Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 July 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< July 29 << Jun | July | Aug >> July 31 >
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 30

[edit]

02:13, 30 July 2024 review of submission by Jgalloway035

[edit]

I do not understand how it is contrary to wikipedia. Please help 

 Jgalloway035 (talk) 02:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jgalloway035: This looks like a short story/retelling of a myth. An article on a myth/fable that's just regurgitation of it serves no encyclopaedic focus; you need to have sources that contextualise and analyse it if there is to be an article on it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 05:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:50, 30 July 2024 review of submission by Zelnikov

[edit]

I added inline citations on the reliable outside sources (not wikipedia) in all sections. However a new submission was also rejected for the reason: ... the draft needs to meet any of the eight academic-specific criteria.

In fact the academic criteria 5. "The person has held a distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, a named chair appointment that indicates a comparable level of achievement"

is definitely satisfied: Prof. Valeri Frolov helds a distinguished named professor appointment at the University of Alberta, (Canada) -- Killam Memorial Chair Zelnikov (talk) 04:50, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging the reviewer @SafariScribe: any comments? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing, thanks for the ping. @Zelnikov, your draft may meet WP:ANYBIO and WP:NPROF but it isn't properly referenced. Those guidelines as presumably impactful meaning that the person may be notable and doesn't give full assurance of notability. We follow the general guideline. In your draft, which is also a WP:BLP, there seems to be an undue weight if the "early life and education", one of the most vital part of this article type is not sourced. The question is, where did you get those information? The sources you provided also were static website url example [1], [2], [3], [4], etc. For me I see that as gaming the source, when you will cite only the url address. It might have been an error somewhere, and that, you should correct. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 08:04, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:22, 30 July 2024 review of submission by Lisha2037

[edit]

Hello. Can I have a different editor? The reasons for not accepting my request aren’t very constructive or prudent. I have referenced everything properly. If a paragraph seems largely unsourced it’s because the following paragraphs are from the same source and have the reference at the end of it. Lisha2037 (talk) 05:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lisha2037: We would need out-of-universe sources (anything GRRM writes would be a primary source as she originates from his works) that discuss the character, their reception, and their cultural impact in order to even consider having an article on them. Mere reports on who her actor is isn't enough to justify an article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 05:25, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok that explains this better. However, I based how this article is written on how other GOT characters were written and all of them, yes all of them, have primary references in their articles. Where should I put secondary sources?? Lisha2037 (talk) 05:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lisha2037: Ideally in a section discussing how the character was received by critics (both literary and television) and their overall cultural impact, as that is what we're looking for as far as articles on characters go. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 05:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I added secondary sources to various sections including the storyline parts. Can you lease review this and let me know what you think. I would prefer a different editor than the last one. Lisha2037 (talk) 06:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lisha2037: you have resubmitted the draft, so you will get feedback when a reviewer comes along to assess it. (That reviewer may be a different one, or it may be the same as before.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:05, 30 July 2024 review of submission by Minhuaty

[edit]

Hi major changes has been made into the articles. If there is anything needed to be revised, please do indicate. I will be actively monitoring and editing until it is publish. Minhuaty (talk) 07:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, which means it will not be considered further. If you have made fundamental changes to the draft that address the concerns of reviewers, the first step is to appeal to the last reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 07:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:22, 30 July 2024 review of submission by Fabrixio77

[edit]

Hi, I would like support in getting the page approved Fabrixio77 (talk) 07:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fabrixio77: could you please be more specific, what support do you need? Please study the decline notice and comments carefully, they (incl. the links they contain) explain what you need to work on. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:20, 30 July 2024 review of submission by Dsfreeform

[edit]

Hello, I understand the submission was declined due to the lack of significant sources. I provided coverage by publications, radio stations, record labels, and AllMusic. Hager is the only active member of the band Devo without a Wikipedia page, just looking to close the gap with a simple page. Is there anything else I can do with the references provided? Thanks for your help. Dsfreeform (talk) 13:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dsfreeform We don't have "simple pages" that merely document existence. Wikipedia has articles about topics that meet the relevant criteria, in this case, WP:MUSICBIO. His notability seems to be tied to his work with the band- he would only merit a standalone article if he has a significant solo career as a musician, or if he meets the broader notable person definition. You don't seem to provide sources that demostrate either. 331dot (talk) 13:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To provide an example, Paul McCartney merits an article not because he was a member of The Beatles, but because he had a significant solo career outside of his work with The Beatles. 331dot (talk) 13:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I added a few more references that speak to his credits as a producer and engineer, which is more significant than his career as a solo musician. Dsfreeform (talk) 14:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:13, 30 July 2024 review of submission by Nycamylee

[edit]

I have inserted newspaper articles and the Seoul Metropolican Government's official website's citations and thought they are quite trustworthy and reliable sources that can be easy to be verified. I have inserted newspaper articles and government published articles.

But I am still getting 'I need to provide more reliable sources' I have no idea what to, or how to add more reliable sources than adequate Newspaper articles and government issued articles. Please help. Please show some examples of how I should insert more to meet the requirements rather thatn just keep saying "you need to provide more reliable sources". Please Nycamylee (talk) 15:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nycamylee It's not necessarily that you need more sources, you need better sources; independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage of this man and show what makes him a notable person. That he is descended from the former Korean royal family might make him notable, if independent sources significantly write about this point. He also seems to have a business career, but the only sources you provided merely document his activities, not what makes him important/influential as a businessman. 331dot (talk) 15:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nycamylee: also, there is a lot of unreferenced information, with several paragraphs without a single citation. Articles on living people require comprehensive citations throughout; see WP:BLP. It may not therefore be a case of adding more sources, but citing the existing sources (assuming that's where all this information came from) more frequently. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:52, 30 July 2024 review of submission by Aimzieslol

[edit]

Howdy, this is the submission rejection:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This submission provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter. Please see the guide to writing better articles for information on how to better format your submission.

I provided all the sources I could find *and* gave as much context as I could.

Is there a better way to do this? Should I ... write more? What I also don't understand is beyond the web page and Spotify there aren't any other sources.

Advice/help appreciated. Aimzieslol (talk) 15:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aimzieslol: all this short draft tells us is that such a podcast exists. WHat makes it notable enough to be included in a global encyclopaedia? What have third party sources said about it, and its significance, impact, etc.? In short, why should we take note? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:01, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't the "whys" of its existence pre-loaded with bias, though? What I'd like to do is present factual information of what it is, what it's doing, topics talked about, etc.
IMO, "why" it exists would mean I have to put some sort of judgment on it instead of letting it speak for itself.
As a n00b, I could be wrong ... Aimzieslol (talk) 16:04, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aimzieslol You have discovered the "Hurdle of Notability" which any topic must leap in order to be considered for an article here. That something exists does not mean it is notable. That something is interesting does not mean it is notable. I exist and I believe I am interesting, but no article on me will ever exist becaise I do not pass our notability criteria.
So it is with your topic. It exists and is (probably) interesting. What has not yet happened is notability. To achieve that it must in and of itself, attract the attention of others independent of the topic who will write significant coverage about it in multiple reliable sources which are independent of the topic. At that point there is a string probability that it will achieve an article here.
No-one has asked why it exists. That have asked you to prove that it is notable in a Wikipedia sense. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TY, "hurdle of notability" makes more sense than, "insufficient context" or "adequately supported." I did read through "Notability" article but it didn't click for some reason. Thanks, everyone. Aimzieslol (talk) 16:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aimzieslol: granted, it could have been declined explicitly for notability. The review tool only allows for two decline reasons, and when there are more than two valid ones, it's not always easy to choose. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:18, 30 July 2024 review of submission by Gabriel601

[edit]

Aside being among the housemates in a Notable TV reality show which is Big Brother Naija season 8. From the references on google about her, does she meets WP:GNG on that? Gabriel (……?) 17:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft on Kim Oprah was deleted back in April, but as a rule you need to prove that a reality-show contestant is notable outside of the context of the reality show as they are designed specifically to flanderise and aggravate their contestants in the name of conflict and ratings. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
but as a rule you need to prove that a reality-show contestant is notable outside of the context of the reality show as they are designed specifically to flanderise and aggravate their contestants in the name of conflict and ratings. I know about that and I have done some Google research but not sure if I should go ahead creating. It shouldn't look like a waste of time, reason I needed another editor to check on some google search to see if the Draft is worth creating.--Gabriel (……?) 18:07, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gabriel601 If you already think it may be a waste of time, please trust your instinct. There is more than enough other stuff to do here. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You right. Kudos to you. Gabriel (……?) 19:02, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:45, 30 July 2024 review of submission by 2001:5B0:51DC:E788:E3B8:4102:A52C:F99B

[edit]

why is the Wikipedia page down is it because it has the word nsfw or because my sorce is the only place to get information about him 2001:5B0:51DC:E788:E3B8:4102:A52C:F99B (talk) 20:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's rejected and will not be considered further because you have zero usable sources; we cannot cite website homepages as they have no context for the claim(s) they're being cited for. We also wouldn't cite anything the subject has any direct control over anyway, including their own website. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

isn't wikipeda a online encyclopdia its for information not for story's that's all info we have on him my team stalked him for Weekes paparazzi stuff 2001:5B0:51DC:E788:E3B8:4102:A52C:F99B (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop power-posting sections and edit in the section already about your draft. We require sources, full-stop. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:59, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your team stalked him for Weeks? That's illegal, and original research. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 23:57, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:37, 30 July 2024 review of submission by Grimerera

[edit]

I would like to change the title of this article to merely Ella The Ungovernable. Is it possible to change the subject line of a draft? Grimerera (talk) 21:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Grimerera: Draft titles are, at best, provisional. When and if it is accepted the reviewer will move it to an appropriate title. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 21:54, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:51, 30 July 2024 review of submission by Sadams-333

[edit]

I am trying to understand which sources are the issue with my article. There are a number of reliable, secondary sources used, but are you referring to the "Features" section where the sources link to the Celiac.com website?

Reasons given for rejection: in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject) reliable secondary independent of the subject Sadams-333 (talk) 21:51, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sadams-333: Anything hosted on Celiac.com is useless for notability (connexion to subject), as the implication is that it was written for the website. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 21:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is very helpful, thank you. Would this also include links to webarchive shots of Celiac.com that, for example, demonstrate where the name change of our website happened in 1997, which is in the "History" area of our article? Sadams-333 (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sadams-333: Yes. You would need news articles to verify the name change. Also, "our"? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 22:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've disclosed my relationship with the site. Sadams-333 (talk) 23:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've made your recommended changes and removed all self referring sources. Do you see any issues with existing sources? I've had to use the webarchive for some of them. Sadams-333 (talk) 23:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I do see issues (going to archive.com isn't one of them: that's perfectly fine, and sources don't even have to be online).
I haven't looked at all of them, but I've yet to find one that is not either written or published by celiac.com (not independent), based on an interview with Adams (not independent), or contains just a passing mention of celiac.com (no significant coverage). The closest to it would be the Tufts site, but that has only three paragraphs on celiac.com, and is just a review of what you can see in the website.
I don't see any pieces where somebody wholly unconnected with celiac.com has been sufficiently interested in the site to write an extended piece about it - not just what it looks like, but who created it, why, how, why it is important. Any article about celiac.com should be based at least 90% on sources like that.
As a presentation issue, please read about named references to avoid repeating the same source; but since the one you have repeated most often is a primary source it is of limited value and no value at all for establishing notability. ColinFine (talk) 13:14, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_July_30&oldid=1238861528"