Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 July 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< June 30 << Jun | July | Aug >> July 2 >
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.


July 1

[edit]

00:10, 1 July 2024 review of submission by HisotricalHoundofHistory

[edit]

The sources I did were completely wrong, No AI generation; just I have no clue how to use this site, I don't think. This is a pretty niche part of history and I can point you into the direction of the correct sources that are reliable and credible. Just need help, thank you. HisotricalHoundofHistory (talk) 00:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HisotricalHoundofHistory: If the sources were wrong, where did you get the information from? ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 00:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We already have an article here Turicum, you can edit that, with reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 14:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most new editors have no clue how to use this site. Those who, being new editors and having no clue, plunge straight into the very challenging task of creating a new article, very often have a frustrating time. My advice is always to not even think of creating a new article before spending several weeks or months improving articles and gradually learning how Wikipedia works. When they have an understanding of core concepts such as verifiability, reliable sources, neutral point of view, and notability, then is the time to read your first article carefully and try creating an article. ColinFine (talk) 14:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

01:01, 1 July 2024 review of submission by Jeremias2545

[edit]

Hello, in my article I have included a couple of references of which the first two are not considered independent and therefore do not contribute to the notability. My question is: Should I delete these references and leave only the correct one? Since they are the only references I have. Thank you. Jeremias2545 (talk) 01:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeremias2545: sources can do two things, they can establish notability, and/or they can verify information in the article. Even if a source doesn't contribute towards the former, it can still be needed for the latter. So only remove a source if it does neither (in which case, it shouldn't really be there in the first place).
In this draft, all three sources are there just to support the statements that this person has appeared in the media. I struggle somewhat to see the point of such statements, and therefore the usefulness of these sources, at all. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Entiendo, mi idea de incluirlas era precisamente respladar y verificar la informacion del articulo. Para dejarlo claro, recomiendas eliminar las 3? Jeremias2545 (talk) 15:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeremias2545: let's keep this in English, given that we're on the English-language Wikipedia.
I'm saying that these sources only support content that isn't particularly relevant. In other words, if you remove that content, and these sources along with it, the draft will be none the worse for it.
Your main task is to show that this person is notable per WP:GNG. You do that by finding a few sources that meet this GNG standard, summarise what they say (and forget what she wants you to write), and cite those sources agains the information they have provided. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:20, 1 July 2024 review of submission by Fatima Mukarrama

[edit]

I want to know that what are errors found in my article and how can it be eridicated in order to get published?? Fatima Mukarrama (talk) 06:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fatima Mukarrama: we don't know where this information is coming from. You list some possible sources at the end and call them 'references', but they're not referred to anywhere. Please see WP:REFB for advice on the preferred referencing method of inline citations and footnotes. Also, use the {{cite news}} and/or {{cite web}} templates, to ensure that the results are correctly formatted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:48, 1 July 2024 review of submission by GJamesT

[edit]

I wrote a Wikipedia post about Savic Motorcycles which is about to launch in Australia but it was rejected in a few minutes saying it is not notable enough. What do I do now as I think it is definitely interesting. 

GJamesT (talk) 06:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GJamesT: It was rejected because it's written as an investor-fishing piece and 60% of its sources are Wikipedia articles. (If you're trying to link to another Wikipedia page, [[square brackets]] will do that.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:04, 1 July 2024 review of submission by BarbaraS97

[edit]

Hello, my translation for an article originally in Croatian was denied twice. I followed the rules that state my sources need to be objective and not associated with the subject, but the article was still denied. I was wondering if I could get a more detailed explanation as to why my sources don't meet the criteria? If you could pinpoint me to the sources that cause the article to not be approved? Thank you, Barbara BarbaraS97 (talk) 09:04, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BarbaraS97 Please understand that each language Wikipedia is a separate project, with their own editors and policies. What is acceptable on one is not necessarily acceptable on another. The English Wikipedia tends to be stricter than others.
The main claim to notability you seem to be making is that he's been given some recognition/awards. However, awards do not contribute to notability unless the awards themselves merit articles(like Nobel Peace Prize or Tony Award or Academy Award). Leaving that stuff aside, the draft only tells about his activities- this does not establish that he meets the definition of a notable person. You must summarize independent reliable sources with significant coverage, sources that go into detail about what makes this man important/significant/influential as a person as they see it. 331dot (talk) 09:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thank you for you reply. The issue here is that as a founder of one of the biggest FMCG companies in the Balkan region, he has made a significant impact on the economy of the region but is a relatively private person and therefore the coverage is simply not there. At least not to the extent that it is with other businessmen who, unlike him, have had very public scandals and affairs. Do you think a shorter article with only the basics which are somewhat covered in Croatian media could be approved? Again, thank you for your help. BarbaraS97 (talk) 09:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there are no sources that discuss what they see as important about him, there can't be an article about him on this Wikipedia. Whether he is a private person or not isn't relevant to this. What matters is what others unaffiliated with him write about him, and not based on materials associated with him(like interviews, company press releases, etc.) Just basic information isn't sufficient, this is not a directory of people, but an encyclopedia.
If this article is acceptable on the Croatian Wikipedia, I suggest that you focus your efforts there. There is nothing special about the English Wikipedia, it is not the premier Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have an association with this individual? 331dot (talk) 09:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat, I work at his company. BarbaraS97 (talk) 09:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BarbaraS97: in that case, you must make a paid-editing disclosure as soon as possible; I've posted instructions on your talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does this apply even if editing is just on my own accord and not a part of my job description? BarbaraS97 (talk) 09:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It does not require specific payment or instructions to edit. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BarbaraS97: yes, you're writing about your employer. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, thank you both for the information. @331dot@DoubleGrazing BarbaraS97 (talk) 09:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:31, 1 July 2024 review of submission by LouisCSV

[edit]

Need help or support in getting this article approved, lots of sources provided! LouisCSV (talk) 09:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LouisCSV: you have resubmitted this draft and it is awaiting another review, please be patient.
Indeed, lots of sources, but I didn't immediately see anything that would establish notability. That said, I didn't analyse them in detail. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying, @DoubleGrazing The notability in this article is that the Plymouth Chronicle is Plymouth's largest newspaper by distribution, a print newspaper by it's own is fairly notable nowadays, thanks for the prompt on this as I will try to cite from the newspaper printers LouisCSV (talk) 09:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LouisCSV: just to make sure we're both on the same page regarding notability, being the 'largest' or 'oldest' or 'first of its kind' etc. may make a subject 'famous' or 'important' or 'popular' or something like that, but notability has a very specific definition in the Wikipedia context, and none of those attributes come into it at all; it is solely a question of whether independent and reliable secondary sources have provided significant coverage of the subject. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your insight on this, much appreciated. LouisCSV (talk) 10:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
LouisCSV What is the general nature of your conflict of interest? 331dot (talk) 09:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot I am employed at Cornerstone Vision which publishes the Plymouth Chronicle Newspaper. As a notable newspaper print publication I am trying to get listed alongside similar papers such as The Herald (Plymouth) and Western Morning News. LouisCSV (talk) 09:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LouisCSV As an employee of the publisher you need to read WP:PAID in detail. Your COI declaration needs to migrate to a declaration of paid editing, please.
I appreciate you have been as transparent as you have been able to with the information available to you. Please go the extra mile. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for highlighting this, I have adjusted my user page to comply with this. Many thanks and kind regards. LouisCSV (talk) 10:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Just FYI you can remove the COI notice in favor of the paid notice. The paid notice covers both. 331dot (talk) 12:43, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:50, 1 July 2024 review of submission by MsSalsaFish

[edit]

I am not associated with Promise Neighborhoods of the Lehigh Valley yet was declined by a reviewer for not being "formal" or having a neutral tone. Please provide assistance. MsSalsaFish (talk) 09:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MsSalsaFish The connection or otherwise with the topic is not relevant to the reviewer's decline of the draft. It is not written as an article for Wikipedia. It is written as a magazine article, and as a PR piece, and remains so even after your recent edits.
In an edit summary you said 'The article is professional and neutral and written by a third party'. Please define what you mean with precision. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MsSalsaFish no Declined for reasons given on the draft 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am asking for assistance with this page. I am reporting on the Promise Neighborhood organization per observation and research. It is not intended to be a press release or article, rather to introduce readers to the organization. I. have worked more this morning to write with a Wiki mindset and would appreciate feedback. MsSalsaFish (talk) 12:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MsSalsaFish That isn't really what this Helpdesk is for. We offer advice, but generally do not leap in and edit, unless, by serendipity, the subject matter interests one of us. You need to work thinking "If it's to be, it's up to me!" 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please be aware that 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.
You need to start by finding several places where people wholly unconnected twit hte organisation have chosen, unprompted, to write at some length about the organisation, and been published in reliable places.
If you cannot find at least three such pieces, then give up, as the organisation does not currently meed Wikipedia's criteria for notability.
If you can find them, the next step is to forget everything you know about the organisation, and especially forget everything that you want the world to know about it, and write a summary of what those independent sources say. ColinFine (talk) 15:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MsSalsaFish I remain concerned by 'The article is professional and neutral and written by a third party', something you have not commented on. Are you writing this professionally, for reward? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My statement "The article is professional and neutral and written by a third party" was in response to the initial question of neutrality. Perhaps poorly worded, it was my way of saying that I am a Wiki contributor. I am very new to this process and am attempting to learn the nuances of the Wiki world. It has a very steep learning curve. MsSalsaFish (talk) 13:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Typically in this context "third party" would mean someone other than yourself or us. That's why we're a little confused.
It is true that writing a new article for Wikipedia has a steep learning curve, it is the most difficult task to perform here. It is usually recommended that new users first spend time editing existing articles in areas that interest them(with almost 7 million to choose from) so that they learn how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. Diving right in to creating articles is akin to knocking on the door of Carnegie Hall and asking to give a violin recital without ever having played the violin before. 331dot (talk) 14:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:27, 1 July 2024 review of submission by OskuDev

[edit]

I have all of the information that exists about Screri Gaem because I made it. I can not think of anything else to put in the page. OskuDev (talk) 15:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then it is not notable enough for Wikipedia and it is time for you to move on to other things. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 15:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OskuDev: you don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected and won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Topic fails WP:NVG and WP:COI; page creator blocked as promo account. (But hey, at least Google brought up an EverybodyWiki link for that!Domain is WP-blacklisted, however.) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 17:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OskuDev: Wikipedia and its readers have zero tolerance for advertizing. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:40, 1 July 2024 review of submission by Rajibarber

[edit]

Greetings There!

I'm relatively new here and have been learning all through before joining here as an editor.

I finished creating an article with the forestated about four days ago and pushed it for AFC review, it was however rejected the following day. A number of reasons were alluded to the rejection.

I have noted all the points raised by the reviewer and planning to incorporate all his suggestions.

My prayer is that, can anyone here please help me make a review of the drafted article and check whether there are some other wrongs with the draft?

Thanks. 

Rajibarber (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rajibarber: that's a curious expression, "have been learning all through before joining here as an editor", what did you mean by that? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean before even creating an account here, I have been studying the how to; perhaps I have not studied enough and I am sure ready to learn till death.
Thanks Dear @DoubleGrazing Rajibarber (talk) 15:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rajibarber: have you edited under other accounts before registering this one? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No at all sir Rajibarber (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant is that I have been keenly following and observing how things are done here, without any attempt to edit anything. Rajibarber (talk) 16:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rajibarber: Let's have a look at your sources (refer to my /Decode subpage, linked as "critiques" in my signature). For the avoidance of doubt I will also assess your external links as if they were sources:
You have nothing that's significant coverage of her. Two sources name her as winning an award, but that's all they do, which leaves you otherwise with nothing to base an article off of. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am blown off Dear erudite @Jéské Couriano.
That's why I mentioned that I am here to learn, sincerely, most of the issues you raised were new to me, but are all noted now.
I can't thank you enough.
Gratias
Regards Rajibarber (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:13, 1 July 2024 review of submission by Viwong731

[edit]

Hi. I'm creating a page for the first time and I'm unsure how to properly reference and cite. I was hoping to get assistance doing so if possible. Thank you. Viwong731 (talk) 18:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Viwong731: you have created several citations more or less correctly, there just aren't enough of them, as most of the content remains unreferenced. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it! I'll add more. Thanks! Viwong731 (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For every piece of information in your draft, ask yourself, "Where did I get that information from?". If it was a reliable published source, wholly independent of Lillis, cite the source. If it was a reliable published source connected with Lillis, consider whether it was the kind of information allowed by SPS, and if so, cite the source. In any other case, remove the information.
(Note that finding sources before writing any text often avoids wasted effort. See BACKWARDS). ColinFine (talk) 09:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:42, 1 July 2024 review of submission by Nanou41

[edit]

Hi, I was wondering if it would be possible to receive feedback on the specific source links I have added to the article. I have produced a source assess table to assist with trying to figure it out: (Malformed source assessment tables deleted. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques)Nanou41 (talk) 20:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the malformed templates (as they were impossible to read and a massive wall o' text) and will assess your sources directly. Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):

Most of your sources are useless, thus the chaff is choking the wheat. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 21:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also asked and answered at Teahouse. David notMD (talk) 14:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_July_1&oldid=1233046947"