Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 April 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< April 13 << Mar | April | May >> April 15 >
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.


April 14

[edit]

06:43, 14 April 2024 review of submission by Skimliii

[edit]

I need help understanding what am I doing wrong with the article. It has been in review waitlist for quite some time Skimliii (talk) 06:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skimliii: there is no evidence that the subject is notable. Also, far too much of the content is unsupported by referencing - where is all this information coming from? I have consequently declined your draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the article is actually just a translated version of an bulgarian wiki article, that is already live from couple of months. I got the info from the choir's page in wikipedia, the original bulgarian version of the article. What more for the subject to be notable? Skimliii (talk) 07:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Skimliii: notability doesn't arise from having an article in another language version of Wikipedia (which in any case is entirely irrelevant, as each version is a completely separate project with their own policies and requirements), or by association with another subject which may be notable. In this case, I'm not aware of any special notability guideline that would apply to choirmasters, therefore you would need to show that the subject satisfies the general WP:GNG one. And you need to support the information comprehensively with inline citations to reliable published sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So i would have to find reliable secondary sources, that are different from the choir's website for example. Or the biography of the person in the Academy of arts. Can you give me an example for such sources, I don't seem to understand from the given info in the wp:gng section in wiki. Would all this be enough for the article to get approved? Skimliii (talk) 08:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Skimliii there are two separate issues here:
  1. Notability: you need to cite sources that satisfy the GNG standard, namely multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent of the subject, that have provided significant coverage of the subject directly. Without demonstrating notability it isn't possible for this draft to be accepted for publication.
  2. Verifiability: you also need to support every material statement, anything potentially contentious, and all private personal details with an inline citation to a reliable published source, so that the information can be verified. So for example, when the draft states that she obtained a degree from the Plovdiv Academy of Music, Dance and Fine Arts, we need to know where that info came from. Anything that cannot be appropriately referenced should be removed.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So if I cite all the awards she receved, contributions she has in the bulgarian choral art, degree from both AMDFA and Westminster choir college, would that make her notable? I know, that for a person to be notable in gng, he/she must have Awards and Recognitions, Impact or Influence on the field they work on. If I somehow succeed in finding and verifying all that information with the proper inline citations and sources, would that be enough? Skimliii (talk) 08:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only if the awards are notable, ie. they have their own Wikipedia article. Theroadislong (talk) 09:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are the awards considered notable if they have mentions in the national radio? Or news? Can i cite the pages of the festivals where she earned those? They are considered a big deal in our country. Skimliii (talk) 09:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again! I think I managed to improve the article, if possible can you see it and tell me if I did a good job with it? I added every reliable source information I could get my hands at, including some scientific papers, radio articles, degree proof from a reliable source and fixed the inline external links from the body text. Skimliii (talk) 11:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:05, 14 April 2024 review of submission by JFBB12345

[edit]

Hello, I have submitted a biographical entry for John Maxwell Bailey who was an important member of the team working at CERN on Muon storage rings from 1964 onwards. This was initially rejected as lacking references but I have now put in some major academic references. There has been much recent coverage of Muon research in the press so publishing this biographical page which summarizes all the early work by the leading expert on Moun storage rings will be very timely. However the paper has just been returned again as still lacking references. Is this insufficient evidence of the academic work, or of something else such as JM Bailey's place of birth (Australia)? JM Bailey's personal details can be verified from the end of this year (2024) via on online link to the Queen's College Record which will publish his obituary in the end-of-year issue (Notable former students), would this be helpful? Clearly that is over six months away and we do not want this page to become dormant. Please can you advise how to provide the information that is required? JFBB12345 (talk) 09:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JFBB12345: Have you read WP:NACADEMIC? We don't use news stories anywhere near as heavily for academics (since most of them don't make the newspapers anyway); so we instead judge their notability based off of how widely they have been cited or if they have otherwise made a name for themselves in academia. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 17:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the page includes links to some of John Bailey's major academic papers with high citations / references. Haven't included newspaper article links as these are often behind a paywall anyway so could not be accessed by many Wikipedia readers. JFBB12345 (talk) 12:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:18, 14 April 2024 review of submission by JFBB12345

[edit]

Hello, I have just seen that this is a place where I can ask for help. I have submitted a biographical entry for John Maxwell Bailey who was an important member of the team working at CERN on Muon storage rings from 1964 onwards. In this article following initial refusal on the valid grounds that I had not included published scientific articles, I have now referenced (with links) a number of the most significant papers coming out of this research for whom JM Bailey was the main author (his name appearing either first, or following Francis Farley who was the leader of the large team cited as 'et al' which can be seen by viewing the papers on the links submitted). There has recently been renewed coverage of Muon research in the press so publishing this biographical page which summarizes all the early work by the leading expert on Moun storage rings will be very timely. Despite the evidence in all these papers / links, the biography has just been returned again as having insufficient evidence. Is this insufficient evidence of the academic work, or of something else such as JM Bailey's place of birth (Australia) or something else? His attendance at the University of Sidney and at The Queen's College, Oxford can be substantiated by the alumni offices of the academic institutions concerned, but this is not something that can be put as a link into a Wikipedia article. Please can you advise how to provide whatever information is required? Is it personal information which I can supply to you directly such as an email from the universities confirming his attendance there? Your help is much appreciated as I believe this will be a significant addition to Wikipedia (strong links to three other scientists featured on Wikipedia: VA Bailey, Francis Farley and Emilio Picasso). Thank you! JFBB12345 

JFBB12345 (talk) 09:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:36, 14 April 2024 review of submission by Aqibzubairkhan

[edit]

cause i added some credible refrences Aqibzubairkhan (talk) 11:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding more YouTube references (unreliable source) and external links isn't remotely helpful. Theroadislong (talk) 11:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:55, 14 April 2024 review of submission by 65.183.154.8

[edit]

I am surprised that this article on the Irish poet Angela Patten is rejected. My attempt here is to show her as a notable poet who is part of the evolving canon of Irish women poets. Her poetry has been included in major literary journals and in significant anthologies that have been reviews in major scholarly journals. Should I tag her as part of Women in Red? 65.183.154.8 (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't been rejected (which is a terminal option), only declined (which means that you can resubmit once you've addressed the decline reasons). On both occasions, the reviewer felt that notability had not been demonstrated. You need to either cite sources that meet the general notability guideline WP:GNG, or provide evidence that the subject satisfies one or more of the criteria in the special WP:POET one. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:58, 14 April 2024 review of submission by Connor World

[edit]

I need help referencing Connor World (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Connor World: this draft has been rejected for complete lack of any evidence of notability, and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can find help with referencing at WP:REFB but your draft has reached the end of the road. Theroadislong (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:27, 14 April 2024 review of submission by WarriorYt43

[edit]

This draft has been rejected. Please help me fix the issues so it can be uploaded on the main page. Here is what the reviewer said about this.

"The BLP relies on some unreliable sources, lacks a NPOV, and still promotional in nature. Additionally, it fails to meet WP:N."

Please help. Thanks! WarriorYt43 (talk) 17:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read about WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:N.
Writing a Wikipedia article begins with finding sources which are reliable, wholly independent of the subject, and contain significant coverage of the subject. That is because if you cannot find at least three sources which meet all those criteria, then every second that you spend on this article thereafter will be time wasted. ColinFine (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:05, 14 April 2024 review of submission by Bemdani

[edit]

Hello, I made the first draft of this article at the end of last August. From then on, with the contribution of Wikipedia reviewers, I made all the changes that were suggested, and greatly improved the article. So I would like to know if I can resubmit it now. Finally, I emphasize that I made all changes suggested by DoubleGrazing, and in relation to his/her comment "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject", I respond that my relationship with the subject is strictly academic, as I studied his books during my doctorate. I look forward your feedback. Thanks. Bemdani (talk) 20:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bemdani you can resubmit it but it will mostly likely be declined again because the majority of the sources are Skovsmose's own work. You can't source statements like "All his works led to the development of several notions and concepts, for instance, critical mathematics education" to a publications written by Skovsmose. That is just one example but such claims need to be supported by strong secondary sources. See also WP:PROF. For his work as an artist, critical reviews by reputable publications/critics are needed. S0091 (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely 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. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_April_14&oldid=1219828791"