Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 November 24
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < November 23 | << Oct | November | Dec >> | November 25 > |
| 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 24
[edit]07:19:02, 24 November 2017 review of submission by Norie Goto
[edit]- Norie Goto (talk · contribs)
I posted an article on Wikipedia for the first time. I have several questions now.
At the first, I'm not sure I could post properly.
At the second, if there is a possibility which my article will be rejected, I want to know and improve those mistakes beforehand not to be rejected. Is it possible?
At last, I 'm not sure after my article was rejected, what I should do the next.
I'm not a native speaker, so it is helpful for me that you use simple and easy English for your explanation. Thank you.
Norie Goto
Norie Goto (talk) 07:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Norie Goto: You have successfully submitted your draft and it is waiting for a reviewer. One of our editors, Robert McClenon, has left a suggestion for further improvement while you're waiting for review. It would improve the article to introduce wikilinks but your draft would not be rejected for lacking these. Part of the review involves evaluating sources. Since most of these are in Japanese, this will be difficult for our english-speaking reviewers. There may be an additional delay because of this. ~Kvng (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @Norie Goto: Hello, Norie Goto. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the great delay in response. I see two major problems with your submission. First, I'm not entirely convinced that Wikipedia needs an article on wasabi grown in Hikimi. Our existing article on wasabi indicates that the entire prefecture of Shimane accounts for less than 5% of Japan's production. So, it is difficult to see why Hikimi-grown wasabi should have its own article, especially given that your draft really doesn't make much of a case for stand-alone notability. I also see that much of your draft isn't devoted to wasabi itself, but to culture and business plans specific to Hikimi. But that material would be well-placed in our existing article on Hikimi, Shimane.
Second, there is a problem with your sourcing. You have given it almost entirely in Japanese orthography, which renders it virtually impossible for any English-language reader to assess the quality of those sources. All of our articles must comply with WP:Verifiability and this, in turn, calls for following the provisions of WP:CITE. Although there is no prohibition against using foreign-language sources, the description of those sources must be in English. It would be helpful if the article titles were transliterated using Romaji but, even if you choose to not do this, the title must still be translated into English. And the website must be identified (and even a Japanese language website is going to have a URL written with Roman letters). Similarly for the name of the author, the publisher and the date of publication. In all, under proper referencing, the title of the cited article will be the only thing written with Japanese orthography -- everything else will either be transliterated with Romaji or, where possible, translated into English. I encourage you to become familiar with the {{cite web}} template, which will make it easy to provide the necessary bibliographic detail. It even has a
"trans-title="
parameter that makes it easy to supply the translation of the title. Later today, I'll re-visit your draft and try my hand at re-formatting one or two of your references, which you can then use as an example for doing the rest.If you need assistance with the translating, you might want to ask the good folks over at WP:WikiProject Japan for assistance. I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- Adam Sir Jr. (talk · contribs)
Adam Sir Jr. (talk) 09:57, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Adam Sir Jr.: Hello, Adam. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the great delay in response. However, you didn't actually ask a question. Was there something specific you wanted to ask? NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Syringeal
[edit]Why is this not allowed an entry exactly? Syrinx the Nymph (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Syrinx the Nymph: Hello, Syrinx. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the great delay in response. The reason that Draft:Syringeal was not accepted for publication was because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. For more detail, see WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
19:29:37, 24 November 2017 review of submission by Jkarsh
[edit]Why was it rejected? Jkarsh (talk) 19:29, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Jkarsh: Hello, J. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the great delay in response. 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 your draft. I assume that you are asking about Draft:Tryperion Partners. If so, I did take a quick look at it and found that I too would have declined it, not for its promotional tone but for its failure to establish that the company has achieved encyclopedic notability. All the draft seems to do is document the company's existence and the routine details of its closed-end real-estate investment funds. But the United States has hundreds of such companies and the major players in the field have capitalisations that are measured in the billions of dollars. Here, on the other hand, we have a company whose first fund held about $50 million, as did its second fund. And the current one as yet only holds a single complex in Minnetonka. So, the subject is not a significant factor in its field and we are given no reason to believe that it is noteworthy for any other reason. But other reviewers might disagree with my assessment, so I encourage you to contact the reviewer who declined your submission and learn more about their thoughts on the matter. I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi I need help to understand why the reviewer says the article seems an advertisement. I've changed some parts using a neutral tone and added new references from third relevant parties not directly connected to the original organizer of the event. Please concrete suggestions are very welcome.
Elena.griguol (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Elena.griguol: Hello, Elena. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the great delay in response. We here at Wikipedia tend to give the words "advertisement" and "promotion" meanings that are often broader than their usual ones. I agree that you've generally used neutral language to describe the organization. But I agree with the reviewers that the overall feel is still that of an "advertisement", in the sense that you are telling the reader little more than what the school would tell people on its website or in a brochure. There's one extreme example that I saw -- you give the exact dates on which sessions will be held next year, and nearby is a link that takes the reader to a sales page at which they can register for those sessions. But even if this obvious promotional aspect were to be removed, we'd still be left with a draft that contains little more than what the organization says about itself (and I'm including all of the cites from affiliated persons and entities). What you really need to do is find reliable independent sources that are talking about the organization (not just the field in which it operates), and that do so in depth. Then, an acceptable article might be fashioned out of the material in those independent reliable sources. Without that, I think you are going to find it difficult to get your draft published here. I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Csgoldberg (talk · contribs)
Hi There - I tried creating a page that described a company called Pulse Microsystems. This company was integral to the creation of the machine embroidery industry, but does not have a wikipedia page. It was taken down for it was labelled as advertising. I used 3 other company webpages in its creation, and was very objective in listing patent numbers, sources from articles, and the like.
How do I create a company webpage without it seeming like advertising, when there are in fact sources cited? Csgoldberg (talk) 21:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Csgoldberg. Because the draft was deleted, I can't see it to comment on it. You mention that you listed patent numbers, that was probably a mistake. I'm not sure what you mean by "used 3 other company webpages in its creation". If you mean you modeled it on 3 other Wikipedia articles, understand that there's a lot of crap on Wikipedia. If you're going to follow examples, be sure to use Wikipedia's best articles. If you mean you referenced 3 company websites as sources, try to find academic or news sources instead. Commercial websites rank fairly far down the hierarchy of reliable sources.
- The problem of promotional tone is independent of whether sources are cited, but can creep into writing if the sources the content is based on are promotional. My own searches found no significant coverage of Pulse Microsystems outside of press releases, which are not independent, and trade journals, which have a narrow audience and may not be independent - there is often a too-cozy relationship between them and the industries and companies they cover. Therefore Pulse does not appear to be a suitable topic for Wikipedia. You might have better luck with the parent company, Hirsch. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Csgoldberg: If you would like more help with this, I would suggest you visit WP:REFUND and request a copy of your prior work be put into a Draft article that we can all see. ~Kvng (talk) 00:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)