[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 September 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< September 21 << Aug | September | Oct >> September 23 >
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 22[edit]

08:31, 22 September 2023 review of submission by Mintack[edit]

Thank you for reviewing my draft. As a newcomer to Wikipedia and it being my first article, I'm eager to learn and ensure that I follow the guidelines. I wanted to confirm if my understanding is correct that the artist may not be considered relevant enough for a Wikipedia article, even with the provided references. I appreciate your feedback on what I can do to improve. Mintack (talk) 08:31, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mintack: for notability per WP:GNG, we would require significant coverage of the subject in multiple (normally interpreted as 3+) secondary sources that are reliable and independent of the subject. Your draft cites three sources, but at least one of them (#2) is not independent. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:03, 22 September 2023 review of submission by Ingridach[edit]

Hello, my page has been denied submission several times due to lack of notability. I've been asked to state the three most important references on the talk page, and I've done so - what shall I do now? I really believe in the notability of my subject and page. Other members of the band 'Elastica', with less sources and achievements, have Wikipedia pages and it feels only fair to publish the page of the lead guitarist who is now also successful in the British music industry. Please check out the sources on the talk page and let me know what I can do in order for this page to be considered for publishing. Ingridach (talk) 10:03, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ingridach: this draft has been rejected, so your only option is to appeal directly to the reviewer to rejected it.
I should warn you, though, that the three sources you've listed on the talk page do not give the impression that they provide significant coverage of the subject, given that they have each been cited only once or twice. And as they are offline, it is difficult if not impossible to verify the extent of their coverage, so you may need to provide additional information about them when making your case; simply saying that they are in your opinion solid sources may not cut it.
Also, whether or not articles exist on the other members of Elastica is neither here nor there, as each article must satisfy the notability requirement and other conditions for publication. I'm just mentioning this so that you don't base your appeal on that argument, as it isn't a valid consideration. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:13, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that is helpful. In this case, what do you suggest - should I delete my three sources and add ones that can be verified online, or should I add three more? Ingridach (talk) 10:18, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ingridach: I don't know, as I don't know what sources are available, or what coverage they provide. All I can say is that while offline sources are acceptable, if you're trying to argue that specific three sources establish notability, and none of them can be easily verified, you may have a hard time convincing the reviewer, especially when the draft has already been rejected and you're trying to overturn that decision.
I can also say that adding more sources usually doesn't improve things, in that it's better to cite three really solid sources than thirty weak ones. If you do have better sources than what the draft currently includes, then you may wish to cite those instead of some of the weaker ones. You just need to make sure that the draft reflects what the new sources actually say, not that you're citing the new sources just for the sake of citing them. (This relates to a broader principle, which is that Wikipedia articles should be written by summarising what reliable published sources have said; not by writing whatever one wishes, and then trying to find acceptable sources.) HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:25, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:02, 22 September 2023 review of submission by Monogriff[edit]

Submission declined:

Hello,

I am looking for help with he following declined submission: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:BITE_Guitars

Reasons given: "corp - Submission is about a company or organization not yet shown to meet notability guidelines and adv - Submission reads like an advertisement"

READS LIKE AN ADVERTISEMET: This submission is similar in style and structure to existing bass manufacturers on Wikipedia, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastwood_Guitars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daisy_Rock_Girl_Guitars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadowsky https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fodera https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duesenberg_Guitars

Happy to edit anything out that does not meet the guidelines, would very much appreciate concrete hints.

LACK OF NOTABILITY: Notability is substantiated through references to 11 press articles. These press articles contain not just passing references to BITE but the articles are wholly about BITE Guitars and its products. The articles are also from the major internationally recognized and independent news publications about bass guitars, not from unknown local websites.

Looking at other, accepted bass manufacturing companies, some have zero press articles, some have mostly references to their own websites.

Notability is also substantiated through a number of artists who play BITE bass guitars and are either internationally recognized names in the bass world themselves or have a stage and studio history with some of the biggest names in popular music.

Would appreciate any advice, thank you in advance! Monogriff (talk) 11:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Monogriff: I haven't yet looked into this, but just a couple of quick points: don't compare your draft to other articles that may exist; compare it to the applicable guidelines and policies in place today. There are well over 6m articles in the English-language Wikipedia, some of which certainly don't comply with the guidelines. We don't want to create more such problems.
Also, notability is not "substantiated through a number of artists who play BITE bass guitars"; it arises purely out of sources that meet the WP:GNG standard. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:23, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please read other stuff exists. It could very well be these other articles are also inappropriate and simply not addressed yet. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those classified as good articles. 331dot (talk) 14:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Monogriff. Notable is perhaps an unfortunate word for Wikipedia to have chosen, as it is not the same as the usual meaning of the word. It does not mean important, or popular, or significant, or influential, or famous, or innovative; it means that enough material has been published about the subject that is both reliable and indpendent, to base an article on. Remember that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only 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. ColinFine (talk) 15:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:43, 22 September 2023 review of submission by GoogleBadsha[edit]

The draft has not been published or in Review, the information provided all are genuine and counts a great value in Indian MMA (Mixed Martial Arts) Industry GoogleBadsha (talk) 12:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GoogleBadsha: the draft has not been reviewed (or published), because it hasn't been submitted. You need to click on that blue 'submit' button. Other than that, did you have a question you wanted to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:53, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I press the submit button and then see it, thank you for the reply GoogleBadsha (talk) 12:56, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:05, 22 September 2023 review of submission by 176.33.244.251[edit]

The suggestion must be accepted, and add some more if you can find. Please accept all the suggestions that do not break any rules, and no contraries. 176.33.244.251 (talk) 14:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has been rejected it is not required. Theroadislong (talk) 14:31, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it is required, what will happen? What are the requirements to undo rejecting? If it is not rejectable, what are required? 176.33.244.251 (talk) 07:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rejection typically means that a draft will not be considered again. To undo that, you must first appeal to the last reviewer but only if something has fundamentally changed about the draft, like new sources that the reviewer did not consider. If you just disagree with their decision, there's not much you can do. If you feel tha the reviewer made a gross error in interpreting policy or consensus, you may discuss that here and request that the community permit you a new review. Again, however, this can't be mere disagreement with the decision as long as policies or consensus were reasonably applied.
Personally I agree with the reviewer that those topics are not likely to be confused with each other. 331dot (talk) 07:46, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Who is the last reviewer, and how to appeal to him?
1. I said to everyone: rejections are not required
2. The rejection maybe a gross error in a consensus
3. Where is the permission of a new review? How to request that?
. 176.33.244.251 (talk) 08:06, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The last reviewer is named in the message left by the reviewer at the top of your draft. There is a link to their talk page in the message. You must first appeal to them before coming here to argue that the reviewer is incorrectly interpreting a policy or a preexisting consensus. If you can't convince the reviewer to change their mind, then you would come here and request that the community reverse that decision. I stress again, mere disagreement with their decision is not enough, you would need show that the reviewer made an unreasonable interpretation of policy or a consensus.
Is there a particular reason you seem heavily invested in this draft? 331dot (talk) 08:16, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In particular, you will need to convince the reviewer (or us) that the terms that you name are likely to be confused with each other- not just that they have similar letters. 331dot (talk) 08:18, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:50, 22 September 2023 review of submission by Dukology[edit]

Please I need help on the review of my draft after effecting some corrections. thank you Dukology (talk) 14:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Dukology the sources added are promotional puff pieces, likely written by PR person, with language like "...known for his visionary Leadership, exemplary Humility. Exceptional philanthropy and dedicated Services to Humanity...." and "His selfless dedication has positively impacted numerous individuals within his constituency and beyond." The draft is rejected and will not be considered any further. S0091 (talk) 15:16, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:24, 22 September 2023 review of submission by Mull1429[edit]

I want to make the changes in this draft submission that your reviews have asked for. However I can’t seem to get the changes to save in the draft without having to publish, even after selecting “Apply Changes.” How do I save changes in a draft submission without publishing? Thank you. Mull1429 (talk) 16:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "apply changes", but "Publish changes" should be understood to mean "save", it does not mean "publish this to the encyclopedia". It used to say "save", but was changed to emphasize that all edits are public. 331dot (talk) 16:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:27, 22 September 2023 review of submission by EricBased[edit]

Why is this page not being accepted? This person is a well known media personality and it very surprising that she is not on Wikipedia yet. EricBased (talk) 17:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EricBased, this draft has not yet been reviewed. There are thousands of drafts waiting to be reviewed. Cullen328 (talk) 17:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:42, 22 September 2023 review of submission by EamoWiki[edit]

My submission was rejected. I assume that the reason is that the title is not reflected in literature. I would like to rename it to "Atmospheric methane removal" which is more known. I wonder if this would solve my problem EamoWiki (talk) 18:42, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your link above. Your submission was declined, not rejected. "Rejected" has a specific meaning here, that a draft may not be resubmitted. "Declined" means it may be resubmitted. The specific title is not relevant to the submission process; if accepted, the reviewer will place it at the proper title. You may leave a note on the draft talk page regarding the title. 331dot (talk) 19:08, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:51, 22 September 2023 review of submission by Amsterdam.Academic[edit]

Could others assist me in putting inline citations to this article? There are many sources I could use. Amsterdam.Academic (talk) 18:51, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Information on referencing can be found at Referencing for beginners. This place isn't for requesting co-authors. 331dot (talk) 19:04, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may find the Visual Editor easier to use. There is a tutorial on in-line citations at WP:INTREFVE.
However a big problem with the draft, and the other reason why I declined it, is the entirely inappropriate language used. Check WP:PEACOCK for words to avoid @Amsterdam.Academic. Qcne (talk) 19:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the language. Do you think it is better now? Amsterdam.Academic (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The language is better but it overall still feels a little promotional in tone: the kind of language you would see on a University staff page about Irene.
@Amsterdam.Academic, I believe you have written this article WP:BACKWARDS. You have written extensive statements with zero sources to back them up. Instead you should have found sources and then paraphrased them for the contents of the article. I am concerned you are now going to try and find sources that fit your existing statements and attempt to squeeze them in and make them fit, which is going to be difficult.
I would really recommend starting from scratch. Read WP:YFA and WP:BLP first, which outline the things you need to know about writing an article. Then read WP:NACADEMIC which outlines the criteria we use to accept articles about academics. Then find sources that are reliable, independent, and provide significant coverage. From those sources, build a draft text, ensuring that every material statement has an in-line citation. Qcne (talk) 20:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think I can leave it for now? I saw that it will be deleted in six months. There were several articles I wanted to create. But I will have to wait on spend this much time. Do you know if we can open it to others helping as well? Amsterdam.Academic (talk) 20:15, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who knows about it is welcome to edit it- though that will depend on who you tell. As long as you edit the draft at least once every six months, it will not be deleted based on its activity. 331dot (talk) 20:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. Do you think you could help edit it a bit? Amsterdam.Academic (talk) 15:23, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:18, 22 September 2023 review of submission by Worswickj[edit]

Draft article was declined due to not enough sources that are in-depth, reliable, secondary, and independent. I have reviewed the guidelines for references and believed that the references included do provide in-depth, reliable, and secondary citations. I am willing to provide additional references as necessary, but I need to understand exactly why the current references are insufficient.

This draft article refers to a Scouting award which is utilized by all BSA councils all across the United I had included in-depth primary references, which were used to establish the details of the current requirements and description of the award, as well as reliable and independent secondary references which I thought should be sufficient to lend credibility to the primary reference. Worswickj (talk) 19:18, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Worswickj I fixed your link(it lacked the "Draft:"). You do not have independent reliable sources with significant coverage that discuss the significance of this award; the sources are associated with the Scouts, or are brief mentions. 331dot (talk) 19:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:04, 22 September 2023 review of submission by 2603:8002:741:4546:D001:2976:DCED:1085[edit]

My grandmother was a classical composer named Toni Beaulieu. She entered the music arena in 1948 when women were not allowed into the business in any significant way. She was cheated and repeatedly ripped off by men in the music industry at every step of her career. She was taught to tolerate issues rather than act out against them. She told me most of her stories and when she died in 1994, I found files that supported her accounts, some even worse than she admitted. Her admission to ASCAP was delayed 35 years because she wouldn't accept a "casting couch" invitation. Her composition JUNGLE RHUMBA was stolen from her by 3 different infringers, all of whom she had to counter in a courtroom. The powers at MGM got mad because she didn't think it fair to accept a fee on her composition that was literally ten times less than her male flutist was getting to play the piece. This is real history, not something I'm making up. They got even with her by dropping her screen credit from the film. It's still missing. TNT used the number in THAT"S ENTERTAINMENT, PART 3. They finally put her name on the end crawl of composers--with no mention in the show of who she was or what she wrote for them.

Her only hope of survival (and keeping her sanity) was to continue composing and keep it under wraps. She didn't have any fight left in her old age to continue this senseless battle. Only her closest inner circle got to hear the music she was writing. For everyone else her amazing talent became her "best-kept secret". There is no Wikipedia on her. I had to fight with the NY Times...who refused to give her a proper obituary because there is no historical record on her. Her career predated the internet. But the abusive behavior effectively kept her name out of history. Thankfully, I have access to the only documents that can tell the truth. There has been no biographical article written about her. She was 90 when she died and she has no contemporary associate still alive to help tell the tale.

However her 150 classical compositions are now speaking for themselves and I have found a music publisher who is willing to publish her entire body of work. It's like her music being heard for the first time. I am beneficiary of her music rights but I'm stymied in my efforts to promote her music by the lack of history on her. I therefore used her photos and papers to document a 9 page bio with footnotes as appropriate. I'm wondering if that story would be acceptable to Wiki as a starting point on TONI BEAULIEU as there is no other article that I know of, and I am determined that the truth be told this time. No holding back on the individuals who were responsible for the abusive treatment. Would you be interested in reading my 9 page story?

After her strenuous life, I most want to make her musical talent known. There are very few women in this century who even wrote classical music. And hers were left behind in a closet until I rescued them.

Jack 2603:8002:741:4546:D001:2976:DCED:1085 (talk) 20:04, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What you are describing is Original research which is not permitted on Wikipedia. An acceptable Wikipedia article summarizes published reliable sources that devote significant coverage to the topic, your grandmother in this case. If the published sources are lacking, then it is not possible to write a Wikipedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 20:18, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Once her work is published, and if it is reviewed and discussed for its musical merit by independent reliable sources, her work and possibly her would merit articles, but without that, it's just not possible. If you want to tell the world about her and her work, you should use social media or a personal website that you own and operate. 331dot (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:07, 22 September 2023 review of submission by Amsterdam.Academic[edit]

Could others share links to help create this? Amsterdam.Academic (talk) 20:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Amsterdam.Academic. Please read Referencing for beginners and create inline references. Cullen328 (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:39, 22 September 2023 review of submission by Janicelp[edit]

Hi, Can you please take a look and let me know if this might be ready to be put up? I have added more secondary citations. I believe the flagged issues have been corrected. Please let me know and I can resubmit. Janicelp Janicelp (talk) 21:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Janicelp: we don't do on-demand (p)reviews here at the help desk; if you feel that you've sufficiently addressed the reasons for the previous decline, then please resubmit the draft and a reviewer will assess it in due course. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:13, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I appreciate your reply. I am not on her all the time, so I apologize for the late response.
Thank you,
Janice Janicelp (talk) 22:00, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2023_September_22&oldid=1177679579"