SINGH SADAN- A HUT UNDER THE SKY IS A HOME BLOG. THIS BLOG HAD CREATEDED BY PAWAN KUMAR. SINGH SADAN IS WELL KNOWN FOR BUREAUCRATS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.245.122.34 (talk) 10:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That should probably go to the draft page, not here. But see also WP:WEB: What makes this blog notable, and has it received coverage in independent reliable sources? Huon (talk) 13:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

world s largest motor car manufacturing plant mname option 1.gary,2.drathath,3.duluth

                         ???????????  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.203.239.209 (talk) 11:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] 

This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. Please consider asking this question at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what the Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps. Huon (talk) 13:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

17 November 2012

Hi. David B sent a message regarding this green bicycle case. My name is Alison Keay hence Keay in various places for references.

I felt I had to edit this story by Donahue as his facts are not all correct. He has just copied what other writers have said.

Basically it is correct (he got the story most of it from me) I have researched the case thoroughly with National Archives, books and newspapers. Information is limited as it is 1919 before the age of computers.

My references are mostly the same, The green bicycle case by Wakefield and Wendy East. Plus I have newspapers and original documents from the archives.

I have a photo of Bella Wright but do not know how to insert it. I have jpeg and microsoft

How do I find References for beginners

and do I just continue editing without a page break

alison — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alisonkeay (talk • contribs) 11:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alison, first of all a link: WP:Referencing for beginners. That page explains the details of how to add references.

I believe right now your footnotes largely just say "name Keay"; that's not enough to allow our readers to identify the source. Has your research been published with a reputable publisher? Then please add additional bibliographical details such as the name of the work, the publisher and the publication date. If your research has not been published, it is considered original research by Wikipedia and unfortunately is not an acceptable source. Wikipedia's standard is verifiability, not truth, where "verifiability" means "our readers can look it up in a published reliable source". Thus Donahue's article qualifies even if he got some details wrong. To contradict him you'll need another published source.

If the image is in the public domain or comes with a free license, you can upload it to the Wikimedia Commons via their Upload Wizard. If the imgage is copyrighted, you can upload it to Wikipedia itself via Special:Upload, but you'll have to provide a rationale why using the image in the Green Bicycle Case article constitutes fair use. Wikipedia's policy on non-free content requires it to be used in at least one article; a draft like Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Annie Bella Wright is not enough.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by a "page break", but I don't think Wikipedia articles usually have any. Instead they are organized into sections. Section headings are generated by pairs of double equality signs; for example, this section's heading is generated by the line:

== Green bicycle case Bella Wright ==

By the way, I agree with Mephistophelian that we don't need a separate article on the victim; Wright isn't notable except in the context of her murder, so we'd just duplicate parts of that article. Instead I have created a redirect so people looking for Annie Bella Wright will find the relevant article. Huon (talk) 13:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/District 187:Sin Streets I want to create a wikipedia article " http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/District 187: Sin Streets " and I need assistance.

Arghya Roy (talk) 12:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you need assistance with? At a glance I'd say the draft needs better sources. The first source is a press release by the game's developer, the third is a blog entry. Neither are considered reliable independent sources. The second source looks like a user-submitted (p)review to me, which would also make it unreliable by Wikipedia's standards. Even if it had been subject to Game Revolution's editorial oversight, a single good source is usually considered too little to establish a topic's notability. Huon (talk) 13:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replying.This is a very new FPS game as you can see its release date.So if anybody can help to find out some good sources, I would consider that a great help to me.Thank you:) comment added by Arghya Roy (talk • contribs)

Arghya Roy (talk) 00:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

17th November to 28th November..... No review. What's going on?How many more days I have to wait?Arghya Roy (talk) 02:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on getting a written permission statement for use of bookcover image for Four Florida Moderns, do you see anything else I need to work on for article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Saxon Henry?Macgirlpro (talk) 14:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The draft's sources need quite a bit of work. Almost all are primary sources, articles written by Henry. Wikipedia content should be based on independent sources: Others writing about Henry. There are some such sources, but the draft hardly uses them. Also, the "early life and career" section doesn't cite any sources at all; there are multiple other unsourced parts, such as Henry's poetry.

The draft also relies too heavily on lengthy quotes from the sources, even when the quotes tell us nothing about Henry. For example, why was the exhortation to "check out Peterson's Theisen Residence in Sarasota and González's lobby renovation for Miami's Museum of Contemporary Art" included? It doesn't tell us anything about Henry. In general, we shouldn't just quote the sources but try to summarize their content in our own words. Huon (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from User talk:Nathan2055

 – Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 17:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused about why the following submission was declined. I used roughly 25 other Wikipedia articles as a template to see how they should be written, what sources to cite to, etc., and the one I created was more objective and had sources, including independent sources, for a much greater percentage of content. There is also no subjective content in the article (i.e., this company is a leading company, or does this well, etc.) - it is strictly fact based. Further explanation would be much appreciated, including if there are specific sections or sentences that need to be edited or removed. Thanks!

http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/QuisLex

PD2012 (talk) 17:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of your sources are not reliable or not independent. This includes press releases, blogs, and QuisLex itself. See for example a past assessment of Chambers and Partners. I believe the only source which suffers neither problem is Market Research which doesn't even spend one entire setence on QuisLex - that's hardly the significant coverage required to show QuisLex' notability.

Then there are the "advertisement" issues the reviewer noted: The long list of "awards" that apparently nobody but QuisLex bothered to note, the certifications, the "services" section that doesn't even pretend to have secondary sources. If we had newspaper coverage for the awards, things would be different, but right now it looks designed to sing QuisLex' praise when no one else does.

There may be other articles in a similar poor shape, but while other insufficiently sourced articles exist, that's no reason to create more. Huon (talk) 18:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from User talk:Nathan2055

 – Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 17:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nathan, thanks for looking over my article for submission:

http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/User:Chris.nielson/sandbox

I have been trying to submit this article for an architecture firm and have been declined for submission several times and based on various factors. The article aims to be about an American architecture firm in downtown Los Angeles that is made up of the partnership of two architects. The goal of the article is to be about the firm and the projects created by the firm (rather than a biography of the partners). If need be, I am willing to change the article to be a biography in order to get the information published, but I wanted to contact you first in order to see all of my options. What would really help me is if you can clarify to me what steps need exactly be taken to assure the context is clear and informative to those not familiar with the subject matter. Is the context not clear due to the office name or description of it? In what way can I clarify (if this is all that is needed) or what steps can I take to finally make this article get approved?

Thank you so much for your time, I appreciate all the help !

-Chris.Nielson Chris.nielson (talk) 20:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since the draft has by now been accepted I believe the question has become moot. But I noticed that part of the "notable works" section doesn't seem supported by the given sources. For example, the article says IDEA Office were "the recipient of both the Young Architects Award and the Emerging Voices Lecture Series sponsored by the Architectural League of New York." The source for that statement doesn't mention IDEA Office at all but says that Thomsen held a lecture in 1992 when he was associated with the Central Office of Architecture. If there's a connection between that lecture and IDEA Office, we'd need a source explicitly making that connection. Huon (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear sir/madam,

I would appreciate some advice and the chance to question the rejection of my new article.

I based my article on an existing, related one, which seems to have the same qualities, "...none of your sources are independent of the subject matter...". The only discernable difference is the existing article has a list of "related projects", but I don't suppose these are sources.

My new article is here: http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Iris_(scientific_software)

The existing one is here: http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Matplotlib

The rejection note says, "If this software package is indeed notable...then third party, independent sources will have written about in a significant way.". This is not true. Iris has only just been released very recently. It is not possible for anyone to have written about it yet, or for some time to come.

Q: Is it normal for articles about new software to be rejected by Wikipedia until they have become established and written about in such a way?

This is a non-profit, open-source initiative funded by a large, world-leading government department. It is most certainly a noteworthy product, specifically created to significantly enhance international climate research analysis and collaboration capabilities.

Also, I would like to state somewhere that I am a core developer on Iris but I couldn't find a place to do so. Is it correct that this happens after an article is accepted, once the talk page has been created?

Many thanks for your time, Bblay (talk) 22:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update Edit: Apologies, I just spotted an answer to this. http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk#Review_of_Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation.2FIris_.28scientific_software.29 I guess wiki just can't talk about new software. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bblay (talk • contribs) 22:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]