Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 May 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< May 13 << Apr | May | Jun >> May 15 >
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.


May 14[edit]

01:35, 14 May 2024 review of submission by TeamChicas[edit]

I need help trying to get our draft submitted and not declined. TeamChicas (talk) 01:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TeamChicas. Team accounts are not permitted on Wikipedia. Please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Changing username. Vast swathes of your draft are unreferenced, which violates the core content policy of Verifiability. Your draft reads much more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 01:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TeamChicas: If the username is shared, everyone using it needs to get a new account that unambiguously represents, and is used by, a single person. If it is not shared, the username needs to be changed to one that unambiguously represents a single person. (see WP:U).
As to the draft itself, we do not accept essays; if you are doing this as part of a class project, please contact your instructor and tell them to get in touch with WikiEd. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 02:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what indepedent reliable sources have published on a subject, nothing more. It should contain absolutely no argumentation or conclusion, except for summarising the argumentation or conclusions from a single source. (Even comparing arguments or conclusions from different sources is regarded as synthesis and forbidden). An article may say that different sources come to different conclusions, but it may not make any attempt to choose between them or reconcile them. ColinFine (talk) 02:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:57, 14 May 2024 review of submission by Yesiwant2no[edit]

Hi,

I created a wikipage for a friend and former coworker. It was originally rejected in January citing insufficient sources. I have since added several additional sources to show the work of the person profiled. Is there anything else I need to do to get this published?

Thanks! Paul Yesiwant2no (talk) 04:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yesiwant2no: firstly, you clearly have a conflict of interest in writing about your friend. This needs to be disclosed. I've posted instructions on your talk page.
The subject appears to be notable per WP:NACADEMIC, but the draft cannot yet be accepted. The biggest problem with it is that most of the information is unreferenced. For privacy etc. reasons, articles on living people (WP:BLP) have particularly strict referencing requirements. Every material statement, anything potentially contentious, and all private personal and family details must be clearly supported with inline citations to reliable published sources, or else removed.
IMO this would also benefit from some further editing. Given that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, articles must be written in a precise and concise manner, using factual language and neutral point of view. I would remove all the family photos and the like, as well as removing everything that cannot be supported by a reliable source, as already mentioned.
Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:06, 14 May 2024 review of submission by Hello991[edit]

Can you hightlight the statements that dont have any reliable source? And which sources should be revised? Hello991 (talk) 05:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello991. Vaste swathes of your draft are unreferenced, violating the core content policy Verifiability. It is easy to see. Paragraph after paragraph and dish after dish without a reference. Cullen328 (talk) 07:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:17, 14 May 2024 review of submission by Erin1313[edit]

I hope this message finds you well. I am reaching out to seek your assistance regarding an article I have been working on for Wikipedia. Despite my efforts, the article has been repeatedly declined due to concerns about notability and inadequate citations.

I am encountering difficulties in demonstrating this through the references and citations I have provided.

I would greatly appreciate your guidance on the following points: 

            1.Notability: Could you provide advice on how to better highlight the notability of the subject? Are there specific types of sources or particular aspects that I should focus on to strengthen the article's case for notability?
             2.Citations: I am unsure if I am using the appropriate sources and correctly formatting the citations. Could you suggest any reliable sources that are acceptable by Wikipedia standards, and perhaps provide examples of properly formatted citations?

If there are more suitable references or if there are any key sources I might have missed, your recommendations would be invaluable.

Thank you very much for your time and assistance. I am eager to improve the article and ensure it meets Wikipedia's standards. I look forward to your feedback and any suggestions you may have.

Best regards, Erin Simpson Erin1313 (talk) 05:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Erin1313: firstly, this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further.
Secondly, you do know that you shouldn't be writing about yourself in the first place, right?
That said, and FWIW, in answer to your questions:
  1. For notability, we need to see multiple sources meeting every aspect of the WP:GNG guideline.
  2. Yes, your citations are correctly formatted. There just aren't enough of them to properly support the contents.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
Thank you for your response! I was just wondering if I could still submit another entry to Wikipedia after gathering more extensive sources? Erin1313 (talk) 08:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Erin1313: if there is evidence of notability which wasn't previously considered, you may ask that to be taken into account, in which case you should make your appeal directly to the reviewer who rejected the draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Erin1313 Rejection typically means the end of the road for the topic. If something fundamentally changed about it, such as new sources that the reviewer did not consider, you should first appeal to the reviewer that rejected the draft. Remember, as DoubleGrazing said, ideally you shouldn't be writing about yourself at all, please review the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 08:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:08, 14 May 2024 review of submission by Greg Cesear[edit]

There was a title error with the original submission. Original: Improvisation of the Shepherd's Chameleon; corrected to: Improvisation or the Shepherd's Chameleon. One was declined to consider the other in review, however it looks like both have been deleted. Should I resubmit? Greg Cesear (talk) 07:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Greg Cesear: not sure what you mean – what has been deleted? At least Draft:Improvisation or the Shepherd's Chameleon is still there. And pending review, so doesn't need to be resubmitted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I did make an edit which may help with the pending review (regarding a Wikipedia source reference). Greg Cesear (talk) 07:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:39, 14 May 2024 review of submission by Qcne[edit]

Would be useful to get second eyes on Draft:International_Journal_of_Science_Annals as I have not reviewed many drafts on journals. The WP:NJOURNALS essay is a little unclear, and the current references are all secondary database entries which I am not sure proves notability under criterion #1 and #2.

Also the author accused me of potential discrimination in my decline of this draft, so I just wanted to ensure I haven't made a gross error here. Qcne (talk) 07:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at your comments and recommendations (Wikipedia:Notability_(academic_journals)) and given a substantive response. My answers are based on your questions and supported by facts. There is nothing offensive or threatening about my response. My reply is written in strict official form. If you find my recommendation “not to discredit the work of other conscientious reviewers and editors on Wikipedia” a bad tone, then I have nothing more to say to you Yurii Melnyk (talk) 16:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The creating editor User:Yurii Melnyk is also an editor of the journal. Theroadislong (talk) 07:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am the Editor-in-Chief of International Journal of Education and Science, International Journal of Science Annals. There are no financial reward for Editors of the IJES, IJSA. These positions are purely voluntary. Absolutely all the contributions for Wikipedia I have made, or will make in the future, are made on a selfless basis and in accordance with the recommendations of Wikipedia. I am not being directly or indirectly compensated for my edits in Wikipedia. Yurii Melnyk (talk) 16:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm not sure of the notability, there are clear other issues with the current draft that justify a decline (MOS, references, Promo). As for the accusation, that's sadly not uncommon for PAID/COI editors. Nobody (talk) 08:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "may be considered discriminatory" remark hints at a legal threat, and I would advise the user not to go any further down that path. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yurii Melnyk Please let us just look at first principles. While I have not checked all the references, all those which I have checked show the simple fact that it exists, not that it has inherent notability. On the basis that

"We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today."

I would have pushed it back to you as lacking verifiable notability as presented for review. I think any discussion should be about the draft and what needs to be done assuming it can achieve acceptance. I suggest we leave any emotions at the door and deal with the work. Arguing about the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin uses energy that woudl be better deployed editing the draft 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:59, 14 May 2024 review of submission by Shepreth[edit]

I don't know how to resolve your rejection. How do I find/add required citations Shepreth (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shepreth: the draft is entirely unreferenced. See WP:REFB for advice on referencing, and WP:V for an explanation of why this matters. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Nenad_Vorih[edit]

Hello. I edited this text and cannot figure out why the references present so weird. I would also like any feedback on the text/format/etc prior to resubmitting. I appreciate whoever takes the time to take a look and reply :) Thanks so much! MorriconeEnnio (talk) 16:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MorriconeEnnio please read WP:REFB and WP:CITE with care 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi thanks:) I read both pages carefully and made changes. I am curious as to whether you feel there is a verifiability issue with any of the text or references. I included multiple sources for most statements in the text and all of the sources are published.Let me know whether in your opinion there are any outstanding issues.
Thanks again!
Draft:Nenad Vorih MorriconeEnnio (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
also i have copies of all of the material i found in research and used as my references. i took photos. i understand many are not published online but that is not a criteria for credibility according to wikipedia policy. MorriconeEnnio (talk) 16:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MorriconeEnnio You have created an exceptionally complex reference scheme for a small, simple article. It does not welcome the reader in. Readers need to be able to check citations with ease. Since I found it difficult I make no comment upon verification nor upon notability 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The reference scheme being used is more suited for citing a full bibliography, not individual news articles (where Help:Referencing for beginners and Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: using a source more than once would suffice). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
three of the sources are bibliographies...two are included in books. one was in an art journal...the rest were more news type articles MorriconeEnnio (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Bibliography" as in "The article has a dedicated bibliography section and (almost) all the references are to books in that bibliography". As a rule, bibliography sections aren't generally used unless there's a critical mass of books being cited and they need to be referenced multiple times each. For news articles and minimal book cites, the standard reference method will do. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jeske. I made the changes to the reference section as you outlined and resubmitted the draft. It was rejected for notability again. That was after adding 2 additional published sources. I am not sure what to do. I read the policy carefully and edited the text to reflect source which demonstrate the person (artist) meets the following requirements of the policy. I note that in addition the artists meets multiple criteria under the policy and only one is required to fulfill notability under the policy.
Vorih is
1) widely cited by peers;
AND
2) known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique;
AND
3) such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews

That he meets these three points under the notability policy should be evident from the text of the article and the references cited to support the text. I am completely at a loss to understand the basis for the rejection or how to address it. Even more sources?? MorriconeEnnio (talk) 09:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok. Thanks. I also thought it was overkill. The article was refused however respectively for notability and verification. First notability so I added additional references. Then verifiability so I added even more references. I guess i'll resubmit and see what happens. I did not get feedback from the second editor regarding his basis of verifiability. The first issue of notability i presume is resolved. MorriconeEnnio (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Qcne at one point you had some really great comments that helped me a lot with editing. I would be curious to know if you have any insights as to how I can proceed in this situation. MorriconeEnnio (talk) 09:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @MorriconeEnnio. Easiest thing to do would be to give me three (and only three) sources that each meet the following criteria:
  1. Be independent of each other.
  2. Be independent of Nenad (not interviews or from exhibitions)
  3. Be from reliable places (not random blogs or social media)
If you can't find three sources that meet those, then Nenad might not be notable enough for a Wikipedia article at this time. Happy to have a look at the sources if you can point me to them though! Qcne (talk) 12:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure! no problem.
1. art journal (entire archive available on research portal link provided)
Zivot umjetnosti, 1989, 45/46, str. 146-147 (this has a link online)
Zlatko Perhoč Slike Nenada Voriha. Galerija Nova, 10.–26. ožujka 1988.
https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/392943
2. book (by German art gallerist/publisher)
Kunstwerk ISBN 3-935094-00-0; pg 643
KunstWerk. Aktuelle Positionen der Bildenden Kunst. Malerei, Objekt, Plastik. Band 1.
by Rubrecht, Leander KunstWerk. Aktuelle Positionen der Bildenden Kunst. Malerei, Objekt, Plastik. Band 1. (TEXT BY : Prof Zvonko Macovic)
3. article (playboy)
Playboy Issue no. 231 2016
RADOVAN VUKOVIĆ PLAYBOY 231 / OCTOBER 2016 p. 17
and there are so many more... MorriconeEnnio (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue may be that most of these sources are not available online however that is not a requirement for notability or verfiability. I can however provide ohots of the source material as well as their google translations. I am not a native croatian speaker either. i was not however asked to do this the article was just declined. I just tried to add jpgs of these sources and i need to confirm that i own the copyright to what is being uploaded and i cant really conform that...of the photos yes. i took the ohotos of the original source material hwoever i am not the owner of the original source material so its messing me up a bit. howver i would be happy to share if you know how thats possible MorriconeEnnio (talk) 13:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
also I just performed a google search using the term "Nenad Vorih" there are pages and pages of references. That makes me feel like the editor didnt even bother to google the guy before he declined the page. Here is another reference from that google search I didnt even find in my research which was primarily done in libraries.
https://www.enciklopedija.hr/clanak/vorih-nenad MorriconeEnnio (talk) 13:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you soooo much for your help! <3 MorriconeEnnio (talk) 13:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @MorriconeEnnio - firstly please don't upload copyrighted photos! As long as the sources are published they can be accessible offline and you don't have to link to an online photo/URL of them.
The hrcak.srce.hr source, which I can access and have translated into English, looks good. It analysis his work independently. Do the other two offline sources do that? Qcne (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes MorriconeEnnio (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
of course i will not upload copyrighted photos :) MorriconeEnnio (talk) 18:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the hrcak.srce.hr source,was at the early stage of his career. There have only been more works published about him especially his metropolis series as it incorporates a new approach to painting veduta (landcapes). that cycle of paintings (much later in his career) reflects his 'significant contribution'. it is very well covered by articles which can be found online with a simple google search. i just felt the sources i cite in the draft were more scholarly and written by established professionals in either art or journalism and not just pieces about the artist or his exhibitions by randoms (though independent of the artist) which are accessible online. MorriconeEnnio (talk) 18:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MorriconeEnnio in that case, I think we can probably make an argument that he is notable for inclusion. I'll accept. Qcne (talk) 14:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is AMAZING!!! Many thanks <3 MorriconeEnnio (talk) 17:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:43, 14 May 2024 review of submission by ImVeryBiasedSometimes[edit]

How do I delete it? ImVeryBiasedSometimes (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ImVeryBiasedSometimes It has been deleted. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright! Thanks, man! ImVeryBiasedSometimes (talk) 23:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:55, 14 May 2024 review of submission by Rincemermaid[edit]

Will the reviewer be able to see the edits that I made to this page? Rincemermaid (talk) 17:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is submitted and pending. The reviewer will see the draft as it is now. You are welcome to make further edits as well. 331dot (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I will be adding more information soon. Once I'm able to find the rest of the Fidos Award winners and nominees from over the years. Rincemermaid (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Rincemermaid. Adding more winners and nominees will not make one iota of difference to whether the draft is accepted or not. In fact any work at all that you do on the draft other than finding several sources that meet the triple criteria in WP:42 will be a complete waste of your time.
Please read notability again. ColinFine (talk) 00:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:13, 14 May 2024 review of submission by Californiawriter[edit]

Article creation decline despite credible sources Hello, My article was declined yet I met the criteria for multiple published sources that are: 

-in-depth (I cited New York Times article about the subject, TIME,

-reliable (I cited a case study by the Resource Innovation Institute and the USDA) -secondary (most all sources are secondary) -strictly independent of the subject (I cited a podcast with Dr. Temple Grandin, a feature by CBS Morning Show) 

Californiawriter (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy link Draft:Vertical Harvest Farms. Theroadislong (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Californiawriter Have you asked the declining reviewer to elaborate? All reviewers must be able to explain their reviews and so so willingly 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Californiawriter: Let's have a looksee at your sources, and see how much of them are about the company. Refer to my /Decode page (linked in my signature as "critiques").
This looks like a case of the chaff choking the wheat. Get rid of the bad sources and any content sourced entirely to them. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_May_14&oldid=1224717675"