Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 July 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< July 12 << Jun | July | Aug >> July 14 >
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 13

[edit]

04:45, 13 July 2024 review of submission by 202.41.10.107

[edit]

The draft was last declined in 2022 and should be reviewed once again because now the actor has attained WP:N with his lead roles in Hero - Gayab Mode On, Ali Baba: Ek Andaaz Andekha. He had a prominent role in Amazon mini TV series Jab We Matched. Also, he is currently doing a lead role in the show. Pukaar - Dil Se Dil Tak. So kindly review the draft once again. 202.41.10.107 (talk) 04:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to approach one of the editors who rejected the draft directly: @Scope creep or @Bonadea. But notice that while NACTOR mentions "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows" as a criterion for notability, you still need the reliable independent sources.
Before approaching one of those editors, you should go through the long list of citations in the draft, looking at each one critically: does it meet the triple criteria of the golden rule? If not, you should probably remove it, and any information cited to it, unless it is a self-published source in which case it may be allowed to stay if the kind of information it supports it appropriate. For example, the first two citations contain only passing reference to Nigam. ColinFine (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
None of your sources are usable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:36, 13 July 2024 review of submission by Mamorenor

[edit]

Hello.

As I usually do so, I did a search in Wikipedia about a software component that has been trending within the software development community ( ==> HTMX )

However, I was surprised to find "no entry" related to such software component in the main "English" pages.

Even more surprised I was when I noticed that there is an entry about the HTMX software component in the Czech wikipedia pages.

Therefore, I decided to help the community and write the English version of the HTMX software component.

After registering in Wikipedia and after starting editing of the HTMX article, I was shown the current draft of the HTMX article with many "article submission declined" entries ( x4 ).

I am very familiar and experienced writing technical articles, and after reading the current draft article of "HTMX" I found it to be good enough for submission acceptance.

Nevertheless, I am a true beginner when it comes to editing Wikipedia articles. I noticed that the "submission declines" suggest to "ask for help" to get guidance into how to "fix" the article to have its submission accepted.

Can you provide guidance into what is wrong with the current draft so I can contribute to edit and fix it?

Thank you !!! 

Mamorenor (talk) 07:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, writing for Wikipedia is very different from most other forms of writing.
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.
This means, that the first stage in creating an article is to find sources that are wholly unconnected with the subject (or in this case, with the developers of the sofware. Almost nothing written or published by the developers, marketers etc is of any relevance to an article, and nor is anything they say in interviews or press releases. Also unacceptable is anything such as blogs, which are not published by a publisher with a reputation for editorial control and fact checking.
I also observe that your citation number 5, for example, does not mention HTMX once. The sole purpose of a citation in a Wikipedia article is to verify a claim about the subject of the article. If a source does not mention the subject, it is almost always a waste of everybody's time. In copntext, your citation no 5. appears to be trying to persuade the reader of the value of open-source: that makes it advocacy, which is not permitted in Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 16:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:36, 13 July 2024 review of submission by Weltall Zero

[edit]

Hello, I need help with three issues regarding the UFO 50 draft page. 1) Two of the references show as broken, even though I can see nothing wrong with them. In fact, some of the references appear as broken and then fix themselves when editing unrelated parts of the page or moving them around, which is quite puzzling. 2) Would the current draft be a reasonable submission for approval? 3) If someone with image upload permissions could upload the game's cover (https://50games.fun/images/logo.jpg) as the article image, it would be very much appreciated. Thank you very much! Weltall Zero (talk) 16:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Weltall Zero: See Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: using a reference more than once. You basically used reference names but did not assign those names to any of your sources. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I'm missing something obvious, that doesn't seem to be the case. I added names to every source, all of which work correctly, except for these two. They do have matching names in both the reference and the source (I made triple sure that they matched, even copying and pasting them), so I see no reason they wouldn't work. Indeed, they do work when I move things around (but then others break!), which is baffling. I've also double checked for unbalanced brackets, but I can't find any.
I uploaded a screenshot of the relevant code: you can see that the Edge and GamesRadar references are right there in the references section, between the RPS and Day of the Devs ones which work perfectly fine:
https://i.imgur.com/S6fCCDQ.png
I'm honestly at my wit's end here. :D Weltall Zero (talk) 20:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Weltall Zero It appears to have been fixed. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, Victor Schmidt fixed it. Thank you both! <3 Weltall Zero (talk) 11:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:22:55, 13 July 2024 review of submission by BubbleWombleBee12

[edit]

Hi, can someone Review this article Draft:Buchi Babu Sana please? BubbleWombleBee12 (talk) 17:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BubbleWombleBee12: we don't do on-demand reviews here at the help desk, it will be reviewed in due course; please remain patient (it seems it was only submitted two days ago, anyway). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Times of India is not considered a reliable source and interviews are not independent. Theroadislong (talk) 21:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:32, 13 July 2024 review of submission by Adefolarin1

[edit]

Hi Wikipedia Team,

I am reaching out in utter frustration regarding my article submission. Since the start of the year, I have been diligently re-drafting this article to meet all the requirements specified by your guidelines. It is outrageous that editor Johannes Maximilian has now reiterated the same feedback previously given by other editors, claiming the article lacks the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia and fails to adhere to a neutral point of view. I have meticulously revised the submission to eliminate any peacock terms and ensure it is written from a neutral perspective, as per your instructions.

Furthermore, the accusation that the submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources is simply untrue. I have invested countless hours referencing independent, reliable, published sources to verify every piece of information in the article. It is incredibly disheartening to have my efforts continuously dismissed by editors who seem to be trigger-happy in rejecting submissions without offering constructive feedback.

This process is beginning to feel discriminatory and marginalizing. Wikipedia is supposed to be an open, free space for sharing knowledge, yet I am encountering constant obstacles and encountering editors who appear to be mean-spirited and resentful, rejecting my efforts without due consideration.

This cannot continue indefinitely. I have poured significant time and effort into ensuring my submission meets Wikipedia's standards, and it is unacceptable for it to be continually undermined by dismissive editorial behavior. I urge you to review my submission again, taking into account the extensive work I have done to comply with your requirements.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Best regards,

Adefolarin Adefolarin1 (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not surprised that you are frustrated. This is the common experience of new editors who plunge straight into the challenging task of trying to create an article without spending any time learning about Wikipedia and its requirements.
Like many other new editors, you have written your draft BACKWARDS, instead of writing it from what the sources say and nothing else. And when I say "the sources", I mean almost exclusively the indpendent sources. Wikipedia is basically not interested in what Ogunwusi or her colleagues say about her: it is only interested in what people with no connection to her have chosen to publish about her, and that is what you should base the article on.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 21:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Adefolarin1 Please do not go forum shopping. You have also asked this at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Draft:Ashley Folashade Adegoke Ogunwusi, and included an image uploaded to Wikimedia Commons which is a copyright violation. I was going to offer similar advice to that which you have just received, but now have no need to do so. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tone is totally inappropriate for an encyclopaedia, interviews cannot be used to establish notability and blogs are not reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 21:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Adefolarin1; since other people have mentioned the tone, I will focus on the sourcing first, since that is clearly a source of frustration for you. Let's see if I can help break it down a bit. You might already know this, so please bear with me if you do.
Your goal here is to establish that your subject (Ogunwusi) is notable by Wikipedia standards, which are very strict. Additionally, since she is a living person, you must also follow the WP:BLP (biographies of living people) rules. One of the most important BLP rules is that every statement that a reasonable person might question must be sourced. And, of course, all your sources must be suitable - they must meet WP:42, the 'golden rule': significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Part of being reliable includes editorial oversight and strict publishing standards; some sites (newspapers, magazines, etc) will publish anything if they are paid, and those sites are not reliable.
Source 1) describes itself as a blog, and blogs are usually not reliable. There are no bylines (writers' names) on their articles and their About Us page doesn't give me much confidence. This probably cannot be used to establish notability, since the source is not reliable.
2) is an interview, which cannot be used for notability (not independent). You can use interviews for some extremely basic facts, like birth date, but not anything that might be challenged.
3) is not really about Ogunwusi; it's about a festival she presided over, and what she said. Unfortunately that means it is also no good to you, because it's not significant coverage and is also not independent.
4) is also not about her, it's about a different festival and more things she said. I'm starting to wish I could attend these festivals, they sound like a lot of fun! But sadly, this source has the same problems as 3).
5) is an interview, which again you cannot use for notability.
You can't write an article with these sources, so your first and biggest hurdle will be to find sources you can use.
Once you have done that, you'll probably need to rewrite the draft completely. Wikipedia articles on people are usually fairly standard: they begin with information about someone's childhood and adolescence, then onto their career and/or their notable accomplishments, then their current personal life, perhaps any controversies they've been involved in, and then their legacy or things people have said about them. The way articles are written is basically a series of facts, so you would be planning to write something like 'Ashley Folashade Adegoke Ogunwusi was born in [place] in [year, maybe month and day] to [parents]. She has a [degree] from [place]. She owns [business names].' You could include the fact that her official marriage date was postponed and why, with a suitable source. You'll notice that this way of writing is quite different to what you currently have - it's not easy to write in an encyclopedic way, which is one of the reasons we suggest people practice editing other articles before trying to write one.
I hope this has been helpful to you, and I wish you happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 00:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also asked and answered at Teahouse. Advised to in future not ask for help at more than one place. David notMD (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:13, 13 July 2024 review of submission by SageOst2024

[edit]

No one has re looked over my sources that I redid from the official sites that Vielle and his team created. I have removed the wiki references, and added his profile which proves quite a few of his feats. SageOst2024 (talk) 21:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

these also include independent sources such as Nitro Type comp records and his team history. SageOst2024 (talk) 21:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SageOst2024 For anyone to look at your draft you need to submit for further review, please. IT will then be looked at in due course 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see not one of your citations (which are not properly formatted - see WP:REFB - but that is another matter) is published by a reliable publisher. Therefore, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, your draft has no sources whatever.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:37, 13 July 2024 review of submission by MaceMezio

[edit]

Hey, I just want to know which sources are unreliable or how I make my sources reliable on my article. One reason why I am asking this is cos I have seen from other pages of rides at Thorpe Park with less references than my article. Thank you! MaceMezio (talk) 22:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MaceMezio! WP:42, the 'golden rule', might be helpful to you here: your sources need to be significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. To be reliable, the sources need to have editorial oversight (so not blogs, for example) and be reputable (some newspapers, websites, etc, will publish anything if they are paid to do so, and that is not reliable because they'll say whatever anyone wants them to). With that in mind, let's look at your sources:
1) is Coasterpedia, which is a user-generated source and thus not reliable.
2) is the manufacturer's website, so it's not independent - they'll want to say nice things about their product!
3) is a blog, so probably not reliable.
Looking through Thorpe Park's rides, I actually found one that's been assessed as a Good Article (The Swarm (roller coaster)) - this would be a great one to base your article on, since Good Articles (GAs) have been vetted by the community and we know they are, well, good. Look at the sources it has, and see if you can find similar things for your draft. Good luck and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 01:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply
I have replaced some of the references with new ones, so how do my references/sources look now!
I understand The Swarm has several great references, however I do want to point out, the article for "Flying Fish (roller coaster)" for example has only one reference and I do not see the article needing any other citations.
Thanks! MaceMezio (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again @MaceMezio! I'll answer your questions backwards: the reason some articles don't seem to have the same reference quality we're asking of you is because they were created in the old days of Wikipedia, when it was a wild frontier and just about any article could be created with little or no information. Flying Fish was created in 2006! There are millions of articles and nowhere near as many active editors, so these older articles tend to get missed until someone draws attention to them. You are absolutely correct that Flying Fish doesn't have good references, and in fact if I can't find any I'll be nominating it for deletion since the article shouldn't exist without good references. There's a whole essay about this at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Standards are much higher now, and there's no way Flying Fish would be accepted if it was submitted as-is.
Now, back to your draft. Remember you want sources with significant coverage and that are reliable and are independent of the topic. If the reference fails any of those criteria, you can't use it for notability.
1) is a blog, so probably not reliable (no editorial standards, we have no idea of their fact-checking process)
2) is a link to a book that was for sale - was this a mistake? If not, you can't use it unless the book contains a significant amount of information about Quantum specifically - and if it does contain that information specifically, you'd need to cite the book itself as a source rather than a place it could be bought (not significant coverage).
3) is from the manufacturer (not independent).
4) doesn't show any evidence of being a reliable source (no sign of editorial standards, no idea if they fact-check), so it won't help you either (not reliable).
Still no luck, I'm afraid. You are of course welcome to search for more sources, but please do your best to assess them against the WP:42 criteria before using them in your draft - when we give feedback, it's to help you understand what you're looking for, and I think you're at the point where you should be able to work out if a source is any good or not. Just ask yourself whether it meets each of the criteria, and reject it if it fails any of them. It may well be that there simply isn't enough information out there; that happens! Not every coaster, or every building, or every TV series, or every person is notable. Sometimes they become notable in time, and sometimes they vanish into obscurity. This can be a very frustrating discovery when you've been working on a draft, which is why you should have a look at WP:BACKWARDS and try out the advice you find there. Good luck and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I guess I will leave the article for now since I cannot find any more relevant references atm, every once in a while I will see what I can do about it, tho I don't want my draft deleted since I think I saw after 6 months, it will delete or something?
Btw, I used the book as a reference since I was able to preview it and the page numbers were put in correctly, but yes ig the way it sourced was a mistake.
Think that is all I have to say.
Thank you anyways. MaceMezio (talk) 11:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_July_13&oldid=1235392171"