Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 May 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< May 8 << Apr | May | Jun >> May 10 >
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 9

[edit]

00:40:08, 9 May 2020 review of draft by Emilyeeelie117

[edit]


I am wondering how I should cite a website that I have already cited in my article. For example, the first time I cited it the label was [1], but the second time I cited it, instead of it being labeled [1] again, it was labeled [3]. Emilyeeelie117 (talk) 00:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emilyeeelie117 (talk) 00:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emilyeeelie117, I believe you can just type <ref name="auto1">. Replace the 1 with the already numbered footnote. If that doesn't work, duplication is fine, it'll be fixed when someone runs reflinks (which fixes that issue). Also, for technical help with stuff like this the WP:TEAHOUSE is probably the best place to go. There you will find some incredibly helpful people who have a lot of experience in helping new users. Sulfurboy (talk) 02:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

01:49:39, 9 May 2020 review of submission by Lamacha9617

[edit]

Hi, big wikipedia fan here. I decided to take a foray into article writing, but my first article was denied. User:Sulfurboy cited that it didn't meet the guidelines for N:PROF -- but I'm confused, because I believe the subject explicitly meets multiple criteria.

N:PROF states that either of the following constitute sufficient notability:

2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.

3. The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers).

The subject of this article both (1) has been named a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science - which I believe satisfies N:PROF criterion 3, and (2) has received a medal from NASA sufficiently prestigious as to be authorized as military decoration, which I believe satisfies N:PROF criterion 2.

Am I missing something? Thank you! Lamacha9617 (talk) 01:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lamacha9617 (talk) 01:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lamacha9617, Being awarded a medal from the subject's own employer wouldn't be considered particularly prestigious or notable. It's even less notable when you consider it's not even the highest honor NASA can bestow on one of their employees. For fellow status to be considered under prong 3 it needs to be highly selective. In 2015, the year the subject got fellowship, they awarded 346 other people fellowships that year. A society that awards hundreds of fellowships a year wouldn't be considered particularly selective. Sulfurboy (talk) 01:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sulfurboy, Hmm we're clearly running up against highly subjective definitions of prestige and selectivity here. I understand the issue about an award coming from your own employer, thank you for clarifying. But to bring some numbers to the table, the society that is specifically mentioned in the N:PROF example for prong 3, IEEE, states that up to 0.1% of its members can be named "fellow" in one year. With over 420,000 members, that would mean up to 420 fellows per year - fewer than AAAS named in 2015. Indeed, in 2019 the IEEE elevated 282 members to the level of fellow. So I would argue that your reasoning about hundreds of fellowships precluding selectivity does not hold up, given that the N:PROF example for "highly selective" fellowships itself names hundreds of fellows annually. Lamacha9617 (talk) 02:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lamacha9617, Okay, your persistence has paid off. I did some digging and found an old deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pierre Baldi which found being a fellow AAAS as being enough to establish notability. As such, I will be approving the article. Cheers Sulfurboy (talk) 03:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

04:10:05, 9 May 2020 review of submission by Vathsalak

[edit]

Hello, I created a page for Faizal Kottikollon a couple of weeks ago. I was provided feedback that the language used wasn't in line with Wiki language. I have made substantial changes to it and was wondering if this is more in line with the wiki standards? Could you please take a look and advise me please? Thank you!

Vathsalak (talk) 04:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vathsalak, That page is just a full on advert for the subject. It is nothing like the dispassionate, formal and neutral tone required for an article. Nearly every paragraph has some form of puffery or promotional tone. It very well could be your conflict of interest in being a paid editor is making the WP:NPOV issues hard to see. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sulfurboy, I can assure you that there is no payment that is being made for the edit. If it were, I would have definitely disclosed it. The issue is that this is the first time I am making a submission. I will revisit the draft and try to make changes. If there is anything that you could point out in the direction of how I could make this better, it would be extremely helpful. Thanks so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vathsalak (talk • contribs) 09:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:55:26, 9 May 2020 review of draft by Adwerald

[edit]


Thank you for reviewing my submission. I do not understand the advertising style you are referring and I do not understand as this article is the complement to DAST technic and use the same plan without any reference to commercial or open-source tools: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Static_application_security_testing There is no COI to disclose as there is not any.

Adwerald (talk) 11:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:20:54, 9 May 2020 review of submission by Arbabi4

[edit]


Hi there, I published a page that thoroughly, and as I stated in my comments that there are some references that could not be obtained due to the country's lack of online coverage.

Arbabi4 (talk) 12:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbabi4 Are you writing about yourself? This is strongly discouraged per the autobiography policy. Sources do not need to be online, they only need to be publicly available. A book or magazine is fine; see WP:CITE for information on citing non-online sources. 331dot (talk) 12:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:04:28, 9 May 2020 review of submission by Rightventracleleft

[edit]


I'm a bit confused as to why the article was rejected. When submitted, it said it would take months for it to be reviewed. Since it's a Superfund site, there are literally several million government records. In this case, there are also news articles, documentaries, much more than pretty much every Superfund site in the country. Since I thought I had months, I only added a few sources.

@Rightventracleleft: Drafts are reviewed in no particular order by revierwers in their (sometimes rare) free time. As such, reviews can indeed take a few months. Howewer, if you are lucky, the Draft may get reviewed on the same day as it was submitted! Therefore, please make sure that your Draft is, apart from minor issiues, ready for mainspace when you submit it. Secondly, your submission was delined, not rejected. Declined means that there is hope that the draft could be ready for mainspace after improvement, while rejection means there is no hope of that. Please add more sources, primarely such that are relieable in Wikipedia sence and independent of the subject. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The one source listed was one million pages of scientific records. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rightventracleleft (talk • contribs) 10:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:11:17, 9 May 2020 review of draft by MichaelHolemans

[edit]


Hello there, So my article has been declined for not being in a neutral tone, lack of citations, some information was out of the scope of the article, etc... I attempted to fix all these issues and wondered if someone could check and see if it's correct, before I submit it again. Thanks in advance, Michael MichaelHolemans (talk) 17:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:49:19, 9 May 2020 review of submission by Pardashunas

[edit]


Pardashunas (talk) 17:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC) I didn't understand. This article is not created by me. Someone created this blog and I see some false information. I opened wiki account and I have edited it. You Can check all sources. It was not a promotional article. I am a journalist.[reply]

Pardashunas It is not a blog, it is a draft of an encyclopedia article. The draft just tells what you have done- Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about you, showing how you meet Wikipedia's definition of a notable journalist. Please also review the autobiography policy as to why writing about yourself is not advisable. 331dot (talk) 08:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:26:35, 9 May 2020 review of draft by Michaeljk2191

[edit]


Hello,

I do not understand how my sources are not enough for the article on CIMLS to be published. I believe people didn't look at my sources before making this decision. Some of them are only mentioning the topic in passing, but others are full secondary sources about the topic. In particular the legal issues source is entirely about CIMLS. My first source used is also a business profile page, not just a source mentioning it in passing.

Also, there are many similar companies that I modelled this page after who use similar sources to the ones I did, and all of them were approved. Some of their sources are even very outdated or non-existent anymore. Please help me understand.

Here are the example articles I modelled after: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LoopNet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ComFree https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/99Acres.com

Michaeljk2191 (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other poor quality articles exist, is not a good argument for adding another. Theroadislong (talk) 21:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I did point out that there are poor quality articles that have been published, my argument is not that mine is poor quality but that my sources are at a higher degree of validity than similar articles that have been published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaeljk2191 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2020_May_9&oldid=985276066"