Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 February 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< February 6 << Jan | February | Mar >> February 8 >
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.


February 7

[edit]

08:41:12, 7 February 2022 review of draft by Heerajaat

[edit]


Heerajaat (talk) 08:41, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has no sources, independent sources are what we base articles on. 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 topic. Theroadislong (talk) 09:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:07:52, 7 February 2022 review of submission by Jacobariel91

[edit]


Jacobariel91 (talk) 11:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Promotional language has been even further removed (Jacobariel91 (talk) 11:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Jacobariel91 The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 11:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
331dot The draft was rejected based on false accusations on my account and inadequate explanation as to how the text is promotional. There are sufficient sources to the article text, and guidelines were followed to update the article according to the previous comments. It is imperative that Wikipedia maintain consistent standard across its review of articles, as there have been other articles under the same area of the draft article that have been published that are far more promotional (see WiTricity). Articles should not be rejected based on unfounded claims against the submitter (i.e. that I have an COI) and where there is a claim of promotional language even though reviewers have failed to provide examples of such. This article must therefore be re-reviewed in accordance with Wikipedia's policies as it meets the reasons for content creation. I will need to raise the reasons for rejection to Wikipedia's Administrators to ensure you and other accounts are following consistent standards across your reviews (Jacobariel91 (talk) 11:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC))[reply]
Jacobariel91 I am an administrator. I think that you misunderstand some things about Wikipedia; adminstrators have no more authority than any other editor, they just have extra buttons. Furthermore Wikipedia is a global project with tens of thousands of volunteers from around the world. We do our best to be consistent, but as with any large organization differences can creep in. However, I don't think that is the case here.
If you are not paid, okay. If you have no conflict of interest, okay- though aggressive editing about a topic often indicates a stronger investment in it than mere personal interest. It is still possible to edit promotionally without having a COI. This is often the case with enthusiastic supporters of a particular topic, as you have stated you are. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell the world about a topic. If you are more interested in telling the world about your particular topic(EVs) you will have a tough time here as we are interested in primarily summarizing what independent reliable sources with significant coverage state about topics that meet the special Wikipedia definition of notability- in this case, the definition of a notable organization. All of the sources you offer seem to be the mere reporting of the business' activities, which does not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 11:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
331dot Unfortunately, you are mistaken - all of the sources cited in the draft article are form independent sources researching the company's operations, cost, technology, and impacts. Trafikverket, Bloomberg, TRL, TASE, Green Car Reports are all independent agencies form the company and have significantly covered the topic of the draft article, as it is publicly operating company. In fact, the recent rejection of the draft had nothing to do about the sources, per the reviewer comments, but with "promotional" text, which itself was failed to be pointed out with specific examples. It is important that you understand the content you are reviewing or else you will not be able to make a fair assessment on the independent coverage of an article if you are not aware of the sources reputability and purpose of coverage. It is also important that Wikipedia administrators do not raise false COI reports about my account (as CNMall41 did) - reports which are baseless and unfounded and inaccurate. Further, EV's are not just "my topic" - they are millions of persons' topics and there is a growing need for access to information about electric vehicles and charging station companies, but you are failing to live up to Wikipedia's purpose of enabling access to information with significant presence and coverage (i.e. Electreon) due to your ignorance about the topic, sources, and inability to provide adequate feedback on promotional text. (Jacobariel91 (talk) 11:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC))[reply]
Jacobariel91 Wikipedia's purpose is very much not "enabling access to information". That purpose is what blogs, social media, and personal websites are for. As I said, it is summarizing independent reliable sources with significant coverage. Your sources are press release type stories or announcements of routine business activities. Please tell what the three best sources you have are. 331dot (talk) 11:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
331dot Please do not quote out of context for your own convivence - the full sentence I wrote is "enabling access to information **with significant presence and coverage**." This is indeed Wikipedia's purpose. Please advise how other company's similar to the draft article in question are "significant" for coverage (i.e. WiTricity), but this submission is not. Further, you cannot keep changing your reasons for rejecting the article - first its too much promotional text, then it is because the article is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia even though the reviewer themselves noted the topic was notable (exact quote: "While the company is notable IMO, the writing here looks like a white paper talking up the company in a promotional way."), and then it is because there is not significant coverage/sources? Again, like your reviewing practices for publishing articles, you are being inconsistent. *This* is contrary to the goal of Wikipedia in order to be neutral and consistent. Some examples of main sources include:

1. Trafikverket (Swedish Transport Administration) - Swedish research report on EV charging technologies, including Electreon (was reviewed with translator for citing purposes): http://trafikverket.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1524344/ATTACHMENT01.pdf 2. TRL research institute report of electric road charging technologies including assessment on Electreon's technology and projections of capabilities: https://trl.co.uk/sites/default/files/PIARC%20ERS%20Academy%20Report%20PPR875_Final%20Version.pdf Archived 2020-08-03 at the Wayback Machine 3. New York Times report article on EV charging technologies (not a press release, these are an entirely different format and emanate form the company itself): https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/07/business/energy-environment/electric-roads-cars-israel-sweden.html 4. EDN independent engineering research platform focused on electrical engineering technology and electronics: https://www.edn.com/power-transfer-for-wireless-charging-in-electric-vehicles/

These are just a few examples - they are not released from the company itself; they are not press releases; they are not marketing distributions from Electreon or paid promotions. Please do not make statements just for the sake of saying them without adequate justifications to your claims. (Jacobariel91 (talk) 12:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Jacobariel91 Please read other stuff exists Each draft or article is judged on its own merits. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible to get inappropriate content by us. We can only address what we know about.
I cannot read Swedish, but the link you provided is only a single page and does not have the company name on it. The UK government link you provided gives me an error message. The NY Times piece might be okay, but I cannot examine it due to a paywall(it's fine that it is paywalled, just I can't read it). The final source you provide only briefly mentions the company. 331dot (talk) 12:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
331dot Apologies, this is the correct link for the Swedish Transport Agency Report (http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1524344/FULLTEXT01.pdf) - it is not one page, and it was reviewed with a translator - the table on page 59 reviews Electreon's technology and associated costs. This is the correct link for the second source (it is a large report, takes time to load: https://web.archive.org/web/20200803034309/https://trl.co.uk/sites/default/files/PIARC%20ERS%20Academy%20Report%20PPR875_Final%20Version.pdf. EDN is an example of an independent platform, which you asked to see sources for, it is just one of many sources used for the draft article. If you want more independent sources on the company with more significant coverage, which I had included in the draft text originally, here you go, there is reports from CNN, Bloomberg, Forbes and others which are **not** press releases or reports emanating form the company:

Bloomberg: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-06/israel-s-electreon-charges-electric-car-batteries-on-the-go CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/01/business/detroit-charging-road/index.html Wall Street Journal: https://www.wsj.com/articles/these-companies-want-to-charge-your-electric-vehicle-as-you-drive-11610965800

I have addressed your original request, and you have yet to provide me sufficient reasons based non the above justifications and sources as to why this article remains rejected. Please, Wikipedia needs to work on the consistency of its reviewers - the reviewers cannot submit inconsistent claims for as to why an article can not be published/is rejected (exact quote from recent review: "While the company is notable IMO, the writing here looks like a white paper talking up the company in a promotional way.") - and yet there is no explanation as to what constitutes promotional text in the article.

I have provided you with examples of several independent sources, as you requested. Please provide your reply on each. (Jacobariel91 (talk) 12:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC))[reply]

  1. The Bloomberg source is largely an interview with the founder of the company, who is not an independent source about his own company. Leaving that aside, it mentions the company only briefly.
  2. The CNN piece only tells about how the company works in the field of wireless EV charging and wants to test its technology in Michigan- a routine business activity(a company testing its product) It also contains an interview with a vice president of the company who is not an independent source about their own company.
  3. I cannot examine the WSJ as it is paywalled but just based on the title it would seem to only briefly mention the company. 331dot (talk) 12:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
331dot You asked for significant coverage from independent publishing sources that are not direct from the company's marketing or paid promotional outlets (i.e. Business Wire)- you cannot keep changing your definition of what constitutes independent sources with significant coverage. I have read the Wikipedia's page on this and added the sources in direct accordance to what satisfies an appropriate source. You are also in direct contradiction with your fellow reviewer who stated "While the company is notable IMO, the writing here looks like a white paper talking up the company in a promotional way." Reviewers need to be consistent in how they review articles - you are detracting from the merits of Wikipedia.

You asked for articles that are not press releases or emanating from the company itself - that's exact what these sources are - not press releases and from independent publishing platforms who have researched and written about the company to showcase that it is indeed a covered topic. If there was just one source from one year mentioning the company once or twice, I can agree to your point - but it is multiple articles from multiple years on multiple platforms mentioning the company in the context of a growing EV charging industry, which you clearly know very little about and for some reason, want to prevent access to information for. You are only verifying the validity of all these sources, which together constitute a broad range of coverage on Electreon as a public company.

Further, what about the NYT piece? And the TRL piece, and the EDW piece? And the Trafikverket/Swedish Transport Administration piece you conveniently did not address here after I provided you with the updated links? You asked for three sources, and I provided you with more.

All roads lead to the significant coverage of this article from independent, non press release sources, and you have failed to prove or provide explanation otherwise. And there is no word yet from your fellow reviewer who you are contradiction to as to why constitutes promotional text in this article (Jacobariel91 (talk) 13:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Jacobariel91 As I said I cannot read Swedish, and I don't think it a good use of my time to examine a lengthy Swedish government report for name drops of the company when it's pretty clear you won't be persuaded by what I would say about it. I can't access sources behind paywalls. I've explained the problems with your sources, but you seem to not want to hear what those are. You are very invested in this for someone with no connection to this company, perhaps too much so. This is the longest discussion I have seen on this page in some time. I would suggest taking a step back for a bit. I have no additional comment here; perhaps others will respond and tell you something else. I certainly am not the last or only word. Good day. 331dot (talk) 13:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
331dot I and external reviewers (not connected to the company) are passionate about the EV charging industry, and you - and your fellow administrators - have yet to provide adequate reason as to why this company's draft page does not constitute adequate coverage.

Adequate coverage indicates there are multiple sources discussing the topic - I have provided you wit numerous examples. Again, if there was just one source which briefly mentions the topic, I concur your point, but that is not the case. Regarding the Swedish report, it discusses Electreon's technology in full. And Google Translate is something everyone can use. I myself reviewed the report with a translator. Regarding the TRL report, you said you could not access the link, I provided you with the correct link. No comment there. Regarding the EDW report, it is an example of an ind. platform, which you requested. Regarding the NYT and WSJ reports - it is not my fault you don't have access to those articles via paywall, its easy to bypass a paywall and many who rely on this topic for information have access to these sites. Regarding CNN, Axios, Bloomberg, Forbes - they are ind. planforms that are not press releases or emanating from the company covering the topic.

Every request you have asked for, I have addressed. And you have failed to provide adequate reasoning still as to why there is not sufficient coverage on this article from ind. sources that do no emanate from the company.

Further, you have failed to address the inconsistency of review comments that you and fellow admins are providing to articles that are reviewed, which detracts from the authenticity of Wikipedia.

I ask that in the meantime, the draft page be put back into the circulation for review so that other editors/administrators can have their say on the matter - bc as you said, you are not, and should not, be the final word. (Jacobariel91 (talk) 13:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Jacobariel91 Sigh. I have addressed inconsistency already. We do our best, but as with any large organization it creeps in. If I suggested that the company is not notable contrary to what one reviewer said, I apolgize- but the sources do not demonstrate that notability. It may very well be notable but the sources do not show it for the reasons I have stated. Not all reviewers are administrators. I agree with the rejection and if you want it reversed you must appeal to the reviewer that rejected it, or hope that your ANI discussion results in a consensus to allow its submission. I don't think that's going to happen, but those are your options.
Wikipedia does not claim to be authentic, in fact Wikipedia is not a reliable source. We don't want readers to trust Wikipedia blindly; we want them to examine the sources provided and decide for themselves. If you just want to tell the world about the wonders of EVs and related technology, you should do that on a blog or personal website. That's not what Wikipedia is for. Good day. 331dot (talk) 13:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
331dot May I ask, why the sources do not show notability? CNN, NYT, WSJ, independent research firms - all writing about the topic are not notable? If there is one source which is an interview - fine I can remove that, but Trafikverekt, TRL, EDW, and the rest - you have not provided any reason as to why those sources do not show notability - other than the company is not mentioned thousands of times. That's not the point of the source. The point of these sources is to showcase adequate coverage from non press release or company emanating sources. You are mistaken, and I ask that you provide adequate reasoning as to why this company does not satisfy sufficient coverage. How can we ensure adequate coordination between yourself and CNMall41 who rejected the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobariel91 (talk • contribs)
Jacobariel91 The mere fact that a source writes about a topic does not confer notability on the topic. Sources must write about the topic with significant coverage which I have yet to see in this case(from what I can actually examine). They seem to be name drops of the company or just tell what they do. Have you reviewed the Wikipedia definition of a notable company? You can request that CNMall41 comment and they may (depending on their time zone) or may not. Wikipedia is a volunteer project and volunteers do what they wish to when they wish to do it. 331dot (talk) 14:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot and Jacobariel91: The NYT would constitute significant coverage, however the source is being cherry-picked and only being used to support one rather inconsequential line of text. NYT discusses the technology, recent pilots and challenges including viability of the product in comparison to other options. COI has been denied but doesn't change what reviewer said, subject is notable, article is promotional. I have not reviewed sources beyond NYT nor looked at article beyond skimming to see if concern of overly promotional was valid. If I have a chance later, I will do a deeper dive.Slywriter (talk) 14:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

331dot Slywriter I have discussed your points above in detail here

Subject is notable, article is non-promotional is the accurate conclusion. The reviewer was incorrect in their assessment for reasons I have stated in the linked page and below.

As I have explained there, the text is all factual, it is non-promotional. It does not paint the company in a positive light - the company's high costs compared to other technologies, the energy power distribution loss at higher speeds of vehicles, and structure of the company's recent commercial deal are all factually written and from published research reports, and if anything, paint the company in a slightly negative light. The pilot projects are fact based as well - there is no promotion of technology in these texts that, for example, highlight the company's technology benefits, impacts, and advantages over other technologies or competitors - this would indeed be examples of promotional text and none of that appears in this draft.

It is imperative that consistent review standards be applied when Wikipedia editors/administrators are assessing draft articles. It's also imperative that articles be published in accordance to fair assessment of promotional language by editors who are familiar with the content of the article's submission, otherwise they cannot be fair arbiters of fact vs. promotion, as well as assessors on the article's sources and notability. (Jacobariel91 (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Jacobarie91I have left comments at ANI as no reason to have this conversation in multiple venues.Slywriter (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:11:51, 7 February 2022 review of submission by Binod Acharya 2001

[edit]

can i publish my personal Wikipedia article ? Binod Acharya 2001 (talk) 11:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Binod Acharya 2001 No, the draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, please review the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is interested in what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about you, not what you want to say about yourself. If you want to tell the world about yourself, you should use social media. 331dot (talk) 11:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
thanks Binod Acharya 2001 (talk) 11:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:02:41, 7 February 2022 review of draft by 100.33.75.99

[edit]


100.33.75.99 (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Re: Wikipedia Tue, Feb 1, 2022 11:57 pm

Its the original Wikipedia. Draft:Dick Lopez

February 7, 2022

In reviewing Wikipedia’s comments, I am trying to figure out what their specific concerns and objections are. After spending a day preparing additional information for references, I realize that I really don’t understand their issues, thus making it impossible to respond to Wikipedia communications. Can someone at Wikipedia help.?

Dick

Your draft has no sources to support its content. In articles about living people, every substantive fact must have a citation to an independent reliable source. Articles summarize what independent reliable sources state about the subject, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable creative professional. If you are the subject, please review the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. 331dot (talk) 16:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:33:23, 7 February 2022 review of draft by KnucklesTheTigger

[edit]


I am not sure exactly what is a reliable source that can get this page approved. I mean, I've seen other pages use kidscreen.com as their one and only source why is it wrong when I use that site? What type of source does it take to get this page approved?

KnucklesTheTigger (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KnucklesTheTigger, any reviews of the show? That's probably the best indication of notability. TV listings just tell us that something exists and existence isn't sufficient for inclusion.Slywriter (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Slywriter, I will try to look for review, but it might be hard because i do not live in france, the UK, or any other country the show orgins.KnucklesTheTigger (talk) 04:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:00:11, 7 February 2022 review of submission by Jess.jerome2000

[edit]


Jess.jerome2000 (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do I edit my work so it does not read as an advertisement?

Jess.jerome2000 I assume this is about your sandbox draft(I've placed a link above). You summarize what independent reliable sources say about the product, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. You only offer the company's website as a source- this is not acceptable. Wikipedia is interested in what independent reliable sources say about a topic, not what it says about itself. Please read Your First Article. If you are an employee of Fischer Medical, you must declare as a paid editor, a Terms of Use requirement. See WP:PAID, as well as WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:32:40, 7 February 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Mwells91

[edit]



Mwells91 (talk) 20:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mwells91, no question asked but Wikipedia is not a promotional tool. Nor is it social media. Until and unless reliable independent secondary sources cover the subject, there is zero chance for having an article. In particular, subject needs to meet WP:NMUSIC, which right now there is no indication can happen.Slywriter (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:59:47, 7 February 2022 review of submission by Xplicitcoding

[edit]

Hello! I'm new to Wiki editing. I mainly do web management and social media management. One of my clients reached out about creating a page for him and I'm doing the best I can. I keep getting denied and I was looking for some guidance. It's currently in draft, but I was referred here. Any help would be appreciated!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hessam_Noralahi

Xplicitcoding (talk) 20:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Xplicitcoding, you need references that meet WP:NBIO. The draft's current references don't do that. As a paid editor, you are expected to educate yourself on our guidelines rather than having us as volunteers hold your hand and teach you. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2022_February_7&oldid=1071512546"