Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 June 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< June 19 << May | June | Jul >> June 21 >
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.


June 20

[edit]

05:57, 20 June 2024 review of submission by HolyPango69420

[edit]

Idk why it wont go through 

HolyPango69420 (talk) 05:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HolyPango69420: Your draft is wholly unsourced. Even as a stub, this is not acceptable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:05, 20 June 2024 review of submission by Nareshjoshi12

[edit]

if there is any problems in this article please let me know, this article is about my shop. Nareshjoshi12 (talk) 06:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nareshjoshi12: you mustn't try to use Wikipedia to advertise your shop, that is a blockable offence. Your draft has been rejected and is awaiting speedy deletion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s just for people who want to know about my shop, this is not any kind of advertisement or anything this is just for knowledge for people Nareshjoshi12 (talk) 06:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nareshjoshi12: it is 100% pure and blatant advertising; you even give your contact details and exhort people to "Visit us to explore our exquisite collection"! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay so this is count as an advertisement? Nareshjoshi12 (talk) 06:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Emphatically, yes.
Please don't start new threads here. If you have something to add, please add to this section. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thank You for letting me know this, if you have any idea how can upload article about my shop please tell me. Nareshjoshi12 (talk) 06:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nareshjoshi12: you don't seem to hear what I'm telling you, but I'll try once more: Wikipedia is not marketing channel for your business, or anything else for that matter. Stop trying to promote your shop, or you will get yourself blocked. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:16, 20 June 2024 review of submission by Iqacpu

[edit]

My article has been declined because of inadequacy of reliable sources. I am writing an article for the first time. So, I will need guidance and help. All the references mentioned were quite reliable. I would like to revise the article and resubmit. Kindly intimate how should I proceed so that it meets the requirements of Wikipedia. I may mention that the subject is a well known author/ writer in this part of the country and there have been many references to him in various sources. Thanks Iqacpu (talk) 06:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Iqacpu: articles on living people (WP:BLP) have particularly strict referencing requirements, with pretty much every statement needing to be supported by an inline citation to a reliable source. Your draft has seven paragraphs (excepting the lists of works), and only one of these has citations.
Also, I wouldn't say that "All the references mentioned were quite reliable": Twitter isn't, and Amazon is just a retailer. (Which means that even the one paragraph that is referenced, is actually referenced with useless sources.)
And yes, you are welcome to revise the article and resubmit; that is indeed what 'decline' (as opposed to outright 'reject') means. Please proceed to reference the draft comprehensively using appropriate sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have been trying to improve the article. I have deleted unreliable references. Also, I have been able to locate some more references. Since, I am writing an article for the first time on Wikipedia, I shall be grateful if any more guidance could be provided.
Thanks Iqacpu (talk) 08:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:18, 20 June 2024 review of submission by Vivian0617

[edit]

Hello，there, I recently submitted an article for the creation of a Wikipedia entry on Chen Lijun, a renowned Chinese Yue opera performer. Unfortunately, the submission was declined, and I am seeking advice on how to improve it to meet Wikipedia’s standards.

Could you please provide specific feedback on what areas need improvement? I am eager to ensure that the article meets all necessary criteria.

Additionally, I would like to inquire about the use of Chinese sources for references in the article. Given the traditional nature of Yue opera, there is a limited amount of information available in English. Would it be acceptable to cite reputable Chinese sources to substantiate the content of the article?

Thank you very much for your assistance. I look forward to your guidance.

Regads, Vivian Vivian0617 (talk) 08:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vivian0617: you asked this question yesterday, and it was answered; please see those answers. Also, please don't start a new thread, if you have additional questions just add them to the existing one. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:36, 20 June 2024 review of submission by 102.89.32.77

[edit]

Why was my post rejected. 102.89.32.77 (talk) 10:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wikipedia is not a marketing channel for you or anyone/anything else. And in any case, this is not written as a viable article draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:06, 20 June 2024 review of submission by Stormy44

[edit]

I would like to query why Draft:Grangetown Boys Club was rejected because even the previous version was of a similar or greater standard to other recently promoted clubs such as Alnwick Town A.F.C. & Darlington Town F.C. who currently have Wikipedia pages. At the moment Grangetown Boys Club are the only Northern League team without a Wikipedia page. Further edits have been made to add more external sources which should hopefully be sufficient to meet the minimum criteria. Stormy44 (talk) 12:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Stormy44: sports clubs don't have any inherent, automatic 'right' to have an article published. Like any other organisation, they need to demonstrate notability per the WP:ORG guideline. As for any other clubs having articles, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:06, 20 June 2024 review of submission by Trafalgar54

[edit]

I entered again data for the Wikipedia page "Roberto Giovanni Carbone". All data can be traced back or found on Google USA or other search engines. I have included over 50 primary and secondary external quotes. I confirm that what is written corresponds to the truth and is of great international scientific value. These merits are recognized by the UK, Australia, USA, Canada, Germany, Spain and the Scandinavian States. I confirm. Trafalgar54 (talk) 15:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Trafalgar54: I'm not quite sure what you're saying, exactly, or why, but just to note that this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. If evidence of notability has come to light which wasn't considered before, you may appeal the rejection directly to the rejecting reviewer. Bear in mind, though, that saying evidence can be "found on Google" is insufficient; it is not our responsibility to carry out notability research, the draft must contain all the necessary evidence within it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The page was rejected on June 1st. I can then make the corrections and make the Wikipedia page suitable. In fact, according to Wikipedia rules I have the possibility to review and correct the page within 6 months, under penalty of cancellation. So I find what you say unfair and against Wikipedia rules. Trafalgar54 (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Trafalgar54: The only thing you're managing to confirm is that you haven't read any of the criticisms by the reviewers, which led to the draft rejection. We don't cite Commons (circular reference; Commons is a sister project). We don't cite ResearchGate (no editorial oversight). We don't cite Amazon (online storefront). Government documents and websites are useless for notability by dint of being government documents and websites. Your sources are all misattributed to the subject of the article. Your article is undersourced. If you cannot or will not heed what I just wrote, then you are better off finding somewhere else to write this. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikicommons is part of the Wikimedia Project and therefore belongs to Wikipedia. If Wikicommons is reliable, then Wikipedia is also a reliable source.
As for ResearchGate, the page was created not directly by Dr. Carbone, but by third parties, reporting Dr. Carbone's numerous publications. Furthermore, government sites are trusted and the basis of our Democracies.
Regarding the undersourcing of the page, I would like more information from you. Trafalgar54 (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct about Wikipedia: as it is user-generated, it is not regarded as reliable. Any article which conforms to Wikipedia's current standards for sourcing (many older articles will not) will cite reliable sources for everything stated in it; so the thing to do is to obtain those sources, check what they say, and cite them if appropriate. Citing the Wikipedia article is lazy as well as unacceptable.
As for Research Gate, it doesn't matter who created the content: as there is no editorial oversight, it is (effectively) user generated, and its content cannot be relied on.
Governments sites are trusted, but (in the relevant cases) they are generally not independent.
The majority of the sources for an article, and all the sources which are being adduced to establish notability, must meet all three requirements in golden rule: reliably published (by a body with a reputation for editorial oversight), independent of the subject (and of any associates of the subject), and containing significant coverage of the subject, not just a mention.
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) 17:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Carbone's scientific data are reported independently by international scientific ranking agencies (e.g. Forbes) by scientific publishing and by the committees of international scientific societies (e.g. PubMed.gov, American College of Chest Physicians, American Thoracic Society, Royal Society Medicine). So they are not influenced by Dr. Carbone.
Regarding Research gate, Semantic Scholar, Frontiers, Cureus, Journal Clinical Medicine, Lancet, etc... They are not subject to any conditioning by Dr. Carbone. All these scientific groups decide on merit and professional qualities whether or not to cite an author. The same happens for other high-level authors such as Peter J. Barnes (Head of the National Lung and Heart Disease Department - Imperial College, where Carbone worked and appointed Assistant Professor in 2003) I found similar examples in other authors where scientific groups previously reported are also present on Dr. Carbone's Wikipedia page. Furthermore, I believe that according to the rules of Wikipedia, dependent on Wikidata, it cannot and must not block page updates after just 20 days, I understand that corrections can be made within 6 months of the last rejection. Regarding the States and Governments you mentioned, I would kindly point out that freedom of the press and freedom of speech are inalienable rights of their Constitutions from which to draw an example. Wikipedia is open to scholars of high scientific caliber such as Dr. Carbone and must not be polluted by inexperienced people. The United Kingdom is a great example of how to govern ourselves. Ars gratia artis. I confirm. Trafalgar54 (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Trafalgar54 none of the nonsense you have written above has any bearing on the fact your draft was rejected and will not be considered further. If you believe the draft has fundamentally changed since the rejection and now meets our notability guidelines, please reach out to the rejecting reviewer. Qcne (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A preliminary Google + WP:Library lookthrough implies that Carbone happens to fail WP:NACADEMIC at press time. Another chance may come a few years from now (from the looks of the previous comments and the draft's decent structure/writing), but for the time being, I concur with @Twinkle1990 (who rejected the topic at AFC).
To @Trafalgar54: If you want to continue working on this page, try saving the text on your system and consider posting it on a personal blog/site or another wiki that will accommodate it. Wish things turned out in your favour, but sorry we couldn't be of any more help. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 22:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Trafalgar54: Pettifogging with an argument that can charitably be called an elitist non-sequitur at best and wilful and blatant disregard at worst does not help you a whit. Start listening to what we're trying to say instead of spouting off a bunch of drivel that betrays your continued refusal to read what we're saying and ending it with "I confirm" like you're a sovereign citizen contesting a traffic ticket. All you're doing is convincing people that you probably should not be editing Wikipedia. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In conclusion, I have just four words. And they are "Wikipedia is not WP:PROMO". I stand by the rejection. Twinkle1990 (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:43, 20 June 2024 review of submission by Alexisfiglar

[edit]

I am trying to figure out how to cite sources. Alexisfiglar (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexisfiglar: this draft has been rejected and is awaiting speedy deletion. But for future reference, see WP:REFB for advice on referencing in general, and WP:ILC on using inline citations specifically. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WHY IS IT BEING REJECTED WHEN I'M STILL TRYING TO FINISH IT Alexisfiglar (talk) 16:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The content is VERY poorly written and unsourced "She is the tiniest in the family at 5’2”. Which is said to be the reason she started singing her heart out at the early age of three, a girl has to be heard!" is laughably unsuitable. Theroadislong (talk) 16:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexisfiglar: please don't shout.
You submitted it for review. That is you saying you're finished editing; you can't really then turn around and say you're still trying to finish it. If you're not done with it, don't submit it.
You're welcome to contest the deletion by commenting on the draft talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
lmao whoever you are, you're rude. this is my first time doing this and I'm trying to make a bio for an artist I'm representing. The "poorly written" wording was from her website itself. That is specifically what she said. I'm not changing that just because you think it's poorly written. YOU are laughably unsuitable. Alexisfiglar (talk) 16:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexisfiglar: no personal attacks, please.
And you clearly have a conflict of interest, which needs to be disclosed; see WP:PAID.
Please also note that Wikipedia is not a marketing channel for you to promote someone you're "representing". -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted content. Theroadislong (talk) 16:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
sorry. sorry I don't know all the wikipedia rules lol. Alexisfiglar (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Blocked) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:00, 20 June 2024 review of submission by NorthMD

[edit]

I am looking help with draft about writing about the medical faculty of Vilnius University in Lithuania. NorthMD (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:English version of VU MF
@NorthMD: can you be more specific, what help do you need? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have couple of questions regarding different things. First questions regarding the references; which level publications and sources are considered suitable when writing information page about faculty, sub-unit of university?
Secondly, how can I add link to wikidata object. As the article I am writing links to object: Q2596025 NorthMD (talk) 17:13, 20 June 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.
References from the university are (almost) irrelevant. Your article needs to be substantially - almost completely - based on such independent sources. If you have no such sources, there is literally nothing which you can validly put into your draft.
You are in the same situation as hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of people who think that, because Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that anybody can edit, they can just create a new article without spending any time learning the necessary skills. Anybody can play tennis, but would you enter a major championship when you had just picked up a tennis racket for the first time?
I always advise new editors to spend several weeks or months learning how Wikipedia works before they even think of writing a new article. When they understand fundamental principles such as verifiability, the golden rule, neutral point of view, and notability, then is the time to read your first article, and give it a try. ColinFine (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@NorthMD: for notability per WP:ORG, we need to see significant coverage, directly of the subject, in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent. Your draft only cites close primary sources.
Just so you're aware, while universities usually are notable, individual faculties/departments/schools etc. usually aren't. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does the place I am writing stand for notability per WP:ORG. I know the place I am writing about has the Wikidatat identifier: Q2596025
Also the the institution play important role for medicine not just in Lithuania but in the whole eastern-europe. Especially the contributions to medical findings done there. NorthMD (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:57, 20 June 2024 review of submission by Flexer21

[edit]

hello i requesting your assistance for making Reema diddee Dhawan biography page but due to some technical problem I cannot fulfil please help . Flexer21 (talk) 18:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Flexer21: there's no "technical problem"; it's that there isn't the slightest evidence that this person is notable in Wikipedia terms. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
so right now what i can do Flexer21 (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, @Flexer21 if the topic isn't notable under Wikipedia's standards, then you can't have an article. Sorry. Cremastra (talk) 21:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:51, 20 June 2024 review of submission by Melmann

[edit]

Hello all. I'm hoping to attract some more feedback for the page in question. I am very conflicted regarding this page; on one hand it is a dedicated and high quality work that is clearly made in good faith, on the other, there are some fundamental concern I've outline on the talk page. Any input would be appreciated. Melmann 20:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Melmann: I certainly share your concern about OR, esp. given how much of the content (in particular in the early part of the draft) is unreferenced.
This also reads like an essay to me, not like an encyclopaedia article.
My biggest concern, however, is that it combines a number of loosely connected subjects under one title, rather than the usual 'one subject, one title' approach. Yes, I know we do have list articles which also do that, but with its meaty content (at 125kB, and with no fewer than 268 cites!) this goes well beyond a typical list, IMO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:43, 20 June 2024 review of submission by Mahbarakat2018

[edit]

Hi,

My article submission for "Rology" was recently declined with feedback stating that it reads more like an advertisement and lacks multiple published sources that are in-depth, reliable, secondary, and strictly independent of the subject. I've made revisions to address these concerns, and I would like some guidance to ensure my article meets Wikipedia's standards.

Here are the changes I've implemented:

Neutral Tone: Revised the language to remove promotional tone and ensure a neutral point of view. References: Included a wider range of references from independent and reliable sources such as FDA Database, Disrupt Africa, Arab News, MIT Solve, WHO, Forbes, Medical Device Network, and Diagnostic Imaging. Detailed Information: Added more detailed information about Rology's history, services, impact, and partnerships based on verifiable facts.

Could you please review the revised draft below and provide specific feedback on how to further improve it to meet Wikipedia's guidelines? Your assistance would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you!

DRAFT

Rology is an FDA-cleared. AI-assisted teleradiology platform founded in 2017, and headquartered in Cairo, Egypt, with offices in Kenya and Saudi Arabia. It aims to address the shortage of radiologists and improve the accessibility and quality of radiological services, particularly in the Middle East and Africa (MEA) region

History and Development

Rology was established to bridge the gap between the demand for radiology services and the limited supply of qualified radiologists. By leveraging artificial intelligence (AI) and a network of subspecialized radiologists, Rology says it provides timely and accurate radiology reports to healthcare providers. In 2023, Rology secured the FDA 510(k) clearance for its teleradiology platform, marking it as the first AI-assisted teleradiology platform to receive such approval, according to Rology's analysis.

Services and Features

Rology's platform facilitates the electronic transmission of medical images such as X-rays, CT scans, and MRIs for interpretation by radiologists worldwide based on their licenses. Key features of the platform include:

Automated Workflow: Automatic upload and routing of medical images, reducing the workload on general radiologists and speeding up the diagnostic process. AI Matching: The platform uses AI to match each case with the most suitable available radiologist based on subspecialty and availability. DICOM Viewer: Rology developed a zero-footprint AI-assisted DICOM Viewer and reporting tool to be used by radiologists to interpret the scans. Quality Assurance: The platform incorporates AI-based tools for computer-aided detection, and automated reporting and review, enhancing diagnostic accuracy and reducing turnaround times.

Impact and Reach

Rology said it has served over 150 healthcare providers across 9 countries, and delivered radiology reports for over 657,832 patients till October 2023. The platform benefits underserved areas, with a substantial portion of scans catering to primary care settings and low-income demographics.

Partnerships and Collaborations

Rology has formed strategic partnerships to enhance its offerings and expand its reach. In 2023, it acquired Arkan United, a Saudi-licensed teleradiology provider, and secured an investment from the Philips Foundation to support its mission of democratizing access to healthcare.

References "FDA 510(k) Clearance - K231385" (PDF). FDA Database. September 20, 2023. "Egyptian e-health startup Rology closes pre-Series A funding round". Disrupt Africa. April 19, 2022.

"Rology brings innovative teleradiology solutions to Saudi Arabia". Arab News. June 17, 2023.

"HEALTH IN FRAGILE CONTEXTS CHALLENGE - Rology - MIT-Solve". MIT-Solve. September 6, 2023.

"WHO Database: Rology". WHO. June 30, 2022.

"How Can AI Help More People Access Radiology In Kenya And Egypt?". Forbes. Feb 14, 2024.

"Rology secures FDA 510(k) clearance for teleradiology platform". Medical Device Network. October 5, 2023.

"Rology Earns the First FDA Clearance for a 2-sided and On-demand Teleradiology Platform". Rology. October 2, 2023.

"Health startup Rology raises undisclosed pre-series A funding + Kemitt launches B2B marketplace". Enterprise. 14 April 2022.

"FDA Clears Emerging AI-Enabled Teleradiology Platform". Diagnostic Imaging. October 4, 2023.

"Rology - Solver Spotlight". MIT-Solve. September 22, 2023.

"Philips Foundation sets out plans to ramp up collaboration with social entrepreneurs". Philips Foundation. November 9, 2023. Mahbarakat2018 (talk) 22:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mahbarakat2018 Hi, it is best not to post your questions in more than one place. As indicated at the Teahouse, is part of this written by artificial intelligenece? GoldRomean (talk) 00:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It just improved the writing of some sentences. Mahbarakat2018 (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_June_20&oldid=1233664504"