Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 November 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< November 21 << Oct | November | Dec >> November 23 >
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.


November 22

[edit]

03:11:06, 22 November 2017 review of submission by Ajdeluca4

[edit]

Hello, I recently submitted the article above and it was not accepted. I was a little confused as to why it was not accepted and any suggestions on improvements I could make would be greatly appreciated! Thank you. Ajdeluca4 (talk) 03:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajdeluca4: Hello, AJ. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. The best source of information as to why your submission was declined will be the reviewer who looked at it. You can find that person's name and Talk page link in the "decline box" near the top of the submission. But I took a quick look at it and I think I know what the reviewer meant when mentioning WP:TOOSOON -- although this high-school athlete probably doesn't meet the criteria set forth in WP:NHOOPS just yet, he probably will meet them eventually (at which point an article here would be appropriate). But I encourage you to confirm this with the reviewer. I hope this response was helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

04:18:27, 22 November 2017 review of submission by User457b

[edit]


Hi Hamtechperson, Thanks for reviewing my submission on "Ammar Ahmad". Just a question on this. I'm going to change the content into more formal and neutral tone. Do I have to change the sources as well?

Regards, User457b

User457b (talk) 04:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User457b. SBS and The Sydney Morning Herald are solid sources, and should be kept. Inside Small Business, however, is questionable. It's also an interview without analysis by the interviewer, so not independent. I recommend replacing that source. --Worldbruce (talk) 07:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

05:01:16, 22 November 2017 review of submission by Mitchmedina

[edit]


I'm trying to write a Wikipedia article about myself. I've led an interesting life, but there is no published work about it.

I've written 4 Christian books, but they are not really germane to my life's story. I'm writing an autobiography, but it's a work-in-progress, and hasn't been published.

I have 30 U.S. Patents, and I suppose that I can cite them as references. But once again, they do not illuminate my personal life.

What should I do next?

Mitchmedina (talk) 05:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't write an article about yourself. This is an encyclopaedia, not social media – would you trust an encyclopaedia where all the articles were written by their subjects? If you are notable by Wikipedia's standards, a volunteer will write an article about you eventually. – Joe (talk) 13:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

08:07:27, 22 November 2017 review of submission by Newamsterdam2017

[edit]


Dear Wikipedia,


As a new editor I would like to add more pages about ongoing developments in my town Amsterdam. A growing trend in Amsterdam is the changing pattern of consumption towards conscious consuming. More and more organizations are part of this growing trend. I wanted to add the Aesthetic Stories organization, but found this article was declined. I was therefore wondering: how could I improve the article? I have already added a few primary and secondary sources.

Looking forward to hear from you,


Kind regards,

Wais

Newamsterdam2017 (talk) 08:07, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Newamsterdam2017. The draft's cited sources don't mention the company, they only support background information on EU standards in the industry. My own searches found no significant coverage of the company in independent, reliable, secondary sources, so it does not appear to be a suitable topic for Wikipedia at this time. It may be unrealistic of you to expect a two-year-old company to have had the significant or demonstrable effects that would justify inclusion in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not for promotion, advertising, or public relations. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

08:13:52, 22 November 2017 review of submission by Hawkeyedeep

[edit]


Hawkeyedeep (talk) 08:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC) I want to add image in my new article from android but i don't know how to do it.[reply]

Hi Hawkeyedeep. I would focus on getting your draft accepted before trying to add images. There are a number of outstanding problems with it, detailed in the templates at the top of the page. – Joe (talk) 13:17, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

11:09:02, 22 November 2017 review of submission by SciFive

[edit]


Hi, I translated a page about the Journal of Magnetic Resonance, from the French edition of Wikipedia into English and when I submitted it for review, it was rejected for failing to establish the notability of the journal. My question is: do different language editions of Wikipedia have different criteria to accept articles? While doing the translation, I added some references and updated some out-of-date information but from what the reviewer wrote it seems that I should write the page from scratch. There is no doubt in my mind that the Journal of Magnetic Resonance should have a page in Wikipedia since it is one of the leading scientific journals in its field (MRI,nuclear magnetic resonance, etc.). Your input is greatly appreciated. Thanks--SciFive (talk) 11:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SciFive. Yes, the different Wikipedias do have different criteria. I don't know anything about the French Wikipedia's but, as I understand it, here at enwiki we're on the strict side.
We have specific criteria for the inclusion of journals at WP:NJOURNALS. Perhaps Sulfurboy was not aware of them, because I think JMR quite clearly passes them – it has a JCR impact factor and many highly cited papers. I will go ahead and accept your draft now. – Joe (talk) 12:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SciFive. Thank you for your contribution. I concur with Joe Roe that your draft is an acceptable stub. Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Writing guide contains suggestions about how to write about academic journals that may help you make it even better. See Genes, Brain and Behavior and The BMJ for practical examples. --Worldbruce (talk) 12:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

16:53:36, 22 November 2017 review of submission by Skdwived

[edit]

Hi, can anyone please check the page & provide feedback on this subject write up.

Skdwived (talk) 16:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Skdwived: Hello, Skdwived. Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia. Our apologies for the great delay in response. Usually, you would be advised to submit your draft for review and then wait to see what a reviewer has to say about it. But I did take a quick look at your draft and found that it is unlikely to be accepted in its current state. Essentially, all you've done is present a list of places in the Rig Veda where the subject is mentioned. You then proceed to quote the particular lines in which the subject is mentioned -- in three alphabets/languages. The little bit of context for this exercise in quotation is all unsourced and there is no discussion to be found in your references. Indeed, all you've really done is use the AncientVoice cite as a guide to pulling full quotes from the Sanskrit Index, and then present the English-language translations as they appear at WikiSource. None of this rises to the level of a proper Wikipedia article. Unless you can find reliable sources that discuss this Hindu goddess in some depth, I see little chance that your draft will be accepted for publication. I recognize that this is not the response that you were hoping to receive and, if you have any questions about it, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:33:08, 22 November 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by IsaNew

[edit]


My article was reviewed by Chrissymad. Unfortunately, I don't understand why Chrissymad thinks that "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." I had read the guidelines for referencing thoroughly before submitting the article and cited 7 print media sources (magazines). Why are these not considered reliable? Or what would I need to change? Thank you in advance for your help, IsaNew (talk) 18:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IsaNew (talk) 18:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@IsaNew: I've left a response on the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

20:44:19, 22 November 2017 review of submission by Heatherbridge88

[edit]

My first attempt at publishing was rejected. I just resubmitted, but am looking for some tips/suggestions to make sure it passes Wikipedia's standards. Any help is appreciated!

Heatherbridge88 (talk) 20:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing you need to do is to declare your conflict of interest as a paid editor. Theroadislong (talk) 20:56, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2017_November_22&oldid=812499855"