Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 November 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< November 18 << Oct | November | Dec >> November 20 >
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.


November 19

[edit]

02:18, 19 November 2023 review of submission by Santouche2

[edit]

Hi, just wondering when this page will be reviewed. Thanks. Santouche2 (talk) 02:18, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Santouche2: looks like it was reviewed months ago. You have to resubmit it but it would not be approved in its current state. Wikipedia subjects need in-depth coverage (full-length articles, not just passing mentions) in usually at least 3 reliable sources that are not written by or affiliated with the subject. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 02:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

02:55, 19 November 2023 review of submission by 2409:40E6:39:D52E:F4CD:C3FF:FE26:633B

[edit]

I need help for this article for citation and references. Ànd please help to write a better article theri respectful 2409:40E6:39:D52E:F4CD:C3FF:FE26:633B (talk) 02:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't really get involved in editing here at the help desk, but you're welcome to ask specific questions regarding the drafting and review process.
As a general comment, you need to be summarising what reliable published sources have said about the subject, and then citing those sources so that readers can see where the information came from. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:09, 19 November 2023 review of submission by Tushareu

[edit]
references Tushareu (talk) 06:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:25, 19 November 2023 review of submission by Akhtar98

[edit]

Really contant Akhtar98 (talk) 06:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i don't know what that is, but it is absolutely not acceptable for wikipedia. ltbdl (talk) 06:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:30, 19 November 2023 review of submission by 2409:40E5:C:508C:25A7:9D78:D36B:1985

[edit]

Why was this page of mine removed 2409:40E5:C:508C:25A7:9D78:D36B:1985 (talk) 06:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For multiple reasons. First, you need more than one source. Also, did you look at it before you submitted? The first paragraph isn't formatted right. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 06:56, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:13, 19 November 2023 review of submission by Itrk70

[edit]

How i get reference for my topic? Itrk70 (talk) 12:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Itrk70: what do you mean; can you rephrase, please? Your draft does have references (not very good ones, but still). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You look for places where people wholly unconnected with the series (or its writers or producers) have chosen to write about it at length, and been published in reliable sources. This probably means either articles in major newspapers or magazines about the making of the series (but make sure that these are not simply regurgitated press releases) or extended reviews in major newspapers or magazines. Ignore anything written or published by the producers or their associates, and anything on social media.
If you can't find such sources, then give up, as there is literally nothing you can validly write about the series in a Wikipedia article. ColinFine (talk) 16:53, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:47, 19 November 2023 review of submission by Cindyflower96

[edit]

I'm writing about the subject(Art, Mighty Bolton) and you guys keep rejecting the wikipedia page and it makes no sense. This is the message I keep getting; "the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing"mentions) about the subject in published".

I did my research and It is not passing mentions because the subject(Mighty Bolton) is 'The Art of Dialogue'.

The YouTube channel is named after him and Art is his nickname and if you look up his trademark paper work online which is available to the Public. You will discover the subject(Art, Mighty Bolton) I'm writing about owns the 'The Art of Dialogue' trademark which means he owns the name and rights to the brand 100 percent.

This is no different then DJ Vlad, Adam 22, DJ Akadimics who are in the same field of the subject I'm writing about. The subject I'm writing about is a YouTuber so that's why I provide YouTube reference to verify his subscriber count and YouTube views views. I did my research, who ever wrote DJ Vlad page and other YouTubers did the same thing by providing YouTube references on their Wikipedia pages and you guys accepted their Wikipedia article.

I provided better and more valid references than DJ Vlad and other YouTubers Wikipedia pages which got accepted but you keep rejecting the Wikipedia Article I wrote about Art(Mighty Bolton) . What you are claiming is not true. Can you accept the Wikipedia article, so I can move on.

Most of the references I provided for the subject I'm writing about are accepted references on other Wikipedia articles that are already approved. Cindyflower96 (talk) 14:47, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have not looked in detail at the draft (which I see you have resubmitted without making any changes: do not do this). But I notice a number of peacock words, like "insightful" and "notable". No Wikipedia article should ever describe anything in such terms, except in a direct quotation from a reliable independent source.
Many of the paragraphs in the "Career" section are problematic beyond the choice of words. Looking, for example, at the paragraph about Keefe D, it begins with Mighty Bolton, has facilitated numerous insightful interviews over the years, uncovering layers of complexity within the hip-hop community. Which independent reliable source says this? (The source cited at the end of the paragraph does not make such a claim). Without a source for this specific claim, it is original research and should be removed. In fact the citation has only a passing mention of Art of Dialogue, and 1) contributes nothing to Bolton's notability, and 2) does not justify anything like the amount of detail in the paragraph in an article about Bolton (it might do so in an article about Keefe or Wright). That paragraph should be replaced by, at most, one sentence.
And that is one paragraph. I suspect that most of the "career" section is similarly unsourced and/or original research.
With regard to what you have writen above: "notable" in Wikipedialand has a precise meaning, which is different from any of "important", "popular", "famous" or "influential": it basically means "enough independent material has been reliably published about this subject to base an article on". Unfortunately, some classes of subject (such as YouTubers) don't tend to get written about much, so articles about them are not always possible. If secondary sources exist, and an article can be written based on them, then information such us YouTube count can be added, and referenced to non-independent sources; but such information cannot contribute to notability in Wikipedia's sense.
Finally, the existence of another article does not necessarily imply that it was ever "accepted". Many thousands of seriously deficient articles were written in an earlier age, when we were not so careful about standards: in many cases their continued existence means either that nobody who cares about our standards has looked at them, or that nobody has wanted to put the possibly substantial effort into either improving them or demonstrating that they should be deleted. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. ColinFine (talk) 17:19, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:36, 19 November 2023 review of submission by Cd634011

[edit]

[I previously posted the following to the Help Desk on November 10th, and one person responded saying they were not an expert on "Academic and technical books" and to repost on the Help Desk. They also mentioned that the rationale looks promising below regarding establishing notability for this "Academic and technical book". Can I please get some help/feedback from someone who is knowledgeable on approving/establishing notability for "Academic and technical books"?]

Hello! This Wikipedia article has now been rejected two times, very quickly, by two separate reviewers on Wikipedia. This is an academic book that has different standards for notability than other types of books, but it appears the reviewers are using notability standards for other kinds of books (fiction, mainstream press). I followed the guidelines for "Academic and technical books" (see below), and based on these guidelines, this book meets the standards for notability.

This is a highly specialized academic book, so I used those guidelines for notability per the "Academic and technical books" section of this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(books). The book was published in Routledge's Scientific Psychology series, which is a prestigious series that includes books by well-known and respected figures in mathematical psychology, such as Duncan Luce and Louis Narens. Books in this series normally undergo multiple levels of peer review. The following quote comes straight from the page regarding using academic presses as a source of determining notability for an academic and technical book: "Publication by a prominent academic press should be accorded far more weight than the analogous benchmark defined for publication of mainstream book by well known commercial publishers, by virtue of the non-commercial nature of such presses, and the peer review process that some academic books must pass before publication is allowed to go forward.”

The audience for this book is relatively narrow, as mathematical psychology is not a large field. As a tenured professor in Experimental Psychology, I believe it to be an important contribution and have used Chapters from the book in my graduate seminar in Cognitive Psychology. Indeed, as also referenced on the notability page: "A book's subject may be so specialized, such as in the esoteric math or physics spheres, that only a few hundred (or fewer) people in the world are situated to understand and comment on the material."

I have made edits to include over a dozen additional secondary references from sources that are independent of the book's author. These include references to textbooks, other academic books, and papers from other fields (e.g., neuroscience, education, economics) that use work featured in the book.

Please also note that while many of the original references are connected to the book's author, they are all from peer-reviewed journals and thus have undergone review by other experts in the field. These references are not independent of the subject, but they are in-depth and reliable, and they are important to demonstrating how the work in the book has been scientifically validated. Cd634011 (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cd634011 You declared a COI with regards to this book, what is the general nature of your COI?
You have no sources that discuss the importance or significance of this book- most of it summarizes the chapters and studies that corroborate its findings(I think). The chapter summary should be slimmed down significantly- it describes the chapter contents and what they show but nothing about what makes it important or significant or influential. This book may be notable, but you need sources demonstrating that. Note that writing for Wikipedia is different than academic or scholarly writing- Wikipedia articles should be written intended for lay people. 331dot (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your quick reply! The conflict of interest relates to the fact that the author was my doctoral thesis advisor and is currently a research colleague. I am happy to revise the page by trimming significantly the chapter summary and making it more "friendly" for lay people. There are numerous sources that show its application and that report on empirical findings that supports its ideas, but, as mentioned below, these sources are not required to establish notability for "Academic and technical books".
I appreciate your asking for more information to establish notability, but, according to the standards set by Wikipedia for establishing notability: "A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:" The criteria that should be used for this book are in the section for "Academic and technical books" and the book verifiably meets the criteria of being published by a scientific press w/multiple rounds of peer review and it has been required reading in one or more reputable educational institutions (I have used it in a graduate-level seminar at Marietta College). Both of the above are criteria to establish notability for "Academic and technical books".
At the beginning of the Academic and technical books" subsection, it reads: "Academic and technical books serve a very different function and come to be published through very different processes than do books intended for the general public. They are often highly specialized, have small printing runs, and may only be available in specialized libraries and bookstores. For these reasons, most of the standards for mainstream books are inapplicable to the academic field because they would be too restrictive and would exclude articles on books that are worthy of notice." Unfortunately, the criteria you mention of "they show but nothing about what makes it important or significant or influential" is not applicable to this type of book. The above mentioned criteria that are met are sufficient to establish notability for this book.
Again, thank you for your prompt response and for the helpful suggestions. Cd634011 (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding this comment. From reading the lead I'm not actually sure what the thesis or conclusion of the work is. Even if there isn't a "conclusion" as such in the work because it's advancing a novel theory, I'd still expect that the book gives some suggestions for how the theory could be used. I should know at least a general answer to "so what?" by the end of the lead. -- asilvering (talk) 02:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Cd634011, the standards for academic books and fiction books are more or less the same: significant coverage in reliable sources. This is typically pretty easy for academic books, because if they are of note, they tend to be reviewed at some length in journals in their field. I don't see any reviews in the footnotes, but there are a lot of footnotes here, so maybe I missed them? It would be odd for a book to be cited frequently and yet never be reviewed. -- asilvering (talk) 02:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. Within the "Academic and technical books" section of the Notability wikipedia page it states, "In such cases, possible bases for a finding of notability include, in particular, whether the book is published by an academic press, how widely the book is cited by other academic publications or in the media..." Regarding this last point, there is a footnote that states, "A book's subject may be so specialized, such as in the esoteric math or physics spheres, that only a few hundred (or fewer) people in the world are situated to understand and comment on the material." This book is very specialized/mathematical that it satisfies this condition that there are very few people in the world (experts) that would be "situated to understand and comment on the material". Therefore, it is not surprising that this book has yet to have a book review. But, according to the standards set forth for establishing notability for "Academic and technical books" this is not a problem - as this book meets several other criteria such as being published by an academic press and it being used in one or more reputable educational institutions. I guess, I am confused why these other criteria for establishing notability are being used instead of the ones that I have identified - particularly when the Wikipedia page on notability states that at least one criteria has to be met (and there are no required criteria). In other words, I am not seeing that it is a condition to establish notability that I have to meet the particular criteria the reviewer states and decides to comment on. I am not trying to be argumentative, I am trying to rectify what I see in the notability page to the reviewer comments that I have received thus far (many of which have seemed to ignore the criteria that I have put forth as establishing notability). Any clarification/help is greatly appreciated. Cd634011 (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do remain surprised that it has not had a book review; most academic books are for experts, and at any rate most academic book reviews are written by experts. The experts in my own tiny subfield can all fit in a single room, but that doesn't mean none of us ever get book reviews. For context, what that paragraph you're quoting from is mostly trying to head off is editors trying to say something like "but it only sold 1000 copies, how can it be notable!?" when 1000 copies would be a pretty impressive print run for a lot of academic books. That paragraph is reminding editors to use some common sense. As far as satisfying the criteria, I really still don't see it. Here is, as far as I can tell, the only statement in your draft that suggests notability: The book content has been recognized by experts in the field of Cognitive Science and has been incorporated into other Academic books. There isn't anything in the article that explains how or why it's been recognized, so if I want to verify this claim and establish that it is indeed enough to meet notability guidelines, I'm going to have to just... read all four of the citations? That's over 60 pages and an entire book. Please, we're volunteers! I have a lot of patience and I'm willing to spend time on AfC reviews on esoteric topics, but I'm not going to sift through that many pages for a chance a book might be notable. Make it easier on us and give us more to go on. Recognized how? Stuartyeates's comment still applies. -- asilvering (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:56, 19 November 2023 review of submission by James Abloh

[edit]

Hey, I’m new to Wikipedia. Can you give me some details on why my article submission (Draft: Ilkin Mammadov) was declined and what I should do for it to pass? Ilkin Mammadov is a highly-ranked government official in Azerbaijan and is the Head of the International Relations Department of the Milli Majlis of Azerbaijan. Thank you, James Abloh (talk) 17:56, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your link, it lacked the "Draft:". 331dot (talk) 18:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have documented his accomplishments and he seems to meet the notability definition, but you don't have much in the way of independent reliable sources with significant coverage- coverage that goes into detail about his importance. 331dot (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:37, 19 November 2023 review of submission by Gurdas Singh atwal

[edit]

check the article again and please tell me that now the format is correct Gurdas Singh atwal (talk) 19:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:03, 19 November 2023 review of submission by Iss246

[edit]

Occupational Health Science (journal). The last time I put in considerable work on this entry was about two years ago, although the entry was deleted in March 2023. My work on the entry got criticized because the (a) impact factor was missing and (b) the journal was indexed in non-prominent indexes. That has changed. Now I have the impact factor for 2021-2022. It is 3.1, which is good for a new journal. The 5-year impact factor is 3.1, which shows that the journal is holding its own. The journal is only six years old. The impact factor of Psychosomatic Medicine is about 4 but the journal was started in 1939. I also established that the journal is indexed by the important indexing organizations and referenced those facts. I can build the entry over time. But I want to start with a foundation entry. I think I have. I think my fellow editors should allow the journal to exist on Wikipedia. Iss246 (talk) 20:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Iss246, "good for a new journal" isn't what we're after - we want "good for a journal in this field". Wikipedia isn't in the business of advertising academic journals. Please have another look at DoubleGrazing's comment and resubmit once you've fixed those issues. If it has a decent impact factor and is indexed in scopus that should be enough to get an acceptance at AfC, though I can't promise it won't be taken to AfD and be deleted again. -- asilvering (talk) 20:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@userAsilvering, I am not advertising. And the journal isn't so new any more. It is six years old. I am familiar with the journal and know that the papers it publishes meet high standards. There are quality journals in WP with lower impact factors. OHES has been accepted for indexing by PubMed/Medline and PsycInfo. I hope that WP editors don't move the goalposts as I get close to having a WP entry accepted. I am adding to the entry this evening. Iss246 (talk) 23:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2023_November_19&oldid=1186712973"