Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 November 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< November 1 << Oct | November | Dec >> November 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.


November 2

[edit]

00:50:32, 2 November 2020 review of submission by 106.207.189.201

[edit]


I am new to Wikipedia. This article is created to help Indian Students looking for carrier opportunities in one of the 58 Services under Government of India. This article try to explain different unknown aspects of This Government service. I have made this article out of many Govt. resources along with my personal inputs. Please help me to improve this article for its acceptance for publication. 106.207.189.201 (talk) 00:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:ARTSPAM and WP:GNG to begin. Snowycats (talk) 02:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:46:20, 2 November 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Piete Brooks

[edit]


We're not quite sure what the problems are.

It says "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources.", but there are many links to the local Govt docs (although the planning portal is currently undergoing some changes, so some documents are temporarily unavailable) and other local historical documents. The author has a number of paper documents (much of it pre-dates online minutes etc) - is there a standard way to make such documents available if (e.g.) the newspaper archives are only available on paper?

It says "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed.", but the author is trying just to state facts, rather than push a psrticular viewpoint (although she does have very strong views). Are there any particular parts which need work on, or is there a general change of style which woul help?

Thanks. Piete Brooks (talk) 08:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Piete Brooks, Having diverse sources from a variety of places is important. Many statements throughout your article are unsourced and/or opinionated, lacking any factual evidence. Snowycats (talk) 17:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:50:58, 2 November 2020 review of draft by Education4Peace

[edit]



Dear Sir/Madam. I am trying to create a Wikipedia page for the Organisation of Educational Cooperation (OEC) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Organisation_of_Educational_Cooperation#Organisation_of_Educatio...) but the page has been declined twice. The latest comment we received from Nightenbelle was:

"Article has source dump in the first couple sections, then VERY aparcly sourced after that. Notability remains unclear as sources appear to be interviews and press releases- and sourcing needs to conform to WP standards."

Not sure how to best address these comments and ensure that the page gets live, but any advice on how we can fulfil the sourcing needs for the page, in conformity with WP standards, would be greatly appreciated.

From my end, I will definitively reduce the use of sources in the beginning of the page, so as to avoid source dump, but with regard to the referencing in conformity with WP standards, I would very much appreciate further guidance so as to avoid a third rejection from the editors of Wikipedia.

Education4Peace (talk) 08:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Education4Peace If you are associated with this organization, you must review WP:COI and WP:PAID for information on formal disclosures you may be required to make. 331dot (talk) 11:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:41:26, 2 November 2020 review of submission by 许木23

[edit]


the chinese VC Yunqi Partners targets to raise $275m for third fund and Invest in many enterprises，it has 15 references。


许木23 (talk) 09:41, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

许木23, If you have specific questions on where you are confused, let me know. Snowycats (talk) 17:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
why do not this submission's 15 references show that the subject？What else do they need ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 许木23 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:00:26, 2 November 2020 review of submission by Panchamiar

[edit]

[1]


Panchamiar (talk) 11:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See the responses from 30 October, here and here. @Panchamiar: please do not create any more accounts. --bonadea contributions talk 12:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.google.com/search?q=silvius+boby+silva&hl=en-US&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi6wO3z2ePsAhX7zzgGHYyiC2kQ_AUoAXoECAYQAw&biw=1150&bih=654

13:01:20, 2 November 2020 review of submission by Some Dude From North Carolina

[edit]

I've submitted this page for review twice now, and it has been rejected, twice. The article is on a film directed by Marianne Farley, and about her upcoming feature film directorial debut. Since the film is from Canada, most of the sources are in French. Additionally, interviews or images of the film's production are not released that often. With this in mind, the article is notable on what it's based on, has sources explaining at least the bare minimum of information needed for notability, and will most likely stay a "short article" when the film is released, so I'm asking for help on how to improve it.

P.S. A poster of the film is already available here. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:01, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some Dude From North Carolina Sources do not need to be in English. It helps, but is not required. The issue with the draft is that the sources do not seem to indicate how the film meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable film, specifically that of an unreleased film. The reviewer suggested that "It is still an unreleased film and still should be resubmitted with reception information after the film is released". 331dot (talk) 13:31, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: I get that, but waiting until a film is released is still a lot to ask. Most film articles are made when the film is announced, take the original page of what would later become I'm Thinking of Ending Things (film). The production info was small, yet it was moved because it had a cast, premise, and information on when the film was filmed. Like I said before, North of Albany will clearly stay a small article, and I've used every source I could find. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:54, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some Dude From North Carolina If you wish to change the film notability criteria regarding unreleased films, you will need to get consensus to do so at Wikipedia talk:Notability (films). Note that there are likely reasons that not every unreleased film merits an article(I have some guesses, but I won't speculate). It's not usually a good idea to cite other similar articles as a reason for yours to exist, see other stuff exists. Those articles could be problematic themselves and just unaddressed, or they may have circumstances unique to them. 331dot (talk) 15:35, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: So what can I do to make this article notable before its released? Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 16:06, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some Dude From North Carolina There is nothing that you can do. No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. As was suggested, once the film is released, you will be in the clear, or the production of the film is itself covered in reliable sources with significant coverage(beyond press releases, staff interviews, etc.). That's all. 331dot (talk) 16:17, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: Well, thanks for telling me. I have a question though: can I upload the film's poster to the draft? Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not familiar enough with uploading images to be 100% confident in any answer I would give. 331dot (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No. Fair-use images cannot be used in draftspace, and images do not help drafts in any instance. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 17:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jéské Couriano: Now that you're here, do you see anything I could improve on the article? Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 18:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:05:13, 2 November 2020 review of submission by Ravidurgashashikamalnidhi

[edit]


Your observation is incorrect. He graduated from University of Cumberlands with a MS Degree in Information Systems Security on August 27th 2020 and an MBA - General management with Assam Donbosco University on October 5 2020. Please review again.

Ravidurgashashikamalnidhi (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ravidurgashashikamalnidhi That doesn't mean that the individual meets the notability criteria. The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 15:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know, what else needs to be cited in this article to make it notable. the news are still coming out and few more interviews or articles will get published in coming weeks. Ravidurgashashikamalnidhi (talk) 15:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ravidurgashashikamalnidhi Please edit this existing section for any follow up comments, and do not create additional sections. Interviews do not establish notability, as Wikipedia is not interested in what an article subject says about themselves. It is certainly possible that this person could later meet the notability criteria, but they do not right now. If they do in the future, you could ask the reviewer that rejected your draft to reconsider. I see that this is the only topic you have edited about. Do you have some sort of connection to this person? 331dot (talk) 15:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:39:46, 2 November 2020 review of submission by Painter80302

[edit]


Painter80302 (talk) 15:39, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am new to Wikipedia, so I am still learning the criteria for articles. In August, I created a draft for Articles for Creation: Sarah McKenzie (artist). Initially, the reviewer, MurielMary, recommended that I move the artist's awards out of the infobox and that I include more citations/sources. I did substantial editing, but the article was declined again by the same reviewer. Are there guidelines available for what qualifies a visual artist as being "notable" or having "significant coverage" that I might see before continuing with further edits?

Thank you! Painter30802

See WP:NARTIST. Theroadislong (talk) 16:35, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Painter80302: Significant coverage means in-depth coverage about the article subject themself, i.e. Sarah McKenzie. This content must be published in mainstream reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (meaning no blogs or niche publications or things like that), and the content must be independent of the subject meaning it can't rely on McKenzie as the source of the information. So that would exclude interviews and such. Please see WP:GNG if you want to read the guidelines about that. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'm sorry I neglected to include the draft. Here is it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sarah_McKenzie_(artist)

I believe that the citations in the draft given do meet the above criteria (mainstream , reliable, respected, independent), but perhaps the reviewer still feels that the subject doesn't meet the qualifications for notability? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Painter80302 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:53:55, 2 November 2020 review of submission by Rajinder Singh Meena

[edit]


Rajinder Singh Meena (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rajinder Singh Meena You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Please review the comments left by the reviewers. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 16:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read literally nothing that was said last time? —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 16:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:45:51, 2 November 2020 review of submission by Sarimgilani

[edit]

hi this is my first article. i wanted to know when my article would be reviewed and when it will be published , can someone help me on this ??

Sarimgilani (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sarimgilani As noted in the yellow box on your draft, "This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,486 pending submissions waiting for review." You will need to be patient. 331dot (talk) 21:09, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
can I contact a reviewer by myself , to show him/her my work, and second question is if reviewer make a page does he need to review from another person ?? and If reviewing takes so much time then how about latest issues are on Wikipedia so quick ? Sarimgilani (talk) 21:55, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sarimgilani: I don't think reviewers would like to be pressured into reviewing the article you created when there are other people waiting. To answer your second question, experienced editors don't typically need to go through the drafting/review process because they understand basics like adhering to our general notability guideline and identifying reputable sources. That should also answer your third question. New editors should absolutely go through this system. Are you in a hurry or something? Seems like we could wait a while before publishing an article about a figure from the 12th century. Also the article still needs improvement since you didn't address the Five Ws. For instance, you neglected to indicate when the person lived, which seems to be important, or where he was born or where he was from, or what he did that would name him notable. The goal here is to try to demonstrate that the subject is notable, and you do that not only by writing about the subject in detail, but including references that include in-depth coverage of the subject in reliable sources. See our general notability guideline. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sarimgilani, Next time - please don't clog up my talk page AND here with your questions. Ask once and be patient as we're all volunteers. Cheers, Snowycats (talk) 22:43, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2020_November_2&oldid=1084831461"