Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 August 6
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < August 5 | << Jul | August | Sep >> | August 7 > |
| 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. |
August 6
[edit]01:15:30, 6 August 2017 review of submission by RanjitBimrah
[edit]- RanjitBimrah (talk · contribs)
@NewYorkActuary I agree with you but I have another proof to prove it. I will not upload those photo which looks like a teenager and will send you an image link below of description. Tell How can post this articles on Wikipedia? I think I write too many heading like career and mission death etc.. When I try to write articles in the draft for review than according to this reason Wikipedia delete or doesn't accept this article. Hope you will do my help regarding this matter. All sources which are written is this articles fresh. Image link Teenager Ranjit Mangal Singh. Now I will able to write an article on Wikipedia on the name as RANJIT MANGAL SINGH.
Regard RanjitBimrah
RanjitBimrah (talk) 01:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
- NOTE: User has blanked the page. NewYorkActuary (talk) 10:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
05:19:45, 6 August 2017 review of draft by 103.7.79.207
[edit]- 103.7.79.207 (talk · contribs)
103.7.79.207 (talk) 05:19, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
- Hello, IP address. Did you have a specific question? NewYorkActuary (talk) 10:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
17:57:03, 6 August 2017 review of submission by Plofgren
[edit]Hi, this is my fist contribution to wikipedia, and I'm trying to understand why my contribution was rejected. The reviewer seems be be concerned because my submission overlaps with information written in my PhD thesis at Stanford, especially the related work section of my thesis. I don't see why this is a problem, since I cite peer-reviewed sources (not my thesis) for all claims made, and was careful to cite a variety of work going back 18 years. I am not publishing anything original here. As background my motivation is that as a 1st year grad student, when my advisor suggested I study "Personalized PageRank" it took me a while to find good descriptions of it and to understand the best algorithms for computing it. Now that I studied it for five years I feel like I should give back and write the article I wish I could have read from the beginning. Personalized Pagerank is used in industry by Twitter, and is covered in core data-mining and social network analysis classes at Stanford, so I don't feel like it is too obscure to deserve a Wikipedia article. Also, the reviewer suggests I merge this article into the PageRank article, but the PageRank article is currently focused on non-personalized PageRank and web search, and I think it would be too much detail to have this much information on personalized PageRank as a subsection of the PageRank article. Please let me know if at least some information on personalized PageRank would be useful to Wikipedia, or if I should give up on sharing my knowledge through Wikipedia. Thanks! Plofgren (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Plofgren. Thank you for your contribution, we value your expertise. Creating a new Wikipedia article is one of the most difficult tasks for a new Wikipedian, not where I would recommend that anyone start. There is useful information in the draft, so how should you proceed?
- Study, with a writer's eye, some of Wikipedia's best articles on topics of a similar nature: Euclidean algorithm, Binary search algorithm, Linear probing, Pseudoforest, Rule 184, and Sylvester's sequence. Also read Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:Writing better articles.
- Attempt to do what the reviewer suggests. You're correct that PageRank can't neatly absorb the entire contents of the draft, but isn't the reviewer also right that some of the material could fit there? What would a reader of PageRank want to know about Personalized PageRank, and where would that go? Write that paragraph.
- Don't depend on hyperlinks to provide vital context. Users may print articles or read offline, and content may be republished without links, so the text needs to make sense without links. In as few words as possible, tell readers what they need to know about PageRank in order to understand Personalized PageRank. Write for as broad an audience as possible.
- The lead should summarize the body. It is too short for the length of the draft. It also mentions things not covered in the body (Facebook, community detection, and other applications), which shows that the body doesn't fully cover the subject.
- The tone of the draft isn't quite right for an encyclopedia article, it comes across more like a textbook or instructor lecturing to a class. The use of "we" grates. Try to make the voice of the article more like the examples above.
- Respond to the reviewer on the draft, directly below their comment, where future reviewers will see it, with regard to any remaining concerns. Keep it short and to the point, e.g.:
- Yes, the draft overlaps a portion of my PhD thesis, but mainly the related work section, not the central thrust of my research. I'm not citing my own publications or attempting to promote my work, merely writing about a subject I've become familiar with, summarizing independent reliable sources.
- When you've done all that, resubmit the draft. AfC is an iterative process. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks Worldbruce, that's a lot of helpful info, and that makes sense. I think I underestimated how much work it would take to get an article approved. I'm not sure when I'll get to this, but when I do I'll edit the draft and re-submit. Plofgren (talk) 05:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
22:33:27, 6 August 2017 review of submission by Rudolf1330
[edit]- Rudolf1330 (talk · contribs)
Hi, I was just wondering what is meant by adding more sources to back up he notability of the footballer... It thought it was pretty clear that he was notable enough, seen as he has been at two notable academies and plays for a notable club... There are many much less notable young players who play in a division 3 leagues below the division Lavelle currently participates in so do not see why Lavelle is not worthy of a wikipedia page. Please can you instruct me directly and clearly to what specific area(s) need to be enhanced, as I believe that the sources used in the article are every bit as reliable as other footballers and athletes on wikipedia e.g. Adam Dugdale or Nathan Bondswell (both not at all notable athletes/sportspeople and use hardly any sources at all, let alone reliable ones). Thanks for your time and help in advance.
Accepted because yesterday he played in a match between Morecambe F.C. and Cheltenham Town F.C., which are clubs in EFL League Two, a fully professional league. Thus he meets criterion #2 of WP:NFOOTY. Trout me if I'm wrong. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:56, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
