Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 April 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< April 16 << Mar | April | May >> April 18 >
Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded 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 17

[edit]

01:23:36, 17 April 2020 review of draft by Saffario

[edit]


Hi there I've recently had this entry requested. As it didn't have the right tone for an encyclopedic article. I've since gone in and made some edits. Could someone please check it out and let me know if anything is standing out as needing attention before I resubmit. I appreciate your experience and knowledge in helping with this page.

Kind thanks,

Saffario (talk) 01:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saffario, Well for one it needs more sources. A mere two references is not enough to prove notability. But don't just add any old website, such sources need to be high quality. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

01:37:36, 17 April 2020 review of submission by Blobbie1838

[edit]


Blobbie1838 (talk) 01:37, 17 April 2020 (UTC) hi so the first time i submitted it you said that i need to include footnotes and that there were to many links at the bottom so when i changed that why was my article denied, as surely i can use as many references as i need so when getting rid of some ot them and having the part that it was liked to included why was my request still denied?[reply]

Blobbie1838, Much of the article remains unsourced. You need to provide inline citations. Also, the use of interview quotes is way overdone and reads pretty awkwardly. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

if it my article why cant i use interview quotes i have written in. my style so why is it not acceptable

@Blobbie1838: Draft:John McCrea is not your article. One of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia is that no editor owns any page and all contributions can and may be mercilessly edited (within the bounds of the community's other policies and guidelines). Also, the draft isn't an article. If you continue behaving the way you have been, it will never become an article.
The referencing is better now than it was in your first draft, but only because other editors have improved it. You've received good advice from several reviewers regarding the density of inline citations, the overuse of quotations, the inappropriate tone, and the non-neutral point of view. There isn't a snowball's chance in hell of getting a draft accepted that expresses the opinion in Wikipedia's voice that he is a "great actor". Instead of acting on any of this feedback, you've resubmitted the draft without addressing these problems. That is a recipe for getting the draft deleted and getting yourself blocked from editing.
To establish notability (suitability for inclusion in Wikipedia) the page should cite at least three independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage of the topic. Furthermore, the bulk of the article should be based on such sources. In addition to all the other problems, the draft is based on three interviews. They are primary sources, and to the extent that they're merely McCrea talking about McCrea, they lack independence. The interview by The Times is the only one that contains significant independent research and analysis by the interviewer. It's the only one that helps demonstrate notability, and is not enough on its own. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

02:32:30, 17 April 2020 review of submission by Cbirchallroman

[edit]


On my page, the feedback said that I was not citing reliable sources and that it was formatted more like an essay with references to unrelated works from my own train of thought. I've since removed those superfluous references and added headers so it's an organized summary of the topic, but what else can I do to make this good quality for publishing?

I'm doing this as an assignment for my seminar class. Originally I was going to make contributions to the article for The Myth of the Machine, but my professor saw my notes and preferred me to use the content to make a separate article. Is it better to add onto the existing one, though?

Thank you!

Cbirchallroman (talk) 02:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cbirchallroman, I would say that its better to add to the existing article, as I don't think there is enough for a standalone. As an additional note: you really shouldn't use Mumford's book as the source about Mumford's own book. You should find some independent sources that discuss the topics and ideas found in his book. If no sources discuss Mumford's work, then clearly no source thought his work very important, and thus we don't either. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cbirchallroman I would also note that it is pretty unfair to you for your professor to require you to write a Wikipedia article as an assignment, especially using this AFC process, which can take months. Your professor may wish to review the materials for educators at the Wikipedia Education Program. 331dot (talk) 09:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:29:02, 17 April 2020 review of submission by Littlepawan

[edit]

This page has been reviewed and the decision is made for the speedy deletion. I am a new Wikipedia writer. This page is created by me without any profit or promotion purposes. I would like to improve this page so that it can get accepted. I want to ask other users here to assist me with improvement tips. I tried to write it as neutral as possible. If you can suggest me how to improve this, I would be very thankful. Littlepawan (talk) 06:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:25:45, 17 April 2020 review of submission by Piuskerala

[edit]

My article was rejected in march. The reason given was that, it had less references. Later I have modified the article considerably. I feel that the field is very useful for those who work in agricultural field. Once rejected, what is the method to put it for further review? piuskerala (talk) 07:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Piuskerala - User:331dot already answered you. Please do not ask the same question several times. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:45:46, 17 April 2020 review of submission by Jasonhogarth

[edit]

I have added all relevant and necessary citations to this page. Please could you re-review. No money has exchanged hands for this work and I do not know the individual I am editing the page for, I am simply an art enthusiast who would like this page to be published as I believe the work of this individual is wholly important, relevant and notable.

Jasonhogarth (talk) 10:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jasonhogarth, Unfortunately the article has been rejected which means it will not be considered further at this time Sulfurboy (talk) 14:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


10:52:41, 17 April 2020 review of submission by 210.212.72.157

[edit]


210.212.72.157 (talk) 10:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a question? I'm afraid the draft is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, it is just blatant advertising. Theroadislong (talk) 10:57, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:38:09, 17 April 2020 review of draft by Sforsunting

[edit]


Hi, I want to ask on how to make my articles accepted by Wikipedia and which part I did wrong when I write mine.

I tried many times but the editors always said that it's just an advert, even though I feel like I already write it neutrally.

This is the article,(User:Sforsunting/sandbox) can you point out which part to fix so it will be neutral?

For the record, I took a similar business as a reference : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveloka

Sorry if it's plain to see for you, because before submitting this I already asked some other people and they said it's not an Ad, but they are amateurs and not professionals, so I hope you can point it out to me.

Thank you, and have a nice day.

Sforsunting (talk) 11:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sforsunting What you wrote (which can be viewed in your sandbox and is unnecessary to post here) does little more than tell about the company. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about the subject, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability(in this case, the definition of a notable company). The sources you have offered merely cite the existence of the company and what it does, not the significant coverage others unaffiliated with the company have chosen on their own to say about it.
You should not cite other similar articles as a reason for yours to exist, see other stuff exists. Each article or draft is judged on its own merits. It could be that the other article you cite is also inappropriate. As this is a volunteer project, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected, even for years. We can only deal with what we know about. In this case, it seems that the article you cite has at least some sources with significant coverage.
If you work for this company or are affiliated with it in any way, you must read and comply with the conflict of interest and paid editing policies. 331dot (talk) 12:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:48:01, 17 April 2020 review of draft by Claireatwaves

[edit]


All of the references in my submission are print ones which I have seen myself. I can't find anything notable online yet - Mark was significant in the 1980's/ 90's design scene so nothing's online yet.

The references I've given are all verifiable - not sure why Vogue and Interior Magazines wouldn't be considered good sources for a designer.

What should I do?

Thanks for your help


Claireatwaves (talk) 13:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Claireatwaves It is not required that sources be online(it helps, but is not required). It is difficult to know what your sources are citing as you have no in-line citations(i.e. citations next to the information being cited). Please see WP:CITE for information on citing sources. If you have a connection to this person, you must read WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 13:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The first 9 sections have no cited sources. Theroadislong (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:54:59, 17 April 2020 review of submission by 223.176.97.114

[edit]


223.176.97.114 (talk) 13:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have a question? Sulfurboy (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:11:36, 17 April 2020 review of submission by Blobbie1838

[edit]

my article was denied as it wasn't in the correct style of writing however if its my article should it not be acceptable as its my work not anyone else's, also to start with it was denied as the links didn't have footnotes to the part of the article that it related to however throught the article there were footnotes to the link where i got the information from, so i would like to know why i cant write in my style? and how it can be changed so that i can get it published? Blobbie1838 (talk) 14:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Terms like 'great British stage and television actor and singer" and "John is a great actor" may be your style of writing, but it is not Wikipedia's style, we write in a neutral tone here and it is NOT your article it belongs to Wikipedia so will need to conform, I'm afraid. Theroadislong (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:16:27, 17 April 2020 review of draft by MarieFranklin427

[edit]


Requesting assistance with the Mermaid of Hilton Head Draft Article. I am not associated with the business, however I am conducting a study on businesses focused on eco-conservation and the public's growing interest in for-profit businesses whose business models are focused on being eco-friendly. I have added citations from notable sources such as Nat Geo and Coastal Living, but not sure why I am unable to get approval for this article? MarieFranklin427 (talk) 14:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


MarieFranklin427 (talk) 14:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:23:46, 17 April 2020 review of submission by Karen Pinket

[edit]


I would really like to get this information on "Mr.Krusty out on the web. This is my first time making a Wikipedia Project, so I might mess up. Please excuse that and tell me what I can do to improve. Thanks have a good day! Karen Pinket (talk) 15:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was rejected, there isn't really anything you can do, the topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:25:36, 17 April 2020 review of submission by Karen Pinket

[edit]

Just wondering why you declined my Submission. Karen Pinket (talk) 15:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Karen Pinket - There were two problems. First, you did not provide any references. References are required. Second, the subject was not notable. Most YouTubers are not notable. Most people are not notable. Just adding references is not likely to help. No amount of editing will overcome a lack of notability.

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:20:13, 17 April 2020 review of draft by FalteringArc2

[edit]


I was told that the colors would all have to represent Democrats but I was under the impression that in a primary the candidates would be assigned a color.

FalteringArc2 (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FalteringArc2, Yes, everyone does get assigned a color, so I think Sulfur's feedback there was a bit incorrect. Compare your article to 2016_Iowa_Democratic_caucuses or 2016 Iowa Republican caucuses. However Sulfur's other feedback was quite relevant. The article had insufficient sourcing, and prose. You should find some news coverage from the time (Newspaper archives may be necessary) and use it to explain things, such as how the heck Bill Bradley had 4 delegates and zero votes. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:15:09, 17 April 2020 review of submission by Iayaz

[edit]


Hi, i gave 3 references & yet my article is not allowed for publishing . I suggest that let it publish , more people will contribute by providing references Iayaz (talk) 19:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iayaz, The article and sources were not formatted correctly. But thats irrelevant: a housing project is very rarely notable, and the sources you provided definitely don't show notability. Writing a Wikipedia article from scratch is very hard to do. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


20:02:18, 17 April 2020 review of submission by Eholder

[edit]


hey, si;finpu, i am always getting confused by the other Eric Holder, the former attorney general. when i saw my colleague, holly lang's wiki entry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holly_Lang). i thought i could do the same. did i somehow use the wrong approach? many thanks for your advice, eric


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eholder#April_2020 Eric Holder 20:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eholder Wikipedia is not for writing about yourself. Only people who are notable, i.e. have recieved significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources can have pages. If you are notable, someone will eventually create a page for you. But making an autobiography is not gonna fly, as its impossible to write a neutral article about yourself. Also, your colleague may not be notable either. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:49:06, 17 April 2020 review of submission by CherLloydOFG

[edit]

This is an article directly about a song by Cher Lloyd. I put in lots of time and effort to get the article how I like it and I referenced her other oricle for 'None Of My Business' as a template. If there is any way we can get this article out there that would be great. Thanks CherLloydOFG (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CherLloydOFG The draft was rejected, not just declined, meaning that there is little chance it can be improved to meet standards. With the promotional language in it, I must agree. Not every song by a musician merits an article. If you work for Lloyd, you are required to comply with the paid editing policy. Probably you shouldn't have their name in your username, either. 331dot (talk) 21:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:05:03, 17 April 2020 review of submission by Tokidoki232

[edit]

I recently drafted an article about Hartshorne Plunkard Architecture. The current draft has been declined, and the reason provided was because it was written like a marketing piece and did not have enough supporting evidence. May I ask for some additional guidance about what I could modify or eliminate that would make it seem less like a promotional article? I carefully reviewed the tips on how to write a Wikipedia page. The article is written in a neutral tone, was fact-based and referenced third-party sources in every section. Citations came from well-established publications such as the Chicago Tribune, Crain's Chicago Business, Architectural Digest, etc. If you could provide any specific advice about problematic areas and what I could rectify, I would greatly appreciate it.

Tokidoki232 (talk) 22:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:02:48, 17 April 2020 review of submission by Cubical

[edit]


I believe this article should be published because it contains a lot of pertinent and useful information about this road's history & importance in Ottawa. I included nine sources, most from different publishers, which in my eyes add a lot of credibility to the info. Many other pages about major Ottawa roads which have far less information are still present on Wikipedia which is making me question the consistency of the reviewing process. I believe this article does have a place on Wikipedia, since it is instructive and follows the guidelines. For the notability concern, I do believe the information I provided, like Jeanne d'Arc having its own Transitway station on Ottawa's Rapid Transit network, being home to one of La Cité's major campuses (the largest French-language college in Ontario), and being one of the largest roads contributing to the huge population boom of Orléans and East Ottawa in the 80s, makes it an important part of the capital's road network.

Cubical (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cubical, Be careful about comparing your article to existing ones. Many of the articles on Wikipedia were created before we began the rigorous Article for Creation process. That means a lot of ...honestly junk articles were created, and many of them have slipped through the cracks. We are in the process of finding and cleaning up or deleting many of those old articles. You can read more about the logical fallacies involved in article comparison at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
Taking a look at the sources, they are pretty primary. There isn't substantial news coverage of the road that shows it is a cultural landmark. You may wish to inquire at WP:WikiProject Canada to see if folks there are willing to take a look, but I would first suggest you find newspaper coverage. If it cannot be found, then the road is not notable. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2020_April_17&oldid=985271303"