Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 January 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< January 23 << Dec | January | Feb >> January 25 >
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.


January 24

[edit]

02:47:10, 24 January 2020 review of submission by Rulercoaches

[edit]

This draft was declined for person that I believe meets the requirements for Wikipedia. It was stated that it reads like an advertisement. He does not sell anything so I am not sure what it means. I removed a list of articles he has written as maybe that was the concern but there were no specific comments on what was needed. I also received a troubling message saying that I need to review PAID and COI. I read both and PAID definitely does not apply. For the COI link, that can be pretty subjective and likely determined that anyone can have a COI with creating a draft. The only connection I have is meeting him on a tour of the facility and taking a picture. Was impressed with his work so submitted an article on him. I am not sure if that amounts to the COI stated in the rules. Can you direct me to what is needed here? I need to know what else would be considered advertising and anything else needed for the draft.--Rulercoaches (talk) 02:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the main issue would be the potential conflict of interest which you partially addressed above. Topic does seem notable per WP:NACADEMIC due to the named chair. For WP:PAID, keep in mind that it can also qualify you even if you were not paid directly. If you are being paid by an institution and they are requiring you to do this as part of your job, that would still be considered paid. Also, if he asked you or someone else asked you to create the page that would qualify under WP:COI. Whatever the case may be, disclosure is required if it applies. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

05:50:56, 24 January 2020 review of submission by Mazharul101

[edit]


I was a new user of wikipedia and i did not know how to write wikipedia article at first. But I took time, I leaned about Wikipedia, how it works and how to write good articles. Here I am with my first article about a very popular Internet company of Bangladesh.

I am sorry because I provided a few information about this company when I first wrote this article, but now I know much information about this company and I think many people will be helpful with this information. I learning how to be a good wikipedia article writer, I am trying to contribute many other article where I believe I have some expertise. Mazharul101 (talk) 05:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there still are insufficient references to review the draft. Please review WP:REFB for help on finding and adding sources. Since this is a company, there is a high threshold of notability that must be demonstrated through WP:ORGCRIT. Please follow both links and provide references showing how the topic is notable. Once you are done you can resubmit or ask someone here to do it for you. Good luck. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:12:33, 24 January 2020 review of draft by Radarman444

[edit]


I was asked by a leading authority on Cranch to update the Wiki article on John Cranch, English Painter. As (according to him - I have no knowledge myself) the current article contains several errors, there are several guesses masquerading as facts and much of the article has simply been abstracted from the Net, continuing the errors from those original sources, he thought it impossible to merely correct the article but felt that it needed a complete rewrite.

I have received various comments, most of them extremely unhelpful, irrelevant or wrong e.g.

@Radarman444: Hello. Please read WP:AUTOPROB for advice on how to deal with inaccuracies in an article about oneself. Any content you add to the existing article should be traceable back to a published source. Information your friend has about their relative based only on their personal experiences isn't suitable for adding to a Wikipedia article. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

<My reply>"I must admit to being a bit puzzled here; maybe because I'm a newbie. (a) How is "advice about inaccuracies in an article about oneself" relevant when the painter in question died 200 years ago. (b) The information about Cranch is not based only on personal experience as, again, Cranch died 200 years ago. My friend has written a learned book on Cranch and so can be seen as an authority on the man. Radarman444 (talk) 23:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC)" 

 The latest is from Theroadislong in response to my updating the original Cranch article -

"This content is not written in the formal tone that an encyclopedia article requires, it may contain original research and the sources are incorrectly formatted, it would be better if you made smaller incremental changes to the existing article rather than replacing it wholesale with inferior content."

Before making the edits to the article, I placed a rough preview of the article I wished to submit on the Talk page of the original article with a request for comments, objections etc as I realised that the original author might have had some concerns. Having had no feedback, I asked for guidance on what to do and, having no replies, I went ahead and published the article, properly formatted as far as I can tell. The rejection from Theroadislong seems to be referring to the rough draft rather than the final article. Either way, it contains no useful help that would enable me to correct our article if there are errors.

In my replies, I have admitted my newbie status, asked for helpful comments and tried to be polite. If I can't get any helpful comments, we will have to withdraw the new article and leave the original, erroneous, article in place. A great shame.

Radarman444 (talk) 14:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC) Radarman444 (talk) 14:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Radarman444: Editors are expected to edit on their own initiative, not at the behest of someone else. Editing for a friend creates a conflict of interest. It may not be as strong a conflict as if you were editing about yourself, your family, or your friend, but the same principles apply. Much has been written about how to edit Wikipedia, but there isn't a write-up about every possible situation. Busy volunteers will point you to canned responses and expect you to understand their deeper meaning and how they apply to you. If someone advised you to look both ways and hold your mother's hand when crossing the road, and you dismissed that in a huff as "extremely unhelpful, irrelevant or wrong" because you want to cross a railway line and you are an orphan, the person trying to help you might not be terribly upset if you got run over by a train.
You write that someone who is "a leading authority on" and "probably the closest living relative of John Cranch" asked you to update the article, but don't name them. Do you mean John W. Lamble, the author of John Cranch: Uncommon Genius : The Life and Achievements of a Self-taught Polymath, Artist and Wit from Devonshire (Wolborough Press, 2019)? If so, that raises other problems. As a relative of Cranch, he has a conflict of interest when writing a book about him. There's a third conflict of interest when he cites his own book (or pulls your puppet strings to have you do so). Lamble may be a leading authority on Cranch, and may have "written a learned book" about him, but there are reasons to be cautious. Lamble's credentials are unclear. He hasn't written anything else in the field. His book is the first one published by the publisher. Neither of them have a proven track record and reputation for accuracy and fact checking. The book is held by only two WorldCat libraries. That can indicate that librarians don't regard it as a scholarly work. And the book hasn't received any reviews in academic journals or in the popular press, which raises another red flag.
All that being said, Wikipedia values accuracy. If John Cranch (English painter) contains false statements and "guesses masquerading as facts", then Wikipedia is interested those errors being fixed and those opinions being attributed. This page, however, is for questions about creating articles on new topics, the Articles for creation process. It is not the right forum in which to discuss updating an existing article. That discussion should take place on Talk:John Cranch (English painter). As Theroadislong commented there, dumping your preferred text there is not a productive way to create consensus for the changes you want made. You would be better off requesting incremental changes one point at a time. The {{request edit}} template, if used correctly, is highly effective. For example, you could copy and paste the following text to the talk page:

==Proposed change to museum holdings==
{{request edit}}
*Change: <nowiki>There is a picture by him in the [[South Kensington Museum]].</nowiki>
*To: <nowiki>There is a picture by him in the [[Victoria and Albert Museum]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O133732/playing-with-baby-oil-painting-cranch-john/ |title=Playing with Baby |website=Victoria and Albert Museum |access-date=27 January 2020}}</ref></nowiki>
*Explanation of issue: The original source, Stephen (1888), is outdated. The name of the museum changed in 1899.
~~~~

If you are unable to identify the errors and guesses, and cite specific pages in specific sources for the new text you want, then you may not be the right person to spearhead the updating of the article. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Worldbruce: Dear Worldbruce,

Thank you for your full comments and useful tips. I will assume that you are trying to follow the Wikipedia guidelines of "Be polite, and welcoming to new users. Assume good faith. Avoid personal attacks."

You are correct that John Lamble is the author of the proposed edits. No secret about this. Dr Lamble did not feel that he had the technical skills necessary to do the editing himself so asked me to help him. It never entered my head that there would be a CoI here as I have no knowledge or opinions on the subject of the article and am merely making the edits that Dr Lamble requests. I can understand that you feel that there is a CoI involved with him writing about a distant relative, though that relative did die hundreds of years ago, and will declare this if we resubmit.

I wasn't aware of the Request_edit template but will use it as you suggest.

We will take your points on board and resubmit in due course.

Radarman444 (talk) 11:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:54:55, 24 January 2020 review of submission by Rebeccamchung

[edit]

I need point by point guidance on which use of sources create the impression that this artist lacks notability. She is a founding member of a significant artist's movement (Cass Corridor artists). She is cofounder of most of the most signficant literary small presses of the twentieth century. She is one of be best-known regional artists in Michigan. She collected by significant institutions and her entire archive has been purchased by a world-ranked university (University of Michigan Ann-Arbor). Most recently, her work was gifted to Governor Gretchen Whitmer, who has hung the piece on her wall.

I'm happy to rewrite to make these points more directly. I have sources. I need point by point guidance, please, on the areas of this submission that have caused concerns.

Many thanks,

Rebecca Rebeccamchung (talk) 14:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rebeccamchung, Howdy hello! So I took a look, and I have some notes. In terms of sourcing, you are actually good I would say. However, some other issues remain. The style and tone is not very encyclopedic, and it borders on promotional. Some suggestions:
  • The name dropping, such as at the end of the alt press section, is totally unnecessary.
  • Order: our articles are in chronological order, thus early life should go first, then alt press, then at the end you can discuss her style
  • The lead is far too dense. It should summarize the article, and be easy and pleasant to read. The list of exhibitions is not suited for a lead, and will just be glossed over. Perhaps note three or so of the most prominent, but no more.
  • Make sure there are no external links in the body. They can exist in an "External links" section at the end if you desire
  • Ensure, generally, that the article is neutral in tone, and reads like a formal encyclopedia article, not an essay or other form of casual prose
  • The list of exhibitions, collections, etc, is too long, and ought get cut down
  • The further reading should use the Template:cite book (or other appropriate citation template)
  • I don't see any mention of her death in the body? Do you have any obituaries, or sources that discuss her death date?
The subject is almost certainly notable, the article just needs some cleaning up. If you have questions or concerns, please ask on my talk page, as I will not see your reply here. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:18, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:16:59, 24 January 2020 review of submission by Edugossip

[edit]

There is no possible copyright violation as I hold the copyright. I am grateful for your review and hope the article will be placed into the knowledge-base. Thank you.

Edugossip (talk) 16:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Edugossip: Wikipedia articles are different to academic essay writing. Such content usually needs to be rewritten almost completely to comply with our standards. The most important policies are no original research and no synthesis of sources. In short, you cannot draw conclusions or combine sources. For example, "Every human on the planet ought to care about providing [..]" is original research. Or "Taken together, these examples point to [..]" is synthesis. These are two things that are not only present, but encouraged in academic works, but which Wikipedia cannot accept. When citing a source, you have to include content only directly present. You also have to include all major viewpoints, which means you cannot only include sources to support a given narrative. Finally, the article has to be about a specific topic supported by multiple independent reliable in-depth sources and I am fairly certain that "Theory of self-transcendence and social change" is a title you came up with yourself. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 21:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:47:06, 24 January 2020 review of draft by Sarvmangal

[edit]


I want to add source |translated from Rag parichay,|part 1,|page no.62,|written by Harishchander Shrivastva,|publisher sangeet sadan|Prayagraj Sarvmangal (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find more sources besides one that is offline? Are there some books, newspapers or magazines that explain the term? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]


Please assist me make this article publishable. Is an emergent artist and I think the he deserves an article on the Wikipedia.

John Johnson Gallery (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Please assist me to publish this page.

thank you

John Johnson Gallery (talk) 12:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]



how can improve please
I m new
I do not understand everything
is so hard to assist me ?

BG J. Johnson (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He would need to pass WP:NARTIST which of these criteria fits do you think.
  • The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
  • The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.
  • The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
  • The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

I'm not sure that he passes any of them? Theroadislong (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BG J. Johnson: (edit conflict) It has been two days and there are thousands of draft, please be patient as we are all volunteers. Don't create multiple help requests. Do not remove the red banner at the top of the draft, this only hinders future reviews. It also looks like you created a second account, which is not really allowed; you must normally use one account.
As for the draft, Wikipedia requires multiple independent reliable in-depth sources for an article to be accepted. The Roman newspaper is good, although the 2 article wouldn't really count as separate sources. The TV section is good, but very brief. It's not clear who the author of ICAC review is and it looks like self-publised source. Express Cultural is very brief and I am unsure about who exactly contributes to it. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 15:22, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2020_January_24&oldid=985274929"