Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 August 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< August 11 << Jul | August | Sep >> August 13 >
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.


August 12

[edit]

07:33, 12 August 2023 review of submission by 2.38.66.128

[edit]

I am not sure I understand the reviewer's reasons. He has rejected the article due to a "lack of reliable sources." However, this article contains six different citations each of them of published academic articles and books which are available online and in any good research library. One of these is a primary source from the seventeenth century. This article has been created in a history university class on the Mughals under the supervision of a Mughal historian. 2.38.66.128 (talk) 07:33, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, this draft has been only declined, not rejected, meaning you're welcome to resubmit once you've addressed the decline reason(s).
Secondly, that decline reason not adequately supported by reliable sources can mean either that the sources cited are not reliable, or that the way the sources are cited is insufficient to support the contents. I'm guessing the latter is the case here, given that there are several paragraphs without any referencing.
The information must come from reliable published sources; this is important to ensure accuracy and verifiability, as well as to avoid original research. Frequent inline citations tell the reader which source has provided what information. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:02, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:00, 12 August 2023 review of submission by Jesslee01

[edit]

Hello! I would like to add more tags to this draft but am having a hard time figuring out how to do this. I added a couple, but now the link will not allow me to add additional tags. Thank you! -Jess Jesslee01 (talk) 09:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tags are a relatively minor thing to worry about and as long as you have a couple that is sufficient for now. Please review the feedback I've left you on the draft. 331dot (talk) 09:12, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:45, 12 August 2023 review of submission by 109.76.88.29

[edit]

This page needs to be accepted! This is an author being studied in my son's school and there is no wikipedia page for him! 109.76.88.29 (talk) 09:45, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has articles, not pages. The draft article was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. He does not seem to meet our criteria for a notable author and as such there can be no article about him here. School projects are not relevant, and Wikipedia should not be used as a source for school projects, as Wikipedia is not a reliable source. 331dot (talk) 10:07, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:55, 12 August 2023 review of submission by TheNuggeteer

[edit]

My draft got rejected, but i dont know the reason. TheNuggeteer (talk) 10:55, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TheNuggeteer Your draft was declined, not rejected. "Rejected" has a specific meaning here, that a draft cannot be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted. The reviewer left the reason for their decline at the top of your draft- you have insufficient reliable sources to establish that this person meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. 331dot (talk) 10:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:49, 12 August 2023 review of submission by Oymiadbugj

[edit]

Why was the article deleted? I do not know him nor his family. He was my king and I created that article many references. Oymiadbugj (talk) 14:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Oymiadbugj: this draft has been deleted as overly promotional. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:01, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Oymiadbugj. As I am not an admin, I cannot look at the deleted draft. But I can tell you that when a draft is too promotional, it always means that you have written either what you know or think about the subject, or what the subject says about himself (or what his associates say about him). Wikipedia is not interested in either of these things, at all.
What you need to do is First, find several reliable published sources, completely unconnected with him - not his words, not based on interviews or press releases, not the words of his employees or associates, but people with no connection who have chosen to write at some length about him.
Then, if you have found at least three such source, forget everything you know about him, and write an article that summarizes in your own words what those sources say, adding nothing. If you cannot find three such sources, then you will know that he does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and you should't put any further time or effort into this, as it will be wasted. ColinFine (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:49, 12 August 2023 review of submission by Caesarc

[edit]

Good morning! I am writing a wiki article about American author Gene Caesar. At first I was able to upload photos without difficulty, but now they are being refused. These are snapshots I took of book covers, and one family snapshot of the author. What should I do? Thank you. Cheryl Caesarc (talk) 14:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Caesarc: I'm no expert in copyright issues, but I have a feeling that if the book covers you've taken photos of are still in copyright, you're probably not allowed to upload them as your own work. However, this isn't really an AfC matter (not least because images have no bearing on whether a draft is accepted), so you should rather ask this at the Commons help desk. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. The books are from the 1950s and 60s, so still under copyright. On the other hand, I am the last direct relative, so copyright reverts to me. And certainly a family Kodak was never under copyright at all. Also, the photos I uploaded on Wednesday were all accepted, while similar photos on Thursday were not. So I think there might be a glitch in the system. I'll keep digging, but I appreciate your input. Caesarc (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Caesarc: if, as you suggest, you are the copyright owner, then you would need to formally hand this over. By doing so you may have to relinquish your proprietary rights in the IP.
When you say the photos you uploaded earlier were 'accepted', this only means that the system took at face value your assurance that they are your own work. If that turns out not to be the case, then they may get deleted.
And lastly, I'm pretty sure even a family snap is the copyright of whoever took it, as copyright arises automatically at the point of creation, without anyone having to formally claim or register it.
I repeat, you may wish to enquire at the Commons HD, where they probably know these things better. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:34, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! CC Caesarc (talk) 16:06, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As DoubleGrazing says, the images will not affect whether or not your draft is accepted; but unless the creator of the covers was working under a contract which specifically assigned the copyright in the covers to Glen Caesar, then you probably do not own the copyright to the covers.
I'm afraid that, in its present form, I don't believe the draft has any hope of being accepted. It reads like a piece of primary research; but original research is forbidden in Wikipedia. I couldn't be bothered to wade through the long list of references to his own work (all of which should be removed, as they are irrelevant to a Wikipedia article) to see if there are any references to independent scholarly or critical writing about him: those (exclusively) are what you need to base the article on. Please read your first article.
In addition, as his heir, you have a conflict of interest - this doesn't prevent you from writing the draft, but it makes it even more important to put absolutely nothing from your own thoughts or knowledge into the draft, but exclusively base it on what people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about him. ColinFine (talk) 19:41, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:31, 12 August 2023 review of submission by StormBarn23

[edit]

The article is described as lacking reliable sources, though it cites the original papers of De Vries and Rose on which the law is based, plus other refereed journal papers and published books on vision science. Please could you tell me what parts of the article remain insufficiently sourced, or which of my sources are deemed unreliable, and I'll do my best to rectify the issue. StormBarn23 (talk) 15:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The original papers of De Vries and Rose are primary sources. Wikipedia articles must be almost entirely based on secondary sources. Which of your sources by people who were not collaborators with De Vries or Rose have significant discussion of the De Vries Rose law specifically? Those, only, are what most of the article should be based on. ColinFine (talk) 19:46, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:28:43, 12 August 2023 review of submission by Apswikicontrib

[edit]

Hello, I want help for improving this article as it has been declined. I will try to improve it as per the reviewers comments, however it would be helpful if I know which of the references that I have added are not relevant. Few of the references that are not relevant as per my understandings are from YouTube, isn't it? I would like to know if the references from the different art galleries where winners were announced are relevant or not. And also, the refences of news coverages are relevant or not? Apswikicontrib (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is your association with the person you are writing about?
This draft need to have some sources with more extensive coverage of her, like professional reviews of her work. Right now it reads like a resume, merely documenting her work. 331dot (talk) 16:51, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 331dot, thanks for the important hints, will try to rework, btw know the person indirectly. Apswikicontrib (talk) 09:07, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You probably need to start all over again, I'm afraid - begin by reading your first article. A Wikiepdia article is a summary of what independent reliable sources have said about the subject, nothing more.
None of the gallery publications is of any relevance at all to the article: if an independent writer has written at some length about one of her shows, then cite that independent review. If no indepedent writer has covered a show, then it is dubious that the show should even be mentioned in the article. ColinFine (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ColinFine, thanks for the valuable suggestions and more insights, things are looking more clearer now, will try to rework! Apswikicontrib (talk) 09:11, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:36, 12 August 2023 review of submission by Muhammadshakoor12

[edit]

atleast assist me to how t proof the identity of that company , please 

Muhammadshakoor12 (talk) 18:36, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Muhammadshakoor12: what is your relationship with this business? And what is your relationship with user Alexxxxx125? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:51, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Proving the identity of the company" is of absolutely no relevance to Wikiepedia. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources.
If you can find several independent reliable sources about Zam Zam, then it might be possible to write an article. If you cannot, your repeated attempts to create this are a total waste of your time, and of the time of all the volunteers who have repeatedly attempted to explain this to you. ColinFine (talk) 20:01, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:17, 12 August 2023 review of submission by 100.35.167.233

[edit]

I resoundingly dispute the latest critique of my Wikipedia article that I submitted on John G. Dooley, Track Announcer. First and foremost, I am an accredited member of the turfwriting community and serve as a director on the National Turf Writers and Broadcasters, which is an organization that has been around over a half century. The website that I used to work for (Horseracing.net/us) is not a betting website. That is not accurate. We never took wagers and only published articles pertaining to the sport of horse racing. As far as the other sources I used, they are published on creditable site and John Dooley is a professional track announcer with loads of experience over 30 years of work. He trained with Tom Durkin, who has a Wikipedia page. I need some kind of response to this because I think my artcile adds greatly to the sport that I serve as a full-time member of the media. 100.35.167.233 (talk) 21:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP editor. When I visit the Horseracing.net home page, I see a neon green button at the top right that says "Free bets". That sort of thing is a big red flag for reviewers. The website is crammed with links to commercial online betting sites who presumably pay for placement. It looks a lot like an online tout sheet to me. As for your credentials, nobody cares on Wikipedia because we have no way of verifying the claims of an anonymous contributor, and self-proclaimed experts enjoy no special privileges here. All we care about is whether or not your contributions fully comply with Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines. As for Tom Durkin (sportscaster), the references in that article are far stronger, including a 24 paragraph article in the New York Times devoted to him. Your draft, on the other hand, relies on poor quality references like interviews (not independent), coverage labeled as generated by press releases (not independent), YouTube videos (highly dubious), and at least two references that don't even discuss Dooley but instead discuss the indisputably notable Deshawn L. Parker. You claim to be a professional writer. Wikipedia has high standards. Learn our standards if you want to be successful here. Start by reading Your first article and Reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 00:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't claim to be a professional writer, sir. I am a professional turfwriter for Thoroughbred Daily News. I am on the masthead. The example of the Tom Durkin article from the NYT is hardly a comparison. He's Tom Durkin! The most famous track announcer outside of Chick Anderson. Why would Press Releases from track's that John Dooley was hired not be considered "creditable" source material? You Tube videos with spots from ESPN or local TV News aren't considered sources of value? Then how else would someone access such archival material? Ah, Deshawn Parker's record is considered notable in racing circles. He's a George Woolf Award winner. You claim to have high standards. Do you understand that advertising budgets are sources from a number of locations? The Daily Racing Form, is that a creditable source? It's been around since 1894. They have adds, give tips and present news. Horseracing.net/us may not have been around as long, but the key is that they don't take wagers. A piece of journalism in the 21st century can comes from a number of locations. Did you read my piece on John Dooley? It covers the last Arlington Million and I used creditable sources to accentuate the sale to the Chicago Bears. It has context. I would like to file a complaint. JNCampbell5 (talk) 13:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
JNCampbell5, I'm quite prepared to believe that you have extensive experience in writing for something that is not Wikipedia, and you are familiar with a world which I know nothing about (I can only guess what a "turfwriter" might be), but is not Wikipedia.
If you wish to write in Wikipedia I strongly advise you to read about notability, reliable sources and your first article. You might also find expert editors useful.
Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:52, 12 August 2023 review of submission by Fame0001

[edit]

Hello, It seems i'm having trouble making a article for a game on this platform. And would like to request help by someone, Or help by having any and all submissions reviewed as quick as possible through a quick form of communication. Fame0001 (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fame0001. Your promotional draft was about a video game released today. Your draft was also unreferenced. An acceptable Wikipedia article summarizes what reliable sources that devote significant coverage to the topic and are also entirely independent of the topic. Until this game has received such independent coverage, it is not possible to write an acceptable article about it. Please also be aware that promotional content is not allowed on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 00:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So gather community streams and videos for the game in question? ATM I thought of setting up the wiki with the release to give context in search results. So people don't think the product is a scam or a April fools game released to ifch.io with no actual content Fame0001 (talk) 00:13, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Much more useful would be video game magazine (or e-magazine) reviews of the game.Naraht (talk) 00:26, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I'll see if there's anyone developers can contact for that. Then get it up Fame0001 (talk) 00:41, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also need to find a copy of my deleted draft for when I re edit the page, or else I really can provide more then references to the article 😅 Fame0001 (talk) 00:42, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When a draft is deleted as promotional, there is rarely much in it that is worth reusing, because it has almost certainly been written BACKWARDS. When you find suitable sources, your job will be to put aside everything you know, think, or believe about the game, and write a summary (in your own words) of what those sources say. ColinFine (talk) 19:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've pretty much just taken the role of writing down references of the game until someone comes along and fixes the page. I really can't write the wiki page in the style wiki is required to have. Sorry. Besides having a writer assigned to me to assist me in this I can't do much. Fame0001 (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Fame0001 then an article is likely not possible. Like you, everyone is a volunteer here and no one is "assigned" to anything. Editors choose to do what they want to do and if an editor wants to write an article they are responsible for gathering the necessary sources and writing the content unless other interested volunteers are willing to help but mostly it's a single editor that establishes the foundation proving notability then others may come in later to add or improve it. See the guidance below about WikiProject Video Games and you are welcome to post a note at WT:WikiProject Video Games to see if anyone is interested or has other guidance for you. S0091 (talk) 19:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fame0001, community streams and videos are not reliable sources. We are looking for sources with professional editorial control and a reputation for accuracy. Cullen328 (talk) 00:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fame0001, please refer to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources. Cullen328 (talk) 00:31, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2023_August_12&oldid=1171099939"