Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 July 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< July 25 << Jun | July | Aug >> July 27 >
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.


July 26

[edit]

00:51:18, 26 July 2021 review of submission by Johnnormanroberts

[edit]


Johnnormanroberts (talk) 00:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Please could you elaborate on the editor feedback that 'the tone is worse than before' and could you please direct me to an example that I could learn from to improve this submission? I had mirrored some of the tone and format of Trent Dalton (author) wikipedia page and deleted the excessive citations as per previous feedback. There are numerous journalists/news anchors who have wiki pages that I have referred to to assist in creating this page on Mimi Kwa. Could you please advise as to whether the topic is notable given she has read live international news for the national broadcaster to forty plus countries for fifteen years, and read national television news on prime news programs on the national broadcaster, she is published in notable publications (Vogue, New Idea) this combined with current extensive news media coverage of the subject and her book? If so, what sources would be required in addition to the multiple verifiable sources currently included, please? If not, what additional mentions, achievements would the subject require to be considered 'notable'?

Kind regards, Johnnormanroberts (talk) 00:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:25:13, 26 July 2021 review of submission by Pun89

[edit]

Can someone help my article for which i spent a lot of time editing  ? It needs copyediting and wp-mos you want to give you the name of the article or you can fnd it from my name Pun89 ? Draft is February 2021 European cold wave

Pun89 (talk) 07:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]



11:08:47, 26 July 2021 review of submission by Wutokbong

[edit]

The section DONATING TO GAZA is neutral and informative. It nicely summarises the key challenges involved when making donations to Gaza. It has a number of easily verifiable external links. Please therefore help explain which of the 5 pillars did DONATING TO GAZA not comply with? Wutokbong (talk) 11:08, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wutokbong It was a copyright violation that promoted a cause. Wikipedia is not for telling the world about your cause, but a place to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a topic, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability. Please read Your first article. 331dot (talk) 11:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:58:39, 26 July 2021 review of submission by MarikaAgu

[edit]

The pavilion is notable, simply compare with other national pavilions. MarikaAgu (talk) 11:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:02:54, 26 July 2021 review of draft by Alex kalganov

[edit]


Alex kalganov (talk) 12:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia, I've created an article In memory of my grandfather. The article that I've created got deleted and became a draft. Its my first article And I'm not familiar with the requirements, procedures and rules of writing an article. I would like to know what are the exact reasons of my article page is being deleted.

Thank you Alex kalganov (talk) 12:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply] 

Alex kalganov (talk) 12:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Alex kalganov: No sources, no article, no debate. We do not host memorial pages, either. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 03:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:03:50, 26 July 2021 review of draft by Lowryedale

[edit]


I am going to attempt to attend to all the changes that are needed on my draft Thomas Ellerby Portrait Painter but am still not certain if I will do it correctly!

I wish to change one number in the first line of the leader 73 should read "72 paintings chosen for hanging at The Royal Academy"and then expand on all the references so they are precise.

I am very grateful for the advice and assistance I was given yesterday but now the article appears to have been expanded ( as I was informed) I assume I do not have to do anything to these additions which are most welcome.

I had considered including an image but am too nervous to do this in case I spoil all that has been achieved.

I do keep reading but probably my lack of confidence with computer jargon is my biggest problem and also my age!!!12:03, 26 July 2021 (UTC)Lowryedale (talk).

Many apologies. Lowryedale (talk) 12:03, 26 July 2021 (UTC) Lowryedale (talk) 12:03, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:24:27, 26 July 2021 review of draft by 110.44.121.20

[edit]

Please help me publish this.

110.44.121.20 (talk) 12:24, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:52:02, 26 July 2021 review of draft by Bluecosm

[edit]


Hi! My draft edit to SoWa Artists Guild was just declined, and I was very careful to write neutrally and include a "range of independent, reliable, published sources." How can I get more specific feedback on why it has been declined? Thanks Bluecosm (talk) 12:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC) Bluecosm (talk) 12:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bluecosm Wikipedia is not for merely telling about something. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about (in this case) an organization, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable organization. The sources you offered seem to be routine coverage, which does not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 13:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:52:42, 26 July 2021 review of submission by Snixtr

[edit]


This person is one of the top Indian creators and please give me a Best advice to improve this article. Because this article is about a notable person and according to my point of view it is suitable for Wikipedia article page. Snixtr (talk) 15:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Snixtr The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. No amount of editing can confer notability on a subject. 331dot (talk) 16:06, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:55:43, 26 July 2021 review of draft by Pompancake

[edit]


I was wondering about the requirement of notability. I tried to create an article about the murder of Lorraine Cox in Exeter, UK. It was declined with the response of "NCrime". I was wanted to create a page to inform others of her violent death in the aftermath of Sarah Everard. There were many vigils around the country in response to her death and in the city of Exeter there was a large number of people also mourning Lorraine Cox. Is notability just based on how publicised the death is? Or is it due to the status of the murderer i.e the number of people they kill? I can't seem to find a definition of what NCrime means specifically.

Pompancake (talk) 15:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:12:42, 26 July 2021 review of submission by Transandrosupport

[edit]

Hello, I put together this article last night about the specific transphobia directed at trans men. I feel it is necessary to have such a page as nonbinary people and trans women have a page each describing their struggles, hence the article on trans men is required to complete the trio. I know that more citations and reliable ones are needed, but I'm having trouble figuring out which kinds of source specifically are the most ideal. I have more waiting to add, so that might fix it (It was late last night so not all my sources got put in yet) - but aside from ones I've already got like scientific studies on trans men, will quoting and sourcing from trans-written books like Trans* by Jack Halberstam or other works of authority on trans people be what Wikipedia is looking for? I really hope that this page becomes something useful to other trans guys and I can help build it into the page it needs to be! -Many thanks for your assistance, Vulture (my pseud) Transandrosupport (talk) 16:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:15:47, 26 July 2021 review of submission by Shelbyhoward423

[edit]


Shelbyhoward423 (talk) 16:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC) Hi![reply]

Can you give me more info on the sources? The ones I listed seem to be reliable. Is it because the sources I provided just mention the topics and don't give all the information?

Shelbyhoward423 (talk) 16:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shelbyhoward423 Yes, that is essentially correct. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the subject, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability. Brief mentions or sources with only basic information do not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 16:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:50:41, 26 July 2021 review of submission by Adamtb24

[edit]

Hello, I was wondering what additional measures need to be taken with this article in order to meet the requirement of notability before its ready for publication. The film comes out in a month and Netflix has been promoting it heavily and yet the article still is in the draft stage. I've added a bit more information to make it suitable for publication and I'll also gladly add the film's poster when the page is live. Is there anything else needed for this article? Thank you!

Adamtb24 (talk) 16:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:14:39, 26 July 2021 review of submission by Ojdo

[edit]


The first review concluded that the references were insufficient to reach notability. I agree that the topic is quite niche, but the software under question is (arguably, but hardly verifiably) in more use than several (older) entries in the List of discrete event simulation software, which was my original motivation to create this article. With today's edits, I hope I could at least establish notability above the bar set by SimPy and SIM.JS. Do you think I could hit "Resubmit" with this change?

19:17:56, 26 July 2021 review of draft by Segunoloye

[edit]


Hi,

I want to request for a fair and objective review of my article Draft:Crystabel Goddy

The article was been reviewed by Theroadislong since march this year and what he told me to do was done. I removed the references he condemned and went to get three more including one from Wikipedia here and Amazon. He then told me Amazon reference is not allowed and that I should remove it which I did. I thereafter expected him to approve my article only for him to backout and stopped reviewing and then passed the review to someone else. A third person joined and told me to reference the filmography or remove unsourced one. I think that's quite unfair.

If you look at this already approved article, Rogers Ofime It also has filmography, infact it was what I used as a sample to create mine just to make sure I get approved. None of the films in the filmography is referenced and yet it was approved. But they are asking me to reference my filmography.

It is based on this I'm asking for a very fair and objective review of my article.

I will really appreciate that.

Thank you, Segun. Segunoloye (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Segunoloye I've fixed your links to be proper internal links, instead of being formatted as citations; the URL is unnecessary. Regarding your question, that another article exists does not mean that it was approved by anyone. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible to get inappropriate articles by us. It is not required to use this process to create an article (unless you have a conflict of interest), although it's a good idea.
A Wikipedia article must not merely tell about someone. It must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person or a notable actress. You also need sources to establish her filmography as none of the works she has been in seem to have Wikipedia articles themselves. 331dot (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Segunoloye:To expand on what 331dot says above in re approval of other articles, the drafting process was not made mandatory until 2018, and before that didn't actually exist in any practical form before 2011. In this case, while it was started in draft, it was moved to articlespace by its creator without going thru any sort of review process, and even today the article has serious issues (primarily drastic under-sourcing) that would have resulted in summary declines at review. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:25:10, 26 July 2021 review of submission by Sociality.im

[edit]


Hi there , can you please remove the area that seems to be part of ads ?

Sociality.im (talk) 20:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the entire draft. Disclose and change your username to something that represents you personally to avoid being blocked. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:48:26, 26 July 2021 review of submission by BaileighD

[edit]

Hi! I added what you said to add, and I didn't realize reliable sources that talked about products would be considered promotional, so I removed those as well. Please let me know how else I can improve the article to provide information if this is not good enough. I'm new to this and I've read through all the rules, but there are a lot and hard to remember. Thank you for your help. BaileighD (talk) 20:48, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:08:34, 26 July 2021 review of submission by Lilzlulz

[edit]


I don't understand why this isn't acceptable Lilzlulz (talk) 23:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reason was given by the reviewer- the subject does not seem to meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. 331dot (talk) 01:03, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:36:00, 26 July 2021 review of submission by 2001:569:5222:BC00:99C1:90E0:AAE1:6294

[edit]


Hi, I'd gladly appreciate a re-review on the wikipedia page I'm creating for "Matthew Zegar". He has a connection to another Wikipedia page, and I think I've sourced the relationship cleanly enough.

2001:569:5222:BC00:99C1:90E0:AAE1:6294 (talk) 23:36, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 01:01, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2021_July_26&oldid=1036524565"