Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 May 2
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < May 1 | << Apr | May | Jun >> | May 3 > |
| 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. |
May 2
[edit]01:27:04, 2 May 2020 review of submission by Greg c1988
[edit]- Greg c1988 (talk · contribs)
Hi guys,
I have removed the line which was originally marked as "citation needed", which was was just deemed to be a duplicate in the last review - which I contested. Re-reading it over again, this line is not needed anyway, as it is a fact about the parent company and not the actual company in which this article is based on.
All citations have been added where requested. Sections that have been marked as having insufficient references have been removed (as stated above, plus another in other feedback).
There are currently 8 citations, in 6 different categories: 3 x News 1 x Charities 1 x Different Charity 1 x Industry Analysis 1 x Government's Legislation 1 x Australian gaming council
Trying my best here guys. This is obviously a notable topic, as every other lottery in Australia is on Wikipedia, including netlotto, which has terrible content (no citations) and isn't even a lottery - but a reseller. This article is an expansion on the category of Lotteries in Australia. I'm trying to get this to a level of quality you require. Yes, it would be great to have this article live for The Lottery Office, but it's also a notable topic in the industry that expands on this subject for Wikipedia. It is not simply adding a business for self-promotion.
Unfortunately, the only citation I can make to the law, points to the legislation in the Northern Territory. To mix it up, I have added - https://www.austgamingcouncil.org.au/content/northern-territory-code-practice-responsible-online-gambling. But this then points to the original citation I had anyway. And, news articles are most common in this sector. Charities don't do write-ups, except on social media, it's just really hard to get anything more solid.
Is there something else that needs editing?
Really hope these changes satisfy the Wiki's stringent requirements. I absolutely understand why you reviewers are strict. Wikipedia has reached a level where every man and his dog want to advertise their own business, and obtain solid backlinks. After reading through all the feedback on this page, I don't envy the work you do as volunteers.
But I genuinely ask you to please, have a re-read though all of this, and allow me to fix what ever needs to be readdressed - If still need be. What you need, where, and how. I will do my best, but I don't know what more I can do. I have researched this topic everywhere for further references. I can't get anything. I don't have any contacts who can help me in the company, but then again, if they give me a reference, it would be from them anyway.
I have found a copy of the Northern Territory license, in PDF format, issued to The Lottery Office. That's the only thing I haven't included. I can, if you think it's relevant.
Cheers, Greg
Any updates on the above? The review draft has been left with an Ask For Advice button and I've received no further updates on two comments left on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg c1988 (talk • contribs) 05:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Greg c1988 (talk) 01:27, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Responded on submitter's talk. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 22:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
My article on mathematician Peter Li was rejected for not establishing notability. Peter Li is a Guggenheim fellow and an elected member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, as indicated in my draft. Wikipedia already has pages to list each year of rewarded Guggenheim fellows, and most recipients have wikipedia pages - so it seems like that should already be enough. On the laudation from his Academy of Arts and Sciences election, which is even more prestigious, the reviewer said
"That is a primary source and does nothing to establish notability. Wikipedia requires multiple in -depth coverage of him in reliable sources unconnected with the subject."
In addition to being, I think, directly wrong about establishing notability, it seems to me like this sets a bad standard for articles about academics, since such sources do not exist (except for publicly famous figures), and it doesn't seem to matter anyway in articles about other academics of similar standing and reputation. What exactly do I need to add to my draft to make it publishable?
Gumshoe2 (talk) 02:46, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Gumshoe2, Well you have just a single source. In general articles require at least three sources, and ideally more. Also, receiving the Guggenheim fellowship does not automatically make one notable. It can certainly help, but it is not qualifying by itself. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
05:28:31, 2 May 2020 review of submission by Bgbluesky
[edit]
Bgbluesky (talk) 05:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Bgbluesky, You have a single source. That is not suffucient. However, this organization appears too localized to actually be notable. Perhaps if it were a national organization with a bunch of chapters, but not like this. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
I removed most of the achievements of the university, and left on non promotional information on the page.
06:26:21, 2 May 2020 review of submission by Dean197
[edit]This article I wrote was declined and I am unsure how to action the feedback given, as I believe it has been adhered to. The feedback was 'This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article...they do not show significant coverage from reliable sources.' And yet, all of the citations I provided on the subject matter were from national news organisations in New Zealand (the location of the company). Any guidance on what next steps to take would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Dean197 (talk) 06:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Dean197, We don't write about everything. This appears to be just an average company, nothing special about it. Unless you can show that this company has received significant media coverage, i.e. it is in someway more interesting than the average company, we can't write about. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
07:16:17, 2 May 2020 review of submission by Roblongg
[edit]
Hi, sorry, I'm not requesting a re-review, I was hoping someone could help remove/delete this draft completely. I'm not sure how to go about simply deleting the page entirley, other sites have copied the rejected draft page and won't remove it until its removed from here. Hope you can help, really appreciate it.
Roblongg (talk) 07:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- I have done so, per your request. 331dot (talk) 08:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
08:08:02, 2 May 2020 review of draft by NotCory
[edit]
If my Globo affiliate list got rejected for lack of sources, then how come List of RecordTV affiliates, which doesn't have any sources whatsoever, got created and remained here?
NotCory (talk) 08:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- NotCory Please see other stuff exists as to why that is a poor argument to make. Possibly that article is inappropriate as well. 331dot (talk) 08:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
08:09:43, 2 May 2020 review of draft by JohnMorganEvans
[edit]
Hi. PLease can you explain what the 'CV issues' are which are referred to by the reviewer. Apart from the track listing the revised article is all in my own words with additional material plus citations. Please explain what teh issues are so I can fix them
JohnMorganEvans (talk) 08:09, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- JohnMorganEvans, CV means copyright violations. Wikipedia cannot host copyrighted material, and deletes it whenever found. An adminstrator should get to the page soon to remove the copyrighted material from the page's history, and then you can get back to business as usual. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:51, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
08:18:29, 2 May 2020 review of draft by 210.6.22.101
[edit]- 210.6.22.101 (talk · contribs)
Why is there such a huge double standard regarding Notability for MMA fighter? (WP:MMANOT)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jiri_Prochazka_(martial_artist)
You declined the above for not being notable even though he is in the UFC now. Plus he won a title at Rizin Fighting Federation
Meanwhile you let wiki pages like this be created
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Lee
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adriano_Moraes_(fighter)
IN YOUR OWN WORDS for WP:MMABIO
Criteria supporting notability
Have fought at least three (3) professional fights for a top-tier MMA organization, such as the UFC (see WP:MMATIER); or Have fought for the highest title of a top-tier MMA organization
According to WP:MMATIER ONE Championship isn't a top tier organization. So why does she get to be considered notable again? In fact this is not a one off case. This double standard has been applied to other ONE Championship fighters too.
210.6.22.101 (talk) 08:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- 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 and we are in the process of finding them and fixing them. Just because another article is bad does not mean yours can be bad. You can read more about the logical fallacies involved in article comparison at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
- Part of the issue with your article is that it has a mere three sources. You need to make sure that all information in the article is supported by a reliable source. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
10:57:30, 2 May 2020 review of draft by Jojo.nguyennga
[edit]
I see the category of my sandbox is my user name. How could I change the category to be specific to the subject of the article?
Also, how to publish an article with a title? I only see the sandbox as title.
Thank you very much!
Jojo.nguyennga (talk) 10:57, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Jojo.nguyennga, When a reviewer approves the article they will give it appropriate name. Until that point, you should consider that the article lacks inline sources. It is also quite promotional in its tone and approach, lacking the formal tone and neutrality of an encyclopedia article. Also, there is no evidence that the topic is notable, i.e. reasons that we should cover it CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
12:07:08, 2 May 2020 review of draft by EndlessSound301
[edit]
Hi - I am looking to figure out how to improve the article that I submitted. The subject of the article is the subject of many newspaper stories, including "Cold Spring Harbor scientists discover new form of lung cancer" and "Researchers test treatment for type of leukemia". Could you kindly explain why these do not meet wikipedia's secondary source criteria? Thank you!
EndlessSound301 (talk) 12:07, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
15:39:32, 2 May 2020 review of submission by Surelyshubham
[edit]Please let me know why wikipedia is rejecting my article? Surelyshubham (talk) 15:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Surelyshubham, We've merely declined it, meaning that it could be improved and resubbmitted. WIth this draft, you've yet to show that he is notable. You'll have to prove he meets one of the criteria at WP:NMUSICIAN. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
17:05:20, 2 May 2020 review of draft by MichaelHolemans
[edit]
Hello there,
This is my first wikipedia article on the CBR Building in Brussels.
So far it has been declined twice, first due to lack of a neutral tone, now for a lack of references.
I feel like I succeeded in removing subjective elements and peacock terms in the text, but I do not yet understand why it's not referenced correctly. (or other problems that I'm not aware of)
The list of references are all valid sources, which contain all the information I used in the article.
If you could help me a bit I would greatly appreciate it!
Michael
MichaelHolemans (talk) 17:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- It is largely unsourced, the content requires inline citations, not merely a list of sources dumped at the end, and as advised the section on "Constantin Brodzki"and "Prefabricated concrete modules" seem to be outside of the articles scope and should be removed. Theroadislong (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
17:58:34, 2 May 2020 review of draft by Jaicecaver
[edit]- Jaicecaver (talk · contribs)
I have made sure my references came from google scholar. I have no idea what other reference problems that we have.
Jaicecaver (talk) 17:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Who is "we" user accounts are very strictly for single person use. Theroadislong (talk) 18:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
18:04:38, 2 May 2020 review of submission by Razvan112002
[edit]- Razvan112002 (talk · contribs)
Hello! I have a question regarding the rejection of my article about a new Romanian airline. The rejection reason was that is not notable enough, but I don't think so. It's an airline which will be used by many Romanians this summer as part of flight+hotel deals and moreover, Aegean Airlines, a major airline in Europe has a stake in this business. I have collected all the information carefully, from reliable sources, and I have provided a source for all of the content published. I don't understand why this page may be less relevant than other pages. For example I found on Wikipedia the page of an old Romanian airline which has been flying for almost 6 months and no more. There are as well articles about many other smaller, less relevant charter airlines, but with less information than on this page. If you want I can provide examples of that kind of pages as well as more sources for Animawings article (such as ch-avia, a well-known site for aviation). Thank you for your time and I hope that you'll reconsider your decision about this page, as many tourists wish to find out all this info about their airline in only one place- Wikipedia. Razvan112002 (talk) 18:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Razvan112002, It might be notable in the future. But at the moment, an airline with a single plane that hasn't even flown a route yet? No way. Maybe try again in 6 months, but almost zero businesses are notable before they have begun. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- AdatOmor007 (talk · contribs)
AdatOmor007 (talk) 19:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- AdatOmor007, Wikipedia is not for writing about yourself. It is not for promotion. And it must be neutral. All you have written is
Adat Omor Is A Awesome Photographer His Photography Maximum 40000..[1]Adat Omor Very Intersting And Funny Chracter
, which is about as non-encyclopedic as it gets. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
23:06:11, 2 May 2020 review of submission by Idokon210
[edit]Thanks for this opportunity to contribute. More so i'm sorry i didn't inform you that the contribution was a paid contribution and it in conformance to the paid disclosure agreement to the best of my knowledge. would be grateful if assisted properly. thanks idokon210Idokon210 (talk) 23:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC) Idokon210 (talk) 23:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Idokon210 Your draft was rejected, not just declined, meaning that there is little chance it can be improved to meet Wikipedia standards. Please see Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 23:35, 2 May 2020 (UTC)