Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 September 22
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < September 21 | << Aug | September | Oct >> | September 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. |
September 22
[edit]09:08:14, 22 September 2022 review of draft by Philip Torchinsky
[edit]
The article in question meets notability requirements. A reason to publish it is that the main product of this company is a well-known Liberica JDK, mentioned on the OpenJDK page. The latter is an essential part of Wikipedia and a source of basic knowledge for millions of Java developers, including those who have just started studying software engineering. OpenJDK page mentions all companies developing various JDKs, and BellSoft does not have its page, while others do. It seems to be essential to fill this gap. There is no specific reason to exclude BellSoft from the list.
What I already ensured to make the article better: 1. The sources I used in the article are NOT only the publications made by the article's subject. 2. The article has a neutral tone. It describes facts. It does not encourage anyone to use any of the mentioned products. 3. The article helps people unfamiliar with the topic navigate the ocean of terms and products. As a software developer, I think it is important to provide people with information that helps them to choose the correct version of whatever they need, based on their requirements.
I also disagree with a comment about WP:COI, because I have never been working for BellSoft, I don't benefit from their service anyhow, and I even don't use their products. The reason for me to create this article is to contribute to better understanding of JDK landscape.
Please help to make the article better. I appreciate your advice very much.
Philip Torchinsky (talk) 09:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- Philip Torchinsky Please see other stuff exists. That other companies have articles does not mean this company gets one too.
- An article is not for merely telling about the topic and what it does. It 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. Not every company merits an article, even within the same field. It depends.on the sources.
- The customers section should be completely removed, unless you have sources that discuss the importance of a company using this company's product. Most of the rest seems to be about the company's products and not the company itself. If no independent reliable sources give this company significant coverage, it would not merit an article at this time. 331dot (talk) 09:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Philip Torchinsky: this draft was declined for being promotional, not for lack of notability. But since you bring that up, I would very much argue that it doesn't meet notability per WP:GNG / WP:ORGCRIT, at least not in light of the sources cited. Can you explain how you see notability being demonstrated here? (And having a 'well-known' product etc. is not it.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- BookNerdPBS (talk · contribs)
I have reviewed the criteria for notability several times for a draft article I have submitted R P Anand. The entry meets at least two criteria for notability of an academic: That he was President of a significant society and that he influenced a significant movement in the field. I included five sources for the latter and two sources for the former point.
Reviewers claim, without specifying, that the sources aren't independent. I've reviewed the criteria for independence and cannot find an issue with the sources. They are other academics and jurists that are notable in the field that he created. If you are trying to demonstrate influence, you are going to have to cite sources that were influenced by his work. That is how academic writing works. This does not make them non-independent according to wikipedia criteria.
At this point, it feels like bullying by reviewers who are disregarding the independence and quality of the sources without explanation. The sources cited are the leading journals in international law, renowned scholars, and distinguished judges.
I started writing this entry bc I am a scholar of international law. Third World Approaches to International Law is an important academic movement of critical legal approaches to the study of international law. It felt like this was a significant scholar who needed a page. I am an academic, trained to find sources to support each and every sentence I write. I stand behind the quality and independence of the sources included in this article to demonstrate the veracity of each sentence included.
BookNerdPBS (talk) 11:07, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @BookNerdPBS: firstly, I would ask you not to make baseless accusations of bullying etc.; those will not be appreciated by anyone.
- Secondly, I wish you had first presented the draft as it currently stands, not the earlier version I reviewed a week ago, because this is clearly an improvement in many respects. I might have accepted this on sight (minus some peacockery, perhaps), and we wouldn't be here now.
- Another way to look at this would be to say that because you have received feedback — one might say, pushback! — on your draft, it is now in a better shape than it perhaps would have been without going through this review process.
- Anyway, I have an IRL commitment starting soon, but if no one has looked into this in more detail by the time I'm finished, I will review the draft again when I'm back. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- Dear DoubleGrazing
- I appreciate the second review. You are correct, the draft is much improved from the original you reviewed. That is why I was surprised that it kept being rejected by additional reviewers after adding lots of additional details and sources. The only things I added after the third rejection was additional sources of reviews of his books. But these sources honestly seem excessive. Hence my impression that subsequent reviewers were rejecting without evaluating the merits of the piece, claiming without evidence that it did meet Wikipedia's criteria of notability with multiple independent sources to back up those specific points when it clearly did.
- Thanks BookNerdPBS (talk) 12:29, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- @DoubleGrazing
- I'm replying here as well as in response to your comment. It looks like the article was accepted, so thank you.
- Just a quick follow-up note as I hope this will help your review of entries in the future. The vast majority of sources cited are academic journal articles. They are pieces of scholarship, not the personal recounting of the author. These are secondary sources as commonly understood and as described by Wikipedia, quote below with language in bold that describes the type of sources I cited here. So I don't really agree with your assessment that all but one of the sources are primary sources.
- "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them. For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research." BookNerdPBS (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for educating me on the degrees of sourcing, as pertains to Wikipedia's concept of notability. I really do mean it.
- Now, can we drop this? I've accepted your draft; what more do you want? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:02, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
13:29:34, 22 September 2022 review of submission by 2601:182:D17F:B120:A55C:9D64:4A63:67D9
[edit]
This post is meant to be informational. I was careful not to use any promotional language. Let me know if this description could be edited to reach a higher standard. Thank you.
2601:182:D17F:B120:A55C:9D64:4A63:67D9 (talk) 13:29, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- This is an investor-fishing brochure at best. It'd need to be rewritten from scratch, based on in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-the-subject news/scholarly sources that are written by identifiable authors and subjected to rigourous fact-checking. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
This is my first time creating a Wikipedia page and I am trying to sort this out for my father who owns the business. I have done all I needed to do in terms of claiming I am related to the business. However, I believe I am struggling with inputting correct citations and everything. Please may someone help me with this to be able to make the page public. I am more than happy to answer as many questions as needed and to do as told to get this Wikipedia page up and running. Kind regards.
LouisRedfern7 (talk) 14:55, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
15:42:08, 22 September 2022 review of draft by Spesshot
[edit]
I h
Spesshot (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
e re-assembled the draft entry (title: Richard Novick) and the text is now complete, with references cited at the appropriate points in the text, in my sandbox. I am still not sure whether the referencing is adequate, and do not know which, if any, statements still need referencing. Thanks for your help, Spesshot (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Spesshot
- @Spesshot: in answer to your question whether the referencing is adequate — no, it emphatically is not. Firstly, in articles on living people, inline citations are required, whereas this draft has none; see ILC and REFB for advice.
- Secondly, as to what needs to be referenced, the answer is pretty much everything! Every material statement, anything potentially contentions, and all private personal details such as DOB and family members, must be clearly supported by an inline citation to a reliable source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:11, 23 September 2022 (UTC)