add my logo thumbnail to the page but couldnt understand the upload procedure. Yes I own the graphic, I created it.

--Nicole M. Taylor 20:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Queennikki1972 (talk • contribs)

If you own the copyright to the graphic, you may wish to reserve some rights as to its usage - in which case, you should wait until the article is accepted before uploading the graphic. If you don't wish to reserve (most) rights as to usage of the graphic, you could upload it at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard (you might need to log into your account or create an account) stating that it is entirely your own work. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Allen Fishman

When is this article going to be reviewed? This has been a frustrating process. I appreciate the integrity of Wikipedia to prevent the platform from being mis-used. Yet I spent considerable time working up an article on my colleague, Allen Fishman. He has written multiple business books, was a nationally syndicated business writer & has started a prominent company to help small businesses. He has appeared widely in the press and in television interviews. Yet the first reviewer rejected my article. I then took significant additional time to update it with many more sources. It continues to be in a "waiting for review" status. I understand that the reviews involve volunteers. Yet I would appreciate any assistance that you can provide to get this approved & into the wiki encyclopedia. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dscarola (talk • contribs) 21:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's currently a backlog of about 730 drafts awaiting review; the oldest are about two weeks old. Please be patient. At a glance the draft heavily cites books and articles by Fishman; Wikipedia content should be based not on what he has written, but on what others have written about him (for example, the The Southeast Missourian article). Besides, Amazon is more interested in selling books than in providing accurate information; it's not a reliable source. Neither are press releases. Huon (talk) 02:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]