Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 October 14

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 14

02:11, 14 October 2024 review of submission by Asdf;jldsafdl

• Asdf;jldsafdl (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Corisande de Gramont (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Should I submit. Hectorvector27 02:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Your draft makes no plausible claim of notability. Cullen328 (talk) 02:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

09:03, 14 October 2024 review of submission by 106.79.199.9

• 106.79.199.9 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Ankith Reddy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Help me in writing this article 106.79.199.9 (talk) 09:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. This isn't the place to ask for co-editors. 331dot (talk) 09:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

14:00, 14 October 2024 review of submission by MezcalRoots

• MezcalRoots (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:David Bradlee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I need help on exactly what I need to change in order for my article not to sound like an essay and I guess better sources. MezcalRoots (talk) 14:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Geni.com. Wiki Tree and blogspot are not reliable sources and should be replaced. Theroadislong (talk) 16:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@MezcalRoots You have written this WP:BACKWARDS. Pease start afresh by finding excellent sources. If you can't find them do not continue, for he is not notable. If you can, in your own words write what they say.

You have written a magazine article. It's interesting, but requires correct citations. Your finished version will be flat, neutral, factual, please 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

16:41, 14 October 2024 review of submission by Vermadesh

• Vermadesh (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Desh Pal S. Verma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Im very new to writing wikipedia pages can you please help me publish my wikipedia article. I do not understand how to correct the suggestions you made. Vermadesh (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Vermadesh Assuming you to be the person in the article your background suggests that you have all the skill required to do this yourself. You are the one who wants the article to be accepted. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

16:51, 14 October 2024 review of submission by Raevinlarue

• Raevinlarue (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Ann Mulholland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I would like to know the status of my latest submission. It has been a month, and I have not heard back about the Wiki page. Could someone please let me know what is happening? Thank you so much for your help. Raevinlarue (talk) 16:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Raevinlarue Certainly. It is in the pool of drafts awaiting review. Thins not a queue, but a pool. Feel free to continue to improve it while awaiting review. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for letting me know :) Raevinlarue (talk) 18:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

16:55, 14 October 2024 review of submission by KC Alunan

• KC Alunan (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Lili Marlene (Air Accident) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I don't understand how much else I could expand on this topic. This topic was very important in a national level in the Philippines, and lasted a month. However, there is not a lot of digital references I can give, only physical references, which are shown in the draft itself. In summary, I just want to know how I can make this better, and what I can do if there is not a lot of virtual evidence. KC Alunan (talk) 16:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@KC Alunan Please do not incorporate scans of press clippings. Instead please use the template {{cite news}} with parameters filled out correctly. We do not need digital references. We just need references that verify the facts and show the notability you have asserted in your message 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

To expand on Timtrent's comments on newspaper clippings, we can't link to or cite clippings for copyright reasons; any such links can and will be summarily removed without comment. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, do news articles from over 70 years count as copyright, or is it still copyrighted? KC Alunan (talk) 19:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Depends on where it's from, and if something happened in the interim that screwed with copyright terms. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

However, Timtrent's news citation can be taken into account, and if it has nothing to do with copyright, I just want to add one picture of a newspaper article, as it is useful towards understanding the page itself. KC Alunan (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@KC Alunan: Not to a reviewer. Images do not help a draft as a rule; it has to stand based on its text and its citations. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 20:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

So in summary, there is no need for pictures and images, but I can put them if they do not break any copyright laws? KC Alunan (talk) 20:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

In summary, even if the image was free of copyright issues, it would not help the draft in any measurable way, and every second you spend arguing for it is a second that could be spent properly citing the newspaper article it depicts. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 20:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, if it was citing the article, then I have done that a few minutes ago. The Article is just some pictures of the plane after it crashed and its flight plan into the mountain. KC Alunan (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Then those can wait until (if) the article is approved and moved into mainspace. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 20:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh alright, thanks for the advice. KC Alunan (talk) 20:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

17:44, 14 October 2024 review of submission by Asdf;jldsafdl

• Asdf;jldsafdl (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Corisande de Gramont (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

what can I add to make this notable? Hectorvector27 17:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Asdf;jldsafdl It is perfectly possible that Corisande de Gramont is devoid of notability in a Wikipedia sense. Look for references, ones that pass WP:42. They need not be online (though those are easier to check for). If the subject is not notable then it is time to Gove up. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's time to give up. Hectorvector27 18:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

18:43, 14 October 2024 review of submission by Roseamore

• Roseamore (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Successive Approximation Model (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Helpdesk, I this is my first time trying to post to Wikipedia. I have been declined two times and I cannot figure out why. Please point out the specific areas where I have fallen short. I initially thought that it was because I had not broken down my submission into sections. I did that but it was still declined. Roseamore (talk) 18:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Roseamore: The issue wasn't the lack of sections, the issue is that the draft as a whole reads as a research essay. We do not accept original research; we merely summarise what existing sources on a given topic explicitly say about it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your response.

My dilemma is that it is a research essay for a course I am doing. In addition to submitting the essay to the lecturer we were required to upload it to Wikipedia. I would alter it but then it would not met the requirements which she gave. I reached out to her and I am currently waiting to hear from her with regards to if the two (essay and Wikipedia submission) need to be the same or if I can alter the submission to suit.

Thank you again for your response. Roseamore (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Your lecturer is to be frank, being very unfair to you by requiring you to create a Wikipedia article, which has put you in an impossible position as you have run up against our policies. They may wish to review the Wikipedia Education Program materials to better incorporate Wikipedia into their lessons. Wikipedia is not a place to post original research. 331dot (talk) 19:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello 331dot,

Thank you for your response, unfortunately I think you are right. I still have not gotten a response back from her so I went ahead and altered the submission to be more in tune with Wikipedia guidelines. Roseamore (talk) 06:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Roseamore: Your lecturer has no idea how Wikipedia works, then, which suggests they aren't coordinating with WikiEd (which as a rule considers any "published article" requirement to be a catch-22 for the students, let alone one that would also violate our policies). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your response and for alerting me to the existence of WikiEd. I am doubtful that the lecturer is aware of this. If given the opportunity, I will make mention of it to her. I contacted her but she has not yet responded so I went ahead and altered my Wikipedia submission. I am hoping to make more progress in the process this time around. Roseamore (talk) 07:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

21:33, 14 October 2024 review of submission by Sackpat19

• Sackpat19 (talk · contribs)
  • Lee Crystal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would like to create a link to my Lee Crystal article in the "personnel" sections of the four albums Lee worked on with the band. Will this be done automatically or will I be able to edit the album pages? Sackpat19 (talk) 21:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

This page is to ask about drafts in the submission process. You may want to try the general Help Desk. 331dot (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

22:13, 14 October 2024 review of submission by Rechtman

• Rechtman (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Retan Cemetery (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The reviewer "wrote"*:

"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 draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are: in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject) reliable secondary independent of the subject Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia."

The sources cited check all the boxes in terms of being: in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject) reliable secondary independent of the subject

However, somehow we did not find the same to the the case.

• N.B. The reviewer notice is clearly a template, so you need to provide more details in order to substantiate *your* opinion that the article's references are none of these things.

ACTION REQUESTED Please provide 2-3 examples of references that are not in line with being reliable, independent, secondary, and in-depth. Please be as specific as possible because the generic language - while impressive in its style - is poor on substance.

Thank you. Rechtman (talk) 22:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Who is "we"? Wikipedia accounts are strictly single person use only. Theroadislong (talk) 07:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

22:17, 14 October 2024 review of submission by Rechtman

• Rechtman (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Retan Cemetery (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The reviewer "wrote"*:

"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 draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are: in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject), reliable, secondary, independent of the subject. Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia."

So we checked. And what we conclude now is that the sources cited check all the boxes in terms of being: in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject) reliable secondary independent of the subject

However, somehow we did not find the same to the the case.

• N.B. The reviewer notice is clearly a template, so you need to provide more details in order to substantiate *your* opinion that the article's references are none of these things.

ACTION REQUESTED Please provide 2-3 examples of references that are not in line with being reliable, independent, secondary, and in-depth. Please be as specific as possible because the generic language - while impressive in its style - is poor on substance.

Thank you. Rechtman (talk) 22:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy ping @Safariscribe ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Rechtman: Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked as "critiques" in my signature):

• I can't assess reference 1 (technical barrier). The link you use is completely and utterly broken. Fix it.
• Reference 2 is incomplete. A name with nothing else attached to it is not a source whatsoever.
• Reference 3 is useless for notability (wrong subject). You need to prove the cemetery is notable regardless of who happens to be buried there; we do not accept notability-by-osmosis.
• Reference 4 is incomplete. This looks like an inventory listing? Without further context this is an unusable cite.
• We don't cite Find-A-Grave (no editorial oversight).
• https://www.njgsbc.org/files/familyfiles/g0/p628.htm is useless for notability (wrong subject). A listing of people buried there does not help for notability. https://www.njgsbc.org/files/familyfiles/p1284.htm#i42391 is the same document in plaintext form.
• I cannot assess https://archive.org/stream/zabriskiefamilyt01zabr%200/zabriskiefamilyt01zabr%200%20djvu.txt (technical barrier). The Wayback Machine is still spotty after it got DDoS'd last week; this particular link is presently dead.
• We can't use https://www.erikvanblaricum.nl/download/historyofolddutc01nels.pdf as cited (too sparse) and even if we could it'd be useless for notability (wrong subject). Let me be perfectly blunt: Are you writing about the graveyard or about the people interred in it? If the latter, you'd have a better shot here at an article; most of what I'm seeing is about specific people and say very little about the graveyard itself.
• We can't use https://bchapeweb.co.bergen.nj.us/parcelviewer/ (too sparse). Maps of the area are never going to have anything worth citing.
• Reference 12 is incomplete. Cite it as an offline source (we need title, editor, publisher, year of publication, pages being cited, and (as this predates ISBN) the OCLC#).
• Reference 14 is an irrelevant legal definition and thus a non-sequitur. Reference 15 is the exact same reference with less information on the cite.
• Reference 16 is blank. (If it's to the image there, we can't cite images (too sparse).)
• Reference 17 points to an image, which we can't cite (too sparse).

You're coming at this from the entirely wrong direction, writing as if for a history book or newsletter as opposed to a Wikipedia article, which must be based on what sources explicitly say about a subject. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 03:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

23:17, 14 October 2024 review of submission by Wisdomledge

• Wisdomledge (talk · contribs)
  • User:Wisdomledge/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear All, I added a reference section to include sources that demonstrate notability, but I couldn't see it reflected in the submission, and I was unable to resubmit my entry. Please advise. Thanks so much! Wisdomledge (talk) 23:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Wisdomledge: I'm not at all sure that the sources in this draft demonstrate notability. In any case, they are very unclear, not correctly structured, and not cited anywhere. Please see WP:REFB for advice on correct referencing. And don't bother even trying to cite sources such as Facebook, LinkedIn, Amazon AWS, etc., as these are user-generated and not considered reliable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, didn't realise this was already answered, below. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

23:24, 14 October 2024 review of submission by Wisdomledge

• Wisdomledge (talk · contribs)
  • User:Wisdomledge/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I added a reference section to include sources that demonstrate notability, but I couldn't see it reflected in the submission, and I was unable to resubmit my entry. Wisdomledge (talk) 23:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Have you tried reading Help:Referencing for beginners? You can resubmit the draft after you address the decline reasons by pressing the blue "Resubmit" button in the decline template. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)