Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 October 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< October 2 << Sep | October | Nov >> October 4 >
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 3

[edit]

03:23, 3 October 2024 review of submission by HurricaneKirk2024

[edit]

May I start over from the beginning, or is that not allowed? I thought the purpose of Wikipedia was other people to help build on an article, and I had no help at all. Please help me in my journey. I have nothing left to do. Please help me. HurricaneKirk2024 (talk) 03:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, HurricaneKirk2024. While I understand from your username that this is a topic you're particularly interested in, it is not notable for Wikipedia's purposes, so starting over would serve no point. If you want to write a Wikipedia article, your best bet is to find a different topic, one that is well-covered in reliable sources, and write it from scratch, without the use of AI. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @HurricaneKirk2024, Writ Keeper has covered half of your questions, so I'll finish the other half: Wikipedia is indeed about collaborating to work on the encyclopedia, and when drafts become articles people may (or may not!) start wandering in to change and improve things. However, writing the draft is usually a one-person task: someone is interested in a particular subject, and does research on it, and decides it's interesting and notable by Wikipedia standards, and writes a draft about it. If it is truly notable, the draft becomes an article, and off we go.
Writing a new article is the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. It requires knowledge of many policies and guidelines. You also cannot use ChatGPT or any other AI to help you write; we need humans to create the articles, humans who have done proper research and learned how to write Wikipedia articles. Most of the editors on this board will tell you that you should begin by working on current articles, so you get an idea of what's needed. We have millions of articles that need help in many different ways, so whatever you're into will undoubtedly have some articles that need your time and energy. You could, if you wished, go see what WikiProject Tropical cyclones is up to and maybe find some articles you're interested in there. That would be my suggestion for you, anyway. Happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 05:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 16:28, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:21, 3 October 2024 review of submission by Nightfly2008

[edit]

My article has been declined three times. In each instance, I tried to improve it based on the suggestions. I still believe the subject is notable enough to warrant an article, but I seem to be unable to convince the editors. Could someone with more experience give me a more detailed explanation as to what exactly I can do to improve it? Thank you. Nightfly2008 (talk) 06:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nightfly2008 I see you have resubmitted it for review. A reviewer will review it in due course. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:27, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did submit as it takes a lot of time, but I can keep editing it while waiting. Nightfly2008 (talk) 06:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nightfly2008: yes, you can continue editing the draft while waiting for a review. Just be aware that a review can happen at any time, so try to make sure that you save your work frequently, and that with each save the draft is a complete entity, in case it gets reviewed.
Note also that as you have disclosed a COI in this subject, by extension you also have a COI in related subjects (each which you should also disclose separately, BTW). This means that you should not have published Paradise Lost (Inal Bilsel album) directly into the main article space, but should have put it through an AfC review also. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing Thank you for your comments and pointing me to the right direction. The other article you mention is in the deletion process as you know. I am new here and I am really trying to do it the right way but the guidelines are sometimes a bit overwhelming. The notability guideline for music/artists state that at least one criteria should be met. The article I am working on does meet this criteria: "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels". Thanks for your valuable input. Nightfly2008 (talk) 07:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:11, 3 October 2024 review of submission by Omar Azami

[edit]

I am publishing an article based on a close friend of mine. I am trying to build the page on a step by step basis, but it looks like I haven't quite passed the requirements.

I would like to understand where I am going wrong and what I can do to help rectify the situation.

Thank you Omar Omar Azami (talk) 10:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Omar Azami: I have rejected your draft, as I didn't see anything there to suggest that the person is notable in the Wikipedia sense of the word; notability being a core requirement for inclusion in the encyclopaedia.
Also for future reference, you should not be writing an article based on what you know about a subject, you should instead summarise what reliable and independent third parties (ideally secondary sources) have previously published about it. You then cite those sources against the information they have provided, which gives you the necessary referencing to satisfy another core requirement of course, namely verifiability. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:17, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing Thank you for your prompt reply. It is greatly appreciated. I am very new to Wikipedia and the person I am writing about is well known in his friend as well as his background. I know he has enough information to be included on Wikipedia, but the error is coming from my lack of understanding on how to write an article rather than the person I am writing about.
What is the best why to move forward and edit the article and have it resubmitted please?
Thank you Omar Azami (talk) 10:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Omar Azami: rejection normally means the end of the road for a draft, but on this occasion I'm happy to take another look if you can base this on appropriate sources (which, in practice, means rewriting the draft pretty much completely).
In a nutshell:
  1. Start by finding a few (3-5) published sources that satisfy the WP:GNG notability guideline, namely: independent and reliable secondary sources that have provided significant coverage of the subject.
  2. Summarise what they have said. This must be done in your own words, but without putting any additional 'spin' on things.
  3. Cite each source directly against the information it has provided. For advice on referencing, see WP:REFB.
If you wish, you can run the sources by us here at the help desk, or at my talk page, to check that they are acceptable per WP:GNG before you begin your editing work. Notability depends exclusively on the sources, so it's important to get it right from the outset, as otherwise your efforts may be in vain. I suggest you study the GNG guideline carefully before you start. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing Thank you for your prompt reply again and the opportunity to resubmit the draft. I will work based on the advice you have given.
I appreciate your help.
Thank you Omar Azami (talk) 10:55, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Omar. One of the things that makes it difficult to write an article about a friend is that once you have found the independent sources, you will need to forget everything you know about your friend, and base your article on what those sources say. What you know is not relevant: either it is in one of the sources, and you take it from there, or it isn't, and it cannot go into the article. ColinFine (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ColinFine, thank you for your advice, I have taken it onboard and working on the appropriate content. Thank you. Omar Azami (talk) 11:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:29, 3 October 2024 review of submission by VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004

[edit]

my draft was declined, the reason why I made this draft was to finally split out NTV's corporate functions from the station article…to avoid big confusions, there is an article on NTVHD on the Japanese Wikipedia, but why not here? VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004 (talk) 13:29, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004: without commenting on whether a separate article is actually warranted for the 'Holdings' corporate entity, if I've understood you correctly and you're effectively proposing to split Nippon Television into two articles, then you should follow the procedure set out at WP:SPLIT. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:10, 3 October 2024 review of submission by Janep1814

[edit]

I first submitted this article for publication several months ago. It has been turned down on several occasions, each time for a different reason. In each subsequent submission, I've dealt with the issue mentioned explaining why the article can't be published. In the meantime, I've also revised the text, deleted images and provided the requested copyright details for others. Given the importance of the precedence created by Adrienne Cullen's case in relation to hospital liability, I don't really understand why this article can't be published. Can you please advise. janep1814 Janep1814 (talk) 14:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Janep1814: I can only see two previous declines, both for the primary reason of lack of notability. If you have multiple drafts on this subject, or if there's something else I'm missing, do let me know.
You most recently resubmitted this on 10 Aug, which is less than two months ago, and as you may have seen from the templated message on top of the draft, reviews may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 1,285 pending submissions waiting for review. Please be patient. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:32, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing - Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. I'll wait. Janep1814 (talk) 14:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:27, 3 October 2024 review of submission by Pvesters

[edit]

What needs to be improved? Pvesters (talk) 16:27, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pvesters: We don't cite IMDb or Twitch (no editorial oversight). https://startpeople.nl/kenniscentrum/artikel/wat-houdt-het-in-om-uitzendkracht-te-zijn is written by Vesters and thus useless for notability. You need third-party sources that discuss him at length and have undergone editorial oversight. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:49, 3 October 2024 review of submission by Ncouture

[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Polymer_Cement_Concrete was asked to be moved to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymer_Concrete after "being improved" but I cannot locate where the improvements wanted are outlined.

Can someone please advise?

In addition, I understand the fact that I have created the draft:Polymer Cement Concrete and draft:Polymer Modified Concrete under sub-pages of Polymer Concrete and that "is [[contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia][1]" but there is no explanation as to why it is.

Could someone please explain?

Nicolas Couture (talk) 17:49, 3 October 2024 (UTC) Nicolas Couture (talk) 17:49, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ncouture: This is essentially a fork that does not meaningfully distinguish itself from the primary topic; it was rejected because it was apparent to the reviewer that this would be better off incorporated into polymer concrete rather than spun off into its own article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it had been me I would have adapted the page and merged it in the page they wanted it in, now this is highly confusing, moreover I still have doubts that they would reject my changes after merging into the page they said it should belong in.
IMO it shouldn't belong in it because Polymer Modified Concrete is not Polymer Concrete and both are not Polymer Cement Concrete.
They are all different types of concrete!
Nicolas Couture (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not uncommon for articles to include sections on related topics. Just because they're all "different types of concrete" doesn't matter if they're similar enough that it would be better to just include a section on them in the main article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:47, 3 October 2024 review of submission by BrocadeRiverPoems

[edit]

I'm sorry, I am growing increasingly confused at the conflicting instructions I have received regarding this draft. The draft has been most recently rejected and I was told Rewording a sentence isn't really going to help with notability despite the fact that the previous reviewer Special:Diff/1248430313 told me The sentence "Little is known about the life of Han E" is what makes me decline your draft. I recommend removing that and resubmitting, after the previous previous reviewer Special:Diff/1248224834 had told me that adding the Biographical Dictionary of Chinese Women would be sufficient for notability per WP:ANYBIO. One reviewer tells me the source achieves notability, so I add the source, the draft is rejected because of a sentence, I change the sentence as requested and the next person rejects the draft because changing the sentence is apparently not sufficient for achieving notability despite being told previously the source from the first rejection supposedly achieves notability. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 22:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BrocadeRiverPoems, your draft has not been rejected which means "this is the end of the line". Instead, it has been declined, which means "you can keep working on it by making substantive improvements". Resubmitting after making only trivial changes is a poor strategy. As for different reviewers focusing on different aspects of the draft, that is commonplace. As an editor with over 15 years of experience on Wikipedia, I often read a draft and say to myself "this draft has nine obvious problems but in my review, I will focus on the three most glaring and substantive problems." Another editor may later review the draft and conclude "I think problems #4 and #5 are pretty serious too, so let's discuss them". On to an overview of your draft. When I read it, I have no idea whether or not this person ever existed. You describe her as "legendary" but Elvis Presley was a legendary singer and Paul Bunyan was a legendary lumberjack. Presley existed but Bunyan didn't. Why don't you cite any scholars who evaluate the historicty of this person? Your prose is shot through with ambiguity. You use wording such as who is believed to be to which I say "believed by whom? If the person is fictional, then why would anyone believe anything about them? If she was real, then where is the evidence? You write is said to have travelled and it was said that her singing resonated there for three days. Who specifically said those things and what credibity does that person or persons have? You write The authenticity of these stories is unclear and then you write Han E's story is not recorded in the historical Record of Music, implying that latter work is definitive. After reading your draft, I know more about what is not known about her than what is known. I see no basis for an encyclopedia article based on such thin reeds. Cullen328 (talk) 06:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Resubmitting after making only trivial changes is a poor strategy.
I resubmitted the article after making the changes that were requested to be made. The previous reviewer literally recommended me to just remove a sentence. Their exact words were: The sentence "Little is known about the life of Han E" is what makes me decline your draft. I recommend removing that and resubmitting. It's not a strategy, I did what the only recommendation I was given suggested I do.
Why don't you cite any scholars who evaluate the historicty of this person? Your prose is shot through with ambiguity.
Because none of them do. The one Chinese source that addresses the authenticity literally just says it's going to set aside the issue of the authenticity. Another scholar says "She's mentioned in this Taoist book, but not the Record of Music", another scholar says "She's credited for creating this style of music, but Mencius credits someone else". I have made notes of all of that. My prose is shot through with ambiguity because literally every source that disucsses this individual is much the same, and I can't just unambiguously state things when the sources don't.
Hence why when I asked if the Biographical Dictionary of Chinese Women conferred notability, I said:
The problem I'm running into now, however, is I've exhausted everything I can find on the person. Does having an entry in the Biographical dictionary of Chinese women meet the notability requirement? If not, I am out of ideas on trying to save this article
For the record, I didn't create the article, someone else did. When I was on my way to propose deleting it, someone had moved it to draftspace, so I decided to try and fix the article since it was just verbatim quoting the account of Han'e in the Chinese text, except translated into English. I hardly considered the contents of an article that began with what amounted to "Once upon a time," worth keeping, so I fixed the article and used what sources were available with what details they had.
If the person is fictional, then why would anyone believe anything about them? If she was real, then where is the evidence?
There isn't any conclusive evidence one way or the other whether she was real or fictional. The closest that anyone comes to addressing it is a Chinese source that says it isn't going to address the authenticity of the stories. Nobody says definitively whether she was real, or fictional, or if she was real and her life is just extremely dramatized, so on and so forth.
I see no basis for an encyclopedia article based on such thin reeds.
Yeah, and neither did I, but someone moved it to draftspace as I was about to propose it for deletion. So, I tried to improve it, and every step of the process I asked "Is this notable?" "Does this establish notability?", and when I made the changes I was asked to make, nothing has changed.
So to be completely clear on my stance:
If the article is not notable now, it is likely never going to be notable, and it should be deleted as I had first suspected it should be. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 07:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BrocadeRiverPoems I think this draft has got to the point where we ought to make a choice to accept or abandon. A feasible approach is to accept and then, Because it may be just below the acceptance threshold, make a procedural nomination to WP:AFD in order that the community is asked to decide. I do not say that this is a recommended approach.
After considering this draft for a short period of quiet reflection, what are your thoughts, please? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts on the article are unchanged. If it is not notable now, it is unlikely to ever be notable. While the proposed solution is an imperfect one, I'm willing to go through the process of doing it, but I am hesitant to potentially waste editor's time. It might be in the best interest of the Encyclopedia to simply delete this article as I had initially suspected should have been done. The information about Han'e can be included in the expansion of the Geji article, which was recently reduced to a stub due to the poor quality of the article, and which can be reasonably built back up with reliably sourced information. Frankly, I am not optimistic the article will survive AfD in any other capacity than being merged into Geji anyways. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 07:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BrocadeRiverPoems Then I suggest you allow it to wither on the vine. In six months it will be weeded as G13. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright! Will do. Do I have to wait for the article to expire before putting the information about Han'e's story into the Geji article? Brocade River Poems (She/They) 08:03, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BrocadeRiverPoems Please go ahead and merge any useful and verifiable information to any appropriate article. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help. I'll see to doing that tomorrow. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 08:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_October_3&oldid=1250204773"