Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 June 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< June 5 << May | June | Jul >> June 7 >
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 6

[edit]

02:18:36, 6 June 2022 review of submission by Makijohnson

[edit]


I do not see a reason to decline my page request, it is a biography of a famous persons which is allowed on wikipedia Makijohnson (talk) 02:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Makijohnson: I do - your draft's improperly sourced, both in what is being cited and how. We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every claim the article makes that could potentially be challenged for any reason what-so-ever MUST be cited to an in-depth, non-routine, independent news or scholarly source that discusses him at length, is written by an identifiable author, and published in/by an outlet with competent editorial oversight responsible for fact-checking, disclosure, correction, and retractions that supports that claim. If no such sources can be found for a given claim, that claim must be removed. This is a hard requirement when writing about living or recently-departed people and is NOT NEGOTIABLE. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 02:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:02:49, 6 June 2022 review of submission by Dravidhiman

[edit]


Dravidhiman (talk) 06:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done deleted advertisement and probable conflict of interest/autobiography as well. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:14:09, 6 June 2022 review of submission by NeverTry4Me

[edit]

I'm not able to figure out the reason mentioned: "This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view,..". Moreover, how a mob lynching incident (resulted in death) could have the view written in the draft? I need help and a fair review by some experienced reviewers. - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 06:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jéské Couriano: can you please help/assist me? - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 07:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mu. (WP:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Standard discretionary sanctions) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 07:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano That can't be the issue. And NPOV isn't the real issue as I have created several AFC and got approved. - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 07:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let me rephrase, then. I have absolutely zero desire to dive into an article about a controversial topic in a topic area that is KNOWN to attract more partisans than a mediaeval weapons museum. Why do you think that Arbitration case even exists in the first place? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 07:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When I mentioned "Arbitration case even exists in the first place?" - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 07:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the Draft is now approved by senior reviewer. Thank anyways. - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 07:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as a senior reviewer, we are all equal. Theroadislong (talk) 09:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:17:23, 6 June 2022 review of submission by Blucheez (Online Clothing Brand)

[edit]


Blucheez (Online Clothing Brand) (talk) 06:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We do not accept advertizing or the users pushing it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 06:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:07:38, 6 June 2022 review of submission by Johupa

[edit]

Hi, it would be good to get some advice. I wanted to add an album to this category: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Rough_Trade_Records_albums. The page said to create a page and put this text at bottom Category:Rough Trade Records albums. Didn't intend to make it a big deal as this was my 1st effort at a page, but got rejected for lack of "significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". So added references to detailed description in Guardian Newspaper, Performance Magazine, French magazine, academic institutions - would have thought these fit the requirements. Still rejected...anybody able to give advice - maybe I need to improve the way I've cited them or remove some of the less impressive references? Or is there a simpler way to ensure the album is listed in the category Rough_Trade_Records_albums?? Thanks in advance ! Johupa (talk) 08:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Johupa: categories are there to index existing articles, therefore you cannot add to a category any content that hasn't been published as an article; or, put another way, the only way to add content to a category is by first creating an article.
And to create an article on a subject, that subject must be deemed notable, usually by way of the general notability standard, which requires significant coverage — of the subject, not of indirectly related matters — in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. Find and cite such sources, enabling the article to be created, and you can then add it to relevant categories. HTH -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick reply, you've helped clear up about categories. Re: general notability standard I did cite multiple reliable independent sources but I guess I need to find more specific examples and tidy the references up a bit. Thanks again. Johupa (talk) 09:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:22:22, 6 June 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Kawadkarchaitali

[edit]



Kawadkarchaitali (talk) 11:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kawadkarchaitali: you don't ask a question, but your draft has been deleted, and the many warnings and notices posted on User talk:Kawadkarchaitali probably tell you why. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:STUDENTS CHEMICAL SOCIETY OF NIGERIA (SCSN)

[edit]

I made alot of mistake in writing the first article but now I have started familiar with the wikepedia please review it as I have finally edit it in good manner. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samum2 (talk • contribs) 13:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:49:54, 6 June 2022 review of submission by Edechiconza

[edit]


We are requesting assistance because we do not really know what we do to satisfy the requests of the reviewer Let's start from the two first sentences of the article you have suggested by the reviewer WP:Notability (academic journals)

"If an academic journal can be demonstrated to be impactful via reliable sources, we should probably have a dedicated article on it." Being indexed in DOAJ does not demonstrate the reliability and the impact of an academic journal, but being indexed in Scopus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopus) and Web of Science - Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerging_Sources_Citation_Index) yes. I do not know how familiar are you with the reliability of the academic journals but, for example, to get indexed in Scopus it takes, often, more than two years. The journal is monitored for a long period, has to undergone a severe scrutiny by scientific committees and has to respect many strict criteria. This the reason why scholars all over the world are asked to publish their works in Scopus indexed journals. Moreover Scimago Journal Ranking (SJR) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCImago_Journal_Rank) indicator is a measure of the scientific influence of scholarly journals that accounts for both the number of citations received by a journal and the importance or prestige of the journals where the citations come from. According to SJR Interaction Design and Architecture(s) journal is by large more influent of many of the journals listed in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_open-access_journals. Just to give you an idea, Interaction Design and Architecture(s) journal ranks as 36th in the world for the Architecture/Design domain (first quartile) and pretty well also for all other domains of interest (2nd quartile in Media Technology and Social Science - 3rd quartile for Human Computer Interaction, Computer Science applications and Education. Scopus, SJR and ESCI are the most reliable and noticeable third-party sources to legitimate the reliability and impact of an academic journal.

"Articles on academic journals are required to be notable; that is significant, interesting, or unusual enough to be worthy of notice, as established by reliable sources." Interaction Design and Architecture(s) journal, however, is not only notable but it is also unusual enough and worthy to be noticed for many reasons, here at least a couple: - most of the open access Scopus indexed journals can be considered to have a "commercial" purpose since the publisher ask the authors to pay a fee to have the submitted papers published, while Interaction Design and Architecture(s) implements the diamond route with no expenses to access and publish papers. Papers are selected only on a scientific basis, after a rigorous double blind reviewing process and a check against malpractices; - Interaction Design and Architecture(s) is one of the few (maybe no more than five) academic journals in the world that implements video presentations of the published papers (the only one in their domains of interest); of course all video are open access and available on-line.

Let's come now to the criteria listed in the same article: Criterion 1: The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area. Criterion 2: The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources. Criterion 3: The journal is historically important in its subject area.

Criterion 1 has been fully demonstrated (see above) Criterion 2 is also fulfilled if you consider that the journal h-index is 14 (of course it could be improved but can be considered quite good for the domains of reference and in comparison to most of the open access journal (in particular those listed in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_open-access_journals). Criterium 3 should be considered in relation to the year in which the journal has been established (2005): in 17 years, thanks also to the achieved rankings can be considered quite important in the subject areas of interest (for some of them more, for some of them less; but it is well known in all domains of reference). Note that Journal age is not a consideration, and in general a recently established journal is not necessarily disqualified by its age.

Considering all that, we do really wonder if the content of the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academic_journals) is applied with equity to all wikipedia articles, in particular to those concerning open access journals and, as written before what we can in addition to improve the article and be compliant with Wikipedia rules Thanks in advance

@Edechiconza: TL;DNR — what is your question, please, succinctly? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also please can you explain who "we" is, Wikipedia user acccounts are strictly for single person use only. Theroadislong (talk) 15:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Basically why it has been rejected?
I have read the suggested page and I have not found any good reason to reject the proposed articles, also in comparison with similar ones. Sorry but the reasons cannot be provided succinctly. I prefer, always, to fully justify and argue my claims, also because in this way I can better understand your suggestions.
Sorry For the use of the plural.
Looking forward and thanks in advance. Edechiconza (talk) 16:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
VERY weird that you use "we" throughout your question. Wikipedia summarises what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a topic, we have zero interest in what the journal says about itself. Please also see other crap exists. Theroadislong (talk) 17:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Edechiconza: I recommend that you not include anything in the article that can't be sourced with an independent third party source. This is how notability is demonstrated. See WP:GNG. Verified independent coverage is required. After going through that exercise, if you cannot find info, then you will understand what the reviewers are telling you. This will save you a lot of frustration with future declines. TechnoTalk (talk) 23:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TechnoTalk
what you state is very clear to me. As already written in my original question Scopus, SJR and ESCI are the most reliable and noticeable third-party sources to legitimate the reliability and impact of an academic journal. It is not what the journal says about itself. Why they are not recognized in the case of the article on Interaction Design and Architecture(s) journal?
It seems to me that criteria are not applied with equity for all the journal articles.
I think that if you do not have any additional observations the article should be accepted ... but of course if you have additional indications I'll be more than happy to try to satisfy them. Edechiconza (talk) 06:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Edechiconza This is a volunteer project, where people do what they can when they can, we don't have a paid staff available 24/7 to immediately address all problems- as such, it is possible for other inappropriate content to get by us. This does not mean that more inappropriate content can be added, otherwise nothing could ever be removed from Wikipedia. We can only address what we know about. If you would like to help out, you can identify the other inappropriate articles you have seen for possible action.
The statement "Interaction Design and Architecture(s) is abstracted and indexed in Scopus" merely tells us that the journal is indexed. This is not significant coverage of the subject. I can't examine this source itself, but if it says more than the fact it indexes this journal, please add that information. 331dot (talk) 06:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot
thanks for the advice, I will try to make the reading clearer also for not experts (people expert in academic journal know very well that indexing coupled with SRJ and position in the rankings are enough to identify notable journals);
I understand and appreciate very much being a volunteer (and you cannot even image how much) as I appreciate guidelines. What I appreciate less is the uneven application of the guidelines and, sometime, the hurry and shallowness with which are applied.
I'm always ready to learn from others but I do not think that a shallow deletionism or rejection (accompanied by very generic indications without an in-depth examination of the contents of an article) can be beneficial for wikipedia.
Thanks again. After having upgraded the text I will resubmit the article for review again.
@DoubleGrazing
I agree that each piece of information has its own merit in a specific context. Anyway, when the context is the same and the pieces of information belong to the same category a comparison is needed to maintain the credibility of the context. Edechiconza (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Edechiconza It may look like "uneven application of the guidelines" if the other articles were accepted before we had our current guidelines. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 05:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the guidelines which have been referred in this case are not new ones, and as explained above they have been respected; the problem here is the expert (or not expert) evaluation of the content and the ability to suggest possible changes as is has been done by 331dot (that I thank again for);
generic observations or statements do not help to progress and are the mirror of a rigid mentality; usually a community, to be such, should be helpful (while respecting the guidelines);
in general when observations are made, it would be appropriate not to erect walls but to try to understand others' reasons and whether there is indeed something that needs to be improved in the procedures in use ... just my two cents. Edechiconza (talk) 07:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Edechiconza: firstly, the draft has not been submitted for review since the last decline. Once you click that blue button, it goes into the pool of drafts awaiting review. Whether it is then accepted or not, remains to be seen. I appreciate that you feel it should be accepted now, but that's pretty much par for the course for the article creator.
Secondly, the notion of comparing this draft to articles already existing is a red herring. The notability of this subject is judged against the relevant guidelines, not against the standards of other articles that may be out there. In other words, the notability of this subject stands or falls on its own merits alone. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:34:52, 6 June 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by KARAM777

[edit]



KARAM777 (talk) 16:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)  Not done deleted as spam. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:09:16, 6 June 2022 review of draft by Faa212684

[edit]


Faa212684 (talk) 22:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC) |- |DELETE|Russia||(Moscow)[reply]

CHECK WITH COMPANY IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME? Faa212684 (talk) 22:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OUR FLIGHTS DONOT DESTINATE AT MOST OF THESE LOCATIONS?

@Faa212684: This page is not for asking with help editing an infobox, and your hysterical screaming at us is counterproductive. You've already been blocked once for this and carrying on like this is very likely to see you on the receiving end of a longer block. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 22:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Faa212684: Whether I believe you or not is immaterial at this point; you're, by your own admission here, an undisclosed paid editor trying to use the drafting process for a purpose it was never intended for, and I don't see any indications you're actually reading the pages you've been trying to force edits on. The hysterical all-caps screaming really doesn't help. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 22:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

23:25:34, 6 June 2022 review of draft by Jh.hamburg

[edit]


Hi everybody!


I need help on how can I change this article - see above - up to a point that it's fine to get published.

Yes, I understand the criticism - but score composers generally do rarely get long journalistic articles written about them - they get interviews, awards and brief mentions here and there, like most artists working in the second row behind the lime light.

Also: Somebody else has put a less informative article on the german wikipedia server, so I do not understand what is the standard here?

I added the mentioned Wikipedia article as another weblink (though it already has been included in direct reference links and footnotes).

Also to make sure about what's desired I checked the list of wikipedia's film composers here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_film_score_composers

So there are a lot of existing articles that seem to be very similar in form, content and most references. For example this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bergeaud

All these articles look like resumes - I mean that's the purpose, isn't it:

To account for these composers that you might have heard about and want to look up on Wikipedia to find out more.

To find out about the public knowledge we have about these perons and most importantly about their work. How they are connected to which films, games and projects. And yes, also awards and prices.

Personally I frequently check artists on Wikipedia to see which projects they contributed to, whether I know these projects and whether I recognize this artist's contribution.

I tried to write the article with all these examples, purposes, standards and Wiki recommendations in mind. (Well, technically I also wanted to learn to use sortable tables in an article...)

Sure, some of the sources mentioned are in German language but that can hardly be avoided - B. Salchow stems from Hamburg in northern Germany - also my city of choice.

Now I am lost. How do I proceed from here now?


Thanks for helping! jh

Jh.hamburg (talk) 23:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jh.hamburg: German Wikipedia and English Wikipedia have different sourcing and notability standards, so what works there does not necessarily work here. In fact, the English-language Wikipedia has amongst the strictest sourcing standards (though language is not amongst them; German-language sources are perfectly OK). You also cannot use the existence, absence, or condition of other articles to justify your own (in this case, the article you point at predates AfC by a few years, having been created 2007/04/05). Finally, if "all these articles look like resumes" then all these articles need deep-sixed or heavily edited. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 01:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jh.hamburg: I made some improvements to the draft, but there aren't enough sources to demonstrate notability. I don't see a single profile of the subject. For sources, you need independent third party sources. IMDB is crowdsourced and considered unreliable. Otherwise, anyone could add anything and use that to substantiate an article about themselves. And then we'd be no different than LinkedIn. See WP:GNG for the English notability guidelines. TechnoTalk (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again!
First of all - thanks for your input!
Now I have created a chronological list of additional articles and interviews with and about B. Salchow by music reviewers for film and and video game scores.
Would you mind having a look and advising me if these are sufficiantly suited to add as sources in the wiki article I wrote?
-------------------------------------------
- Game Audio Network Guild: INSOMNIAC GAMES’ RESISTANCE 3 FEATURES DRAMATIC MUSIC BY FILM COMPOSER BORIS SALCHOW, News by Brian Schmidt, June 20th 2011
https://www.audiogang.org/insomniac-games-resistance-3-features-dramatic-music-by-film-composer-boris-salchow/
-------------------------------------------
- Your Classical, Boris Salchow's Music for Resistance 3 on Top Score, Emily Reese, September 20th 2011
https://www.yourclassical.org/story/2011/09/18/boris-salchow-top-score
-------------------------------------------
- VGM Online, Artist's Interviews: Boris Salchow interviewed by Chris Greening, Chris Greening, October 15th 2011
http://www.vgmonline.net/borissalchowinterview/
--------------------------------------------
- Der Zero-G Blog | Boris Salchow über das Komponieren für Resistance 3, (german)
https://de.zero-g.co.uk/Blogs/Online/Jon-und-Garrick-testen-Blogs
--------------------------------------------
- Randy Altman's postPerspective: Composer Boris Salchow takes on zombies, humor for ‘Sunset Overdrive’, Randi Altman, November 13th 2014
https://postperspective.com/composer-boris-salchow-takes-zombies-humor-sunset-overdrive/
--------------------------------------------
- UJAM, Inside Sound Minds: An Interview With Film and Game Composer Boris Salchow, Wolfram Knelangen, January 31st 2019
https://www.ujam.com/blog/inside-sound-minds-3/
--------------------------------------------
This is my first article on the english language Wikipedia and I really want to do it right.
So - thanks again for your effort - I really appreciate.
With best regards, jh Jh.hamburg (talk) 10:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2022_June_6&oldid=1093235114"