Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 September 30
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < September 29 | << Aug | September | Oct >> | October 1 > |
| 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 30
[edit]04:12:55, 30 September 2022 review of submission by JocastaFeinberg
[edit]Akevsharma informed me that my page on Jeff Weinstein lacked reliable sources. I'm unsure why this is the case, since I cited everything in the page, and my sources are all reliable. Could you tell me why this page was declined? I'd like to fix these issues before I resubmit the page for review. I've already fixed a broken link to a source and swapped a source that might be unreliable in Wikipedia's eyes (Muckrack.com) with one that Wikipedia might find more valid (a book, published by Pushcart Press.) Thank you for responding to me, so we can get this sorted out. All my best! JocastaFeinberg (talk) 04:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- @JocastaFeinberg: it's not quite the case that you "cited everything", the DOB is not referenced (a detail, I know, but an important one). However, I don't think that's why this was declined. My guess is that it was because the referencing relies heavily on the first two sources, and it's not clear how reliable the first one (LGBT History Month) is, while the second (San Diego Reader) is an interview of Weinstein; there are also some other primary sources included. Beyond that, you might have to ask the declining reviewer directly what they had in mind. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for your advice. I just edited the text and cited Weinstein's date of birth. The LGBT History Month source is quite reliable; Equality Forum, which founded LGBT History Month, is a significant civil rights organization, and the LGBT History Month initiative is a trove of LGBT history, co-run by an academic (Sharon Ullman)—not sure what makes this organization disreputable. The San Diego Reader piece is not an interview, it's a profile, written by another author for a major alternative weekly newspaper. Much of the information I attributed to the LGBT History Month piece and the San Diego Reader piece can also be found in other publications that I cite later in the text. I've reached out to the declining reviewer, and I'm waiting to hear back. JocastaFeinberg (talk) 10:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- @JocastaFeinberg The organization is not being called "disreputable". Reliable sources are explained at Reliable Sources (click here) and that word has a specific meaning within Wikipedia. I'm sure the organization is reputable! Good luck. David10244 (talk) 05:23, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response @David10244, I appreciate it! I've read the Reliable Sources page and see nothing that would cause me to question the reliability of the LGBT History Month as a source. Can you let me know specifically why this source might give Wikipedia editors trouble? I think my page is more thoroughly sourced now and I would like to submit it for review again. (Though I haven't heard back from the editor who initially declined it, @Akevsharma— it would be extremely helpful for me to hear from this editor, so that I may address the editor's concerns directly.) I'm also concerned that, if the article is declined, it might be deleted. Is this a possibility? Thanks again! JocastaFeinberg (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- @JocastaFeinberg I will try to answer your first question a bit later, but if declined, the draft will stay for 6 months. If it's edited, the 6 month timer starts over. David10244 (talk) 11:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- The page was accepted this morning! Thank you again for your help, @David10244 and @DoubleGrazing. JocastaFeinberg (talk) 19:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- @JocastaFeinberg I will try to answer your first question a bit later, but if declined, the draft will stay for 6 months. If it's edited, the 6 month timer starts over. David10244 (talk) 11:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response @David10244, I appreciate it! I've read the Reliable Sources page and see nothing that would cause me to question the reliability of the LGBT History Month as a source. Can you let me know specifically why this source might give Wikipedia editors trouble? I think my page is more thoroughly sourced now and I would like to submit it for review again. (Though I haven't heard back from the editor who initially declined it, @Akevsharma— it would be extremely helpful for me to hear from this editor, so that I may address the editor's concerns directly.) I'm also concerned that, if the article is declined, it might be deleted. Is this a possibility? Thanks again! JocastaFeinberg (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- @JocastaFeinberg The organization is not being called "disreputable". Reliable sources are explained at Reliable Sources (click here) and that word has a specific meaning within Wikipedia. I'm sure the organization is reputable! Good luck. David10244 (talk) 05:23, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for your advice. I just edited the text and cited Weinstein's date of birth. The LGBT History Month source is quite reliable; Equality Forum, which founded LGBT History Month, is a significant civil rights organization, and the LGBT History Month initiative is a trove of LGBT history, co-run by an academic (Sharon Ullman)—not sure what makes this organization disreputable. The San Diego Reader piece is not an interview, it's a profile, written by another author for a major alternative weekly newspaper. Much of the information I attributed to the LGBT History Month piece and the San Diego Reader piece can also be found in other publications that I cite later in the text. I've reached out to the declining reviewer, and I'm waiting to hear back. JocastaFeinberg (talk) 10:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
04:50:46, 30 September 2022 review of submission by 117.217.38.150
[edit]
117.217.38.150 (talk) 04:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- You haven't asked a question, but this draft has been rejected and won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:24, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
09:16:44, 30 September 2022 review of draft by Apexuious
[edit]
Apexuious (talk) 09:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- You have not submitted your draft for review yet? It has no sources so will be declined if you do. Theroadislong (talk) 09:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
11:30:13, 30 September 2022 review of submission by SyedAnasTanweer
[edit]
SyedAnasTanweer (talk) 11:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- @SyedAnasTanweer: you don't ask a question, but you don't need to submit your user page to AfC review (and therefore you're free to remove the rejection template). You do, however, need to ensure that the page complies with the guidelines at WP:UP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
15:29:03, 30 September 2022 review of submission by Dramalpc
[edit]
Dramalpc (talk) 15:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- What is your question, @Dramalpc? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:24, 30 September 2022 (UTC)