This is an archive of past discussions with User:Excirial. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I trying to add this article but you wrote that the article doesn't have "Reliable sources".
I added all the resource I found about him, what else I need to add for this article get approved?
He currently showing in places that doesn't have a website or something I can link for. there is anything specific in this article that need reliable sources?
In order to warrant an article on Wikipedia, an article should indicate why someone is sufficiently notable to warrant encyclopedic inclusion. Most times this is done trough adding reliable sources, which let the article meet the golden rule for inclusion - these reliable sources are also used to verify the content that is in the article, which is absolutely mandatory for biographical content. Right now i can see no sources whatsoever in the article i'm afraid. There are several external links, but personal websites and youtube don't qualify as reliable sources.
If Eran Algor is notable, there must be something written about him in a reliable source (Such as a newspaper, major news website and so on). Note that this content must be about him, and must verify what is written in the article (For example: You would need a source verifying his birth date and other claims). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)18:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm Sorry
Hey, it's User: 174.54.231.32 The edits 'I' made were actually edits that my brother added. The one to the French Armed Forces was meant to be a joke by him, not me. Also, the page that was submitted for creation he submitted as a Wikipedia page on himself. He was also the one editing Taxation in the United States. I would be more likely to edit any pages on LEGO. I'm sorry for the trouble. I'll also be sending this message to ClueBot. 174.54.231.32 (talk) 02:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)174.54.231.32
Trying to create an article for this popular software product. Gave references, still you have deleted it. Without having this article, I can not put Unreal Media Server in "streaming systems", "comparison of streaming media systems" articles; you keep deleting it.
Look at other entries in these articles: they are just like ours, articles about software products. Why can they have an article and we can't? Same amount of notability there. You either delete all of them or be consistent with your criteria. No justice right now, that's all I wanna say.
Hiyas there 98.242.76.129,
A few points here:
I only declined the AFC submission, your edits to the List of Streaming Media Systems was declined by J.M. as evident from that pages history. Having said that, i agree with the reverts he made, since it is simply linkspam.
Your arguments are WAX arguments. Stating that article X doesn't conform to a rule doesn't mean that is a justification for article Y not to either.
Your use of "Ours" is kind of a giveaway that you have a Conflict of interest with the subject. Please refer to that link if this is correct.
I agree with what you are saying; I am from Unreal Streaming Technologies and trying to have an entry for our product just like other companies have here. Not really a biggy if you still deny it. I think I agree with you that articles about product like ours should not be in Wikipedia at all. But then you should be consistent and remove thousands of similar articles about proprietary products. Take a look at this article: List_of_streaming_media_systems. This is all about proprietary software products. And this is really good article. People want to know differences between these products. But according to Wikipedia spirit, all individual products mentioned there, do not deserve having their own article, just like ours. Our product deserves to be in these tables in this article, that's for sure. But it can't, you call it "linkspam". I perfectly understand your standpoint defending wikipedia spirit; however, 1: if you really follow your philosophy, article "List_of_streaming_media_systems" wouldn't exist at all; and 2: you should treat other articles about proprietary products the same you treated ours.
Back when i reviewed your article, it contained no sources whatsoever, which is the reason why i quick-failed it. Note that most of my AFC reviews 's are quick fails due to the large backlog AFC has. Some pages clearly lack something that renders them impassable by default (No references, for example), yet due to the backlog it could take days before anyone notices an editor of a basic issue. So instead i tend to check the newer article's first in order to give someone feedback. Why is this relevant? Well, most new article's don't pass in one go. Instead the writer corrects the issue in it, and resubmits it. I see you added some references to the article, but didn't resubmit it for review. I would note that without resubmitting, it will not be reviewed again. Having said that - i normally don't review an article twice for the sake of multiple editor input, but i fear that in its current form, it would not pass. The references supplied are all download sites, and contain nothing but a download link for the product. If you wish it to pass, you should really look for something that counts as a reliable source. Didn't some magazine or tech website ever cover it? Those are the sources that are needed to make it pass.
As for the List_of_streaming_media_systems ; Are all products there notable? Some are, but quite a few aren't. Do they all have sourcing? No they don't, some have no references whatsoever. Why are they there then? Because they were written years ago. Some article's date back from 2006, before the entire notability policy even existed, hence they were "Mostly fine" back then. I am pretty certain someone will eventually take it upon him or herself to improve the list and list the now non-notable entries for removal, but as with all things that happens when a volunteer is interested in working on an article. As of now they still exist because wikipedia's self-cleaning power is best equipped to check new edits and article's, but isn't as effective at managing the old article's. Just see them breadcrumbs on the floor - either someone leaves them around or fetches a vacuum cleaner, but one doesn't intentionally fetch another bread to crumble and increase the pile.Problem right now is that few people care enough about the subject to spend time cleaning it up. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)18:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
OK, thanks for your explanations. I have added more references that should pass notability criteria. How to resubmit it for review? I don't know. Please review it. Don't really want it to be another breadcrumb on the floor, but you know, you can not find objective analysis of these quite complex networking products anywhere. The big magazines mostly publish vendor-sponsored reviews; there is no real place where a person can get a honest and independent technical comparision of products in this area.
Sadly, List_of_streaming_media_systems is really a best place as of now...I know it shouldn't be, but it is. In my opinion, there should be something like "TechMarketPedia", sponsored by W3C/consortium of industry giants, that will provide these unbiast commercial product reviews; and then Wikipedia can just focus on pure technical aspects of things. For example, it can have an article about what is "streaming" and a link to "TechMarketPedia" when it refers to real-world products that do "streaming". Just an idea.
I added the article back to the review queue, and its currently waiting to be reviewed by an editor (The queue is a tad long at the moment, so it might take a while). As mentioned i don't review the same article twice in order to allow fresh input from another editor, and to prevent tunnel vision. As for TechMarketPedia - why not. There are plenty of specific purpose Wiki's around besides the mediawiki foundation wiki's, and some are quite handy. I don't think it would fit Wikimedia's goals and purposes though, so it would likely have to be an external party who creates it. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)18:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Please do not remove this discussion from here because other editor who just declined the submission, wants to read it.
Review of article Ghost Bikes
Hello-thanks for reviewing my article on Ghost Mountain Bikes-would appreciate some advise as I have been through many edits now.
I am simply translating an existing post on the German Wikipedia site which the last editor suggested I do verbatim. So the one you edited is of an exisitng post. I have added a few more references then the exisitng post has on the German site but I am still being asked to provide more third party references. The standard for notablity/references seems high in relation to the existing post on bike manufacturers. There are approximately 40 bike companies represented on the English Wikipedia but very few from Europe so I am trying to round out the representation of bike companies.
Suggestions on how to get this listed. trooperlakeTrooperlake (talk) 23:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Hiyas there trooperlake,
I am afraid i am not to familiar with the German version of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, as each Wikimedia wiki may have its own policies and guidelines (Though quite a few use the en.wiki's as a basis for their own). I am fairly certain that there is something similar to the notability policy on the German wiki as far as article's go. To put it simple: Every article must have veridiable and reliable sources for content that are independent of the subject. On the en.wiki these sources are the basis for the inclusion policy that states that an article can only be included if it can be supported by above mentioned sources.
The version of the article i reviewed didn't have any sources, except for Wikipedia article's. Those are specifically not reliable as they are tertiary sources (And because you can end up with the amusing situation where the German Wiki is a reference the English Wiki, Which in turn is a reference for the French Wiki, which in turn is a source for the German wiki again). I see that the older version of the article contained two references, but both aren't really passing the reliable sources guideline. The first one is a company profile, the second doesn't mention the word "Ghost" at all, which means i cannot see even a trivial mention of the company in it.
As to what to do - first ask yourself if the article can meet the inclusion criteria listed at WP:CORP. Truth be told - only a handful of companies manage to pass the notability criteria. Note though that these aren't solemnly the huge multinational companies - smaller niche companies can pass as well if they are "special" enough. If it can meet the criteria, the next step[ is to find above mentioned reliable sources that can verify article content, and your done. Even so, i would mention that the vast majority of companies aren't included - and i would dare say that a fair amount of the companies actually listed on Wikipedia are only there because no-one got around to cleaning them up so far. Sometimes a company just doesn't pass the bar no matter what you do. The best advice i have in that case is being critical, rather then spending time for naught. If you believe it can pass, go for it though :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)19:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Is this a sock puppet?
(Monday) Good evening Excirial,
Thank you for your helpful reply. I shall proceed with extreme caution. All excellent advice about using the keyboard will be taken on board. Hope your weekend break exceeded your expectations!
I have every confidence in you to know that you would not have shown any bias. Keep well! -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 18:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
(Tuesday) Good evening Excirial,
I made a revision this morning, and on visiting the IP's Talk page, saw your warning of April 30. A added a short warning below yours. Are the two editors on this 'diff' page, one and the same? -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 17:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Good afternoon Mr. Griffith-Jones,
It is quite likely, given the fact that the IP starts with 86. and because the edits are to a page few others edit on. It seems to be mostly a case where an editor forgot to log into his or her account. Techically taken the account was blocked that day, and based on the timestamp the block was present another 30 minutes or so on the time the edit was made. But well, seeing the edit was made two days ago i don't think any action is required (I like to think this was just a mistake). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)17:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
(Friday) Good evening Excirial,
I have never been one to leave 'loose ends' and when I noticed an edit summary on my watchlist, stating " (Hardly vandalism, and I'm not a sockpuppet.)", I investigated further. To that effect, I have pursued the above in a friendly way ( if you are interested you will see my posts on this page ... olive branch ... ) and received this from the user this afternoon:-
No worries
I kind of presumed that was what happened. Large parts of 86.**.**.** are British Telecom's dynamic IPs, and BT is used by a huge proportion of British internet users, so it's easy enough to confuse. 86.** IP (talk) 14:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
If you go there, tell me what you think of my "template", which I made up ready for when I mess up using Huggle.
Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!
If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.
This user has been awarded with the 100000 Edits award.
Articles for Creation is desperately in need of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors and administrators alike, to help us clear a record backlog of pending submissions. There is currently a significant backlog of 1834 submissions waiting to be reviewed. These submissions are generally from new editors who have never edited Wikipedia before. A prompt, constructive review of submissions could significantly editor retention.
We would greatly appreciate your help. Currently, only a small handful of users are reviewing articles. Any help, even if it's just 1 or 2 reviews, would be extremely beneficial.
I see you archived some Talk for Victor Lewis-Smith (which I believe should in fact be headed Victor Lewis Smith, without the hyphen). I am not sure it's good that this material is hidden from view - see my comments at [1] Are you able to help sort the article out? Hard for me as I don't know the relevant Wikipedia rules but maybe there is somewhere to ask for help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.33.95 (talk) 16:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
To be honest i only ended up archiving that page since another user tried to, and ended up duplicating the entire pages content. I don't think i would be the best people to help with the page, mostly because i haven't got a clue whatsoever who Victor Lewis-Smith is in the first place - i just ended up on the page since another user needed a hand :).
Even so, there are many placed where one could ask for help. There is, for example, the Help desk where a user can ask questions about specific rules,advices or editing in general. There is also a live IRC chat channel where one can ask for help ([2]). Note though that the latter is entirely staffed by volunteers, as is the rest of Wikipedia. Depending on your timezone it might be fairly quite or on occasions even deserted. In that case the regular help desk will likely be preferable, as that is not dependent on users being available. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)19:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
BCE and CE are the correct terms. For people who don't believe, there is no time of "before christ", thus is un-encompassing. Signed for user:142.165.167.9
(talk page stalker) See WP:ERA. Both the traditional BC / AD and CE / BCE are allowed in an article. Technically it doesn't matter much since it is simply a different name for the exact same thing. The most important part is this one though:
Do not arbitrarily change from one era style to the other on any given article. Instead, attempt to establish a consensus for change at the talk page. Reasons for the proposed change should be specific to the content of the article; a general preference for one style over another is not a valid reason.
Why this line is in place? To prevent people from changing article's between the two without cause due to a personal preference. The same issue exists on pages written in either British or American English. Both are allowed and just fine, but if people would start converting back and forth based on preference it would at the least cause needless extra revisions, and at worst an inconsistent article. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)19:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Before anything: I know that every single AFC template technically states this, so i know this might be somewhat redundant. However, is there a specific reason as to why you have not opted to create an account? An account would allow you to create article's directly, without having to go trough the AFC process to get them approved. Your AFC work so far is phenomenal; Personally i patrol AFC in order to quick fail article's that clearly have problems, and as a result i only very rarely approve any article (The ones where i can see nothing wrong whatsoever). Yet of the handful of article's i approved more then half were written by you. Personally i would have complete confidence in non-AFC based article creation in your case, so it might be something to consider. If not that is also entirely fine; I'm more then happy to approve a good article when i see it. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)18:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks for your message, that's really very nice. Actually, I feel more comfortable with the AFC process, because when I am not sure about an article, another contributor with more experience can check it and decide. Even that, sometimes I am not protected for a deletion, I am currently facing 4 articles just being approved : Marc Houalla, Gérard Rozenknop, Marc Drillech, Fabrice Bardeche. Again, thank you very much. I have about 5 more articles waiting for revision and a lot of new ideas. I will do my best with my knowledge to improve Wikipedia. 80.13.85.217 (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Excirial, a word of caution. It may sound like I'm poisoning the well here so I'll accept the criticism if that's the case. The IP 80.13.85.217 is currently blocked (indef) from the french Wikipedia for lying about using different IPs, POV-Pushing, misrepresenting sources, promoting articles mostly linked the IONIS Education Group (group of private schools); for example by creating a bunch of articles about people vaguely linked to the group to increase the number of links to those school articles. Since the sanction took effect a few weeks ago, he has used more than 20 sockpuppets to go around his block to the point that all the articles related to IONIS have been semi-protected so the other editors can work in peace to neutralize them. So please be careful when reviewing his submissions. Thanks.--McSly (talk) 20:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, a friend said wikipedia was an unreliable source because you can easily edit it with false information. I was just testing the validity of his accusations as i reference wiki often. won't happen again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.64.127 (talk) 19:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello Excirial, Status has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Congratulations, Excirial! You're receiving this barnstar because you recently crossed the 1,000 classification threshold using STiki. We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and DℬigXray09:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Before anything else i think i have to be honest, and say that i completely managed to miss the entire references section when reviewing the article. I have no clue how i managed to do so as it was quite clearly (and correctly) labeled as "References", but somehow i did manage. Now i got that out of the way, i would have to say that the article still needs a few things before its ok to go, so let's dig into that.
References and inline citations:' The first issue with the article are, perhaps surprisingly, still the references. Five out of eight of the references are self published, and therefor don't count as reliable. Why? Since technically taken everyone can publish a book about him or herself, and thus they are in control of the content. Another issue is that the article does not use inline citations for its content. Inline citations "Link" a reference to a certain section of the text, so that one can see which reference is used for each section of text. Besides being convenient, it allows for quick-glance checking which sections are properly sourced.
BLP compliance:' Since the article is a biography of a living person, the BLP policy comes into play. The BLP policy is an exceptionally strict policy which more or less states that every autobiography of a living person must adhere to the highest possible standard as far as sourcing content goes. Why it is in place? Because incorrect biographical content can have rather serious repercussions compared to other article's. If i were to falsely change the start date of some random war in history it would be inconvenient, but it wouldn't have too many repercussions. Were i to change the Richard C. Kirkland article to state that he has been interdicted for treason, or that he has been arrested for child molestation it could have some rather serious consequences. In short: Every line in a BLP article must have a reliable reference attached to it. If it doesn't have a reference, it shouldn't be in the article since it cannot be reliably checked.
Wikifying:' The last issue - wikification - is really the most minor issue, and it technically won't stop an article from being approved. Wikification means that the content of an article is linked to other, relevant article's so that readers can browse trough it. Since the linked page contains a whole lot of text it is probally easier to put it like this: Link context-relevant words to other article's so editors can browse trough. This can be done by adding double brackets around a word. For example [[West Virginia Route 98]] would create a link to West Virginia Route 98.
HI
I have tried to submit a page documenting my existence as a respected and established actor in South Africa. Can you furnish em with reasons as to why my article was rejected and how I should go about rectifying the article in order for it to be recognized as valid. My credentials can be validated by "Google" as there have been countless articles about me, including the awards nominated and won.
The article itself was rejected because it did not contain any reliable sources that verify the content written in the article. Any article - and especially a BLP type article such as this one - must contain reliable sources that verify its content, with reliable sources being content published on major news websites, larger magazines, major newspapers and so on. Since these weren't included, the article was rejected.
Besides this i will have to parrot a statement send to your IP from JamesBWatson: Please do not write an article about yourself. Creating an autobiography is strongly discouraged – see our guideline on writing autobiographies. If you create such an article, it may be deleted. If what you have done in life is genuinely notable and can be verified according to our policy for articles about living people, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later (see Wikipedians with articles). Simply put - it is exceedingly difficult to be Neutral when writing about oneself, and therefor it is discouraged. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)18:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Submission for entry on Wikipedia
Hello,
I recently submitted an article regarding Torch Partners to Wikipedia. I have pared back the wording to ensure it is not an advertisement and have made sure there are external links to the news items to support the content. The article keeps on being rejected. I have looked at the submissions for other companies in the same space and, if anything, our submission is less "salesy" than theirs are. Can you please explain why our submission continues to be rejected?
The article has initially been rejected for being written as an advertisement. This has since been changed, and the next disapproval was not based on advertising - rather the rationale was that there is no indication that the company itself is notable under the notability guidelines. The linked policy, along with the WP:GNG dictate that a subject is notable if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list. In this case there is no indication for this. The added sources are two trivial mentions in a newspaper, and press releases by the company itself. Thus, the sources added fail WP:42.
On another note i would point out that the username you are using is a company name, which is not allowed by the username policy (I see another administrator already issued a block for this). I would also strongly point to our Conflict of interest policy, as it is extremely relevant in this case. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)17:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Your help and advice on a submission
Hi there, I have submitted the following which has been rejected:
The initial article i reviewed (this revision) was a straight-up advertisement for the subject of the article. I see that this has since then been cut down, but during this process one of the reference tags added wasn't closed correctly, which caused part of the article to become invisible (Technically it wasn't shown because syntax-wise it was just a long, unclosed references as far as the mediawiki software cared. That also meant that the review request you placed weren't correctly transcluded, and therefor the page wasn't listed for review.
I fixed the tag yesterday, and it is currently back in the review queue waiting for someone to pick it up. I generally don't review article's multiple times in a row, in order to allow input from multiple editors (A fresh opinion is sometimes a good thing). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)17:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Greetings
Hello there,
You recently disallowed a submission for "Clement Greenberg" suggesting that there was not enough supporting evidence. I wonder if it were possible to edit down the content of that page so that that you are happy with it. Other than provide you with links to IMDb (a notable Film Database of which my client is a member), Production Base (a further notable Film Crew database of which my client is a member) and of course a link to his showreel on youtube, I am not sure what we can offer you by way of reference.
My client is also a member of the British Film Institute and the Guild of British Directors, the membership number of which I am happy to provide you with.
Apologies for taking up your time, and thank you for reading this. We do feel that our client is worthy of an article on Wikipedia, even if the article is breif so you are satisfied with the quantum of evidence required for such a submission, until a time it can be expanded upon.
I think that there are quite a few things i should remark upon here. Before anything else i strongly suggest that you read the Conflict of interest policy, the Paid editing and Wikipedia essay and this external press release. To put it simple: Editing while having a conflict of interest is strongly discouraged (Which, is practice, mostly translates to "disallowed"), especially when an editor is being paid to promote a client (Paid advocacy).
Having said the above, i do realize that you could have feigned to be an enthusiastic fan in the above post. While there are a few telltale words in the article that suggest a conflict of interest, it wouldn't be the first time someone tried so i do admit i appreciate the honesty. As for the article itself - in order to be on Wikipedia any subject must prove that it is sufficiently Notable (Important) to warrant an encyclopedic article. The base guideline for this is the General notability policy, which states that a subject is notable if: a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. There are also some more specialist policies for different subject in order to add some guidance if a certain topic is notable. In this case i think that WP:FILMMAKER is highly relevant.
If you believe that a subject can pass the notability check, the supplied information must be verifiable by adding reliable sources. For a very clear definition of a reliable source, see WP:42. I would note that WP:IMDB does not qualify as a reliable source, as is the same for any self-written or other content that has a close connection to the subject. Sources that do count are - for example - major websites, newspapers or magazines that cover the subject with more then a mention or a few trivial lines. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)18:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello,
I am sorry if I already posted this - I am brand new here. I'm writing an article on the Chartered Financial Consultant, a widely recognized designation in the financial services industry. I noticed several Wikipedia pages make reference to it ("Financial Adviser," "Financial Planner," "The American College"), but there is no Wikipedia article on the topic. My submission was rejected b/c it "sounds like an advertisement." I resubmitted it just now and have included a wider range of references. I hope this corrects the issue, as this is not an advertisement and I'm having difficulty seeing where/how this is being perceived as such. If it is still not acceptable, could you please be more specific as to how it sounds like an advertisement? Thanks.
The version i originally declined pretty much read as an advertisement, with an altogether positive bias regarding the subject of the article. For example, take the following line:
The program is now the most extensive educational program required for any financial services credential and has become a highly coveted distinction among financial advisors wishing to provided comprehensive, advanced planning solutions for their clients
Marked in bold are the most promotional parts of the line. The first two sections are Peacock Terms, which means that they add nothing to the line except a positive bias towards the subject. In its entirety, the line could more or less be translated to "If your a financial service professional, you should get this certiffication as it is the best there is. Without it, you can't deliver the best possible level of service to your customers". While this line definitely standards out in its Non-neutralness there are other instances in this version that suffer from the same issue. I see that the revised version is a lot better though.
Another issue i see on the page, is that the added sourced won't classify as reliable for most part. As WP:42 states: Articles require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.". The added links are a combination of the organization governing the qualification, and institutions that offer the qualification itself (Most times writing glowing testimonies as to why people should follow it). As of such these links fail the "Independent" part of the reliable sources policy. In order to meet the RS criteria, other sources should be found to at least complement the current selection. Examples of reliable sources would be any mentions in sufficiently large newspapers (Substantiation mentions, not advertisements) such as the New York Times, any sufficiently large profession related literature or major websites.
Finally, i would note that the page is not up for review at this time. To do this, click the "Here" link in the declined template (When the submission is ready to be re-submitted, click here and press the Save page button to request a new review) and save the page. This will add a new review request to the button om the page, submitting the page for review alongside it. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)18:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
GREAT advice - thanks so much. I will work on it and resubmit. (It's a bit difficult navigating this site, so I appreciate the advice.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkreft (talk • contribs) 23:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
pl help!!
kindly suggest how can i make my article accepted by wikipedia english as all the case studies mentioned r genunine pl and verifiable
<ACHARYA> ACHARYA VIKAS KAUSHIK JI - ASTRO HEALTH REMEDIES (Acharya vikas kaushik ji (talk) 09:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC))
To put it short: the pages are in their current form straight-up advertisments and entirely non neutral in both context and tone. Aside from this they are also conflict of interest article's, including an autobiography regarding yourself. Please read these four policies, and then compare the articles you wrote to a features article quality page (For example: Frank Macfarlane Burnet), and compare the writing style and tone with your article. The difference between them should be quite easy to spot.
I resubmitted an article on ZYPPAH, a new hybrid oral appliance used for the treatment of sleep apnea and snoring. I changed the article to read less like an advertisement and I have credible sources.
Can you explain why it was rejected again? Thanks.
candice.lisaelia. previous unsigned comment signed for Candice.lisaelia
There are multiple issues with the page in question. Above anything else the page is a clear advertisement for the ZYPPAH medicine brand; While the first section is at least tolerable from a promotional stance, the article then starts a description as to how Sleep Apnea is related to cancer, heart disease, diabetes and stroke. The section end on the note that "People who have used the ZYPPAH have reported that they and their partners slept better and felt more rested with the nightly use of the appliance. Patients with health issues reported vast improvements in many areas." (Promotional). After that, there is a pricelist and some links where you can get more information regarding the product. Whether intentional or not: The article's structure seems to be akin to Fear mongering, where someone is first presented an entire list of deadly diseases caused by something, followed by a product that cures the something.
Additionally, there is no indication that the product itself is notable for encyclopedic inclusion. To be on Wikipedia an article must pass the general notability guideline, and provide reliable sources (See also WP:42) that support its claim to notability. The sources you added are definitely good sources, but NOT to prove that zyppah is notable. Instead every source covers the topic on whether or not sleep apnea or harmful. Were the article's subject "Heath risks and sleep apnea" they would definitely qualify as good reliable sources; Instead the article is about Zyppah, and both that word and the name of the inventor (Greenhorn) are entirely absent in these article's. Ergo, the sources are not discussing the subject of the article and are therefor not related to the subject of the article. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)18:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I kind of solved the cause for now as well. Silly location for a HTML comment, when one considers that most submitters probably won't have a clue what a HTML comment does. ("What does that strange line do? Oh, it says "Don't remove this line" above here and it looks the same. I should probably write my article inside those strange arrow markings") Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)08:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Bypass your browser's cache: Tommorris pushed the new version for me. (mainly: the comment/ref check) Please report bugs here. mabdul09:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Done, seems that the review button fails to load now though. Firebug reports the following in the web console:
Ugggh, neither Opera nor IE have problems with that (and even don't report any errors), but that explains why Nathan wasn't able to do anything with the script yesterday. Please change following line:
Done - and welcome back review button! Also, since you asked me to post at the bug page i just placed it there, but i figured i should reply to the section on my task page as well :). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)10:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Another one
I fear i got another one, when pressing the "Review" button (Happends on this page)
I let Earwig revert the new changes. I have to find a workaround for Firefox (ff only, works in all other browsers). The problem is that Firefox only has a problem if one of these two arrays (or both) are empty. All other browser recognize that as '0'. -.- mabdul09:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Bob Harper aka Robert Harper article creation rejected - need help
Ex, I just had an article rejected. Working on this for my boss, Articles for creation/BobHarper. One of the film's he produced has its own Wiki page, he is listed in the box on the right as a producer, yet when you click on his name, you are redirected to several people who are NOT him. I was hoping to create an article about him so that when a user clicked on his name from the "Rookie of the Year (film)" wiki page, they'd actually get accurate information about him, it's producer. Not an unreasonable request I believe. I'd also like to link him to several other films and projects he's involved with which also already have their own wiki pages. I'm not sure why we were rejected, but would love to correct this if possible. Other documentation I can provide about his early career was written the old-fashioned way in print from Variety and the Hollywood Reporter (reputable sources), but such articles are not online, thus no easy URL's to direct people to. Any help would be appreciated on how to get this article approved. Many thanks, Joanne Sala. joanne.sala@fox.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoanneSala (talk • contribs) 19:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Hiyas Joanna,
Before anything else I'm obliged to point you to the conflict of interest policy, since you state that you are working for the subject of the article (And at his behest as well). Having said that the article is not nearly as biased or spammy as some other pages created by involved people; just be careful that the article stays neutral in tone and doesn't change into a "Laurel and praise" article.
On to the article itself. Any article on Wikipedia must have reliable sources that can be used to verify the article's content. Since anyone can submit content you can never be sure if what is written is true, so an external, reliable source is used to back up what is stated. The verifiability policy is especially strong for article's that describe living persons (Called the BLP, or "Biography of living persons" policy), since incorrect biographical content can have serious repercussions for the person in question (More so then a random incorrect date in an article describing a war 6 centuries ago).
As for the sources you mentioned, any source that is considered reliable is a welcome inclusion. While some older sources such as magazines might not be available online, they are still a valid source for an article. While it is indeed more difficult to look them up there IS a pointer to a location where the information came from, which is what matters. Just make sure that you limited the article's content to what these sources state - in BLP's all the content should be traceable in the reliable sources. If you need a hand with references, have a look at WP:REFB for an example on how you can cite references on Wikipedia. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)21:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
As you might imagine there are billions of topics people could write about, and note everything is important enough to be covered in an encyclopedia. In order to determine what is impotent enough, a few guidelines and policies are in place which dictate what does and what doesn´t pass the threshold. The most basic policy is the GNG policy which states that a subject is notable if the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.. There are also some more specialist policies for other specific subjects, such as WP:CORP which deals with company notability.
I see you added some sources to the article, but the problem is that these sources don't pass the reliable sources criteria. A reliable source is, as WP:42 summarizes quite neatly, a sufficiently large and independent source that discusses the subject of the article in details. The added sources themselves don't pass this criteria - the PRWeb source is not independent as it is a press release, and the other two sources are only passing mentions of Holbi Group.
As on how to correct this - you would really need some sources that pass the reliable source criteria. Has the group ever been covered in a major newspaper such as the "New York Times" or any quality newspaper? Or perhaps there has been non-advertising coverage in a specialized magazine or a major news website? These are the kind of sources needed for inclusion. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)21:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
AFC: Kreemo
Hi there!
You reviewed a resubmitted AFC that I wrote on Kreemo Clothing company. MillerMk90 was the initial editor and rejected the original page. Based on his recommendations I modified the article and resubmitted it.
I see that it was rejected again by you, but I don't see your comments or reasons why the page was denied.
Decline reasons for an AFC submission are always left in the template on the submitted article itself, rather then being saved on the users page. You can see the decline reason here (The topmost template). Reasons are always saved on the page itself because some editors work as ip editors, which means that they could essentially have another adres every time they edit (Making previous decline reasons difficult to trace for people to review).
As for the page itself: Before anything else i would have to point out that paid advocacy or editing with a conflict of interest is strongly discouraged (Up to the point where it is disallowed). Seeing that you work for a PR firm (I gamble you are the owner as well) you have a definite conflict of interest with the subject of the article. If this is the case i would point you to a link that i often refer to in these cases, as it will likely contain some rather usefull information. Especially seeing that a firm rarely pays a PR agent for a Wikipedia article that is entirely neutral in wording and bias.
The above actually shows in the article itself. The article itself is clearly written in a promotional tone, instead of being written in a neutral point of view. There is actually little else i can say about the article - normally only parts of an article are promotional, but in this instance i honestly can't find a section that doesn't read like an advertisement or sales brochure. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)19:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Article creation declined - Jonathan Lomas
Hi there,
I've had an article I'm trying to write declined twice now -- for Jonathan Lomas (the academic not the golfer) -- for 'lack of reliable sources'. I was wondering if you could give me some more details/guidance regarding what particular sources to change so that I can meet Wikipedia's standards, as this general comment is not that useful given the twelve or so references I do have.
Many thanks for your time and reviews! previous unsigned comment signed for user Porterca
Hiyas there Porterca,
The article you refer to hadn't been declined twice as far as i can tell. I reviewed this old version, after which you improved the article and resubmitted it for review. The article itself is currently still up waiting for a review - somewhat inconveniently a new review request template is always added at the bottom of the page though, while the old "Declined" template remains on top of the page (I admit, is a tad confusing).
Once the article is re-reviewed, you should receive another message stating "Your submission at Articles for creation" on your talk page, and the article should either be created, or there should be a second template stating why it was declined. Personally i try to avoid reviewing article's multiple times in a row to allow for some fresh input. Besides that, i generally only check new submissions to see if there is some form of issue with them that would get them declined no matter what. The review queue is currently ~800 pages, and it would be a bit senseless to have an editor wait a couple of days for a review if there is some common, easy to see issue. As a positive note - I see no clear cut issues with the page as of current. That doesn't mean it will definitely be accepted, but it does mean that the basis of the article is fine. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)20:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Pro-Iranism
Why was this speedy deleted? It is a category so it doesn't need any content, just an explanation of what it is. Could you please restore it? An article does exist for the term, this would be a category. Redhanker (talk) 22:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Consensus has developed that in most cases articles should not be tagged for deletion under this criterion moments after creation as the creator may be actively working on the content;
This clearly does not apply to category: articles:
A3. No content.
Any article (other than disambiguation pages, redirects, or soft redirects) consisting only of external links, category tags and "see also" sections, a rephrasing of the title, attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, chat-like comments, template tags, and/or images. This also applies to articles consisting entirely of the framework of the Article wizard with no additional content beyond the above. However, a very short article may be a valid stub if it has context, in which case it is not eligible for deletion under this criterion. Similarly, this criterion does not cover a page having only an infobox, unless its contents also meet the above criteria. Caution is needed when using this tag on newly created articles.
{{db-a3}}, {{db-nocontent}}, {{db-contact}}, {{db-empty}}
Consensus has developed that in most cases articles should not be tagged for deletion under this criterion moments after creation as the creator may be actively working on the content; though there is no set time requirement, a ten-minute delay before tagging under this criterion is suggested as good practice. Please do not mark the page as patrolled prior to that suitable delay passing, so that the wait does not result in the article escaping review at a later time.
Entirely correct - thanks RHaworth. The article contained a typo (Catetory) and therefor ended up in the article space rather then the category space which is why i removed it. Seems that the editor who tagged it with a CSD template used an A3 tag as opposed to a G6 tag (Housekeeping) it was supposed to have. Twinkle automatically uses a CSD template's warning during a page removal, thus the somewhat incorrect removal summary. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)06:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Excirial
Hi Excirial,
Thanks for approving my user page. How do you get those extra buttons and become an editor ? =]
Howdy from Texas. I wrote a draft of an article, mistakenly submitted two similar pages for the same article. Saw you note about the duplication and recommending deleting a duplicate. Thank you for catching my hiccup.
"This appears to be a duplicate of another submission, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Daisy Chain (historical novel), which is also waiting to be reviewed. To save time we will consider the other submission and not this one."
Now, it appears that the original article is not now in the Wiki system either. When I click on the link in your note, I get a Wiki pg message that Wiki does not have an article with this title. Just want to make sure one copy of the article is in the review process.
Casey Miller, Dallas, TX 03:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CAMiller62 (talk • contribs)
Hiyas there CAMiller62,
What you are seeing is a bit of a mistake on my side actually. When marking an AFC submission as duplicate it require a parameter stating which page the article is a duplicate of. This parameter automatically assumes that the page is in the wikipedia talk namespace, so you only have to enter the pages name. Having said that - i copy-n-pasted the entire page name including "Wikipedia_Talk:" into the template, which caused it to break.
Sorry to bother you with something that is potentially so trivial, but as a newbie to "editing" wikipedia I do not know where else to turn. You have recently undone an edit of mine on the following page: Carddas. I had changed the content of the article to reflect the name that I deemed as proper, changing all instances of "carddas" to "carddass" (no this was not a vandal edit, despite how it may look). I have outline the reason for the inclusion of the latter of the two names in the talk page for this article. Please take a look at it and do my edit justice, or correct me if I am indeed wrong. Thank you for your time. --108.21.181.98 (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Ahh, okay I see you already attended to that edit. Disregard the above message then. Thanks. Hope your coffee tastes well :) --108.21.181.98 (talk) 19:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Hiyas there 108.21.181.98,
First of my usual and perhaps somewhat cheesy "Welcome to Wikipedia!". Hopefully the rest of your stay is somewhat more pleasant then running in to my (Hopefully) rare goof-ups when dealing with checking edits. I was busy reading a new page while going trough new edits at the same time, and that is really never a good idea from a quality perspective (Also, i really needed to get myself some coffee as well). Thankfully you managed to find that talk page and posted that message, which is when i noticed that i made that incorrect revert. Also, thanks for pointing out that the article title was wrong, always better to have a page at the correct location rather.
Hello Excirial, I noticed you blanked an AfC submission you declined for being written like an advertisement. Please remember that ONLY articles declined for BLP or CV should be blanked. I know this is a new option in the AfC Helper Script, but unless it's CV or BLP, don't blank the submission. AndrewNtalk07:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Its not really that new a option, it has always been there as far as i can recall. But really, did you have to write this in a style that implies i am doing carpet bombing raids on anything that smells promotional, while not being aware that it is supposed to be a precision strike on some targets? Based on my other AFC reviews you should have been able to see that i already only blank copyvio's and negative BLP article's. Why this one is blanked then? Well, its easy to accidentally tick a check-box - clicking the check boxes text comment also toggle's it, so if you click half an inch under the comment box it will get accidentally checked. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)07:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Deletion of FishBowl Worldwide Media Page
Before going to a deletion review, I want to ask what your reasoning is for deleting the page. Notability has been demonstrated through numerous respected outside sources that are verifiable and included in the article. Please reinstate the page or specifically advise what you considered non-notable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fishbowl_worldwide_media— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.224.100.100 (talk) 20:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
The article itself has been deleted twice - the first time under the A7 (Non notable) criteria on the 27th, the second time under the G11 (advertising) criteria on the 28th. The version i removed on the 27th didn't contain a notability claim, just a notice that it existed, and had two sources - LinkedIn and IWDB - which are both not considered reliable sources (Also see WP:42). Additionally it was written by "Fbwmedia", which indicates a clear conflict of interest with the subject.
The second removal on the 28th was done by User:Anonymous Dissident, for the previously mentioned G11 criteria. I notice that this version has definitely fleshed out and contains a lot more sources, but it was written in a somewhat promotional tone. For example take these exerts:
"As an inventive organization that delivers the next generation of entertainment"
"FishBowl strives to turn each project into a specific brand on a variety of platforms that engage, inspire, and enable real emotional connections"
To be fair i would probably have settled for a "Non neutral point of view" tag and "Conflict of interest" tag myself rather then a G11 removal, though if it were submitted as a review request at articles's for creation i would probably have remarked on this issue as well. If you wish i can restore the page to your userspace in order to iron those issues out. I would suggest submitting it trough AFC instead though, especially seeing that you are very closely related to the subject (Thus having a conflict of interest which makes writing a neutral article challenging). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)21:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for revoking the access. Usually, I would not have removed them as they should stay for the duration. It was the nature of them that caused them to be removed. Cheers,--Chip123456 (talk) 06:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks for taking the time to review/decline my article on 'Swallowfield PLC'.As a first time user of Wikipedia I now understand the reasons for why it was declined. I have made as many adjustments as I can to make it appear as neutral as possible. It should be re-submitted in the next week. I know that my sources were told that they 'should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject'. These are the only sources I can use at present to back up what I have written, so how can I improve/better them, as I cannot see how to further improve their reliability. I also added a section on the awards the company has won. Can I still include these, or is that deemed as advertising too?
Apologies it took me two days to get back to you - ironically i have more time to reply during weekdays then i have during weekends. I see you are in the process of writing a new version, but before that i would have to point out that reliable sources are mandatory when creating an article. Reliable sources are indeed, as you quoted "independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject". If you do not have any of these available at the time being, i would strongly suggest searching those before spending time rewriting the article. While promotional language is an issue, the only steps required to fix that is rewriting the pagein a non promotional tine. A lack of reliable sources on the other hand is more serious, as not having reliable sources will generally result in a blanket decline for a page. This is in part because the importance threshold for inclusion On Wikipedia (called notability) is also based on reliable sources trough the general notability guideline. If there are no such sources then rewriting a page generally won't do any good as the notability issue is still present. Aren't there any other sources besides the companies own website? Eg? Aren't there any independent newspaper article's, specialist literature or any websites of significant size that wrote something about the company?
Also as a bit of a general caution - i see you are closely related to Swallowfield PLC since you are an employee for the company. This is a so called conflict of interest, or a situation where you are so closely related to a subject that writing a neutral article may be difficult. In those cases there is a general recommendation against writing about that subject; Seeing that you are submitting the article trough AFC for review makes this less of an issue though, as it can be checked beforehand for any issues. Just make sure to double-check what you are writing for promotional parts - it is rather easy for those to sneak in. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)21:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I have a good faith on you Excirial
Hola Excirial,
I'm Antonia, I know you're a busy guy. Like really really busy. I'm sorry If I have a lots of questions, bear with me here. So here's my story, I've tried to submit a article about a Mountaineering Org based in Philippines in which gives a lot of help in doing community services and environmental protection activities. But unfortunately, just like you said, it can't be approved yet (yes yet, hehehe! I'm gonna do my best to know what seems to be the problem so that I can improve it and wiki will accept it someday) And I'm really really hopeful.(= Can I asked btw what should I need to do? It maybe silly but I think this org deserves to be recognized not only in Philippines but worldwide as well. This org is not just a hiking club but played such importance in environmental protection awareness as well, always ready to provide a hand in every help we can offer for our country. It's been 8 years and it's still growing. Aside from the fact also that one of its members Mon Dysangco was part of Mt Aconcagua (Argentina) Team expedition last year. It will always be a joy and pride for our country, knowing that Philippines is only a 3rd world country yet they still manage to give our country something to be proud of.
I've seen mountaineering clubs here in wiki. It inspired me to this one. I know, I know that SMC just started in year 2004 unlike any other hiking organizations, they've been here like forever. But can't you give a young blood org like SMC a chance to be published? =D I've tried to insert links as well wherein SMC was recognized in any activities, internationally or locally.
Btw, i like your username. It's pretty catchy, but I must admit hard to pronounce for me =D
Thank you for reading my silly rant. Hope to hear from you soon. Oh and thank you for reviewing my article as well and letting me know that it needs a lot of improvement. I'm challenge to do everything for it to be published. Whatever it takes.
I think that the best possible place for me to hook into, is the "but I think this org deserves to be recognized not only in Philippines but worldwide as well" line you wrote above. In terms of what deserves a page, Wikipedia can be a bit counter intuitive if one writes an article the first time. The issue is that Wikipedia´s translation of "deserving" equals that the subject of an article is notable enough for encyclopedic inclusion, and that this notability can be sourced using reliable sources. From a purely encyclopedic stance it doesn't matter what the subject of the article is, as long as it can pass those criteria. Hence, a serial killer might be notable while a philanthropist is not, and a comic book character might have its own page while a band doesn't. Actually, everything that matters is passing the importance criteria, no matter how noble the subject of an article might be.
Having said that, i would also point out that the age of a group doesn't necessarily factor into this, as long as it can pass the notability criteria. But enough generic pointers, lets have a look at the Smart Mountaineering Club article in specific. The first issue with it, is that it doesn't contain a real claim to notability - see WP:NCORP for that. Notability is generally achieved if an article can be reliably sourced with multiple independent sources of sufficient size, which pass the WP:42 criteria. I see you provided sources, but those are mostly passing mentions of SMC, rather then covering them in depth. The few sources that do give more then a passing mention, have issues with the "Sufficient size" criteria, since they are mostly websites that few people will have heard from.
The above is mostly the main issue with the article - what i always advice in these cases is doing a sanity check on whether or not the pages subject can pass these criteria. Sometimes a subject is notable and needs work, but other times it just won't pass, no matter what. I always dislike seeing people spend a great amount of time rewriting a page over and over, while it will never pass the notability criteria. If you are not certain, first try and find some reliable sources and ask if those would be passable, then write an article based on those if they do (And if they don't pass, you will at least save yourself from spending loads of time rewriting a page) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)22:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand
I've been trying to add one of my favorite actresses on wikipedia for awhile, they asked for references so I added links to her imdb, the official FOX website, her personal online profile, etc but it got declined as not reliable. I thought IMbd was at least pretty official as it gets...what are you guys looking for exactly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fellowponylover (talk • contribs) 18:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Hiyas there Fellowponylover,
Ah, reliable sources - that must be the most questioned topic for any new editor on Wikipedia. The shortest and most precise description of what passes as a reliable source is pretty much in the definition present at this page: "Reliable sources are sources of significant size that are as independent of the article's subject, and which cover the subject in some detail". The most important parts are bolded: Significant size means that a source must be sufficiently large to be considered reliable. Major newspapers pass this source, a 10 house town's local newspaper doesn't. Independent means that the source must have no close affrication with the subject, which disqualifies personal websites or advertising in large newspapers. Some detail mostly refers to the amount of coverage a source gives - a one-line mention in a major newspapers doesn't qualify as a reliable source, whereas a 2-3 paragraph mention or a full article is another story.
I think that the above covers 2 out of 3 references, which leaves us with IMDB. IMDB is generally considered not reliable as a source, as its content is entirely user generated. It is in fact close in concept to Wikipedia - quite a few people trust it to be reliable, but in essence it is user generated content and thus not reliable on its own unless references are provided for the content. IMDB is often used as an external link since it contains more information then would be prudent in an encyclopedic article, but it cannot be used as a reliable source. Then what does pass as a reliable source? Major newspapers, websites, specialist magazines or anything that can pass the above outlined criteria for a reliable source. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)22:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Is there any specific reason to ask for a restoring for a page that another user - Kingicon - wrote? I see no involvement on your part and no edits during the day it was created / deleted, so how would you even know what was deleted on that page? Even so i can see little reason to restore it on first glance - if this page is correct, the event won't take place until October, which means that the article would fall into the WP:Crystal rule, that a page shouldn't be created before an event occurs. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)17:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Both are redirects to a section in the 2012 in UFC events article? That is just fine, the crystal guideline governs separate articles, not redirects to sections in an existing page article. Having said that - the deleted UFC153 article was a standalone article about a future event, not a redirect to the aforementioned page. I guess that what you are looking for is simply this: UFC 153? A redirect to the UFC 153 section in the 2012 in UFC events article? Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)18:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi! Thank you so much for your review on my article. I am a student now in France and as one of my assignment in school I need to study the business model of French company. I choose to study the website that I would like to write about (see the article) and after study I think the website should be known by other people because its business model is unique and worth to learn.
However, I am noticed that this article is more like an ads. Actually I am still writing, based on the example of apple inc., and try to be neutral.
But the comment to the article is so brief. Since it's my first time to write articles on wiki, may I ask what kind of words will be noticed as in-neutral or as ads?
Thank you in advance for your response. Foncion (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Hiyas there Foncion,
Perhaps the most major issue with the article, is that the content section of it is overflooded with external links to the companies website, which is virtually always seen as spamming, or at least as an attempt to get traffic to a site. Besides this the only external links in the content section should be the references that are used to support the page content - relevant external links such as the company website are placed in a separate "External Links" section at the buttom of the page. The apple article has the same structure - just have a look here - there is one link to the company website on the bottom of the page.
There are two other, perhaps more minor issues with the article. First, it seems to suffer somewhat from overlinking, which means that the article contains a fairly large amount of links to other article's. This isn't a problem on it own, but the linked words are in part plain english words, for example - Website, Internet and quotations. Generally taken only " unclear" links should be linked, and even then you should avoid linking every single instance of a word - this is mostly redundant. As an example, you are linking Shipper four times in a single line.
The other issue is that the page suffers from overcoverage, as the article goes into a great amount of detail. In general extra information is a good thing, but the information should remain encyclopedic. This especially exhibits itself in the descriptions of each version of the site - you describe every color change in the logo, the shading, letter spacing, and so on and on which is hardly relevant for an Encyclopedia that intends to summarize a topic. In fact for most part a dotted list would more then suffice for the new versions, with a statement that a new version was released (And even this may be over the top - we dont cover every site change, see, for example, Google.)
Thank you so much for your help! Well actually I'm just thinking to make the linking uniformed. It means once I link the words, I should link it every time I write. Now I am clear this is not expected and gonna remove all the misleading linking.
But for the Google example I don't really get you. What do you mean by using dotted list? Do you mean the writing is too detailed and I should prevent this? Instead I will only need to make a list to tell the differences and that's enough?
Exactly! An encyclopedic article is supposed to provide a summary of a topic for a reader, which means that only the most important aspects should highlighted. Mostly trivial changes can best be left out entirely. You also might want to change the structure somewhat, as the entire article seems to foxus on the graphical design of the website and its changes over time. Most article's start with a short 1-2 line introduction (the lead) which summarizes the entire article for people who just want a definition of a subject. For example, if i go to the Music article, the first line states Music is an art form whose medium is sound and silence. Its common elements are pitch (which governs melody and harmony), rhythm (and its associated concepts tempo, meter, and articulation), dynamics, and the sonic qualities of timbre and texture. The word derives from Greek μουσική (mousike; "art of the Muses").. If i want to know more about music i can read the article, but if i just want to understand the basic concept the first line is sufficient to read.
Afterwards most article's dive into the history of a company or website to give the reader some historical context, before starting to describe what the website offers. You can see this structure in the Apple Inc article - it starts with a short introduction, then a historical section, then details about the company and its products, and last it covers important current events. Now, having said that - The apple article might not be the best example for your own article, mostly because apple is a huge subject to cover. Generally taken this means that the article structure is different and more complex then need be for other articles. Personally i like to point to Pearson's Candy Company and Pike Place Fish Market as examples. Both are rated as a good article, while their size is still fairly small. Thus, they might be a good example to compare your own article to. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)20:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
