This note was left as the reason for the Minneapplesauce wiki not being published.

"Comment: The source from the Minnestoa Daily is good, but it's all I can find, and the article should include more than one reliable source. — The Earwig (talk) 08:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)"

My understanding is that I do have multiple sources due to the language here: http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Wikipedia:SELFSOURCE

There is multiple sources for this wiki if the site itself is counted. Couldn't the site be considered a valid source for 1) a statement on the source of content on the site, and 2) a statement on the medium of content? I don't believe either of these come across as advertisements for the site, they simply state the policies in a clearer fashion than outside sources spell out.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.162.50.2 (talk) 20:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True, primary sources can be used with care to verify certain facts. But you also need to prove that Minneapplesauce is widely known and therefore suitable for an encyclopedia - for that, you need to show independent, reliable coverage about the subject, for example news articles and books. Sionk (talk) 22:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This note was left as the reason for the Joint Center for Artificial Photosynthesis article not being published.

"Comment: This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources."

I'm rather confused about this because the references that I have include one reference from the United States Department of Energy, one reference from the Caltech official news site and one reference from the University of California at Berkeley official news site! --Superwizard (talk) 03:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To me those all look like primary sources: The DoE reporting on its own Innovation Hub and UC Berkely reporting on the exploits of its own professor. CalTech is also a primary source (it's associated with JCAP, and their article basically says, "Hey look! We got mentioned by Obama!"), and I doubt CalTech's "Marketing & Communications" division shares their scientists' reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, but it does not mention JCAP at all, so it's rather irrelevant anyway. To establish notability, a topic must have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, sources not affiliated with the subject. Maybe there has been some independent newspaper coverage of JCAP? Huon (talk) 03:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help! I added several newpaper articles that talk about JCAP and so hopefully that should be go through this time!--Superwizard (talk) 04:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please redirect Template:You have new messages (last change) to Template:Usermessage. 117.227.4.212 (talk) 10:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That seems an unlikely search term for the template, which should not be in common use anyway. Huon (talk) 12:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/jinq and ipod

how do i change the title of the article? (to JUNQ and IPOD) also, how long will it take till you decide if to publish the article? thanks! Proteinfolder (talk) 13:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I expect that when the submission is accepted, the accepting editor will move the article to the correctly capitalized title. Should a mistake occur at that time, you can request the page to be moved to the correct title.

The oldest articles currently awaiting review were submitted on June 8. Thus, it will probably take a few more days until your submission gets reviewed. Please be patient. Huon (talk) 14:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am inquiring about the process of adding figures to show the Bowtegrity in the article. Are there step by step instructions available? Thanks, Paul A. Sovereign — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pasovereign (talk • contribs) 14:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but there are many steps. It depends primarily on who owns the copyright. You can start here: WP:IMAGES. If you need more information, or help, check back here.  :- ) Don 21:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I am in need of some guidance for my article titled Hope International. I have submitted the article three times, received good feedback, and have made many changes. Since my last submission I've had the article reviewed by several proof readers and do not feel that the article is biased. Additionally, I have compared it to several other articles written on organizations (FINCA, IJM, Accion International, Grameen Bank, Special Olympics, Bank of America, etc.) and feel it is quite comparable to them.

After reading my article could you please provide me with specific examples of bias so that I can change them? When I read through I am no longer able to find biased language or statements. The majority of my sources are separate from the subject (some info had to be pulled from Hope as there is no other way to obtain info). When I compared my article to others, similar info had also been pulled directly from the source as sometimes there just aren't other options. I'd love any other suggestions for improvement as well.

Thanks so much for your help!

RunLeahrun (talk) 15:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)RunLeahRun[reply]

I have read over your article very quickly. First thing is to read: WP:WORDS. Examples directly from your article that need to go, IMHO, are:

focus of alleviating physical and spiritual poverty through microenterprise development.

cycles of physical and spiritual poverty

intentional witness for Christ, to utilize savings services and to serve the very poor in remote locations

simultaneously promote economic development

Hope works with individuals of all faiths though Biblical principles lay the foundation for the entirety of Hope’s operations

The aforementioned principles are applied through regular staff devotion and prayer, the provision of bibles to clients, the verbal sharing of the gospel, client evaluation of services, partnership with local churches and ministries and the employment of staff to lead the various spiritual integration activities within each of Hope’s programs.

This is all advertising hype. Make it go away.   :- ) Don 22:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I recently submitted my article on Matthew 25: Ministries (http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Matthew_25:_Ministries) for review and it was decline on two different occasions. I was wondering if you could possibly tell me in what places I need to change it so I can fix it and resubmit it. I am new to Wikipedia and was wondering if you could give me some tips on how to make my article ready for submission. I tried to make the changes I thought were needed from the first submission but they were not enough. Any help you are able to give would be very much appreciated. Thank you!

Joodia (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Joodia[reply]

You have listed 3 citations that basically provide facts and figures on your organization. We need citations that support the assertions in the article. If you sent 500 zillion boxes of cereal somewhere, then give a citation proving that it really happened. Not everything needs a citation in an article about an organization, but we need some things to show that theses number are not just made up in somebody's daydream. If you responded to a disaster, there must be an article about it somewhere.

 :- ) Don 22:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure why this article has been rejected.

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Robin Bond Media

MegEC (talk) 16:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Megan[reply]

The citations provided are not independent of the subject, or they are promotional of the subject. We want to see some third party, totally unrelated to the subject(not one of the actors or directors) say, "This is wonderful" or "This really sucks". Either will make it notable, but just having a listing that it is showing somewhere does not make it notable, it just proves that it exists.  :- ) Don 22:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]