Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 November 18
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < November 17 | << Oct | November | Dec >> | November 19 > |
| 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 18
[edit]00:28:50, 18 November 2021 review of submission by TaniaWalker
[edit]- TaniaWalker (talk · contribs)
Hi all! I just spent three days working to get this article perfect and it was declined in what felt like three minutes, oof. I'd love some guidance as to how to get it across the line! The reason for rejection was that the sources don't show significant mentions in reliable secondary sources, yet my secondary sources included Apple's WWDC coverage (this app was covered in two seperate talks to an audience of 22 million), along with references from LEGO, the European Space Agency, TechCrunch, Gizmodo, and multiple other platforms and outlets which themselves have Wikipedia pages (eg CGTrader) - which would surely makes them notable sources in Wikipedia's eyes, as they have to be notable by Wikipedia's own definition to receive an entry here.
Totally happy to make any/all changes needed, but I would love it if someone can take a look for me and help me figure out where I've gone wrong - this is only my third article, and I could really benefit from your experience.
Thank you.
TaniaWalker (talk) 00:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- TaniaWalker The issue is not the sources themselves, but their content. As noted by the reviewer, the sources you provided are mostly inappropriate, for a variety of reasons. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about something and what it does- a Wikipedia article summarizes independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the topic. Some sources do not mention Qlone at all, and others only briefly or only cite specific pieces of information. These are not significant, in depth coverage that goes beyond merely telling us of the existence of this app and what it does. Please review Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 08:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
06:30:58, 18 November 2021 review of submission by Postreaders
[edit]- Postreaders (talk · contribs)
Hello, kindly please advise me why the page is not eligible to be included in Wikipedia and what can be done or added to the page for inclusion.
Thank You so much. Postreaders (talk) 06:30, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- Postreaders Your draft is almost completely unsourced, and the only source you do provide is a blog, which is not a reliable source. Nothing can be done about this, as the draft was rejected, this means it will not be considered further. No amount of editing can confer notability on someone. Please review Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 08:30, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
10:28:19, 18 November 2021 review of submission by Line Redline
[edit]- Line Redline (talk · contribs)
Hi! I just received feedback on the Susan Phoenix article. I can definitely understand why it has been declined. However, I am wondering how I should write it. How do you describe someone´s life story without appearing to ´full of yourself´. I want to describe what she has gone trough, what she has achieved, I want to describe her route to writing several best-selling books. However, how do I do that without being brag. I am not asking for a re-review, I just want to receive some advice of how it should be done properly.
Thanks in advance
Line Redline (talk) 10:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- A Wikipedia article about a person must summarise what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about them, showing how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. Theroadislong (talk) 10:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
11:53:53, 18 November 2021 review of draft by Adelaidesean
[edit]- Adelaidesean (talk · contribs)
Trying to build this page using external sources. Please help/advise.
Adelaidesean (talk) 11:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- You might find this essay of some help. It is one of canyon article creation FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 12:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
12:53:38, 18 November 2021 review of submission by TheSachuHopes
[edit]
TheSachuHopes (talk) 12:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- Your draft was rejected, it will not be considered further, the topic already exists on Wikipedia here Malayalam calendar. Theroadislong (talk) 12:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
14:57:36, 18 November 2021 review of submission by Daisy23194
[edit]- Daisy23194 (talk · contribs)
Hi Editors, I submitted a draft article and was informed this morning that the article did not have enough reliable sources. There are over 20 sources of news and scientific publications, so I'm wondering what other types of publications I should include in the references and also any advice on what specific additional text in the draft article should be referenced? Thanks so much for your guidance! Daisy23194 (talk) 14:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Daisy23194 There are banners in the xdrfat highlighting the shortfall. Under no circumstances, please, confuse quantity with quality. One excellent reference for a fact is all that is required.
- For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
- Since the subject is an academic, be cautious about using his own works as a reference. They can be, but the set is restricted. Let me try to explain. If they manufactured vacuum cleaners, the cleaners would be their work. A vacuum cleaner could not be a reference for them, simply because it is the product they make. So it is with research, writings, etc. However, a review of their work by others tends to be a review of them and their methods, so is a reference, as is a peer reviewed paper a reference for their work. You may find WP:ACADEME of some use in seeing how Wikipedia and Academe differ hugely FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 21:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Bridgit draft
[edit]Please check Draft:Bridgit (company). It has been nomimated for the speedy deletion after a massive rewrite that follows comments from two experienced Wikipedia editors. The draft has not been submitted for the second review and I am still working on it. This article is a properly stated WP:COI contribution. The company itself has a WP:SIGCOV at the leading Canadian news sources such as The Globe and Mail, which is the most popular national newspaper. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- It started as WP:ADMASQ and WP:BOMBARD. At 19 references for five paragraphs others must judge whether it is still BOMBARD. I still see ADMASQ and concur with the CSD as an advert.
- The poster and creating editor is a correctly declared paid editor. I view paid editors as people who must know our standards correctly and who should be capable of writing drafts that are acceptable immediately. I really don't see the need to offer them advice or more than general assistance. YMMV. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 20:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC)