Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 July 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< July 23 << Jun | July | Aug >> July 25 >
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 24

[edit]

00:17, 24 July 2024 review of submission by Banjo Bilby

[edit]

Hi there, I have added lots of references from academic journals and gov websites, however, it keeps getting rejected on the grounds of referencing. Can I gets some tips and help please? Banjo Bilby (talk) 00:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Banjo Bilby: Anything from Arid Recovery's own website is useless for notability and can only be used for uncontroversial claims (connexion to subject). Anything from Australia's government as a whole is also useless for notability by dint of being government sources. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 00:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Arid Recovery website I get. The government pages are species profiles from the EPBC act, which is weird to ignore. Thanks for the help though. Banjo Bilby (talk) 00:31, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

00:25, 24 July 2024 review of submission by CymaSonic

[edit]

Dear Wikipedia Editors, I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to seek guidance regarding an article I have been attempting to submit to Wikipedia. Despite my best efforts to adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines and standards, my submissions have not been approved. I would like to emphasize that I have:

Carefully reviewed and followed Wikipedia's editing guidelines. Included numerous third-party references to support the article's content. Provided citations from reputable publishers to ensure the information's credibility. Made multiple revisions based on previous feedback (if applicable).

At this point, I feel I have exhausted my options for further edits without additional guidance. I would greatly appreciate your insights on:

Specific areas of the article that still require improvement. Any particular concerns about the current content or structure. Suggestions for additional sources or types of references that would strengthen the article. Any other steps I can take to meet Wikipedia's standards for publication.

Your expertise and advice would be invaluable in helping me understand how to proceed. I am committed to contributing high-quality content to Wikipedia and am eager to learn from your feedback. Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your response and the opportunity to improve my submission. CymaSonic (talk) 00:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CymaSonic, using AI for guidance might not be effective, and it seems AI may have been used to write your draft, making it read promotional. Additionally, your draft lacks proper citations to reliable sources. Ignoring the decline notice, which includes reasons for the decline, is not advisable as it contains valuable information to help improve your draft. Please review it thoroughly and seek guidance before resubmitting. Cheers. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 00:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @SafariScribe ,
Thank you for your prompt feedback on my draft. I appreciate your time and would like to address the points you raised:
  1. Use of AI: I want to clarify that I did not use AI to write the draft. My process involved organic Google searches to find existing resources, which I then verified individually. The guidance I followed came from Wikipedia's own guidelines.
  2. Citations and reliable sources: I understand your concern about proper citations. I'm currently investigating official links for the awards mentioned. For the career section, particularly regarding McKinsey (internship) and Itochu Corporation, I found it challenging to locate third-party articles due to the relatively minor nature of these positions in the subject's overall career.
  3. Promotional tone: I apologize if the draft came across as promotional. This was not my intention, and I will work on maintaining a more neutral, encyclopedic tone.
  4. Previous decline notices: I assure you that I have been carefully reading all feedback. If I've missed any crucial points, I sincerely apologize and would greatly appreciate if you could highlight them again.
Based on your feedback, I propose the following changes:
  1. Remove the career section that lacks strong third-party references.
  2. Focus on the awards and recent speaking engagements, ensuring each has verifiable sources.
  3. Revise the entire draft to ensure a neutral tone and compliance with Wikipedia's standards.
Would this approach be more suitable? I'm committed to improving this draft and would greatly appreciate any additional guidance you can provide.
Thank you for your patience and assistance in this process. CymaSonic (talk) 00:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CymaSonic: I have a couple of suggestions. The first is covered by the advice at WP:BACKWARDS. When you create a draft, each sentence should be based on what a source says. That way, you do not end up with content that is not apparently based on any source. Minor positions in a person's career that are not covered by secondary sources can safely be omitted from the draft.
I'd also like to point out the policy at WP:TRADEMARK to support removal of the TM and R symbols you've included in your draft. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 01:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your helpful feedback and advice on my draft article about Natsuyo N. Lipschutz. I greatly appreciate the time you took to review my submission and provide such constructive guidance.
I understand the importance of following the WP:BACKWARDS approach and will revise my draft accordingly, ensuring that each sentence is based on reliable secondary sources. I will also remove all trademark symbols as per the WP:TRADEMARK policy.
Your advice has been invaluable, and I plan to thoroughly revise the article based on your suggestions. I will focus on collecting reliable secondary sources and rebuilding the content from there.
Thank you again for your assistance. 47.16.14.168 (talk) 03:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:08, 24 July 2024 review of submission by Tamsragow

[edit]

My draft has been rejected twice due to unreliable sources, but I believe the issue is that the sources are in another language. Is this usually a problem or will I be able to get the draft approved with these sources? Tamsragow (talk) 09:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft submission process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.
Sources do not need to be in English as long as they meet all other criteria for being a reliable source. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources in other languages are acceptable, if there are no equally good English ones. It often takes longer for a draft with non-English sources to get reviewed, because it will wait for a reviewer who can either read that language or is prepared to put them through a translator and review them.
However, if a reviewer has reviewed the draft, they will have looked at the sources in one of those ways, and concluded that they are inadequate.
Note that while the message say "reliable sources", there are three separate criteria that sources must meet - reliability, independence, and significant coverage; and it is often one of the others: see the golden rule. ColinFine (talk) 09:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Thank you so much for responding. The sources I used are secondary and primary sources about the subject and the article was reviewed rather quickly despite the majority of the sources being in Hebrew (this makes me think that those reviewing do not understand the language). The majority of these exact sources were used in a Wikipedia article about the same subject on the Hebrew Wikipedia page and were accepted as entirely reliable. Are there different standards for the English one? Tamsragow (talk) 09:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, each language version of Wikipedia is a separate project, with their own editors and policies. What is acceptable on one is not necessarily acceptable on another. The English version tends to be stricter than others. 331dot (talk) 09:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So in other words, the sources were 100% checked by someone who understands the language even though they were once checked within 3 days? I just want to be sure. Tamsragow (talk) 09:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wikipedia editors! I hope this finds you well. I am wondering if you find the website "nil.org.il" to be unreliable because many of my sources come from this website as it is the website for the National Archive of Israel, so many old news articles can only be found there. Was this the issue with my draft or were the sources found on this website reliable?
The sources included, https://www.nli.org.il/he/newspapers/hadashot/1987/05/07/01/article/141?&dliv=none&e=-------he-20--1--img-txIN%7ctxTI--------------1&utm_source=he.wikipedia.org&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=%22%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%99+%D7%A7%D7%A0%D7%A6%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%A1%D7%A7%D7%99%22&utm_content=itonut,
https://www.nli.org.il/he/newspapers/mar/1990/12/17/01/article/256?&dliv=none&e=-------he-20--1--img-txIN%7ctxTI--------------1&utm_source=he.wikipedia.org&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=%22%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%99+%D7%A7%D7%A0%D7%A6%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%A1%D7%A7%D7%99%22&utm_content=itonut,
https://www.nli.org.il/he/newspapers/ahr/1950/05/09/01/article/29?&dliv=none&e=-------he-20--1--img-txIN%7ctxTI--------------1&utm_source=he.wikipedia.org&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=%22%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%99+%D7%A7%D7%A0%D7%A6%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%A1%D7%A7%D7%99%22&utm_content=itonut,
and
https://www.nli.org.il/he/newspapers/dav/1964/05/22/01/article/158?&dliv=none&e=-------he-20--1--img-txIN%7ctxTI--------------1&utm_source=he.wikipedia.org&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=%22%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%99+%D7%A7%D7%A0%D7%A6%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%A1%D7%A7%D7%99%22&utm_content=itonut.
Additional sources were www.gov.il which is a statement from the Israeli government. https://www.gov.il/BlobFolder/reports/roots_1996_1/he/roots-1996-1.pdf
Was there an issue with these specific sources?
Please let me know! I really appreciate your time. Tamsragow (talk) 10:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NLI is not the source of these, but merely where they are to be found. The first is published by Hadashot, and the second by Maariv, and they should be cited with title, author, publisher (the newspaper), date, page number, and (optionally, for reader convenience) links to the NLI archive. Their reliability depends on that of the newspapers, possibly with other considerations as well, not on NLI. Since they are scans, Google translate won't work on the content, so I don't know how readily reviewers will be able to evaluate them (my Hebrew is pretty weak).
Statements from goverments are almost always primary sources, and do not contribute to establishing notability. Nor do any sources which do not meet the triple criteria of reliability, independence, and significant coverage of the subject: see WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 12:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! thank you so much for looking into my sources. Within the draft I wrote all of my sources are cited properly in the way that you described above (I just happened to describe them poorly in writing here), yet I am still having my draft declined due to "unreliable sources". Two reviews have been completed over the course of three days which have each had the same result. This makes me think that they are not being looked at properly, especially after being informed by two different Wikipedia reviewers that it takes a long time to look over sources such as these. I am just very confused as to which sources on my article draft are considered unreliable and would really appreciate some assistance. Please let me know! Tamsragow (talk) 13:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is likely that the only people who can answer that question is the particular editors who did the review. You are welcome to ask them for clarification, either here, (pinging them) or on their user talk pages. ColinFine (talk) 21:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SafariScribe Could you please answer the above question regarding the sources on my draft? I am just looking to understand which sources in my draft are considered unreliable and why. I would really appreciate the assistance! Thanks so much. Tamsragow (talk) 07:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamsragow: while waiting for SafariScribe to answer your specific question, I can meanwhile tell you that the draft is very sparsely referenced, with a lot of content unsupported by citations. As a bare minimum, each paragraph should have at least one citation supporting it, and also end in a citation, and that's only enough where a) the paragraph is short, and b) the one source genuinely supports everything in the paragraph. In general, it would be best to support every material statement and anything potentially contentious, as well as all biographical details, so that it is clear to the reader where the information comes from. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamsragow, when we say that a draft is not properly sourced, it just doesn't imply that your citations are unreliable, it can as well mean that some sections lack sufficient sources. Specifically, your draft has a promotional tone that needs to be revised. Focus on essential information, like his surfing career, and remove unnecessary details. Please add sources to support the sections on mostly, the "Early life and education" and "Legal studies and lifeguard training". I am baffled that the statement "Topsea died at age 77" isn't sourced. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 10:37, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:59, 24 July 2024 review of submission by עומר תשבי

[edit]

This article was immediately declined due to supposably lack of resources and references. However, there are plenty of references in the article, noting the subject by name, and extensively. The subject also has an article in Hebrew. Also, There are old magazines from the 80's which are not online, but I have referred to one of them in the article. would it be good to refer to more of them? עומר תשבי (talk) 12:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@עומר תשבי: "plenty of references" isn't the point, it's the quality we look for, not quantity; 30 flaky sources will not establish notability, whereas 3 solid ones may well do. I've not done a source analysis, but I did notice that there are several sources cited which contribute nothing towards notability.
Whether there exists an article on this subject in the Hebrew-language Wikipedia is neither here nor there, as each language version is entirely separate and acceptance into one language version does not guarantee acceptance into others.
And yes, offline sources are acceptable, as long as they otherwise are up to the required standards in terms of reliability etc. See WP:OFFLINE for advice on citing them. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I will add offline (notable) sources. Second, these are not flaky sources: This are prominent Israeli news websites, websites of academic institutions, etc. I think that If you would analyze these sources, you will see that not only they directly refer to the subject, but that there are notable sources. עומר תשבי (talk) 20:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every source, if it is going to contribute to establishing that the subject meets English Wikipedia's criteria for notability, must meet the triple criteria of reliability, independence, and significant coverage of the subject, as explained at WP:42. Looking through your list of citations, I several that are obviously not independent, such as patents, and lists of boards of governors. In some cases there can be value to using such sources, but generally, they add absolutely nothing to an article. If an independent sources discusses that somebody has a patent, that is great. If not independent source does so, why should we be interested in it? Ditto appearances on boards of directors?
Then the Times of Israel article says very little about Ziv-Av, except to quote him: so, do the degree that it has significant coverage, it is not independent.
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) 21:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should read the Hebrew references, they meet the criteria. Iv'e edited the article, added offline sources, and polished it more. עומר תשבי (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:03, 24 July 2024 review of submission by Belarusgap

[edit]

Hej, I made English translation of the Belarusian-approved page https://be.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D1%96%D0%BB%D1%96%D1%8F_%D0%91%D1%83%D1%81%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B0. So why the English page should be different one when it comes to sources? Also, many Belarusian Wikipedia articles include facebook and instagram links- why is this allowed? Best regards, Ludmila Belarusgap (talk) 14:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Belarusgap: the Belarusian and English Wikipedias are completely separate project, and what is acceptable on one, may not be on the other. Any article accepted here must comply with our policies and guidelines, and the English-language Wikipedia has probably the strictest requirements in terms of notability and verifiability of any language version.
Specifically, social media, such as Facebook and IG, is user-generated, and as such not considered reliable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thank you. I just feel that it gets too complicated. Belarusgap (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:37, 24 July 2024 review of submission by Mateo radovan

[edit]

Hi, can you please tell me what do I need to change, its pointless for me to keep changing and you keep declining everything I change. SatelitteChange 14:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mateo radovan: you need to show that this subject is notable, by citing sources which satisfy the general notability guideline WP:GNG. That requires secondary sources that are independent and reliable, and provide significant coverage of the subject. Your draft cites no such source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:52, 24 July 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) 21:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think I have wrote anything about myself lol, and also everything I could find on the internet is already cited. SatelitteChange 13:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:19, 24 July 2024 review of submission by 151.69.99.82

[edit]

We are trying to get this published but keep having it declined. The only external reference we have available is a newspaper article with his obituary. Will this work? 

151.69.99.82 (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If all you have is a single source, you will find it all but impossible to establish that the subject is notable.
If the obit is reliable (meaning, written by a professional journalist or subject-matter expert, and published in a reliable secondary source such as major newspaper), it probably is good enough for verifying the information, but note that not all obits are like that, some are written by a personal acquaintance or relative of the deceased, etc. In any case, a single source isn't ideal for verifying an entire article.
Did all the information in this draft really come from that one source, then? If so, I hope you didn't directly translate or even too closely paraphrase what it said, because that could violate the source's copyright. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do we send you a copy of the article. I do not know the journalist. The newspaper is a major one here yes ofcourse. 151.69.99.82 (talk) 15:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


We are not really sure how to have this published, Vidal and Pino Silvestre are household names in Italy. It is like asking a Japanese person if Sony or Toyota exist. 151.69.99.82 (talk) 15:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a household name, you should have no difficulty in finding reliable sources to establish they are a notable person. Who is "we"? 331dot (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a problem with using these prefered pronouns? We are comfortable using We/Us/Ours. Do you have an issue with this? 151.69.99.82 (talk) 15:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of asking about our pronouns maybe you can be practical and explain how "we" can reference. Do we have to upload articles? 151.69.99.82 (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IP editor, usually "we" refers to plural and Wikipedia accounts can only be used by a single person. If your chosen singular pronouns are "we/us/ours" that's fine, but it's normal for us to ask that. Qcne (talk) 15:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Sources do not need to exist online and they don't have to be in English, but the draft has to make it clear which bit of information is verified by which source. Assuming that you are User:Artico13 (please remember to log in!), there is more information on your user talk page. --bonadea contributions talk 15:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, it isn't the same as Sony or Toyota, because plenty of sources exist on those, both for notability and verifiability purposes. Whereas you're saying all you have a single source. Ergo, it's not a comparable situation at all. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Using Toyota or Sony as examples highlights how universally recognized these brands are in Japan, similar to how Italian brands Vidal and Pino Silvestre are well-known in Italy. If you were to stop a Japanese person on the street and mention Toyota or Sony, they would immediately recognize these brands due to their prominence in everyday life. The same goes for Italians with Vidal and Pino Silvestre. In fact, if you were to walk into any supermarket in Italy, you would find Vidal and Pino Silvestre products readily available.
The very reason we are writing this article is to address the lack of comprehensive references for a company that holds a similar status, albeit on a local level and not comparing global financial power. This is a service not only to Italy and Venice but to the general public. We need to add articles to the reference section, is this what you are requesting? 151.69.99.82 (talk) 15:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The very reason we are writing this article is to address the lack of comprehensive references for a company". In other words, you are trying to use Wikipedia for promotion. That is not permitted. ColinFine (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also the response given above about the same draft. --bonadea contributions talk 15:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Content like ”widely recognized as one of the most famous cosmetic brands in Italy, synonymous with quality and tradition” is ridiculous in an encyclopaedia WP:TNT is required here and a complete re-write in a dry neutral tone referring only to what independent, reliable sources say. Theroadislong (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:06, 24 July 2024 review of submission by IqbalHossain

[edit]

Korvi Rakshand received the Ramon Magsaysay Award in 2023. He also received several international awards. And many international news media wrote on his works. So, why the submission request decline? which points should be improved? I need instructions. Thanks in advance. --- IqbalHossain (talk) 16:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IqbalHossain: Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked as "critiques" in my signature):
Does this help? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:40, 24 July 2024 review of submission by TRTGUSA

[edit]

Why was my article rejected? TRTGUSA (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TRTGUSA: It was rejected and will not be considered further because you wrote an advert for TRTG. We have zero tolerance for being used as a billboard. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:06, 24 July 2024 review of submission by Artico13

[edit]

I have added some references and removed the peackcok words. The tone seems netural now. Artico13 (talk) 18:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Artico13: No, it doesn't. Your sourcing is also poor. What is your connexion to Vidal or his estate? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great, really helpful. I don't know how to source properly. I am not trying to promote the company as someone suggested in bad faith as it no longer exists and there is no connection as the person is deceased. 151.69.99.82 (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason we're thinking there's a connexion to the subject here is because the draft is promotional. One doesn't "accidentally" write a promotional article like this. You might also notice that I specifically asked what your connexion was to Vidal or his estate. As to your sources, your second source 404s out and your third source doesn't really discuss Lino Vitale specifically in any real depth, being instead about the Pino Silvestre brand. Your first source - the print version of your second source, it seems - is missing required bibiographical information (byline, page numbers). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:21, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Artico13: please don't open a new thread, just add to the exiting one. You now have three threads on this page. And please remember to log into your account whenever editing. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:52, 24 July 2024 review of submission by Sebastián Herrera Monterrosa

[edit]

I want to know why the publication has been denied. I consider the citation to be legitimate. It is on the website of a reference in operations research. What is needed for publication to be possible? Sebastián Herrera Monterrosa (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for declining is in the grey boxes the submission is NOT adequately supported by reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 20:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and the single reference is a passing mention and contributes nothing to any notability. Theroadislong (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_July_24&oldid=1237496083"