Help desk
< June 22	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 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.

June 23[edit]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Halfin-whitt regime[edit]

Annals of applied probability is the top journal on applied probability. In a very long paper in that journal Halfin-Whitt regime is described as a 'seminal work' and as a'pioneering effort'. It surely should appear in Wikipedia. If you put what I prepared as a stub then surely more people in this area will be able to improve it.Shuroo (talk) 11:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the reviewer has already stated, it is difficult at the moment to understand what your article is about. You need to start your article by clearly explaining what the subject is, without jargon, so any person of reasonable intelligence can understand.

Secondly, you need to show that the subject is notable. You need to cite reliable, independent published secondary sources sources to prove that the subject has been widely noticed and talked about. The research paper by Halfin and Whitt is a primary source which doesn't count towards notability of the subject. Sionk (talk) 12:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrore, I included a VERY reliable published secoundary source. Also "Halfin-Whitt regime" has 35,500 occurances in Google and about 200 in Google Scholar. If this does not convince you please transfer my request to a senior editor. Shuroo (talk) 07:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That goes to show that it should be possible to write a good article on this subject - but as the reviewer noted, this draft isn't it because it provides far too little context. For example, I had no idea what an "exponential" server is, or what a "centered" queue length process is, or what a limiting diffusion is. I could guess some of those terms, but for others I can't even guess what they mean in this context. The article should either tell me or provide links to other relevant articles. For example, you could probably clarify the exponential servers by stating that it's an M/M/c queue for large c - I'll still not know what it is, but if you provide the link I can read it up.

I'd also suggest that you state the result before discussing its history and importance, not the other way round.

Regarding sources: If there are so many secondary sources, it should be easy to find a few others and to use them to support relevant parts of the article. How about one putting the Halfin-Whitt regime in relation to previous similar results? As an aside, you should use footnotes to clarify which reference supports which part of the article. In particular, such laudatory terms as "seminal work" and "pioneering effort" must be attributed to the source; otherwise they would be considered peacock terms. They would also be more at home in a separate section on the impact of Halfin and Whitt's result than in the discussion of the result itself.

As a further aside, the editor who declinined your submission is as "senior" as they come, and Sionk is also a veteran of WP:AFC. You can take their word on this draft's problems. Huon (talk) 11:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Copyright violation removed by Huon.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by IRTPL (talk • contribs) 14:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a few problems. First of all, the article draft should be written at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/INLANDGROUP, not here at the help desk nor at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/INLANDGROUP. Secondly, your draft had no references at all. Wikipedia requires reliable sources independent of the subject not just to allow our readers to verify the article's content, but also to establish that the topic is notable enough for an article in the first place. Thirdly, the draft's text was copied verbatim from the company website in violation of copyright. For that reason I've nominated the draft for speedy deletion. Also, the draft's tone was anything but encyclopedic - just to point out the obvious, we do not welcome readers to our articles, and "exciting" is a word to avoid. Thus I don't think releasing that website under a free license would be worth the effort even if you have the rights and would be willing to do so; that text would not be a good basis for an article anyway. Finally, you might want to read our guideline on conflicts of interest. Your username suggest that you represent IRTPL, so much so that it's probably in violation of our username policy. (You should therefore either request your name be changed or create a new account with a permissible name.) Writing articles about your own company is strongly discouraged.

In summary, my advice to you would be to not write this article but to wait until someone not directly affiliated with IRTPL does so. Huon (talk) 16:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]