Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< October 11 << Sep | October | Nov >> October 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.


October 12

[edit]

13:37, 12 October 2024 review of submission by Aknotik

[edit]

Hello,

I'm trying to create a page of my mother, which was very known in music person in Latvia. The source of the page is from various interviewers of Larisa Puzule. Its not clear how do I add secondary sources. They are mostly on Russian on Latvian languages. And in any case, only a few facts can be checked and approved by secondary sources. Should I just add links which I can found in the Internet?

Thanks Aknotik (talk) 13:37, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do not need to be in English, as long as they meet all other requirements of being independent reliable sources. As you're unlikely to find a reviewer fluent in Latvian here, you may wish to, on the draft talk page, discuss what each source you provide says.
You should formally declare your conflict of interest, see WP:COI for instructions. 331dot (talk) 14:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:39, 12 October 2024 review of submission by 2A02:C7C:E24E:2B00:5E1:82CE:DB3:5DAF

[edit]

Improve the site please + How will you be able to accept the website? 2A02:C7C:E24E:2B00:5E1:82CE:DB3:5DAF (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection typically means that reviewers don't think improvement is possible, which is why it won't be considered again. You provided no independent reliable sources with significant coverage that discuss what makes this notable(such as reviews by professional reviewers); you just documented the existence of the series. 331dot (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:54, 12 October 2024 review of submission by AlexCollins4u

[edit]

Hello. I was instructed to 'ask for advice' by SafariScribe. The subject meets the academic criteria specified and reliable sources were provided. Can you kindly unreject it? Thank you. Regards AlexCollins4u (talk) 16:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AlexCollins4u What they have to do is to pass WP:NPROF. The referencing is not helped by the WP:CITEKILL which follows "He is a biology and biotechnology researcher with several collaborations and publications to his credit", which hinders reviewers from knowing what references you really choose. Please reduce them to a maximum of three good ones
I think there is a probability that they pass NPROF, though I have not looked in depth. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:08, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help. I will do as you suggested by reducing the many citations to the last sentence. Can you unreject it afterwards? Thank you AlexCollins4u (talk) 17:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AlexCollins4u Message me on my user talk page and I will take a detailed look. I make no promises, but you will get my full attention whatever the outcome. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've messaged you. Cheers AlexCollins4u (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AlexCollins4u Thank you. I do not feel that the rejection should stand, so I resubmitted it on your behalf, but no Declined the draft for the reasons stated in some detail. You are welcome to ask for help from other reviewers once you understand the review, and if you disagree with me. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the review. Many thanks for cancelling the rejection and resubmitting it on my behalf. Cheers. AlexCollins4u (talk) 20:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:35, 12 October 2024 review of submission by Focus.enterprise

[edit]

My submission is constantly being rejected for so called being "AI generated" despite it all being original work, what do I do? Focus.enterprise (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With at least 8 unsourced sections there is zero chance of acceptance, where did all the content come from? Theroadislong (talk) 20:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be absolutely clear, did you send it through ChatGPT or any similar program for any reason? Even if you only intended to have it soundGi more polished and more like a Wikipedia article, the way large language models work gives their output a very distinctive pattern and means it's likely to be flagged as AI generated. Very few people write the way ChatGPT and its fellows do!
More importantly, though, make sure you have your information referenced - the wording of the article can be adjusted if necessary, but words don't matter if you don't have sources to back them up. Have a look at WP:YFA, WP:42, and WP:REFB - they should get you on the right track. StartGrammarTime (talk) 08:07, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given how long the article is and how many specific facts are claimed, I'd expect to see more than an order of magnitude more sources rather than...four, and I'd argue that three of the four sources aren't both reliable and independent of the subject. In the first paragraph of Background alone, nothing is referenced, and I stopped counting halfway through at a dozen factual claims that needed to be sourced. And yes, without any AI detection, there are some hallmarks here. The whole section on "Lyrical Themes" looks a lot like an AI readout that was not properly copied-and-pasted from the website, because the section headers that AI loves to create smush right into the text. For example "Humor and Bravado Despite the serious themes, Eazy-E's characteristic humor and bravado permeate the album" and "Discontent and Personal Struggles Eazy-E's frustrations with the music industry and his personal life are also prominent themes throughout the album." Yes, sourcing everything is a lot of work, but that's why quality articles of this length can take years and the efforts of myriad editors to get right. Your best bet is to start with the good sources you can find and then cut everything way down to the article that those sources can support. There's no deadline here and the article can -- and likely will be -- expanded later as more people find more sources that support different characteristics and history of the album. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:02, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It also appears that, like many new editors who attempt to create a new article before they have spent time learning how Wikipedia works, you have written it BACKWARDS.
First, find several sources which meet all three requirements of being reliably published, wholly unconnected with the subject of the article, and contain significant coverage of the subject - see golden rule for more detail.
Then if you have found at least three such sources, write a neutral summary of what those sources say. Do not include a single word for which you haven't got a reliable published source (and, while Wikipedia doesn't require that every piece of information be cited to a source, since you have a source, why not cite it?). If you haven't found at least three such sources, give up and do something else, as no article will be accepted. ColinFine (talk) 11:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:43, 12 October 2024 review of submission by Lief Vespucci

[edit]

I am a PhD historian that has written numerous encyclopedia articles, hence I am baffled by this rejection. I have two questions, should I add a footnote to every sentence of this article (all information has been published and is publicly available, no statement or sentence in this article is without corroboration from an available and cited source). Second, regarding the "peacock language," does this refer to standard Financial Times level prose, or is the idea that we used too many honorifics to refer to Gower? If the latter, please point out one so we can correct it, if it is the former, isn't standard Financial Times and New York Times prose OK for Wikipedia? With many thanks! Lief Vespucci (talk) 19:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lief Vespucci Accepted You do yourself no favours in your "Do you know who I am" toned introduction here. Wikiedia is not kind to experts, I'm afraid. See WP:ACADEME. Nonetheless I view this article as standing a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process, this differs from Tavantius. Such disagreement is perfectly acceptable.
The tone is a little magazine-like. Doubtless the community will edit that away.
As for references, every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:27, 12 October 2024 review of submission by Wiklipeds

[edit]

Hello. Please help me understand what I'm doing wrong. I just copied what was stated on the Nigerian Intelligence (DSS) website about an award their president/chief/other received by ISO-SEC Switzerland. But I removed the comment they did, as it probably can make it look "how great it is" and this can be considered as an advertisement. Not sure if there is something else. Please help me to understand what to avoid. I have plenty of time and I can truly be a good editor soonest I learn what to NOT do. Thank you in advance. Wiklipeds (talk) 22:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wiklipeds. The sources in your draft do not provide significant coverage of ISO-SEC. They are passing mentions and are not sufficient to establish notability. Cullen328 (talk) 02:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_October_12&oldid=1251792115"