Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 April 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< April 5 << Mar | April | May >> April 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.


April 6

[edit]

02:38:18, 6 April 2023 review of draft by CP Bhambhu

[edit]
Please help me to improve draft page/article created by me. It's taking enough time to be reviewed, meanwhile suggest me edits in draft page/article created by me.

CP Bhambhu (talk) 02:38, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CP Bhambhu: what do you wish to ask? "Please help me" isn't very specific. In any case, you have resubmitted this draft and it is awaiting review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the notability claim here? She's a cop doing cop work. -- asilvering (talk) 15:49, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 05:46:40, 6 April 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Amiyabbr

[edit]


I am a budding writer in wiki and I have created my first Article by reading the sources from the website of the Institute. I need help regarding finding authentic sources of information.

Amiyabbr (talk) 05:46, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Amiyabbr: I can't help you find the sources, but I can tell you what you need to be looking for: per WP:GNG, we need to see significant coverage of the institute, in multiple secondary sources that are both reliable and completely independent of the subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:28, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Amiyabbr And the website of the institute is not an independent source (click here), so that's not where you should be getting information that you will then summarize. David10244 (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You need to find sources that have written about the institute, and summarize those sources. That will be the basis for your article. David10244 (talk) 19:59, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:22:51, 6 April 2023 review of draft by Ninhursag3

[edit]


Hello there. I want to make a separate wikipedia page on the Hungarian mafia/Fundai mafia. The Hungarian mafia is talked about in a corner within the Slovakian Mafia Wikipedia page. Please help me, thank you advance.


Ninhursag3 (talk) 06:22, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ninhursag3: you need to cite multiple sources that meet the WP:GNG criteria. In fact, you should only be summarising what such sources have said. Where has the information currently in your draft come from? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:21, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I consider that the Slovak Mafia and the Hungarian Mafia shouldn't be on the same wikipedia page but be separate. Articles in Hungarian about Hungarian mafia (you can google translate them): https://hvg.hu/vilag/20060523magyarmaffia1
https://www.origo.hu/nagyvilag/20180729-birosag-elott-a-dunaszerdahelyi-maffia-vezetoje-a-besztercebanyai-buntetesvegrehajtasi-intezetben.html Ninhursag3 (talk) 09:28, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the Slovak wikipedia page their is a corner about the Hungarian mafia. This is where I took the information for my wikipedia draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovak_mafia Ninhursag3 (talk) 09:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ninhursag3: if you wish to split off the Hungary-related content from the existing Slovak mafia article, then you need to open a split discussion on that article's talk page; see WP:SPLIT for instructions on how to go about this.
Nevertheless, my earlier point about adequate sources still applies. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you for the advice. Ninhursag3 (talk) 09:51, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:03:58, 6 April 2023 review of submission by HC1958

[edit]


Contrary to the previous editor, I think this article reaches the notability criteria for Wikipedia. The first editor asked me to include better sources and more historical background to the subject, both of which I have done. Given the work I've done for this article, I very much appreciate any effort by the editors to reconsider this article rejection.

In summary, these are the reasons I think the Professorship in the History of Political Thought at Cambridge University reaches the notability criteria:

  • There is significant coverage in reliable, independent sources: I list at least five published articles or books from the past 50 years that take the Professorship as a key subject matter. These are by academic from multiple acacdemic fields, including political science, history, and English literature. No original research was needed to create this article. All 12 sources used, apart from two, were written by authors independent of the subject.
  • There are many notable individuals associated with the professorship: every person who has been appointed to this professorship (as listed in the article) is notable, reflected by the fact that they all (except one) have their own Wikipedia page. One figure, Quentin Skinner, is particularly notable: he is regarded as among the most influential and honoured English-speaking historians of the twentieth century (see the Awards on his page).
  • There is broader historical notability to the professorship: as noted in the body of the article, it is part of a broader history of the university and its development in Britain. It is also relevant to the history of philanthropy in the twentieth century, having been funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. Both of these histories have significant coverage in historical scholarship.

I thank the editors for considering this request.

HC1958 (talk) 09:03, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @HC1958:
Regarding your first point, I cannot help noticing that the majority of the sources you cite are affiliated with Cambridge. It would be good to see what others have to say about this, not just what Cambridge has to say about itself.
Your second point seems to suggest that because the post-holders were notable, the post itself becomes inherently notable. This is not so; notability is neither inherent nor inherited.
And lastly, the chair's history and context may make it real-life noteworthy or important, but that is different from notability as understood in the world of Wikipedia.
In any case, this draft has been rejected, so if you would like to make a case for its further consideration, you need to take this up with rejecting reviewer. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:39, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:52:03, 6 April 2023 review of submission by KevinLu TSC

[edit]


Hi Everyone, I have tried to edit the draft page "Taiwan Semiconductor", a Taiwanese company. And I receive a declined note that requesting edit page with reliable sources and reference. I was wondering is it possible to cite non-English reference in page? Because the most of reference from reliable authorities and publishers are in Mandarin. It's kinda hard to search the reference in English.


KevinLu TSC (talk) 09:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@KevinLu TSC: non-English sources are acceptable, yes, as long as they otherwise meet the WP:GNG standard. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:24, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @DoubleGrazing, I have update the reliable reference from notable Taiwanese media and press, the article is independent to the subject. Please kindly check and provide any suggestions if needed. KevinLu TSC (talk) 06:28, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@KevinLu TSC: you have resubmitted the draft, therefore a check will be carried out when a reviewer gets around to assessing it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed some inappropriate capitalization. David10244 (talk) 06:55, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:35:48, 6 April 2023 review of draft by Tinoquito

[edit]


Could these references added be more enough? I have seen articles with less sources and even with less content that are live on Wikipedia. I hope you can help me with this. Thank you.

Tinoquito (talk) 17:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tinoquito: no, they're not enough to establish notability per WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources; none of the ones cited meets that standard (with the possible exception of The Johnson County Graphic which I cannot access, but in any case it alone wouldn't be sufficient). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:41, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tinoquito Also, please click on WP:OSE. David10244 (talk) 06:56, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:55:14, 6 April 2023 review of submission by Tivo15

[edit]


My draft was declined for 1- being "very confusing" and for 2- "reading like an essay" .

1- I can understand the confusing part, especially if one isn't familiar with sport stat and history pages, but I didn't create anything new persay, just used stat table templates from other pages. I can remove some tables of information if it helps.

2- I have no idea how to make it less like an essay? To me, there are no opinions and is neutral. What do I need to adjust?

Tivo15 (talk) 20:55, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2023_April_6&oldid=1149436270"