Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 December 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< December 28 << Nov | December | Jan >> December 30 >
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.


December 29[edit]

00:37, 29 December 2023 review of submission by Alias Chosin[edit]

Hi I would like assistance with my submission that keeps getting denied. I'm unsure what I'm doing that does not allow it to qualify for publishing. Alias Chosin (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Alias Chosin: I would say that Sungodtemple's review comment remains highly pertinent; and I quote: "Are you talking about Eric Holder, or the murder of Nipsey Hussle? Either way, you have to prove that the submission is notable enough to be separate from Nipsey Hussle - for example, by showing evidence that the case has influenced laws".
You should also review WP:BLP1E. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:48, 29 December 2023 review of submission by Nirmal Madhavan[edit]

The draft Wikipedia page for Geoffrey Brooks has been declined due to a few key issues: 

  1) Insufficient Inline Citations: The draft lacks the minimum standard for inline citations as required by Wikipedia. You need to cite sources using footnotes. Wikipedia's guide on referencing for beginners could be helpful here.

   2) Non-Encyclopedic Tone: The submission's tone does not meet the formal and neutral style expected in encyclopedia entries. It should be revised to reflect a neutral point of view and avoid promotional language or "peacock terms."

   3) Connection to Subject: There is a suggestion that a major contributor to the article may have a close connection to the subject, which could affect neutrality. It's important to ensure the content complies with Wikipedia's policies on neutrality.

   4) General Improvement Tips: The rejection notice also includes links to resources for improving Wikipedia drafts, such as guides on editing, referencing, article development, and finding sources.

Hence need assistance to revise the draft please Nirmal Madhavan (talk) 09:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

what assistance? ltbdl (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:50, 29 December 2023 review of submission by 46.211.88.235[edit]

can you please be more specific about what is wrong with the draft as I don't see any decline-mentioned issues. 46.211.88.235 (talk) 09:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the content is unsupported by referencing, and at least some of the sources cited are not reliable.
The REFBOMBING makes it difficult to analyse the sources quickly, but it looks like many of them are primary, and thus unable to establish notability per WP:GNG / WP:NORG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't post the same query more than once. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
there's only one ref is primary source - the law. all other are mostly news, which are secondary. so, still don't see the described issue.
sorry for double - page just stuck and was reloaded. 46.211.88.235 (talk) 10:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are several .gov.ua sources, those are usually primary.
But let's turn this around: can you highlight the 3-5 strongest sources in terms of being secondary (and please do click on that link to check you properly understand what this means), independent and reliable, and providing significant coverage (ditto) of the subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 / 10 (that one last not sure as meets your reqs). that's only secondaey sorces avoiding gov.ua domain, despite there's also secondary ones exists (local/global administrations/governmental news). Will it help if I'll i.e. exchange some (most) secondary gov.ua sources to not gov.ua ones with the same content? 46.211.88.89 (talk) 10:52, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the same content exists at a primary and secondary source, then it depends on which is the original. If a primary source says something, which gets repeated by a secondary one, that still makes the source ultimately primary. Conversely, if a secondary source says something, which a primary source repeats, that makes it secondary. If you're aware of both, and know which is the original source, you should always cite that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
got it. I'll check refs for it. 46.211.234.71 (talk) 14:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of those nine sources, most don't provide significant coverage of the subject (and one doesn't even work, returning 404) and/or aren't reliable and independent. There might be one or two that are okay, but I wouldn't categorically be able to say that the decline decision was wrong. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:16, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
404? probably imispelled something. probably i don't really understand what does mean 'to provide significant coverage' by source. can you please lead exactly whrre to read about that? do you mean I have to find some truly secondary source that describe the article subject in detail for it to be enough to maake the article worth to be published? 46.211.234.71 (talk) 14:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
found WP:SIGCOV. please comment other questions. thanks. 46.211.234.71 (talk) 14:36, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
is that some kind of article subject significant coverage (for now missing at the article): 11? 46.211.234.71 (talk) 14:42, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:06, 29 December 2023 review of submission by Vairankodepooram20[edit]

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343012227_Katala_vesa_On_Revisiting_the_Hunter 

Vairankodepooram20 (talk) 10:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You don't ask a question, but you have submitted your draft for review and it is pending. 331dot (talk) 10:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:30, 29 December 2023 review of submission by Vairankodepooram20[edit]

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343012227_Katala_vesa_On_Revisiting_the_Hunter my reference added site wikipedia.org Vairankodepooram20 (talk) 10:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:33, 29 December 2023 review of submission by Vairankodepooram20[edit]

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343012227_Katala_vesa_On_Revisiting_the_Hunter https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-kerala/article22841025.ece 

Vairankodepooram20 (talk) 10:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vairankodepooram20: can you please stop posting these links everywhere, and that includes other editors' talk pages. Your editing is starting to get disruptive. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:37, 29 December 2023 review of submission by Awaz Foundation[edit]

I have no idea about article writing for my organization page on Wikipedia. i have seen multiple organization exist on Wikipedia with their introduction. i have made article with my organization introduction as well as i have provided the valid references. my page is deleted shortly. please help me to get live on Wikipedia. thank you so much Awaz Foundation (talk) 10:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OP blocked. 331dot (talk) 10:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:23, 29 December 2023 review of submission by Caroline Carlson[edit]

This article has multiple sources from News and Some press releases from the government of India and other government websites.

I am still wondering why this got rejected. Caroline Carlson (talk) 11:23, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Caroline Carlson what is your connection to this company? Let's go through the sources one by one:
  1. a primary source - does not confer notability.
  2. a company listing - does not confer notability.
  3. no mention of Hirehike.
  4. no mention of Hirehike.
  5. no mention of Hirehike.
  6. this source does not load for me.
  7. a trivial mention of Hirehike.
As such I am declining again. Qcne (talk) 11:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It reads like an advert. All the sources are press releases issued by India's leading PR agency, PTI. – DreamRimmer (talk) 11:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. We are wating our time here. Finding a way to close my wikipedia account. Caroline Carlson (talk) 11:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • wasting
Caroline Carlson (talk) 11:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia accounts cannot be deleted, simply log out and forget about it. Qcne (talk) 11:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Caroline Carlson (talk) 11:40, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will never ever write a dot in wikipedia in my life nor waste a second. Caroline Carlson (talk) 11:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thumbs up icon Qcne (talk) 11:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:08, 29 December 2023 review of submission by Vairankodepooram20[edit]

Help Vairankodepooram20 (talk) 12:08, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vairankodepooram20 read my rejection notice and come back if you have any specific questions. Qcne (talk) 12:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:14, 29 December 2023 review of submission by 103.178.48.106[edit]

Help me to create this page. 103.178.48.106 (talk) 12:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read my decline notice? Qcne (talk) 12:16, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:27, 29 December 2023 review of submission by Robert Neustadter[edit]

Thank you for your feedback and the "C" rating. However, I have a few questions:

a). When I do a Google search on Britannia Village, Ottawa, the article does not come up?

b). Can I now add a fair use photo to the article?

c). Where can I find comments from the reviewers?

Thank you

Robert Neustadter Robert Neustadter (talk) 16:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert Neustadter:
a) Newly published articles get indexed by Google when they've been reviewed by NPP, or when 90 days has passed since publication, whichever comes sooner. This article was autopatrolled upon acceptance, so should appear shortly, if it hasn't already.
b) Yes, AFAIK.
c) The AfC comments are removed automatically when the draft is accepted, but you can still find them in the edit history.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:31, 29 December 2023 review of submission by Bera678[edit]

I need to some help about references in my draft. I asked this before to Wikipedia:teahouse. please help me. Bera678 (talk) 16:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bera678: can you be more specific than just "some help"? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I want to get help about adding references to my draft because i am not good at to adding references. Bera678 (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:10, 29 December 2023 review of submission by 142.181.229.69[edit]

I am the official creator of the Wikipedia page "Ida of Upper Lorraine", which was drafted, and sent for review, and rejected. I am confused, because I spent many hours on it, trying to find sources, and I thought I had done the article I wanted. Why was it rejected?

It would be very nice if you, or another kind person, could tell me what is wrong with my official article. I have seen articles similar to mine. I do accept that there may be a missing area of article that I missed about her, and I do accept that it might not reach the standards, but I would like to try and publish this article.

Thank you for your time. 

142.181.229.69 (talk) 17:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi IP editor.
- the article was declined, not rejected. Declined means if you address the issues you can re-submit.
- the article is not your article, see WP:OWN.
- the reason for the declining is in the grey box: in summary you have not proven Ida is notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article (using our special definition of notability which can be found at WP:NPEOPLE). You have three sources, but they're all the same source. It seems like the source is reliable, but we'd need more than a single source to prove notability.
Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 17:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:13, 29 December 2023 review of submission by OnlyInOhioGuy[edit]

when I accepted OnlyInOhioGuy (talk) 22:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:31, 29 December 2023 review of submission by CattJohn[edit]

I wrote this article and it has been declined and I would like to know why CattJohn (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CattJohn There is no lead section. Please read WP:MOSLEAD. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CattJohn Were I to review this draft I would need a good reason not to suggest a merge of your draft with Frontex 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't merged with Frontex as it discusses further problems unrelated to Frontex as a company. I wanted to add it to the 'Mediterranean Sea' page but it's closed CattJohn (talk) 22:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, I have added now CattJohn (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2023_December_29&oldid=1193488785"