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.
This article is a direct translation of the Japanese Wikipedia article, which lacks sources (other than external links). Is that not reliable enough? Also, I know I've seen several stubby articles without citations. Brutannica (talk) 03:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Hiyas there Brutannica,
Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source for any article, as it is a user-written WP:TERTIARY source of information, meaning it summarizes other sources. Any content that doesn't refer to a reliable source is therefor essentially written by one or more editors, and it would be impossible to check if what they write is true or correct. Also, If Wikipedia were a reliable source one could also end up with circular referencing - The Japanese Wiki article could be translated to English, The English version could be translated to Spanish, and the Spanish version could then be used as a source for the Japanese version, which means that Wikipedia would actually reference itself with itself.
It is quite likely that you will see stubs, or even larger article's without citing even a single source. Those article's were either made during a time when article's weren't that actively checked, or they simply escaped notice, meaning that no-one flagged them for having no references at all. Having said that - every single article should be backed up with reliable sources, as that is the purpose of Wikipedia (Providing quality and verifiable content). If an article is created trough AFC sources are always requested, since they are required to verify the article's content - there in no other way for a reviewer to see if what is written is actually true / correct / notable and so on. Additionally, since the policy on inclusion is entirely based on the availability of reliable sources, not having any sources would mean an article wouldn't pass the general inclusion criteria.
And a less policy based argument: If one requests sources at the time an article is created, it saves a lot of time that would have to be invested later on to actually source the article's content. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)19:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Good afternoon, Excirial
As we are right the middle of our Wimbledon here in the "good old United Kingdom", here is a bowl of strawberries for you!
The strawberry fruit (which is not actually a berry) is widely appreciated for its characteristic aroma, bright red color, juicy texture, and sweetness.
Apparently very good for your health. Something to do with the fact that they are the only fruit with the seeds on the outside.
I agree with you about adding the sprinkle of sugar to bring out the full flavour, but they should be halved or quartered first and then left to allow them to absorb the sugar before eating. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 22:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Blood Music
Hello! Thanks for taking the time to go through my submission of the record label Blood Music. It has been rejected twice. The first time is understandable, due to lack of reliable sources. However, I went back through to prove the existence of such an organization. I put in references to three major metal blogs where the label is mentioned. As well, there are external links to the label's websites. What more could be necessary?
The problem is mostly in the "mentions" part of the statement above. If a source is to be considered reliable, it must meet a few criteria: The publisher of the source must be of significant size / importance, it must be independent of the subject, and the coverage it gives to the subject of the article should be considerable. The latter part is mostly a problem - the sources mention Blood Music, but it remains at a one or two line mention for most part, while at least two lengthy paragraphs specifically detailing the company is more or less the threshold for that criteria.
Sources that are generally fine are newspapers, magazines, and the larger news or music websites. Seeing that the label apparantly publisher for multiple artists that have their own article, i gable there must be more material on the label. Isn't it mentioned in some music magazine? Or is there a newspaper that covers the band and the label in one go? Those sources should qualify as good in most cases. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)20:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Excirial,
Thanks for your feedback on the page I created (sited link below). I've noticed my error. It appears that I included the references in the external links and failed to add the necessary citations within the article. Chalk one up for rookie error (I've been away from wikipedia for months now).
Unless I've missed something, I think I've corrected those errors now. Please read through and let me know if there's anything else that you think needs changing. You'll find the revised article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Babatunde_Rotimi. My references include articles from CNN[1], The Guardian[2] and an official press release from Caines. That counts as reliable doesn't it?
Looks entirely fine to me, definitely better sources then most article's. Seeing the changes i would say it is in good enough shape to move it to the mainspace, so that has been done as we speak write. I also note that you left a comment on Avs5221's talk page regarding the page notability of the page, and i think that AVS is referring to WP:BLP1E, or biographies for persons notable for just a single event (Or rather: Having received media coverage for 1 event), where there is no indication that they will receive coverage again (As an example: There was an article about a girl who fell down a drain, and half the countries newspapers actually covered that incident. Plenty of decent sources to work with, but no lasting importance nor notability thus no need for an article).
Winning a notable price is another story though, as winning it requires mostly indicates that someone is important enough in his or her field of experience to actually be considered for an award. I had a chat with Avs as well, and we both seem to agree on that point, so well, no reason not to approve the article as already done. Besides this i can say little else then "Well done on the article, looks fine. And thanks for writing it! :)" Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)20:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Excirial,
Thanks for the help. I understand what you (and AVS) meant in the way of notability. I'll be sure to take it into consideration which future articles. If it's okay with you, I'd really appreciate it if I could stop by to ask questions on any issues that I may be unclear with when working on future projects.
Sure, happy to help if i can. I'm mostly involved in maintenance work as opposed to article writing, but i assume i can answer most questions (Or at least point in the right direction). Just to be sure i would point out that there is also a Helpdesk and an IRC Chat help channel around in case you need them, since i might not be around to much at times. Note that the chat channel can be more or less populated depending on the time of day, as it is manned (like the rest of Wikipedia) by volunteers. If no one is around the helpdesk or a user talk page such as mine is a more surefire bet to get a response. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)17:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Carlang: Some Advice
Hi,
I'm back. I was considering rewriting the content for this page. I'm trying to improve my experience at formatting articles.
Got any tips on how I should proceed with this one in particular. I'm guessing I don't have to worry about references in this case. My current line of thought is to use the page of an established footballer like Zidane or (God bless him) Messi but I'm worried that that might be over reaching.. Carlang (talk) 08:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Hiyas there Carlang,
Personally i would suggest going over the article content first, and at least cursory verifying that the added references support what has been written. When taking over another persons article for continuation you might find that it looks decent at first glance, while having some flaws that are hidden on first sight (Copyright violations, references that don't support what has been written and so on). Best to check in advance rather than finding out in retrospect. (After a lot of work)
After that you might want to look at the structure and formatting of the article. Right now it contains several 1 or 2 line sections, which are really not needed (A single biography section might actually be enough to cover the limited amount of content in the article, perhaps with a subsection or two to divide his football and other activities). After that you probably want to do the basic article style and formatting such as adding interwiki links, bolding the subject on the first line, adding some categories and perhaps a "see also" or "external links" section is the need arises. I would also advice merging the two infoboxes - all the content can be covered in the Template:Infobox football biography infobox, so there is no real need to use a generic infobox template as well.
I would definitely advice using another article as an example for your own, and i would suggest to (always) use an article rated as a good article, since you can be certain these are well written and correctly formated. It might be wise to use a smaller article such as Ken Barnes (footballer) or Fandi Ahmad as an example though. World-class players such as Messi generally have a huge load of content covered in the article, which warrants a different article and section structure then a smaller article would use. (For example, Messi's carrer is split in multiple sections with an even larger amount of subsections, whereas Ken Barnes just needs two sections to cover his entire career).
I am having trouble understanding how the page I am trying to create, Concordia Clippers, is being declined each time. I have looked at other athletic pages like:
and all they have are links to their own site or no reliable sources listed on the pages.
All of the information comes from our "official" athletic site, http://www.concordiaclippers.com/landing/index so I am unclear on how I can provide additional "reliable sources" when our site is the source for all of the information. Any other source would not be credible because they would, in theory, have to cite my site as the source.
If you could help me get past all this and help me to get the page published it would be much appreciated.
Your definitely right that the other athletics pages could use some improvement, and seeing some of those has certainly caused me to sigh at them at more then one instance. In theory every article should be entirely supported by reliable sources that verifys the article's content. In practice article's often lack the required amount of sourcing (but as we always say, Wikipedia is a work-in-progress). One particular reason why these article's are entirely unsourced is because they are old. Most were stared around 2006, when Wikipedia was quite a bit smaller and less structured and geared for checking all the new content. As of such those old pages can at times be less then optimal.
However, the state of another article is not an argument for another article (to be in the same state (Also WAX argument), sinec this would mean that the list of " Article's to fix" would only grow larger. As of such the AFC process requires the article's to be up to standards before accepting them - it is definitely more challenging, but once accepted you can be assured that it is a quality article that shouldn't be at risk from deletion or other issues.
Finally, you definitely have a point regarding the "Our source is the only primary source, so other sources would be based on it", but the requirement for secondary sources over primary sources has another purpose as well. First, the availability of secondary sources is used to determine notability for inclusion. I can write an entire website about myself stating how important i am, but if no reliable secondary source has even mentioned me, my importance would of course be questionable. At the same time reliable sources are those sources that are reputed for having decent quality content, which means that they are likely to check if what a primary source writes is true. Suppose that i am a writer that would actually be notable enough for an article; If i were to add that i won three Olympic medals in Swimming to my site it would be extremely unlikely that any decent journalist would pick that up in an article since it would be nonsense. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)18:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
To be honest, i am not entirely certain about the sources. The sources should be reliable (Its a newspaper), but some sources seems to be covering a festival, with just a short mention of the Navarasa Dance Theater in the article body. Equally the sources are somewhat local as they cover a performance in a specific city. Personally i wouldn't fail the article over reliable sources in this case, but i am still somewhat concerned about the subjects notability. In this case i would probably ask another reviewer for a second opinion, since it seems to be a bit of an edgy case. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)17:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Excirial,
Two of the sources are Portalnd Press Herald and Boston Globe, both the biggest newspapers in Maine and Massachusetts.
And the festival that Portland press is the Bates Dance Festival, which again is a major dance festival. In Boston Globe they are the subject. Also the subject has been pretty much reviewed in all major newspapers in India in the past. The big problem is the web article to be found on the net. Some of it is there on their website in the reviews section where they have scanned and put the actual newspaper. Also, a bigger question, how does one cite offline resources in wikipedia? I am planning to write an article on a particular style of dance from India and it does not have very many online articles. Sorry if I i have made mistakes with the colon etc. in answering the answer. I am still new at all this.
Citing offline sources is done with the help of some templates that allow you to supply the information, while the template takes care of the layout and the presentation of the reference. There are different templates for different types of sources - for example, the template for books is different then the website version, since you will want to supply different types of information for each of them.
Now, before even trying to decipher how to add such a template, I'd mention that it is thankfully possible to do so trough the edit interface. Placing one manually is also possible, but it is more complex and less intuitive to do so. Now, based on the skin you use (Interface setting - you can see yours Here), the buttons and menu's for doing so might be located in a slightly different place. As a elated sidenote: If someone ever points you to a button or tab which just doesn't seem to be there, ask what skin they use. A lot of longer term editors like myself still use the old Mono skin which used to be Wikipedia's default for years, while new accounts use the new Vector skin by default.
Assuming you are on the vector skin: go into edit mode for a page. On the editing menu bar you will see the word "Cite" on the far right of the bar. Click that, an a menu under it will expand. In the submenu you will see a dropdown stating "Templates". Here you can select the template type you wish to use. This is mostly self-explanatory; Cite Web for websites, Cite book for Books, Cite News for news article's and so on. Clicking on any of those create a pop up fill-me-in screen where you can add the details for the reference. Its not mandatory to fill all fields, just fill as many as possible. Once you press insert, it will insert the reference in the article, at the cursors current location. And presto - you added an offline reference. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)18:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
CVu RfC
For the purposes to track requests more easily could add your implentation idea to the bottom of the RfC by clicking the big link in the bottom section?—cyberpowerChatOnline23:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Sir can you please advise if you can help me correct my submission so I can get Kissaki-Kai submitted and approved on wiki, I will be willing to compensate you for your help and support — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinjamesshort (talk • contribs) 22:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Sir,
You deleted my proposed submission based on copyright violation, however you have given me no explanation on what is copyrighted?? the topic of Kissaki-Kai karate is a style owned by Vince Morris and asll of teh copyrights on this are owned by him. I was adding the post based on his behalf and I cna have him submit you teh required information that he wons the copyright if there are coipyright issues?? Can you please advise as we really woudl like to have this submitted?
I declined the article as a copyright violation since the text of the article was directly copied from other sources (Among, but not limited to http://www.kissakikarate.com/about.htm). The website in question specifically states that its content cannot be copied directly. Even if this had not been stated explicitly, under US law copyright is automatically granted on all written texts, and is therefor present unless the writer specifically waives these rights. Besides this Wikipedia only accepts texts that are either licensed under a GDFL or CC-BY-SA or more lenient license.
In short you can write an article based on external pages and you can paraphrase them, but you cannot directly copy outside content. This is mostly a bad idea regardless, since most external texts are not written in a tone and style that an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia requires. The best way forward is rewriting the submission in your own wording, while taking care to meet the verifiability and Neutral point of view criteria.
I am just wondering how I can get round the copyright issue. I am currently Developmemt Manager for this Charity and the specific material which you have stated as copyright-ed was written by a previous member of our staff. Can you please advise - sorry, I am new to Wikipedia.
Under US law copyright is automatically granted on all written texts, and is therefor always present unless the writer specifically waives these rights by releasing the text under a different license. Since Wikipedia is intended to be a free and open encyclopedia, it cannot accept any texts that aren't released licensed under GDFL or CC-BY-SA (or more lenient license).
In short you can write an article based on external pages and you can paraphrase them, but you cannot directly copy outside content. This is mostly a bad idea regardless, since most external texts are not written in a tone and style that an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia requires. The best way forward is rewriting the submission in your own wording, while taking care to meet the verifiability and Neutral point of view criteria.
Why on earth did you delete an article about the Health Minister of Timor-Leste??
Why on earth did you reject an article about the Minister of Health of Timor-Leste?? It has a very good source which has all the information listed in the article and more - I left it so others can see the information. The site belongs to the Ministry of Health and is very accurate.
Unfortunately you have considered it as not appropriated for wikipedia as it contains copyrights.
May you please just tell me / or give me a concreat example of this on my submission please? I'd like to create a page which describs my companies activities.
The article you wrote was a direct copy of the following link: http://www.sgg.lu/fund-services. Under US law copyright is automatically granted on all written texts, and is therefor always present unless the writer specifically waives these rights by releasing the text under a different license. Since Wikipedia is intended to be a free and open encyclopedia, it cannot accept any texts that aren't released licensed under GDFL or CC-BY-SA (or more lenient license).
In short you can write an article based on external pages and you can paraphrase them, but you cannot directly copy outside content. In this case i would point out that this is an especialyl bad idea, since the article itself was clear cut advertising as well, which is not tolerable in any form. What i would suggest is checking if the article can pass WP:CORP, WP:V and WP:RS, and if it can rewriting the article in a (lot) less spammy tone. You might want to look at good quality article's such as Pearson's Candy Company and Pike Place Fish Market for examples on good quality article's describing companies.
My name is Michelle Smith. I created The Wikipedia page "User talk:GOES-R" (Although I'm not sure what "User talk" means - I just want it to be called "GOES-R"). I received this message: "Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. The submission has not been accepted because it included copyrighted information, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work."
I represent the GOES-R Program in an official capacity as the Communications Specialist for the mission. All information contained in the article is public, and all images are property of the US Government. I've cited the information and included web addresses where the images came from (mostly the GOES-R website, which is an official Government site). I hope you can help me understand what "copyrighted work" is contained in the article. As Communications Specialist, I am authorized to disseminate all of the information that is included in the article on behalf of the US Government. This is the first Wikipedia article I've written. I'm hoping you help me understand more clearly what the issue is. Can you tell me what specifically you've identified as "copyrighted work?"
I see now that your reference that the content comes from www.goes-r.gov and some is direct copy and paste. I wrote the content for www.goes-r.gov so I'm not using the work of anyone else. Since it's a public website, the content is public. Do I need to completely re-write the entire article? With government content, wording is very specific and while rewording some of it may sound ok to a general audience, it can completely change the scientific meaning. The wording of the website was chosen very carefully and I'm not sure how many other ways that content can be expressed.
Hello there Michelle. Just a very quick reply since you are the only person i haven't responded to yet. The above needs a more substantiated response than the other questions. I will handle this one in the evening, since i have more time to write a decent reply then. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)11:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello Michelle,
When i originally declined the article, it was because some sections appeared to be copy-n-pasted from external sources. Under normal circumstances US law dictates that copyright is automatically granted on all written texts, and is therefor always present unless the writer specifically waives these rights by releasing the text under a different license. Since Wikipedia is intended to be a free and open encyclopedia, it cannot accept any texts that aren't released licensed under GDFL or CC-BY-SA (or more lenient license).
Note that the key words in the previous section are "under normal circumstances", which was when i remembered reading that US Government works are often released in the public domain by default under PD / Government works. Since this is the proverbial exception to the rule i had to ask some other editors for their opinion regarding this (Since i am not an expert on copyright law), and general agreement was that the texts are indeed public domain and thus can be used (Voiding my previous decline concern). Do note neither me nor the other editors are specialists on copyright law, so i cannot give a guarantee on this issue.
Moving on to another matter - since the decline reason is likely voided, i think it is prudent if i do another pass over the article to see if i can give some improvement suggestions. The first this i would suggest is altering the lead a bit. The lead should contain a short summary of the entire article, intended for people who just want a definition of the subject. Right now the lead is about 2-3 paragraphs worth of information - it is best to migrate that in the article body, and have the lead summarize the content (Example: Goes-R is a satellite network being created by the Nasa, which goal is to provide thisandthat. (Ect))
Another point i see is that the article often uses subjective or WP:Peacock wording, and sometimes promotional text. For example:
will improve forecasting quality and timeliness, generating significant economic benefits to the nation in the areas of public safety (Promotional, subjective).
The spacecraft bus supports numerous subsystems (Peacock wording - Numerous is an opinion. For some 10 are numerous, for others 100 may be a small amount.)
In order to create the most useful severe weather tools possible (Same issue as the last two).
This is actually rather prevent throughout the entire article, and honestly it isn't that surprising seeing the contact was copied from an external source. Encyclopedic texts tend to require a rather different writing style then other texts, and thus it is quite common for the above issues to arise.
As a third and final suggestion for the moment: The article could definitely use more Wikilinks. Right now only Goddard Space Flight Center is linked, but there are definitely more relevant terms to link. Just keep in mind that some people reading the article are novices on the topic, and might therefor appreciate a quick link to say, spectral band. As a final - try to keep external links such as the one to NASA and NOAA outside the main article body, and replace them with interwiki links. Generally taken external links are placed in a separate external links section (With the exception of references, such as the ones you cited).
Note: Related conversation in archive 19
I'm just wondering why you felt the need to delete the article so quickly. You claim it's because it's about a company and does not indicate its importance, but then how does http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vuguru this company indicate its importance? I modeled it after that one because I find the two companies to be very similar. I even added more sources, references, and links. Please let me know what I could do so that you do not delete the page again.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiperson2012 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Hiyas there Wikiperson2012,
As soon as an article is moved into the main article space, all the relevant policies for content apply to it, such as the notability, verifiability and advertising policies. If an article doesn't meet these criteria, it may be tagged for removal at any one time. Under some circumstances - the so called CSD criteria - an article may be removed at once. As pointed out in the previous discussion the article has been removed twice - The version removed by me had no references and no claim to notability, which was why it was removed. The second version was removed by User:Anonymous Dissident on the grounds that the article was promotional.
I'm not going to draw a comparison with the Vuguru article or other article's, as that always results in a Other stuff exists type conversation, which tend to yield no useful results for either party. The best advice i can possible give you is to submit the article trough Articles for creation - if a page is submitted trough AFC it will be reviewed before it is moved to the main article space. If there is an issue with the article itself it is simply declined with commentary, rather then being outright deleted, giving you the opportunity to address the issue. If you require an example for the article itself, i would advice looking at article's that are classified as good articles since you can be certain those are decent examples. Pearson's Candy Company and Pike Place Fish Market are article's i would personally recommend, as they are well written and still fairly limited in size.
I recently saw your cleanup suggestion that I need to convert my raw HTML content to Wiki syntax / infoboxes on the African American Museum of Iowa article I recently created. Could you give me an example of an area of problematic code? Sorry, I'm a new wikipedia user and not quite sure what you are getting at.
There is actually only one section in the article that has some HTML issues, and that is the infobox which is displayed in the article. The infobox is build using HTML, rather then using a template which uses wiki markup. Templates have various advantages over using straight HTML:
Templates tend to be shorter, and don't contain style information, which means that they are easier to read and maintain when editing an article.
Templates are dynamically generated by Wikipedia. This means that, if a template layput is updated, all article's using the layout are updated as well. (This is not possible when using a HTML variety)
Templates can have several functionalities build in, such as categories, which is often convenient.
Ergo - Infobox templates are great, and should be used over HTML in virtually all cases :). What you will likely want to do, is replacing the HTML variant in the article with a template version, such as Template:Infobox museum. For an example on how the infobox is used, have a look at Musée du Louvre, where it is actually used. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)10:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey Excirial,
My only problem with implementing the template is that it takes away some of the flexibility of the original html infobox. The AAMI is a non-profit, as well as a museum, and I think that including the mission statement of the organization is important. The Template:Infobox museum has no option to include a mission statement, and I have no ability to edit the fields to include it. Additionally, I'm not convinced that I want the layout of the infobox I'm using to be tied to any future updates made to the infobox template.
I would design my own template, but the article listing proposed infobox templates seems to be out of date and/or not maintained. Thoughts? Griot2012—Preceding undated comment added 18:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
You can ask any of your Indian Friend for verification of this content. Its really sad for me that I need to provide proof for this Great mantra written many many years ago and prayed by every Hindu, in the morning.
The basis of any encyclopedic article on Wikipedia is that the content must be verifiable trough external sources, no matter the topic of the article itself. These sources must also be considered reliable before they can be used in the article itself, and the burden of evidence always lies with the person adding the content.
Now, the question you ask also ask is "Why would i have to do that?", and of course, that is a sensible thing to ask. If millions of people use this Mantra, it may seem to be strange that you have to prove something that seems to be so obvious. The reason for this is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and therefor in turn little more then a summary of reliable sources. Also keep in mind that every Wikipedia article is written by a random contributer, and without reliable sources there is no means to validate if that contributer knew what he or she was writing about. Alternatively, what would happen if the mantra is slightly different in some places in the world, and two contributers disagree over it? Or what would happen if i were to change the mantra slightly and claim this is the correct version while yours is wrong? Who would be right, and how would you verify that? That is why reliable sources are required; with these, one can simply read the source and check what was written without a hassle, and determine of the article content is correct. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)10:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Artist bio declined due to sources
Hello, I would like to create a Wikipedia page for the artist I work for Matteo Messervy. He is a well known contemporary artist, exposed in major galleries and museums as well as projects world wide with leading architects. I gave a link to the artist's website where there is a PRESS section, he has been featured in many major publications over the past years... I am not clear what you require me to add or verify so that I can have my submission accepted. If I know what you want I am almost sure I can provide the proof/validity. Could you please tell me what I need to do ? Thank you, Kknightly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kknightly (talk • contribs) 08:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Hiyas there Kknightly,
Every article needs to pass the notability criteria before it can be included on Wikipedia, and this notability should in turn be verifiable trough reliable sources. While the previous statement is entirely true, but i doubt it will help you any further without an explanation as to what it actually means. What the article lacks right now are references that can be used to verify individual sections of the article. Take, for example, the following line:
The Srizbi botnet is the world's largest or second-largest botnet.
Right now that is a valid claim to notability, but there is no indication who claimed that, or any indication if that is even true (i could equally write "Excirial is the world's largest or second-largest botnet", which would of course be nonsense). This is where references come in - references are web pages, newspaper articles, magazines or anything else considered reliable which state the same thing as written in the article. References themselves should be placed after the line they verify (This is also called "Inline citation"), and this reference should specifically link to a page where the information is contained. I see you mentioned that the website has a press section. This is often a good area to check for sources, but the actual reference should link the press article itself, rather then the press releases section.
For information on how references work, i would point to the beginners guide to referencing, or the shorter but more to-the-point page available here: User:Chzz/help/ref. These should get you started on the basics of referencing for your own article.
Hello,
I see you rejecting my submission because its looks like an ad to which is against policy for you as Wiki-Admins. Will you please assist me and delete what ever you see it a must so I can publish my artical ??
Kind Greetings, Khaled Nawar. Signing comment for user:KNawar1
Hiyas Khaled,
I fear this is not a mere matter of removing or rephrasing a few promotional lines. Instead the entire article is an advertisement and would require a fundamental / complete rewrite to have any chance of passing trough the article's for creating procedure. I only just noticed that the article content is actually copied from this link which is a copyright violating, necessitating a removal of the current article for legal reasons.
I recently submitted an article about Abels Decker Kuhfuss & PArtner (ADK) which was declined. I took your advice and edited the article to include more references and more encyclopedic information. I then hit the "save" button and re-submitted the article (which the little box at the bottom of the page then confirmed to me). When i checked my account this morning I discovered that the new article was never saved and submitted, but instead the first draft (which was not surprisingly declined again) was submitted again for some reason. Is there a way to retreive the second article, which now seems to be lost? Or is there something I did wrong when submitting the updated article?
I fear that, unless the change is present in the article history, there is no means to recover the change as this would indicate that the edit itself was never saved on the server. Just to be certain i did a quick check on both the current and deleted contributions made from your account, but nowhere does it indicate that any edit such as described above was actually made. I cannot be sure what happened, but i assume that something went wrong while saving the page - either a server issue, or a mis click on your side. This can occur if you run into an edit conflict, or accidentally press the "Show preview" button instead of the save button. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)11:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello,
Thank you for getting back to me. I reworked the article again with your advice and made double sure that I hit save, and checked everything twice before I submitted it. I hope that the new article went through to be reviewed and that it meets wikipedia standrads now.
I received notification that my wiki page for Eric Metaxas was denied acceptance because it uses copyrighted information. However, I have copyright permission from Eric Metaxas himself, the owner of the copyrighted information, and the OTRS copyright was approved by Wikipedia on my talk page for the Eric Metaxas article. Thus, shouldn't my article be OK? Sorry, I'm new to all this Wikipedia article creation and the concomitant rules, so I might be missing something! Let me know if I need to do anything more to the article in order to get it approved. Thanks!
I have to admit it is rather unusual for an AFC article to have an OTRS permission template - to be frank i haven't seen another one that had the permission template on its talk page. It also seems that the AFC helper bot doesn't know how to deal with it either, since it moved the page to the AFC namespace (Per procedure), but left the permission template behind on the talk page of the original article. I restored the article itself, so it is available for editing again - and i placed the OTRS template on the page itself just to make sure reviewers see it.
Having said that, the article itself has several major issues, most of them stemming from the fact that it is a literal copy from a personal website (Which content is virtually always written in a style that isn't encyclopedic). To sum it up, the article has the following issues:
The article is written in a non neutral point of view, and contains a large amount of peacock terms. For an example of a neutral article, have a look at This page, section "Writers, publishers and critics"
Hi Excirial,
first, I'm deeply impressed about the rapid response on my submission. Also about the accuracy of spotting where parts of the article stem from: it is a contribution I have written earlier, as can be seen from the author quote (Peter Baumann) preceding that article.
Question: Is it not OK to use own work?
The choices on the submission page have made me believe that, but I'm a newbie and ready to take any advice. Should this quote not be proper I can rewrite it of course.
thanks,
Peter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pebau.grandauer (talk • contribs) 21:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello there Peter,
Before talking about the article itself, i would mention that i am quite impressed with the article itself as well - most first time AFC submissions barely resemble an article, let alone a decent, long article. I see that another admin removed the article on the basis of the copyright violation which (While correct) would be somewhat inconvenient if you wish to continue the article. For now i restored the article and moved it back to User:Pebau.grandauer/Array DBMS
As for the article itself: Using an article you wrote earlier is, based on the context, allowed or discouraged. If you were writing an autobiography it wouldn't be allowed to use a source you wrote yourself, but in this case i see no issues with using the source in question (Its a well written academic paper, so it definitely qualifies as a reliable source.
The problem at hand, however, is copyright. The PDF in question contains a copyright reserved marker, and even if it wasn't explicitly stated there US law dictates that copyright is automatically granted on all written texts. For legal reasons Wikipedia itself cannot accept copyrighted content, as using it would constitute a copyright violation. Due to the way Wikipedia works only GFDL and CC-BY-SA copyrighted content (Or compatible licenses) can be directly copied into Wikipedia itself.
How to get around this? Paraphrasing the article is the way to go in these cases. External sources can be used as a reference or inspiration for the text, as long as they aren't copied word-for-word into Wikipedia. Do be aware that close paraphrasing (Changing a word or two every few lines) is not sufficient as far as copyright is concerned, since the texts would be to similar. But with some restructuring and rewording of the sentences the entire copyright issue should be voided.
Hi Peter, you can sign your comments automatically using four tildes ~~~~. I think what Excirial says sums it up perfectly. Our servers are in Florida, so we are bound by US copyright law, and cannot repost the text as it stands. Some suggestions:
If you control the website, you can change the licence to PD or CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL
There are other ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright isn't sufficient.
Otherwise, you have to rewrite as a (not too close) paraphrase
first, thanks for the speedy un-deletion :) Indeed, this makes it easier to continue. I will follow your advice and rephrase the article to become sufficiently distinct. To both of you, thanks a lot for your patience (from your talks I can see that you have to explain these basics to lots of people beside me) and your assistance, greatly appreciated!
PS: Hope you have turned on watching this page, as I have no idea (yet) how to crosspost to several recipients simultaneously.
Hello there Peter,
I don't tend watch other users talk pages since my watchlist is already quite stuffed, and because some talk pages receive a lot of (Non to related) traffic that would cause the page to pop up. Just a note for the PS: section - there are multiple ways to post reactions to multiple people. Personally i prefer to copy-n-paste the entire section back and forth between pages, since that assures that the conversation is always up to date and readable for everyone (Whereas only placing responses on other people's talk pages would lead to a fragmented conversation.
Other editors prefer other methods - some just post a reply on every involved parties talk page. Alternatively you can place the Talkback template on another users page to notify them that you left a response for them on your own page (Which is convenient in its own rights, since you can keep the entire conversation on a single page). All methods are really fine - in the end it is just a means to make sure that another editor managed to find your reply. :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)21:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Interested in instructing?
Hi there - I've crossed paths with you before and, as you are a vandal fighter, decided to template you - but not just, any template, mind you..
Hello, Excirial/Archive 20! Your contribution reverting, warning, and reporting vandals have not gone unnoticed. Thank you, your expertise is appreciated. But have you ever wondered what will happen when you're gone? Who will Patrol for vandalism when you're on a WikiBreak, or just asleep? Never fear! Because now you can help train the next wave of Counter-Vandals. Consider signing up to be an instructor at the Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy! Theopolisme TALK15:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
It is definitely a nice idea, and i will certainly keep it in mind for a future time. As for now i fear that i simply lack the required amount of time to ascertain that me joining would actually prove useful. For the moment i am spending virtually all my editing time on the ever-pressing articles for creation backlog, and all the conversations related to it (Section 8 to 19 on my talk page are the result of just 1 days of work on it). After the US school vacations are over i expect that vandalism will peak again, and at that time i will likely spend more time on vandalism patrol again. Once that happens i will definitely keep the above in mind as an activity to spend time on. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)17:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Great, thanks for letting me know! Yep, I'm also buried in AFC rubble - I've found my own sweet spot in the backlog... Sigh. Theopolisme TALK21:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Paul Davis + Partners page
Dear Excirial,
I wonder if you could expand on why my page on Paul Davis + Partners was declined submission. You said that it was written like an advertisement, and I am assuming because you believe I do not had a neutral point of view. Could you please let me know what I should do in order to get this submitted, as I am writing about the company for a friend, and thought that it seemed to be quite similar to other architectural practice wikipedia pages? I looked at the other pages first in order to get an idea of the style of writing.
The problem is that the article itself contains a lot of non-neutral wording, also called peacock terms. Also the entirely itself is promotional, since it mainly seems to sum up how great the company is. For example:
is a strong international London based architectural practice known for skillful integration (Subjective wording and conclusions)
Paul Davis + Partners' approach to sustainability encompasses high quality design and sound environmental principles for the mutual benefit of clients, society and the environment as a whole (More subjective wording, and the line on its own reads like a marketing brochure).
Besides this the article needs more reliable sources to verify the content that has been written. In that case, the more reliable sources, the better. For example, have a look at the sourcing of Kelihos botnet, an article i wrote some time ago. Note that this article might actually have an extreme amount of sourcing for its length, but literally everything line can be verified in a reliable source. If you need an example to model your article after, i would always suggest to use an article which is marked as a good article. Good article's are checked before being promoted, thus you can be certain that you are using a decent example. Also, unlike features article's which are the best of the best, Good article's tend to be somewhat smaller and easier to read and dissect.
I have submitted an article on Heidrun Gerzymisch that was not accepted due to missing reliable sources.
As I am still quite unexperienced, could you please tell me what could be reliable sources in this respect and for which parts I would have to add them?
Thank you very much in advance,
kind regards. AnGo1981 (talk) 16:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Hiyas there AnGo1981,
Reliable sources are external sources of information that can generally be trusted to provide decent quality information. Examples of this would be quality newspapers such as the New York times, Major magazines, News websites, University published books and so on. In effect a reliable source can be summed up as followed:
It is of sufficient size - This means that the source has sufficient following. If i were to write my own blog it wouldn't be a reliable source, whereas a large news website would be.
It can be trusted - The source has a good reputation for decent writing. The above mentioned blog wouldn't pass this criteria, since it would just be me writing it, without editorial control.
It is independent of the subject of the article - A somewhat trickier one. If something is closely related to a subject, it might not be entirely objective. For example: If a company would write a shareholder report they wouldn't mention that they are heavily polluting the environment and expecting a major loss.
Thus what you need is reliable article's that discuss the article's subject (Heidrun Gerzymisch). Seeing the "Research" section in the article, i am sure that he must have received credited for his work, and that this must be documented somewhere. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)18:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for looking at that article for me. I appreciate it. I am continuing to make further adjustments. Thanks for your input, it is making my article much more solid.
The current problem with the article is that it doesn't contain any reliable sources that verify the article content. It does contain sources, but non of them pass the reliability criteria. For a source to be reliable, it must pass the following criteria:
It is of sufficient size - This means that the source has sufficient following. If i were to write my own blog it wouldn't be a reliable source, whereas a large news website would be.
It can be trusted - The source has a good reputation for decent writing. The above mentioned blog wouldn't pass this criteria, since it would just be me writing it, without editorial control.
It is independent of the subject of the article - A somewhat trickier one. If something is closely related to a subject, it might not be entirely objective. For example: If a company would write a shareholder report they wouldn't mention that they are heavily polluting the environment and expecting a major loss.
Examples of reliable sources would be quality newspapers such as the New York times, Major magazines, News websites, University published books and so on. Right now the article only contains self-publised sources, blogs, a wikipedia article and a webshop, and none of these pass the above criteria. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)09:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
NoTube LLC - Article
Dear Reviewer, I´d really like to know, why the article hasn´t been accepted?! You wrote, that the article isn´t written objective. Could you please specify this! Because, I mentioned references etc. It is not an advertisement - is the artivcle about Nestle also advertisement? Please let me know and could you please advice me, what I can do next?
Thank you.
Best Karo84 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karo84 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello there Karo84,
There article currently has multiple issues in multiple sections of the article. So the easiest way to summarize it is probably a dotted list
The article itself is promotional for multiple reasons:
The main body of the article itself is riddled with external links to the companies website, which is linkspam. The main body should not contain external links, those go into the external links section, and only when relevant (Ergo: One link for "Official website" and no link to each and every subpage)
The text itself is somewhat promotional, for example: NoTube offers a highly specialized tele-medical coaching service and During the program experienced medical doctors and developmental psychologists
The provided sources don't seem to qualify as reliable sources in this context. One of the criteria's for reliable sources, is that they are independant of the subject of the article. Yet they are (co) written by Sheer, who is also the owner of the company.
A lot of the sources and article content isn't directly related to the subject of the article. The article - and sourcing - mostly seem to discuss tube feeding as a concept, rather then discussing NoTube LLC. As a result, the article looks a bit like a coatrack, where multiple non-related subjects are discussed.
I received notification that my wiki page for Eric Metaxas was denied acceptance because it uses copyrighted information. However, I have copyright permission from Eric Metaxas himself, the owner of the copyrighted information, and the OTRS copyright was approved by Wikipedia on my talk page for the Eric Metaxas article. Thus, shouldn't my article be OK? Sorry, I'm new to all this Wikipedia article creation and the concomitant rules, so I might be missing something! Let me know if I need to do anything more to the article in order to get it approved. Thanks!
I have to admit it is rather unusual for an AFC article to have an OTRS permission template - to be frank i haven't seen another one that had the permission template on its talk page. It also seems that the AFC helper bot doesn't know how to deal with it either, since it moved the page to the AFC namespace (Per procedure), but left the permission template behind on the talk page of the original article. I restored the article itself, so it is available for editing again - and i placed the OTRS template on the page itself just to make sure reviewers see it.
Having said that, the article itself has several major issues, most of them stemming from the fact that it is a literal copy from a personal website (Which content is virtually always written in a style that isn't encyclopedic). To sum it up, the article has the following issues:
The article is written in a non neutral point of view, and contains a large amount of peacock terms. For an example of a neutral article, have a look at This page, section "Writers, publishers and critics"
Hi Excirial,
first, I'm deeply impressed about the rapid response on my submission. Also about the accuracy of spotting where parts of the article stem from: it is a contribution I have written earlier, as can be seen from the author quote (Peter Baumann) preceding that article.
Question: Is it not OK to use own work?
The choices on the submission page have made me believe that, but I'm a newbie and ready to take any advice. Should this quote not be proper I can rewrite it of course.
thanks,
Peter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pebau.grandauer (talk • contribs) 21:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello there Peter,
Before talking about the article itself, i would mention that i am quite impressed with the article itself as well - most first time AFC submissions barely resemble an article, let alone a decent, long article. I see that another admin removed the article on the basis of the copyright violation which (While correct) would be somewhat inconvenient if you wish to continue the article. For now i restored the article and moved it back to User:Pebau.grandauer/Array DBMS
As for the article itself: Using an article you wrote earlier is, based on the context, allowed or discouraged. If you were writing an autobiography it wouldn't be allowed to use a source you wrote yourself, but in this case i see no issues with using the source in question (Its a well written academic paper, so it definitely qualifies as a reliable source.
The problem at hand, however, is copyright. The PDF in question contains a copyright reserved marker, and even if it wasn't explicitly stated there US law dictates that copyright is automatically granted on all written texts. For legal reasons Wikipedia itself cannot accept copyrighted content, as using it would constitute a copyright violation. Due to the way Wikipedia works only GFDL and CC-BY-SA copyrighted content (Or compatible licenses) can be directly copied into Wikipedia itself.
How to get around this? Paraphrasing the article is the way to go in these cases. External sources can be used as a reference or inspiration for the text, as long as they aren't copied word-for-word into Wikipedia. Do be aware that close paraphrasing (Changing a word or two every few lines) is not sufficient as far as copyright is concerned, since the texts would be to similar. But with some restructuring and rewording of the sentences the entire copyright issue should be voided.
Hi Peter, you can sign your comments automatically using four tildes ~~~~. I think what Excirial says sums it up perfectly. Our servers are in Florida, so we are bound by US copyright law, and cannot repost the text as it stands. Some suggestions:
If you control the website, you can change the licence to PD or CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL
There are other ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright isn't sufficient.
Otherwise, you have to rewrite as a (not too close) paraphrase
first, thanks for the speedy un-deletion :) Indeed, this makes it easier to continue. I will follow your advice and rephrase the article to become sufficiently distinct. To both of you, thanks a lot for your patience (from your talks I can see that you have to explain these basics to lots of people beside me) and your assistance, greatly appreciated!
PS: Hope you have turned on watching this page, as I have no idea (yet) how to crosspost to several recipients simultaneously.
Hello there Peter,
I don't tend watch other users talk pages since my watchlist is already quite stuffed, and because some talk pages receive a lot of (Non to related) traffic that would cause the page to pop up. Just a note for the PS: section - there are multiple ways to post reactions to multiple people. Personally i prefer to copy-n-paste the entire section back and forth between pages, since that assures that the conversation is always up to date and readable for everyone (Whereas only placing responses on other people's talk pages would lead to a fragmented conversation.
Other editors prefer other methods - some just post a reply on every involved parties talk page. Alternatively you can place the Talkback template on another users page to notify them that you left a response for them on your own page (Which is convenient in its own rights, since you can keep the entire conversation on a single page). All methods are really fine - in the end it is just a means to make sure that another editor managed to find your reply. :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)21:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Interested in instructing?
Hi there - I've crossed paths with you before and, as you are a vandal fighter, decided to template you - but not just, any template, mind you..
Hello, Excirial/Archive 20! Your contribution reverting, warning, and reporting vandals have not gone unnoticed. Thank you, your expertise is appreciated. But have you ever wondered what will happen when you're gone? Who will Patrol for vandalism when you're on a WikiBreak, or just asleep? Never fear! Because now you can help train the next wave of Counter-Vandals. Consider signing up to be an instructor at the Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy! Theopolisme TALK15:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
It is definitely a nice idea, and i will certainly keep it in mind for a future time. As for now i fear that i simply lack the required amount of time to ascertain that me joining would actually prove useful. For the moment i am spending virtually all my editing time on the ever-pressing articles for creation backlog, and all the conversations related to it (Section 8 to 19 on my talk page are the result of just 1 days of work on it). After the US school vacations are over i expect that vandalism will peak again, and at that time i will likely spend more time on vandalism patrol again. Once that happens i will definitely keep the above in mind as an activity to spend time on. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)17:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Great, thanks for letting me know! Yep, I'm also buried in AFC rubble - I've found my own sweet spot in the backlog... Sigh. Theopolisme TALK21:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Paul Davis + Partners page
Dear Excirial,
I wonder if you could expand on why my page on Paul Davis + Partners was declined submission. You said that it was written like an advertisement, and I am assuming because you believe I do not had a neutral point of view. Could you please let me know what I should do in order to get this submitted, as I am writing about the company for a friend, and thought that it seemed to be quite similar to other architectural practice wikipedia pages? I looked at the other pages first in order to get an idea of the style of writing.
The problem is that the article itself contains a lot of non-neutral wording, also called peacock terms. Also the entirely itself is promotional, since it mainly seems to sum up how great the company is. For example:
is a strong international London based architectural practice known for skillful integration (Subjective wording and conclusions)
Paul Davis + Partners' approach to sustainability encompasses high quality design and sound environmental principles for the mutual benefit of clients, society and the environment as a whole (More subjective wording, and the line on its own reads like a marketing brochure).
Besides this the article needs more reliable sources to verify the content that has been written. In that case, the more reliable sources, the better. For example, have a look at the sourcing of Kelihos botnet, an article i wrote some time ago. Note that this article might actually have an extreme amount of sourcing for its length, but literally everything line can be verified in a reliable source. If you need an example to model your article after, i would always suggest to use an article which is marked as a good article. Good article's are checked before being promoted, thus you can be certain that you are using a decent example. Also, unlike features article's which are the best of the best, Good article's tend to be somewhat smaller and easier to read and dissect.
I have submitted an article on Heidrun Gerzymisch that was not accepted due to missing reliable sources.
As I am still quite unexperienced, could you please tell me what could be reliable sources in this respect and for which parts I would have to add them?
Thank you very much in advance,
kind regards. AnGo1981 (talk) 16:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Hiyas there AnGo1981,
Reliable sources are external sources of information that can generally be trusted to provide decent quality information. Examples of this would be quality newspapers such as the New York times, Major magazines, News websites, University published books and so on. In effect a reliable source can be summed up as followed:
It is of sufficient size - This means that the source has sufficient following. If i were to write my own blog it wouldn't be a reliable source, whereas a large news website would be.
It can be trusted - The source has a good reputation for decent writing. The above mentioned blog wouldn't pass this criteria, since it would just be me writing it, without editorial control.
It is independent of the subject of the article - A somewhat trickier one. If something is closely related to a subject, it might not be entirely objective. For example: If a company would write a shareholder report they wouldn't mention that they are heavily polluting the environment and expecting a major loss.
Thus what you need is reliable article's that discuss the article's subject (Heidrun Gerzymisch). Seeing the "Research" section in the article, i am sure that he must have received credited for his work, and that this must be documented somewhere. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)18:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for looking at that article for me. I appreciate it. I am continuing to make further adjustments. Thanks for your input, it is making my article much more solid.
This is in response to the article you reviewed and declined sent by me. I understand that there are no citations from reliable sources, but that's because Pinrod is not a well known topic. I've only heard about him from word of mouth dating back to the boy who first introduced the idea. There is nothing else about him anywhere. However, there was a time when there was nothing about the Loch Ness Monster or Bigfoot, and someone wrote a book or an internet article about them with nothing to go off of other than personal experience or other people's words, and no real sources to cite. Now those two monsters are well known throughout the world and investigations on them continue today. I wish to start something, to introduce Pinrod to the world, and maybe someday someone will write an article about Pinrod on another website, and use the one I have created as a source. So please, reconsider, and post my article, to contribute in the first steps of making an unknown subject, known.
Information doctor (talk) 02:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Hiyas there Information Doctor,
Wikipedia itself is an encyclopedia, and the basis of any encyclopedia is that it is a collation of information found in reliable sources. This means that Wikipedia will always be the last place where new information can be found, since it is dependent on what other people write before anything can be included.
If there is no external information available, the article counts as original research, which is never included par the linked policy. Once people start writing reliable sources about the subject of the article, that concern is voided of course. But for now it would mean that the article cannot be accepted due to the lack of sourcing.
Difficult to say. In any case you can use a personal website, a blog or something similar to place the content on, as you would have complete editorial control over its contents. I'm personally not aware of any websites that specialize in publishing original research, but neither is that a topic i have ever looked into. The web contains millions upon million of sites, so perhaps a search will turn up something useful. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)14:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
The current problem with the article is that it doesn't contain any reliable sources that verify the article content. It does contain sources, but non of them pass the reliability criteria. For a source to be reliable, it must pass the following criteria:
It is of sufficient size - This means that the source has sufficient following. If i were to write my own blog it wouldn't be a reliable source, whereas a large news website would be.
It can be trusted - The source has a good reputation for decent writing. The above mentioned blog wouldn't pass this criteria, since it would just be me writing it, without editorial control.
It is independent of the subject of the article - A somewhat trickier one. If something is closely related to a subject, it might not be entirely objective. For example: If a company would write a shareholder report they wouldn't mention that they are heavily polluting the environment and expecting a major loss.
Examples of reliable sources would be quality newspapers such as the New York times, Major magazines, News websites, University published books and so on. Right now the article only contains self-publised sources, blogs, a wikipedia article and a webshop, and none of these pass the above criteria. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)09:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
NoTube LLC - Article
Dear Reviewer, I´d really like to know, why the article hasn´t been accepted?! You wrote, that the article isn´t written objective. Could you please specify this! Because, I mentioned references etc. It is not an advertisement - is the artivcle about Nestle also advertisement? Please let me know and could you please advice me, what I can do next?
Thank you.
Best Karo84 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karo84 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello there Karo84,
There article currently has multiple issues in multiple sections of the article. So the easiest way to summarize it is probably a dotted list
The article itself is promotional for multiple reasons:
The main body of the article itself is riddled with external links to the companies website, which is linkspam. The main body should not contain external links, those go into the external links section, and only when relevant (Ergo: One link for "Official website" and no link to each and every subpage)
The text itself is somewhat promotional, for example: NoTube offers a highly specialized tele-medical coaching service and During the program experienced medical doctors and developmental psychologists
The provided sources don't seem to qualify as reliable sources in this context. One of the criteria's for reliable sources, is that they are independant of the subject of the article. Yet they are (co) written by Sheer, who is also the owner of the company.
A lot of the sources and article content isn't directly related to the subject of the article. The article - and sourcing - mostly seem to discuss tube feeding as a concept, rather then discussing NoTube LLC. As a result, the article looks a bit like a coatrack, where multiple non-related subjects are discussed.
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John de Ruiter
I would like to know why the article was rejected. I only used secondary sources and followed the outline and tone of Eckharte Tolle and Osho entries. Can you be more specific or show me where I can make changes that would make it acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Planktonium (talk • contribs) 21:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
(Related helpdesk response) I just had a look at the first five references. They were, in order, an article in Dutch magazine that I'd call "New Age" (the link was useless because it didn't point to the article itself), a domain for sale that didn't mention anything, a website offering de Ruiter's works for sale, de Ruiter's book, and a blog. The second obviously useless as references on de Ruiter, the next two are not independent, and the fifth is not reliable. That leaves us with the magazine article, which might be a reliable source - that would depend on whether the magazine has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Many of the other references also looked like primary sources to me - his own books were mentioned rather often. And some of the sources did not actually support the statements they were cited for, which is worse.
Wikipedia content should be based on secondary sources, and I'd expect for someone whose base of operations is Edmonton, sources in English should exist - how about articles in mainstream newspapers? Huon (talk) 23:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Hiyas there Planktonium,
I see that Huon already replied the above on the helpdesk, and his comment voices one of my own concerns with the article rather well. In addition to the above, the article is written with a clearly positive bias in mind. Even though the statements in question are referenced, they are still non-neutral and positively biased, especially if man reads the article as a whole.
For example (Among many others)
A website listing spiritual teachers describes De Ruiter as the most profound and "powerful, living and transcendental force of pure truth."
“the most powerful spiritual teacher I’ve ever seen — and I’ve seen a goodly number of them.
nown as an accessible teacher, De Ruiter has been called a modern day Socrates seeking out the ultimate knowledge of the deepest self
These lines really add no information to the article, same with the myriad of quotes from John de Ruiter that were included. Instead these are simply subjective statements by random people, that give the article a spammy and promotional tone.
Dear Excirial, Thank you for your information regarding submitting the article. I really want to get this right and I am glad to have your assistance. I have addressed the non-neutral sentences and several primary sources by removing them. Can you also please help me with the following points:
1. I have found many reliable secondary sources to be negative, whereas the positive secondary sources are more from web articles and websites secondary sources and not so much from preferred secondary sources. Therefore, if I were to cite from these negative sources only, the article would have an overwhelming negative slant. How do I deal with this?
2. In addition, most of the reliable secondary sources I have found are copies on websites. I have been unable to find the original article on the journal or publishers website. Therefore, even though their origin is a reliable secondary source, how do I deal with these sources since they exist only as a copy on a third-party website, and remain open to alteration.
3. You instructed me not use Peacock phrases but one of the phrases quoted was from an article that was actually negative to the subject matter. I thought it was good to include both the negative point of the article and show what an opposing viewpoint from a professional in the field in question. I am unclear as to why this would be considered a positive slant if it was to counterbalance the negativity.
