Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2016 December 27
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < December 26 | << Nov | December | Jan >> | Current help desk > |
| 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. |
December 27
[edit]
Abdur Rakib Hossain 13:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- User:Abdur Rakib Hossain - What is the question? Your sandbox contains only a test edit. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
13:31:26, 27 December 2016 review of submission by 37.203.168.68
[edit]- 37.203.168.68 (talk · contribs)
- No draft specified!
37.203.168.68 (talk) 13:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Unable to create a entry (rejected) using the same sources used in allowed articles. Question about the editors alleged "independence". Kindly assist.
- The draft in question is probably Draft:LandlordInvest. I have two comments. First, the sources used are not the only issues in accepting or declining a draft. The tone of the draft, and whether the text is supported by the sources, are also important. Second, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Maybe the other articles should be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
14:16:53, 27 December 2016 review of submission by 67.85.37.247
[edit]- 67.85.37.247 (talk · contribs)
Hello, I am trying to edit the wikipedia page for Gian Luca Rana so that it will be approved. The link to the draft is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gian_Luca_Rana . I am unsure if my edits are correct and I would greatly appreciate some guidance on how to fix it so it will be accepted. Also, how do I submit a photo to the page? I would like to add a photo for Gian Luca.
67.85.37.247 (talk) 14:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- 67.85.37.247 First of all, the bunched mountain of links is not making it easy to evaluate and, second, the review concerns still apply since there's nothing to establish actual notability in our policies. We need genuinely significant major news, not PR, interviews, announcements, company notices or mentions, as this isn't LinkedIn. SwisterTwister talk 22:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- I removed the "bunched mountain". Don't expect that a reviewer will accept anything so ugly without reformatting it, and don't expect that a reviewer will do the work of reformatting it. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- 67.85.37.247 First of all, the bunched mountain of links is not making it easy to evaluate and, second, the review concerns still apply since there's nothing to establish actual notability in our policies. We need genuinely significant major news, not PR, interviews, announcements, company notices or mentions, as this isn't LinkedIn. SwisterTwister talk 22:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
There is a request for an article about "Polysome profile" on your "requested articles" page. I am willing and competent to write such a page, and I believe that it would be very informative for the person(s) who requested it. However, the only sources I would cite are original research articles in peer reviewed journals. It's not the sort of topic that the NY Times would cover! I am currently having a draft article "pseudo-pseudogenes" rejected by Primefac because I only have primary sources, even though they are excellent papers in prestigous journals. So, the question is, should I even bother to compose such a page (I've actually already started it by uploading an image to the commons), or is it doomed to rejection from the start?
If you believe that I should compose such a "polysome profile" page, that means that there is a revviewer "out there" other than Primefac that would accept an article with only primary sources. If so, how can I get that reviewer to look at "pseudo-pseudogenes"? Thanks, DennisDrdfp (talk) 23:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Drdfp (talk) 23:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Drdfp, if there really are no review articles or any other secondary sources available, not even one, then it is simply too soon for Wikipedia to have an article about the topic. Wait until the scientific publishers have produced secondary sources, Wikipedia has no deadline so we can wait for however long it takes. "Shopping" for a different reviewer will get you nowhere as it is a firmly established policy of the English Wikipedia not to accept articles based only on primary sources. In any event Primefac is quite unlikely to review the draft again. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 00:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- True, and while I hate to make pointy declines this one was appropriate since it felt like a "shopping" resubmission. As you say, I rarely re-review a page I've already seen once. Primefac (talk) 00:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)