Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 October 10
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < October 9 | << Sep | October | Nov >> | October 11 > |
| 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. |
October 10
[edit]01:51:38, 10 October 2017 review of submission by TanyaPearson81
[edit]- TanyaPearson81 (talk · contribs)
- No draft specified!
I'd like to know why the Women of Rock Oral History Project article was rejected- it is a collection of primary source materials housed at a major institution and these personal histories can be linked to existing pages and can be used as references for new pages. I don't understand how this is any different from an artist/ band wikipedia page. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
TanyaPearson81 (talk) 01:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- Hi TanyaPearson81. Your choice of user name and the source you cited[1] suggest that you may have a close connection to the subject of Draft:Women of Rock Oral History Project. If so, it is vital that you disclose that connection. I've left more information about this on your talk page. We encourage archives to get involved with Wikipedia, but writing an article about your organization is strongly discouraged. For better ways to contribute, see Wikipedia:GLAM/Contribute.
- The draft was declined because it fails to demonstrate that the world at large has taken significant enough notice of Women of Rock Oral History Project to justify including a stand alone article about it in an encyclopedia. That doesn't mean WROHP isn't a good or useful thing, or necessarily that WROHP isn't notable, just that the first draft fails to prove notability.
- You write,
"The references ARE reliable secondary sources, completely independent from Smith College or the Oral History Project, and the references I used are about WOROHP- not mentions."
However, there is precisely one source listed in the references section. That source, an article in the Daily Hampshire Gazette is, as you say, an independent, reliable, secondary source that contains a significant depth of information about the topic, so it's an excellent start. Perhaps the problem is merely of form. If there are more sources hiding in the draft, but not formatted in such a way to convey their presence to reviewers (perhaps lumped under "External links"), then see Referencing for beginners.
- Whether the sources need to be exposed or added, multiple sources are expected. Novice editors are often advised to cite at least three. For organizations, at least one source should be regional, statewide, national, or international.
- External links (links that take the reader away from Wikipedia) are not allowed within the running text of an article. All of those need to be removed. Instead, use double square brackets around a name to create an internal link to the relevant Wikipedia article, like Lydia Lunch. An external link to Lunch's interview at WOROHP might be appropriate in the external links section of that article, but Draft:Women of Rock Oral History Project should not have a long list of external links to interviews in the archive. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
07:26:25, 10 October 2017 review of submission by Ms4263nyu
[edit]- Lilie Chouliaraki is in place. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I am writing regarding this draft page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Paul_Crotto (which I have just edited a little since the review from SwisterTwister as in I have changed the order of references, put the most important ones first). The message SwisterTwister left is that I should prove the artist's notability through museum collections and art reviews, but I have done just that. I have over 15 cuttings of reviews in art magazines from the 60s in Paris, which I have included in the article, but it is true that I can't find this articles online. Please tell me how else to prove the existance of this art reviews articles (very complex articles dedicated to artist Paul Crotto) and museums or very important group gallery exhibition for which I can't find online proof, as probably they werent archived (as much of the 60s in visual art isn't), though I do have press cuttings and gallery/museum cuttings and brochures.
Do let me know, please, what are the rules for references (important press cuttings and articles) which I couldn't find online, but I have them physically in press cuttings or exhibition brochures/catalogues. Just because they aren't archived online, doesn't mean they did not exist or that they were not important/relevant at their time.
Roxana Gibescu (talk) 10:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Roxana Gibescu. By "museum collections" I believe the reviewer is referring to WP:ARTIST criterion #4 part d, "is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums". The draft doesn't show that Crotto's work is held in the permanent collections of any galleries or museums. Contrast this with, for example, Jean Bellette#Legacy, which lists seven galleries and museums that hold her work.
- You write that you've cited very complex art review articles specifically about Crotto, but that they're offline. Offline sources are fine. When sources are offline, reviewers may look first at how you've used those sources, to get an idea of how deep they are. Each of your offline sources is used exactly once, and to support a trivial statement, like "Galerie René Drouet, Paris, 1964." This type of usage can give reviewers the impression that the sources are trivial, a thought that may be reinforced when the sole book cited makes only the barest passing mention of Crotto.
- If your offline sources are detailed, a good way to show that is to use them to support all the content they can, such as a description of Crotto's work and its critical reception. See, for example Jean Bellette#Career. It can also help to use cite templates (except of course cite web) for your offline sources just as you have with your online ones. The purpose of the citations it to make information easy to verify. Lowering the burden on the reader/reviewer by identifying what part of the citation is the author, what part the title, what part the publication name, etc. is common courtesy. All readers of the English-language Wikipedia will recognize common sources like the BBC News or The New York Times, but it's helpful to wikilink more obscure sources like Dagens Nyheter.
- Finally, the way the draft is written suggests that you have an interest in selling his work. If so, it's important that you follow Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines and declare any interest. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
HiWorldbruce. Many, many thanks for the useful information, it will be of immense help as I will include information from the many art reviews dedicated to Paul Crotto. I actually thought that writing what galleries (and museums) have his work in their collection will suggest the interest in selling his work. I saw that in Jean Bellette post as well, that even contemporary galleries hold her work, which for me alludes to the interest in selling her work. But as it doesn't, I will contact the mentioned galleries (which still exists today) to see what works they do still have in their collection. Probably you got the impression of my interest in selling his work from the links in the references, which I used just because they were the few online public links to prove some of the information about him. I am not related to those auction houses in any way, I am a PhD student focused on Paris art scene from the 60s.
Many thanks again. Please, could you also tell me if after I make this changes I should re-submitt the draft?
Roxana Gibescu (talk) 10:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Roxana Gibescu: The convention on talk pages is to start a new section only for new discussion threads. When continuing a conversation, indent your reply one level more than what you're replying to, by beginning with one more colon than the previous text. See Wikipedia:Tutorial/Talk pages for more information.
- When you sincerely believe the draft is ready for publication, the best thing to do is to re-submit it. There is a chronic backlog, and this help desk is not a shortcut for bypassing that. Hundreds of reviewers work in Articles for creation, so it isn't efficient to wait for a review (or "pre-review") from a particular one, especially since, as volunteers, they may or may not show up for work on any given day. Also, another reviewer with other strengths may see different aspects of a draft that need improvement, which leads to a stronger article in the end.
- I've left on your talk page a welcome basket of links that may help you develop the draft. It may also help to study Wikipedia's best writing about artists. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:50, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
15:24:27, 10 October 2017 review of submission by Jeremydandrus17
[edit]Hello,
I am wondering why my submission was declined. The user who declined my submission states that the article needs to be written "from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just materials produced by the creator of the subject". I did not write this article in the first-person, and if it perceived that I did, then I would like a more clear explanation on how not to write this submission in first-person. I have included a range of independent, reliable, published sources that have written articles based on research from Olson Communications and its separate divisions. This argument as to why my submission was denied then should lead to the removal of any and all research, public relations, marketing and advertising companies that have pages on Wikipedia. They have similar pages to what I have submitted, specifically Edelman, Ketchum, Leo Burnett, etc., yet my submission was the only one that was denied.
All I ask is further explanation be given as to why my submission was denied, while other similar companies/agencies are not denied.
Thank you
Jeremydandrus17 (talk) 15:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Jeremydandrus17#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
21:49:35, 10 October 2017 review of submission by Adarrah
[edit]
So far I have not had a follow up response.
Adarrah (talk) 16:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello Adarrah. As you can see I have moved your draft article from your sandbox to Draft:Helen and Frank Schreider, as that is the normal place for AfC submissions. I'll have a closer look tomorrow and get back to you here, but my first impression is that they are notable and you just need some extra/improved sourcing which is fairly easy to find, e.g. this lengthy obituary in the New York Times or this lengthy review of their book 20 Thousand Miles South, also in the New York Times. In other words, you need more independent sources which are about the Schreiders and their work, not sources by them, although they can be useful for filling in some details. Voceditenore (talk) 17:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Adarrah (talk) 21:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
22:19:58, 10 October 2017 review of submission by Lee Vilenski
[edit]- Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs)
Hello,
Sorry to bother anyone with the question, I am looking for information on sourcing (I'm sure that is 80% of questions.) The article Draft:Pro Wrestling Pride has been declined due to poor citation; stating that the article cannot be based purely on cagematch.net.
I understand from some research that the site in question is suitable for match results (and thus stipulations) as a reference, and have also included information from other sources such as local news and F4W.
Am I simply referencing incorrectly, or too much? Is there anything I can do to improve the article (and for articles in the future), as I am unsure of the complete reason for failure.
Best Wishes Lee Vilenski (talk) 22:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC) Lee Vilenski (talk) 22:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)