Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 September 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< September 9 << Aug | September | Oct >> September 11 >
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.


September 10

[edit]

00:12, 10 September 2024 review of submission by SacoraLinlake

[edit]

my page keeps getting declined and i don't know what I'm missing, It's. saying my references are wrong and I've fixed them a couple times now. SacoraLinlake (talk) 00:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SacoraLinlake,
Your draft doesn't appear to meet WP:NFILM and likely, no WP:SIGCOV will exist for it. Your sources appears to be unreliable and that's the reason for the decline. You should be familiar with WP policies and guidelines for notablility and how to consider sources as reliable. IMDb, Letterboxd, and all your sources including social media aren't close to WP:RS requirements. However, you may also need to declare your relationship, if any, per WP:COI. Cheers! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 01:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SacoraLinlake: To follow on from what SafariScribe says, this isn't a Wikipedia article; this looks like something you'd see on a film profiling website. We're an encyclopaedia and thus require more substantial content than just a poster and credits listing for our articles, sourced to in-depth third-party sources with editorial oversight that explicitly corroborate the article's claims. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 02:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, the article states that the film will be publicly released next year. When this happens--and professional reviews come in--we shall reconsider. (Not to mention the formatting in the current version of said articles is in a shambles--but then again, drafts aren't checked for sanity.) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 12:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:11, 10 September 2024 review of submission by Karinvanderlaag

[edit]

Good Day. I am trying to improve the Draft:Film Afrika. I wanted to suggest removing the filmography as part of my edit. Would this be allowed? Or will it be too large an edit? Thanks Karin Karinvanderlaag (talk) 06:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Karinvanderlaag: you're welcome to make (more or less) any edits you wish, to a draft. Personally, I think removing that long list of films would be an improvement. In any case, it should be cut to those films that are notable and where Film Afrika has played a significant role; Wikipedia articles are not intended as comprehensive catalogues of the subject's entire output. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks a lot for the advice! Karinvanderlaag (talk) 06:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:18, 10 September 2024 review of submission by TMarie111

[edit]

I have submitted the article but not approved. I'm a new editor. Please let me know I have to update/add which details in the article. So that it can be approved. TMarie111 (talk) 06:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TMarie111: this draft is completely unreferenced, which also means it provides no evidence that the subject is notable in Wikipedia terms. Moreover, the draft merely says that such a business exists, and what it does. We want to see what independent third parties (mainly secondary sources such as print or broadcast media) have said about the business and what makes it noteworthy. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: A message has been posted on your talk page at User_talk:TMarie111#Managing_a_conflict_of_interest regarding conflicts of interest. Please read and respond to it. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:40, 10 September 2024 review of submission by Satthepbienhoa

[edit]

Dear Wikipedia Team,

I am writing to discuss the approval and verification of my article on Seamless Steel Pipes. Throughout the process of compiling and editing this article, I have carefully collected and cross-referenced information from reliable and credible sources to ensure that the content meets Wikipedia's standards for accuracy and neutrality.

Seamless Steel Pipes are real products that have achieved significant success in the global market. With their superior qualities, such as high pressure resistance, durability, and adaptability to harsh conditions, Seamless Steel Pipes have garnered attention and usage in many important projects across various countries.

I believe that my article not only accurately reflects the true nature of this product but also provides valuable information to the Wikipedia community. The article has been supplemented with references, scientific sources, and real-world data to substantiate the authenticity of the information presented.

I kindly request your support in reviewing and verifying this article. My goal is to contribute a high-quality entry that enables readers worldwide to gain a comprehensive and accurate understanding of Seamless Steel Pipes. Having this article approved would not only help broaden public knowledge but also ensure that more people have access to reliable information about this crucial product.

I am committed to continuously updating and maintaining the article in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines and rules to ensure the content remains accurate and beneficial.

Thank you very much for your consideration and support. Satthepbienhoa (talk) 07:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Satthepbienhoa: I have restored the earlier decline to this draft; please don't remove these templates, they must remain there until the draft is accepted.
You say you're requesting support in reviewing the draft, but it has been reviewed and declined. This being the case, is there a question you would like to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Wikipedia Team,
Thank you for your response. I understand that my draft was previously declined due to insufficient verification of the information regarding Seamless Steel Pipes. I appreciate the feedback and have since made significant revisions to address the concerns raised.
I have now added comprehensive verification elements, including credible sources and reliable references, to support the accuracy and authenticity of the information presented in the article. These updates aim to meet Wikipedia’s standards and provide a more robust and well-supported entry.
Could you please provide any additional guidance or specific areas that might still need improvement? I am committed to ensuring the article aligns with Wikipedia's guidelines and would appreciate any further feedback that can help in making the necessary adjustments.
Thank you for your continued support and assistance. Satthepbienhoa (talk) 08:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Satthepbienhoa: we don't do pre-reviews here at the help desk. If you feel you have sufficiently addressed the reason(s) for the earlier decline, you can resubmit the draft for another review. That said, there is still quite a lot of unreferenced information, so this may be declined again for the same reason. Please note that Wikipedia articles should not be composed based on what you know, but rather by summarising what independent and reliable sources have previously published.
More worryingly, it seems that your user name is that of a business acting as supplier of this type of product, and you are referencing your own website through external links. Your user name is therefore a violation of our terms & conditions, and including external links like this can be considered spamming. You should remove any such links. You also need to change your user name. Lastly, I will post information on your website about disclosing your conflict of interest. Please attend to these issues as a matter of urgency, lest you are blocked from editing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:40, 10 September 2024 review of submission by NetcloudConsulting

[edit]

Why declined my article post? NetcloudConsulting (talk) 11:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NetcloudConsulting Promotion is prohibited on Wikipedia. Your draft will shortly be deleted and your account will shortly be banned. Qcne (talk) 11:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:21, 10 September 2024 review of submission by Bijaygyawalinepal

[edit]

How can i make my article notable there are very few articles written on his name 

Bijaygyawalinepal (talk) 13:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bijaygyawalinepal: this draft has been rejected, as there is no evidence that the subject is notable. And you cannot make a non-notable subject notable with any amount of editing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
so how do i provide evidence on that he is a famous actor of nepal what sources i need to add ? can you give me some examples. Bijaygyawalinepal (talk) 13:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bijaygyawalinepal: as I said, this has been rejected, which means the end of the road.
But for future reference, you need to cite sources that either satisfy the general WP:GNG notability guideline, or prove that the subject meets one of the special ones such as WP:NACTOR or WP:FILMMAKER or whatever is most relevant. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:42, 10 September 2024 review of submission by Vanityorpride

[edit]

What can I add to make the draft approved Vanityorpride (talk) 13:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing, it has been rejected. 331dot (talk) 13:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:11, 10 September 2024 review of submission by SheepyTheSheep

[edit]

How do i know if my article is awaiting approval? I'm not 100% sure I managed to publish a page I wrote correctly, how do I know that it's awaiting approval? SheepyTheSheep (talk) 14:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to the draft I fixed your header to link to as intended, you moved it into the encyclopedia yourself. If you didn't intend to do that, it can be moved back. I would suggest that you consent to that, as it is not yet ready. 331dot (talk) 14:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or are you referring to it being patrolled by a New Page Patroller? 331dot (talk) 14:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:28, 10 September 2024 review of submission by BDOklahoma24

[edit]

Hi, I understand there is a waiting period for drafts to be reviewed. Since making a revised version of this draft back in May, I have been waiting for it be reviewed. I have made all suggested edits, and I would like to know if there is anything more I can do/revise for the editors to get this published. I really appreciate your help in advance. BDOklahoma24 (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BDOklahoma24 There is nothing you can do to speed up the review process, which is conducted by volunteers, reviewing drafts in no particular order. Please be patient. 331dot (talk) 15:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Thank you for your reply. BDOklahoma24 (talk) 15:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:39, 10 September 2024 review of submission by 94.20.97.6

[edit]

Can you say what is exactly problem about my article or which parts ? 94.20.97.6 (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the messages left by the reviewers on the draft, these make it very clear. 331dot (talk) 15:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:11, 10 September 2024 review of submission by Sara246santos

[edit]

I am trying to get this page accepted. I have integrated the feedback I've received over several iterations of the document. There are citations/references from primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Please give me detailed feedback on what other changes must be made to re-submit the page. Sara246santos (talk) 16:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is precisely what "review" is for. We do not generally do "pre-reviews" on this page. ColinFine (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:29, 10 September 2024 review of submission by Rex Villaflor

[edit]

Please enlighten me about the issue at hand. I am comparing the entry to other entries like in this following link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbey_Crunch Is it really not worthy for this Muddy Bites product to be included in Wikipedia? Rex Villaflor (talk) 16:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rex Villaflor no Declined for the same reasons I have sent Abbey Crunch for a deletion discussion. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's good to know. Here are other entities of the same category:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adyar_Ananda_Bhavan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elma_Chips
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bamba_(snack)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takis_(snack)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bambeanos
May I know what's the difference of having these entries listed where in fact they are both types of snacks like Muddy Bites. Rex Villaflor (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rex Villaflor: You cannot use the existence, absence, or condition of other tangentially-related articles to argue for your own. Bambinos, Bamba, and Adyar all predate AfC (2005, 2004, and 2009, respectively) and neither of the others were ever drafted, being created directly in mainspace by autoconfirmed users. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:17, 10 September 2024 review of submission by HelloMynameiseat

[edit]

I am trying to make my company famous what the fuck do you want HelloMynameiseat (talk) 17:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have no interest in making your company famous. Wikipedia does not lead, it follows- your company must already meet the definition of a notable company as shown by coverage in independent reliable sources to merit an article here. Wikipedia is the last place to write about something, not the first. If you want to promote your company, hire an advertising agency. 331dot (talk) 17:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:40, 10 September 2024 review of submission by 5.177.139.18

[edit]

Draft:D4-D 

5.177.139.18 (talk) 18:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a question.
And when you've been blocked, you're not allowed to edit, even from an IP address. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:03, 10 September 2024 review of submission by BretDvr

[edit]

I have added several external sources discussing PolyAI and its offerings, and it is still being rejected. Is there a particular type of article or publication you're looking for that could help this page get published? Would you prefer more general articles about the company or more articles about specific products?

Thanks for your help,

Bret BretDvr (talk) 19:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The awards are meaningless in terms of notability, as they lack articles themselves(like Academy Award or Nobel Peace Prize).
We are looking for sources that describe what they see that makes the company notable, see WP:ORG. 331dot (talk) 19:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:45, 10 September 2024 review of submission by Jcrcboston

[edit]

Can you help me edit my draft? I am writing on behalf of JCRC Boston as we do not have a Wikipedia page, so I would appreciate if a Wikipedia editor could add and edit things in a more neutral fashion. Jcrcboston (talk) 20:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jcrcboston We do not accept co-editing requests here. We offer help. If you feel that your organisation merits a page I suggest youi wait for someone to wrote it. If you insist in writing it yourself please declare your paid editing and comply with all aspects of WP:PAID 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User blocked. 331dot (talk) 21:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:52, 10 September 2024 review of submission by Abhiramakella

[edit]

I did include reliable sources. Abhiramakella (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You resubmitted it; usually one asks for help first. The reviewer will leave you feedback.
The draft was clearly written by a Patriots or at least Brady fan. We shouldn't be able to tell this from reading it, it should have a neutral point of view. Language like "highly anticipated" in the first line should be removed.
The only sources just document the occurrence of this event. You need sources that discuss what makes this a notable event; I suspect most of the notable stuff could go in Brady's article. I'm not sure being inducted into a team HOF is notable.(teams can honor anyone they see fit for any reason). Maybe when Canton decides to induct him. 331dot (talk) 21:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notable attendees should only list people, not general categories. 331dot (talk) 21:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:16, 10 September 2024 review of submission by Professorincryptography

[edit]

Hello,

I hope this message finds you well. I have a few questions regarding the use of images and sources in my article, and I would greatly appreciate your guidance to ensure I follow Wikipedia's standards correctly:

1. I created a simple diagram This diagram provides a factual summary of key concepts from ISO/IEC 27032, NIST, CNSSI, NSPD-54, and 18 USC 1030 regarding the distinctions between cyber, internet, digital, and related systems., which provides a factual summary of key concepts from ISO/IEC 27032, NIST, CNSSI, NSPD-54, and 18 USC 1030. The diagram clarifies distinctions between "cyber," "internet," "digital," and related systems. This is not original research, but rather a summary from reliable sources. Can I use this image to address a reviewer's comment that the difference between "cyber" and "digital" is unclear? The sources I used either directly reference "cyber privacy" or have been cited by secondary sources that define the term "cyber privacy."

I’m uncertain about including the image because I uploaded it to Wikipedia Commons as "my own work." My role was solely in creating a visual representation of concepts that are fully supported by the sources, which I don’t consider original research. However, I am concerned that reviewers might interpret it as such, given that they’ve previously raised concerns about other aspects of the article that I believed were adequately sourced. That’s why I’m being cautious and seeking clarification on whether using this image is appropriate.

2. In response to recurring reviewer feedback questioning the credibility of the "neologism" (e.g., "cyber privacy"), I would like to include an image from an open-access research paper, cited as follows:

Eltahawy, Bahaa (2022). "Understanding Cyberprivacy: Context, Concept, and Issues". Wirtschaftsinformatik 2022 Proceedings.

The paper explores concepts relevant to the reviewer's concerns, specifically addressing whether "cyber privacy" is a distinct concept, by reviewing over 200 articles that use the term. It also provides visual illustrations, which I believe could enhance the article. After reviewing Wikipedia Commons' guidelines on images, I encountered some conflicting information. On the one hand, it appears I can use images with full credit if they are free to share, but on the other hand, it suggests I should avoid uploading screenshots of others' work. Since this paper is publicly accessible in PDF format, I was wondering whether uploading a screenshot from it can be considered a "visual citation" as opposed to a "text citation," given that I will fully credit the author. Would it be necessary for me to contact the author for explicit permission, or is the use of such an image permissible within Wikipedia’s guidelines?

3. A reviewer has commented that sections like "Entities and Contributors to Cyber Privacy," "Critics of Cyber Privacy Advocacy," "Key Components of Cyber Privacy," and "Challenges and Future Directions" require additional sources. However, in these paragraphs I have provided approximately 30 diverse and (I believed) reliable sources, including official documents, standards, press releases, reports from businesses, and research articles. In some cases, I confirmed facts from multiple sources to ensure accuracy. My intent was to follow Wikipedia's standards and present verifiable information, while leaving some sections partially filled as "placeholders" for future contributions from the community. Could you help identify which specific sources or sections might be undermining the credibility of the information? I’ve carefully vetted my sources, but since they have been flagged by the reviewers as not sufficiently credible, I would greatly appreciate concrete examples of what may be lacking or not compliant with Wikipedia’s standards. Despite reviewing the guidelines multiple times and my long experience with Wikipedia as a reader, I'm struggling to pinpoint the exact issues.

4. Lastly, I apologize for any unintended "essay tone" or "research tone" in my writing. As English is not my first language, I am actively working to align my contributions with Wikipedia's tone and style. I would be grateful for any guidance on improving this aspect. If I may add a brief comment, I sometimes find the quantity of rules and their interpretation by reviewers overwhelming. While I don’t always agree with the reviewers' perspectives, I want to emphasize that I am doing my best to follow the guidelines in good faith and with full respect for Wikipedia's standards.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration. I look forward to learning from your feedback. Professorincryptography (talk) 22:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't dug into the rest, but I would consider the image to absolutely be WP:OR. The fact is that your image is your interpretation of the underlying facts as a visualization. Whether it's a valid interpretation of the information or not is irrelevant here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your response and respect your opinion. However, I would like to clarify a few points. The idea of a 'visual representation' was not originally mine. A similar image exists in one of the documents I cite, although I neither copied it nor used all the information from that source. Additionally, there are other 'visual representations' of these concepts (for example [1]) by different authors, some of which I believe are incorrect. While these representations may meet Wikipedia’s verifiability standards, they do not seem reliable, which is why I avoided using them.
That said, I understand your point about WP:OR. Although the image is a summary of the sources I cited, I acknowledge that creating my own visual representation could fall outside of Wikipedia's best practices: "The best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words" . I see now that recommends summarizing reliable sources in one's own words, and while it doesn't explicitly prohibit images, I accept that textual summaries are preferred.
However, I believe there is some nuance to this. Much of Wikipedia’s content involves the summarization of information, which naturally may include some degree of 'interpretation.' I would politely ask for further consideration of whether my image is indeed 'my interpretation' or a 'summarization' of the sources, after verifying the references I’ve cited. Again, I didn't see that "summarisation" in a for of image is prohibited.
In other words—and I apologize for not phrasing this more directly—I wasn’t seeking a general answer about images on Wikipedia, but rather whether this specific image, in the opinion of the community, reflects an interpretation of the cited sources or a valid summarization. To my mind, this involves engaging with the sources themselves. If the community does not have the time to look into this in detail, I completely understand and accept that without criticism.
Additionally, I wanted to ask if, since my question was partially addressed by an administrator, I should expect the remaining points to be reviewed as well. Or would it be better to ask them again in a new post, making them more concise and clear? Professorincryptography (talk) 01:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an administrator. I'm just a regular ol' editor, but remember, the only difference between an editor and an administrator is that administrator's have access to specific tools because they have been entrusted with those tools by the community. I don't think the graphic was a bad one and it would be useful in, say, something you wrote on a blogging or publishing platform. But generally speaking, my line is when something requires the reliability of the source to be transferred to the reliability of the editor.
I know it's not satisfying, but when reliable sources aren't as good as we hope, then at the end of the day, the articles simply aren't as good as we hope, because verifiability is more important than truth. Wikipedia's goals are different in this manner than, say, the motivation of academia. This can sometimes lead to some odd edge cases, especially when you're editing an article in an area in which you have expertise.
I'm sure someone will respond to the rest; the topic is a bit out of my wheelhouse. This is a volunteer project, so it can take some time for people to get through something that's very information dense. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:26, 10 September 2024 review of submission by Operaobscura

[edit]

Hi, I am an opera fan and realized in my search for Carl Friedrich Oberle that the page doesn't exist. He is possibly the most globally active opera designer and has put on shows at many of the most famous opera houses in the world and has a large fan base amongst people in the arts. He has worked with some of the most well known directors of their time and has influenced the way stage design is studied today at University. His works are described in scientific publications. While I completely agree that autobiographies need to be discouraged on wikipedia, a person of his statue is of true public interest to the field. I am very confused why someone would reject this page. They person who reviewed it must not understand that for a designer to do more than 2 productions a year is rather rare, having more than 200 productions is a feat similar to that of world renowned athletes breaking records. Operaobscura (talk) 22:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your link, you need the "Draft:" portion. 331dot (talk) 23:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly much improved without that long list. Having more than 200 productions does sound impressive to this layman, but we don't need to list each individual one. It's enough to say Hank Aaron hit 755 home runs; Wikipedia doesn't have to list all 755 of them. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WIkipedia articles go on what the reliable independent sources say, not on what you (or I, or any random person on the Internet) think. If a reliable independent source talks about his having done 200 productions, then the article can. If not, then it shouldn't. ColinFine (talk) 13:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:59, 10 September 2024 review of submission by MIG editor

[edit]

I am hoping to gain more specific information about why my article submission has been declined, and whether there is any chance tht it might be acceptted with revisions. MIG editor (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MIG editor: A lot of your draft is unreferenced, with several claims that completely lack any sort of supporting citations. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 01:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:22, 10 September 2024 review of submission by 199.242.176.66

[edit]

Can you explain how the content can be improved? 199.242.176.66 (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not likely that it can be, which is why it was rejected and will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 23:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_September_10&oldid=1246186085"