Help desk
< December 4	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 6 >

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 5

17:49:36, 5 December 2017 review of submission by Tbliss558

Tbliss558 (talk · contribs)

Retaliatory rejection Tbliss558 (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC) The draft was in the queue for review. Some wikipedia editor had already suggested I change the pagename to Richard Levine (director). Levine is better known for writing so on December 1 I contacted the user talk IRC page simply to clarify the general rule regarding these titles. I was immediately greeted with "he's not notable, my Dad directed X tv shows and doesn't have a page...." and so on and so forth. I replied that i did not ask for an accelerated review, that the user talk IRC page explicitly says that asking questions here would not accelerate a review, that I was simply asking a general question. TJH2018 was offended and, THAT SAME DAY, retaliated by accelerating the review of the article and rejecting it. The ostensible reasons for the rejection are inapplicable to the subject. This rejection is retaliation. How do I appeal this? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbliss558 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tbliss558. I am an impartial reviewer and not connected to the editor who conducted the previous review, TJH2018. I have looked at the draft article. I see lots of productions that Levine has been involved in, supported by IMDB references. These are not considered reliable references because IMDB content is largely user-generated. See WP:IMDBREF and WP:Citing IMDb. The two references that aren't from IMDB include only mere mentions about Levine, whereas the notability guideline for biographies (used to determine which people there should be Wikipedia articles about) requires that there should be substantial, in depth coverage about the person in multiple reliable, independent publications. As the draft currently doesn't meet the notability guidelines, the previous reviewer was right to decline the draft for the reason given in the grey box. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Curb Safe Charmer. There are four, not two, non-IMDB citations, one of which is a NY Times review of a film Levine wrote and directed. These are not mere mentions. In addition to writing and directing two films, Levine is a leading television showrunner (supervising writer/producer). Equally important but unaddressed is the timing of the rejection, which evidences retaliation. I plan to ask for a formal review of this rejection but thank you for your prompt response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbliss558 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tbliss558: Sorry, yes, there are four references that aren't to IMDB. I have re-read the NYT review and it tells me one thing about Levine - that he directed the film that the article is about. Their article mentions him twice - once in the first paragraph and once in the credits. That is not in depth coverage. The Variety article tells me two things about Levine - that he wrote the pilot and several episodes, and that he's the executive producer. The LA Film Festival page names Levine as the screen writer and director and uses the word 'acclaimed' but says nothing else about him. The Deadline references confirm that he is the writer and executive producer, but say nothing else about him. These references are fine for the purposes of verifying facts in your draft, but they don't help establish notability. This essay is worth a read - it explains in a straightforward way what we look for in references to establish notability.

Regarding your belief that the previous reviewer acted in WP:BADFAITH, I wanted to point out that the 'queue' for review isn't really a queue in that any reviewer is at liberty to review articles in any order - there's no rule that we have to review the oldest first. I tend to focus on short articles rather than work through them in chronological order, and others may only review articles about particular subjects, for instance. If I've reviewed one draft that someone has submitted and I see they've submitted another, I might review it at the same time while I have it open on my screen. So I do not see anything inherently wrong in a reviewer that you interacted with on IRC reviewing your draft that day. I have not seen your exchange of IRC messages with them so I don't know the full facts - you can make your complaint here. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Curb Safe Charmer - I do appreciate your advice. I reviewed the article you suggested and am confident the subject meets those criteria for notability. I understand that I am not the decision maker. As far as the timing of the review, I can tell you that the first words from the person with whom I interacted on IRC were not responsive to the general question I asked but about the (lack of) notability of the subject. He immediately got into why his "father isn't even notable", etc. For him this was personal. Basically, if his father doesn't qualify, either does my subject.

And, to be honest, and with respect, your review was obviously too cursory in that your count of non-IMDB sources was inaccurate. So that didn't add to my confidence about this process. (By the way, IMDB does have a review process which included paid professionals, not just volunteers).

I realize that his personal motivation does not make my subject notable but I will be asking for a "clean" review.

Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbliss558 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

20:27:16, 5 December 2017 review of submission by Lloan

Lloan (talk · contribs)

I have wrote this article based off one of Fit Body Boot Camp's competitors Wiki Page: Orange Theory Fitness. They also refer to their main business site in the same manner that I did. We also utilized independent sources. Would it be possible to point to what sections specifically shouldn't be included? The response given for rejection was, with all due respect, a bit vague. Would it be possible to get a bit more as far as clarification? I would very much appreciate that, thank you for your time.

Lloan (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Discussion is taking place on the reviewer's Talk page. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

22:21:32, 5 December 2017 review of submission by Garry McCallum

HI,

I am a historian from my hometown of Hamilton in South Lanarkshire and I run a History page called Historic Hamilton. I recently added my site and I want to contribute to Wiki, However, my content was deleted.

How can I add my work and research to Hamilton related things?

Garry McCallum.

Hi Garry, sorry to hear you're having a bad first experience with Wikipedia. But looking over your contributions, I am getting the impression that you have not fully understood the nature of our project. Wikipedia is a volunteer-edited encyclopaedia. At Draft:Garry McCallum you attempted to write an article about yourself, which is not something we allow – would you trust an encyclopaedia where the subject's wrote their own entries? It is also written as an informal personal reflection, in the first person no less, rather than a neutral and factual encyclopaedia article.

You then contributed a lot of text to Hamilton Mausoleum, much of which may be useful, but this also has major problems. You have again written it as a personal reflection, including many first person references to yourself. This is not how encyclopaedia articles are written. It also has many formatting errors, no paragraph breaks, and not links to other articles that would integrate it into the encyclopaedia. More seriously, you have not included and references for what you have written, so it is impossible to verify. You also 'signed' your contribution with "Historic Hamilton. © 2017". Again this is not how Wikipedia works. We are based on the concept of free content and in contributing that text you irrevocably released it under a license that allows anyone to reuse it.

You have also added links to your draft on yourself and to your website to several Hamilton-related articles. We consider this spam; Wikipedia should not be used as to promote yourself or your website.

I don't want to discourage you from contributing further; it sounds like we could really benefit from your knowledge of local history. However, I would slow it down a little and focus on making improvements to Hamilton, South Lanarkshire and related articles step-by-step, rather than adding large volumes of text at once. Make sure that you write these as neutral encyclopaedic summaries in the third person, and that every statement is supported by a reference to a reliable published source (see referencing for beginners for instructions). I'd also advise spending some time reading other Wikipedia articles, to get a sense of our house style, and familiarising yourself with our core policies and guidelines. I have recently written a couple of local history articles at Bagshaw Museum and Howley Hall, for example. Thanks. – Joe (talk) 08:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

23:27:43, 5 December 2017 review of submission by 68.102.39.189

68.102.39.189 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:2018 in baseball (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

What's taking long to move the 2018 in baseball from the draft to the Main Article Space. 68.102.39.189 (talk) 23:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

68.102.39.189 (talk) 23:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please be patient. There are over 2,500 submissions awaiting review. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]