Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 September 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< September 16 << Aug | September | Oct >> September 18 >
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 17

[edit]

01:56, 17 September 2024 review of submission by San1976Marino

[edit]

My draft: Norman Mathews article continues to be rejected because, "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." I don't understand this because the sources I used include the NY Times, the Chicago Tribune, the Chicago Reader, Playbill, and various other major sources. Why are these insufficient? Also, there is the claim that some of the sources are unreliable. Could someone please point specifically to one or two unreliable sources I've quoted in the draft so that I may understand the problem better and eliminate them? I've read the articles on citing sources but can learn nothing as to why the sources I have used are inadequate. Please Help. Thanks. San1976Marino (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@San1976Marino: nobody is saying that all your sources are unreliable, only that some are. User-generated content in particular is not considered reliable, because it isn't subject to editorial oversight; to put it bluntly, anyone can publish any old rubbish they want. In the case of this draft, that means Bookbaby, YouTube and SoundCloud.
The bigger problem is that too much of the content is unsupported by any sources. From what source did you get the DOB? Where does the info in the 'Early life and education' section come from, or in 'Musician'? Articles on living people (WP:BLP) have particularly strict referencing requirements, and pretty much every statement needs to be clearly backed up by a reliable source. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article development

[edit]

am a kenyan artist kindly how can i develop an article for me? Prince Ackley (talk) 08:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Put bluntly: you don't.
Writing a Wikipedia article about yourself is very strongly discouraged, because it is almost impossible for most people to write about themselves in a sufficiently neutral way.
Note that, if there is ever an article about you, whoever writes it:
  • it will not belong to you
  • it will not necessarily say what you want it to say
  • it should be based almost entirely on what people unconnected with you have published about you, not on what you or your associates say or want to say.
  • it will be able to be edited by almost anybody in the world except you and your associates. (You would be able to request edits, but an uninvolved editor would decide how to respond to your request).
In short, Wikipedia may not be used for promotion (ie "telling the world about yourself").
I suggest you put your time and effort to other things. ColinFine (talk) 09:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that Wikipedia has no interest in aiding your fans, or in enhancing search results for you, or your Google knowledge panel(for which the presence of a Wikipedia article is only one possible input). 331dot (talk) 09:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So its impossible... Prince Ackley (talk) 10:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not impossible if you meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability (most artists don't), but very difficult, and you may not be happy with the result. ColinFine (talk) 10:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:37, 17 September 2024 review of submission by Fsekoech

[edit]

Hi, I have made changes to the article over 6 times. The reviewers point out one issue at a time, kindly address all the issues at once, or tell me exactly where the issue is so that I can fix it. As the article stands, it is perfect for me. Make the changes or be specific with the error. Kind regards. Fsekoech (talk) 10:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that you are having an experience that is very common for editors who attempt the extremely difficult task of creating an article before they have spent significant time learning how Wikipedia works.
If you took up a new sport, and immediately entered a tournament, you would not expect to do well in it; but (assuming experts bothered to give you feedback on your performance) you would probably not understand what they were saying, because you had not spent time learning how the sport worked.
This is much the same. 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) 10:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fsekoech: due to technical limitations, a draft can only be declined for at most two reasons. If it has several declinable issues, then it is possible for each reviewer to decline it for different reasons. Reviewers don't have to decline for any particular reason, such as for some sort of 'major' or 'primary' reason, or for the same reason as in the previous decline; they can decline for any reason that is valid. Also, declining for a different reason than in the previous decline does not necessarily mean that that reason no longer applies.
Case in point, earlier I declined this for lack of evidence of notability and insufficient referencing, and I can tell you that both of those problems still persist, even though other reviewers have subsequently declined this for different reasons.
On a different matter, can you confirm that you have read and understood WP:AUTOBIO, which explains why you shouldn't be writing about yourself at all? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not writing about myself, however, I was working on a friend's article in order to acquire the technical-know-how as I would like to write about computer science. I have made necessary changes to the references, you can check it out, kindly Fsekoech (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You took an image of him and he posed for you, what is your connection to him? 331dot (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:48, 17 September 2024 review of submission by Top famous 2019

[edit]

"Ahsan Ali is held to be one of a vanguard of proficient visual designers who have adopted and promoted the use of standards-based, cross-browser solutions to web design problems."

(i) "Held to be" by whom? (ii) There are millions of proficient web designers. If anyone is in the 'vanguard' it is those with the foresight to design the next level of standards... certainly not the millions who simply follow them, as happens in most industries. Top famous 2019 (talk) 11:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Top famous 2019: not sure what's happening... you seem to be posing a question, and then answering it yourself. Did you have a question for us? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:17, 17 September 2024 review of submission by Top famous 2019

[edit]

Sorry Now Edits Top famous 2019 (talk) 13:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:29, 17 September 2024 review of submission by ZubaMusic

[edit]

I don't see why its wrong, and bad, when I removed the things that had to be removed. ZubaMusic (talk) 13:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but this whole draft was a mess. No plausible claim to notability was made, there's not a single citation to a single fact asserted, and it appears this is an autobiography or at least a significant WP:COI. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:54, 17 September 2024 review of submission by Drzarqa3

[edit]

Hi, I recently received this notification from wikipedia, The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

Can you please help me use footnotes for wikipedia page.

Thank you, Drzarqa3 (talk) 13:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Drzarqa3 Please read WP:REFB and WP:CITE. These will help you to place your footnotes correctly 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:32, 17 September 2024 review of submission by JLzero02

[edit]

The Moriyama Teshima Architects article I had drafted for creation has been in review since March 6th (+/- 6 months). I suspect the delay has to do with the submission having been declined, though all of the comments made by editors were applied promptly. Is there any way I can improve my odds of having it reviewed and approved within a reasonable timeframe? Thank you! JLzero02 (talk) 14:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing you can do to speed the review process; drafts are reviewed in no particular order by volunteers. 331dot (talk) 14:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JLzero02: just for the record, we count waiting times from the most recent submission, which in this case was c. 3 ½ months ago. Still quite a long time, but not as bad as 6 months.
A draft with 50+ citations will tend to put off reviewers. Personally, I would take out the entire 'Major Projects' section and the corresponding sources, or at least cut it down dramatically to the most notable ones only.
Either in addition to or instead of that, you could highlight the 3-5 sources that you feel are strongest in terms of establishing notability according to the WP:NCORP guideline. This would mean that the reviewer wouldn't have to sift through all 52 to find the few that really matter.
While this wouldn't necessarily expedite the review per se, it might at least encourage a reviewer who comes across this draft to review it rather than to groan and move swiftly on... -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for the suggestion, will do just this! JLzero02 (talk) 20:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:04, 17 September 2024 review of submission by Əhməd Qurbanov

[edit]

Greetings, I've already corrected some mistakes in the article. I added independent sources and removed social media references. Please, review the article and give the feedbacks. It would be very helpful. Əhməd Qurbanov (talk) 15:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Əhməd Qurbanov: if you feel you have addressed the issues highlighted in the previous review, you may resubmit the draft and that way you will get more feedback in due course. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Əhməd Qurbanov Please both submit this for review and continue to make improvements. There is a waiting period of anything up to three months for a review right now. Submission does not stop you from working on it 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear, DoubleGrazing and Timtrent, I want to be sure that everything is OK before submission. I don't want to get another decline to article. Əhməd Qurbanov (talk) 15:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Əhməd Qurbanov Reviews on request are not something we entertain, I'm afraid. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, what do we need to improve the article? Əhməd Qurbanov (talk) 15:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who is "we"? Are you associated with this event?
The decline message states what is being looked for. Do you have specific questions about it? 331dot (talk) 15:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, because of misunderstanding for translation, I mentioned "we". I am not associated with the event. Yes, I need feedbacks about decline message. Əhməd Qurbanov (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would kindly say that if English is not your first language, you may want to edit the Wikipedia of your primary language.
You have just told what the event is, and what happens there, you have not summarized what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the event, showing how it is a notable event as Wikipedia defines it. 331dot (talk) 17:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that 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. ColinFine (talk) 18:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear, 331dot and ColinFine, I inserted a lot of independent media sources which is talking about the summit. Please, consider that. Əhməd Qurbanov (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources published in advance of an event are almost always regurgitations of press releases, and so are not independent. It is unusual for a journalist to have anything much substantial and independent to say about an event before it has happened. ColinFine (talk) 10:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:24, 17 September 2024 review of submission by Matt.ruhstaller

[edit]

Can you please give me a few tips to understand what requirements I am not meeting? Do I need better citations? Many thanks! M (talk) 15:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You declared a conflict of interest, what is the general nature of it?
The draft just documents his qualifications and work. It should mostly summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about him and what makes him a notable creative professional. Most of the claim looks to be like he is associated with notable people, but notability is not inherited by association. You talk a little about a photo of Madonna kissing Britney Spears, but don't discuss it beyond it being widely printed, which is the case for images of any top tier celebrity. Do any sources discuss the photo itself and its artistry/style that presumably the photographer played a role in? Stuff like that. 331dot (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re conflict of interest: I know this person socially.
Thank you so much for the clear explanation, I'll work on those concerns and re-submit. Super helpful, thanks! M (talk) 15:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Matt.ruhstaller: this draft was declined for lack of evidence of notability. There are two ways to demonstrate that, either via the general WP:GNG or the special WP:PHOTOGRAPHER notability guidelines. Study those, and see if you can find evidence that the subject meets either. (Hint: the GNG one needs coverage in multiple secondary sources; the PHOTOGRAPHER one requires a significant career with major achievements in their field.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:29, 17 September 2024 review of submission by Ganbatte Michelle

[edit]

On which part of content i have to fix issues, please confirm Ganbatte Michelle (talk) 18:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ganbatte Michelle: primary sources, which is all your draft cites, do not establish notability per WP:GNG.
What is your relationship with this subject? This has been queried on your talk page, but I don't believe you've responded. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I made a replied to DoubleGrazing, what kind of citation needed to establish notability, does it includes news and articles independently covering the events of this organization?? Ganbatte Michelle (talk) 09:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It requires sources that meet all three of the criteria in WP:42. Note that the StarPhoenix piece does not do so, since it is obvious that it says very little about the convention that does not come striaght from the organisers.
Unless you can find several places where people wholly unconnected with the convention, and not primed with an interview or press release, have chosen to write at some length about the convention, you will not be able to establish notability. ColinFine (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:25, 17 September 2024 review of submission by Marchjuly

[edit]

Would an AfC reviewer mind taking a look at Thomas Hui To? It appears to have been submitted for review by the article's creator, who then moved it directly to the mainspace themselves a few weeks later. There's also some mention of the creator being "connected" to the subject in a post made at Talk:Thomas Hui To: so, their moving the draft to the mainspace themselves could be an issue per WP:COIEDIT. The article has already been drafitified once by another user; so, perhaps that option is no longer available any longer. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved
 – 331dot took a look at the article and tagged it with some maintenance templates. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:04, 17 September 2024 review of submission by Shakerpm

[edit]

My page was declined and would like some help in making it approvable. "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations." These are the comments that were left. How can I find "reliable" resources and what does the second comment refer to? Is there a minimum number of citations/footnotes that are required? Patty Mitchell (talk) 22:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline page Wikipedia:Reliable sources gives helpful guidance on identifying reliable sources. Think: expert-written articles, major news organizations, academic journals, etc. There is not a minimum number of required citations, but it is good practice to add inline citations (referring to these: [1][2][3]), for all the facts included in your draft. Ca talk to me! 04:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:19, 17 September 2024 review of submission by 2A02:C7C:EE1E:9E00:F882:29D5:1B6D:EB1D

[edit]

Hello! Would like a bit more help with improving this entry after it was declined, if possible? 2A02:C7C:EE1E:9E00:F882:29D5:1B6D:EB1D (talk) 22:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:53, 17 September 2024 review of submission by Elfelix

[edit]

AfC second request: Draft:Sudarshan Kapur.

Sudarshan Kapur is NOT the same person as Sudarshan Kapoor (see Talk:Sudarshan Kapoor and Draft talk:Sudarshan Kapur). Note: the book Raising Up a Prophet (1992) was written by Sudarshan Kapur.

The first AfC request was recently refused based on a patent misunderstanding of the above information.

The above Draft article about Sudarshan Kapur should be entered into Wikipedia proper. It was recently written (since November 2023, and by elfelix starting April 2024); it includes information once mistakenly contained in another Wikipedia article ("Sudarshan Kapoor"). Apparently the reason why the above Draft article was not 'in due course' published on Wikipedia is due to its conflation with that prior article of a similar name: "Sudarshan Kapoor".

The article Sudarshan Kapoor, by mistake, used to contained information about Sudarshan Kapur. This mistaken information in the Kapoor article was deleted on June 6, 2024.

The basic difference between these two articles is already stated above.

The reasons for the mistaken conflation of Kapur and Kapoor: 1) both are American professors of similar age, originally from India, with a career focus on Gandhi and nonviolent political action; 2) it seems that a person of India with such a name might transliterate it to either Kapur or to Kapoor.

The user elfelix is the party first responsible for this Wikipedia mistake.

The AfC first request by elfelix was likely made in June 2024. Elfelix (talk) 22:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:11, 17 September 2024 review of submission by TheBestWikiPublisher

[edit]

There's no submission button for me to resubmit my edited work. I have reliable sources- if WSJ, Barron's and The Globe and Mail aren't reliable sources then I'm not sure what else to say. TheBestWikiPublisher (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no resubmit button because the draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. It's the end of the line for the draft. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about a company amd what it does. An article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. 331dot (talk) 23:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:13, 17 September 2024 review of submission by Aimee St.Clair

[edit]

The article I submitted was declined for tone, perceived lack of neutrality, and possibly "peacock phrases". I'm going to try again but could use some specific feedback if someone is able to point out the specific parts of the article that are in need of editing. Aimee St.Clair (talk) 23:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your link, you need the "Draft:" portion. 331dot (talk) 23:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Aimee St.Clair. I do agree that the draft contains tone issues. To give examples, Utilizing queer aesthetic strategies and often employing humor to challenge social codes and conditions, Woodham's work activates specific contexts, bringing focus to the moment, along with shifts in awareness and perspective. sounds quite obtuse to me, and is an opinion not attributed to any specific critic.
a festival that brings a thematically organized concentration of art experiences to public spaces and aspired to a renewal of the site through historical reclamation and expressions of community rights to public space can be shortened with less flowery prose.
...the festival's long history "long history" sound promotional. Ca talk to me! 04:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is helpful feedback. I will follow your advice and look for similar issues. Thank you very much !! Aimee St.Clair (talk) 22:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_September_17&oldid=1247314999"