Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 January 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< January 6 << Dec | January | Feb >> January 8 >
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.


January 7

[edit]

00:56, 7 January 2024 review of submission by 121345171QWERTYUIOPA

[edit]

What can I do to make this accepted 121345171QWERTYUIOPA (talk) 00:56, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing, it has been rejected. 331dot (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:22, 7 January 2024 review of submission by Soumya6722

[edit]

Could you please tell me why my draft got declined? Also I can not resubmit it 

Soumya6722 (talk) 03:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Soumya6722 looks like you resubmitted it. Wait for someone to review Draft:Bijay Kumar Reddy. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 04:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:20, 7 January 2024 review of submission by Laynerosen

[edit]

I have made many and requested edits, but when I try to publish, I get the following error:

Something Went Wrong No stashed content found for 1164408643/b6e45fad-a078-11ee-b5ff-4cd98faf1f47

I also cannot click on the comments made by Ca, who declined the submission previously. The comments only allow me to click on the box as an "AfC submission template".

I am ready to publish and believe my submission will be approved now. Please advise!! Laynerosen (talk) 05:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Laynerosen: that's a technical issue to do with the visual editor, and as such beyond the scope of this help desk, but you may find eg. this thread useful. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:15, 7 January 2024 review of submission by CAPAVGAR

[edit]

Hello. I removed all languages which was not allowed as per guidelines (Things that are too general, or appear to be biased or marketing, or to not look vague either). It says that my article doesn't have the correct sources. However, I have provided: 1. Interview with the person 2. Online Performances 3. Documentries and television interviews (Romania, Japan, etc) 4. Movies this person starred in (IMdb) 5. Online Blogs 6. Newspaper and magazine exerts (Which were added to online) 7. Academic articles

I do not understand what else I need to provide?

A dancer from Turkey was added onto Wikipedia with only one online news article source, and another was added with three online websites only and a YouTube video.

Yet I have provided 60 references.

Can someone help me make the page, or point to what I am doing wrong?

Thank you and I would appreciate your help in fixing whatever needs to be done.


Thank you

Christopher CAPAVGAR (talk) 06:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CAPAVGAR: did you actually read the decline notice and my comments? You are citing a large number of unacceptable sources. We need every material statement, anything potentially contentious, and all private personal and family details to be clearly supported by reliable published sources.
Providing 60 references is not a good thing, if they are weak. A few strong references is much better. See WP:REFBOMB.
As for other articles that may exist, this is neither here nor there, as we don't assess drafts by comparing them to other articles, but rather to the applicable guidelines and policies. If you have found articles that are insufficiently referenced, you are very welcome to improve them, or if this cannot be done, to initiate deletion proceedings. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
Yes, apologies and now I did (I received some help from a group chat here on Wikipedia).
Although I fixed the language, the issue was about using lots of websues (30% of my sources) from: Blogspot, Medium, and IMDb. I have deleted all of them, and have also gotten rid of half of the YouTube links I had before.
I see what you mean, good point. Thank your taking the time to respond. Wikipedia seems very specific in what is required, and I am not new to the world of referencing (Have produced a thesis and mini-thesis). Good that I asked, and have now resubmitted. CAPAVGAR (talk) 06:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, CAPAVGAR.If you were starting to learn engineering, would you make your first project to build a car from scratch? If you took up a musical instrument, would you arrange a public recital as the first thing you did? No, you would practise on less demanding projects while you learnt the craft.
I would very strongly advise you that you will save yourself a great deal of frustration and disappointment if you forget about creating a new article for several months, while you gradually learn about how Wikipedia works (and most particularly about Verifiability, reliable sources, and Neutral point of view) by making improvements to some of our six million existing articles.. ColinFine (talk) 16:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:50, 7 January 2024 review of submission by 195.251.132.68

[edit]

This page has met the criteria for Notability (academics) 1 "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources". It is mentioned that "Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources". Sources used are peer reviewed journal publication specifically mentioning the academic and his impact, for example https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03088839.2020.1788731 . These are the most reliable sources and should be accepted by Wikipedia as reliable. Please advise on how this should be treated. 195.251.132.68 (talk) 09:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the authors of that paper quite say what you're claiming they do. In any case, a single paper doesn't come even close to proving significant impact on the person's discipline.
More to the point, this draft has been rejected (after no fewer than seven earlier declines, each by a different reviewer), and will therefore not be considered further. If you have some evidence that wasn't previously considered, you may appeal directly to the reviewer who rejected this, but that requires substantive new proof of notability, not just that you disagree with the rejection. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:26, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I quote from the paper: " Most impactful author- Authors shape a research field with their publications.  presents the most impactful authors in the big data and AI in research the maritime domain. Dimitrios Zissis, Luca Cazzanti and Leonardo M. Millefiori are the top three authors;". this is a peer reviewed journal of high esteem in this domain, which states directly what is written in the wikipedia article. To further support this claim is https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6699798/ which is highly credited in the academic domain which clearly states that he is included in 2% of academic globally. I do not see how these can be rejected and what else could be used to support this. In each review new references have been included which improved the article. In the last round it was rejected, as if none of all the previous references made sense. 195.251.132.69 (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reviewers are free to decline drafts on any valid basis. That said, this has been declined repeatedly for lack of notability and promotional tone, as well as questionable referencing, all of which issues still persist.
Incidentally, I am assuming you are the subject? In which case, please read also our autobiography policy WP:AUTOBIO, if this hasn't been pointed out to you before. There you will find a number of reasons why you shouldn't be writing about yourself in the first place.
At any rate, as I said already, if you wish to dispute the rejection, you must make your case directly to the rejecting reviewer. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You assumed wrong, he is my professor. It is really interesting though that wikipedia does not accepted peer reviewed academic papers as credible sources. Thanks for the help. 195.251.132.68 (talk) 15:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. My bad. In that case, please see WP:COI. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a conflict of interest. This is not a paid advocacy or article about family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial or other relationship. As I stated he is my professor and thus I believe he should be covered by wikipedia as an academic/scholar. As a student in one of his classes, I can evaluate him independently. 195.251.132.68 (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you know Wikipedia policies better than I do. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A humiliating defeat for sure. Blueskiesdry (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having to re-evaluate all my major life choices. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:08, 7 January 2024 review of submission by Onetozeros

[edit]

can you tell me how can i improve the article further? Onetozeros (talk) 15:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No improvement is possible, the draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. No amount of editing can confer notability on a topic. 331dot (talk) 15:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_January_7&oldid=1195263862"