Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 June 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< June 12 << May | June | Jul >> June 14 >
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.


June 13

[edit]

02:34:25, 13 June 2020 review of submission by Chaz86

[edit]

I recieved an alert which directed me to this help section. Chaz86 (talk) 02:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chaz86, You were trying to make an article, but I'm not sure if the subject is notable. Do you have any more specific questions? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

03:36:34, 13 June 2020 review of submission by Sayonmessi

[edit]


Sayonmessi (talk) 03:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

03:38:16, 13 June 2020 review of submission by Sayonmessi

[edit]


Why my page was rejected? I just want to add the page. Please explain what went wrong? How can I improve? Sayonmessi (talk) 03:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sayonmessi, You had zero reliable sources. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


09:58:12, 13 June 2020 review of draft by BPMonk

[edit]


Hi, I'm just wondering what more we need to get this going. I've seen numerous pages for theatre companies / theatre producers throughout Wikipedia with much less history, prolificness & citing minimal if any sources. With the history and success of the company I'm keen to get this up. Any recommendations would be incredibly helpful!

BPMonk (talk) 09:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BPMonk Please see other stuff exists. Other problematic articles existing does not mean that yours can too. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected, even for years. We can only address what we know about. Feel free to point out these other article so action can be taken if you wish, we could use the help.
Regarding your draft, the reviewer informed you in their decline message of the issue- you need to show that your company meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Significant coverage goes beyond brief mentions, press releases, or other similar sources. IMDB is not an acceptable source on Wikipedia as it is user-editable. If this company is not discussed in independent sources in depth, it would not merit an article at this time; not every company does(even in the same field). 331dot (talk) 10:05, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for getting back to me! I totally understand. We'll definitely be working on these issues to ensure more detailed coverage of our practice from independent sources - blame working in the background for so long! Appreciate it and best. BTW, here's the pages: lots of these or these have clear issues on a much grander scale, and ultimately provides problematic balance for theatre companies' profiles. All best.BPMonk (talk) 10:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BPMonk I've fixed the links you provided; to link to a category without making this page a member of the category, it should be typed like this: [[:Category:CategoryNameHere]]. Can you provide specific examples of problematic articles? Wikipedia does not have mere pages or profiles, it has articles. 331dot (talk) 11:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:59:38, 13 June 2020 review of submission by SONGEZO SA

[edit]


SONGEZO SA (talk) 14:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SONGEZO SA - what is your question? CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:05, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is left that i didn't do on that article that i created?

SONGEZO SA (talk) 15:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, honestly I do not understand your question but after having a look at your draft I have to tell you that it lacks of any realible sources - you will need to add references/sources which are reliable (if there are any at all, which I doubt after a short google search=, please study the following article Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:08:32, 13 June 2020 review of submission by Asif A K Durrani

[edit]


Asif A K Durrani (talk) 17:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia Review Team, The world is celebrating many types of days in remembrance of the occasions and to motivate the humanity.

The current situation of Pandemic covid-19 forced kids to think and play Indoor physical games. That is not unusual practice for them. Kids might have not considered games to play at home other than computer games like playstation etc.

Therefore it is required to Celebrate atleast one day with physical Indoor Fun.

Thank you

Asif A K Durrani Your draft has been rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not for merely telling about something, even if it is a good cause. 331dot (talk) 18:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:19:36, 13 June 2020 review of submission by Asif A K Durrani

[edit]


Asif A K Durrani (talk) 17:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Review Team Please advice what changes required in the subject. Thank you

@Asif A K Durrani: Your draft has been rejected, which means it will not be considered further. This subject fails WP:NEVENT. You dont have a single source in your draft. You may also want to read Wikipedia:Advice for younger editors. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:02:19, 13 June 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Zishi17

[edit]


Hi. I do not know why the images I submitted are out of scope. And I do not know how to make my citations right. I read the instruction pages on Wikipedia and all the articles about scope and minimum of citations. Is it because the citation I used are too long?

Zishi17 (talk) 18:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zishi17: Its not about the length of the citations, its about using WP:FOOTNOTES for citing sources. Since this is a WP:BLP inline citations are required. You used them already in the comments section. BTW the "comments"-Section is indeed to long. In the country where I live (Where no WP:FAIRUSE is possible) I would probbably already commit a copyright violation. Long explanation, short meaning:Keep your quotes short. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:23:13, 13 June 2020 review of submission by 42.110.217.228

[edit]


42.110.217.228 (talk) 18:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Fine Art Artist. Top on all social media sites



Apurbakantiroy22 (talk) 18:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not for social profiles. Unless there are reliable independent in-depth sources covering you, we aren't going to publish such a profile or even keep it as a draft. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 18:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apurbakantiroy22 Wikipedia is not for telling the world about yourself, that is what social media is for. 331dot (talk) 22:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:20:12, 13 June 2020 review of draft by Carrieruggieri

[edit]


Carrieruggieri (talk) 20:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi can someone give me their opinion on whether my article has adequately corrected the problems that led it to being rejected. I implemented some good advice I got from the live help. I was asked to address the COV and I did that on the talk page (I was advised to put it in a box at the top of the talk page but I didn't know how to do that). The only problem I see are some page numbers and maybe its too long for some people? However, other editors didn't think the length was a problem. Ive tried several times to get someone from PSYCH to look it over but no-one has responded. Thanks for looking - sorry that its dry stuff for most people. Carrieruggieri (talk) 20:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's extremely difficult to write a clear article on topics like this. There are 3 key difficulties: the standard of writing of references on the subject relies upon specialized language, where words are used in special meanings for concepts which are not the least obvious to the nonspecialist . (All medical writing has this problem to some degree, but in other fields of medicine people expect it and know they need to study to understand it, and there is less use of words in special senses which also have common but different every-day meanings), The second is the differences considered important between the various schools of psychotherapy can be quite subtle, and the arguments meaningless except for those directly involved. the third is the problem of therapeutic claims (see WP:MEDRS )

I just saw this now. I had sent another request so it can be ignored. I appreciate your careful reading of my article and your suggestions. Thank you. I think I will work on the issues you explained. 14:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

So you have to avoid jargon in the introductory material at least, and introduce new concepts slowly one at a time. Sometimes the best way is to explain every technical sentence in terms like, "This means, in common language....." and to give examples--there's an instance where you do, in section 4.2, and it helps considerably . It helps to keeps the sentences short, so a reader has to understand only one new concept at a time. It helps to use common words instead of technical jargon when the common words are sufficiently precise--sometimes they will be, but not always.
It will help to move up the comparative section, section 6, and to expand it and make sure it is completely clear , before describing the complexities of this particular therapeutic process. Most readers will have at least some experience with some of the therapies and this will orient them. It might further help to shorten the detailed sections on procedure.
You talk about effectiveness, but gives no statistics. This is a medical article, and we expect both results expressed in numerical terms and an indication of whether they are considered statistically significant. I think we all know the conflicting results over time of such studies in this field, but surely it should be possible to say something more exact than "Single case studies of short-term courses of AEDP therapy report positive outcomes:" -- that's the weakest level of scientific evidence. In fact, is there anything better than that, or just the two interim reports cited at the end? If there are no verifiable results of usefulness, this needs to be stated right at the start. If there is no evidence that any of the detailed processes described are actually doing at each step what they are supposed to do, this needs to be made clear. You can't advocate for it, but you need to either give some evidence or say there is no evidence.
(I recognize that this sort of problem applies to a considerable degree in the entire field. I should mention in terms of bias that I personally am influenced by my own experiences to try to credit therapeutic claims in psychology, but not all readers will be.) DGG ( talk ) 06:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:50:09, 13 June 2020 review of submission by Naijaactive

[edit]

"This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." what can i do please??? Naijaactive (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Naijaactive There is nothing that you can do, as your draft was rejected; this means it will not be considered further. It appears that this musician does not meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician, and no amount of editing can change that. Perhaps in the future independent reliable sources will take note of his career and give him the significant coverage needed to merit an article, if he meets the notability definition. 331dot (talk) 22:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2020_June_13&oldid=985275451"