Help desk
< April 21	<< Mar | April | May >>	April 23 >

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.

April 22

suppose the person had a blood test previous day and the result is that he may not have AIDS virus and the next day in blood test what will be the result ? he may have AIDS virus or not? how — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.221.28.42 (talk) 05:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but Wikipedia cannot give medical advice. You should see a doctor. Huon (talk) 14:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I'm trying to insert an uploaded logo image to an infobox for the article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/CellNetix

The uploaded logo file name is: CellNetix_logo.png.

I wrote earlier about this subject, but I don't understand the answer I received, below:

Once the image is uploaded, you'll have to check the respective infobox's documentation to find out how to add the image to the infobox; unfortunately not all infoboxes are standardized. Many take a simple "|image=Filename.ext" parameter without any additions, even without the "File:" prefix. Others use more complicated code; for example, {{Infobox company}} displays logos if you use a "|logo=[[File:Filename.ext|XXXpx|Description]]" parameter, where "XXXpx" is the size of the image and "Description" is the image caption; 220px is a standard value for the size, I believe. The template's documentation should always provide a list of parameters for that template and an example of use. Huon (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

In the infobox code under "logo," I don't see any documentation referring to how a file should be inserted. Can you tell me EXACTLY what I need to type in, using the file name CellNetix_logo.png? For example, if I use "|image=Filename.ext", would I enter "|image=CellNetix_logo.png.ext"? Do I need the quotes?

Thanks for your help.

I have added the logo with this edit. I'm sorry for being unclear before, by ".ext" I meant the file name's extension, here ".png". Since the infobox you use is {{infobox company}}, you'll need more complicated code than just |image=CellNetix_logo.png - for this infobox, the parameter must be |logo=[[File:Filename.ext|XXXpx|Description]], here: |logo=[[File:CellNetix_logo.png|220px|CellNetix logo]] The quote marks are not part of what should be added. The template description does have some information on the logo, but not much more than I've said here. Huon (talk) 13:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An article I wrote on Miscellanies was declined because it was considered that the article already exists at Anthology. I have since tried to make it much clearer in the article lead how miscellanies are different from anthologies (historically and aesthetically), and have included an internal section link (Succession of anthologies) to later in the article where I further discuss recent criticism arguing for the distinction between anthologies and miscellanies. I also direct attention to the section "Significance and recognition", where I quote Michael Suarez:

The miscellany, then, typically celebrates – and indeed constructs – taste, novelty and contemporaneity in assembling a synchronous body of material. It should be distinguished from the anthology, which honours – and perpetuates – the value of historicity and the perdurance of established canons of artistic discrimination in gathering texts recognized for their aesthetic legitimacy.^[1]

Not only are miscellanies considered different from anthologies, but there is a growing body of literary criticism attending to their importance. I have tried to include a range of quite specific information about the growth and decline of miscellanies, and have repeatedly referred to how they were succeeded by anthologies. Before the article is considered again, is there anything else I can do to make clear that miscellanies are quite different from anthologies? and that there has been enough written about them to warrant their treatment as a separate, though related, subject?

BridgenAJ (talk) 10:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be resolved; Ramaksoud2000 is about to accept the draft as soon as the redirect that currently occupies its place has been deleted. Huon (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this is correct, a review is now in process. Thank you for the reply. BridgenAJ (talk) 08:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do I add info to a "Named reference"? I can't figure out how to get back into it once it is made. Marion Simons (talk) 12:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)Marion Simons[reply]

I believe you already found the solution. One instance of the named reference is created by code like this:

<ref name=Salmon>{{cite book|last=Salmon|first=Robin R.|title=Brookgreen Gardens Sculpture, Volume II|year=1993|publisher=Brookgreen Gardens|location=Murrels Inlet, SC 29576|isbn=0-9638206-1-3}}</ref>

There you can add parameters to the {{cite book}} template. Huon (talk) 20:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikignome,

thank you very much for reviewing my article about net mobile AG. Thank you for your support. Unfortunately, you declined my article because of citing. I would be very happy if you could specify whether this refers to some few citing problems or all and how I can improve them as it is my first article on English Wikipedia.

Thanks a lot before hand for your support. Bspielberg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bspielberg (talk • contribs) 13:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many of your sources are primary sources such as net mobile's own website or a press release. Wikipedia content should be based on reliable third-party sources such as articles published by newspapers or reputable trade magazines. You have some sources of that type, such as the Reuters article, but they provide very little detail about the company itself. For example, I don't think any of the independent sources discussed net mobile's three divisions. Huon (talk) 21:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Due a busy week, I have finally answered the question at my talk page giving a more in detail analysis. Regards, mabdul 11:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Editors, I have submitted an article entitled 'Yael Neeman' twice and each time it was rejected. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Yael Neeman The second time was because of insufficient number of references. There were six reliable and objective references, and I have now added two more, as well as re-editing the text for more objectivity. Several of the references are in Hebrew, and I was wondering if perhaps this was the reason for the rejection. Please advise how to proceed in order that my article might be accepted. The Hebrew version of the article has been on Wikipedia for several years. Thank you, Zahar65 Zahar65 (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources four through eight don't cover Neeman in any appreciable detail; I don't think any of them writes so much as a single sentence about her, much less an entire paragraph. Sources two and three look like lists of Neeman's own works. To establish her notability we need others to have written about her, for example newspaper articles that cover her in some detail or reviews of her work in literary journals. Regarding the Hebrew version of the article, the various Wikipedias have different standards, and the fact that an article exists in one language is not on its own a valid rationale to create it in another language. See also WP:Other stuff exists. Huon (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I'd like to address your comments, since some of the references are in Hebrew I think perhaps you may not have understood them: Sources 4-8 do mention Neeman, and are from reliable sources as requested by Wikipedia (newspaper and government websites) that prove the point it's referencing. For example ref 4, regarding the sentence in the article stating that Neeman was at the top of the bestseller lists shows the printed article with Neeman at no. 1. There are many such lists as she was a bestseller for months. Should I include others? Ref 5 is the official Book Publishers of Israel site showing Neeman as a recipient of the Golden Book award (the sentence in the article that it references). Ref 6 and 7 are two sources (government and newspaper) proving her a finalist for Israels most prestigious literary award, the Sapir. Ref 8 is a government site showing her winning a special grant for English translation. Regarding Ref 2-3 they are both respected literary journals who have published her work - one Israeli and one international. Ref 1 is the official Israeli Lexicon of Writers website detailing her achievements. In the external links section of the Yael Neeman article there are several Newspaper articles about her as well. Is more required than this? Thank You, Zahar65 (talk) 03:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't really interested in what Neeman herself wrote, no matter where it's published, but in what others have written about her. Notability is established if she was the subject of significant coverage in reliable third-party sources - that is, mutltiple sources that write at least a paragraph each about her. This coverage should then form the basis of the Wikipedia article. For example, I expect a book that was at the top of the bestseller lists for weeks has been reviewed by literary critics - such reviews would make a good source. You already have two reviews published in Haaretz among your external links, but don't summarize what they say about Neeman or the reception of her work. Or the Golden Book Award may have been the occasion for news articles about her? Those would also be good sources. List entries, however, are not significant coverage. They may be used to flesh out an article, but they cannot form its basis. The Lexicon of Modern Hebrew Literature, which for all I can tell is in no way "official" and isn't even hosted in Israel, may serve as a source, but on its own it's not enough either. Huon (talk) 01:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been submitted and rejected three times. The first time for not adequately establishing notability with reliable sources, and then twice for sounding like an advertisement. The difference between the second and third submission was drastic - all "wikipuffery" was removed and all sentences are statements pulled from the sources, which seem to have been established as reliable, otherwise another note would have been made about them.

Please advise how to improve this article to read like a true encyclopedia entry, giving specific examples as to what language needs work. This article will continue to be resubmitted until it is approved, and it would be much preferred to have all the knowledge necessary to make it an adequate submission before entering it a fourth time, as opposed to going through the weeks-long process again and again because the rejection comments haven't been specific enough.

Thanks for your help.

Vb7490 (talk) 19:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys,

Still no response here -- please advise when you have a chance. Really appreciate the help!

Vb7490 (talk) 22:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked the reviewer to explain his rationale here, but that may take some time. Huon (talk) 02:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Huon. Look forward to it.

Vb7490 (talk) 22:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since the last review of 28th March by FoCuSandLeArN the only edit I could see was a change of one word (Here), since this does not resolve the issue that the previous reviewer rejected for, I also rejected it. Please request information from the previous reviews as to why that also declined it before - Rich(MTCD)^T|C|E-Mail 00:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, that's not true. Between the second and third submissions, the text was significantly stripped of flowy language and advertisment-like prose. You can notice that the third submission was significantly shorter in overall length than the second. Is it possible to review this latest submission as an independent entry, and not base its credibility on the previous rejections? I really have made every effort to comply with the feedback given, and would appreciate further help getting an accurate review.

Vb7490 (talk) 18:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I went though the diff's again and fair enough I made a mistake and apparently totally skipped where most of the content was re-written, I apologise for that, please send it for review again and I'll pass it though - Rich(MTCD)^T|C|E-Mail 02:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you. I'll send it through today.

Vb7490 (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I have been working the last couple weeks to add several more reliable sources to an article i hope to create at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Policy Studies Organization. I am wondering how i can re-submit it for approval, and or if I can have someone review it before i do so. Any advice will be greatly appreciated. Many thanks! Whitney Shepard (talk) 19:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can re-submit the draft by following the instructions in the "Submission declined" message box: "When you are ready to resubmit, click here." However, I don't think the earlier problem has been addressed. Maybe I missed something, but the vast majority of your sources seems to mention the Policy Studies Organization only in passing, or not at all. To be considered notable by Wikipedia's standards the organization must have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable third-party sources - that is, multiple such sources that write at least a paragraph each about the organization. Huon (talk) 22:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is either meant to be deliberately misleading, or is simply misguided. The only reliable news source that says anything of any substance about Walker is the NYT "Play It Again, Vladimir" article. The remainder of the sources (and much of this draft article) are not about Walker, but about other things - JFK's speech, Ganymede Software, Zenph Sounds etc. Please cut out the parts that are not about Walker and find some independent, reliable coverage that talks about him in reasonable depth. Sionk (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's go with misguided. Of 36 references, 9 don't mention Walker, but are present to substantiate a claim (6, 8, 9, 15, 16, 21, 30, 33, and 34).

6 - JFK's speech was without other reference on Wikipedia (could be removed), but not relevant to the article.

8 - reference to the journal, but not a substantiation of his father as editor.

9 - backup for claim of family connection.

15, 16, 21 - no mention of Walker, but substantiates claim about commercial success of companies he founded.

30, 33 - video examples of commercial work for company he founded.

34 - no mention of Walker, but substantiates claim about commercial success of company he founded.

The other references discuss Walker and his work in context, including video and audio interviews.

Discussion of Ganymede and Zenph are relevant to commercial application of his work as a computer scientist.

Ah! None of the publications are used as references (and they are primary sources -- although I chose first appearances, rather than later journal appearances that might be considered more reliable). I don't know the syntax for "making a publication also be a reference" -- a pointer to an article where this is done well would be welcomed.

Very specific editorial assistance is welcomed. Thanks -- ResearcherQ (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources that don't mention Walker at all should not be used in an article on Walker; that would be original synthesis, something we should not engage in. Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent such as newspaper articles or articles in reputable magazines about Walker. To establish his notability we must show that he has received significant coverage in such sources. Many of the sources that are about Walker don't satisfy this standard. For example, the first two were written by Walker himself and thus are not independent. The Triangle Business Journal article only mentions Walker in passing; that's not significant coverage. YouTube is user-submitted content and not considered reliable. SIUE reporting on its own award is not an independent source. I don't think the North Carolina Symphony is a reliable source that's subject to editorial oversight. And so on... I haven't checked all the sources, only the first ten, and so far Sionk seems to be correct that these sources do not establish Walker's notability. Huon (talk) 00:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks -- on the case -- ResearcherQ (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]