Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/H. Reeves-Smith

I am not sure how to express the significance of this person for inclusion in an encyclopedia, as required by Wikipedia - clearly The Oxford Companion to American Theatre (which i cite) views H.Reeves-Smith as significant within his sphere.

This actor is referred to in other Wikipedia articles - inclusions which so far have no means of further exploration within Wikipedia.

Am i to assume IMDb (Internet Movie Database) is not considered usable for references for actors?

(Davidbrookesland (talk) 01:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]

You are correct in assuming that; IMDb, while ok if you're using for facts, doesn't help to establish notability. Really quickly though, take a look at WP:NACTOR, the notability guideline for actors. I'm not familiar with this actor or the movies, so can you tell me if his roles were significant? Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 01:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Reviewer, The page is for a medical genetics course, we are students who are trying to write up a review for this method which was listed method of the year 2011 by nature publishing group.

One place which you might consider as "advertisement" (which by no means was our intention) is that Sangamo Biosciences (SGMO) successfully introduced the Delta 32 mutation (a suppressor of CCR5 gene which is a co-receptor for HIV-1 entry into T cells therefore enabling HIV infection) using Zinc Finger Nuclease (ZFN).

Now this is NOT an advertisement - it was simply a fact, any science journalist would report it as this is beneficial for the entire medical community.

We strongly hope you reconsider your decision, as no where can we see any intention of advertising nor could any reader feel inclined to any cooperation or commercial products.

Engineered nucleases are published on wikipedia extensively, including the Zin-finger nucleases and meganucleases. How would those articles not be advertisement whereas an article on the methods using such "product" then be an advertisement? This is inconsistent.

Many thanks Seahorsechipmunk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seahorsechipmunk (talk • contribs) 06:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia the concept of promotion is not limited to commercial products. Wikipedia is also not the place to write reviews of anything, including scientific methods. It is a place to have a neutrally written encyclopedia article, that sticks to the facts and avoids opinions, original research or synthesis, on an independently notable subject. Pol430 talk to me 11:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pol, respectfully, I can't see how you've reached the conclusion this submission is promotional. The fact that it's "the 2011 Method of the Year" is too highly featured, yes, but literally everything after the first sentence is all factual, summary style information with good sources. I can't find any OR or synthesis and though I will concede there is a pretty major problem with the overly-technical tone of the prose, that's not a reason to decline. I've gone ahead and created the article and Seahorsechipmunk I hope you're not discouraged from continuing to edit - these things happen. joe•roe^t•c 17:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have accidentally created 2 versions of the article I wish to submit! The article has been declined as a result of there being 2 versions. The correct one that I would like to be reviewed is Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jonathan Chapman‎. Please can all others be ignored. Thanks Mmj2love (talk) 09:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I have redirected the other submission to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jonathan Chapman‎. Pol430 talk to me 12:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had some helpful feedback on my first attempted submission, and made a number of changes to my draft article before saving it and requested review. However the changes don't appear on the version that was subsequently reviewed, and I cannot now find them. Can you help locate? Martinshaw63 (talk) 10:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You made changes to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Association of Financial Mutuals on the 27th Feb and the submission was re-reviewed and declined for a second time. You have also been editing User:Martinshaw63/sandbox but not since the 24th Feb. Is it possible you got the pages confused with each other? To avoid this problem I have redirected you sandbox to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Association of Financial Mutuals, so everything now appears on this one page. Pol430 talk to me 12:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've added some new references and removed others (## 6-11). Hope they will meat the requirements and my article will be published at last)) Please, check it again if it's possible. Best regards))(http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Eckstein,_Karl)Lerysik (talk) 12:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems to be 95% unsourced. Its one item of news coverage is an interview with Eckstein (as acting honorary consul), which means the information is coming from his mouth. To be eligible for a Wikipedia article, people normally need in-depth news coverage in multiple sources, to verify they are notable. If you can add additional news sources, before an editor reviews the draft article, you'll have a chance of success. Sionk (talk) 13:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've added some more sources. And do you think it would be better to remove this interview? Please, check it again and let it be published at last. Thanks)) Lerysik (talk) 12:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sirs,

Please help me understand what is wrong with the page I've created for Mr. Dan Roman - http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Dan_Roman

Mr. Roman is one of the most prominent figure of the Romanian IT&C industry, with over 35 years of activity in the field and outstanding contribution in education of many Romanian IT managers.

If there is more information needed, I'll be happy to provide, but as long as two young football players with the same name (Dan Roman) and with very limited reputation have valid Wiki pages, I really wonder what is the problem with the page I've created.

Looking forward for your answer, I thank you in advance for your kind support.

Best regards,

Bogdan.learschi (talk) 13:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC) Bogdan Learschi[reply]

 Working :- ) DCS 14:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I realize there are many articles that are not the best, but we are trying to improve everything.  Recently there have been stricter requirements at WP:BLP biographies of living people.  The reviewer marked two places where he thought there should be a citation given.  If you can provide a citation for those two statements, then great, otherwise they should be removed.  I may have been even less kind, the first two citations don't even mention his name, and I believe the next two are from companies were he worked.  None of those should probably be allowed.  You are almost there.  You can remove the contentious material and add it back after approval when you can find reliable third party information.  Thanks for your efforts.  :- ) DCS 14:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to submit this page for placement a half dozen times and keep getting rejected. Based on many wikipedia articles I have seen, I have no doubt that Sender Films is a significant organization worthy of inclusion. However, I need more help in drafting my article and finally having it accepted. Most of the Reviewer feedback is so vague that I am still at a loss as to what I should edit. Any more specific help in this matter is greatly appreciated. Thank you so much!

Brett Forrest — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forresbj (talk • contribs) 21:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Working  :- ) DCS 02:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can imagine how frustrated you are.  I have quickly looked at the article, and we have problems.  I know how hard it is to be in the hype business and not hype everything.  I have moved your article into main space here:  Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Sender Films.  Now the talk page is available for discussion.  Most if not all of the decline templates have a link to more information about what is required based on the decline reason.  Unfortunately we are so busy here, that when we find a reason to decline, then that is what is used.  If we reviewed everything completely each time, we might have 10 reasons to list, but that would take a lot of time and probably be even more discouraging.  Since you have been working on this for a while, I hope you don't mind if I take the next day or so to mark it up and make some notes on the talk page.  I will leave a message on your talk page, and if you watch the article's talk page you will know when I have left comments there.  :- ) DCS 02:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear madam/sir My first article was about a great doctor who is directly involved to design robot, who used that Probot for the operation first time in the world. I mean he is the first real robotic surgeon in the world. But unfortunately it is not published. you can find it as the following link; en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/User:Rajesh_Mani_Lamichhane

I am really influenced by the doctor, seeing his professional knowledge/experience and overall attitude as a doctor, how he is practicing in London, serving people.

Could anyone please help me to gain more information about him and make this article in the wikipedia standard?

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajesh Mani Lamichhane (talk • contribs) 23:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here's the thing. Wikipedia articles require reliable, independent sources that discuss the subject in significant detail. Now, Youtube is not generally accepted as a reliable source and since four of the other sources are primary, you aren't quite at the level we need to accept the article. The Who's who also doesn't tell us much about Nathan either...it appears to be a paywall of sorts. If you add more reliable, independent sources we would be happy to look at you submission again. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 02:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]