Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 April 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< April 13 << Mar | April | May >> April 15 >
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.


April 14

[edit]

01:28:28, 14 April 2019 review of submission by Zayna Palmer

[edit]


Zayna Palmer (talk) 01:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


How can I improve my article?

Hi Zayna Palmer. The first decline explains, in the gray box within the pink box, and in the comment beneath it, what sources the draft lacks. The subsequent rejection is another reviewer's assessment that the sources requested cannot be added to the draft because they simply don't exist. You can prove them wrong by adding multiple, independent, reliable sources containing a significant depth of information about Robles and her work.
Creating a new article is one of the most difficult, time-consuming, and frustrating things a novice Wikipedian can attempt. I suggest setting the draft aside for a while. There are millions of easier and better ways to improve the encyclopedia. See Wikipedia:Community portal for how to help. If you return to the draft later, you will do so with more experience editing Wikipedia, and more may have been written about Robles in reliable sources by then. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

03:26:44, 14 April 2019 review of submission by Lardofdorkness

[edit]

Hello,

I'm having some difficulty getting my draft approved, and would like to better appreciate the nuances of the standard(s) the reviewers have noted, specifically with respect to another existing article. This was my first attempt at publishing a new article, so I thought I'd start with something that seemed simple: The first of Bruce Kulick's three solo albums, which was the only one that didn't have an article already. It made sense to me to emulate an article for one of the other albums in the trio, so I chose the one on his sophomore solo effort, Transformer, as the model for mine.

When I submitted it the first time, it was declined by StraussInTheHouse for not meeting notability guidelines. I inquired about this and made further edits, after which SITH cheerfully suggested I submit again, so I did.

This time it was declined by AngusWOOF, whose comment was "Need more album reviews." When I asked for more details about what would suffice, the explanation was that the article needs a paragraph section summarizing some of the major reviews by music journalists.

Admittedly, these have been hard to come by, and so far the only thing I've been able to find that might qualify is the one I suggested when asking AngusWOOF for guidance. I can certainly add a blurb citing that, but AngusWOOF seems to expect reviews (plural). Furthermore, the Transformer article has no such "review section," which raises questions in my mind about subjectivity in interpreting and enforcing the guidelines, as well as the role of consistency (both in support of guidelines in general, and in content across similar/related articles such as these) in the development and maintenance of that which ultimately gets published. Separate reviewers have proffered differing opinions about what passes for notability as it pertains to the Audiodog draft. Other closely related, extant articles appear to exhibit the same dearth of substantiation that mine ostensibly does. This is confusing to me and I am seeking a satisfying explanation more than I am arguing for acceptance of the draft.

Honestly, my stake in this particle subject (the Audiodog album) is pretty small: As I said, I just wanted to try my hand at creating an article with something I thought would be fairly simple (given the ready example I had in the Transformer article), and thereby fill a little void I happened to notice in the artist's discography. The amount of time I put into developing the article content is not unreasonable, but the time spent considering its relative merits has begun to feel inordinate. I'm tapped out of ideas, so if the fact is simply that Audiodog doesn't belong here, I won't cry if you put Old Yeller out of his misery.

Sincerely,
Lardofdorkness (talk) 03:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lardofdorkness. I see that working with AngusWOOF you were able to get the draft published. Congratulations! For future reference, Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources lists sources that Wikipedians have found useful in writing about albums.
To address your more general question, although it is natural to learn by example, it is safer to work from the official guidelines, in this case WP:NALBUMS. Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality articles and poor quality articles. The existence of an article does not mean it meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, it may mean only that no one has gotten around yet to fixing it or deleting it. Existence is not a good reason to create similar articles. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why. If you wish to learn from example articles, be sure to use only Wikipedia's best.
If it troubles you that existing article haven't kept up with the guidelines, by all means pitch in and help correct the problem. With 98-99% of all articles rated less than "good" by the community, improving, merging, and deleting existing articles is a large part of most Wikipedians' editing. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Worldbruce -- Thanks for your congratulations and the additional pointers and references. It's been an informative experience. When I started this thread it was due to the mixed messages I'd gotten from two different reviewers, and the uncertainty of what it might take to satisfy the second reviewer. As you saw, we worked together to improve it enough to get it published, although I'm sure it's still squarely in that "less than good" category. That number is astounding, btw! As for pitching in, I do what I can. I try to correct whatever errors I may notice while using Wikipedia, and I make monetary donations. I tried my hand at creating an article from scratch, and it seems that may not be my forte. So I'll keep doing what I can, and leave it to the real Wikipedians to get the good above 2%. --Lardofdorkness (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

04:24:27, 14 April 2019 review of draft by Zanestearns

[edit]


Hello. How can I add the table on the right side of the article with the song, date, artists, etc. information for potential readers to reference. Thank you!

Zanestearns (talk) 04:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06:04:43, 14 April 2019 review of draft by Otterlyhwi

[edit]

I want to ask for assistance regarding my article titled Draft:Lee_Dae-hwi. It was declined twice with reason that the subject of article did not has significant coverage or individual notability for it to get an article. The deletion discussion was happened in 2017, and now in 2019 I believe that the subject is already significant enough because he has more solo works than before. I have edited the article from time to time for it to match the recent informations, but the feedback i last got in January was the same. I need help in proving that the subject is relevant enough to get it's own article. For reference, the subject's labelmate Park Woo-jin already has it's own article and moreless has the same background as Lee Dae-hwi. If it's my mistake on wording the article, please kindly tell me what to fix. I hope you can help me, Thank you.--Otterlyhwi (talk) 06:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC) Otterlyhwi (talk) 06:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is under discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Draft:Lee Dae-hwi. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:49:42, 14 April 2019 review of draft by Heubergen

[edit]


Hi, I'm trying to improve this article but would need some help regarding the reason for the review rejection. Can somebody point me in the right directions what I have to improve? Heubergen (talk) 07:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:09:59, 14 April 2019 review of submission by Chinics

[edit]


Could you please indicate which areas are against the purpose of Wikipedia. These could be removed and could the non-sensitive issues be maintained? Chinics (talk) 11:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chinics. Reviewers are prepared to reconsider the rejection of the topic. It would be helpful if you could clarify a few points with regard to your citation of sources, as I've outlined on the draft.
(P.S. It's inadvisable to start multiple discussion threads about a topic. Help Desk volunteers are busy, and may take a few days to answer; please be patient. You may correct or expand on your post while you wait. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines.) --Worldbruce (talk) 00:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chinics I have removed the invalid rejection and returned the draft to the review queue. Please attend to the issues pointed out above and also in the review comments on the draft. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:50:30, 14 April 2019 review of submission by Chbang

[edit]

I am requesting a review of this wiki, because it is my first wiki and I'm still learning the rules. I believe The Clap (band) is a notable topic and should be reviewed and accepted in the wikipedia.

Do I have too many citations that are considered "not notable". Can I keep those citations, as I feel they are important to the topic? Chbang (talk) 11:50, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chbang, I think the main problem is that those sources aren't reliable for neutral information (not fact checked or trying to sell you stuff), so any information based on them may be suspect. Having too many of those also clutters things up badly. I'd suggesting picking 3 or 4 of the best/most important, maximum, and moving them to the external links section. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:44:38, 14 April 2019 review of draft by VincentBudd

[edit]


VincentBudd (talk) 19:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I write re. the rejection of my article on Paul Mann. The editor has stated how he/she cannot verify the sources of my references. I'm simply at a loss here. How do I do get an editor to be able to verify the sources listed? They are listed. You can look them up. The sources are numerous. Has the editor actually read the text rather than just looked at the headings? The specific (numerous) sources are in the text if the editor can be bothered to read it!!! The listings in the headings are just added for extra information to that section. Do you simply want me to erase the heading references? Cheers.

19:47:14, 14 April 2019 review of draft by VincentBudd

[edit]


VincentBudd (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My article on Paul Mann has been rejected on the grounds that he/she cannot verify sources?! I suspect he/she has only seen the heading references and not the specific references in the text.

@VincentBudd: I declined the draft for the reasons explained on it. I also left a welcome basket of links on your talk page. You may find particularly useful the ones about how to create your first article, the Manual of Style, and maintaining a neutral point of view. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:57:20, 14 April 2019 review of submission by DashaDG

[edit]


Hello! Thank you for reviewing my article. I understand that this product has not so many posts about it out there in the Internet, but it already has 3 big posts written about it and I think it is a very interesting and needed product, so I am sure there will be more in future. I will keep looking for more information and will improve the article as soon as anything appers. This is my first article in Wikipedia, so could you please accept its submission. Thank you. DashaDG (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DashaDG (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

23:40:26, 14 April 2019 review of submission by Eravenst

[edit]

I have edited the draft page to remove anything that may be considered biased or advertising and there was a comment by a reviewer that the sources should be more reliable, however the sources include the international scientific journal 'Nature' as well as reputable publications like Canadian Architect, The Royal Architectural Institute of Canada and the Vancouver Sun so I'm unsure how these aren't reliable enough? Any help is much appreciated! Thank you! Eravenst (talk) 23:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Eravenst: The initial version of Draft:MGA Michael Green Architecture almost exactly matches Draft:Michael Green Architecture, yet you don't credit its author, Krystalyee009. Please explain what is going on. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2019_April_14&oldid=895565776"