Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2015 January 7
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < January 6 | << Dec | January | Feb >> | January 8 > |
| Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages. |
January 7
[edit]02:46:54, 7 January 2015 review of submission by Publico2020
[edit]- Publico2020 (talk · contribs)
Publico2020 (talk) 02:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Publico2020: I'm concerned by your recent edits to the article. You are NOT a reviewer. All you need to do is improve the article, submit it for review, and wait. You need to provide multiple independent reliable sources to make a case for notability. I was also able to find this Kirkus review. By the way Ika Hügel-Marshall is nominated for deletion, too. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Mr. Troutman,
- Please delete all of these submissions for the violations that you have suggested. They are not mine, I was just trying to learn how to contribute as a volunteer.
- I really don't have a lot of time to volunteer my efforts. Just thought I could help review a few articles in the backlog and contribute a few things. Publico2020 (talk) 03:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- It was a matter of time until I chased someone off this WikiProject. I can't say I'm surprised. I answered your posts on my talk page but I'll reiterate here: You're qualified to be an AfC reviewer. The issue is that you seem to not understand how this works, which is an issue. If you'd like to learn I'd be glad to show you. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- I really don't have a lot of time to volunteer my efforts. Just thought I could help review a few articles in the backlog and contribute a few things. Publico2020 (talk) 03:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I am a novice user. As time permits, I will try and take you up on your kind offer.
I am still trying to learn how things work and see what I can do as volunteer.Publico2020 (talk) 04:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Also, the Afc "Draft: Lao Veterans of America Institute" was resubmitted for re-review with many additional references and citations from major news papers and international and national news sources including McClatchy News, LA Times, Hmong Times, AFP (Agence France Press), NPR, etc.
Thank you
Publico2020 (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
07:47:10, 7 January 2015 review of submission by WolverD
[edit]
I'm so confused about the 'problems' with my submission?
I'm being repeatedly told that my draft doesn't meet the guidelines of notability - even though Jesus Church have been the subject of two (2) south australia wide television broadcast stories - the first on ABC News and the second on National Nine News.
I'm also being told that the page doesn't link to external sources, but I've supplied links to both the Channel nine news and the ABC news footage as well as a third source, Ted Evans. (3 seperate external links)
Influencers Church (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Influencers_Church) do not list any television stories and Edge Church (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Edge_Church) do not list any television stories
Yet both are listed?
For the above reasons, I believe that this application meets all criteria and I'm so confused on how two seperate state wide brodcast news stories are insufficient to establish meeting all your criteria - not to mention three seperate links to external sources are insufficient to show notablitity and verifiability?
Can you please help me to understand the problem?
WolverD (talk) 07:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- WolverD probably wants to hear from someone other than me since I've declined his draft twice, so other folks feel free to chime in.
- Hello WolverD, while neither the Influencers/Paradise nor Edge Church articles are ideal, Influencers is among Australia's largest megachurches and has been written about in actual academic studies, and Edge Church (which is an iffier case) has gotten a smattering of coverage, including on the national level, for leadership scandals. Regardless the stardard Wikipedia reply to such objections is WP:Other stuff exists; that is, the existence of other weak articles does not justify adding another weak article to the mix.
- That aside, now that the lengthy "what we believe" content has been rightly removed from the draft (given there was nothing particularly distinctive there not covered in general articles about Pentecostalism), the church's only claimed Notability in the draft so far is being the only church to participate in National Sorry Day, and having some teenagers vandalize the facility. While the first is definitely of some interest, we'd need to see evidence that the attention they received for it is more than just a passing mention. When books of SA History are written in fifty years, will folks still find that incident worth remarking on? The vandalism, on the other hand, is totally routine local news and of no support to a claim of WP:Notability. Other than that, all the article has is nitty-gritty about the church which is cited only to the church itself. So in the end it's an article that doesn't really appear to be of any use except to someone specifically in Adelaide who might want to go to a Pentecostal church, whereas the Influencers article was an interesting read even for me on the opposite side of the planet. That's the difference. But you've heard my stance on this in your reviews. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
21:01:21, 7 January 2015 review of submission by Publico2020
[edit]- Publico2020 (talk · contribs)
- @Publico2020: That article needs citations to significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. Press releases are not independent, and passing mentions are not significant coverage. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Afc Resubmission for Draft: Lao Veterans of America Institute
I was able to add additional references/citations regarding the national and international noteability of the subject organization, including references from the Hmong Times, McClatchy News Organization (which owns the Fresno and Sacramento Bee newspapers and many others), the US Congressional Record, Los Angeles Times, etc. Also new references/citations to organization from National Public Radio (NPR) and its President, Colonel Wangyee Vang.
I do not have access to JSTOR but their are other references in the Los Angeles Times as well as Agence France Press (AFP) to the Lao Veterans of America Institute and its President Colonel Wangyee Vang of Fresno, California. So the organization is most noteable with significant U.S. and international news media attention.
I will try to continue to add more additional references from other newspapers and news media sources regarding the Lao Veterans of America Institute.
Hope that it can be re-reviewed.
Publico2020 (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Afc Resubmission for Draft: Lao Veterans of America Institute
[edit]I was able to add additional references/citations regarding the national and international noteability of the subject organization, including references from the Hmong Times, McClatchy News Organization (which owns the Fresno and Sacramento Bee newspapers and many others), the US Congressional Record, Los Angeles Times, etc. Also new references/citations to organization from National Public Radio (NPR) and its President, Colonel Wangyee Vang.
I do not have access to JSTOR but their are other references in the Los Angeles Times as well as Agence France Press (AFP) to the Lao Veterans of America Institute and its President Colonel Wangyee Vang of Fresno, California. So the organization is most noteable with significant U.S. and international news media attention.
I will try to continue to add more additional references from other newspapers and news media sources regarding the Lao Veterans of America Institute.
Hope that it can be re-reviewed.
Thank you. Publico2020 (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Publico2020 (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
21:35:17, 7 January 2015 review of submission by 74.51.76.172
[edit]- 74.51.76.172 (talk · contribs)
- No draft specified!
74.51.76.172 (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- @74.51.76.172: What draft do you have a question about? The only edit that this IP address has made was to this page.
21:50:20, 7 January 2015 review of submission by Vovva
[edit]
I dont understand WHAT you want me to fix. I'm sorry.
I wrote that page only because I found a there was no page from a link on the FCI-page to Svenska Kennelklubben. Not to an english text. But it is not important for me because I read swedish and can read the swedish page. I did it just for trying to be helpful to all that dont read swedish.
What do you want me to write? Is there something simple, then I will fix it - if not - just throw the page away :)
Vovva (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Done
- Hello Vovva, we just needed you to add in evidence that people have written serious research/reporting about this organization. I made a quick/minimal cite to a book documenting the club beginning in 1889, and published it with a link to the Swedish Wikipedia article on the SKK. The article really needs more sourcing, but it looks pretty unarguably to meet WP:Notability, so I launched it so that others can help improve it over time. Thanks for noticing the lack and addressing it, and in the future just bear in mind that any articles you draft must have WP:Sourcing to publish. Thanks! MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
22:23:22, 7 January 2015 review of draft by Jhaluska
[edit]
I need instructions to add photographs in my article. Thanks!
Jhaluska (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Done
- Jhaluska, please make the improvements needed to publish your article first, then we can worry about images (since we don't need them unless we actually have an article). Note that you have not yet submitted your draft for review, you have to click the "Submit" button in the big box at top to do so.
- That said, your formatting is rather a mess right now. I strongly suggest you look at an established article, click "Edit" just to view how they formatted it, and imitate that. What you're doing now is not at all how Wikipedia makes section headings, lists sources, etc. If you tidy it up a little to make it more standard, it will be way easier for a reviewer to give you further tips for improvement. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)