Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 June 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< June 13 << May | June | Jul >> June 15 >
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.


June 14

[edit]

Request on 00:52:33, 14 June 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Rubin8

[edit]


I am confused about what is wrong with my article. I used footnotes, yet the reviewer says I need to use footnotes. What needs to be fixed?

Rubin8 (talk) 00:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rubin8 I have left a full comment on your draft. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 10:33, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

03:13:53, 14 June 2021 review of draft by Pha telegrapher

[edit]


Pha telegrapher (talk) 03:13, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pha telegrapher this was not the most helpful decline rationale I have seen. I have left a full comment on your draft. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 10:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:25:25, 14 June 2021 review of draft by Heike Knip

[edit]


Hi, I would like to go through the article with someone more experienced, as want to make sure this time everything is okay (still need to link before being published to several wiki pages). But would like to have some more feedback, as would like to get this published soon.

Last 2 weeks I have checked all sources I could find, as well as made tweaks to the wording to sound less promotional. Main reason behind adding this page, is that he made or produced several good documentaries but when I was looking this up couldn't find too much information about him. As do like doing some looking up about people.

Heike Knip (talk) 09:25, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Heike Knip I have left you a full comment on the draft. Unless you can find useful references this is a lost cause FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 10:26, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:52:24, 14 June 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Heike Knip

[edit]


A question, as I know this could be an issue with the guidelines. So before I even start with creating a page, is it okay to create a page of a charity that I am also a trustee of.

As I think a Wikipedia page would help people to find the charity earlier, as well creating more awareness. But do understand this could be a conflict of interest but in my opinion, writing about the charity ourselves would be a good way. The Charity is called CDKL5 UK.

Asking this as another page project I am doing for fun, which involved updating a couple of others to bring them inline is having issues because of references. Would like to avoid this.

Heike Knip (talk) 11:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Heike Knip please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and proceed accordingly. Then read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 11:58, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:15:34, 14 June 2021 review of submission by 2001:569:BC83:3000:3409:CBD6:E00A:CFC3

[edit]

Have submitted more reliable sources press of this artist. As Wikipedia description if an artist is signed with major label with 3 albums then Will be sufficient qualified for creating Wikipedia page. I’ve also checked other artist Wikipedia some of them even were not signed with a major label no press mostly just promotional content. Even on Spotify or Apple Music, YouTube these platforms can also proof this rockin rose artist is signed with major label believe music and been officially distributed 3 albums. I see other artists wiki page also put Spotify and Apple music links for cites and references. 2001:569:BC83:3000:3409:CBD6:E00A:CFC3 (talk) 14:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a single source in your draft that is independent, they are all press-releases, social media or otherwise not actually coverage. PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:20, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:49:29, 14 June 2021 review of submission by Bderigbemi

[edit]


Hello, could you please delete this article for me, I have written another one that is better supported by reliable sources and mods are saying it's a duplicate of this one, please check the article here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bderigbemi/Michael_owhoko

Bderigbemi (talk) 14:49, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bderigbemi deletion request made ion your behalf FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 15:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:27:41, 14 June 2021 review of submission by Jaciru10

[edit]


Jaciru10 (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jaciru10 You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 15:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:24:09, 14 June 2021 review of draft by Tuctboh

[edit]


Tuctboh (talk) 16:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering if there is anything I can do to speed along the review of this page.... We've been trying to get it in for months and months. :)

Tnx, Tuc Tuctboh (talk) 16:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tuctboh Please define "We".
See Wikipedia:NODEADLINE
I have left a comment on the draft. I smell Wikipedia:Coatrack articles
It will be reviewed in due course. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 16:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]


@Timtrent Sorry, that was more of a "Royal We". I'm just a co-worker to the person that submitted it and he calls it out every few weeks in his status and I was hoping maybe if I poked my head in that I might find out whats happening and see if there is a way to "fast track" it. (I've seen services claim you can pay them to get it through faster, I wasn't sure if they just used a way in Wikipedia to donate to get it into a different queue, or what... Anyway, just trying to help out someone incase they didn't realize there was something they could do. (I did ask if they added tags first). And I understand there are no deadlines for acceptance, just wondered if we...HE..HE got missed in the queue or some update didn't happen. I don't believe they're trying to coatrack, but thats for you folks to determine. Not sure what the rack would be in this case. I'm familiar with the coat though. Ok, thanks for the help, and again, just trying to help a friend out. Tuctboh (talk) 17:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A "co-worker" suggests that you both might have a conflict of interest, please be sure to declare any connections to the topic. Theroadislong (talk) 17:35, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tuctboh There is no queue per se. Instead there is a pool where volunteers review drafts they feel competent to review, but in no particular order. It's an amorphous blob.
The services that allege that can get things done faster are usually scamming for money and usually get blocked quickly, and quite likely their work deleted. Paid editors are tolerated. WP:PAID will tell you the rules. I and pretty much everyone else will counsel you to avoid that route. Many of our volunteers are highly skilled in search and destroy operations against such people.
Drafts are accepted purely on their merits. A draft that is suitable will be accepted, pretty much on sight. Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles.
WP:COI is always construed very broadly. Editors are taken on trust unless and until it proves unwise too continue to do that.
Collaboration to create a draft or article is somewhat different from collaborating to hasten the acceptance or or to prevent the deletion of drafts or articles. You need to look at Wikipedia:Meatpuppet for more information.
Wikipedia is very jealously guarded by a very broad set of editors, pretty much by all of us, and I think you can see why. Thank you for your transparency, because it is appreciated. Straightforward and transparent behaviour always wins the day here.
Now, the draft: I think I've already commented at the draft itself. It needs work. It may or may not be notable. Proving it to be notable is up to those who edit it. Prove it and it will be accepted. Fail to prove it and it will not. Draft submission is not like a fire and forget missile. Nothing prevents further work. If we accept it when it is not in a valid state, and if it is then deleted, it becomes an uphill battle to create a new one, because it was deleted. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 19:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tuctboh Well, that was bizarre. The creating editor seems to have blanked it and it is now gone. Do you have any thoughts on that, please? FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 20:44, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong - Not understanding how there is a "conflict of interest". He's putting up an article about a word as it relates to software, not to machining. Akin to - https://www.quora.com/Wha-is-the-role-of-a-production-engineer-in-software-company and https://medium.com/@ashnashahgrover777/production-engineering-versus-software-engineering-5ea0c67e6899 . If there are articles out there trying to define it, it should be in Wikipedia as the ultimate place to understand what it is. :) How is this a conflict of interest? Its not like its a trademarked or company specific name. He's just trying to explain it in a central place. Tuctboh (talk) 18:44, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, colluding with others off Wikipedia to get articles reviewed is rather frowned upon. Wikipedia is not a venue like Quora for explaining things either. Theroadislong (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong / @Timtrent - I came here with the best of intent, just trying to see if maybe there was something that the article needed to make it through and finally be something the person could mark off their list, and it looks like its blown way up, multiple editors accusing me of things and the original editor dressing me down for 15 minutes and planning on just blanking the page. What started out as "do no harm" ended up in 2 editors taking the wrong impression of what I'm doing and potentially giving the page a bad review, the original editor heartbroken and giving up, and me going from trying to help to really screwing things up royally. Definitely not my intention, and I apologize.

I had interpreted that there were ways to get eyes on a review faster, given all the web searching I did and finding places that could do it. I know sometimes people advertise that they'll take $50 for something they turn around and just submit somewhere for $10 and profit the $40. I thought that directly asking would tell me if I missed something, if it was an option, or just a "you're in there, just wait". There was no way I wanted to start whats happened since.

I've read and now understand about Wikipedia:Coatrack articles, and it wasn't the authors original intention. He's spent many hours that he now feels wasted trying to create an acceptable article on a subject that has only so many references. If he moved away from the original subject, it was not intentional or desired.

As for the "co-worker", I do not believe there was any attempt on my part to meatpuppet. I didn't edit the article, I did nothing except see that it was still unreviewed, and wanted to see what might be done to poke it along. I had no intention to meatpuppet and if thats how it came across I'm truly sorry. I came here because I wanted to see his article get accepted, and wondered if there were any blockers he wasn't aware of... And yes... if someone told me I could donate $50 to get it into the "fast lane" for review, I would have gladly paid it out of my own pocket. I wasn't trying to force it to be reviewed, I wasn't trying to "gang up" on anyone, I felt I asked a simple question and expected "Hey, you forgot tags" or something else. Not the kerfuffle thats ensued. The original author was so happy and proud and waiting for it to be done, and now just wants to blank things out.

COI - Again, while you feel its a conflict of interest (I disagree), I don't see how other articles aren't even more considered a COI. If you look at the article on Site_reliability_engineering THAT clearly seems like it was written by someone at Google, references almost SOLELY Google but yet has no COI header on it. If his article happens to mention a company, but the references aren't completely for that company, how is that being called out for supposed COI and the Google SRE one isn't?

Colluding - Yea, I realize this isn't Quora. And there was no collusion. He didn't ask me to, I took it upon my self, which ended up no only working out poorly for me, but for him and the article too. After talking to him, I was told if I talked to him before I did this he would have forbidden me from doing ANYTHING. Apparently I got hit by the "Second Rule" of - "The Second Rule is that the greatest harm can result from the best intentions. It sounds a paradox, but kindness and good intentions can be an insidious path to destruction. Sometimes doing what seems right is wrong, and can cause harm. The only counter to it is knowledge, wisdom, forethought, and understanding the First Rule. Even then, that is not always enough.". That wasn't my intentions.

Draft - Not sure if the original author will change his mind or not, but the damage all around has been done and I'm truly sorry to everyone for that. Absolutely not my intention, but looks like my innocent intent actions had a huge blast radius. I appreciate all the correspondence and pointers, but I think that given whats happened, he probably won't be continuing because he's been "labeled" (COIer/provoker of meatpuppets, coatracker, etc) and its tough to shake that.

At this point, its just a fine mess I've gotten this into.

Tuctboh (talk) 21:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tuctboh to be fair, nothing has happened because of your actions nor, really, of theirs. Questions have been asked of each of you in good faith and answered in good faith. You have given a transparent answer to the questions asked of you and been given in return perhaps more information than you expected.
Site reliability engineering is an article now that others will look at with a view to considering whether it should go or stay. That is a positive outcome. There are many articles that do not deserve to be here. That may be one of them.
I'm sorry that your co-worker is angry at you. No good deed goes unpunished. You tried something perfectly reasonable and met Wikipedia and the reaction of Wikipedians. I'm afraid it was your use of the first person plural that created the interest.
The original author has a question in their talk page to respond to. We accept a firm declaration one way or the other. We use good faith. Wee Wikipedia:Assume good faith. They did declare an ordinary COI on their user page originally, and chose to remove that. If they wish for the deleted draft to be refunded to them all they have to do is to ask for it. If you wish to work with them to edit the draft you may do that with or without their permission (though I suggest with in the circumstances you describe!)
You and they need to understand, as do we all, that Wikipedia is used by some for advertising purposes. This means that we guard it fiercely. However, and this is important, we insist on trusting editors' answers to direct questions unless and until their actions show us that it was unwise to do so. That is as true of my edits as yours, theirs, or anyone else's. We work on trust - good faith.
The now deleted draft? All that needs, needed, was work to correct the issues concerned. Article creation is one of the hardest tasks on Wikipedia. Essays such as this one give advice based on successes and failures. The hardest part is understanding referencing. The second hardest part is standing far enough back from a topic one has an intimate knowledge of, and working only to record what is in the references, not what is in one's personal knowledge bank.
If your co-worker is interested in pursuing the draft I am happy to advise them. I have no subject knowledge, but I understand Wikipedia. This is a difficult place to edit. If one can write for Wikipedia one can write for anywhere. Experienced editors here are more than happy to guide new editors. We want new editors, and we want new articles. My first piece of advice will almost always be to read that essay. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 06:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:57:10, 14 June 2021 review of draft by Sirotcra2016 (talk) 17:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

[edit]


Hi, my draft article was recently rejected and the reviewer has mentioned that the article had “too many unreferenced claims and that every statement needs to be supported by a reliable source.”

I have rewritten the article to remove any statements that weren’t corroborated by reliable sources and added new sources to any remaining claim. I believe that all claims are now fully backed up by one of the 16 sources. Please let me know if you have any additional comments or feedback for the article.

I’m happy to revise it to meet the Wikipedia standards.

Thanks! Best wishes, Sirotcra2016 (talk) 17:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sirotcra2016: From a quick view it looks good - with one exception: Crunchbase is not considered a reliable source here. Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2021_June_14&oldid=1046141853"