Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2018 April 23
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < April 22 | << Mar | April | May >> | April 24 > |
| 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. |
April 23[edit]
00:29:51, 23 April 2018 review of submission by DanQuigley[edit]
- DanQuigley (talk · contribs)
- No draft specified!
On February 3, 2018, I created an article about Flora Warren Seymour that was rejected for not having enough sources. That was not the first article I've created for Wikipedia, but it was one of the better ones, and had more sources than other already published Wikipedia articles I could point to. It may not have been my first created article, but I'm sufficiently insulted and discouraged that it will probably be my last (attempt). I don't want to spend time just to have my work arbitrarily rejected. Now the world must continue knowing nothing about Flora Warren Seymour.
DanQuigley 00:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanQuigley (talk • contribs)
- Hi DanQuigley. As a long-time contributor, you are no doubt familiar with Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Draft:Flora Warren Seymour contains a great deal of information - birth date, place of birth, where she grew up, what university she went to, what degrees she earned, when she married, in which state she was admitted to the bar and when, and when she was an editor - that isn't in the single source you cited. I'm sure you didn't just make stuff up, but you haven't told the reader where you found it. It is not arbitrary for a reviewer to point that out and encourage you to improve the draft so that readers can have confidence in its accuracy.
- Articles for creation is an entirely optional process through which editors can get feedback from experienced editors. Try not to take any critique personally. If you don't find the criticism constructive, you are free to ignore it, but bear in mind that like you, most reviewers are trying to make Wikipedia better. The reviewer has volunteered their time to help you. Don't reject their advice arbitrarily.
- Most new editors are advised to cite at least three independent, reliable, published sources. As an experienced editor, you know that there are circumstances under which you can get away with fewer. Nevertheless, it would be prudent to cite a couple additional solid sources. Potential sources are available through JSTOR. (If you don't have access through a library, WP:TWL or WP:RX can help you obtain these materials). Citing some of the academic reviews of Indian Agents of the Old Frontier, her most cited work, could help show how influential her writing was. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you, Worldbruce. Your critique is at least constructive, unlike my first one. I also mistakenly thought I had three sources in my article. Okay, now I'm interested in fixing it this weekend.DanQuigley 05:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
06:40:02, 23 April 2018 review of submission by Peter J. Seebacher[edit]
Hi,
Can you offer any advice as to how this page may be improved.
There appears to be an inconsistency on the score of this page as shown on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:New_articles_(Australia) (19) compared to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women%27s_history/New_articles (64).
Would adding a photograph and biographical details as usually found on this type of entry be beneficial?
Kind regards,
Peter
Peter J. Seebacher (talk) 06:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- Peter J. Seebacher - The score you are referring to actually pertains to the likelyhood of an article fitting into a Wikipedia:WikiProject, rather than the quality of the article. Hope that helps Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
13:45:20, 23 April 2018 review of submission by Kmehta9[edit]
Hello. The last reviewer, who was a little rude, left me this message:
"Hi, there are at least two big issues, and maybe some minor ones. First, you clearly have a Conflict of interest. You have said, "we are using this documentary to help a student get into college here", "we are trying to gain recognition as the documentary itself is a personal statement to college for the boy starring in it" and "I added my poster image back in - please stop deleting it. The rights were e-mailed to you already". You are, in fact, the copyright owner of the image. So, you clearly have an interest in the film and this needs to be properly and clearly declared. The second issue is that you don't have any properly formatted sources. You've had quite a lot of advice on this already but you're not reading the advice and following it. Thirdly, in my view, it's too soon as the film's not even been released. Other reviewers may take a different view. But you certainly need to take all the embedded external links in the Reception section and turn them into references. Hope this helps. KJP1 (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)"
Firstly, the copyright ownership was handed over to the director of our film, Danial. He gave me the permission to claim copyright because Wiki was asking for such formalities. Later, Wiki said only only the director had this copyright authority. If you check your permissions e-mail, Danial has sent his approval and claim on copyright, along with his permission to use this image. I don't have a conflict of interest, there is literally no money involved in this movie, the Wiki page is just for recognition.
Secondly, they told me to make a reception section and I added the article links as asked. Now if you need the reception section to be cited as a references section then you should have made that clear. Wiki pages are honestly the most confusing thing I've ever tried to create. I don't even know how to communicate with the people that respond to me so I just keep making new posts on this help desk. It's 2018 - can you please make things a little more user friendly. Thanks. Kmehta9 (talk) 13:45, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- Kmehta9 - I'm afraid I just don't see how more help can be given. You have had advice, which you think was rude, but you're just not taking it. And you do have a Conflict of interest. Perhaps another reviewer will have more success. KJP1 (talk) 06:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
- The draft is about an upcoming film. So wait until it's been released and reviewed. It'll be much easier to write an article then, when there are reviews to cite. Wikipedia has no deadline. Maproom (talk) 10:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
14:44:46, 23 April 2018 review of submission by Jima5432[edit]
My article recently got declined. I'm new to Wikipedia, so I'm not 100% sure about how everything works. The article I submitted was my first, and I could use some help on improving its content before I resubmit for review. An editor told me that I didn't write the article in an encyclopedia format, I used peacock terminology, and my username is closely related to the subject. Also, I intern for the subject. How can I accurately state this? Help, please!
Jima5432 (talk) 14:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Note: I have declared the COI on your userpage for you. JTP (talk • contribs) 14:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Hi Jima5432 - Welcome to Wikipedia. There's a few things here, and I'll try and state them easily. First of all, you will need to state your Conflict of interests. As you work with the subject, you need to explicitly state this (This helps legally, and is better allround). Follow this link regarding the policy, on how to disclose your COI.
- You may also need to change your username (I'm not entirely sure it does breach our username policy, but it may be better to do this.) if you are interested, I'll post up a link on your talk page.
- The issues with peacock terms, and un-encyclopedic information isn't always easy to understand, until you have some experience, but the best way is to mimick good articles on Wikipedia. To me, the article looks like a notable one (Which is the hardest bit about getting an article published). Personally, everything after the career section should be removed, as it really isn't helpful for wikipedia, and the career section needs to have less mini-sections, but this could easily be fixed in the main space. I think you should be ok, if you declare your COI as above, and change your username, and ping me, I'll take a full look at the article. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
22:55:42, 23 April 2018 review of submission by WhitneyBPacker[edit]
The article title should be "Freddi Shehadi" not "Frederick Shehadi III"
WhitneyBPacker (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Done by Orangemike.--Worldbruce (talk) 23:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
