Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 October 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< October 26 << Sep | October | Nov >> October 28 >
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.


October 27

[edit]

04:01, 27 October 2023 review of submission by Midwesterngal

[edit]

I have left things on the talk page, but this keeps getting declined each time for slightly different reasons - it's getting difficult to know what to fix. I initially got advice on seeking out more reviews. It was "too many primary sources" at one point because interviews are bad. So we found more reviews and more information. Now it appears sources aren't good - but I don't know which ones. I can and will keep digging, but it's starting to feel like I'm doing this in the dark - for a person who is already listed multiple times in Wikipedia. But this is frustrating. I would also just like to note that as someone new to this, the feeling is that I'm trying to do something dreadfully wrong when I'm simply trying to fill in a blank. Is Matt Weinhold the missing George Clooney page someone forgot to do? No. But has he been consistently contributing to the pop culture landscape across multiple genres for 20 years? Absolutely. Will multiple people recognize the work that would not exist without him? This is also true. At the same time, I'm trying to overcome the gatekeeping here and I'm not getting plain assistance. I get links to articles that have a lot of contradictory advice that I am sure makes sense if you've written 100s of articles and is definitely advantageous if you're looking to decline something. 

Midwesterngal (talk) 04:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Midwesterngal I am taking a look at this and will respond on the draft's talk page. S0091 (talk) 14:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

04:57, 27 October 2023 review of submission by Muktar H Abdullahi

[edit]

To be more effective or more experience person on how to edits Wikipedia or any other Wikipedia project. 

Muktar H Abdullahi (talk) 04:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Muktar H Abdullahi. Your draft was not appropriate for Wikipedia and has been rejected. Wikipedia is not a blogging platform- articles only exist to summarise and paraphrase what reliable independent sources state about a topic. It is not a place for essays or original research. Qcne (talk) 07:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:02, 27 October 2023 review of submission by Rksamson

[edit]

My draft is being rejected. kindly help Rksamson (talk) 05:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rksamson: this draft has been rejected (twice), and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:37, 27 October 2023 review of submission by Yeszzzz

[edit]

Hello dear admins, I’ve submitted the draft and still didn’t get answers can you guys please check on it. Thanks Yeszzzz (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Yeszzzz: did you happen to notice the text on top of the draft?
"Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 4 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,380 pending submissions waiting for review."
You resubmitted this yesterday. It will be reviewed in due course. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I didn’t notice thanks Yeszzzz (talk) 14:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:51, 27 October 2023 review of submission by Narresh22

[edit]

can i know more information about this article why it been blocked. Narresh22 (talk) 13:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has not been "blocked" whatever that means Draft:Vimal Nair Suresh has been declined because it has no content and looks like a test edit. Theroadislong (talk) 13:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:30, 27 October 2023 review of submission by Peter Garlands

[edit]

Hi! Theres 5 medical white papers with all the links and citations but Ive got declined for not having solid info, is there anyone can help me out with this? Peter Garlands (talk) 14:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is written like an advertisement, for instance "has proven to be an effective solution to address challenges in ultrasound teaching and has revolutionized how medical professionals acquire ultrasound skills." is just marketing trumpery. Theroadislong (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have added 5 white papers supporting that statment its not just marketing. But Ok, Im erasing that. IS there anything else I need to delete? thanks Peter Garlands (talk) 14:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Five sections have zero sources, it is ALL written in a promotional way and it is most definitely marketing and NOT an encyclopaedia article, do you work for them by any chance? Theroadislong (talk) 15:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They all have linke they are above, have you read the article? Peter Garlands (talk) 15:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read your first article and WP:COI? Theroadislong (talk) 15:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And you should note that the sourcing requirements are stricter in medical articles: see WP:MEDRS. ColinFine (talk) 15:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Peter Garlands I am declining this again as it is so clearly written as a PR piece. Wikipedia is NOT to be used for advertising or promotion, which this draft does. Please do not re-submit again without addressing the lack of in-line citations and the wholly inappropriate tone. Further re-submissions without addressing will lead to a rejection. Qcne (talk) 16:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its not an advertising, Im trying to make a wikipedia article but I have no clue of what is the advertising part of the article, I ve already deleted the sentence that was remarked as "promotional" what else should I delete? Peter Garlands (talk) 16:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Peter Garlands Honestly? it needs a complete re-write. Nuke it and start from scratch, it is not salvageable in it's current state. You must write in a completely dispassionate way. Make no assertions. Avoid all WP:PEACOCK language. Only summarise and paraphrase what reliable secondary independent sources state about the device.
You also still have not confirmed if you are being paid to write this article, as requested multiple times on your User Talk Page. Failure to declare is a breach of Wikimedia Terms and Conditions and will lead you to be blocked from editing. You must do this now. Qcne (talk) 16:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, yes Im beeing paid, its my job to write an article for wikipedia, but im not allowed to do any advertising and Im not even trying. I will try to rewrite from scratch thanks Peter Garlands (talk) 16:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Peter Garlands You must make a paid editing disclosure immediately. Follow the instructions at WP:PAID. Failure to do so will result in you being blocked from editing.
I would highly recommend you very carefully read When your boss tells you to edit Wikipedia. Qcne (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.. Once you have made the mandatory declaration, find several sources that meet WP:MEDRS, and are wholly independent of the company and of anybody who was involved in developing the product or in research that led to the product. If you can find several such sources, you can go ahead and forget absolutely everything you know about the company and the product and write a summary of those sources. (Do you see why editing with a COI is hard?) ColinFine (talk) 22:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:30, 27 October 2023 review of submission by Beatrice Brooklyn

[edit]

Hello! This draft was declined for submission because the reviewer felt the sourcing was not verifiable. I have gone through and removed any citation that could be seen as a personal blog (though these were blogs by critics and theatre writers) and have removed citations from sources Reisman herself would have input on such as the New Play Exchange. I have also deleted a link to a talk she gave on YouTube. Every other source is a from a national or regional newspaper such as The New York Times or Austin Chronicle, a major trade journal such as American Theatre Magazine, Howlround, or Broadway World, or a theatre organization's website. I've looked at other living playwrights such as Annie Baker and Martyna Majok while creating this page and they use many of the same sources. I can add citations to Reisman's list of Produced Plays but this seemed like overkill as they were mostly referenced in the previous sections. Let me know if this sourcing seems adequate and I'll resubmit. I have reached out to the reviewer for clarification but have yet to hear back. Thank you for your time and guidance! Beatrice Brooklyn (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Beatrice Brooklyn. I've had a look at all your sources. I think it passes the threshold now and would accept if you re-submitted.
It's worth noting for the future- try not to compare your draft to existing articles (or if you do, choose a WP:GOOD one). Wikipedia has many thousands of articles that are poor quality and should be improved or deleted, but no volunteer has gotten around to it yet. Qcne (talk) 20:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Qcne, thanks so much for taking the time to look it over and for the tip about comparisons- both are much appreciated! I will resubmit. Beatrice Brooklyn (talk) 10:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Accepted. Please add some WP:CATEGORIES to the new article. :) Qcne (talk) 10:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:52, 27 October 2023 review of submission by Wordsmith.ch

[edit]

The article has been rejected. We have 2 questions: 1. When writing the article we based the structure and content on an article about the Swiss National Science Foundation. We very careful to use objective language. We would be interested to hear why the submission "seems to read more like an advertisement", with some specific examples so that the text can be improved. 2. We are unable to provide further published sources about Euresearch. Why is our article being rejected for this when there is a related article without any sources? The article, in German, is about the "National Contact Points": https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationale_Kontaktstellen. There are National Contact Points in all the European countries. The ones for Switzerland are part of the Euresearch network that our article covers. Wordsmith.ch (talk) 18:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wordsmith.ch The article has only been declined, not rejected. Rejected would mean it won't be considered further. Who is "we"? Wikipedia accounts can only be used by one person.
The German Wikipedia is a separate project with it's own policies and guidelines. What is acceptable there might not be acceptable here. The English Wikipedia does have the strictest content guidelines.
The problem with your article is that it does not show any evidence that Euresearch passes the WP:NORG criteria. We need to see significant coverage of the organisation in reliable, independent, secondary sources. Your three sources are all connected to the subject unfortunately. Can you find articles in newspapers or magazines that discuss this organisation? They do not have to be in English and can be offline.
Finally, the copy does read like an advert as it is telling the world about Euresearch. I wouldn't call the language promotional per se, but it reads like the kind of content you'd find on an About Us section of a website. This is the opposite of how English Wikipedia articles should be written: instead you should be paraphrasing what those reliable, independent, secondary sources state about Euresearch.
If you can't find those sources that we require, you might think about simply reworking the draft to an existing Wikipedia page, such as Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development.
Hope that helps, but let me know if you have any questions. Qcne (talk) 19:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help. Can you please explain how the Euresearch article differs from the article I based it on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_National_Science_Foundation
That also reads like an About Us section. It talks about their magazine and has sources derived from its own website. Wordsmith.ch (talk) 21:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wordsmith.ch That article is fairly poorly sourced and wouldn't be accepted in it's present state if submitted now. It was first created in 2005 when our policies and guidelines were much more lax. If you were going to base your draft on an existing one, use a WP:GOOD one. Unfortunately we have thousands of poor quality articles that no one has gotten around to improving yet. I understand this is a frustrating process- it's difficult to write a Wikipedia article from scratch. I'd recommend trying to find at least three secondary sources that discuss Euresearch and paraphrase their content to make up the bulk of the article. Primary sources can be used for basic facts. If you do that, and let me know by pinging me here or on my User Talk Page, I'll take another look. Qcne (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. 213.55.244.95 (talk) 22:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What would help me is a good article of this type to look at. I reviewed a lot before I started writing and they were all similar to what I did. I looked at WP:GOOD but couldn't find any. Can you suggest a good article about an organisation that I could look at? Wordsmith.ch (talk) 06:50, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's difficult to find one, you're right. The problem with these types of agencies is most of their work is done in the background without much secondary source attention. This means it's more difficult to write an article that passes WP:NORG.
My advice would be to not approach this WP:BACKWARD: do a wide search for secondary, independent, reliable sources that discuss the organisation. Then build the article from that. Qcne (talk) 09:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:08, 27 October 2023 review of submission by Saivamshi610

[edit]

how to improve with reference sources i have provides author book links and interview links Saivamshi610 (talk) 20:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews do not establish notability, because by definition they are the person speaking about themselves. We want to know what others unaffiliated with him say about him. 331dot (talk) 20:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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) 22:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2023_October_27&oldid=1183097008"