Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 May 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< May 18 << Apr | May | Jun >> May 20 >
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.


May 19

[edit]

03:44:46, 19 May 2022 review of submission by FeodoreVik

[edit]


FeodoreVik (talk) 03:44, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FeodoreVik: No sources, no article, no debate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 06:02, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

04:18:22, 19 May 2022 review of draft by Cathy wen

[edit]


I just want to know , if I don't have any references for the article, can i still create the page ?

Cathy wen (talk) 04:18, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cathy wen: No sources, no article, no debate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 06:04, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

05:51:10, 19 May 2022 review of submission by 202.142.138.48

[edit]


I believe the most recent rejection of this draft (which was rejected by the same user previously) needs to be reviewed by another party.

The most recent edit of this draft included the addition of articles from notable sources, which addressed the original rejection concerns.

Notable sources quote this website as being a large publisher that is partly owned by one of Australia's biggest media companies.

It fits within the requirements of Wikipedia for both notability and also fits within other similar Australian publishers that are on Wikipedia, such as these two examples:

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CarsGuide - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_of_Many

In the automotive space this publisher is notable and has a history of sizeable investment that is documented by notable sources.

I believe this draft needs to be reviewed in the lens of notability in its field, which is the Australian automotive publishing space.

202.142.138.48 (talk) 05:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot use the existence, absence, or condition of other articles to justify your own. Please refer to the top table at User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
Discounting the sources I cannot assess, only the Cyprus Mail source is any good. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 06:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your comments:
"https://mumbrella.com.au/mumbrella-publish-award-winners-2021-702582 is useless for notability even if the award had legs - CarExpert didn't actually win anything. Being a finalist or honourable mention for a single award of questionable notoriety ain't worth a hill of beans as far as notability goes."
- The publication won website of the year, which is the most coveted publication award. It's listed on the page linked: "Website of the Year – Consumer/Custom. WINNER: CarExpert.com.au – Car Expert Pty Ltd with Expert Media Pty Ltd"
"I cannot assess either The Australian source (walled)."
- The lack of a subscription to a notable publication shouldn't count for its exclusion. The contents of the article that was published in print and available online to subscribers in a notable publication validates the line attached to that reference. This article outlines an investment from one of Australia's biggest media organisations and meets the definition of significant coverage, "Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization."
"https://www.afr.com/street-talk/carexpert-raising-10m-to-buy-price-my-car-ipo-in-2024-20220422-p5afhj?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=nc&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR0y2aPfam8OEJm72Qb0-FqLAeoasvskeeGJf_YxWcUHjurq00B-msk-KQM#Echobox=1650614078 is useless for notability (routine coverage). This is reporting on fundraising to fuel mergers & acquisition moves; both funding and M&A are routinely covered."
- I disagree with this point. An article solely focused on the topic from one of Australia's most notable financial publications isn't routine coverage. The definition of significant coverage is "Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization." This article meets that criteria by providing in depth coverage, commentary, discussion and evaluation of the company.
The rest of your comments make sense. I believe the linking of these sources may not help with notability (as explained by you), but help reference the points in the draft. 202.142.138.48 (talk) 06:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In responce to your points, except for the Mumbrella one (as I will concede that):
  • When I say I cannot assess a source, it means literally that - I can't judge whether or not it's a usable source. As such, I'm neither saying it's okay or saying it's unacceptable. I'm only saying I personally cannot assess it. That is all. Someone with an active subscription to The Australian needs to assess it. Note that I even explicitly said, at the end, "Discounting the sources I cannot assess", the implication being I cannot speak as to whether they are good or not.
  • Did you even look at WP:CORPDEPTH, since I explicitly linked it in the quoted excerpt? "Examples of trivial coverage that do not count toward meeting the significant coverage requirement:[...]standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as:[...]expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business, [or] of a capital transaction, such as raised capital[.]" By that standard, this article is useless for notability. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 06:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your points:
"When I say I cannot assess a source, it means literally that - I can't judge whether or not it's a usable source. As such, I'm neither saying it's okay or saying it's unacceptable. I'm only saying I personally cannot assess it. That is all. Someone with an active subscription to The Australian needs to assess it. Note that I even explicitly said, at the end, "Discounting the sources I cannot assess", the implication being I cannot speak as to whether they are good or not."
- Yes, I understood what you were saying. But my point is that this source from a reputable publication meets the requirements for notability. The onus shouldn't be on the editor or the content contributor to supply subscription to notable publications for verification - this should be the onus of the person assessing this contribution.
"Did you even look at WP:CORPDEPTH, since I explicitly linked it in the quoted excerpt? "Examples of trivial coverage that do not count toward meeting the significant coverage requirement:[...]standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as:[...]expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business, [or] of a capital transaction, such as raised capital[.]" By that standard, this article is useless for notability."
- Yes I did. And as I mentioned, the contents of that article absolutely meets the definition of significant coverage by virtue of "Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization." The mention of an acquisition isn't the main contents of the article and can't be used as the sole reason to mark it as insignificant coverage.
Wikipedia is an intimidating place and it's made even worse when aggressive language is used to respond to people. Please don't speak to people like that. Comments like "Did you even look at", are aggressive and unnecessary.
As I mentioned in the initial response - in the automotive space this publication is absolutely notable. References and dedicated articles by two of Australia's most reputable general interest and financial publications wouldn't exist without this notability. Likewise a referenced investment from Seven West Media. 202.142.138.48 (talk) 07:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Replies:
  • I'm not asking you to supply a subscription. Nowhere did I imply I was looking to find some way to cheat the paywall. I'm under no obligation to try and find some way to cheat past a subscription wall to assess a source; if a third party that is familiar with Wikipedia's sourcing policies can assess the source I will accept what they say about the source.
  • The contents of that article are the standard routine business news stuff I see on a daily basis both here and on #wikipedia-en-help. Business finances are routine. Business earnings are routine. All we have here is just blind parroting and paraphrasing of mandatory financial reports and documents. That the Financial Review covered it does not make it any less routine. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 07:48, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Responses:
"I'm not asking you to supply a subscription. Nowhere did I imply I was looking to find some way to cheat the paywall. I'm under no obligation to try and find some way to cheat past a subscription wall to assess a source; if a third party that is familiar with Wikipedia's sourcing policies can assess the source I will accept what they say about the source."
- I'm not asking you to cheat. I'm simply suggesting that the fact a source is behind a paywall shouldn't preclude it from being assessed for notability, which is what you did, by the basis of not including it as part of the assessment. I'm suggesting that as part of the help section (which is what I've posted this to), this should be delegated to somebody with a subscription that can assess its notability.
"The contents of that article are the standard routine business news stuff I see on a daily basis both here and on #wikipedia-en-help. Business finances are routine. Business earnings are routine. All we have here is just blind parroting and paraphrasing of mandatory financial reports and documents. That the Financial Review covered it does not make it any less routine."
- I disagree with this. There's no mention of any mandatory financial reports or documents. It's an article that outlines the business, notes its valuation and supports statements made in the original Wikipedia entry. And it's in one of the most notable publications in Australia.
We're going around in circles with this. I'm not sure I understand the process enough to see what to do from here. But the basis is that I disagree with your assessment. If the buck stops with you, that's fine, I'll move on with life. If it doesn't, I'd like these points to be addressed - in particular what the policy is around sources with subscriptions. This can't be the first time a subscription has been required to view a notable source on Wikipedia. 103.204.240.88 (talk) 08:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP user, you said But my point is that this source from a reputable publication meets the requirements for notability.. That a source is reliable is an essential requirement, but it is not sufficient to show notability. For instance: a press release published in a reliable source does not count towards notability for the topic, and a trivial mention in an article in a reliable source almost never counts towards notability for the topic. Two different articles in The Australian are used as sources for two different pieces of information: a) "The founding team had previously founded automotive publisher CarAdvice.com.au that sold to Nine Entertainment in 2018 for $35 million." and b) "In October, 2021, Seven West Media invested $3 million into the business, valuing the operation at $25 million." Both pieces of information have other, non-paywalled sources; the first one is "trivial coverage" (per WP:CORPDEPTH) of a different company, the second one is trivial coverage of CarExpert. So there is nothing in there that indicates notability for CarExpert. --bonadea contributions talk 08:59, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response.
"So there is nothing in there that indicates notability for CarExpert."
- With regards to your statement - is this in response to the line used in the Wikipedia article, or the contents of the linked reference? The definition of significant coverage is "Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization." Is your assertion that other content within the referenced article should be used within the Wikipedia article to denote notability, or is your assertion that the contents of the reference isn't sufficient for denoting notability?
- My response to the user above is that both of these referenced sources - The Australian (which the user couldn't open due to a paywall) and the Australian Financial Review meet the requirement of significant coverage. The articles are entirely about the organisation and not brief mentions of the organisation within other articles. The articles themselves then provide and overview, description, commentary and discussion of the company, which are items that are mentioned within significant coverage. This significant coverage therefore denotes notability.
- My final point here is that notability of a subject needs to take into context the industry that subject sits within. A subject independently awarded, invested in by major media organisations and notable enough for individual coverage in main publications is notable in general and very notable within its industry. This context is relevant and crucial in determining notability. 103.204.240.88 (talk) 09:41, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 07:29:39, 19 May 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by FedFoxEx

[edit]


I am wondering why my request for the Wikipedia page, 'Matthew Keong' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Matthew_Keong) was denied. The reviewer stated that it was "not adequately supported by reliable sources" and "they do not show significant coverage about the subject". This is incorrect, as I have clearly supported all information in the page with reliable sources, most of which are secondary sources. They are mostly news articles - which contain several extremely reliable sources, such as ABC news, The Brisbane Times, The Courier Mail and 7 NEWS. I have included 12 references/citations of these reliable sources, which shows why I am confused about the first reason of "not [being] adequately supported by reliable sources", as I've clearly added many reliable sources. The second reason of not showing significant coverage is also very bizarre. As I explained above, I've provided many reliable sources, which feature the subject (Matthew Keong), in the source. I am not sure why this is not considered as "significant coverage". Could you please explain why the page was not accepted, since I feel I have followed all the guidelines, and if it did not follow all the guidelines, what can be done to improve the page so it will be accepted and is acceptable? Thank you.

FedFoxEx (talk) 07:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FedFoxEx: this wasn't the reason for declining your draft, and doesn't therefore answer your query, but just to say that when I first saw the draft I felt that it almost amounted to an Attack page (despite being sourced), given that it only describes the person in negative or at least controversial terms. If you haven't yet done so, I would recommend that you review the guidelines at WP:BLPCRIME, WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @DoubleGrazing, thank you for informing me. How will I improve the article? I never meant to describe the person negatively; I was attempting to create the page to inform people about the subject. If I add positive things for the subject, they would not be able to be cited/sourced, so that is why I did not add any of that because they weren't cited. FedFoxEx (talk) 00:43, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FedFoxEx, I'm curious if you read the guidelines suggested above? Since your revert of my removal of potentially policy violating information strongly suggests that you did not. Also, did you personally take the pictures featured in the article?Slywriter (talk) 14:57, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SlywriterYes, I did read, and I undid the changes as I will be looking to re-write some of the sections. Regarding the photographs, yes, I did take them. FedFoxEx (talk) 02:05, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

07:32:05, 19 May 2022 review of draft by Jsondg

[edit]


Hi, I'm writing an article for Jamie Jones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jamie_Jones_(musician) and I would like to ask if this artist fit the following criterion: Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. Because he has a single that reached #31 Billboard Adult R&B Songs based on https://worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Music/Billboard/Radio-Monitor/2006/Billboard-Radio-Monitor-2006-01-20.pdf (page 36) Hopefully it is. If so, is the link I provided a valid source? Thanks ahead.

Jsondg (talk) 07:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:29:17, 19 May 2022 review of draft by Brian Odwar

[edit]


Brian Odwar (talk) 08:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HOW DO I DO COLLABORATIVE EDITING ON AN ARTICLE

Hello there,

I am making my first Wikipedia profile of Grace Lubega, a prominent spiritual leader in Uganda. My first edit was rejected and was hoping I could find someone to help proofread it before it gets re-reviewed. I want to have fewer chances of having it rejected again.

Thank you!

@Brian Odwar: Wikipedia is by definition collaborative, and anyone can freely edit the draft. As for finding someone to help you, perhaps you could ask over at WP:WikiProject Uganda?
Your draft wasn't, and wouldn't be, declined (not 'rejected') for lack of proofreading; it was declined for being promotional in tone. You need to write in neutral, factual language (avoiding expressions like 'prominent leader') without trying to promote the subject or make them appear in a positive light. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:58:30, 19 May 2022 review of draft by Fearghail

[edit]


Hi there,

I accidentally closed a browser window today with a significantly increased and improved version of a draft by the exact same name.

The version that has been restored is an older, inferior version. Can my version be recovered, please? Thank you.

Fearghail (talk) 08:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Fearghail: basically, no. Until you click that 'publish' button, the unsaved content exists only locally in your browser. (Some browsers are pretty good at recovering the latest state following a crash or similar, but I'm guessing you've already ruled out this possibility at your end.) Anyway, this is my non-technical answer... someone who actually knows what they're talking about will come along shortly. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fearghail I’m afraid DoubleGrazing is right. Until you save your edits by publishing them, they exist only in your browser. In the future, you might use Wordpad or another text editor to store the syntax, as I do in case my computer crashes or the power goes out. In the meantime, add the most important items with the best sources. If you can source the new solo album with a couple of reviews, that will help. TechnoTalk (talk) 12:22, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:12:30, 19 May 2022 review of submission by Joe Savvas

[edit]

Hi there. I just got a speedy rejection for my submission of the Savvas Learning Company page. I believe the reason is that it might come across as having marketing language, but could you be more specific? There are other companies like Savvas that have similar pages with similar language. I would like to revise the draft so it meets Wikipedia's guidelines, but I believe that it's written in a neutral way already, so I'm not sure how to revise. Any assistance you could provide would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Joe Savvas (talk) 16:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Joe Savvas: the draft does indeed read like marketing blurb, with expressions like "Savvas carries on a 120-year history of innovation and leadership", "next-generation learning solutions", etc.
Before the article is deleted (which can happen at any time), you have the right to contest the deletion, by clicking on that blue 'contest' button. This won't necessarily prevent deletion, but at least it gives you the chance to make your case.
I should also mention that the sources cited are insufficient to establish notability per WP:GNG / WP:ORGCRIT, so if you do get a chance to develop this further, you will have to find more and better sources.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying. If I were to rework the draft and find better resources, would I just submit a new draft? Or revise this one if it's not deleted? Thank you for your help! Joe Savvas (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Joe Savvas: if this draft doesn't get speedily deleted, then I would continue working on this one, because otherwise it will just wither on the vine, so to speak, and one day get deleted as an abandoned draft. And given that it occupies the article name you (presumably) want, you would otherwise have to jump through an extra hoop to have a new drat at that name.
Of course, if it does get deleted, then you have no option but to start a new one.
A word of advice: the next time you come to submitting something like this, make sure it doesn't come across as something written by your marketing department — if anything, it should come across as having been written by one of your competitor's marketing deparment! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I reworked it so it is much more neutral. Should I, at this point, contest the rejection? Or will the changes be re-reviewed? Thank you for any and all help! Joe Savvas (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Joe Savvas: you cannot contest the rejection. And in saying that, I realise I may have been earlier leading you down the proverbial garden path. I was too focused on the speedy deletion request, overlooking the fact that the draft has been rejected, not just declined. This means that it will not be reviewed again, which in turn means that if you wish to resubmit, you would have to not only significantly rewrite it but to also include new content which would effectively make it a different draft from the rejected one. Apologies for any confusion. (Anyone else care to step in at this point, before I make an even bigger mess of this?!) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:22:38, 19 May 2022 review of submission by Bonsu Nyame Ishmael

[edit]

My submission is very new and I have obliged by the guidelines of Wikipedia in my writing. The initial reviewer checked my piece in a very few minutes right after my submission was posted. Bonsu Nyame Ishmael (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bonsu Nyame Ishmael: the draft is basically WP:ADMASQ with no encyclopaedic content (not to mention that it is also laid out in such an odd manner, as to be largely illegible). You would have to completely rewrite it, I'm afraid. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It would have taken less than a minute to conclude that this is not a viable Wikipedia article. Theroadislong (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very mch for your feedback. I'll go over my content again and rewrite it as advised. Bonsu Nyame Ishmael (talk) 06:13, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:19:06, 19 May 2022 review of draft by Workspaceengineer

[edit]


Hello! I am working on a draft for a Wikipedia article about HiView Solutions, a company I work for (I have declared the COI). I am confused about how to create references. It seems that references should generate automatically, but all I see are the links. I haven't found a way to edit the reference section to make each reference complete. Please advise.

Thank you,

Kelly


Workspaceengineer (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kelly @Workspaceengineer: please see WP:REFB for advice on using the cite templates accessed via the RefToolbar, which format the citations correctly.
Don't bother citing sources like LinkedIn, though, as these are not considered reliable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Workspaceengineer I see your COI declaration; if you work for them, you must make the stricter paid editing declaration, a Terms of Use requirement. Also note that we are not interested merely in the existence of the company, what it does, and what it considers to be its own history- a Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. 331dot (talk) 08:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:20:49, 19 May 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by JasonAQuest

[edit]


I was working on a draft when an editor who clearly didn't know what he was doing submitted it to AFC as if he'd written it... without discussing that and when it was obviously not ready. It was immediately declined, of course, and I continued working on it. Out of the blue, the editor who declined it took it upon himself to resubmit it... and it has sat unreviewed for two months since. In the meantime someone else created a stub on the same topic. Is there any way to get my better-developed article out of limbo to replace it? I'm an experienced editor and never needed AFC's approval: can I unsubmit my (hijacked) draft and move it to article space on my own authority? Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JasonAQuest: you should not publish your draft now, if it replicates an existing article (meaning, they describe the same subject, even if the article name and content are different). You are welcome to contribute to the existing article, of course — that article isn't 'owned' by its creator, any more than your draft is owned by you.
FWIW, I don't believe that the reviewer who declined your draft resubmitted it; it looks to me like the same editor who submitted it the first time resubmitted it later; you then deleted that submission template, and the declining reviewer only restored it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:15:06, 19 May 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by 103.177.247.122

[edit]



103.177.247.122 (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a slam-dunk no-context deletion were it in mainspace. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

23:11:20, 19 May 2022 review of submission by Radical Kay

[edit]

I was just wondering if I can get some insight on why the above article was denied? I thought there was enough outside publications about the topic. Please help me understand what I need to find for this article to be approved. I would like to continue to contribute to Wikipedia.

Radical Kay (talk) 23:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Radical Kay The draft just tells about the company and what it does. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. Your draft is sourced almost exclusively to press release type stories or announcements of routine business activities, which does not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 23:18, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Radical Kay: Refer to the top table at User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
Your sourcing is overall useless. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 23:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So what would be considered notable sources? Is there a list of websites that are notable sources or something?
I'm just confused about what makes a reliable source considered reliable. Radical Kay (talk) 16:24, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We're looking for in-depth, non-routine, independent sources about the subject that are written by identifiable authors and published in outlets that have competent editorial oversight that fact-checks, discloses, corrects, and retracts. All of your sources fail at least one of these five criteria. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:13, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

23:24:56, 19 May 2022 review of draft by NeverTry4Me

[edit]


I have removed book citations as I have not found the page numbers or chapters. The reviewer says, "Many (most?) of the sources are press releases". But this is not the fact. I have added news sources, not press releases. I am asking for a better review. Regards

- Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 23:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NeverTry4Me: I have removed book citations as I have not found the page numbers or chapters. But you must have had access to them a few days ago when you created the draft? Otherwise, how could you use them as sources? The reviewer says, "Many (most?) of the sources are press releases". But this is not the fact. This is the draft version I reviewed when I added the comment you quote. This is a press release, this is a press release, this is a press release, this is the same press release as the previous one, this is a press release, this is a press release, this is a press release. Since that review, you have added some more press releases as references, such as this one and this one. --bonadea contributions talk 18:03, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All link you mentioned are not press release. Those news doesn't even mention "press release". Then how do you assume as press release? I guess you have a misunderstanding about news and press release. - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 21:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A piece does not need to be labeled as a press release to be one. Most of those do not have a specific author, a strong indication. 331dot (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@NeverTry4Me: There is a reason I have "unknown provenance" as a reason a source is unsuitable on User:Jéské Couriano/Decode, and there is a reason it's one of the ones I pull out the most often. Most outlets will run content journalists did not write but they choose/are compelled to publish under a role byline ("(outlet) news desk"), under a generic "staff writer" or "admin" byline, or under no byline at all. Most of this content is native adverts, press releases, or the worst forms of churnalism. If an actual journalist wrote a story, barring exigent circumstances they will put their name on it and take responsibility for it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:18, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano, in India, most newspapers use "Staff Reporter", "Local Correspondence, Place", "Bureau" etc in the news. Those are a journalist's designation in the media house. You can check a few epapers to verify it.
Though, the above is not an excuse from me, I have understood your evaluation. And I appreciate you for your way of making me understand. Thanking you. Regards - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 01:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano what's your take on this by the Guardian-> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/23/bodoland-tribal-separatists-kill-34-assam-indian-police-say ?
Can we say that is also a press release? I would really like an honest review on the draft mentioned above as the major international media outlets also sometime doesn't reveal the real person behind the news, but that doesn't make them un-reliable. - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 08:09, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Guardian piece you link to is a press release, and clearly identified as such. Since you have submitted the draft for review, it will be reviewed in due time. --bonadea contributions talk 12:10, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2022_May_19&oldid=1089745015"