Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 October 19
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < October 18 | << Sep | October | Nov >> | October 20 > |
| 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. |
October 19[edit]
05:56:37, 19 October 2019 review of submission by RahulJ730[edit]
I have removed all the promotional content on which the objection was raised. I have provided News links too. Still Wikipedia thinks it's an advertising. Please show me which lines of the content look like advertisement. And, please re-review my article once and suggest me the changes you want. RahulJ730 (talk) 05:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
- RahulJ730, For starters, all of the sources about her life need a reliable source that is cited inline. Also, the medical claims made at the end need a WP:MEDRS -- a more stringent source than usual. The whole public interaction section should go. And the global presence feels like I'm reading a LinkedIn, not an encyclopedia. It should probably all be removed or briefly summarized under career. Also, please go through all sources to ensure they are reliable and independent. If they aren't, get rid of them. You likely need to find more sources regardless as well. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:46, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
08:56:34, 19 October 2019 review of submission by Huskhod[edit]
why your article submission was declined? Huskhod (talk) 08:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Huskhod: Wikipedia isn't a free alternative to advertise a company. In addition, Wikipedia has to adhere to copyright laws. Therefore, we cannot accept material from elsewhere on the web. This especially important because it can put Wikipedia in legal jeopardy. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 05:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
09:27:08, 19 October 2019 review of submission by JamesTOswald[edit]
- JamesTOswald (talk · contribs)
Hello AFC, Thank you for the feedback on my article. Since my first review, I have added much better independent sourcing to establish notability, I now have citations to 4 independent interviews from the subject, 2 independent articles on him, As well as 6 or so other independent sources that mention him and his work. Ontop of this I removed any sections that are not backed up with independent sources (early life and family life), as well as subsequently removing sources which were not independent in the first draft such as the subjects blog and youtube. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do to improve this article. Thank You,
JamesTOswald (talk) 09:27, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
- I notice you are still using YouTube, Twitter and blogs which are not reliable sources and interviews are not independent. Theroadislong (talk) 09:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Theroadislong Hello, Thank you for your quick reply! The single YouTube reference is a link to when the channel info page when it was created, and its original names, this is not self published and is automatically generated by YouTube. The twitter reference is pointing out something of little relevance in a subsection and ill get rid of what it cites as well as the link (ill keep this in mind for future articles). As for interviews not being independent sources, Can you please point me to accepted policy on this? I spent a long time looking at Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_independent_sources#Non-independent_sources and was under the impression that when establishing notability for a person, The only way to do so was through independent articles and interviews of the on the person (how else would we get any information on the person other then interviewing them or having a 3rd party interact with them?). Looking at Wikipedia:Interviews it appears all of my linked interviews meet independence criterion. Please correct me if I am wrong, and let me know if there is anything else. Thanks so much! JamesTOswald (talk) 10:02, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Update, I've removed the twitter citation JamesTOswald (talk) 10:02, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
- "Interviews are generally reliable for the fact that the interviewee said something, but not necessarily for the accuracy of what was said. The publications are merely repeating their comments, typically with minimal editing. No matter how highly respected a publication is, it does not present interviewee responses as having been checked for accuracy. In this sense, interviews should be treated like self-published material." Theroadislong (talk) 10:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Theroadislong That's for reliability rather then independence, also since "If the material is primary, then it is treated as if the interviewee had written the same content on their website or Twitter. As long as we can be reasonably certain that the material was written by them, then the Wikipedia policy on primary sources applies. Such material can be used, but needs to be used with care, and only to cite facts that can be verified from the source itself." Since I am using it to cite facts that can be proved from the source this would still allow it to fall under reliability, no? JamesTOswald (talk) 10:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
- JamesTOswald, For material in-text, primary sources such as interviews should be used only sparingly. For establishing notability, interviews are not sufficient. To establish notability, only reliable, independent, secondary sources can be used. Look for articles in news sites, newspapers and magazines, references in books, or the like. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Theroadislong That's for reliability rather then independence, also since "If the material is primary, then it is treated as if the interviewee had written the same content on their website or Twitter. As long as we can be reasonably certain that the material was written by them, then the Wikipedia policy on primary sources applies. Such material can be used, but needs to be used with care, and only to cite facts that can be verified from the source itself." Since I am using it to cite facts that can be proved from the source this would still allow it to fall under reliability, no? JamesTOswald (talk) 10:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
- "Interviews are generally reliable for the fact that the interviewee said something, but not necessarily for the accuracy of what was said. The publications are merely repeating their comments, typically with minimal editing. No matter how highly respected a publication is, it does not present interviewee responses as having been checked for accuracy. In this sense, interviews should be treated like self-published material." Theroadislong (talk) 10:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
09:49:40, 19 October 2019 review of submission by Brettq888[edit]
Brettq888 (talk) 09:49, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello,
I was told to ask for assistance with editing my article I drafted here for tips to make sure that is passes review next time. So, is there anyone who can give me some advice or assist me?
Thank you
- You need to provide reliable independent sources that talk in-depth about the term/concept. This means no passing mentions and no sources from organizations related to the concept. For starters, can you cite multiple reliable sources that support the statement: "Fraud Orchestration is a paradigm, a unified approach to fraud investigations, operations and fraud compliance." That would be the first step. Without such sources, it's a neologism, as the reviewer stated. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:03, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
16:55:02, 19 October 2019 review of submission by Shifaradiowala[edit]
I have queries about what I could use as source for citation for my Article since IMDB doesn't qualify do news sites like times and mumbai mirror do? If not those then what other sites can I use for citations? I am fairly new to the site so thank you for the help. Shifaradiowala (talk) 16:55, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Shifaradiowala. Major newspapers such as The Times of India and Mumbai Mirror are generally reliable sources for pop culture, as are entertainment magazines such as The Hollywood Reporter and Variety. Although reliable, they may not always be independent. They may reprint press releases, either explicitly or as churnalism. They may also use an interview format to let someone talk about themselves without independent analysis by the interviewer. Even when they are reliable and independent, they may contain only passing mentions of a person, such as in a list of cast and crew, without going into any detail about them. Books are often good sources, although they too must be evaluated for reliability, independence, and significant coverage. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
18:50:05, 19 October 2019 review of draft by Wikimility[edit]
- Wikimility (talk · contribs)
Sk sahoo is a actor i am her best friend . I want to add his biography on Wikipedia so i try this page . But you tell me it is not possible ?
Please help and support my friend
Do you want to verify he is actor or not please search on Google SubhraKant Sahoo actor Wikimility (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Wikimility. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a place to write about your friends (or yourself, your family, or your organization). If you want to improve the encyclopedia, see Wikipedia:Community portal for ways to do so. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:47, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
2019 maine black bears women field hockey team season
Baozon90 (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
- Baozon90, The issue here is several fold. For starters, you've left the templated parts of the article that you're supposed to replace with your own text. You also have only one source, and basically no information. Please see 2018–19 Boston Bruins season as an example of a hockey season page. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:21, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
23:57:50, 19 October 2019 review of submission by Notjoemama1[edit]
- Notjoemama1 (talk · contribs)
To whoever it may concern, The Wikipedia page about Nathan Duttlinger was rejected due to lack of notoriety for Wikipedia. However, we disagree. Not only has the page been cleaned up and now appears much more professional, but Nathan is also a person with enough notoriety for Wikipedia. He has been quoted by many people to be an inspiration and a role model, and is a two-time qualifier for the Fortnite world cup. I'd like to mention this because of the fact that this year's Fortnite World Cup winner has his own Wikipedia page, so why can't he?
Regards, Notjoemama1 Notjoemama1 (talk) 23:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Notjoemama1. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It contains biographical articles about notable people. It is not like Facebook or other sites where people "have their own pages". Novice editors are commonly advised to cite at least three independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage of their topic. The draft lists three "sources", but none of them mention Duttlinger, so it fails to demonstrate that he is notable.
- I don't see an encyclopedia article about Kyle Giersdorf, but as this year's winner of the Fortnite World Cup, he's more likely to have gained significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time than Duttlinger, who you say has qualified to compete for the cup, but not won it. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)