Help desk
< May 20	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 22 >

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.

May 21

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Your submission name here

Russian text removed, but some of the links are unavoidably russian.

E Guano (talk) 00:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some "cleaning up" of WT:Articles for creation/Anatoliy Lesnikov however the "Prizes and Awards" section needs to be changed quite a bit - it would be best if you could list each award on a separate line. Please clarify what "( rezh.Ya.Lapshin )" and other similar text in the section mean - "rezh." is obviously and abbreviation of a Russian word that needs to be translated. Another unclear part is: "Graduated from the All-Union State Institute of Cinematography, Faculty operator (1977)." What does "Faculty operator" mean? Is it a type of degree or diploma? If you can clarify and fix these problems the draft will probably be acceptable. BTW I found no Russian wikilinks in the article, only one reference in Russian so that is not a problem. In general it needs more references - most of the sections have none at all. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Draft:Supersingular Isogeny Key Exchange

Hello,

I submitted an article for creation a while ago and the submission was declined 12 days ago. The comment was that the article needed a layman's description of the material as an introduction. I have added that introduction as suggested by the editor and resubmitted it. Was I supposed to bring the changes to the attention of the editor who requested the changes? How would I do that.

Thanks,

Carvalho1988 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carvalho1988 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carvalho1988. In general there is no particular need to inform the editor who originally declined the draft article; the draft is now awaiting another review, so it might get its second review from the same editor, or it might get it from a different editor. If you did want to leave a message for the editor that originally declined it, you could do so at User talk:Hasteur. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Carvalho1988: I'm not comfortable with the technical aspects of the content so I've asked for help from WikiProject Computer Science and WikiProject Cryptography. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris, I looked at the draft. It now has the introduction suggested by Hasteur and the technical content seems consistent with other articles on cryptography. While I understand elliptic curve cryptography this cryptosystem seems one step beyond in terms of complexity. However, Carvalho1988 seems to make the material presentable for most cryptographers who are not specialized in this form of mathematics. I also noted that on the Talk page for this draft, JINBOLIN writes that he or she reviewed the equations with the equations in the paper. Maybe others will have more to say.Cryptofly (talk) 15:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chris, I did some internet research and found a Chinese paper from Xidian University from earlier this year which builds on the supersingular isogeny elliptic curve work of the primary paper cited by the draft wikipedia article. It is: Toward quantum-resistant strong designated verifier signature Published in: Journal International Journal of Grid and Utility Computing archive Volume 5 Issue 2, March 2014 pages 80-86 Bergsdorf23 (talk) 22:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carvalho1988 If this were to come up in the AFC reviewing I would decline this again. Per WP:LEDE The lead section (also known as the lead, introduction or intro) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects.. You don't mention the subject in the first paragraph, nor do you define in simple terms what the subject is. I have a BS in CS and I am having difficulty with the subject, what chance of comprehension do you think this article will have with a average reader/editor?

Bergsdorf23 (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC) here. I understood your point. I moved the important points forward in the introduction. I think the key link is between this article and the Post Quantum Cryptography article so I made sure that link was found early. Hopefully the reader will now see the following points made:[reply]
1. Existing public key algorithms used to secure the internet are vulnerable to quantum computers 2. Quantum computers may be available in 15 years 3. The Supersingular Isogeny Diffie-Hellman Key Exchange is one of a class of algorithms (Post Quantum Cryptography) that are being designed to protect against quantum computers. Bergsdorf23 (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Fiona Kotur (Marin)

Hi everyone! I'm glad that my submission was reviewed. However, would like to know what part have to be improved to have it accepted. Have a nice day! Kotur (talk) 05:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kotur. Your submission actually seems to be at Draft:Fiona Kotur (Marin). It looks in fairly good shape, though I have not looked into the references in detail. Probably the most important thing to do now is to sort out the references. Please refer to Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners for how to do this. If you have any problems, please come back to us and we'll try and see where you're having difficulty. Once the references are sorted out, you should be fine to resubmit this draft for another review. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for creation/AM10001/ Definition of a practice manager

Hi, I am trying to add an article. First I was told it wasn't notable and I needed more references. Then my colleague added references and the whole article was deleted from my sandbox because it infringed copyright. Was this because a different computer was used? I then found a similar article on General Manager with a number of category sub headings under it such as Hotel and Sport , so I edited that to add a new sub heading, Healthcare, which fitted my article. Now that has completely disappeared as well. What should I be doing? AM10001 (talk) 06:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AM10001. Remember that you can click View History to see what edits have been made to an article, and the edit summaries explaining why. In this case your addition to General manager was removed in this edit with the edit summary "nowhere does it say general manager".

I can't see the content of your deleted sandbox, but at Wikipedia:COPYPASTE it is explained that you cannot copy and paste material from other websites (or books) directly into Wikipedia unless the material is explicitly licensed with a license acceptable to Wikipedia. Instead, you should summarise the sources in your own words. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Stigol LLC

Hello! Can you say when review period will be finished, because the month is passed. Maybe I have to correct something or if everything is OK, can you check again? thank you a lot! Miatanton (talk) 09:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This submission has been declined; please see the reasons and links on the submission page itself for the reasons why and how to improve it. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk: Pierre Bergian /Rosannarobertson

Hi - I wondered what I need to change in my article to get it published? Does it help if I link (?) all of the words such as 'Belgium' and other words that have a Wikipedia article about them already?

are there notes from the reviewer as to how I should change the article?

Many thanks in advance, RosieRosannarobertson (talk) 11:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rosannarobertson - I took a quick look at Draft:Pierre Bergian and the first big red flag I saw was that in the first sentence you mention the galleries that represent the subject - complete with "references" to their respective websites. That just shouts "Advert!" Move the mention of the "representatives" much further down - or leave it out entirely - it's not particularly relevant to an encyclopedia article. The external links list is also far too long and many of the links look "spammy" too. Trim it down to only the subject's own website - which no doubt contains links to galleries and exhibitions anyway. As far as adding WP:Wikilinks yes you could do so, but don't overlink - common words, countries and well known major cities don't need links. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Draft:Oiles Corporation

Why was my submission rejected? Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Oiles Corporation thanks 64.208.153.193 (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@64.208.153.193: See WP:NOTADVERTISING. Also, you have no reliable sources. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Zdenek Hanka

Hi - I would like to check the status of an article I submitted for review in April. I understand there's a backlog, but the status pane shows that the article is not currently submitted for review, but at the bottom it shows that it is. Can you please advise? The article I'm referring to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Zdenek_Hanka Zdenek Hanka.

Thank you very much - I appreciate your response. Sincerely, Zuzana Wilcox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zuziwiki (talk • contribs) 16:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Zuziwiki:

Declined Your submission has no reliable sources and fails to meet WP:AUTHOR, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:GNG. The matching article on Czech Wikipedia is itself marked for cleanup. Per WP:CIRCULAR, the Czech article can't be used as a reference, either. Finally, puffery like "He masterfully blends mystery and suspense with everyday life, creating a captivating form of fiction" is ridiculous. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have just received notice (from Chris Troutman) that my submitted article has been declined due to an apparent lack of sources verifying the subject's notability. In the original submission I included links to the author's published works, publishers (legitimate and well known in the Czech Republic), as well as links to interviews on national radio, blogs and readership websites, etc. An identical Wikipedia entry exists on Czech Wikipedia (where it clearly meets the 'notability' criteria), so it seems unfair that the same content does not suffice for English entry. The lack of English sources about this aouthor is precisely the reason why we are hoping for publication on your Wikipedia site - the author is hoping to publish and distribute in Canada, but without an English-language entry at a respectable site such as Wikipedia, it is tough to approach publishers. Please advise what information you are looking for, specifically, I hope you can help. Sincerely, Zuzana — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.177.43.70 (talk) 18:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@206.177.43.70 and Zuziwiki: "we are hoping for publication on your Wikipedia site - the author is hoping to publish and distribute in Canada, but without an English-language entry at a respectable site such as Wikipedia, it is tough to approach publishers" Who's "we" ? If you're working for a publisher, trying to advertise for this author then you should just quit now. Read my initial response above as your claim "An identical Wikipedia entry exists on Czech Wikipedia (where it clearly meets the 'notability' criteria)" is patently false. Keep talking and I'll nominate the Czech-language article for deletion. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, I was simply asking for guidence, since I know Wikipedia to be a platform for learning. There's no need to threaten me with deleting the author's article - it was published and serves his European audiences, 'marked for cleanup' as it may be. I'm not advertising for a publisher or anyone else - I'm a reader and the author's supporter living in Canada, and believe his popular works, some now translated into English, should be shared. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.177.43.70 (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zuzana. A good start in improving the article would be to remove all of the "blog", "blogspot" and Wikipedia sources as references. Then see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners to see how to format the remaining sources as inline citations while also providing information about their content, instead of just having them as bare URLs. It would then be easier for reviewers to see which of the sources are reliable and independent, and which of them support which statements in your draft. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Your submission name here

Hi, I was just wondering why my article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Society Brand Hat Company was not approved.

Thanks!

Pete

Petewilliams1987 (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pete. It seems Draft:Society Brand Hat Company has been declined as "This submission is not suitable for Wikipedia. Please read 'What Wikipedia is not' for more information", but it is not clear to me that this is an appropriate decline reason in this case - Wikipedia, does, after all, contain articles about companies that previously existed. Perhaps User:JustBerry could comment.

However, the references provided do not presently suffice to prove the importance of the company. So for example one of your references is merely a 20th century newspaper that happened to contain a job advert for the company, and another seems not to mention the company by name at all. The sources provided need to not merely confirm that the company existed and did business, but also to establish its importance and significance - and that independent reliable sources wrote about it in detail. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely, that's the reason why I declined; agreed. Please ping me (including mentioning User:JustBerry) or leave me a talkback on my page in the event you have any further questions/issues you would like to clarify with me regarding the submission review. --JustBerry (talk) 06:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]