Help desk
< August 20	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 22 >

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 21

01:23:07, 21 August 2022 review of submission by DinoInNameOnly

DinoInNameOnly (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Hung Cao (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm new to editing Wikipedia so I appreciate people's patience.

I don't understand why this doesn't meet notability guidelines. The three WaPo articles (not counting his op-ed) are definitely reliable sources which are independent of the subject, so I guess the problem is that they don't constitute sufficiently significant coverage. I thought they did because they all make more than a trivial mention of Cao: one is a profile of him, one is an account of a political debate he participated in, and the abortion one mentions him 15 times.

Would adding more news articles from other sources establish notability? For example

DinoInNameOnly (talk) 01:23, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DinoInNameOnly: politicians are usually assumed to be notable if they hold office in a federal or state/provincial government; since this person has not been elected, they will need to meet the general notability guideline instead. The first Washington Post article in the draft is good, but the 2nd, 4th, and 5th references are not independent/significant coverage. Out of the articles you listed here, the AP one is decent (though not super long), the National Review is an interview, and the CNN one only mentions them.

Waiting until the election is over in November is probably the easiest course of action. If they are elected, they will then meet the political notability guideline. Until then, they will need to meet the GNG, so more significant coverage is needed. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 01:42, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DinoInNameOnly, I agree with Ingenuity's assessment. Even though the first Washington Post reference is pretty good, it is based at least in part on an interview, and the congressional district is adjacent to Washington, DC. So, it is essentially local coverage. I would be more impressed if the Los Angeles Times or the Chicago Tribune had published a similar article. He clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN as an unelected candidate, and the coverage of him is as an unelected candidate. If he wins in November, he instantly passes WP:POLITICIAN. Cullen328 (talk) 01:58, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback @Ingenuity and @Cullen328. I will resubmit the draft if he wins or if he gets more significant coverage. DinoInNameOnly (talk) 02:19, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with rejection assesment.

User:NeverTry4Me rejected the draft, Draft:List of islands of Mauritania, with the reason, that the article's topic is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. I disagree: lists of islands of countries are commonplace on wiki. If the list fails WP:LISTN or is poorly sourced, declination, not rejection is the suitable remedy. I don't know how to configure AFCH templates to undo a rejection, which is why I'm posting here. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 18:48, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, the draft was later deleted under violation of a ban. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 04:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:38:57, 21 August 2022 review of submission by Filmforme

Filmforme (talk · contribs)
- Draft:The Playground (2017 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would like to request a re-review of this draft because it has been substantially edited and commented on. I feel a lot of new information is being overlooked due to old comments. Besides being marked early as a promising draft with distribution by Indie Rights,^[1] Richard Propes and Don Shanahan are both Tomatometer-approved critics at Rotten Tomatoes.^[2] They have left full-length reviews on this film and this should qualify the draft being moved to article space as per WP:NFO attribute number 1 "The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." --Filmforme (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "The Playground". Indie Rights.
^ "The Playground Reviews".

The reviewer was aware of the two reviews and still rejected it. 331dot (talk) 20:30, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That’s why I’m here. I’m not so sure they know, so I am here to make a case why it should be reconsidered. The rejection could be based on the number of declines it previously had, as they didn’t mention the reviews. While the reviews were previously cited, only one was listed on Rotten Tomatoes until last month. Now that two of them are, I would like to know why this doesn’t matter or if the attribute I mentioned makes a case for it. — Filmforme (talk) 21:53, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:34:09, 21 August 2022 review of draft by 38.19.173.54

38.19.173.54 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Roger P. Williams (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, how do I cite a newspaper article from a newspaper that does not exist anymore but which has been cataloged online at New York State historic newspapers?

I thought it would be: "Arcara Taps First Assistant". Buffalo Courier Express. 14 March 1981. Retrieved 2022-07-04. {{cite news}}: Check |url= value (help) 38.19.173.54 (talk) 20:34, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You would omit the |url= parametre. We do not require sources to be accessible online. That said, we also need the byline (last, first) and the pages the article's on. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 20:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:55:25, 21 August 2022 review of draft by Thmspausch

Thmspausch (talk · contribs)
- Draft:John Neoptolemos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My draft of an article about the living person "John Neoptolemos" was rejected three times 01-06/2022 and reviews might not have noticed edits/ comments conducted in between:

1 - Particularly, the article is fully packed with serious references but is still marked as "not adequately supported by reliable sources". The majority of references are scientific publications, because these are reliable proof of the article's subject's actions who is a scientist. There are no more or better online references to be found. From my point of view the article comprises more accurate and more reliable references than the majority of comparable articles. 2 - The draft is still marked with the annotation "This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments". I added the COI statement to the article's talk page on March 11th, 2022 "no UPE editing, no professional nor personal dependencies between contributor and article's subject". 3 - Additionally, the annotation still states "may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view" after several revisions to achieve neutral point of view.

Please help me with these 3 issues to either refine referencing and wording or conduct content cutbacks. Thank you very much!!!

Thmspausch (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Thmspausch: A few comments. The article was not rejected. That means something different on Wikipedia. A rejection is permanent. It was declined, but still has potential to be accepted. I haven't dug deeply into the sources, but in general, I agree with the feedback given by others. When you put in lots of papers and other sources, it makes it harder for the reviewers to review. You usually don't need more than one source for each sentence. And you shouldn't use the subject's own papers to source something. Yes - it shows the person wrote about something, but doesn't make the work notable. Showing how often something is cited is more what you want. And I'm not sure why there are numerous papers listed as sources that don't have his name as an author. Cites #36, 37, 39, 40, etc. It only makes the review harder. And I'd list only the most notable papers and publications, based on cite count. If I were you, I'd save the text, and then remove 90% of the works, and see if you can start this with no more than 20 sources, and only the best ones. Try to include things written about him as much as things he wrote himself. You can always add more, but you want this to be approved first. TechnoTalk (talk) 00:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Thmspausch: the not adequately supported by reliable sources message can also mean, as is the case here, that although you have 100+ (!) cites, there is information which remains unreferenced, such as the educational and personal details (eg. DOB). You don't get a free ride after you've added a large number of sources — even then, every material statement as well as anything of private or contentious nature must be supported by direct inline citations. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 04:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advices and instructions! I'll try to follow them and resubmit. Thmspausch (talk) 05:47, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Thmspausch As mentioned in a decline note, "There needs to be independent sources, like news articles on the subject, not just their work". In case this is not clear, most references should be material about the subject, not writings by the subject. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 11:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advices.

The point is that most of the actions of the subject are (sometimes indirectly) testified by scientific publications, i.e. referencing of an expert guideline shows the affiliation of the subject at a certain timepoint rather than showing of with the scientific impact. And from my point of view this is more reliable and more independent than the subject's name in a newpaper article. And unfortunately the subject's worklife is older than the internet, thus there are only few reports about in everyday's online press releases. I have searched a lot! If these points don't convince in terms of reliability and independence, I will do a lot of cutbacks, until the trunc of the article covered by a few news articles is legt. Thmspausch (talk) 12:31, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Thmspausch Well, to be honest, you can have that view, but it's not what gets an article into Wikipedia. WP needs in-depth coverage of the person, written by other people, not just their name in a newspaper article. Sources that predate the Internet are fine; you can cite published books, magazine articles, etc. even if they are not online -- just use the appropriate citation template. Good luck. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 01:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your advices. I will do what is needed and get the article appropriate. Thanks! Thmspausch (talk) 05:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "The Playground". Indie Rights.

[2] "The Playground Reviews".

[1]

[2]