Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 July 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< July 29 << Jun | July | Aug >> July 31 >
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 30

[edit]

00:55:53, 30 July 2023 review of draft by Sharon64gold

[edit]


Confused as to why this wiki page was rejected when the citations are from notable media/press sites. South Asian publications like The South Asian Times and Lokvani. There have also been full page solo press about Ms. Modha in international papers like Global Times Nigeria that has been cited to (https://globaltimesnigeria.com/women-of-awards-announces-obama-award-recipient-dr-roopa-as-international-brand-ambassador/ )

There are pageant queen pages that have been created for individuals that have fewer citations and press, but exist on Wiki. Ms Modha's pageant wins are from major pageants like Ms America and Ms Woman of Achievement whose directors have wikipedia pages. The director whose dance production she was a lead in also has a wikipedia page. Also, other individuals on wiki have cited to articles written by Roopa Modha as a journalist.

Can you please advise how to better the wiki page?

Sharon64gold (talk) 00:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sharon64gold.
Firstly, your article has only been 'declined' not 'rejected'. If it was 'rejected' then you would not be able to submit for review.
Did you read the note left by the reviewer? All articles about living people must pass the Wikipedia:Notability (people) threshold. People usually pass this by their being at least three strong, reliable, independent, secondary sources that discuss the person in detail or offer analysis and interpretation. Some of your sources are Wikipedia:Primary sources so cannot be used other than to establish basic facts like a date of birth- and some others are promotional interviews with Roopa so are not Wikipedia:Independent sources of her, which also can't be used to establish notability.
The easiest way to fix your draft article is to find reliable, independent, secondary sources that cover Roopa in detail, and then summarise them in your own words. That should make up the content of your article draft. Note that the sources must be:
- Reliable: Your article should rely on strong, reliable sources that are published by reputable institutions. Primary sources can be used for basic facts (such as a date of birth), but they should be supplemented with strong secondary sources that offer analysis or interpretation.
- Independent: Your sources should be independent of the subject, for example not self-published or from the subject's own website.
- Show significant coverage: Your subject should be discussed in detail in the sources you find. The sources should provide in-depth information or analysis about the subject, going beyond basic facts or promotional material.
- From multiple places: You should find at least three separate reliable, independent, secondary sources that discuss your subject.
- Not original research: Wikipedia articles should summarise existing knowledge about a subject, not present new research. This means you should avoid drawing your own conclusions or analyses from the sources. Stick to summarising what the sources say in a neutral tone.
Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 01:23, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is extremely helpful! Thank you!!!! Sharon64gold (talk) 03:21, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sharon64gold Regarding "There are pageant queen pages that have been created for individuals that have fewer citations and press, but exist on Wiki", please read other stuff exists. It could be that these other articles you have seen are also inappropriate and simply not addressed yet. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible to get inappropriate content past us. We can only address what we know about. If you would like to help us out, you can identify these other inappropriate articles you have seen for possible action. We could use the help. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those classified as good articles, which have been reviewed by the community. 331dot (talk) 07:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for such thorough advice and help!! It is definitely useful in knowing what to cite to and how to write the wiki page to ensure it shows importance of the topic with proper backing in other sites. Sharon64gold (talk) 03:10, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:05, 30 July 2023 review of submission by Raju bBhai

[edit]

moj creater Raju bBhai (talk) 11:05, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Raju bBhai: you don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected (twice) and is awaiting deletion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:08, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:40, 30 July 2023 review of submission by TheCelebrinator

[edit]

My submission was declined due an alleged lack of reliable sourcing. However, the information on my list is mainly – and really only – based off of one source as the subject matter doesn't really allow for the use of another source. How is the article supposed to comply with Wikipedia standards when it comes to that? TheCelebrinator (talk) 12:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TheCelebrinator: I'll be honest, I don't know if there is a policy that covers such a situation, but my first thought was – notability: I get that those games are individually notable, and I agree that Metacritic as a source is notable, but is Metacritic's ranking of those games notable as a concept? I'm not sure. (Although if you can find secondary sources discussing this ranking, then you might be able to show that it is.)
My second thought was – copyright: if you are only reformatting information provided by a source, that could come under derivative work. To be clear,I don't know that it does... but I also don't know that it doesn't.
Finally, on a slightly more philosophical level, I wondered about the usefulness of an article which merely regurgitates information that exists elsewhere. Does this need an article, or does this need an external link pointing to that source, eg. in an article on Metacritic or video games?
Hopefully someone will come along soon who knows better. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:05, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It absolutely is. Fans, even game developers use it as a benchmark of the quality of the games, regardless of whether or not it's necessarily 'warranted'. Infamously, the developers of Fallout: New Vegas didn't receive a bonus because their game did not get a score of at least 85 on Metacritic.
Metacritic is a bit like Rotten Tomatoes in that whether you like it or not, it's there and will definitely play a role in sales, general reception to the game and whatnot. As a sidenote, there is already a Wikipedia list for movies with a certain RT score. TheCelebrinator (talk) 13:17, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TheCelebrinator: "it absolutely is" what? I'll reiterate: I'm not saying that list doesn't exist (it does), or isn't read by people (I'm sure it is). Neither of those facts make it notable, however.
As for the List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoesarticle, you may have noticed that it cites a number of secondary sources discussing the topic, which goes back to my original first point. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is notable when both people within the industry and fans take notice of the rankings (or Metascore). I think adding and expanding the lede – to mention that as well as adding secondary sources – is what the article needs, but as far as notability is concerned, it meets the criteria. There are documented instances of developers losing out on money due to not meeting a certain score, tons of articles online about which games rank higher, etc.
P.S. Metacritic's ranking often incorporates duplicate versions of the same game or even bundles, so there would be a need to have a list showing only the unique games on the list. TheCelebrinator (talk) 13:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TheCelebrinator: you may have misunderstood 'notability' in the Wikipedia context. It has nothing to do with whether "the industry and fans take notice" of something. Instead, it means (in the case of a topic such as this) whether or not multiple secondary sources that are both independent (of the subject) and reliable have covered the topic in significant extent. Please see WP:GNG, which explains this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia's definition, which I was already using, it would meet the criteria. As I've stated, it's a widely used benchmark for success, and secondary sources have covered just that. Here's a few examples.
Sony demanding a 90+ score from devs:
[1]https://www.gamepressure.com/newsroom/sony-expects-90-on-metacritic-companys-studios-face-big-challenge/z95875 from Game Pressure
[2]https://www.neogaf.com/threads/ex-god-of-war-developer-reveals-sony-demands-90-metascore-from-first-party-games.1657678/ from NeoGAF
Game Devs denied bonus over Metascore:
[3]https://www.gamespot.com/articles/obsidian-denied-bonus-over-new-vegas-metacritic-score-studio-head/1100-6366337/ from Gamespot TheCelebrinator (talk) 13:53, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:45, 30 July 2023 review of submission by 2806:107E:F:49F:B5DC:8270:9E5E:BB9

[edit]

Morales Surename should be important enough to be included, and multiple references plus a google Bard Chatbot also reviewed, please be specific? 2806:107E:F:49F:B5DC:8270:9E5E:BB9 (talk) 22:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and is nonsense. Google Bard Chatbot is incapable of producing acceptable Wikipedia content. Cullen328 (talk) 23:33, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2023_July_30&oldid=1168792974"