Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 July 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< July 9 << Jun | July | Aug >> July 11 >
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.


July 10

[edit]

08:33, 10 July 2023 review of submission by Proofficial

[edit]

HELP It's a posting about the company in other languages. It's in English, it's not. We need people to know the truth about the company. This is a free article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:FxPro_Group Proofficial (talk) 08:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Proofficial.
I'm afraid your question does not make much sense? Do you have a specific question about the draft article? Qcne (talk) 08:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft is just blatant advertising with undisclosed paid editing. Theroadislong (talk) 08:40, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. We'll completely rewrite the article so it doesn't look like an advertisement. Proofficial (talk) 09:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Proofficial. Your use of the term "we" suggests you may be breaking the Wikipedia Terms of Service.
Please immediately comply with Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure and Wikipedia:Shared accounts, or you may be blocked from editing. Qcne (talk) 09:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:36, 10 July 2023 review of submission by Nansyy

[edit]

Please help review this article. It has been pending for over a months now. Thank you very much Nansyy (talk) 12:36, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nansyy As noted on your draft, "This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 4,149 pending submissions waiting for review.". Why should you be given priority over the thousands of others waiting for their drafts to be reviewed? Please continue to be patient. This is a volunteer effort with a limited number of volunteers. 331dot (talk) 12:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:32, 10 July 2023 review of submission by Insizlane

[edit]

I don't agree with the reviewer's assessment that my heavy use of primary sources is problematic, nor that primarily local secondary sources are insufficient. The person who the article is about is indeed a local figure, but a significant one nonetheless. A major college has named a scholarship after him, for example. I fail to see how this article does not meet notability guidelines, and am unsure how to proceed. Insizlane (talk) 15:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Insizlane The main purpose of a Wikipedia article is to summarize what independent reliable sources say about the topic, not what primary sources say about it. Primary sources do not contribute to establishing notability. Very local sources are more difficult for that purpose as well, as they may not reflect widespread knowledge. If you have no further sources, this person likely does not merit a Wikipedia article at this time.
If you truly feel that we are all in error despite the greater experience others have, this process is voluntary(unless you have a conflict of interest or are editing via a new account or IP). You can roll the dice and place it in the encyclopedia yourself, though it would be at risk of a deletion discussion. 331dot (talk) 15:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I've added some more secondary sources and resubmitted. I'd just like to note that the attitude and condescension is not necessary. You may have "greater experience" at Wikipedia editing but I am an archivist and librarian with two Master's degrees and over ten years of experience in my field so please don't denigrate what I and my library's collections bring to the table here. It was my impression that Wikipedia actively wants to bring in more sources from libraries and local history institutions to broaden and diversify the encyclopedia. I don't see how you will do that without accepting primary sources and "local" sources as reliable ones. As for this process being voluntary, I only recently passed the threshold where I don't have to submit for review and was trying to respect the process. In future I'll go ahead and publish articles that I deem Wikipedia-worthy and we can see how it goes. Insizlane (talk) 19:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, my intention was not to be condescending, but to clearly state things. I was not aware of your background, but Wikipedia writing is different from academic or scholarly writing. Again, sorry. 331dot (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:05, 10 July 2023 review of submission by Jopencjusz

[edit]

Hello,

I've submited this page and got it declined with comment: "Written like a guide for the game".

I honestly don't understand why it was revied as guide for the game. I created it with intention to inform as best as I could potential person, who never played this game, what's in it and how it works, so someone who never encountered this type of game, could find out if this is something that will be interesting for him or not.

It's my first attempt to create anything here and right now I'm lost what should I do, to improve this draft. Should I be more vague in explaining all this? There're lot of pages about the games that have very wide section about gameplay explaining how game works and what can be done in it.

Please I need help with that to improve it and meet all criteria. Thank you in advance! Jopencjusz (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jopencjusz,
You say: "I created it with intention to inform as best as I could potential person, who never played this game, what's in it and how it works, so someone who never encountered this type of game, could find out if this is something that will be interesting for him or not.".
Unfortunately that's not what a Wikipedia article is for! A Wikipedia article only summarises what third party, independent, reliable sources state about a topic. Your current draft would be more suited for a website like GameFAQs or a fandom wikia.
We have millions of articles, and a lot of them aren't very good, so if you are going to write an article please use a Wikipedia:Good articles as a template.
You should also have a read of Help:Your first article which gives some good tips about writing an article for the first time.
If you want to try again with this draft, I would recommend starting from scratch. You need to find reliable, independent, secondary sources that cover Basket Pulse in detail, and then summarise them in your own words. That should make up the content of your article draft.
Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for advice @Qcne, I started again fromscratch and submited new version of this article. I hope this time it's fine and at worst will require only minor improvements to be published. Jopencjusz (talk) 19:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again @Jopencjusz. It is a little better, but I can give you some more improvements:
- Your section History is written a little informally; "Right now game goes..." "brings together not only basketball lovers". Check out Wikipedia:Manual of Style for tips on writing for Wikipedia.
- Your section Community is also a little informally written.
- Also in the History section your sentence "At that time games like Hattrick or Footbal Manager on PC were very popular. Since then sports management games lost their popularity, mostly in favor of mobile games" is entirely unsourced- that sort of statement needs to be sourced from a reliable secondary source, otherwise it looks like Wikipedia:Original research.
- You need a References section, as currently all your citations just hang randomly at the bottom of the page. See Wikipedia:Inline citation. Qcne (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:46, 10 July 2023 review of submission by Uzungol1

[edit]

Hello, Just wanted to know why this hasn't been accepted yet? Feels like its been delayed Uzungol1 (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Uzungol1 the draft was declined back in June. See the message on your talk page and on the draft. S0091 (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Uzungol1 I fixed your link for proper display(you needed the "Draft:" in it). Your draft was declined on June 26th. You will need to address the concerns of the reviewer and resubmit it for it to be considered again. 331dot (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I have resubmitted following the feedback provided after it was declined Uzungol1 (talk) 22:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:53, 10 July 2023 review of submission by BigGaloot62

[edit]

The article is laden with links, mainly within Wikipedia, so I am 'slightly bemused' by response! Of course it is entirely possible I am missing something pretty obvious to others that (unfortunately) isn't to me! Any guidance appreciated. Thanks BigGaloot62 (talk) 18:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An article should summarize what independent reliable sources say about a topic. Your draft has no sources. Please read Your First Article as well as WP:BACKWARD. 331dot (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
e/c You have zero reliable independent sources. Wikipedia articles cannot reference each other, it is fine to link to them but they confer no notability. Theroadislong (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:51, 10 July 2023 review of submission by GingerAnimationz

[edit]

Hello, the reason why i'm here, is because my draft page about a YouTuber, named Courtney Miller, is declined by someone, by the name of "Theroadislong". Not to be evil, but can someone submit my Draft article, love to hear it. Bless you all from Serbia. GingerAnimationz (talk) 21:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correct link Draft:Courtney Miller (YouTuber) draft has zero reliable independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 22:12, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
can i now submit the draft, because i have added an independent source?o GingerAnimationz (talk) 22:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GingerAnimationz, the three base requirements for sources are that they are reliable, independent, and significant coverage. Reliable means reputable. Independent means they are not paid or prompted, and interviews are non-independent. Significant coverage means the source has more than one mention, or a sentence, or two sentences on the topic.
In this case, the independent and reliable source has only one mention of Courtney Miller. Thus, it does not count toward notability. I suspect the draft will be declined if you submit it again. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 02:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caption1
    Caption1
  • Caption2
    Caption2
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2023_July_10&oldid=1166035642"