Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 April 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< April 10 << Mar | April | May >> April 12 >
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 11[edit]

00:32:41, 11 April 2019 review of draft by LikeLizzyBiz[edit]


LikeLizzyBiz (talk) 00:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@LikeLizzyBiz: - please take on what was said in the comments on the draft. Wikipedia requires high quality secondary sources - which rules out youtube and instagram. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 03:40:11, 11 April 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Geapsu[edit]


The article that was written for Steven Benjamin Damelin had all sources verified. I and my colleagues are not sure we understand what the reviewer is asking for. Steven Benjamin Damelin is a well known highly cited academic and we followed 100's of articles on other academics (including my own---George Andrews). His research papers are valid, published. His awards are real. His degrees are real. We would very much appreciate it if you edit this article so that it is accepted. We do not understand the request re codes and correctly formatted references---We need help. The referee states that he requires more evidence for Damelin---given who he is, we request your help to edit the article for us so it is ok to be published.

Thank you very much. Geapsu (talk)

Geapsu (talk) 03:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Geapsu - It is not necessary to post requests for review in three places, or to create multiple copies of the draft that you want reviewed. Posting to the top of my user talk page and the top of the Teahouse is likely to be ignored. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You say that you do not understand the request about removing the codes. That is because another editor tidied up the first version of your draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:06:02, 11 April 2019 review of submission by Romejanic[edit]

Hello!

I would like to ask how I could improve my references and what is meant by 'independant to the source', as there aren't many resources or references which are secondary to the subject themself.

Thank you, Romejanic

Romejanic (talk) 08:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Romejanic Hi, The info could be found on the grey panel on top page and just click on the blue highlited text and it will bring you to another page which the topic is stated in details. In brief, Independent source means the sources is independent from the subject (ThinMatrix) or in another word the sources have NO association/affiliation with the subject. We need sources that are independent, reliable sources (secondary reliable sources) Sources from IMBD, Linkin, facebook, official web site, home page, interviews, press release, user generated sites, marketing articles associated with the subjects and etc. are considered NOT independent and or NOT reliable. Sources are considered good to use. If no multiple secondary sources could be found where by the sources talks about the subject in length and in depth, then the subject would not be merit a page in Wikipeia (Not notable). Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:51:40, 11 April 2019 review of submission by Scharrlib[edit]


Hi

I have made changes as requested and hopefully the page is OK now - please advise me of any other changes that are needed. Apologies this is my first page and I'm still learning, so am requesting another review and then hopefully publish. Thanks Andy

Scharrlib (talk) 09:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scharrlib. With the exception of medical schools (e.g. Sheffield Medical School) and law schools, subdivisions of universities such as faculties, schools, and departments are generally not considered notable unless they have made significant contributions to their field. You may add a couple of non-promotional sentences about ScHARR to University of Sheffield#Faculties and departments, but there is essentially zero chance of an entire article on ScHARR being accepted. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:52:17, 11 April 2019 review of draft by David Almond 1968[edit]


Hi, I cannot understand why my article is not being accepted - I have submitted a myriad of reliable and independent sources, both current and historical. I have spent almost 10 hours on this article. Please could you review and provide actual details on why it's being constantly turned down rather than simply redirecting me to the reliable sources page. I have read this many times and believe I have fulfilled these criteria. Many thanks --David Almond 1968 (talk) 09:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Almond 1968 (talk) 09:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented at length on the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:11:08, 11 April 2019 review of draft by Ankersmit1[edit]


User STRAUSSINTHEHOUSE has declined my submission based on the criticism that "submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources". Which sources does he mean? The scientific papers quoted are all of my autorship and of my work group. Does he mean that the scientific papers are not cited correctly? Or does he miss sources for other facts stated in the article? STRAUSSINTHEHOUSES' criticism is not detailed enough so that I could know where to start to improve my article. Please support.

Ankersmit1 (talk) 13:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ankersmit1: the declining editor has left a response at User_talk:StraussInTheHouse#Draft_Hendrik_Jan_Leonard_Ankersmit. Essentially, in-line citations are needed on part of the declined draft. SamHolt6 (talk) 16:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:06:08, 11 April 2019 review of draft by Thedavidshow[edit]


Been waiting on a re-review of this article since January. It has been updated with all new reliable sources and is better-sourced than many of the retail stores or retail chain articles listed in Wikipedia. Have had a LOT of coaching and spoken to a lot of editors on this article and I believe it to easily pass the notability guideline and it deserves a place on Wikipedia. (Among many other things Price William of England visited the shop and this was covered extensively in the international press.)

Thedavidshow (talk) 14:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted on 12 April by Nosebagbear. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:06:47, 11 April 2019 review of draft by InvalidOS[edit]


I would like to:

  1. Know if the subject is worthy of an article.
  2. Try and get this article to not be start-class or higher upon creation.

InvalidOStalk 14:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@InvalidOS: hello. As far as the notability of Creepers are concerned, it is difficult to say; for the most part, characters and other affiliated symbols are not judged to be independently notable from the their parent property, and as such are not given standalone articles. Creepers are popular, and so you may find enough sources to indicate that they are notable enough to make an article separate from Minecraft, but note this will be an uphill battle. I recommend you continue to add to your draft (focus on sources attesting to the cultural importance of creepers), or if you are feeling confident you could try to expand Creeper (Minecraft). Best. SamHolt6 (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:14:50, 11 April 2019 review of submission by AsraSohail[edit]

I added a new topic named Shorkie Tzu. It is declined 3 times. I added relevant and confirmed information. There is no doubt in the reliability of the information. I also added a reference at the end so that you can verify. So what's the point in rejecting it all the time? AsraSohail (talk) 15:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AsraSohail: The draft has been rejected because http://shihtzumix.com/shorkie/ does not have the characteristics of a reliable source. You may ask for further guidance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:51:29, 11 April 2019 review of submission by Haimantirakshitdas[edit]

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9NocVRerh5mjtDVmMYQk3Q

Haimantirakshitdas (talk) 15:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:36:38, 11 April 2019 review of draft by Kimberlypgordon[edit]


HI -- I was asked by Prof. Jason Lewis to help him create his wikipedia page and it was flagged for copyright-- much of the content was lists of awards and a bibliography of his publications-- I am unsure of how to represent that any differently. I have rewritten his bio but still-- if we go chronologically, then it is difficult to not have similarities. Can you give me some guidance? Thank you so much!! Kim Kimberlypgordon (talk)

Kimberlypgordon (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kimberlypgordon. The copyright concern was a bit misleading. Lists that don't contain an element of creativity are not subject to copyright (see Wikipedia:Copyright in lists). The list of journal publications was removed nonetheless, but the reason is that Wikipedia does not normally list a scientist's journal articles in their biography.
Study the professor test, decide whether Lewis satisfies any of the notability criteria, and if so pick the one criterion which he most unambiguously satisfies.
With an h-index of 73,[1] your first instinct may be #1 (the person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline), and that is plausible, but not certain. Lewis doesn't make it onto Clarivate Analytics' Highly Cited Researcher lists. And being widely cited doesn't necessarily translate into being good material for an encyclopedia. Contrast him with a few Lewises in similar fields who are Highly Cited Researchers:
Name Field h-index Citations of most cited work
Lewis L. Lanier Immunology 161 2875
Glyn Lewis Cross-Field 120 2005
David A. Lewis Cross-Field 115 2003
Lewis J. Rubin Clinical Medicine 111 4739
Kim Lewis Microbiology 75 1584
Draft:Jason Lewis Radiochemistry 73 504
Lewis Y. Geer Biology & Biochemistry 37 2520
Jason Lewis' most cited work has been cited 504 times, whereas each of the other Lewises have had at least ten articles cited more times than that. In any case, he's in good company in not having a Wikipedia biography, and the two Lewises who do, have very poor articles.
Include basic biographical information - birth, education, employment - which you may source from non-independent sources so long as there is no apparent controversy about it. Beyond that, concentrate on proving whatever notability criterion you pick. If, for example, the awards aren't what he's notable for, omit them. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:56, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:00:55, 11 April 2019 review of draft by AlpinistG[edit]


I'm still expanding this article with appropriate literature and references, but can anyone review this (and, if everything looks okay till now, approve) before I proceed to add more information? Thank you.

AlpinistG (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AlpinistG. The draft is in the pool to be reviewed. At the current rate you can expect feedback within 2-3 months. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:13:12, 11 April 2019 review of submission by Cb912[edit]


Hello! I am requesting a re-review because I have updated the draft to include a recent interview published by the Huffington Post, as well as updating some of the BroadwayWorld articles to information found in Playbill articles. A previous reviewer felt that BroadwayWorld articles did not count as RS.

Thank you!


Cb912 (talk) 17:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2019_April_11&oldid=892810983"