Help desk
< February 17	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 19 >

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.

February 18

Request on 06:25:02, 18 February 2017 review of submission by Anupriyatkd

Anupriyatkd (talk · contribs)
- No draft specified!

}}

kindly tell me why my content is not published. i have published true cntents.

Anupriyatkd (talk) 06:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anupriyatkd. Content in Wikipedia must be verifiable. Articles must cite reliable sources to show where the material came from. As the review of the draft says, Help:Referencing for beginners can guide you through the mechanics of citing sources using footnotes.

Malayala Manorama is a reliable source. IMDb, however, is user-generated, so it is not a reliable source, and you should not use information you found there. Cinetrooth.in and cochintalkies.com don't exhibit the characteristics of reliable sources. Regarding them, I suggest you ask for advice at WP:RSN, specifying the exact statement(s) in the draft you want to use them to support. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

16:02:28, 18 February 2017 review of submission by Wikijahnson

Wikijahnson (talk · contribs)
- Draft:GX-2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The comment on the article is: This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. My question is this: I could potentially add dozens of references from notable, independent sources, even to the extent of footnoting every sentence in the article. How do I strike a balance between excessive referencing and insufficient referencing that leads to a lack of notability? Thank you! Wikijahnson (talk) 16:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wikijahnson. Reference quality is more important than quantity. New editors are often advised to cite at least three independent, published, reliable, secondary sources containing a significant depth of information about a topic. The draft cites personal papers in an archive (not published), a patent and company documents (neither independent nor secondary), a YouTube video (not reliable or secondary). It cites a conference paper, which is a good start, although something published in an academic journal is prefered, because conference papers usually aren't peer reviewed. It also cites a page in Mass Transportation, which appears to be a magazine or trade journal rather than an academic journal, so ok, but not the best possible source. The way to establish notability is to add a modest number of sources that tick all the boxes - independent, published, reliable, secondary, and significant depth - and remove poorer sources.

With regard to citation density, make it easy for readers (and reviewers) to tell where the information in the draft came from. If everything in a paragraph came from the same source, there's no need for an inline citation at the end of every sentence, one at the end of the paragraph would be fine. Three of the last four paragraphs cite no sources, which is unwise. See Help:Referencing for beginners for a shorthand way of using the same reference more than once. For offline sources, consider using the cite template's quote parameter if the passage is no longer than a few sentences, see "Additional annotation" in Wikipedia:Citing sources for more information. You may also find Wikipedia:Writing better articles useful, in particular what it says about structure and tone. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Worldbruce - thank you for that input - very helpful! One source you didn't mention that I would like to hear from you about - newspaper articles - would they be independent, published, reliable, secondary, but not, perhaps, significant depth? Wikijahnson (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikijahnson: Newspaper articles are the next best thing to scholarly sources, see WP:NEWSORG for more information. Avoid passing mentions of the topic. Aim for sources with at least a few paragraphs about it. An example of very good depth would be: "Revolutionary Type of Bus Being Tested Soon". The Hancock Democrat. Greenfield, IN. June 30, 1949. p. 3 – via Newspapers.com.

. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]