Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2018 October 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< September 30 << Sep | October | Nov >> October 2 >
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 1

[edit]

05:43:44, 1 October 2018 review of submission by Kitplane01

[edit]


I read the directions. I understand I cannot ask here for the status of my article. But where can I ask for the status of my article? I wrote it in May, and finished answering all requests in August. I just want to make sure I'm still in the queue.

Kitplane01 (talk) 05:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kitplane01 Greetings to you. You could ask your status of your Draft:AN/APS-4 article here. The article still under waiting for review status. We the reviewers are volunteers and the backlog is huge (8-10 weeks) and we are trying to get the review done as soon as possible. Kindly be patient. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 07:33, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kitplane01 Reviewed. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 14:29, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:40:19, 1 October 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Zpramahlo

[edit]



Zpramahlo (talk) 08:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:13:50, 1 October 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by 95Grand

[edit]


I created a page with VERY reliable sources (you cannot get more reliable!) & it was rejected saying that the source was not reliable. The page was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:1990_Channel_10_Challenge_Cup. Can you please explain to me how a publication published Immediately following the event is not reliable?

95Grand (talk) 14:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you've cited a Journal by the name of "Rugby News Week", several times in the article. Whilst this could well be a reliable source, it is sometimes difficult to ascertain the validity of paper based sources. I'd suggest WikiLinking these sources (As it took me some digging to realise we have an article on this source.
I'd also suggest finding at least one more independent reference, as notability is a little thin on the ground, if only one source is mentioning the tournament. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I asked the original reviewer to give their opinion. It is likely to be the same as what Lee said so if you work on that it should be fine. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 14:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I always check the references of drafts first to assess the notability , but in your draft there are no linked sourced I could refer to . It just looks like you added the source, but did not link it . See other articles like [this] for how linked sources work . For more information see WP:REFB , WP:CITE and WP:RS . Kpgjhpjm 16:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Kpgjhpjm: The sources used are from a 1990 magazine, and thus cannot be linked. JTP (talk • contribs) 18:23, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]


What you have told me is that there is no point adding more to Wikipedia unless it is on the internet either in a Newspaper (& Google Newspapers doesn't have articles form the 90s) or a website that cites no sources)! So what you are in fact telling me is that I should create my own website with no sources & then link it in. Currently, you accept sources from http://www.rugbyleagueproject.org/, https://afltables.com/rl/rl_index.html & https://web.archive.org/web/20050226063543/http://users.hunterlink.net.au:80/~maajjs/aus/nsw/sum/nsw1991.htm none of which list their sources! Guess where they get their information from? Rugby League Week (my source in this instance), Rugby League News & Big League Magazines. The reason that I sourced Rugby League Week is that it is the ONLY source where you get all the information in one place on this subject & to find other detailed information, I would have to link newspapers or other hardy copy of magazines. Possibly this is why you do not have a page for this subject at the moment. I am trying to put this information up precisely because it CANNOT be found on the internet! Not everything is on the internet would you believe? If you like, I can send you scanned pages of the magazine.

As for the sources you do accept, this week I have written to http://www.rugbyleagueproject.org/ to point out several errors in their website & cited several sources for them to check.

This has been a very disappointing experience for me & I was waiting to add further pages until after I received a response. As Wikipedia apparently accepts unreliable sources & will not accept credible ones, allow opinions to be printed as fact & also allow libellous comments on it, I no longer believe in it's credibility, so I will not be contributing any further.

This is a subject I know well & have many sources that most people do not have access to - even the National Library of Australia doesn't have the information I have. I know I have been there many times. Unfortunately the sources required for this subject for the most part are not available online, so that leaves me in a catch 22 situation. Either I put up (according to you) incredible information or I create a website with no sources & use that website's page as the link to Wikipedia thus doubling the amount of work to do.

Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95Grand (talk • contribs) 07:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

95Grand - I actually disagree with the reviewing editor in this case, because, Wikipedia DOES accept print sources, and holds no prejudice over its use over a website, provided the publication in question has editorial proceedures in place. If you take a look at WP:RS, most projects on wikipedia will indicate which publications are deemed "reliable", and which do not. Websites, or publications do not have to state which sources they use, but are deemed reliable by consensus of users.
In this case, your source is fine! However, we would still want more than one referee to be commenting on the tournament, to deem that it is a noteworthy tournament. Sometimes, editors (even experienced ones like me), would prefer a link to a publication, as they can then see what coverage the subject recieved. If the tournament had a whole page spread say for several of these entries, it would probably be deemed very notable, however, it could be that it was simply mentioned in small print.
If I saw that it was mentioned in another publication, I'd be willing to promote the article myself; as I feel it would likely then clearly meet WP:GNG. One of the biggest issues is regarding this being a pre-season tournament, which could likely mean, it is less notable than a fully-fledged season tournament. Hope this helps Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The draft has been accepted to 1990 Channel 10 Challenge Cup, but the article does not actually pass notability because it relies entirely on a single source, the Rugby League Week magazine. I have tagged it accordingly, though the accepting reviewer probably deserves a trout too. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:36, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dodger67: I like fish. I did a search before approving the draft. I found a 450 word article in The Canberra Times dated 6 March 1990 talking in depth about the final match link and the challenge drew crowds of 15,000+ at the Pioneer Oval, reported in a 12 page feature by the Champion-post dated 16 February 1990 first page link the same paper reported on the event again on the 21 February 1990 and 11 April 1990. If someone wanted to write up the whole season it was covered by The Canberra Times over several articles [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] (links to Trove). I took that as enough to meet GNG if you could reconsider the tag please. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 17:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Frayae I've removed the notability tag, please pass the seafood... Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]


how do I put an image? It's too hard for me.

Blink 1102 (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

20:03:40, 1 October 2018 review of draft by 68.103.78.155

[edit]


I Created this Category On Saturday and I put 6 References but I hope is it enough for an article please. 68.103.78.155 (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

68.103.78.155 (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why Didn't you Answer Me Yesterday. 68.103.78.155 (talk) 19:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP user. We are all volenteers, and it can take some time for us to get back to users. Your article is in the review queue, and will be dealt with as soon as we can. There is an arguement regarding WP:TOOSOON against this article, however there are some references regarding shows not returning from 18-19, so I'll leave it to a reviewer with more knowledge of TV/American projects. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:01, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is a review queue. I Hope this article moves to article space soon. 68.103.78.155 (talk) 15:30, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2018_October_1&oldid=862990070"