Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 June 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< June 21 << May | June | Jul >> June 23 >
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 22

[edit]

01:35:37, 22 June 2022 review of submission by Ikigai2009

[edit]

Hi, I would like to know if the article citations and references are insufficient, or are they viewed as not of notable sources? If I can have some feedback on the writing style that would also be much appreciated.Ikigai2009 (talk) 01:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC) Ikigai2009 (talk) 01:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikigai2009: no, they're not; they are press release regurgitations and other primary sources.
Also, that large table with the cohort companies has no place here. We are not interested in who is taking part in this incubator (unless, perhaps, the companies in question are independently notable, which they almost by definition wouldn't be). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much. Will definitely remove the table, and look at how the copy can be improved.Ikigai2009 (talk) 06:40, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:20:09, 22 June 2022 review of submission by Pnamdar

[edit]

Hello, already placed disclosure on top of draft. May I please ask for advice to get approved? Thank you.

Pnamdar (talk) 10:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pnamdar: this draft has been rejected and won't be considered again. No chance of approval, hence no point in editing; you'd be merely flogging a dead horse.
And staying with the equine theme: placing the paid contributor notice now is somewhat akin to shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. (Not to mention, shutting it incorrectly.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:52:22, 22 June 2022 review of draft by MelanieNavarroJr

[edit]


MelanieNavarroJr (talk) 10:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who can I pay to make me a wikipedia article? There's plenty of scammers now adays and I need someone legit. :(

Sorry MelanieNavarroJr, we don't encourage paid editing here and cannot answer the above question. Justiyaya 11:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MelanieNavarroJr: I'll add that a quick Google search doesn't turn up enough independent sources to show that the singer meets our notability guidelines. You shouldn't waste your time, or you'll be taken advantage of. You can read WP:GNG for more info. This article has repeatedly been recreated and may be WP:SALTED if it is recreated without proper sourcing. TechnoTalk (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:44:38, 22 June 2022 review of draft by JeanCBrown

[edit]


JeanCBrown (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I am just hoping to get a bit of advice for an article that was rejected for not having "significant" enough coverage. I have added a source that I think reflects a more direct sort of coverage I believe my reviewer was looking for. I just wanted some advice about how many additional articles like this I would need to add in order for it to meet the publication criteria, or if this addition is enough.

This is the source I added: https://www.thestar.com/life/health_wellness/opinion/2020/09/21/gurus-gone-bad-is-it-time-for-reform-in-the-self-help-and-wellness-industry.html

Thanks so much, Jean

See WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORGDEPTH. As for how many such sources you need to establish notability, the answer is 'multiple', which isn't actually defined, but is often thought to be three or more. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JeanCBrown: First of all Jean, I'm sorry what you and your family had to go through. However, there are a few problems here. We discourage people with a conflict of interest from editing articles about themselves or their organizations, because it's hard for them to write impartially, and neutrally. See WP:COI. Your conflict comes across in this draft. It's not just the tone, but the info that is included and the sources used to substantiate the info. My rule of thumb is to source everything. If it can't be sourced, don't include it. I haven't read everything and watched the shows, but the majority of the independent coverage of the organization seems to be about James Arthur Ray. An argument could be made that a distilled version of this article could be added to an "Aftermath" section in his article. The sourcing requirement wouldn't be as high. If there are better sources, then the article might get expanded and "forked" as its own article. Whatever you decide to do, since you have a conflict of interest, it's recommended that you not edit yourself, but make edit requests per Wikipedia:Simple conflict of interest edit request. You make a request on the draft article's talk page. Also, I just removed a lot of inline external links that don't look like they were independent sources, per our WP:EL guideline. The other inline external links should be converted to proper references also, per Wikipedia:Citing sources. TechnoTalk (talk) 19:55, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:32:44, 22 June 2022 review of draft by UniversityRecords

[edit]


DECLINED DUE TO INSUFFICIENT REFERENCES. ADDED 26 REFERENCES FROM JSTOR, EUROPEAN RESEARCH INSTITUTES (ATINER IS NOT ONE OF THEM). PLEASE HELP WHAT ELSE TO ADD ??? SO DRAFT IS ACCEPTABLE. UniversityRecords (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like an attack page and is barely legible. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a matter of adding anything in particular, it's a matter of writing the article based on what sources say about ATINER. For example, none of your sources show that
  • ATINER is a fake peer review paper mill
  • 17 Predatory Journals per quarter
  • +70 Predatory Conferences per year
  • +210 Books +603 abstract Books
  • +2,738 Paper Series
  • Fake Journals: Fake peer review with ISSN
Your citations are at best random tidbits of information, which you've synthesized yourself into these claims.
What you need is to have a source which discusses ATINER in depth. See OMICS Publishing Group and SCIRP for example of predatory publishers which have attracted significant coverage in reliable sources. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:17:34, 22 June 2022 review of draft by Erumkhan07

[edit]


I was able to take care of all the citation related changes the reviewer suggested, after he/she had completed the review. I wanted to check if there is anything more that is needed from me to hopefully push this article live? I look forward to hearing from you all. Erumkhan07 (talk) 20:17, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you want someone to review your draft, before it is reviewed? Or shall we just wait for the actual review to take place? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:36, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @DoubleGrazing - I would not want any reviewer to spend any more time on this, other than what is absolutely needed. Considering all of you take time out of your busy schedules to volunteer here, doubling your efforts is the last thing I'd want. Here is the comment @Pbrks had left on the page, post the review.
"Comment: Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and all instances of it should be removed and replaced. The Logical Indian is also not a reliable source."
The article page linked to this page so I thought of checking in here to see if someone can provide quick feedback on the same and if I had done things correctly, as asked. I hope you understand where I'm coming from.
Thanks! Erumkhan07 (talk) 07:20, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2022_June_22&oldid=1095393469"