Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 August 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< August 26 << Jul | August | Sep >> August 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.


August 27

[edit]

00:43, 27 August 2024 review of submission by Morgan-weta

[edit]

I realise now that as a monspecific genus I should have called the page "Palirhoeus" not as here "Palirhoeus_eatoni". So, I've started the new page and want to delete this one. How do I delete draft page in review? Morgan-weta (talk) 00:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:35, 27 August 2024 review of submission by Hairmer

[edit]

I need some assistance with this page. Please tell me what to revise to make it less promotional sounding. Also reviewer has said that every single source is unreliable. I find this hard to comprehend. Could you please provide explanation on why all sources are unreliable? The source analysis is in the Talk page. It also has coverage in Robb Report (First paragraph not quotations). There was also an independent TV documentary about them which can be found on Youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtr5byc3f-A&t=106s Hairmer (talk) 05:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hairmer For the most part, it's not the sources themselves that are the problem, but their content. YouTube is generally not considered a reliable source, as anyone can post anything to YouTube without fact checking and editorial control. Only videos posted by recognized media outlets are acceptable, and only if posted to their verified channel.
To look at the first few of your sources, number 1 is an interview with company personnel, so it is not an independent source. Number 2 is a very brief mention, and not significant coverage. Number 3 is another interview that just summarizes the routine actions of the company(how it grows pearls, its business). Most of the sources seem to be like this. As odd as it may seem, you have too many sources. Fewer high quality sources are preferable to a large number of low quality sources. What are the three (and only three, please) best sources that you have? These should not be interviews, press releases, announcements of routine business activities, brief mentions, or other primary sources. 331dot (talk) 08:04, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also mention that many editors- most of us whom are here for free- are reluctant to provide a great deal of help to paid editors like yourself. If you're getting paid to do this, you should be doing the work to learn our policies. 331dot (talk) 08:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article contains many proper citations as you can check my source analysis on the talk page. I am not trying to have anyone do my work and I am very familiar with the policies. This is why I am questioning why it was declined. The declining reviewers are always vague and never provide specific instructions on what they feel are the sections that need to be worked on to reduce promo language. This is another reason why I ask here. It feels like paid editors are often discriminated against.
Since you asked for the 3 best sources, I will provide them here:
https://news.jewellerynet.com/uploads/ebook/Supplement/Pearl-Report_2022-2023/9/
https://anneofcarversville.com/jewelry-news/2023/7/3/golden-pearls-vogue-philippines-july 2 sentences are quotations by company staff. Not enough to make it primary.
https://www.tatlerasia.com/power-purpose/philanthropy/jewelmer-wins-sustainability-initiative-of-the-year-award
BTW, this article https://www.tatlerasia.com/style/jewellery/an-inside-look-at-the-farms-where-beautiful-pearls-of-unimaginable-lustre-are-born has around 4 quotations, but the majority of the article is journalist commentary, so you can ignore the quotations and still the article has enough content to be considered towards notability. The same is the case with several articles. None of the articles are purely Q/A. I have avoided using such articles. Hairmer (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:40, 27 August 2024 review of submission by 2603:8000:D500:C58C:FCD5:F7D5:61CF:682

[edit]

Hi there, I've submitted a number of reliable citations independent of the subject including Billboard, Collider, American Songwriter and more yet the submission draft continues to be declined. I'm not entirely sure why this would be but any clarity would be greatly appreciated as I've followed the guidlelines for citing and submitting. Thank you! 2603:8000:D500:C58C:FCD5:F7D5:61CF:682 (talk) 05:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb and Discogs are not reliable independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 07:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:50, 27 August 2024 review of submission by Gracewith

[edit]

Mr. Jain is a Padmashree awardee and in my draft, I have shared reliable sources to prove the same, including media coverage, letters from central and state governments, and a picture of him receiving the award from the president. Despite all these, the draft is getting rejected again and again. Also, I have shared additional information including the 3rd party links to prove the same.

It feels like the draft is getting rejected intentionally wi9thout going through the informations, source links in details. Gracewith (talk) 06:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial links to purchase books need to be removed they are NOT useful sources and we don't use photographs of original documents like you have done, do you have a conflict of interest with this topic by any chance? Theroadislong (talk) 07:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You also say in the draft that " Details about Gyan Chand Jain's early life are currently unavailable from reliable sources. This information will be added when a reliable source becomes available." This is NOT acceptable for a WP:BLP. Theroadislong (talk) 07:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Grace with The draft has been declined, not rejected. The word rejected has a specific meaning in this process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted provided you address the concerns that led to the decline. 331dot (talk) 07:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:22, 27 August 2024 review of submission by Realmomo

[edit]

This page is the English translation of the Chinese Wikipedia article "北京师范大学珠海校区". Realmomo (talk) 08:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Realmomo Yes; you have submitted it for a review. Note that the Chinese Wikipedia has different editors and policies than the English Wikipedia- it's up to you as the translator to make sure that the draft meets the policies of the Wikipedia you are translating for, such as WP:ORG. I don't think your draft does, as it reads like a promotional brochure written by the college, and not a summary of what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about it. It's possible this is acceptable on the Chinese Wikipedia, but not here. 331dot (talk) 08:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, my translations are from the English interface of the school's official website as well as some authoritative reports, and the sources are definitely reliable. Realmomo (talk) 08:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the fact that's problematic as Wikipedia (at least, this one) isn't interested in what the college says about itself, lifting content directly from its website is likely a copyright violation. 331dot (talk) 08:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Realmomo: I don't see how this draft can be a translation of the corresponding article in the Chinese Wikipedia, and at the same time be a translation of the organisation's own website etc. (unless the Chinese article is a potential copyright violation). But putting that aside, the sources may well be "reliable" and "authorative", but they may still not establish notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As its website states "all rights reserved", it is indeed a copyright violation. 331dot (talk) 08:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:47, 27 August 2024 review of submission by Garygfletcher

[edit]

The following references highlight that this individual has been accepted by the National Governing Body as part of the committee of technical experts in their field, this is on the Governing Body Website - how do you reference this accolade with any more substance than that? It is literally the highest level of recognition anyone can get in the United Kingdom as being an expert in paddlesports. He was also the National Staff Officer for Paddlesports in the Sea Cadets, which is the largest Canoe and Kayak Club in the country with 291 paddlesport staff under his direction and 400 sea cadet units running these activities.

https://britishcanoeingawarding.org.uk/new-technical-group-members-announced/

https://britishcanoeingawarding.org.uk/organisational-structure/

https://britishcanoeingawarding.org.uk/wp-content/files/BCAB_Tech_Groups_22022024.png Garygfletcher (talk) 11:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you writing about yourself? 331dot (talk) 12:19, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Garygfletcher: primary sources do not establish notability according to our general notability guideline WP:GNG, and there is no special guideline that would apply to "an expert in paddlesports", or for that matter an RN volunteer or a technical consultant. (There is one, WP:NACADEMIC, that might apply to a marine biologist, but I don't see anything in the draft that would suggest this standard is met, either.) You therefore need to find multiple secondary sources that are both reliable and entirely independent, and that have provided significant coverage of this person. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
== Appeal Decision: Wikipedia Notability Assessment ==
Thank you for your review of the notability of the subject in question. We appreciate the detailed feedback and would like to address the concerns raised in light of the relevant criteria outlined in the Wikipedia guidelines for academic notability.
=== Fellowship Status ===
According to item 3 of the Wikipedia:NACADEMIC guidelines, a Fellow of a prestigious scholarly society or association is considered notable. The subject has been recognised as a Fellow at Imperial College London, a top-tier institution, which is well-documented with multiple references, including the department’s website. This aligns with the specified criteria and supports the claim of notability.
=== Committee Position ===
The subject also holds a position on the British Canoeing Awarding Body committee. This role involves determining academic criteria for qualifications within the paddlesports field. This aligns with criteria 6 and 7 of the Wikipedia:NACADEMIC guidelines:
  • Criteria 6: The subject holds a significant administrative position within a major academic society.
  • Criteria 7: The subject has made a considerable impact outside of academia through their role.
=== Publication Leadership ===
The roles and contributions in other areas demonstrate substantial impact and recognition in their field.
In light of the above, we respectfully request what amendments can be made to the article to accurately reflect these contributions and align with Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. Specifically, the following updates would be beneficial:
  • Detailed mention of the Fellow status at Imperial College London.
  • Clarification of the role and impact of the British Canoeing Awarding Body committee position.
  • Acknowledgement of the substantial impact the subject has made outside of academia.
These amendments will provide a clearer and more comprehensive representation of the subject’s notability in line with Wikipedia’s criteria. We look forward to your feedback and any further suggestions for improvement. Garygfletcher (talk) 12:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Garygfletcher: sorry, but 'Imperial College Advanced Hackspace' is not a scholarly society, and neither is a canoeing awarding body a major academic society. In short, there is absolutely no merit to your argument. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Imperial College Advanced Hackspace is a department of Imperial College London a top 10 university? Garygfletcher (talk) 13:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, are you writing about yourself? You speak in the third person. 331dot (talk) 13:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
an employee/volunteer who knows this individual, what is this context and what needs to be amended? Garygfletcher (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are not Gary Fletcher, you must change your username immediately. Please do so via Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS. 331dot (talk) 13:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...and as the next step after that, make a formal disclosure of your conflict of interest (COI). I've posted instructions on your talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Garygfletcher: again, that 'hackspace' is not a scholarly society, not even close. Scholarly societies are the likes of the Royal Society, etc. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Imperial College London is not a scholarly society? Garygfletcher (talk) 13:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a college, not a society. 331dot (talk) 13:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Imperial is a university. Please read that article I've linked above on scholarly societies, if you're not familiar with the concept.
The WP:NACADEMIC guideline is designed to identify academics at the very top of their field. Not every university lecturer is eligible, not even every professor. You would need to be a particularly distinguished professor. If you hold a named chair at Imperial, you might qualify; otherwise not. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:46, 27 August 2024 review of submission by Masierra2008

[edit]

I need to publish my first article. I need to do so because I don't have time to make everything perfect easily. Masierra2008 (talk) 12:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Masierra2008: we don't require perfection. We do require evidence of notability, however, as well as for the information to be supported by reliable sources. This draft is completely unreferenced, and therefore fails on both counts. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Masierra2008 An account with a username very similar to yours uploaded the logo of this film studio as its own personal work, indicating that they created it and own the copyright to it. Was that you? 331dot (talk) 12:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you may guess. Yes... it was. But you know what? It's not a big deal. @331dot, I was just you know... making a film company article to publish. Masierra2008 (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a very big deal. Did you personally create the logo and do you personally own the copyright to it? 331dot (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, yes, I do own the copyright to it. But I also recently gave credit to the original authors and MediaForEurope for the logo. Being honest. That's all I can say. Masierra2008 (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So that means you work for or own this company, that must be declared, please see your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 21:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See their user page where they say "Hi. This is my Wikipedia page. I forgot that I was blocked, but now I'm free". Theroadislong (talk) 13:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did see that, but AFAIK even this other account is not blocked. Maybe they thought they needed a separate account there? 331dot (talk) 13:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that is just ME! Masierra2008 (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did that because I wanted to be free on Wikipedia. I just never wrote articles, I just wanted to stop messing other peoples' articles. Tee-hee! 😉 Masierra2008 (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:11, 27 August 2024 review of submission by 2601:19C:4D80:4EA0:C019:985:DD7A:33E9

[edit]

Hi there, I am confused by the recent rejection of my submission saying that entire sections were not cited. As I look at it now, the only section flagged is Aphantasia and Writing. Can you please provide insight on what exactly is missing? Thank you. 2601:19C:4D80:4EA0:C019:985:DD7A:33E9 (talk) 13:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It may be that 'sections' is not meant literally, but rather means 'passages' etc. There are several paragraphs without any referencing, and many more end without a citation (meaning that the content after the last citation is unsupported). In articles on living people (WP:BLP) pretty much every material statement and all personal details must be clearly supported by inline citations to reliable published sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "Education and professional career" section is entirely unsourced, where did all this info come from? Please cite your sources. Theroadislong (talk) 13:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:21, 27 August 2024 review of submission by Chris Rosemond

[edit]

I haven't finished the article. Chris Rosemond (talk) 14:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris Rosemond: why did you submit it? Submitting is you saying that you've finished editing and want the draft to be reviewed and published. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Rosemond Sorry, but Wikipedia is not the place to tell the world about your YouTube Channel. The draft was rejected and will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not interested in what a topic wants to say about itself, only in what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about it showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability, like notable web content.
You will need to declare as a paid editor, see WP:PAID. Also see WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:02, 27 August 2024 review of submission by Dredwinhm

[edit]

I need help with this article it keeps being rejected Dredwinhm (talk) 15:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, please disclose your connection with the company(as you claim to have personally created and personally own the copyright to its logo, and have made the logo available for anyone to use for any purpose with attribution). I've provided more information on your user talk page. Then, please tell what help it is you are seeking. 331dot (talk) 15:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the owner of EGLA CORP and I made the logo myself, hence I own the copyright, anyone can use the image on their website. What's the user talk page? Dredwinhm (talk) 15:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dredwinhm: Then you must DISCLOSE on your userpage as soon as possible to come into compliance with our Terms of Use. Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
Nothing you cite that I can assess is remotely usable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:30, 27 August 2024 review of submission by Masierra2008

[edit]

I want to see what's going on, I mean, I don't understand what's going on, but I fixed everything. I put some references in my article. No one is approving it and I don't know why! 😐😒 Masierra2008 (talk) 18:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see your user talk page for important information. 331dot (talk) 19:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_August_27&oldid=1243535272"