Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 448

Archive 445

Archive 446

Archive 447

Archive 448

Archive 449

Archive 450

→

Archive 455

'dazzled' and confused about creating an appropriate Wiki page

So I am a first-timer and I feel like I am way down Alice's rabbit hole. My normal intuitions don't work here. Heck, I can't even figure out to respond to the editor (LaMona) who communicated that my article was declined. In my "normal" world, there would have been a single link to respond and dialogue in order to fix issues. But instead, I received a stock message suggesting I ask questions at either the "Articles for Creation Help Desk" or here at "teahouse." So I just shout out into the ether? What do I include to reference my page? Also, I have no clue WHAT questions to ask. So here's the requested specific question: can anyone tell me ONE specific next step to do since my article was declined? There is a note under this very box I'm typing that says "you should sign all of your no-article posts by ending them with four tildes (Rustberg (talk) 01:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)). ??? but ok. Oh, another thing—how will I know if this message is answered?Rustberg (talk) 01:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

For reference draft appears to be Draft:Los Angeles Youth Orchestra.--ukexpat (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there are many difficulties, @Rustberg: and you have taken on most of them at once by writing a new article rather than getting experience first at improving old ones. Hey, it could have been worse, you might have tried starting with a WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Yes, shouting into the ether here on Teahouse is a good start, as it causes several of us old-timers to watch your User Talk Page. Too near to my bedtime to answer many of your questions, but @Ukexpat: showed how to refer to your draft. So, now you also see how to ping (alert) everyone who's in on the conversation. And what was I going to say? Umm, looks like I was going to say goodnight. Others will come along to try helping you more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim.henderson (talk • contribs) 01:50, 2 February 2016‎ (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Rustberg. When LaMona left messages for you, there was a (talk) link after their signature. Simply click that to reach that editor's talk page to converse with them. As for your draft, one of the most important things to learn as a new editor is that a Wikipedia article should summarize what independent reliable sources say about the topic. Unless there is significant coverage of the topic in independent reliable sources, the topic is not considered notable as Wikipedia defines that term. Therefore, you should assemble your reliable sources and build your article by summarizing what they say, referencing those sources. For your topic, a detailed article about the youth orchestra in the Los Angeles Times, for example, would be an ideal source. Sources controlled by the orchestra itself are of no value in establishing notability. You should remove all links to external websites from the body of your draft. A link to the orchestra's website is appropriate in a separate section at the end. I recommend that you read Your first article and Referencing for beginners. I am pinging you to let you know I am answering you. There are several ways to notify other editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I agree that starting out by writing a draft can be a bewildering and isolating experience. I spent a few months copy-editing before I even started to write new content and the learning curve was much more manageable. Looking at your draft, there are several things that will immediately prevent it being accepted, in order of importance:

• • • You need multiple references to independent reliable sources. Of the current references, only the first really satisfies the criteria. Generally, for this type of topic, newspaper articles, reviews by actual critics etc. are what you want. In my experience, you will need at least 3-4 good sources where the topic of the article is the primary topic. After, that, you will need to support the assertions in the article by citing these sources inline. I see you have already figured out how. Congratulations!
    • The tone of much of the text is promotional. Basically, if it looks like something you might consider putting in a brochure, cut it out. Use plain language and state the facts with no meliorative language.
    • You have inluded many external links in the body of the article and no internal links. This is not how Wikipedia works. Links in the main body are to allow readers to better navigate the encyclopedia. They should be internal and not send readers to outside websites without warning. External links are used to help readers find references, or are included in the External Links section at the bottom if they are particularly relevant.

Anyhow, that is what jumps out at me. @LaMona: may have more comments. Best of luck! Happy Squirrel (talk) 02:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Ukexpat:, the Teahouse is a great place to ask your questions. I think we can all remember how "different" working in Wikipedia is, and how confusing it can be. Looking at your article, I agree fully with what Happysquirrel said above. This is also very similar to what the reviewer, LaMona, said in the review comments: "All information in the article must be taken from independent, third-party sources that are cited. You have no sources. Any information that cannot be sourced to outside sources must be removed from the article. You cannot use the group's own web site as a source, only third-party sources (such as newspaper articles). Also, this article reads like an essay or a story -- WP articles are factual in nature, no "LAYO seeks to develop a passion for music..." "Combining their collective talent, intellectual curiosity, and discipline" - that is the kind of thing that would go into a brochure for the group, but not an encyclopedia article." I can see how that is a bit strange to somebody not familiar with working on an encyclopedia, but the good news is that it can all be fixed.

You asked for one specific step to move forward, so here it is: First step - find good, detailed references. You want reliable, independent sources that discuss LAYO in detail, not just passing mentions. Build the article around what those sources say. If you have questions, you can either click on the blue "ask the reviewer" link (in the pink box at the top of your article) to discuss with LaMona, or come back and ask here by editing this thread and appending your comments or questions on the bottom (signed with four tildes, just like you did originally!) --Gronk Oz (talk) 02:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Er wasn't my question - I've been around for 10+ years...--ukexpat (talk) 02:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

OOPS - sorry about that, my fault! (Copied and then neglected to change the name.)--Gronk Oz (talk) 03:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

To @Happy Squirrel and @LaMona, thank you very much for your responses. Now that I figured out I just needed to VIEW the draft page to see editorial suggestions, things are making some sense. My preliminary reaction to the comments is that I imagine there are not enough third party sources to create a full Wiki page on the Los Angeles Youth Orchestra. One of our Board Members insisted we do this, so I rolled up my sleeves and just played around in the Sandbox till I thought I had a basic summary and history of our organization. Much of that history is just contained in our organization's files, programs, and promotional materials. So here is one more specific question: Should I instead just write one or two paragraphs on the organization that only references specific information from the few online articles still available? Otherwise, should I drop the project until more 3rd party sources are available?Rustberg (talk) 02:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

All of you are so supportive and CLEAR with your suggestions. Thank you so much. I understand that my next steps are to collect every third-party source I can find and compose only content directly supported by those sources. So instead of a comprehensive history of our organization, I can only cover those moments highlighted in sources I can locate, yes? I have to completely rethink this. But it does make sense now that you have all responded. Regarding images, I'm still confused about what images are "free content." I'm gathering a photo that I have taken myself is not appropriate since it is covered under copyright law? If so, I can't imagine any image I could include with the article that would be acceptable. Please correct me if I'm wrong.Rustberg (talk) 02:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello again, Rustberg. Firstly, check the article's Talk page at Draft talk:Los Angeles Youth Orchestra - I have put a list of some additional sources there that might be useful. There are lots of references talking about YOLA performing at the Super Bowl in addition to what I have listed, so pick just a couple of the best ones. Then after it is over, I imagine there will be more to choose from.

Regarding the pictures, anything you have taken yourself is perfect. You own the copyright on it, so if you are happy to release it to the world, for anybody to do with as they will, then do so by uploading it to Wikimedia Commons. I find it easiest to use the Upload Wizard at commons:special:UploadWizard, specifying it as "own work". If it gives you any problems, you know where to ask...--Gronk Oz (talk) 03:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Ukexpat brings up an important point that <again> I didn't realize—conflict of interest. The LA Youth Orchestra is a small non-profit and I am its conductor. So my reading of the Wiki philosophy is that I should not be writing anything about it here. But then, who would? @Gronk Oz inadvertently brought up a strong reason for my orchestra to have its own Wiki page. We are NOT YOLA (the LA Philharmonic's multi-million dollar orchestra for underserved inner city children that will be performing at the Super Bowl next week). But everyone confuses us with them because they took a similar name (Youth Orchestra Los Angeles; ours is Los Angeles Youth Orchestra). I think that is one reason our Board wanted a Wiki article for us. But given Wiki guidelines, who would write it?Rustberg (talk) 03:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Rustberg. You could try posting a request at Wikipedia:Requested articles to see if any one there would be interested in taking on the challenge. It's not a 100% guarantee, but you may find an editor who has experience with similar articles. You could also try posting something at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California/Los Angeles task force or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music since those two Wikipedia:WikiProjects would likely be associated with any such article. The editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject California/Los Angeles task force might be able to help you find better sourcing, and the editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music might be able be able to better explain the notability requirements for youth orchestras such as yours. Finally, and no disrespect intended to you or your group, it's not really what your board wants which determines whether an article is written; it's what reliable sources say about your group. Wikipedia article's are not really intended to be a means of self-promotion, which is something that many organizations (especially smaller, lesser known ones) seem to misunderstand. Subjects of articles do not own and cannot control what is written about them on Wikipedia, except in some very specific cases. So, you might try explaining Wikipedia's law of unintended consequences to your board because having a Wikipedia article written about you may seem totally great and cool at first, but there can be downside as well if you mistakenly assume Wikipedia is something that is not. Your organization may have total editorial control over any content placed on its website or social media accounts, but they will have almost zero control when it comes to Wikipedia. So, their purposes may be better served by the former than the latter. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Teahouse, for all of your help. Makes me glad I can send folks here - a great community. LaMona (talk) 15:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Is the crux of the issue style (a fixable problem) or notability (maybe not)?

I appreciate your rapid feedback to my today's submission of an article titled William P. Kreml. Two reasons were given for the decision to reject. One was failure to adhere fully to manual of style specifications. The other pertains to and apparently rejects the notability of the subject. It appears to me the former is a remediable matter, but the latter may not be. I confess that I am feeling bad, because I firmly believe that his scholarly career at the University of South Carolina and at Peking University in China and his activism and leadership in the Democratic Party and now in the Green Party confirm his notability, and it is I who solicited from him the information that I put in the article. But if the judgment has been made (and can't be altered) that the notability threshold has not been reached, I will accept that as a deal-breaker and not try to modify and resubmit. Davegillespie (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:William P. Kreml.--ukexpat (talk) 04:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

You are right that style can easily be fixed (I have made a start by removing numerous blank lines from the draft and deleting two duplicate sections), while establishing notability may not be possible. The draft cites six sources; the only one I have access to confirms that he is competing to stand as Green Party candidate for US President, but contains no discussion of him. I am unable to judge whether the references cited do establish that he is notable. The rejection notice at the top of the draft links to two pages on notability requirements, for academics and for politicians, I suggest that you read them. The judgment was not that "he is not notable", it was that "the references cited do not establish that he is notable". Whether you can change that depends on what else has been published about him in acceptable sources. Maproom (talk) 08:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

"Notable" is a slightly unfortunate word that Wikipedia uses, Davegillespie, because it doesn't mean quite what it means in normal life. In particular, it doesn't mean "important", or "famous", or "popular", or "significant", or "influential". It is possible to be notable without being any of those, and it is also possible (though less common) to be one or more of those and not be notable. It is purely a matter of whether people unconnected with the subject have published material about the subject. It is possible that, despite his scholarship and activism, nobody has yet written enough about him. Then again they might have. --ColinFine (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

good communication skills needed to be an editor

Hi, Senior Editors, I want to know that would it require good communication skills to be editor. and my next question is " Can we make a page of any topic about whom we know well, such that page for our regions MLA(Member of legislative assembly).

Thanks Mohd Nazir Zaki Nazirzaki (talk) 06:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Nazirzaki, and welcome to the Teahouse. That is a difficult question to answer: certainly it helps to have good communication and language skills; but this is a collaborative project, and it can sometimes be helpful for somebody to write a draft of an article which can be improved by others. I think it depends whether your work is going to improve the encyclopaedia, or whether it will create a problem for other people to sort out.

There are a few things I would suggest:

• If English is not your first language, consider contributing to another language Wikipedia rather than the English one
• In any case, I would advise a new editor to spend time improving existing articles before they embark on the difficult task of creating a new article.
• If you are going to try creating a new article in English Wikipedia, read Your first article to begin with. Make sure that you have independent reliable published sources about the subject first: without them, it is impossible to write an acceptable article. (These sources do not have to be in English, though if high-quality English sources are available, they are preferred).
• Wikipedia articles should be written in neutral language, based almost entirely on what people unconnected with the subject have said about them. What the subject or their associates say or want to say is almost irrelevant. For this reason, if you know the MLA in question, you are discouraged from writing about them, because you may have a conflict of interest. (I have interpreted your "about whom we know well" as meaning you know them personally. If that is not the case then you might not have a conflict of interest; but any article you write should still be based primarily on what independent published sources say, not on your personal knowledge of them.).
• I suggest that you don't think in terms of "a page of" a topic, but "an article about" the topic. (I may just be misunderstanding you, though).

Happy editing. --ColinFine (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Might have accidentally deleted other people's requests for articles.

Hello. I attempted to request an article and fear that I accidentally deleted other people's entries. I was in the "Game Design (Non Video Game)" area. I thought the other entries were examples, so I deleted them. Can anyone get them back?Tyler Bielman (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Tyler! Someone else already undone what you did. You probably won't get an article, because you aren't WP:NOTABLE. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse. Someone has already undone your edit, thus putting back what you accidentally deleted, but I've readded your request. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

comments to a declined article

Hello,

The following article has been declined for publication: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Thermogravitational_cycle

The comment of the reviewer is the following: "As per comments at WP:WikiProject Physics, declining on grounds of inadequate notability and failure to publish in a reliable journal. As noted, it is theoretical, and not well published. If it were in production, that would probably be sufficient for notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)"

However there is no failure to publish and the cycle is indeed in production. The 2nd figure shows it working. Is it preferable to add a video (it is a cycle so the difference would not be great but the file size will be much bigger)?

Wikawonedia (talk) 23:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: See above. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 23:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

No. You mean that it is in prototype operation, not that it is in production. The reviewers at WP:WikiProject Physics, while concurring that it is physically valid (over my concern that it might violate the second law of thermodynamics), thought that it was not notable. I suggest that discussion go there, with physicists, rather than here, with experienced editors who may have taken anywhere from no high school physics to two years of college physics to Ph.D.s in physics. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Citation needed addition

How does one add a citation needed to a wiki page?Jimblesnotron (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jimblesnotron, welcome to the teahouse! You can add the following to the source code of the article, directly after the text it applies to: {{Citation needed|reason=Reason|date=June 2024}}. You can replace Reason by your reason. You can also simply add {{Citation needed}} or even {{cn}}, without date and reason, but a full tag is preferred. If you can, it is even better to add a good source. Good luck, Gap9551 (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Stubs

How to I tag an article as a stub?Jimblesnotron (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jimblesnotron: We have a template called stub, you use it like this: {{stub}}.
The result looks like this: If possible, try to find the most appropriate stub template for the article. A full list can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/List of stubs. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 01:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Notability

Hi! Just had an article rejected on grounds of notability. Article was about short film that won 2001 Cannes short film jury prize https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sinkmac/sandbox/Daddy%27s_Girl_(2001_film) First time editor - do I need more and better links than IMDB? Thanks in advance! Sinkmac (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sinkmac - IMDB is not a reliable source since, like Wikipedia, it is user-edited/generated. You need reputable magazines or newspapers, or the Cannes website itself. - Arjayay (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

OK - just done some research on Film 'Golden Rule" Looks like I need some more links - was big news in Scotland at time - if I add links to articles in BBC and Daily Record and Mail - will that suffice?Sinkmac (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

OK got it thanks Sinkmac (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@Sinkmac: Hi there Sinkmac, the standards of notability for films might also be of use. Happy editing! Lirazelf (talk) 10:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

New user created article in sandbox, what are next steps to move article to Wikipedia?

Hi there! I am a new user. I read and followed directions and created an article in the Wiki sandbox. I believe article is ready to move to Wiki, what are my next steps please?

Best, PMLandy13:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs)

Hi PMLandy
I am sorry to tell you that your article in User:PMLandy/sandbox is nowhere near ready to be released as an article. There are several problems:-
Firstly, we do not use External links in the article text itself, so these all need to be removed.
Secondly, IMDB is not a reliable source as, like Wikipedia, it is user generated - so all 31 of your references to IMDB need to be removed (although most are External links in the bodytext)
Thirdly, you have included a copyright violation, having copied text directly from Rotten Tomatoes
Fourthly, as there are no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes whatsoever, I question whether the film is notable enough for an article at all, you need to find extensive coverage in reliable, independent sources.
I am sorry to be so negative, but creating an article from scratch is not easy, it is far easier to start off by making minor amendments to existing articles, or use the Articles for creation wizard. - Arjayay (talk) 14:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Arjayay for your review of my sandbox article and your help, I appreciate your time and candor. I hope I have addressed the errors and omissions that you mentioned, and have added some references to reliable independent sources. Thank you. Best PMLandy PMLandy (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi PMLandy
I see you have re-inserted the copyright violation of the plot, lifted straight from IMDB here and, although there are numerous external links, I am not sure why some of them are even there.
Other than the Variety article, there appears minimal coverage in reliable, independent sources.
Firstly, you must rewrite the plot, in your own words, and preferably more detail, WP:FILMPLOT advises that "Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words".
You then need to read Help:Referencing for beginners and insert references (Not external links) into the text (except the plot), to show which reliable source each piece of information has come from.
You should then remove all the External links used as references, as we do not need duplication, consider whether those you have not used are worth keeping (what value do they add? it is quality, not quantity that counts) and reformat the remaining links as WP:External links
Hope that helps - Arjayay (talk) 10:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Changing the name of a page

I have been editing a page Building and Engineering Services Association. They recently changed their name, and acronym, but dropping the "and". So they are now Building Engineering Services Association and have gone from B&ES to BESA.

This is confirmed in trade press here: http://www.coolingpost.com/uk-news/bes-becomes-besa/

I don't know if you can change the name of the page to reflect this change. So rather than it be wrong, I created a new page Building Engineering Services Association, copied the old text across and changed the original page to be a redirect to the new one.

Within minutes, the new page was marked for deletion and the old one reverted.

So I get that I have done wrong. But how do I change the title so that it is correct?

thanks

Sourswoken (talk) 09:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Sourswoken. The easy way would have been to WP:MOVE the [and] article to the [not and] title. But that is not simple now that there is an article at the [non and] title. The AfD nomination on the [not and] fork makes it even worse, for it questions whether the association is notable enough for an article. —teb728 t c 09:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

A number of editors involved in that tangle apparently don't understand that attribution must be maintained (see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia), and that a cut-and-paste move is a copyright violation, which is why a move should be done by the move function, rather than by cut-and-paste. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Another citing question

Hello again WP experts!

I am in final editing phase of my new article and working to improve and round out my citations. I have come across a published magazine article written by the subject of my article. The article verifies some of the facts I had removed from the article due to the lack of reliable independent source. So my question here is if the article was published in a print magazine, is the magazine publisher considered to be the independent reliable source or the author of the article? Is there an assumption that the information in the article has been verified by the publisher before it went to press?

I suppose the real question is at what point does a personal recollection become a verified fact? Is it dependent on whether the information is shared in "first person" versus "third person"? After all, in my logic, all information and facts have to originate somewhere!

And to clarify, if I am told I cannot use it I will understand and simply include it as an external link.

Thanks in advance.

gggoodgggirlGggoodgggirl (talk) 03:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Gggoodgggirl. When a person writes a published article about themself and their own work, then that can never be considered an independent source. It can be used for non-controversial biographical details such as date and place of birth, schools attended, marriage and children, place of residence and so on. It cannot be used as a source for praise, unusual achievements, awards, accolades, discoveries or any evaluative statements. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, even date and place of birth can be controversial. Actors/actresses and pop stars (or their agents) often falsify dates of birth (I knew a musician who was 2 months older than me, until he became a pop-star, and was "officially" 3 years younger than me). Places of birth have also been questioned for sportspeople and even politicians. IMHO self written bio's or those prepared by agents and PR companies cannot always be relied on. - Arjayay (talk) 12:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice.

What I find interesting in this process is that the acceptance of source material is dependent on how the researcher chooses to convey their findings. For example, if a researcher interviews a subject (person) and tells of their findings in their own words (3rd person perspective) and it is published in a reputable book or newspaper, then is an acceptable source. But if from the exact same research or interview the researcher instead chooses to include a quote from the subject (first person perspective), and it is published in the exact same reputable book or newspaper, then it is an unreliable source because it is being conveyed directly by the subject (person). But the source is actually the exact same research or interview! I guess I find that confusing.

Anyway... my primary goal is to get my article accepted so I will trust the WP experts and follow all advice given.

Thank you again!

gggoodgggirlGggoodgggirl (talk) 14:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, Gggoodgggirl. You're not alone in struggling with that distinction; coming from a science background I was always trained to look for the primary source. So it took me a long time to wrap my head around Wikipedia's approach. My understanding of the thinking behind this approach (though I'm no expert) is that if the researcher had interviewed the subject, then before putting it into his own words he would first combine what was said in the interview with all his other extensive research to put it into the correct perspective, and then the team of editors would double- and triple-check it before it went into print. So not only is it fact-checked, but it is also checked for bias, selective statements, selective omissions, etc. Perhaps I have over-stated the case a little for effect, but I hope you get the idea.--Gronk Oz (talk) 14:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I want to edit the 9/11 page but it is not possible, can I get some help?

The page on the attacks on the WTC on September 11 2001 can not be altered. I do think this is really necessary, for example it says that there are "conspiracy theories" that doubt the official story but the source of that statement is a CBS news article which is far from credible or comprehensive. And the list goes on. The article is quite a sham but editing is impossible. Almost feels like some old school authoritarian censorship.. There are dozens of credible (academic) sources on the 9/11 thing which display an entire different story on what happend that day but I am held away of putting that out there. Please help.

Bazelbart (talk) 14:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Bazelbart - We have an entire article - 9/11 conspiracy theories - which is referred to in the September 11 attacks article.
The conspiracies page is also semi-protected, due to extensive disruption, but you can make a semi-protected edit request citing reliable sources.
Before proposing an extensive edit, it is worth reading the FAQs at the top of the Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories page. - Arjayay (talk) 14:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Just to complete Arjayay's answer: to make an edit request, you should propose your change on the relevant article's talk page, which you can get to from the article itself by clicking on the "Talk" link at the very top. The full process is at Wikipedia:Edit requests, which is a bit of a long read, but following that will give you the best chance of your suggested changes being made. —me_and 15:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

However, be aware that September 11 conspiracy theories are subject to ArbCom discretionary sanctions. If you edit collaboratively, there will be no problem. The discretionary sanctions streamline the process of dealing with disruptive editors, so be civil, and, once you are auto-confirmed, do not edit-war. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

how do I submit a bio of my Dad for your site50.155.131.167 (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

how do I submit a bio of my Dad for your site50.155.131.167 (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

You have a conflict of interest. If your father is notable in the peculiar Wikipedia sense, you can request that someone else write a biography of him at WP:Requested articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Do any newly created page needs some kind of approval?

My friends and I were having discussion on the above said topic but didn't get any conclusion. Can it be clarified from here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.187.113.222 (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

If submitted as a draft for review through the article for creation process it needs approval, but if not approved you've got an opportunity to improve the draft and resubmit. If you try to generate the article directly in mainspace, there in no approval process but if it does not meet Wikipedia's standards it will probably be deleted and you would then have to start again. Try reading WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Lack of notable sources

My page keeps getting declined on account of lack of notable references. However, I've used up all of the sources mentioning the company on the wiki page and I don't know what else I could do differently to allow my page to be created and approved. Please help me!!!!

Mandy Mandymlall (talk) 11:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The word "notable" is used here in a strange sense. It means that the subject has been significantly discussed in reliable independent published sources. It's not the sources and the references that need to be "notable", it is the subject itself, as demonstrated by references cited in the article.

Draft:New Media Vision has 17 references. The first one is to an an interview with the company's president, and so is not independent. Most of the others are mere mentions of the company. But two of them, to dramaquarterly.com and to C21media, do contain some discussion of the company, and therefore provide some evidence of notability. My advice would be to remove all the references which merely mention the company (and a couple which don't even do that). Then a reviewer would be more likely to notice those which do provide some evidence of notability. But it's a field I know nothing about, I have no view on what they would then decide. Maproom (talk) 14:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Although only an essay, No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability may explain Wikipedia's concept of notability, and how many editors try to address the problem the wrong way. - Arjayay (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Request for edit - image additions

I would like to request the addition of some photos on a few pages. The images are free for use on wikipedia. I am a paid editor so have been advised to put request for edits in instead of adding them myself. What is the best way to direct the person who receives the request for edit to the photo file? Redediting (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Can you offer a few examples of what you are talking about? It's hard to give an answer to such an abstract question. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Redediting. First, thank you for disclosing paid editing on your user page without prompting (cajoling, standing on ones head, threats of the stock, etc.) I really do appreciate it. It is rare (though the fact you have an MLIS makes it unsurprising). Your question is a bit amorphous and raises various questions in my mind regarding mechanics, copyright and other issues. I'll just ramble for a bit and stop arbitrarily and maybe something I've said will help. (More specifics almost always results in better answers.)

Okay, first some mechanics. You probably know at this point that you can link to almost any page by enclosing it in doubled brackets ([[page name]]). If you do this with a file name, however, the image will display, rather than a link. To make it a link, just prefix a colon before the name: [[:File:Exact name, being careful of original capitalization.jpg]].

When you say these images are "free for use on wikipedia", that may mean they are just the types of images we want, but it raises some alarm bells that you (or the client) may be seeking to upload images licensed for Wikipedia use, while attempting to retain non-free copyright. That cannot be done here because of the way our licensing works. We require that our end-users be able to take our content and reuse it under a free copyright license at least as free as the co-licenses most of our content bears. That means that the images would have to be released to the world, irrevocably, under a suitable free copyright license (or into the public domain). Some information about that process is set out at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. (To be clear, we do allow very limited use of non-free content under the fair use doctrine, where certain strict criteria are met.)

If that's not the case – the images are actually free; and you understand that the client must upload them in a verifiable manner not you; or they're existing images at the commons and actually proper there; etc. – then just go to the talk page of the article in question and post a request there, linking to the file (using the colon trick I've explained). You can also post there this template to draw someone to your request: {{Request edit}}. This is increasingly more important the less traffic the particular talk page has. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. This was very helpful, as were your suggestions on my talk page. Redediting (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Changing Name of a page?

Hello,

How can you change the name of a page on Wikipedia?Dkourelis (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

See WP:Moving. Changing the name of a page is known as moving the page. However, moves are sometimes controversial, and it is usually a good idea to discuss on the article talk page (unless the page is in your user space or is a draft that you created). Robert McClenon (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

How to further promote/improve GA nominated article

Forty-three editors created the article Michael Laucke which received 10,000 visitors in 2 months and has been nominated for GA status; there are about 1500 careful edits. I would be very eager to learn how to help this article achieve GA status and of course to learn of how to improve the article even further.

Could you take a moment to give me some feedback; even a quick glimpse would be appreciated. My goal is to make it better and GA worthy or even featured article. I am a proud "Polyglot" (multilingual person) and took the pleasure of making French and Spanish versions also. Kindest regards, et Merci! Natalie Natalie.Desautels (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

When it gets approved as a GA, you can help promote it by nominating it to appear on Wikipedia's front page, in the "Did you Know" section - see WP:DYK for details. But be quick; it has to be nominated within seven days of becoming a GA.--Gronk Oz (talk) 00:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:The Buffelsdraai Landfill Site Community Reforestation Project

I am in distress. Last year July I created an article which was declined due to copyrighted material. Since then, I have been submitting multiple articles with the same title, as I was not aware that amendments had to be done on the very first article (in edit space). Yesterday I tried to delete the articles but the deletions were declined. I am not sure what direction to take moving forward, should I keep submitting the multiple articles or is there a better option?Phumelele123 (talk) 14:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

You should certainly not submit multiple drafts. I can find three "submissions": Draft:The Buffelsdraai Landfill Site Community Reforestation Project, Draft:The Buffelsdraai Landfill Site Community Reforestation Project (2), and User:Phumelele123/sandbox/The_Buffelsdraai_Landfill_Site_Community_Reforestation_Project. You should work on improving one of these (preferably the first, though quite a lot of work is needed), and resubmit by clicking the blue "Resubmit" button once it is ready. Or, if you no longer want it submitted, you can just forget about it; I think it will automatically disappear after six months if no-one works on it. Maproom (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

If you are the principal creator of a page, you can request speedy deletion. The reason that one of your deletion requests was declined is that you were not its creator (or had used a different user name). However, if you want a draft deleted, you can nominate it for Miscellany for Deletion. There will be a seven-day discussion period, and if no one opposes the request, it will be deleted in slightly more than a week. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I have a question for other experienced editors. Inexperienced editors sometimes create multiple copies of a draft. I assume that they are doing that due to a good-faith assumption that that is an appropriate action, but it annoys and confuses the reviewers. Is there some information that can be provided, perhaps in the decline template, that emphasizes that they should edit the declined draft and not create new copies? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Good idea - perhaps suggest it the AFC talk page or on the talk page of the relevant template?--ukexpat (talk) 01:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

What is considered as secondary source?

What is considered as secondary source? Does it have to be a link or a word mention works? And approximately, how many secondary source articles are needed to validate a "notable" company?

Thanks! Streamizm (talk) 13:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

To contribute to establishing notability, you need reliable independent published secondary sources with significant discussion of the subject. Three of those should be enough. Sources that merely mention the subject without discussion do nothing to establish notability. Maproom (talk) 14:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Also see WP:SECONDARY.--ukexpat (talk) 01:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Non-English Bare URL used as source

On January 2016 East Asia cold wave, one source being cited is a bare URL in Japanese, and as I am unable to read Japanese I cannot add bibliographic information to accompany it. Is there anywhere that I can request help from editors who can understand Japanese? Alcherin (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Alcherin. I wrote an article on a Japanese subject and received great help from the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan, after posting to its talk page. Of course, the language section of the reference desk is ideal for asking for help in matters like this, even if it's less targeted specifically to Japanese speakers. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Alcherin. I fixed the Japanese bare url and also fixed a problem with another citation template. I so suggest, however, that either you or somebody pick a date format per MOS:DATEUNIFY so that the same format is used throughout the article and in the citations and then tweak the dates so that they are all the same format. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

creating a new page

I want to create a wikipedia page about someone I know. She is not famous. Is this allowed? 75.69.43.146 (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi person editing from 75.69.43.146. From what you say, no it is not. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a very specific type of reference work that can be summarized as a compendium of articles on topics of knowledge—as reflected by the world writing about a topic in detail (and not by the the subject or those connected to the topic writing about it). We only properly have articles on such topics of knowledge, which excludes me and most of the people on the planet from being a valid topic for an article. Some of these requirements are encapsulated in our topic inclusion standard notability guideline. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! 75.69.43.146 (talk) 03:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Dealing with "Spoilers"

On the page for the television show, "Rick and Morty," there is a quote from one of the episodes that contains a fairly major "spoiler." Would it be unencyclopedic to somehow warn the reader of this beforehand? Is there a commonly used method for this?TheCensorFencer (talk) 04:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

We don't do spoiler warnings - WP:SPOILER.--ukexpat (talk) 04:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Verifiable and independent references

Hi! My article was not accepted stating that "this submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability". However, I think that my sources are verifiable and independent. I do not know what else I can do differently to allow my page to be approved. Do I need more references? Can someone help? Thank you!

Draft:Marilyn mehlmann LenaVd (talk) 13:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, LenaVd. The trouble is that two out of three of your sources are not independent: they are published by organisations closely connected with Mehlmann. The third one - the Rachel Carlson Prize - might be indepenent: I haven't looked closely; but one independent source is not enough. Wikipedia articles should be based close to 100% on what independent sources have published about the subject: what the subject themselves say, or what their associates or organisations they are part of, say about them, is almost irrelevant to Wikipedia. I have converted the URL to a Wikilink in your question above. --ColinFine (talk) 13:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for your reply. I'll start by removing the other two references. LenaVd (talk) 08:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Table in a table

Currently I have a long and narrow table, and I want to chop it up into 3 parts and place them side by side to save screen space. I read up in an archive somewhere that putting the tables inside a table with 1 row would work, but I am not clear as to how to do that. Also, is there a way I can make the big outside table collapsible? Thanks. BigBryan0 (talk) 09:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Is it OK if I make a new page for a band that doesn't have one?

I have written a draft for this band: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Young#Swimming_With_Dolphins

However, I would like to give them their own page instead of a subsection on somebody else's page. I don't plan on deleting the section, just making a new page dedicated to the band.

Would that be OK? Klink45 (talk) 07:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Klink45, and welcome the Teahouse. The key question is whether the band is notable, in the sense that that word is employed on Wikipedia. In short, we require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. There are some more specific guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (music). Just to note that most of the sources cited in the section of the Adam Young article you link to above don't appear to be independent (the band's Facebook and Myspace pages, for example). You should look for coverage in newspapers and music magazines. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Klink45. A suggestion: don't think about "a page for a band": think instead about "an article about a band". The article should not be for them, but neutrally about them, and should be based nearly 100% one what people with no connection to them have published about them. --ColinFine (talk) 09:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Title Page Capitalization

I created a page Home grown african, I would like to capitalise the words in the title so it reads Home Grown African. How do i go about it? Thanks

Malawiwiki (talk) 10:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

On Wikipedia we call renaming a title "moving". The instructions are at WP:MOVE. In this case I've moved the article for you already. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 10:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Why was the page I created tagged for speedy deletion and deleted?

I created a page on Risala Study Circle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risala_Study_Circle). This is a youth organisation based in the GCC Countries. It has a major presence in the social and cultural arena. However this page was marked for speedy deletion as soon I created it and now I find that the page is already deleted. Why did that happen ? Noufalkareem (talk) 05:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The explanation is in the message at User_talk:Noufalkareem#Speedy deletion nomination of Risala Study Circle, and in the wikilinks within that message, which explain about the need to demonstrate the subject's notability. I have added some further useful links to your user talk page, including WP:Your first article. If in future you submit a draft for review through the article for creation process, it will get reviewed and if necessary suggestions will be made for improvement, and the draft won't be deleted unless you violate important criteria such as avoiding copyright violation. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi from me too, Noufalkareem. The main problem is that you showed no reason why this organization had sufficient noteworthiness for a stand-alone article. To be noteworthy and qualify for an article means that completely independent sources have written in depth about that particular organization. Since your article states that it was organisation formed by the overseas friends of the Sunni Students' Federation, it would be more practical to add brief information about Risala SC to that article, with a reference to an outside source about such as a news article. Voceditenore (talk) 06:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Noufalkareem (talk) 11:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Editing a page

I want to edit a page that's been earmarked for speedy deletion to keep it up and bring it up to standard with Wikipedia policies. How do I do so? Whatever2016 (talk) 10:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

If it has not been deleted, just go on ahead and edit it. Just do not remove the speedy deletion tag if you created the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I see that it has been deleted. You might want to check out WP:Your first article before trying again. Your first draft must cite at least two mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are independent of the subject but specifically about the subject. In other words, Rhys Patten's website would not work, nor would some other vlogger's page. You would have to cite a proper news article, or a book, or something else like that (actually, at least two of those things). Otherwise, the article will be deleted again. You can also work on it in your user space, by creating User:Whatever2016/Rhys Patten. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Assistance in revising a new article for publication

Hi there

I have been researching a building built in 1937, given it is a very unique building overlooking the Brisbane River, in Brisbane, capital of Queensland Australia. In addition to the building itself, I've tried to summarise some of the more notable people who have called the building home.

The editors are concerned the article now constitutes 'original research' and 'synthesis' and suggested I reach out in the Teahouse, so we can brainstorm some ideas on how to revise the article, a link to which is below: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Evesham_Flats

I am thinking to keep it about the building itself I should cut out the notable residents section. I would welcome any help or suggestions, given I am only new to Wikipedia.

Thanks - History devoteeHistory devotee (talk) 10:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, History devotee. I haven't looked at the particular draft, but general advice: forget everything you know about the building, and only write about what you find in reliable independent sources. If a reliable source says that so-and-so lived there, and so-and-so is notable in Wikipedia's sense (it has, or could have, an article about them), then you can mantion so-and-so. --ColinFine (talk) 11:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

'Reliable Source' for creating articles

Hello,

Kindly let me know what kind of Reliable source is required for creating article regarding a place in very remote area?

Note: So far the article is not created, I am trying in sandbox.

rgds Dhuffiwala (talk) 12:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello Dhuffiwala and welcome to the Tea House. If the location you refer to is a populated, legally recognized place then it is presumed to be notable in Wikipedia terms and worthy of inclusion. If it isn't, there are other rules that apply, which you can read more about here. Good luck!  Philg88 ^♦talk 12:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Many thanx for the reply.

I am trying to get the information from the Government department, but so far the response is very slow.

Unfortunately this place is not on on google map and google earth :(

Rgds

Dhuffiwala (talk) 12:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I think if any editor is from Gujrat (India) side, he/she may understand this and can help me.

Dhuffiwala (talk) 12:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how active it is, but perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject India may have some guidance or help. --Jayron32 13:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

That's a nice suggestion Jayron32, many thanx

Dhuffiwala (talk) 04:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Trying to contact senior editor from India, in the mean time I got reply from concern government department through email, is that enough?

Dhuffiwala (talk) 12:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Details on google earth is valid as reliable source?

Dhuffiwala (talk) 12:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

moving from user page

hi,

I have created a page in my user page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zkathir/Potential_Studios, now i need to submit, how can do it? Pls support.

Thanks, Kathir (talk) 06:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done Article has published. MatthewVanitas (talk) 12:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

How to add profile picture in wikipedia

How to add image in the right side of the wikipedia page. i created info box, but not find any link to upload image, please help meNikhil Raj Singer (talk) 12:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Nikhil Raj Singer. The only article you have edited (apart from asking this question) is your own user page, User:Nikhil Raj Singer - and that looks like you are trying to write an autobiography. You should read the Wikipedia policy against this at Wikipedia:Autobiography; it states that "editing a biography about yourself is acceptable only if you are removing unambiguous vandalism or clear-cut and serious violations of our biography of living persons policy." Wikipedia simply is not the right place to promote yourself; there are plenty of other web sites where you can do that.--Gronk Oz (talk) 14:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

creating sections within draft article

Hello. My draft "Draft: Astor Club" was rejected because not in sections etc. I myself saw this problem but am unsure how to fix it. I have only created one Wikipedia article previously ("Yana (singer)"). Granitic (talk) 10:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

This is about Draft:Astor Club. (Granitic: when asking for help with an article or a draft, you can encourage people to co-operate by providing a link to it.) In my opinion, the draft presents ample evidence of notability. But it needs the text arranging into sections, as the reviewer said. It also needs work on the references. A reference to Google like this is not acceptable. But that one could easily be converted into a reference to the publication you are actually trying to cite, the Ottawa Citizen, something like this. Maproom (talk) 14:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

References

Etymology policy?

Does Wkipedia have a policy that indicates which words/articles should or should not have an etymology section?

I ask because in the last few days I have visited two pages without an etymology and I was curious about the origin - and imagine others might be curious as well.

Housiemousie (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Etymologies are more common in Wiktionary which is about words, whereas Wikipedia is about topics, some of which might have an etymology section if it is relevant to the topic. If you let us know which articles, we can add etymology sections if they would be appropriate. Dbfirs 17:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I will keep that in mind - thank you!

I would like to see an etymology for the Wikipedia page for Larder. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larder

The Wiktionary page for Larder is also lacking an etymology section. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/larder

Uh... or should I be making this request elsewhere? If so, where?

Housiemousie (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

You are correct that the etymology should be in both the article and the Wiktionary entry. The word is Anglo-Norman, from the Old French "lardier" and that was from medieval Latin "lardārium". Would you like to add this to both projects, or shall I? Dbfirs 18:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I think I did it right. I hope I did it right.

Would you be so kind as to check my additions?

Thank you for your help!

Housiemousie (talk) 23:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Well done. Those look fine. Wiktionary has a particular (rather obscure) style for language codes in the etymology, so someone will put that in for you. Don't be offended if someone makes a slight improvement to your additions because that's the way that both projects work. Dbfirs 23:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Also thank you for the welcome and links!

I would hope someone would improve upon every entry. There is so much more to know about virtually every topic and I certainly have no real understanding of the formatting used here, though (with the help of those links and observation) I expect to learn.

Thank you again!

Housiemousie (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

YU Televentures ?

• YU Televentures&oldid=681813800
• Talk:YU Televentures&oldid=681812603

strange hacking of my account, it was not me...?!

WHAT TO DO ?

=== January 2016 ===

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:YU Televentures, you may be blocked from editing. Rohini (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)|align=center}}

Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 19:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

If you suspect that someone has gained access to your account, Xb2u7Zjzc32, then I suggest that you change your password as a starting point. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Is my topic okay to go on Wikipedia?

I have written a Wikipedia entry, and I'm wanting to post it on Wikipedia. My topic is: The effects of microbeads on the fresh bodies of water in Canada. Is there another way I should name it, or is it more about the information in my paper? Thanks! Aidannoval (talk) 19:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, @Aidannoval:, it's always nice to have new editors with new ideas. A fresh new article is probably not the best start. Usually it comes out better when we start by adding to an existing article. For example, Microbead#Environmental_effects addresses the question more generally, and you could put in a paragraph about this particular case. You will probably get criticism in the talk page of that article, which you can use to improve your contribution. Working up day by day you could expand it into a well-organized, referenced and wikified subsection, and eventually break it out into its own article. Jim.henderson (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Aidannoval, and welcome to the Teahouse. By the sound of the topic and the way that you describe what you have written as "my paper", I suspect that what you are referring to is an essay. Wikipedia doesn't publish essays, but rather encyclopedia articles. Please see WP:NOTESSAY on this. Of course, I may have misunderstood what you propose to add. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

New Page Tagged for Speedy Deletion

Hi. A new page I created (EchoPark Automotive) has been tagged for speedy deletion. Can someone suggest what I could change to prevent the page from being deleted?

Thanks!

Llouiseelliott (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that the article is highly promotional, Llouiseelliott. You need to remove all material such as "The Smiths developed the business model to offer a relaxed atmosphere for customers that put them more in control of the buying experience" and "The concept allows for customers to have a more self-guided experience than with other existing used car dealerships with the intention of reducing the high-pressure car-shopping environment". Most of what you include in the article, apart from basic facts, should to be based on what reliable, independent sources (not the business's own press releases, etc.) say about the subject. I hope that helps. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)