Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 December 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< December 2 << Nov | December | Jan >> December 4 >
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.


December 3

[edit]

02:58:20, 3 December 2022 review of draft by Xin505324545

[edit]


Xin505324545 (talk) 02:58, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear managers of Wikipedia:

I have revised the draft accordingly. For example, several references from [34] to [40] and [2] were included as publications or references from other places (i.e., Taylor & Francis Group and ASCE) not connected to IABMAS. It would be highly appreciated if this article International Association for Bridge Maintenance and Safety could be accepted. Thank you very much for your consideration in advance!

@Xin505324545: Anything IABMAS writes or otherwise directly controls the content of cannot be used to determine notability as Wikipedia defines it by dint of not being independent of the organisation. The references you list here are all to online storefronts, which we do not cite (and shouldn't be linking to in the first place). You cite books with {{cite book}} though I will note that if IABMAS or its higher-ups had any say in those books' content we wouldn't be able to use them as a source. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 16:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

05:15:08, 3 December 2022 review of submission by EmuFan

[edit]


EmuFan (talk) 05:15, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Ryujinx wiki submission was rejected, quickly, by the same person who rejected it three previous occasions, this time for the following reasons: "A search did not bring any new significant coverage to light, and the added sources are trivial or unreliable. Ryujinx is pretty clearly not a notable piece of software that was written about at length. See also WP:NOTCHANGELOG for why an article should not be just a list of software updates." Since the last request for approval, significant notability was added. Zxcvbnm's assertion that the article resembles a changelog is unfounded and indicates that this user did not actually read the entirety of the submission. After looking at the previous history of this article with ‪Zxcvbnm, I am convinced that the article is not receiving a fair shake. Ryujinx is already listed as one of "the most well known" Nintendo system emulators on Nintendo Switch emulation and has additionally been covered by the major publications PC Gamer, Kotaku, and Linus Tech Tips (mentioned in both that wiki article and in the Ryujinx submission). These are not "trivial or unreliable" sources. Looking at other console emulator Wiki articles that exist already, the layout and notability of the Ryujinx submission are similar.

Can we get a approval review from someone else?

EmuFan Who is "we"? Please read other stuff exists. Each article or draft is considered on its own merits- perhaps other articles about emulators are also inappropriate, and simply have not been addressed yet. We can only address what we know about. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those classified as good articles, which have been vetted by the community.
Looking at some of the sources, they are
  1. a description of the emulator and its features
  2. a forum post, which is not a reliable source that had fact checking and editorial control
  3. information about game compatibility
  4. the same source
  5. the emulator's website where it can be downloaded, not independent
  6. also the emulator's website
  7. a piece about the development of the Nintendo Switch, which doesn't mention the emulator at all
  8. a blog from the emulator's website, not independent and not reliable
  9. a piece about the release of the emulator, a routine activity
  10. is in Spanish so I cannot evaulate it
  11. appears to be a blog/online discussion, not a reliable source
  12. describes progress on making a game available on the emulator, a routine activity
  13. another piece about making a game compatible with the emulator
  14. the same
  15. describing the release of a preview build on the emulator, not independent
I could keep going but most of the sources do not discuss the significance or influence of the emulator itself, they mostly talk about games being made available for it, or other technical aspects. I believe that the rejection was correct. 331dot (talk) 10:17, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"We" are the various contributors who, over the last several years, have been clearly wasting our time attempting to get a Ryujinx Wiki article published.
By your explanation/definition, all of the existing Wikipedia articles on console emulators should be removed; the notability citations on the Ryujinx article are equal to or surpass the lot. This is how emulators are written about in the media. If upper tier publications writing specifically about how a AAA game title that will sell millions of copies is being emulated for the first time, by a specific emulator, is not enough to satisfy notability standards, then nothing will.
Again, if this article is not suitable for publishing, then the rest of the console emulator articles should be removed ASAP. Otherwise, this is a wholly unfair rejection. EmuFan (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@EmuFan: the point was already made that you shouldn't compare this draft to existing articles, as that is not how notability is determined. If you feel there are articles that don't meet the notability and/or other guidelines, feel free to either improve them or propose them for deletion. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my responsibility to clean up the mess you've all made with the unequal application of notability standards. Plus it looks like someone already tried to have some of those articles removed at some point and they were inexplicably left published.
If you're denying new articles based on standards that aren't being applied elsewhere, it's an unfair hurdle to entry and simply lowers the quality of the platform. I have no interest in wasting my time with such nonsense. EmuFan (talk) 11:47, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
EmuFan This is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can. Until we get paid to be here, things will appear to be unequal. As noted, your help in removing inappropriate articles would be welcome, as we can only address what we know about. You may very well be correct that most or all articles on emulators should be removed if they lack appropriate sources. It is true that some subject areas are underserved because reliable sources do not write about them as Wikipedia requires, but our standards are what they are. I'm sorry that you feel as you do. 331dot (talk) 12:01, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "If upper tier publications writing specifically about how a AAA game title that will sell millions of copies is being emulated for the first time, by a specific emulator, is not enough to satisfy notability standards, then nothing will.", frankly, yes. That's not what we are looking for, because that is not significant coverage of the emulator itself, that's coverage of products that already exist being made available in another format, that doesn't tell us what is significant of the emulator itself. All emulators exist to play games. That's not significant coverage. 331dot (talk) 12:06, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Someone else can deal with it. If the articles were already challenged and left up, it's just a sign that there are much bigger problems with supposed notability standards. EmuFan (talk) 12:42, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:40:33, 3 December 2022 review of submission by Rivkaorlitova

[edit]

The draft got declined and there was some comment - I did not understand the comment and do not know how to improve the draft. How do I improve the draft? Rivkaorlitova (talk) 12:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You need to find independent sources the sources you have presently are not reliable or independent. Theroadislong (talk) 12:47, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rivkaorlitova In case it's not clear, the phrases in blue are clickable links with specific information on Wikipedia's requirements. This applies to the original notice, and the comments here by Theroadislong. David10244 (talk) 06:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:19:24, 3 December 2022 review of submission by Ugochu

[edit]

I have adhered to the guidance provided by the last reviewer. I have provided secondary references about the subject work as directed. Please can you provide specific reason/s/feedback has to my submission was rejected. At this point it is unclear why it was rejected/what the criteria is. Ugochu (talk) 14:19, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ugochu Please see the messages left by reviewers on the draft. 331dot (talk) 14:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Maybe I am missing something. Please help. The only message I can find is: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia Most of the secondary sources provided focus on the subject's work. This was done as directed by the last reviewer. It will help me if some specific feedback is provided. Ugochu (talk) 15:07, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Maybe I am missing something. Please help. The only message I can find is: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia Most of the secondary sources provided focus on the subject's work. This was done as directed by the last reviewer. It will help me if some specific feedback is provided. 2A02:C7D:7ACF:7400:A5C6:6946:7A17:3115 (talk) 14:58, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For follow up comments, please edit this existing section, instead of creating additional sections. Also remember to log in before posting. 331dot (talk) 15:08, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The draft has comments by reviewers, between the red boxes and the actual text of the draft. 331dot (talk) 15:09, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I can seen comments and updated draft based on the feedbacks provided. Regarding today's rejection, it is unclear to me what needs to be done. No comments-apart from (This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia). Ugochu (talk) 15:21, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rejection means that resubmission is not possible, and thar there is nothing further you can do to improve the draft. 331dot (talk) 15:28, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ugochu The draft has been rejected, but: if the feedback says that the topic is not sufficiently notable, what you need to do, specifically, is to show that the topic IS sufficiently notable using reliable references. Or else, pick a different topicto writs about -- a topic that you can demonstrate, with reliable references, is notable. In case it's not clear, the phrases in blue are clickable links with specific information on Wikipedia's requirements. Hope this helps. David10244 (talk) 12:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your guidance. I will work on the sourcing. Ugochu (talk) 12:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:02:53, 3 December 2022 review of submission by Baileywoody

[edit]


Hi, I submitted a page to be published on wiki that contains content from a book that my husband and I have just written about Charles DeWolf Brownell. He was my great-great-grandfather, and the book uses source material that passed down from my grandmother to me. Except for two quotes at the end of my wiki application page, all the other wording has come from detailed diaries that Brownell kept during his lifetime or family papers about him. I am unclear as to how to cite my sources in terms of end notes. Should I put superscript in different sections of my wiki entry to refer to our book and say what page/s the information can be found on? I can easily reference the 2 different quote sources at the end. Please advise as to what I need to do to better document my submission.

Baileywoody (talk) 16:02, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Baileywoody A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about a topic, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability. Unless independent sources write about your relative, he would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. Citing your book that is based on private, family material is not acceptable for Wikipedia. If independent sources cite your book, those could be used. 331dot (talk) 16:08, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for getting back to me. We will wait until we can get newpaper articles, etc., about our book, or I can cite different Foot Note/Bibliography resources at end of our book that are relevant to the biographical information I am including. Charles DeWolf Brownell's uncle, Bishop Thomas Church Brownell, and older brother, Henry Howard Brownell, are already included on wiki. I will put our page on hold for the time being. Baileywoody (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:25:26, 3 December 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Lada Ukrainka

[edit]



Lada Ukrainka (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lada Ukrainka You don't ask a question, but your draft is completely unsourced. All articles, especially those about living people, must be sourced to reliable sources. Please read about referencing, and Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 17:28, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:19:22, 3 December 2022 review of submission by UrbanLok

[edit]


UrbanLok (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@UrbanLok: No sources, no article, no debate. What is your connexion to the subject? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:20, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:01:29, 3 December 2022 review of submission by Shahriar1122

[edit]


Hi bro there has been many fake news spreaded by locals here about shahriar, as he is a journalist. so we need the right information in a source where people can beleive. Shahriar1122 (talk) 19:01, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shahriar1222 The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Your draft was more of a social media profile than an encyclopedia article that summarizes independent reliable sources. Wikipedia should not be blindly trusted, please see the general disclaimer. Readers should check sources and verify the information presented. 331dot (talk) 19:12, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:23:42, 3 December 2022 review of submission by Ldsutton

[edit]


How do I convert/move my sandbox page to an article? Ldsutton (talk) 20:23, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ldsutton Your edit history shows no edits to your sandbox, but you did create Draft:Richard Francis Sullivan. You may submit it for a review by clicking the blue "Submit the draft for review!" button. 331dot (talk) 20:30, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2022_December_3&oldid=1126570974"