Help desk
< July 27	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 29 >

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 28

08:38, 28 July 2024 review of submission by Bdbotaimtopro

Bdbotaimtopro (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Borkhal M.L. school and college (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please add now this article authentic and real Bdbotaimtopro (talk) 08:38, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bdbotaimtopro: can you please stop messing with this and the other similar draft. You're a blocked user, you are not allowed to edit at all. And these drafts have been rejected as non-notable. I've also issued you a final warning for removing AfC tags, but you keep doing it regardless. Expect to blocked sooner or later (hopefully sooner). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:40, 28 July 2024 review of submission by Tizzythewhale

Tizzythewhale (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Sachin Jakhar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I this article is not approved, as it contains all sources Tizzythewhale (talk) 11:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tizzythewhale that isn't a question, but the draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. His bio on platforms where he teaches don't establish notability, and the draft is promotional in tone. Also, the draft contains 2 images you uploaded as own work; what is your relationship with him? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:04, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:16, 28 July 2024 review of submission by Pemba.mpimaji

Pemba.mpimaji (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Gibana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I added another source (governmental training handout for local officers) and the draft refers now to SIX published sources that are:

   in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
   reliable
   secondary
   independent of the subject

The topic has thus been dealt with in as much detail as possible. I cannot grasp why this entry is constantly being denied. It has more substance than a lot of other wikipedia articles. Pemba.mpimaji (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pemba.mpimaji: Under no circumstances are government-created sources secondary. If they did not originate from the government themselves, then they were compiled by them from information provided by the subject. We can't use ResearchGate (no editorial oversight); cite the original paper and not the mirror of it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pemba.mpimaji, the draft was rejected a week ago - that means you cannot submit it again, as the reviewers think it's clear that the topic is not notable by Wikipedia standards. In case you want to try to write a draft on another topic, I'll quickly analyse your sources. I strongly recommend you spend more time working on other articles before beginning another draft, though.

Source 1 and 3 are government documents; they are not secondary, and not independent of the subject.

Sources 2 and 6 are PhD theses; these should only be used with caution as they are often primary sources and we don't know how reliable they are. ResearchGate, as Jeske says, cannot be used at all; 6 mentions gibana only in passing, and so is not significant coverage.

Source 4 is a World Bank report and does not discuss gibana in any meaningful way, so it is not significant coverage.

Source 5 is one I cannot access, but even if it's a usable source it is not enough by itself.

I hope this helps you in future source finding, and in the meantime I wish you happy editing. StartGrammarTime (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:35, 28 July 2024 review of submission by Birth65

Birth65 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Kevin Rumley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi- I am new to Wiki. My first submission was denied and sent back for editing. I was wondering how to see what changes/edits need to be made. I cannot locate the suggested edits.

Birth65 (talk) 21:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Birth65 This appears to be an unusual decline. There is no rationale given. I will look further at this 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the assistance. It is greatly appreciated. Birth65 (talk) 21:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Birth65 I have reverted the decline as vandalism, and warned the editor as to their behaviour, I'm sorry this has happened to you, it is an abnormal experience. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not feel competent to review this effectively. My annoyance at the vandalism has affected my clear-sightedness on this draft. Perhaps someone else will look at it "early" as a compensation to Birth65 for their experience. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:45, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent I greatly appreciate your support. That was very kind and supportive of you. May I ask, should I return to the edit page and click "submit" again? I apologize for the inconvenience. Birth65 (talk) 21:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Birth65 I reverted it to the "already submitted state" so it has returned to where it should be. Even after submission you are able and allowed to continue to improve it wherever you can.

Thank you for your comments. I feel I was neither kind nor supportive, but simply acted as I hope and expect any editor here to do on behalf of any other editor. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:49, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent That is good to know. And leaves me appreciative of the excellent standards Editors hold themselves to on this platform. Birth65 (talk) 21:52, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Birth65 we are fallible because we are human, but we try very hard to get it right. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:56, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:37, 28 July 2024 review of submission by Zelnikov

Zelnikov (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Valeri Frolov (physicist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

In accordance to the referee request I corrected and added very reliable references to the sources, however the article was rejected anyway. I don't see what is wrong now. Zelnikov (talk) 23:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zelnikov: what is wrong now is that there are seven sections in this draft, and only one of them ('Research') is referenced. This would be problematic in any article, but is totally unacceptable in one on a living person (WP:BLP). Every material statement, anything potentially contentious, and all private personal details must be clearly supported by inline citations to reliable published sources, or else removed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]