Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 May 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< May 17 << Apr | May | Jun >> May 19 >
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.


May 18

[edit]

05:16, 18 May 2024 review of submission by Mrjubs

[edit]

Wiki project Mrjubs (talk) 05:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki project classification tags Mrjubs (talk) 05:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrjubs do you have a question about a particular submission? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 06:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki project classification tags Mrjubs (talk) 01:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:47, 18 May 2024 review of submission by 103.101.117.181

[edit]

tell us our mistake 103.101.117.181 (talk) 06:47, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected and will usually not be considered further. After reading it, I'm honestly confused, as I cannot identify the subject of the article. The entire thing lacks inline citations, it's not in a WP:NPOV (with sentences like Ghosis are still discriminating against them, not giving Kamarias equal respect.), and contains links to irrelevant articles. The draft would need a complete re-write to meet standards. Also, who's 'us'? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:16, 18 May 2024 review of submission by Hanrytheo

[edit]

what should l do for my article to be proved ? Hanrytheo (talk) 08:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hanrytheo The draft is entirely unsourced and has been declined. Please read Help:Your first article. Also, is the draft about yourself? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hanrytheo: We need at least one in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-Moses news/scholarly article that discusses him at length, has identifiable authors, and is subject to rigourous editorial oversight and fact-checking for every single claim the draft makes that could reasonably be challenged. We also do not accept hagiographical content. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 08:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:08, 18 May 2024 review of submission by ObscuredHeart

[edit]

Look, I know my page isn't major but I would love to use it to play a joke on my friends and I would appreicate if it could be accepted. What can I do to make it more reliable. ObscuredHeart (talk) 09:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ObscuredHeart: Wikipedia isn't here for you to play jokes on your friends.
If you wish to create an article on a neologism, you would need to show that it has been not only used but discussed in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources.
As it stands, this draft is little more than a dictionary definition, rather than a viable encyclopaedia article, and effectively unreferenced at that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please play jokes on your friends elsewhere. We don't have articles in a global encyclopedia of human knowledge as jokes on people. There's a role for humor(pages like WP:BROTHER) but not as you are using it. Would you place a fake book on a shelf at the Library of Congress or your local library as a joke? If you did, the librarian would throw it away. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, this is very prestigous talk for a website that allows anyone to edit its pages. At a library, you can't edit a book without being a reputable author but for some reason Wikipedia allows it so this comparison is silly. Secondly life is to have fun, plently of people have fun at a local library — are children story times not fun. Why can't I have fun here? ObscuredHeart (talk) 10:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an encyclopedia, not a playground. If you want to have fun, you can play a video game. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortuantly, I can't submit a new word on a video game. When you come up with one let me know and I'll play it.
A bunch of snobs for people editing a website known for its unreliabilty. ObscuredHeart (talk) 10:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure... for something reliable, have you tried emailing Merriam-Webster and telling them to add 'Radify'? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ObscuredHeart: obviously you must do what you must do, but be warned that if you're not here to build an encyclopaedia, you may find your editing privileges restricted or even removed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't do what I must do if people don't accept my page! ObscuredHeart (talk) 10:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You say that Wikipedia is " a website known for its unreliability" yet you want to add poorly sourced content...oh the irony. Theroadislong (talk) 10:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So isn't my point proven? Yes its ironic (A+ for that dude), but I'm not saying it is neccersarily bad. I'm just saying its odd that it can hold such a reputation, but somehow everyone is being rude about me doing the exact thing this website is known for. ObscuredHeart (talk) 10:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ObscuredHeart: The reason we're taking offence at your wanting to use Wikipedia to play a joke is because, regardless of its reliability, we take Wikipedia's mission of being an encyclopaedia dead seriously, in part because people will often look at Wikipedia if they want quick information on a given subject that isn't filtered through whatever political nonsense or misinformation that populates social media. We actually put in the effort to make Wikipedia as accurate and as unbiased as we can, but it is (and always has been) an uphill battle. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ObscuredHeart if you know of any unreliable articles, point them out and we can fix them. Theroadislong (talk) 10:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will. ObscuredHeart (talk) 10:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey guys I just found out about Wiktionary. Would my word be able be entered there?
I'm sorry for being petty, I know it's silly to argue on the internet about a made up word with strangers. ObscuredHeart (talk) 10:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see wikt:Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion. I believe the answer to your question would be no. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:32, 18 May 2024 review of submission by Azure Campus

[edit]

I used reference and followed format from articles about colleges with similar notability in Goa,someone of them only had one citation such as MES College,Don Bosco College of Engineering Fatorda and St Xavier's College Mapusa Azure Campus (talk) 11:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected, and will not be considered further.
Not one of your references meets the triple criterion of being reliable, independent, and having significant coverage of the college (see WP:42).
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. Without such sources, there is literally nothing that can go into an article. ColinFine (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:47, 18 May 2024 review of submission by Sarvadas01

[edit]

all the neutral source given Sarvadas01 (talk) 11:47, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See below. 331dot (talk) 12:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:50, 18 May 2024 review of submission by Amigurumi Book

[edit]

What is wrong? Amigurumi Book (talk) 11:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer left you a message at the top of your draft telling you why it was rejected. Do you have a more specific question about it? 331dot (talk) 12:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:44, 18 May 2024 review of submission by Sarvadas01

[edit]

Need to edit and resubmit Sarvadas01 (talk) 12:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sarvadas01 Rejected means that resubission is not possible absent a fundamental change to the draft that addresses the concerns of the reviewers.
No one "needs" to do anything here. What is the source of your need?
You took a picture of this man in his office; what is your connection with him? 331dot (talk) 12:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:25, 18 May 2024 review of submission by Exuperantia

[edit]

I added sources from the NY Times, Newsday, and several other trustworthy sources, all completely secondary and referring to the subject in great detail, yet my submission is still declined. I feel like I am missing something, and would like to know the thought process behind this decline, so I can actually fix the problem more effectively. Thank you. Exuperantia (talk) 13:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Exuperantia: okay, well now that you've resubmitted the draft, you will get an assessment and possible feedback when a reviewer picks it up. In the meantime, is there anything you would like to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is Newsday considered a viable source? Regarding Long Island, Newsday is the primary source of newspaper/online blog for the Island. I just want to make sure that it is, if not, then I completely understand why it was declined. As far as my research has gone, I think they are pretty accurate, but strictly from a Wikipedian perspective, are they? Exuperantia (talk) 13:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Exuperantia I'm not aware of any clear consensus one way or another about the reliability or otherwise of Newsday at WP:RSP. It boils down to how much editorial oversight and fact-checking they employ. You describing it as a 'blog' doesn't sound too promising, but perhaps their editorial content is more reliable then their blogs. It is very local, though, so probably has limited use at best for establishing global notability, given that the more local a publication, the lower its news threshold usually is. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you for the reply. Nice to know what criteria I can use for my research and sources more clearly, (editorial oversight and fact-checking) I used the wrong word, they are not a blog, they are a news source. Here is there website:Newsday | Long Island's & NYC's News Source - Newsday As per my research: they are undergone with a fair amount of editorial oversight and verification. I am not sure about global notability, but Teatro Yerbabruja, the company with the mentioned sources from Newsday, is based on Long Island and coverage is fairly strictly on the Island. Exuperantia (talk) 23:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what "news source" means. If it means something like "online newspaper", with an editorial team, it might be reliable. If it is a place where anybody can post "news" with little or no editorial control, then it is not reliable. If it is an aggregator that reprints items from other newspapers, then it is merely the medium, and you need to determine the reliability of the original source. ColinFine (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:58, 18 May 2024 review of submission by MackoGqn

[edit]

Hello there, I need some assistance and review of submission alright? It has been declined and I need some feedback and support on how to support the article with relevant references, that is the only problem I have. MackoGqn (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As per the reviewers comment "Biography section is largely unsourced" you need to provide the sources you used for this content. Theroadislong (talk) 19:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:56, 18 May 2024 review of submission by Munam123

[edit]

I faced error in submission of my New article kindly help me Munam123 (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Munam123 I fixed your post to provide a link to your draft as intended. What was the nature of the error? 331dot (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will say that before you worry about submitting it, you need to improve the sourcing. 331dot (talk) 21:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_May_18&oldid=1225378788"