User talk:GMizha

This is GMizha's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mord McGhee (August 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Greenman was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

The comment the reviewer left was:

All statements need to be sourced. For example, the source following the subject's date of birth etc. goes to the front page of a website, with no mention of the subject. The literary theory section contains "From slices of life to cool Hemingway-style scenes, to impossible far-flung adventures which question everything we know about life, death, luck, and love" which comes across as promotional, but perhaps properly contextualised by a source would be acceptable, but it isn't sourced at all. Also, WP:External links should be removed, or replaced by wikilinks or inline citations where appropriate.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Mord McGhee and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Greenman (talk) 10:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Greenman. My first attempt at an article, definitely new at this but will like to complete and start next or dive in with edits. This was through the wizard, and I see what you mean. Didn't realize while adding descriptions of style could be seen as promotional but it makes sense. Will try to find where I read that, and if not I'll remove since no cite.

Any feedback is appreciated. I am also trying to figure out how to get the picture in the proper place with a biblio but now I've lost my sandbox. Any help is definitely appreciated! GMizha (talk) 10:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GMizha! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Greenman (talk) 10:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mord McGhee (August 20)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Asilvering was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

You don't need to cite the book for its own plot summary (just make sure you're writing a neutral description, not a "hook"), or to show that it exists. What we're looking for regarding references is sources that discuss McGhee and/or his work. Newspaper articles, reviews (think lit mags and papers, not random review blogs or goodreads), academic articles, that sort of thing.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Mord McGhee and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

asilvering (talk) 05:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Mord McGhee

Ok, this draft is turning into a WP:REFBOMB. This is going to make future reviewers of your draft more skeptical about it, not less! He was nominated for a Newberry so I think it's quite possible he meets notability guidelines, but that is really hard to see right now. Reviewers aren't looking for quantity of references, but quality - and quality means in-depth coverage. Try to focus on that! -- asilvering (talk) 21:40, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Asilvering,

Thanks for the feedback. I'm a fan of this author's books and it was just a subject I was surprised wasn't found so I thought it would be a great way to get introduced further into Wikipedia after dabbling on little changes here and there. It was generated wholly through the wizard.

Thank you so much for the help and suggestions. I have nothing invested but now it's feeling like a challenge, and some of the information is in copies of physical magazines and books, but I have had luck tracking down links and articles in the news, albeit ten years' worth. I don't know how to reference to physical print boos..

I'll keep trying. It was the recent Writers of the Future win that I thought interesting, but maybe I'm misjudging the award's connection to Hugo and Nebula and all those other bigger awards. Again, thank you for any and all help! Wish I could fix that image so that it was the biblio table I had working in my sandbox. It's all so new I am bound to fail if the wizard does not really help me create articles. Is there anything more specific I should drill down on? A more specific list, perhaps? Suggestions do not align exactly with the wizard's hints, and I think I'm being misled by it?

-G GMizha (talk) 21:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not familiar with the wizard you're talking about. I know the article creation wizard (this one: [1]), but if that's what you're talking about, I'm not sure what you mean by Suggestions do not align exactly with the wizard's hints - can you explain? If it is the article wizard you're feeling misled by, that's important feedback, and it would be good to know what is going wrong! If it isn't that, hopefully we can sort it out, or maybe someone else at the Teahouse can.

For citing print books, the easiest thing to do is to use the "cite" button on Visual Editor (the WYSIWYG editor, not the source code one). You just need to drop the ISBN into the automatic tab and it will figure everything out for you. Don't try a title search - it's wrong so badly so often that it's not worth trying. But ISBNs work tend to work anywhere from "very well" to "perfectly".

Since you're working on this draft as a "get introduced to Wikipedia" kind of project, my advice would be to shelve it for now, and try working on other things instead. I'm not sure if the author is "notable" as Wikipedia defines it, so I can't confidently say that you'll get anywhere by doing more research - the sources may simply not exist. If you come back to it after you've gotten more of a feel for what makes an author "notable", you'll have an easier time coming up with references that are useful from a notability standpoint. You might be interested in lurking at WP:DSAUTHOR. That's where deletion discussions about author biographies are listed, so you'll be able to see what is and isn't "enough" to convince deletion voters that an article on an author belongs on Wikipedia. -- asilvering (talk) 07:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, @ASilvering. Sounds like the 5 or 6 university presses and multiple newspaper articles and interviews that have published information and stories from this person (found while searching around for 10-15 minutes or so) aren't enough. I must have misunderstood the process, and yes feedback is definitely about the Wikipedia creation wizard in Wikipedia's "how to get started tutorial." It specifically states how to link items and cite items that clearly do not pass the requirements and pretty much wasted time and resource. If I decide to follow up, I'll go back and review the section about "A source is where the material comes from. For example, a source could be a book or a webpage. A source can be reliable or unreliable for the material it is meant to support. Some sources, such as unpublished texts and an editor's own personal experience, are prohibited.

When editors talk about sources that are being cited on Wikipedia, they might be referring to any one of these three concepts:

The piece of work itself (the article, book)
The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)

The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)"

I tried this step-by-step exactly with the wizard and used exactly what it said, before the multiple feedback statements from non-A.I. editors, so I would say it's not doing as it is intended. I appreciate your input and I take your advice to stop trying to work on the Wikipedia article. Feels like there is more at play than simply following the article generative process.

Thanks again! GMizha (talk) 11:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GMizha Can you link me the 5 sources you think are the best in a reply to this comment? I'll explain why they don't help support McGhee's notability (or I'll apologize profusely and accept the draft). By the way, have you found and read WP:FIRST yet? If you haven't, it should help clarify things. If you have and you're still feeling lost, I'd like to try to work out what the issue is so we can make it more helpful for future new editors. It was recently edited in an attempt to make it more useful, and if that isn't how it comes off, it might still need some more work. -- asilvering (talk) 22:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your advice to stay away from Wikipedia is accepted. I appreciate your opinion. I don't need to be man-splained at, though feel better because I do understand your agenda, regardless of whether it aligns with "How-to-get-started" Wikipedia's creation article tool.

I go to the library, take out a book, come home and find multiple news sources such as The Buffalo News and Writers of the Future and some other award I hadn't heard about. Then find a story recently published by SUNY (that's a sizeable New York university among multiple other university presses) and then multiple articles written by the author, whose book I got from my library, speculating about the future in different science fiction magazines and an interview or two, and I thought it was more notable than say this article: Ice Cream Man (comics) - Wikipedia

I thought, hey, there's somebody who shows up in local papers from time to time and at local events in the area, and I like the stuff I've read (especially the one with the news article from Buffalo, albeit 5 years old or so) and I thought "I've always wanted to try Wikipedia and now I have a subject."

You clearly have other things in mind, and the article was almost right before the feedback, and I don't care to wrestle with personal agendas (yes, I have looked over your contributions to gauge what is being produced to get a sense of what you are interested in) as opposed to working with Wikipedia's development tools. It is nice of you to offer your opinion, but not a good experience. Therefore, I accept your advice and will leave the community without any further hard feelings. Best of luck to you. GMizha (talk) 09:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GMizha I'm confused! I'm not sure what kinds of personal agendas you think I have against this writer - I haven't heard of him before, I'm happy to help, and I haven't the faintest idea why my contributions make you think I'd be opposed to an article on him. My suggestion wasn't to stay away from Wikipedia entirely, and I'm sorry it came off that way. What I was suggesting was that you work on some other Wikipedia articles instead, to get a feel for notability criteria, then come back to this one. The notability criteria for articles on books are pretty straightforward, so you might want to start by creating an article on a book you've read that isn't on Wikipedia already? Or by improving existing books articles, which frankly often aren't very good and can use a lot of improvement. You're welcome to keep working on this draft, of course. And the offer I made about explaining why your 5 best sources do or don't help establish notability still stands. -- asilvering (talk) 22:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mord McGhee (October 22)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Johannes Maximilian was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Mord McGhee and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 12:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Mord McGhee

Hello, GMizha. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Mord McGhee, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 13:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]