Help desk
< March 15	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 17 >

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 16

02:40:04, 16 March 2016 review of submission by Fmuindi2016

Fmuindi2016 (talk · contribs)

Hello

my article has been rejected twice. I have included additional references but to no avail. Any help on improving the references could be useful.

Fmuindi2016 (talk) 02:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

04:20:10, 16 March 2016 review of submission by Sianirose

Sianirose (talk · contribs)
- User:Sianirose/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

QUESTION: Is Wikipedia anti-science? My article is NOT a research report (as claimed by the second reviewer). It is a summary of a series of greater than 100 papers and some news articles (one on NPR) about the significance of a modified Mediterranean Diet (PREDIMED) that resulted in a decrease in cardiovascular disease and breast cancer.

I know the English is decent. The article is sufficiently referenced. The medical and health nature is consistent with other articles in Wikipedia. The submission augements the Mediterranean diet, which does have a Wikipedia page. I am not associated with this study, but think it is a significant advancment with proof that it reduces cardiovascular disease and breast cancer. I have spoken with friends (some medical and some not) and family about the significance of this PREDIMED approach to prevention of heart disease and they all get it.

Is it that the reviewers don't have medical knowledge? I don't mean to insult you, but I am genuinely puzzled by these responses.

I want to raise this to the wider community: why Wikipedia is so difficult to get anything posted. It almost seems like the editors are trying to stop people from contributing. And I can assure you this is the word on the street.

What gives?

Sincerely, Mike

It looks to me like a review paper – a synthesis of a number of research papers. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, does not accept review papers, and more than it accepts primary research papers. Both are regarded as original research. It only accepts articles on topics (it might accept an article on the "PREDIMED diet", I see it does not currently have one). Maproom (talk) 12:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

11:47:20, 16 March 2016 review of submission by AnnaBGillespie

AnnaBGillespie (talk · contribs)

Hi, I can see that the submission for 247 Home Rescue was declined as the references do not show the notability.

When I last tried to create this page I was advised of the same thing and so have worked to include third party references as suggested. The references include a BBC Radio link whereby the company was invited to speak on air in regards to a recent charity partnership as well as numerous press coverage including The Lancashire Telegraph, The Bradford Telegraph and The Argus (which is a Brighton-based newspaper at the opposite end of the country). As well as this, the company has been featured in various industrial magazines such as HVP Magazine, Insider Media and Installer online which are all nationwide magazines.

Can you provide any clue as to how to adequately determine the company is notable? I know the guidelines state the references need to be third-party, independent sources which I believed these are however in terms of how in-depth they should be is difficult to do with a business. Any ideas or tips would be greatly appreciated! Thanks AnnaBGillespie (talk) 11:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AnnaBGillespie (talk) 11:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AnnaBGillespie, Trade press, like Heating, Ventilating, & Plumbing Magazine, BoilerMag, and Installer Online usually can't establish a company's notability because of their limited audience and their dependence on companies in the industry for both content and advertising revenue. BBC Radio, Lancashire Telegraph, Bradford Telegraph and Argus, and The Argus are the right sort of publications for demonstrating notability, namely arms-length sources with editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking.

The difficulty, as you've realised, is mainly the depth of coverage. The Lancashire Telegraph article says almost nothing about the company, just "The event was supported by ... and 24/7 Home Rescue." The Bradford Telegraph and Argus is similar. A few sentences about call centre apprentices wearing pyjamas to raise money for charity is sweet, but doesn't really cut it. The Argus is somewhat better. I don't have access to the BBC Radio content, so I can't evaluate it directly, but from your description it may be a primary source - a company spokesperson talking about the company. If the BBC's Gilmore provided significant background and analysis in his own words or conducted an thorough cross examination of the company line, then it might be considered a secondary source and count towards notability.

Here are a few examples of what would clearly constitute significant coverage of an insurance or financial services firm: [1], [2], and [3]. You're right that it is difficult for a business to get this sort of coverage.

Most companies don't have Wikipedia articles, and aren't supposed to. Wikipedia has set a high bar because the purpose of the encyclopaedia is not to be a directory of every business that is or ever was, but to chronicle those that the world at large has taken significant notice of. It helps if the business is public, old, big, or in a "sexy" industry, not because any of those things make them a better company, but because they make them more likely to have been written about. Going into spectacular liquidation or having a CEO convicted are also big pluses notability-wise. A private, three year-old, 100 employee insurance company plodding along doing a good job will have an uphill battle meeting the encyclopaedia’s inclusion criteria. See WP:BFAQ#COMPANY for more information. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks very much for your response. It's been very informative and I appreciate you taking the time to answer. AnnaBGillespie (talk) 10:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

15:12:34, 16 March 2016 review of submission by Lleonrica12

Lleonrica12 (talk · contribs)

Hello! my page for Frances Rios was declined because of copy right issues. Ihave all copyrights for what I've posted. The information provided is the same provided on our webpage www.FrancesRios.com I work directly with Frances Rios, which is the person who approved her wikipedia page.

Please, how can we solve this? Lleonrica12 (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

15:39:50, 16 March 2016 review of submission by ComillerHSPH

ComillerHSPH (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Albert Hofman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This question is regarding the Albert Hofman page rejection. I have no idea how to improve the information in the Albert Hofman page.

ComillerHSPH (talk) 15:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ComillerHSPH, I can only reiterate the advice the reviwer gave on the draft, and that I gave you when you asked this question last week (Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2016 March 8#20:18:13.2C 8 March 2016 review of submission by ComillerHSPH):

"Wikipedia:Your first article" is an excellent starting point. Its first bullet point emphasizes two things:

The topic must meet the notability guidelines. For this subject the relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Study it carefully. Which of the nine criteria can you most unambiguously prove with independent, reliable, secondary sources?
The draft must cite reliable published sources. The draft currently cites no sources. The long list of papers written by Hofman is not what Wikipedia is looking for. Remove it. Instead look for what third parties have written about Hofman.

--Worldbruce (talk) 18:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]