Help desk
< September 22	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 24 >

Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

September 23[edit]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jay McCafferty[edit]

My article has been declined; references are easily checked and McCafferty is a notable LA artist. Not sure what else to do. Need suggestions. Is it that the text needs to include more recent achievements? I've got one suggestion to break up the copy with sub-headlines, perhaps that will help? Thanks. Marilyn Nix (talk) 00:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found the references anything but easily checked. I have added links to some of them, but several were problematic: One was a 2011 art exhibition; I found the exhibition's archived website, but it doesn't say what we cite it for. Wikipedia requires published sources; if the source isn't the website I found, what exactly is it, and where is it published? Another is Random Lengths, and again I found an archived copy, but I couldn't verify the publication date, and I cannot tell whether Random Lengths is a reliable source in the first place - it looks rather dilletantic and could just be one person's glorified blog without editorial oversight. Then there is the 300-page book which didn't give page numbers - I fixed that to some extent, but it would help to be even more specific and to give the exact page number every time that book is referred to. I didn't find copies of Jay McCafferty at Cirrus Gallery, Los Angeles (though the Cirrus Gallery website itself seems to be a heavily-used, though uncited, source, one we probably shouldn't rely too much on due to the gallery's association with McCafferty) or From California: A World of Textural Beauty online, so I can't say much about those sources.

In summary, I think the LA Times article and the interview in the book suffice to establish McCafferty's notability and I'm prepared to move the article into the mainspace, but the references could do with still more work. Huon (talk) 02:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. More refs have been added. Thank you Span (talk) 00:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

article[edit]

Hi, I submitted an article on 16 September. How long, on average, does it take to get a response from a reviewer? Thanks (Eartha78 (talk) 13:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Currently the oldest unreviewed submissions are from 10 September, so it would have taken about another week. However, your submission left so little to be done that I accepted it outright. Huon (talk) 14:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thanks! (Eartha78 (talk) 23:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ed Weigle[edit]

I give up. There's plenty of info about this guy on line. I've cited links and references to his work. I'll keep my journalism degree and let someone else do this. I quit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiowriter (talk • contribs) 14:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear that, especially if you know where to find that available information. The current sources aren't quite what we need: IMDb and YouTube videos are usually not considered reliable, and many others are primary sources written by Weigle himself or by organizations he's affiliated with. Wikipedia requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to establish Weigle's notability. The only source satisfying that standard was the news report on the Aerosmith music video, and "significant coverage" is usually interpreted as "more than one source".

Furthermore, as the reviewer noted, you should use inline citations and footnotes to clarify which reference supports which of the article's statements. For example, which source says Weigle is "perhaps best known as the creator and voice" of all WWE radio commercials? Not even the primary sources call him the creator, for all I can tell.

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ed Weigle 2 also has a few good sources, but it also has lots of primary and unreliable sources. Combining both drafts' reliable secondary sources and removing all the others might suffice to establish Weigle's notability, but even combined it may not be enough. Huon (talk) 14:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Maku nra/sandbox[edit]

Alifereti Vakacokovanua

Your sandbox is empty, for all I can tell. What do you need assistance with? Huon (talk) 21:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]