Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2015 June 29
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < June 28 | << May | June | Jul >> | June 30 > |
| 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. |
June 29
[edit]
- Ali Mohsan (talk · contribs)
Ali Mohsan (talk) 04:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Ali Mohsan, I see you have only written the person's name, see WP:Your first article for guidance on getting started. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
08:33:02, 29 June 2015 review of submission by Nbwoods1
[edit]
A bibliographical wiki article that I recently wrote on behalf of Stefan Karlsson (professor) has been accepted by Wikipedia and is published. However, there appears a "note" from Wiki at the top of the page that reads, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful. (June 2015)". This note appears to refer to that the article does not provide a reference for his medical degree from Iceland University from 1976, and other similar achievements prior to internet age. These facts are not citable as there are no available documents online from the university proving this. However all the grants and awards he has won over the years would have required proof of degrees etc, so through the screening of grant agencies, they are true. Not least of which the award from the Swedish Royal Academy. Moreover, given Stefan's achievements as professor and list a awards and honors, make these details from early career less significant, but does have significant value to indicate in a biographical sketch of a "notable" person. In Stefan's case, no one will challenge these statements. I also see that other biographical sites include similar statements without citation and without such a "note" from Wiki. Also his wife and two grandchildren which are also uncited details in the biography, do not object to their inclusion on the site. I have spoken to them directly to confirm. So... Can the Wiki "note" at the top of his page be removed without removing this factual text?
Thank you for your response.
Sincerely, Niels-Bjarne Woods, Ph.D., Associate Professor Vice Chair of Section for Molecular Medicine and Gene Therapy Director of Lund University's Viral Vector Core Facility Director of Lund University's ES &iPS Cell Core Facility Lund Strategic Center for Stem Cell Biology and Cell Therapy Lund University, Sweden
Hello, Nbwoods1. Although optimally every fact should be cited, usually if quite a few facts have citations and the rest are not controversial, a "needs more references" tag need not be added. However, in this case the tag is needed for a while until some referencing improvements are made in two areas:
(1) Some important facts are not supported by a reference. For example, the citation about the Tobias Prize lead to a page of general information about the prize. I fixed it by changing the URL to the list of recipients.
(2) The page contains a number of assertions of the professor's importance ("recognized as an important contributor", "led to the first gene therapy clinical trial", "recognized for significant contributions to the fields of gene therapy and hematopoietic stem cell biology " etc.) Statements like this should not be in the article unless they have a direct citation to a source not connected with the professor's own work (such as a book or review article about his field, or a write-up in a newspaper by a science journalist). Since the encyclopedia only has facts, you would have to write "recognized by ____". If such citations can't be found, this means that these are unsourced opinion, and should be rewritten as "he contributed to", or "he studied", and "he conducted a gene therapy clinical trial" and phrases which do not promote his importance, but only present facts. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hello Nbwoods1 I just want to add one thing to Anne Delong's excellent reply - sources do not need to be online. Journals, books, magazines and other print sources are acceptable provided they were actually published and at least one accessible copy still exists somewhere. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- Doroplummer (talk · contribs)
Hello,
I have written the article on the Pod organisation/charity and I was hoping to get some assistance in completing it. I have included a number of external link references from various organisations and publications, but I assume they are not enough since the article was rejected. I have found some more references on national newspapers such as the Telegraph and I will try to include them in the article too. If you have any more suggestions on how to improve the content, your help would be much appreciated. Thank you Doroplummer (talk) 15:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC) Doroplummer (talk) 15:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
16:41:42, 29 June 2015 review of submission by Mithilsoni200
[edit]
Mithilsoni200 (talk) 16:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC) why are you declining me please dont do this i have done work very hard on it his birthday i find very hardly on https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:Rehan_Sayed
- @Mithilsoni200: Searches returned some mentions of the subject, but only in a few blogs and tabloids, no significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources. Therefore at this time the subject does not appear to be a suitable topic for an encyclopedia article. Please see the essay "No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability" for more information. Worldbruce (talk) 00:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
16:51:00, 29 June 2015 review of submission by Maalikkharat
[edit]- Maalikkharat (talk · contribs)
It is quite amazing that in spite of mentioning so many references on Mr V Shanmuganathan, who is presently holding such a notable position of high level as the Governor of one the Indian States; yet the reviewers are finding faults and rejecting and turning down this page from being visible on Wikipedia. The intentions of rejections are not evidently coming out and it seems that in spite of multiple edits, this page of such a noteworthy Indian personality is denied on Wikipedia. In case some part of the page contains copyright material, i hereby request the eminent reviewers to guide for conducting the corrigendum and consider to accept to upload this page on Wikipedia. Truly, this approach will encourage people from all over world to share valuable information and make Wikipedia a much better source of information. Whatever has been written in context of the page to be uploaded can be verified anytime. Post confirmation, with respect to authenticity of data, if you wish to upload this page on Wikipedia. In case of any clarification/s, please write back. Thanking all for the lovely cooperation by notable members and reviewers. Maalik Kharat 16:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maalikkharat (talk • contribs)
- I think I vaguely recall your case. It appears the article was deleted due to the fact that the information was copied from an online source, in which case it is considered a copyright infringement. As for the subject of the article, due to his position he might actually be notable according to our guidelines (i.e. WP:POLITICIAN), however we do need extensive coverage from independent and reliable sources in order to corroborate this, not to mention back up any biographical information. Please make sure the information is not copied from anywhere else, and that you provide appropriate citations if you decide to create a new draft. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hello @Maalikkharat:, we already have an article on V. Shanmuganathan, created 13 May 2015. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
17:27:09, 29 June 2015 review of submission by 10squared
[edit]
I would like to check on the status of my review. I most recently re-submitted my article with updated references and I added additional information to help show the subject's 'notoriety.' I would like feedback about my updates and suggestions where I can improve the article. I would like to know if there is any way I can accelerate this review process. Thank you!
10squared (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- @10squared: The draft is in the queue to be reviewed. More than 1000 other drafts are ahead of it, so you should anticipate a wait of at least three weeks. The quickest way to get an article approved through Articles for Creation is to choose a notable topic and adhere to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines when writing about it. A subject that is not notable, not encyclopedic, not reliably sourced, or is not written about from a neutral point of view will be declined. Worldbruce (talk) 01:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Can you look over this article and give suggestions about what I may need to alter before I submit it?
https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:Consortium_of_Christian_Study_Centers
Thank you.
Doctor Mellifluus (talk) 17:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Doctor Mellifluus, please take a look at the existing article Christian Study Centers, it seems to me your draft could actually be a part of that article. I'm not sure there is enough material and sources to fully develop two separate articles that are so closely related. BTW if you want a systematic review of the draft you need to click on the "Submit" button in the review template. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- P.S. One immediate improvement you can do is to delete the mission statement, it is inherently promotional. --Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks very much! Great and helpful suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor Mellifluus (talk • contribs) 14:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)