Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 August 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< August 12 << Jul | August | Sep >> August 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.


August 13

[edit]

07:15:00, 13 August 2021 review of draft by Jimmyjrg

[edit]


I would like help with this article on Brian Wise. He is notable as editor of Rhythms Magazine - one of the last printed music magazines in Australia - and for his long running radio show. This year he was awarded an OAM for his service to broadcast media, and I believe this alone should be merit for an article.

While many of the sources are firsthand, I think there are enough secondhand mixed in that shows Brian Wise is known outside of his own circle. --Jimmyjrg (talk) 07:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmyjrg (talk) 07:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:43:53, 13 August 2021 review of draft by Valeria.Djukic

[edit]


Dear help desk, I am trying to improve this draft article and address the reported concern: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.'

I have added additional sources and reference, and working on citing the bibliography to the fullest possible extent. Apart from that, how should I deal with the biography part, which is most of the text? Most of it can be found in the respective biography book - do I need to reference it multiple times or once is enough?

Valeria.Djukic (talk) 11:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a suggestion, remove all the content that is un-sourced and make the article much shorter. (Note: I am not an admin. This is just a suggestion.)Alice Jason (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alice Jason You don't have to be an administrator to participate here, so it's unnecessary to tell people that you aren't one. 331dot (talk) 23:34, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:01:06, 13 August 2021 review of submission by Rob waring

[edit]

The article has been improved and issues have since been fixed.

Rob waring (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No noticeable improvement? The Daily Mail and Facebook are not reliable sources either. Theroadislong (talk) 17:22, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:11:47, 13 August 2021 review of submission by Alice Jason

[edit]


I would like to ask a different admin to review this, then the admin that declined it, because this article has significant coverage from reliable sources and meets WP:GNG. I feel the reviewer did not do a proper review and did not analyze the available sources.  In particular check San Diego Tribune, Techcrunch, Fast Company and San Diego Business Journal. After the decline I have also added a new Book Source at #19 (Agile Project Management: The Complete Guide for Beginners) and BLOOMBERG. Please review my citation analysis below and let me know if you do not agree that this article meets the notability guidelines. (Disclosure: I am a paid editor, but that should not count against notability guidelines. I feel I am being given a hard time, just because I am a paid editor!)

Source analysis
1) https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/story/2021-06-21/san-diegos-newest-tech-unicorn-grabs-east-village-high-rise-next-to-petco-park 
-in-depth and has a bio of the company, Publication is reliable   .  We have 3 references from this site, so we should only count one. RATING: EXCELLENT
2) https://social.techcrunch.com/2020/06/24/productivity-platform-clickup-raises-35-million-from-craft-ventures/    
- in-depth and has a bio of the company, Publication is super notable and reliable   .   RATING: EXCELLENT
3) https://charitydigital.org.uk/topics/topics/the-best-project-management-software-in-2021-8909 
- Not too in-depth but has more than 2 paragraphs about them. Publication is not well known. RATING: AVERAGE
4)https://project-management.com/pros-and-cons-of-using-clickup/ 
- In-depth - Publication not well known . It is a review website. RATING: AVERAGE
5) https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/story/2020-12-15/clickup-raises-100m-as-venture-capital-continues-to-flow-to-local-startups 
- in-depth and has a bio of the company, Publication is reliable  .  This is a duplicate site reference, so we will not count it. RATING: EXCELLENT, but DO NOT COUNT.
6) https://thesiliconreview.com/magazine/profile/clickup-is-the-future-of-workplace-productivity 
- This is an interview, so the interview part is not primary, however, there are more than 2 paragraphs of intro and bio about the company written by the publication, which is acceptable. I am not sure if this Publication is reliable    .  RATING: AVERAGE
7) https://www.fastcompany.com/90636414/after-four-near-death-experiences-this-billion-dollar-startup-ceo-has-no-more-time-to-waste 
-in-depth and has a bio of the company, Publication is super notable and reliable .  RATING: EXCELLENT
8) https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/27/style/family-calendar.html 
- It's a mention, not in-depth. Publication is super notable and reliable .  RATING: AVERAGE
9) https://moderncto.io/270-alex-yurkowski-cto-co-founder-at-clickup/ 
- in-depth. Publication not well known.  RATING: AVERAGE
10) https://www.gadgetsnow.com/featured/free-tools-to-get-your-home-business-up-and-running/articleshow/77478904.cms 
- in-depth (long paragraph) . Publication not well known.   RATING: AVERAGE
11)  https://diginomica.com/one-app-replace-them-all-clickups-ceo-future-productivity-and-how-clickup-addresses-proliferation - In-Depth -This is part interview and part review by the author. The interview part is not acceptable but there are over 10 paragraphs of in-depth analysis of the software by the author. Publication is not well known.  RATING: AVERAGE
12) https://www.saasmag.com/zeb-evans-of-clickup-on-optimizing-productivity/ 
- Interview, but has 2 paragraphs of info. Publication is reliable  and has hard copies.   RATING: AVERAGE
13) https://www.sdbj.com/news/2021/apr/07/san-diego-padres-partners-clickup/ (San Diego Business Journal) 
- Somewhat in-depth. Article not too long, and 2 paragraphs are quotes.Publication is super notable, reliable  and has hard copy. We have two references from this site (See #17), so we will only count the second one since it's more in-depth. RATING: ABOVE AVERAGE - DO NOT COUNT
14) https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/story/2020-06-26/san-diego-start-up-clickup-raises-35-million-for-software-that-helps-with-remote-work
in-depth , Publication is reliable .  This is a third site reference (See #1 and 5), so we will not count it. RATING: EXCELLENT, but DO NOT COUNT.
15) https://www.socaltech.com/clickup_taps_buzzfeed_cheddar_exec_as_creative_head/s-0080731.html
- Not in-depth. Publication not well known. RATING: BELOW AVERAGE
16)https://tech.co/news/clickup-email-clickapp-feature 
- in-depth , Publication is not well known. There is another article from this site at #22 which we will not count. RATING: AVERAGE
17) https://www.sdbj.com/news/2021/jan/05/clickup-becomes-san-diegos-latest-unicorn/ (San Diego Business Journal) 
- Very in-depth .Publication is super notable, reliable  and has hard copy. We have two references from this site, so we will only count this one since it's more in-depth. RATING: EXCELLENT
18) https://www.thedrum.com/news/2021/08/03/ad-the-day-clickup-chad-lindberg-highlight-the-awkwardness-going-back-work 
-  in-depth , Publication is not well known. RATING: AVERAGE
19) Caldwell, Greg (2021-01-29). Agile Project Management: The Complete Guide for Beginners https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=SZoXEAAAQBAJ&newbks=0&printsec=frontcover&pg=PT31&dq=clickup&hl=en&redir_esc=y
- in-depth , It's from a published book so it is reliable . RATING: EXCELLENT
20) https://siliconangle.com/2020/12/15/productivity-platform-startup-clickup-raises-100m-1b-unicorn-valuation/ 
-in-depth , while its news about  raising funds, it also has in-depth info about the company, Publication is not well known. RATING: AVERAGE
21) https://www.business.com/articles/free-time-tracking-applications/
-  somewhat in-depth , it's comparing several apps, but more than enough info on Clickup to be considered somewhat in-depth. Publication is reliable . RATING: ABOVE AVERAGE
22) https://dzone.com/articles/what-does-a-project-manager-do-on-a-daily-basis-th
-in-depth, comparison of several apps. Publication is not well known. RATING: AVERAGE
23) https://tech.co/project-management-software/clickup-review
-in-depth, Has details about app and pricing. We will not count this one since its the second article from tech.co (See #16). RATING: AVERAGE - DO NOT COUNT
24) https://thetechtribune.com/10-best-tech-startups-in-san-diego/
-Not in-depth, but it says they are one of the best startups in Silicon Valley. Publication not well known. RATING: BELOW AVERAGE
25) https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-15/software-maker-clickup-reaches-1-billion-value-in-funding-round
In-depth and publication is super notable and reliable. RATING: EXCELLENT

Alice Jason (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Jason Reviewers are not necessarily administrators. 331dot (talk) 21:47, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alice Jason Shopping around for a different reviewer will not make a difference, as the reviewer was correct. The sources do not establish notability because they are announcements of routine business activities or reviews of the company's products, not the company itself. If you've accepted payment already(as you declared) I'd suggest that you return the money, as the rejection means the draft will not be considered further. I'm also curious as to how potential clients find you, as you say you don't advertise on a website, but it's not necessary for you to answer that. 331dot (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@(331dot) Please review the sources in detail and respond to me how the sources that I have specified as EXCELLENT fail to meet the guidelines. Even tough they are news, they contain in detail company info and bio. Fast Company, TechCrunch, San Diego Tribune, Book coverage, etc there are over 20 sources. I agree not all in-depth and some news, but there is more than enough here to meet WP:GNG. Not only some of these articles are in-depth but they are also from notable and reliable publications. As far as how they found me, it was a referral from an agency that I work with.23.240.192.112 (talk) 22:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Refer to the top table here:
I suggest you swot up on WP:CORPDEPTH, as a lot of your "EXCELLENT" sources are run-of-the-mill business coverage that would have been reported on as a matter of course. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 23:20, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) I assume you are Alice Jason. A publication being reliable does not automatically mean everything it publishes is acceptable as a source. It depends on the actual text being cited. Taking some in order:
1) is an announcement of the company's expansion into a new building- that is a routine business activity.
2) is an announcement of the company's raising of capital, another routine business activity.
3) is a description of one of the company's products in comparison to others in its field. Nothing about the company itself.
4) is another description of the company's product.
5) is another announcement of the company's raising of capital.
6) you already say is mostly an interview; the rest pretty much just says a lot of people have used the company's products during the pandemic. Not significant coverage.
7) is mostly another interview.
8) I cannot read through the NYT paywall but before it kicked in it seemed to have little to do with the company itself.
9) is another interview.
10) is another desription of the company's product and not the company itself.
11) you concede is an interview plus analysis of the software- not the company itself.
12) you concede is an interview. There is little mention of the company elsewhere.
13) is another announcement of a routine business transaction(that the San Diego Padres hired the company)
14) yet another announcement of the raising of capital.
15) is an announcement of a hiring, a routine business activity.
I think I've gone through enough of them. The point is that you have a lot of poor quality sources; what is preferred are fewer high-quality sources with significant coverage of the company itself, not just its products. It is possible for the products to merit an article while the company that produces them does not. Please read Your First Article and the notability guidelines for companies, but as the draft was rejected, there is nothing more you can do here for the time being. 331dot (talk) 23:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot and @Jéské Couriano in your opinions how many more high-quality sources with significant coverage is needed? Alice Jason (talk) 18:57, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alice Jason I will be frank with you- and I apologize. There is no point in further work on this right now, and my suggestion is that you abandon this and move on to something else. Maybe in six months or so the situation will change and you can start fresh only summarizing independent reliable sources with significant coverage, but I see little chance of success now. There is nothing wrong with this, as not every company merits an article, even in the same field. 331dot (talk) 19:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I ask is that I found at least 10 more news stories and a few are real good. Typically how many in-depth articles are good in your option? From what I have seen in past cases, most Admins consider 2-3 good in-depth news stories plus several passing mentions or not so in-depth as good enough. What is your option in this? Should I send you the additional articles for review?? What really would make this page qualify? that is my question. Alice Jason (talk) 19:48, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alice Jason Again, reviewers are not necessarily administrators. Most reviewers aren't, in fact. I get that you are being paid and so you are extra motivated to get this put into article space and disregard what I and others are telling you, but Wikipedia isn't concerned with that or any deadlines you have- which is why paid editing is problematic, even if permitted, as the two things are incompatible(your motivation and our goals).
You are correct that most article reviewers look for at least three independent reliable sources with significant coverage- sources that have chosen on their own to write about the company itself(not its products) and are not based on any materials put out by the company or interviews with its staff. Completely forget about anything that doesn't have significant coverage for purposes of a submission. Wikipedia is not interested in telling about how companies have raised capital or opened new locations or been hired. In any event, none of this matters for this draft as it has been rejected. Again, rejected. It is not going to be considered in the near future by anyone. You need to move on from this for the time being. 331dot (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So are you saying even if I present to you 10-15 new sources, you would not consider a re-review? Have you done an in-depth Google Search to see if there are any other news about this subject? I would bet that you have not, because if you did, you may have found some of these new sources that I am talking about. There are 30+ pages of Google news results on this company. FYI, I already got paid to submit the page whether it gets accepted or not and I have not promised the client anything. In fact, I told them to expect chance of decline. AT this point I feel I am being given a hard time because I am a paid editor. Why would you not want to look at 10-15 more sources and just straight out reject it??? Alice Jason (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because odds are most, if not all, of those 10-15 more sources are more of the same routine business coverage. Google hits are not a good indicator of notability because only a very small fraction of hits point to sources we can use, and this is doubly so for businesses. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 22:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano Sounds to me that you already made up your mind and that a paid editor can never provide enough good sources, no matter if they exist. Thanks, I'll move on. Alice Jason (talk) 23:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Alice Jason: Nowhere did I say that or imply it. I'm speaking from experience here; a Google search pulls up far more useless sources than useful ones by virtue of both how Google works and our own sourcing requirements; your job should be to sift through them with an eye to separating the wheat from the chaff, rather than relying on us to do it for you. You are the one who wants the article, after all, and the onus is always on those seeking to add/retain content to provide suitable sources. Do not put words in my muzzle. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 02:36, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your time. I rather not provide you anything because you are likely to disagree with anything I provide. If there is another admin here besides the 2 of you that have responded so far, I am willing to send the new citations for review. It is obvious that I am being discriminated against for being a paid editor and no matter what I provide you are going to make it hard for this article to get approved. Alice Jason (talk) 01:17, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alice Jason, I have spent some time reviewing the sources provided above and in the article and I entirely agree with the assessment of both Jéské Couriano and 331dot: None of the sources provide significant coverage of the company itself in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. I have also looked for additional sources which would assist in proving notability and have found little of note. To be entirely blunt, I couldn't care less about this company and whether or not the article was created by a paid editor; what I care about is whether an article meets the guidelines on notability, and this one clearly does not. The article has been rightly rejected on two occaisions now to prevent reviewers wasting their time on reviewing it again, and continuing to insist that the subject of the article is notable when a total of six reviewers have assessed that it is not is bordering on disruptive. --Jack Frost (talk) 02:59, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Alice Jason: As I said, you being a paid editor is not relevant. I would say the exact same thing whether you were a paid editor or not. 331dot (talk) 06:23, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Alice Jason: A couple days ago I examined what you call your "excellent" sources, with particular emphasis on The San Diego Union-Tribune. I also searched other San Diego news sources, EBSCO, and ProQuest for any independent, reliable sources containing significant coverage. By the time I had finished, two other reviewers had already posted exhaustive analyses. There was nothing to add to what they had already explained, so I didn't comment at the time. My conclusion, however, is the same as everyone but you, the startup clearly is not notable (not suitable for inclusion as a stand alone article in the encyclopedia). --Worldbruce (talk) 13:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:30:21, 13 August 2021 review of submission by Geo Lightspeed7

[edit]


Geo Lightspeed7 (talk) 22:30, 13 August 2021 (UTC) Draft:Christine Handy Hello. I was informed that this page was declined for certain reasons. My question is this: There were a few different examples on the draft. The ones above were sort of practice ones. The refined one was at the very bottom. I’m thinking that it was overlooked at the decision to decline it was based on the one above. If it wasn’t overlooked, is there a way of removing the previous first draft examples from all of it. I now know how to edit without adding more copies of different versions. Thank you for the enlightenment![reply]

Yeah - you can just delete the text. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 23:38, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2021_August_13&oldid=1039489262"