Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 September 28
Help desk | ||
---|---|---|
< September 27 | << Aug | September | Oct >> | September 29 > |
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 28
[edit]07:17, 28 September 2024 review of submission by Luterceiro
[edit]- Luterceiro (talk · contribs)
Hi folks, I would love some advice on this matter. I haven't used generative AI, but I used a lot of Grammarly here. Is it possible to continue editing the article and improving it? I'm new to Wikipedia and planning to improve the article; however, now I don't know if the best is to try and edit it (I'll try this way, but not sure if it is the best alternative). Thanks a lot for any guidance!
Kind regards, Luciana Luterceiro (talk) 07:17, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Luterceiro: this draft has been rejected, and will therefore not be considered further.
- ...at least not in its present state. If you were to rewrite it in your own words, there might be some prospect of turning it into an acceptable article. The reasons for this (need to rewrite) are two-fold, IMO:
- There are potential copyright issues associated with generative tools, because they tend to take content from unknown sources, and either straight-up copypaste snippets, or at least closely paraphrase them. We have tools available to detect this, but they're not quite 'water tight'.
- This draft has a vaguely promotional feel to it, which is inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. We want to see 'boringly factual' description, without unnecessary hyperbole and embellishment.
- HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, @DoubleGrazing, thanks for the feedback! I rewrote big parts and added the references, but I didn't work on the promotional feel aspect. I'll review it again. Thanks a lot for the guidance! Luterceiro (talk) 08:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hey @Luterceiro. Thanks for the good-faith edits. I will revert my rejection, and I think this could be a viable article once the vaguely promotional tone has been removed. Qcne (talk) 11:38, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! I tried to remove it, but I'm still trying to find the right tone, so let me know if I need to make more changes. Thanks for all the guidance! Luterceiro (talk) 13:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- I think the key is to find a reliable source and then paraphrase/summarise that in your own words, sticking to a tone that is strictly neutral. Try and pretend you're writing an autopsy of the subject. Some good words to avoid are at WP:PEACOCK. Qcne (talk) 14:27, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! I tried to remove it, but I'm still trying to find the right tone, so let me know if I need to make more changes. Thanks for all the guidance! Luterceiro (talk) 13:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hey @Luterceiro. Thanks for the good-faith edits. I will revert my rejection, and I think this could be a viable article once the vaguely promotional tone has been removed. Qcne (talk) 11:38, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, @DoubleGrazing, thanks for the feedback! I rewrote big parts and added the references, but I didn't work on the promotional feel aspect. I'll review it again. Thanks a lot for the guidance! Luterceiro (talk) 08:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Luterceiro: The crucial thing to remember if you use any automated tools such as Grammarly is that you must check every single change the tool recommends and make an informed decision about whether it is a good, bad, or zero-sum change. Most of the changes suggested by Grammarly will not be improvements, and a lot of them will introduce errors into a text that was perfectly fine. --bonadea contributions talk 13:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
08:01, 28 September 2024 review of submission by Editorrking
[edit]- Editorrking (talk · contribs)
Reason for rejection Editorrking (talk) 08:01, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Editorrking: this draft wasn't rejected (which is terminal), only declined, although it probably should have been (rejected). The decline reasons are given in the decline notice, namely: insufficient referencing, and lack of evidence of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- Editorrking, your one sentence draft tells the reader that this person is a social worker and a student. Do you really think that every social worker and every student on planet Earth should be the subject of an encyclopedia article? Cullen328 (talk) 08:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
15:43, 28 September 2024 review of submission by 103.48.160.35
[edit]It cannot be a reason for rejection. Reason Judge about the article Check the references to see if the article is correct. 103.48.160.35 (talk) 15:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- Please read WP:BMB. Wikishovel (talk) 15:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
16:00, 28 September 2024 review of submission by T Lowndes
[edit]Do citations have to link to a wikipedia entry, or can they be an external reference?
Thanks T Lowndes (talk) 16:00, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- @T Lowndes: links to other Wikipedia articles are not citations, they are internal links, or 'wikilinks'. For referencing purposes, you need to cite external sources, specifically the ones that have provided the information in a given statement. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- Articles can't cite other articles; rather, use the sources from the associated articles as you go along. See also WP:CIRCULAR. However, citations sometimes do have links to published authors/editors with WP profiles (via
|author-last=
,|author-first=
,|author-link=
&c.) whenever the {{cite}} series is used. - For further assistance, please see Help:Referencing for beginners or ask around at WP:Teahouse. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 08:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
19:59, 28 September 2024 review of submission by 76.220.74.234
[edit]this person is a prominent figure in sports media and has been on ESPN and many major podcasts 76.220.74.234 (talk) 19:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- There isn't much specific coverage about Kenny King Jr. as an athlete in mainstream sports media, but his journey and voice in sports are visible through his work as a podcaster and sports commentator. Kenny King Jr. is known for his podcast, Real Talk with Kenny King Jr., where he discusses football, especially with a focus on the Las Vegas Raiders, as well as pop culture and interviews with fellow athletes(
- Vegas Sports Today
- )(
- Home | Blue Wire Podcasts
- ).
- King's athletic background includes playing as a defensive lineman in high school and junior college football, where he earned All-League honors. He later played at Temple University after a brief stint at Benedictine College. Although he eventually moved away from playing, he continues to be active in the sports community through his podcast and social media channels(
- Vegas Sports Today
- ).
- For more information, you can check out his podcast at Blue Wire Podcasts. 76.220.74.234 (talk) 20:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- The draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. None of the sources you provided establish notability. 331dot (talk) 20:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- Not to mention his entire argument is basically acting as the guy's publicist, which raises the question of his connexion to King. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- The draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. None of the sources you provided establish notability. 331dot (talk) 20:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC)