Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 November 18
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < November 17 | << Oct | November | Dec >> | November 19 > |
| 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. |
November 18
[edit]14:06:56, 18 November 2022 review of submission by ZX2006XZ
[edit]
Hello. My name is ZX2006XZ. So the trailer for Pixar's Elemental came out yesterday, alongside a new teaser poster.
Trailer link: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-cT495xKvvs&t=2s
Poster link: https://twitter.com/Pixar/status/1593292209758953475?s=20&t=bs9Jk2YZhTKeZ5CDFe7hvA
I'm requesting for this draft to get a re- review, as it has been rejected for article submission after 3 declines.
ZX2006XZ (talk) 14:06, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
- @ZX2006XZ well there certainly seems to be plenty of interest in this, at least from the supply side of things (see previous two threads). Please refer to the earlier comments by 331dot. If, after that, you still wish to pursue this, you need to take the matter up with the reviewer who rejected the draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:21, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
14:25:47, 18 November 2022 review of submission by Madyoshi01
[edit]- Madyoshi01 (talk · contribs)
Hello, I'm writing today to ask for a re-review of this article. It has been rejected before and I'm not well-versed when it comes to article submissions but as the film's marketing campaign has begun I'd appreciate if you could take another look into it. Best regards, Madyoshi01 (talk) 14:25, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
- @madyoshi01: read the previous 3 threads. lettherebedarklight〔晚安 おやすみ〕ping me when replying 14:27, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
- I'd like to point out I hadn't read the requests above mine. Worth mentioning I'm one of two active editors for the draft. Should I take it to the person who originally rejected the submission then? Madyoshi01 (talk) 14:29, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
- I'm going to start reverting off requests for this draft if it's clear the person filing it hasn't acknowledged the responce to Adamtb24 above. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 14:34, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
- I understand. Thanks for letting me know. Madyoshi01 (talk) 14:49, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
- I'm going to start reverting off requests for this draft if it's clear the person filing it hasn't acknowledged the responce to Adamtb24 above. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 14:34, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
22:48:32, 18 November 2022 review of submission by Ucfbrett
[edit]
Ucfbrett (talk) 22:48, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Spec3 is an official racing class within the National Auto Sport Association. How can we legitimize this page?
- @Ucfbrett: Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
- https://drivenasa.com/road-racing/spec3/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject). A whitepaper from the governing body laying out the requirements for the format isn't going to help a whit for notability in Wikipedia's eyes. It may prove that the format exists and has rules, but this is completely irrelevant with respect to notability.
- https://www.outmotorsports.com/2019/01/woulda-coulda-shoulda-longest-spec3-build/ is useless for notability (wrong subject). This doesn't discuss the Spec3 format in much detail, instead being about a mechanic's efforts to build a car for it. Were it not for the fact the author is the one who's working on the car this would be usable as a source of notability for that car, not for Spec 3. Coverage of tangential or related topics isn't coverage of the subject.
- https://nomoneymotorsports.com/2021/08/31/spec-miata-vs-spec-e30-which-is-the-best-spec-racing-class-13-factors-to-see-what-is-best/ is useless for notability (wrong subject). The BMW spec described here is Spec E30 (1984-1991 "E30" BMW models), and Spec3 is only name-dropped at the end of the article.
- https://grassrootsmotorsports.com/articles/spectacular/ seems good.
- We can't use https://www.bimmerworld.com/Chips-Software/Chips-/Spec3-Performance-Chip-by-Epic-Motorsports_2.html (online storefront). Your audience is Joe Blow from San Antonio, not gearheads. Our readers take offence if it appears that an article is trying to sell them something.
- We can't use https://www.rrtautomotive.com/rrt-racing/spec3/ (online storefront). Mechanic specialising in Spec3 and offering to sell their services.
- We can't use https://vorshlag-store.com/products/vorshlag-camber-plate-and-perch-kit-for-spec3 (online storefront).
- " " " https://andrew-racing.com/c-892868-nasa-spec-pads-nasa-spec-3.html (" ").
- We can't use https://grassrootsmotorsports.com/issues/331/ (too sparse). If you're citing a print version of the magazine, use
{{cite magazine}}and fill out the last1, first1, date, title, work, and pages parameters. - We can't use https://racehero.io/events/nasa-eastern-states-championships-2016/results/1073743720#show:detailed-info-overall-113538 (too sparse). We don't cite statlines or raw results as they have basically nothing to cite. This applies to both Racehero.io sources.
- https://us.motorsport.com/roadracing/news/nasa-championships-launch-at-road-atlanta/2824702/ is useless for notability (too sparse). A sentence of description of a race, if that.
- We can't use https://speedhive.mylaps.com/Organizations/46497/Championships/96814 (too sparse). Raw results listing. This applies to both Speedhive.mylaps.com sources.
- You have only one source that's any good; the rest are all unusable in some fashion. One source is not enough to satisfy our notability guideline, even if that source is utterly perfect. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 23:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)