Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 March 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< March 11 << Feb | March | Apr >> March 13 >
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.


March 12

[edit]

01:36, 12 March 2024 review of submission by 2409:4070:4401:C5C9:4D2E:2CA1:57F0:D080

[edit]

Please tell me how to improve article. please describe this! 2409:4070:4401:C5C9:4D2E:2CA1:57F0:D080 (talk) 01:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

if you're talking about Draft:Chandu Kanuri, the draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. ltbdl (talk) 03:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:00, 12 March 2024 review of submission by 218.145.201.226

[edit]

I would like to know if the way references and external links are written is the correct form,or not. I would appreciate any advice or help I could get. Thank you. 218.145.201.226 (talk) 02:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your sixteen numbered references are all formatted incorrectly. If done correctly, they should display full bibliographic details, instead of just a number in square brackets. Please read Referencing for beginners. Cullen328 (talk) 06:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know if the referencing and citations are good with this last changes.

06:17, 12 March 2024 review of submission by Hamster1215

[edit]

Why my article cannot being posted public ？ Is there any Missing information ，i just need to Create a Article about for Information about my Local Community Radio Station Hamster1215 (talk) 06:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hamster1215, your draft lacks references to significant coverage of this radio station in reliable sources that are entirely independent of the radio station. Please read Your first article. Cullen328 (talk) 06:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Habnster1215, please understand that 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) 10:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:29, 12 March 2024 review of submission by RandalKeithNorton

[edit]

What changes do I need to make? I've presented sources of the phrase being used in various contexts. RandalKeithNorton (talk) 07:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RandalKeithNorton, please read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Cullen328 (talk) 08:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:51, 12 March 2024 review of submission by Hkc345

[edit]

I'm just wondering whether or not the use of the subject's own website as a reference for the information on the subject's Wikipedia Page is acceptable. Similarly, would using photos and images as references be acceptable? Thank you Hkc345 (talk) 07:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hkc345: you're really not asking the right questions. You should be asking how to demonstrate that the person is notable by Wikipedia standards, and how to reference the information so that it is verifiable from reliable sources. Not to mention, how to write in a neutral, non-promotional manner, and without copypasting content from external sources.
But yes, you can cite the subject's own website as a source, for very limited and entirely non-contentious information such as date and place of birth.
As for images, they have no bearing on anything at this stage, and are in that sense largely useless. BTW, you've marked the images as your 'own work', which implies a connection with this subject. Please disclose that, in the same manner as you have disclosed another paid-editing relationship on your user page. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hkc345, an acceptable Wikipedia article about a person almost entirely summarizes the significant coverage that published reliable sources independent of the person devote to the person. Your draft lacks any such references to independent sources and is not acceptable for that reason. Cullen328 (talk) 08:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the replies.
When I mentioned images, I was referring to images and scans of newspapers and published sources. The sources for the information on the subject is not very readily available online.
And for information about his life and careers, does the same procedure applies?
Thank you Hkc345 (talk) 09:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps, sources do not need to be online: they only need to be published. A reader may have to visit a Library or Archive to access the sources, but this is okay. You shouldn't scan in and upload any sources as this might breach copyright, just ensure the reference is formatted correctly to allow a reader to find the offline source if they so wish. Qcne (talk) 10:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:31, 12 March 2024 review of submission by Mohamedmarzz

[edit]

I want to resubmit the article. I edited it and the article has no advertising tone to it, it's just stating facts! Mohamedmarzz (talk) 10:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further.
To quote @DoubleGrazing further up this page: "If there are sources which weren't considered earlier and which you believe would establish notability, you may however appeal directly to the reviewer who rejected the draft". But if you are going to do this, you had better be very sure that the new sources you are citing meet the criteria in WP:42, otherwise you are likely to annoy the reviewer by wasting their time. ColinFine (talk) 10:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:34, 12 March 2024 review of submission by Renas Osman

[edit]

So far I have double checked the sources twice, they were reliable, even some of them from Apple, Yahoo News, and other international organization, but it got rejected

Thanks for responses Renas Osman (talk) 10:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability is only one of the criteria applied to sources to establish notability. Another is indepedence. Basically, 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.
I haven't looked closely at them, but it is clear from the titles that most of your sources are not independent of Najm: they are either based on interviews, or on information he has provided.
To establish notability, you should look at every one of your sources critically, to check that it meets all the criteria in golden rule. ColinFine (talk) 11:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:32, 12 March 2024 review of submission by 42.108.124.108

[edit]

Help me to publish this article. 42.108.124.108 (talk) 11:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What help are you seeking? Have you seen the messages left by reviewers? 331dot (talk) 12:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMDb, Google search, YouTube, Wikipedia and Commons are not independent reliable sources I’m afraid. Theroadislong (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:08, 12 March 2024 review of submission by Elina Lovtsova

[edit]

Good afternoon, please tell me what’s wrong with the sources, which ones should be added? Elina Lovtsova (talk) 12:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elina Lovtsova: without putting too fine a point on it, the sources are rubbish. All churnalism (or worse) and primary sources, not one of them contributes towards notability per WP:NCORP.
As for what sources should you add, I don't know. I don't know where you got all this information from (although I could hazard a wild guess...), but that's what you should cite as your sources.
BTW, what is your relationship with this subject? I will post a message on your talk page regarding paid editing; please read and respond to it. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources do not show that the company meets the special Wikipedia defition of a notable company and do not provide significant coverage of the company. The draft does little more than tell of the existence of the company and its routine activities; Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about the company and what makes it important/significant/influential as a company- not what the company may see as important about itself.
If you work for this company, the Terms of Use require that to be disclosed, please see WP:PAID as well as WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 12:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But if you add a link to the official website, won’t that be enough? Elina Lovtsova (talk) 12:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Elina Lovtsova: enough for what, to establish notability? No. Primary sources, especially ones close to the subject, don't even contribute towards notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:39, 12 March 2024 review of submission by Yevrowl

[edit]

Greetings! Please, if possible, help with advice. Are there any other sentences that may not correspond to the encyclopedic style? And if so, which ones exactly? Thanks a lot. Yevrowl (talk) 14:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yevrowl, I can see you've put effort into improving the overall quality of the submission, which is commendable. However, there are still some areas that need attention. When reading through, some sentences give the impression of promoting him. Take for instance, "Since 2017, he has focused on the digitalization of Kyiv and the implementation of blockchain technologies at the state level (Kyiv Smart City [uk], state registers, state procurement, and the like)." Also, I noticed that you've included every detail about him. Please consider removing any unnecessary sentences that lack support from sources or are simply not necessary. Additionally, it would be beneficial to trim down unnecessary references to avoid citation clutter. I hope this helps. – DreamRimmer (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DreamRimmer:, thanks very much for help! I removed unnecessary (unconfirmed, additional and clarifying) information, and also checked the supporting links for uniqueness. Yevrowl (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:16, 12 March 2024 review of submission by Corporationstation

[edit]

This seems to meet criteria for creation, though I'd love some feedback from others. Corporationstation (talk) 18:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Corporationstation: evidently not, since it has been rejected as non-notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:58, 12 March 2024 review of submission by 2406:7400:51:EDE8:5472:B902:1AEC:222C

[edit]

Please publish this article as it is legitimate content to publish as he is upcoming producer in Karnataka please any one review and publish 2406:7400:51:EDE8:5472:B902:1AEC:222C (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't properly linked to the draft, and your IP has no other edits- remember to log in when posting. 331dot (talk) 19:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:Sri Hari has been rejected, and will not be considered further. ColinFine (talk) 13:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:11, 12 March 2024 review of submission by Omadacycline

[edit]

Can help me to reference and cite it? Omadacycline (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can't find references for you, but you may see Referencing for Beginners for advice on writing references. 331dot (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:12, 12 March 2024 review of submission by Zebes94

[edit]

The email paid-en-wp@wikimedia.org is not working, I got this message back: Address not found Your message wasn't delivered to paid-en-wp@wikimedia.org because the address couldn't be found, or is unable to receive mail.

Is there any other way to report a user trying to sell me a service to publish my article? Zebes94 (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zebes94 email arbcom-enwikimedia.org and let them also know about this issues you encountered using paid-en-wp@wikimedia.org. S0091 (talk) 21:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Primefac so he is aware and might be able to provide additional guidance given he is on the the WP:ARBCOM committee. S0091 (talk) 21:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @S0091 Thanks for the prompt response! I have sent the email to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org including my issue with the paid-en-wp email like you mentioned.
Thanks for all the help :) Zebes94 (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @S0091 I sent my email to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org and someone replied to me saying that the correct email to send these kinds of issues is paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org. I orignially sent my issue to paid-en-wp@wikimedia.org because that's the email stated in the warning section of the Articles for Creation wikipedia page: Wikipedia:Articles for creation Any idea on how to tell someone from AfC to fix that? I tried to do it myself but don't have permission. Zebes94 (talk) 03:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed, thanks. Primefac (talk) 07:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zebes94 thanks raising the issue! S0091 (talk) 19:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Error message when submitting

[edit]

Hello,

I am trying to submit my article for review, but whenever I do I get this error message: "An error occurred (TypeError: undefined is not an object (evaluating 'json.query.pages')). Please try again or refer to the help desk." Why might this be, and what should I do? Thanks, Slamforeman (talk) 20:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Slamforeman you do no identify which draft but Draft:Glenn Postolski is pending review. S0091 (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:54, 12 March 2024 review of submission by LivingWellat50

[edit]

I keep getting declined. I DO NOT KNOW WHY. PLEASE HELP LivingWellat50 (talk) 20:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the fact that the draft should properly be titled Draft:2026 Oregon gubernatorial election, all of the provided references concern the 2022 election, while none address the 2026 election. Obviously there will eventually be an article on this race, but unless you find some more forward-looking references, perhaps it is simply too soon for it at the moment. --Finngall talk 21:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:11, 12 March 2024 review of submission by DerekMuttley

[edit]

Hello, Perhaps someone would point me in the right direction for this.. I have been assiduously attempting to provide citations for the page I created "Wilsons Tales of the Borders" , but my data entry skills, and multiple word processor skills seem to have been defeated by the citation editor.

Could you tell me where to look, or how to overcome the logical impasse presented by an item which is intending to provide contextual material about a publication which does not exist on the internet? - Even the Newspaper archive only has a reference to a parent journal. When I attempt to provide a citation to the main printed book dealing with the topic, the citation edit input panel accepts data, and apparently closes normally, yet has neither accepted the entry or returned a validation error.

IS there, perhaps, some non-intuitive validation going on, or something as simple as 'there must be an entry in every box' which is not being indicated as an error?

- Using Safari 17.2.

Apologies if these kind of queries should go elsewhere. I shall take no offence if you tell me to just go away..

R DerekMuttley (talk) 21:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DerekMuttley the draft has no references and some of the content appears to to be original research. Please see Your first article for guidance. S0091 (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you
That makes sense, according to what can be seen on the page. However, I provided links to different sources, and have spent far too much time wrestling with the idiosyncrasies of the citation panel to try and provide a reference to the major book, published on 2018, from which some of the passages are drawn. Even quoting an ISBN, publisher, author, page numbers, doesn't appear to work. My 40 years in IT design says that either you accept the user's input, or you provide an error message explaining why it is refused. Neither of these things happened, which I regard as a failing in the software. Given that the book has no web presence, but it must appear in Nielson's ISBN catalogue for UK publications I'm at a bit of a loss.
I HAVE read the help pages on inserting a citation.
Oh, one other minor point - the Publication I am providing background for is mentioned in several other pages relating to the creator - JM Wilson, and to editors -Alexander Leighton etc. Given that WikiP is already quoting it, it seemed trivial, when I started, to make a page that the existing articles could link to which gave a bit of background to the publication that is already described.
Despite it's huge circulation and popularity in the mid nineteenth century there are no digital copies of the publication, though plenty of reprints of selected content. It deserves a bit of background and amplification if only to supplement the existing author's pages.
So to return to the plot. If I alter links to web references, does that satisfy the criteria? Reference to anything on the internet could be held to be ephemeral though. My problem seems to be that I am attempting to provide a description and definition of a work which exists in reprint form in thousands of libraries yet has no digitised original copies. A catch-22 ?
R DerekMuttley (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DerekMuttley use the Visual Editor. When in edit mode over the right there is a pencil icon where you can switch between Source editor or Visual. Select Visual then click on the double quotes icon (next to the link icon). Automatic works for most websites, Google Books and WorldCat links and sometimes ISBNs. If the ISBN does not work and it's not available on Google Books or WorldCat, then select the manual tab>book and fill out pertinent details. See also WP:INTREFVE. I can't say the sources are enough because they have not yet been cited and I agree, Wikipedia does not make generating citations easy especially if they are not online. S0091 (talk) 21:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, right. I'm relieved that it isn't just me then.
If I may (mis)interprete what you say - use the markup language!
I'm happy with that. Have to brush up on the SGML derivative / syntax etc.
And I'll revisit my critique about data entry validation if I can find the right gateway for making change suggestions.
Many thanks for your help. Much appreciated.
R DerekMuttley (talk) 08:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_March_12&oldid=1214281309"