Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 May 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< May 15 << Apr | May | Jun >> May 17 >
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.


May 16

[edit]

07:01, 16 May 2023 review of submission by Iam1947

[edit]

I want to know why this NGO is not being considered for an article. It has proper citations and references and engaged in notable work at the global level. Is there something wrong with the tone of the artilce? Iam1947 (talk) 07:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Iam1947: it has been considered, several times in fact, and each time been found wanting. It is promotional, poorly referenced, and the sources cited do not establish notability per WP:GNG. In any case, this draft has now been rejected and will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So I will have to rewrite the draft all over again and then attempt a review? Please explain as the body of work of the NGO will essentially remain the same, so how can I make it better? A little detail will certainly help Iam1947 (talk) 09:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Iam1947 You misunderstand what it is that we are looking for. An article should not merely document the existence of the organization and tell about its activities- it must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. We don't merely want to know its activities, we want to know what independent sources say is important/significant/influential about the organization on their own, and not based on materials from the organization(like interviews, press releases, discussion of its routine activities). As the draft was rejected, this means that it won't be considered further at this time. If something fundamentally changes after the rejection, like new sources found that the reviewer did not consider, you should first appeal to the reviewer directly. I'm wondering if you have an association with this organization. 331dot (talk) 09:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Iam1947: first you have to find multiple sources that meet the GNG criteria, then summarise (in your own words) what those sources say, and cite the sources as you go. You can only include content which comes from such sources. And everything you write must be supported by a reliable published source, and be written in a neutral, non-promotional tone suitable for an encyclopaedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. It really clarifies a lot of my confusion. I dont directly have an association with the org, but I did attend one of its very first training workshop in Pakistan on climate literacy and climate action.
I will try following your directions and see if I can find independent sources.
Thanks. Iam1947 (talk) 12:40, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:46, 16 May 2023 review of submission by Bmcstan

[edit]

Hello!

I replied to a declined submission response and have not heard anything back yet (I hit reply on my talk page) and I'm looking to see if someone else is available to assist or take a look at my reply perhaps. Mainly trying to see what else I would need exactly or if I could resubmit it in comparison to another page that I linked in my reply.

Appreciate any help! Thank you. Bmcstan (talk) 07:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bmcstan: you probably didn't get a response because nobody saw your comment; for future reference, you need to PING people if you want them to get notified.
As for your question, no, you cannot use non-reliable sources to support anything, because they are... well, non-reliable. (You can use reliable primary sources to support non-contentious information, but not anything more than that, and not to establish notability.)
And comparing your draft to existing articles is pretty pointless, as they may also have flaws, and in any case new articles are judged on their own merits and with reference to the currently applicable guidelines and standards – see OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. (If you have come across articles that are also insufficiently referenced, feel free to improve them or else start deletion proceedings.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing Ok good to know about the pinging, thank you! Yes there are definitely several articles (in his world) that would not be approved considering current standards but that is good to know too. I will continue to do research. Also would you recommend using the live chat feature for a quicker response time if I have more questions? Appreciate the help and info. Thanks again. Bmcstan (talk) 01:08, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:33, 16 May 2023 review of submission by Sew1920

[edit]

I've made some edits to this draft (added references/citations), is it suitable for submission now? Sew1920 (talk) 08:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sew1920: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. If new sources have come to light which weren't available at earlier reviews, you may make a case for reopening the draft, but for that you need to approach the rejecting reviewer directly. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:24, 16 May 2023 review of submission by Josephintechnicolor

[edit]

The article was declined. I wanted to ask help as to how specifically I can work on this to be approved. Josephintechnicolor (talk) 09:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Josephintechnicolor: did you read any of the notices and comments left by the reviewer? In short, the article is insufficiently referenced, with no evidence of notability.
Also I'm going to move it to a more appropriate title, getting rid of all those post-nominals and trademarks. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:28, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Usually when I see the trademark signs, that screams COI/PAID to me. Bkissin (talk) 19:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:05, 16 May 2023 review of submission by RehanshiMirza

[edit]

Please help publish this article. Give me some precise information that what else should I add to this article so that the article can be displayed on Wikipedia. 

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Shihab_Chottur RehanshiMirza (talk) 10:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RehanshiMirza: did you read the comments left by the reviewer? As it says there, this person seems to be known for a single event only, which doesn't make them sufficiently notable for inclusion. Can't really give you "precise information" on what to add, other than to provide sources satisfying the WP:GNG notability standard, if you can find them. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:05, 16 May 2023 review of submission by 212.82.93.137

[edit]

Hi, I'm requesting assistance with the aim of pinpointing why the references provided with this article are causing the publication to be rejected. Are there any examples of notable sources added? 212.82.93.137 (talk) 11:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, it appears all the coverage is local, Liverpool, which is not sufficient to meet notability. Generally, at least regional coverage is needed, if not national. See WP:NONPROFIT. S0091 (talk) 14:42, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:37, 16 May 2023 review of submission by 2A0A:A548:B70:0:FC1B:5427:85BB:E0B5

[edit]

Why are you telling me that I need to stop resubmitting the access? 2A0A:A548:B70:0:FC1B:5427:85BB:E0B5 (talk) 12:37, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

because we want you to stop submitting your draft. when a draft is rejected, further submissions will not be considered. lettherebedarklight晚安 13:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
duplicate lettherebedarklight晚安 13:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

12:44, 16 May 2023 review of submission by 2A0A:A548:B70:0:D68F:6589:9E02:38DD

[edit]

Hello, Wikipedia I'm done. 2A0A:A548:B70:0:D68F:6589:9E02:38DD (talk) 12:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:59, 16 May 2023 review of submission by Darioivweb

[edit]

The article submission I provided is not contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and its purpose is to provide a comprehensive and neutral record of human knowledge. The article I provided meets these criteria, is well-written and informative, and does not appear biased or inaccurate.


By the way, in the building and homes construction business, this is something that only some know what it is and how it works, the reason why having that jn Wikipedia will be beneficial to many people. Please review and approve it to be a typical article. Darioivweb (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Darioivweb: please do not create more drafts on this topic; you now have not only Draft:Roof Scupper, but also Draft:Roof Scuppers: Overview and Main Issues, Draft:Roof scupper and Draft:Flat Roof Scuppers in the system. This is getting tendentious.
While it is true, as you say, that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia which anyone can edit, it doesn't follow that anyone can write anything they want. We have policies, chief among them requirements for verifiability and notability, both of which are addressed through referencing. Your drafts are all insufficiently referenced, in that most of the content is unsupported, and the sources are not sufficient to show that the subject is notable. There are also things that Wikipedia is not, and those include manual or guidebook, whereas parts of your drafts read exactly like one.
In short, it may be possible to write an article on roof scuppers, but it needs to be well-referenced and encyclopaedic, and follow certain rules. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:10, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: BTW there is already a general, though short stub, Scuppers that might be expended to include scuppers of various kinds, such as roof scuppers. ww2censor (talk) 21:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:47, 16 May 2023 review of submission by T-IC-2o23

[edit]

I do not understand what the editor meant by "Please also remove the external links within the article per WP:EL.". What external links are they referring to? T-IC-2o23 (talk) 15:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@T-IC-2o23: for example in the 'Dying on Stage' section, the [https://www.festival-automne.com/ Festival d’Automne] is a link to an external website. External links are only allowed in the end matter, ie. 'References' and later sections (and one in the infobox, where relevant). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see! Thank you for your help!
One other question: There is a (very minimal) wikipedia page that exist for this person in German. Is there a way to officially link these two on Wikipedia? T-IC-2o23 (talk) 15:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@T-IC-2o23: yes, but the interlanguage linking is only possible between published articles, and therefore can only be added once this draft has been accepted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. Thank you again! T-IC-2o23 (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:33, 16 May 2023 review of submission by Vehicleman76

[edit]

My article was declined because of "unreliable sources". The source I used was from the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, a major marine research center. Why is this considered an unreliable source? Vehicleman76 (talk) 16:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicleman76, the reviewer did not say that your single source was unreliable. But multiple sources are required. And you have done a poor job of summarizing so far. I believe that the topic is notable. You just need to do more work to show it. Cullen328 (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I understand. Thank you for the help! Vehicleman76 (talk) 19:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:55, 16 May 2023 review of submission by 205.200.115.1

[edit]

We are working to update our page so that it meets your requirements, but are having difficulty editing our sources into an acceptable list. Please advise - does each of our sources need to meet all four of the content requirements, or can we fulfill the requirements across a range of sources?

Any other editing help would be greatly appreciated. See our partner company Wawanesa's approved page for comparison. 205.200.115.1 (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, if you have a user account, please log into it when editing.
Secondly, you need to disclose your conflict of interest / paid editing status before doing anything else.
As for your question, all the sources that you're relying on to establish notability do have to meet every criterion in the WP:GNG notability standard. You may be able to use other sources as well, such as reliable and independent primary sources, or sources that don't provide significant coverage of the subject, but they do not count towards the GNG requirement. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:17, 16 May 2023 review of submission by Wofoz

[edit]

Hi there. I'm wondering if there is something additional I need to do to have this draft approved. It is a few days short of four months since I submitted Thank you for your help! Wofoz (talk) 20:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Wofoz the draft is pending review. It's just a matter of a volunteer reviewer getting to it. S0091 (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:23:20, 16 May 2023 review of draft by Wofoz

[edit]


Hello. I'm not sure if I have done something wrong with submitting my draft on Mia Malan. It has been over four months (submitted on Feb 1) but I haven't heard anything back. Thanks for any suggestions you have.

Wofoz (talk) 20:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wofoz see response above. S0091 (talk) 20:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2023_May_16&oldid=1156264376"