Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 August 21
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < August 20 | << Jul | August | Sep >> | Current help desk > |
| Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages. |
August 21[edit]
01:17:00, 21 August 2017 review of submission by Withdam[edit]
I have submitted my article for review more than 3 weeks ago, and it isn't getting any feedback yet. Is there any reason for such delay?
Withdam (talk) 01:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Withdam. The reason for the delay is the size of the backlog. About 210 drafts have been waiting longer than this one, so it will be a while before a volunteer reaches the draft. You may continue improving it while you wait. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
01:42:59, 21 August 2017 review of submission by WriteIncunabula[edit]
Hello,
As far as I can tell the reviewer made only one comment on my submission, which expressed his opinion that the tone of the article was not encyclopedic.
However, he is referring to one introductory line to an article that is written in encyclopedic tone. The line in question is as follows: "a life that did not start, but became dedicated to service."
There are no "peacock phrases" in that line. The reviewer said to see the source for more comments, but did not add any others. If he had read the entire article he would have seen that although the individual who is the topic of the article studied law at Berkeley, his studies were interrupted by WWII, in which he served. After the war, he spent the rest of his life serving as a priest. The term "serve" is not a peacock term, but a factual description of what soldiers, priests, and other professions do. The article was based solely on research of verifiable third party sources, and the statement that the reviewer questioned is a neutral description of the facts of a man who lived in the generations of the world wars.
I believe it is possible to write in an encyclopedic tone, yet make summary statements and conclusions based on syllogistic reasoning: proven premises leading to a simple fact that follows from those premises. It is also possible to write encyclopedic prose with a reasonable measure of style. Therefore, I request someone to re-evaluate the single line the reviewer questioned in the context of the facts and research presented in the article as a whole. Thank you very much for your time and effort and I would be happy to discuss further.
WriteIncunabula (talk) 01:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- Reply - I have re-evaluated it and it appears that there is more promotionalism in the draft than that one sentence. While the reviewer used that one example, there are many more within what you have written. I do think that if you are looking for a "measure of style", as you say, that you are likely to encounter the same problems with your next draft, so I would recommend avoiding that kind of writing. Isingness (talk) 02:16, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- Reply - Thank you for taking the time to reply so quickly. If possible, I would appreciate specific examples of "many more within what" I have written of "promotionalism." — Preceding unsigned comment added by WriteIncunabula (talk • contribs) 03:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- Reply - Certainly. Your chronology of service is point form, like a cv, with no sources (see: WP:RS). The "Ministry and Teaching" section is narrative, and includes substantial details that at best only appeared in a blog. You also have sentences like "the Shepherd By The Sea website is active, with current copyright notices" and quotes at the end not sourced to proper third-party, major news references. At this point I am not certain the individual is notable enough to be on Wikipedia, as there are not enough proper references used to begin with. But as for promotionalism, the piece is generally promotional overall. Isingness (talk) 03:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- Reply - Much appreciated. The chronology of service was specifically sourced from an existing professional archivist at the Virginia Theological Seminary. As far as I was able to learn from Wikipedia about sources, it is allowable for the author of an article to interview a source directly. In this case, that source was an established, respected institution's Archivist who looked up the history of the service record of the subject of the article in the institution's stored records and provided it to me. I believe I stated this clearly enough in the citation, no? Also, although I am new at this, I did not read that third party sources needed in all cases to be "major news references." Historians all over the world for thousands of years have used legitimate sources outside of major news. As to notability, I have seen hundreds of examples of individuals less notable than the subject of this article on Wikipedia, and I suspect there are thousands of them. You may consider that beside the point, but many people for many decades were heavily influenced by this man who was a member of the WWII generation, and spent his entire life in my home region of the northern coast of California, in service to others. His life was extraordinarily notable, not only to me, but to many, many others, and that is a fact. It deserves to be shared and Wikipedia is the best place in existence for notable history to be preserved when it might otherwise, undeservedly, become lost in time. Speaking of time, again thank you for yours. I hope you don't mind me attempting to defend my work on this, but I put in a good deal of time to find verifiable, legitimate facts and, compared to so much I've seen already published, feel my page deserves to go up, even as I work over what spare time I have to improve it. WriteIncunabula (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- Reply - I am not certain what you mean by the "author" of an article to interview a source, but if you mean that you yourself are able to interview them and not see that interview published in a significant publication first, then no, that is a primary reference. The source of the chronology of service is not adequate, as the mere fact that something happened or exists does not make it "notable" (see Wikipedia:N). Again, you can read more about third-party sources here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources; unfortunately your word that you spoke to someone outside of Wikipedia doesn't cut it, and existing third-party references are required. In terms of finding other people you feel aren't as notable, a good read about how this is not considered to be a valid argument on Wikipedia is here: Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. In general, from your comments, it feels as if you may be trying to include too much. If they are notable, then an entry may well be accepted, but it must adhere strictly to proper sourcing; and generally, editors are less likely to accept a page when those sources do not include very considerable, in-depth, out of region news profiles. Isingness (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- Isingness and WriteIncunabula A personal interview, whether verbal or written, is not even a primary source, it's not a source at all. Only after it is actually published (somewhere else, not here on WP) does it become usable, subject to the limitations on primary sources of course. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- Reply - I am not certain what you mean by the "author" of an article to interview a source, but if you mean that you yourself are able to interview them and not see that interview published in a significant publication first, then no, that is a primary reference. The source of the chronology of service is not adequate, as the mere fact that something happened or exists does not make it "notable" (see Wikipedia:N). Again, you can read more about third-party sources here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources; unfortunately your word that you spoke to someone outside of Wikipedia doesn't cut it, and existing third-party references are required. In terms of finding other people you feel aren't as notable, a good read about how this is not considered to be a valid argument on Wikipedia is here: Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. In general, from your comments, it feels as if you may be trying to include too much. If they are notable, then an entry may well be accepted, but it must adhere strictly to proper sourcing; and generally, editors are less likely to accept a page when those sources do not include very considerable, in-depth, out of region news profiles. Isingness (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- Reply - Much appreciated. The chronology of service was specifically sourced from an existing professional archivist at the Virginia Theological Seminary. As far as I was able to learn from Wikipedia about sources, it is allowable for the author of an article to interview a source directly. In this case, that source was an established, respected institution's Archivist who looked up the history of the service record of the subject of the article in the institution's stored records and provided it to me. I believe I stated this clearly enough in the citation, no? Also, although I am new at this, I did not read that third party sources needed in all cases to be "major news references." Historians all over the world for thousands of years have used legitimate sources outside of major news. As to notability, I have seen hundreds of examples of individuals less notable than the subject of this article on Wikipedia, and I suspect there are thousands of them. You may consider that beside the point, but many people for many decades were heavily influenced by this man who was a member of the WWII generation, and spent his entire life in my home region of the northern coast of California, in service to others. His life was extraordinarily notable, not only to me, but to many, many others, and that is a fact. It deserves to be shared and Wikipedia is the best place in existence for notable history to be preserved when it might otherwise, undeservedly, become lost in time. Speaking of time, again thank you for yours. I hope you don't mind me attempting to defend my work on this, but I put in a good deal of time to find verifiable, legitimate facts and, compared to so much I've seen already published, feel my page deserves to go up, even as I work over what spare time I have to improve it. WriteIncunabula (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- Reply - Certainly. Your chronology of service is point form, like a cv, with no sources (see: WP:RS). The "Ministry and Teaching" section is narrative, and includes substantial details that at best only appeared in a blog. You also have sentences like "the Shepherd By The Sea website is active, with current copyright notices" and quotes at the end not sourced to proper third-party, major news references. At this point I am not certain the individual is notable enough to be on Wikipedia, as there are not enough proper references used to begin with. But as for promotionalism, the piece is generally promotional overall. Isingness (talk) 03:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
08:39:55, 21 August 2017 review of submission by Lete2017[edit]
Hello, I modified a few times the article after the first objection on 18th July. Since then I have no more update or review from your part. I may need your help to tell me how can I improve the article so that you can validate it. Thanks a lot ! Have a good day !
- Hi Lete2017. The draft is in the pool to be reviewed. About 60 submissions have been waiting longer, so it may be a few days before a volunteer reaches it, but it is likely to be reviewed this week. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
15:34:44, 21 August 2017 review of submission by Daveortrud1[edit]
- Daveortrud1 (talk · contribs)
I have submitted this draft twice, and the second time, was not given an explanation as to why the many articles/newspapers/sources provided were not enough to prove notability. This is the first article I have tried creating, and I picked something I knew had a lot of history, notability, news coverage, and importance so that the notability wouldn't be in question, but I must be wrong. I can continue adding sources that mention the Theatre directly or ones that secondarily mention it... I just am unsure why what's included doesn't merit notability. Daveortrud1 (talk) 15:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Accepted @Daveortrud1: I believe reviewer ToThAc was mistaken in declining the draft for that reason. The articles from The Washington Post, South Florida Business Journal, and Playbill are sufficient to establish notability. The article still needs work, however. References should not appear within section headings. One reason is that they can foul up screen readers used by the blind. Instead, place the reference directly after the statement(s) it supports. WP:REFB explains how to use the same reference more than once. Worldbruce (talk) 14:53, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Worldbruce: Thank you so much! I'll continue to update it, I'm happy to have my first article up... but I do realize I have a lot of improvements to make and a lot to still learn. Have a great day! Daveortrud1 (talk) 15:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Daveortrud1: Yeah, it was pretty difficult for me to understand what was reliable and what wasn't (considering that there are about as many unreliable sources as there are reliable, at least that's what I've seen). Good thing this help desk is here! :) ToThAc (talk) 17:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
This article was not approved. Want to understand how it can be improved to make sure it's neutral ?
Siddhesht (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- Reply - I would review the document Wikipedia:NPOV in order to learn more about how to have a neutral point of view in your writing. Other helpful documents include Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Words_that_may_introduce_bias , and Wikipedia:Reliable sources, where you can learn more about ensuring that all things in your draft are properly sourced. Isingness (talk) 21:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- Visionjohnny (talk · contribs)
I can't arrange the article as it is require. It is one of the populated town in Akwa Ibom State,i need happy.
Visionjohnny (talk) 22:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Visionjohnny: Hello, Johnny. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. I don't quite understand your question, but I think that's a moot point. Your draft is unlikely to ever be accepted for publication, because its subject appears to be the same as another article you created, Asanga Town. If you believe the alternate name is worth mentioning in that other article, feel free to do so. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)