Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 November 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< November 15 << Oct | November | Dec >> November 17 >
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.


November 16[edit]

00:09:38, 16 November 2022 review of submission by RowsdowerSavesUs[edit]

I'm reaching out to initiate the process for the article I created to be reviewed and approved to be migrated to Wikipedia's mainspace. This is my first time making an article before, so I feel really lost. This help page was the best thing I could find.

Unfortunately, the instructions on the Articles for creation page were not helpful, as I was unable to locate the "Submit for review" button, and the suggested code snippet did not make any changes that I could tell. Again, this is my first time, so please feel free to point me in the right direction, but I have tried to follow the instructions I could manage to track down. RowsdowerSavesUs (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @RowsdowerSavesUs, Welcome to the AfC help desk.
Your draft has been nominated for speedy deletion as it appears to exist only to promote a person, place or organization. You can contest this speedy deletion on the page if you wish to improve it. If it isn't deleted, you can add{{subst:submit}} to the top of the page. This will submit it, and you won't have to click a button.
Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 00:32, 16 November 2022 (UTC).[reply]
I have contested the nomination, and would love to hear specifics about how it can be improved. Also, I'm not sure why you advised me to add the code snippet when I already said that I tried that but nothing happened. I added the code to the top of the article when I'm in 'source editing' but it just puts it in the body of the entry. What should I expect to happen? RowsdowerSavesUs (talk) 00:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the CSD tag as I think the article can be improved and I have questions about the tagging as the draft does contain criticism of the article subject so it wasn't overly promotional. Like all biographies, it focuses upon the article subject and their work and ideas but it wasn't advertising. I'd appreciate it, EchidnaLives, if you and other AFC reviewers can advise this new editor on how to improve their draft. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 02:54, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RowsdowerSavesUs, it's important that articles on this encyclopedia present a neutral point-of-view so articles do not get labeled as promotional. I think you were able to do this but it's something to keep in mind if this is the subject area you want to work in. Liz Read! Talk! 02:57, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping @Liz, I'd be happy to help! (@RowsdowerSavesUs pinging in case you don't see).
  • First of all, I don't think notability or verifiability is an issue here. The sources present on the draft are sufficient. However, there is a bit of cleaning up that could be done to improve the article further.
  • In the Three Worlds Framework section, after the second paragraph, it becomes a list of time periods. This is proseline, and we want to try and avoid that. Could you turn it into body text?
  • A minor thing that should be fixed is the inline external links. It's small, but per WP:EXTERNALLINKS they should be removed.
  • Could you add some wikilinks? We don't want to overlink, but stuff like "The New York Times" and "Manhattan Institute" should be linked. Again, minor thing.
  • The only non-npov thing I'm really seeing at the moment is the proseline I mentioned above. It's unclear if it is a quote or not. If it is, then this isn't an issue, but quotation marks should be used. If not, it may need rephrasing to follow the guideline.
I believe when this is complete, the article will be ready for the mainspace. If you have any questions, issues or need clarification, feel free to reply here or ask on my talk page. Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 03:58, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is very far from being acceptable as an encyclopedia article. It is possible that he is notable, but a review of the first ten references doesn't show any notability, and there is a ton of promotional fluff. An article can't say "X has been published in these places", citing only the person's own website; neither can a claim like that be sourced with links to the publications thenselves. Search results can never be used as sources. Please read these guidelines to understand the kind of sources that are required to a) show how the person is notable and b) verify the information in the draft.
You have not explained what happened when you tried to place the "submit" template, but since the draft needs a lot of work before it is ready to submit, that is a later question at this point. Maybe ypu included the "nowiki" tags by mistake? More importantly, what is your connection to Renn? --bonadea contributions talk 17:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RowsdowerSavesUs: in addition to what I said above: it is difficult to write a Wikipedia article from scratch, and for a new editor it is very difficult indeed. I suggest that you contribute by editing existing articles for a few months first – that is the best way to learn about the most important guidelines and policies. --bonadea contributions talk 18:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

00:59:50, 16 November 2022 review of draft by Shunya1508[edit]


Hello @Hoary.

Thank you for your corrections and advice on {Draft:Bunta_Inoue}.

Following your advice, I have improved the opening sentence, etc., and modified the links, etc.

If you are able, it would be appreciated if you could review it and offer your advice.

Sincerely yours

Shunya1508 (talk) 00:59, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shunya1508, I tweaked it a little a few minutes ago. Please wait for some fresh reviewer to give it a review. -- Hoary (talk) 06:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Hoary.
Thank you very much for revising the article.
I will wait for other reviews and advice.
I'm very sorry for bothering you when you are busy. Shunya1508 (talk) 09:18, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

04:16:33, 16 November 2022 review of submission by ZeroApocalypse[edit]


I understood that the early drafts of this article may not appear to be notable for Wikipedia to accept. However, after the rejection of article creation, I have gathered more reliable and notable sources regarding the school. Especially in its high academic performance in the recent public examination of Hong Kong. (Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination). In addition to newly added notability, the school is also recognized as a top school in the region. However, as noted in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(high_schools), the internet coverage of schools in Asia is not well. Regarding its school banding, I found multiple websites online ranking the school. E.g. https://dse.bigexam.hk/zh-hk/ssp/school/148 https://www.myschool.hk/secondary-school/Carmel-Secondary-School but I do not know if they are suitable sources to include. I hope to seek advice about how to prove its notability better. As the page already has its Chinese Wikipedia version, would it be better if I translate it directly? English and Chinese are both official languages of Hong Kong, and the school is an English-medium education school. Therefore, I think it is suitable for it to have an English article as well. I would appreciate any help, thank you.

ZeroApocalypse (talk) 04:16, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

07:43:25, 16 November 2022 review of submission by SteadfasterX[edit]

I understood that reliable sources are missing. Is it enough here to provide links from "reliable" websites in the "references" topic?

or is my draft rejected for other reasons? Still learning here ;)

SteadfasterX (talk) 07:43, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SteadfasterX: your draft wasn't rejected; it was only declined, meaning it can be resubmitted once you have addressed the decline reasons. These being:
  1. The draft is not supported by reliable sources — in fact, there are no sources whatsoever. Every material statement must be backed up by reference to a reliable published source; otherwise it's just your opinion (or worse, copied from somewhere).
  2. There is no evidence that the topic is notable. This is separate from the previous point, but related, because notability is established by citing sources (specifically, sources that meet the WP:GNG standard) — ergo, no sources, no notability.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:55, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @SteadfasterX, welcome to the AfC help desk!
I've looked at the sources, and here is a quick overview:
If you can find more sources that are reliable, independent and in-depth, add them and it may be accepted if notability can be proved. Unfortunately, as DoubleGrazing said, it will not be accepted in it's current form. If you have any questions, feel free to ask! Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 07:58, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi  :)
thanks guys for the quick responses!
just one point to add: https://archlinux.org/pacman/ is just a tool (i.e. a package manager) which is used in that linux distribution and so referencing the creator of that tool should be not an issue (afaiu). it is more to provide details about what's inside.
ok back to my q. I am asking about these sources for example:
Is that enough to become notable?
do I have to remove the forum links then or can (should) they stay? SteadfasterX (talk) 09:01, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SteadfasterX The links to the forums should be removed; forums are not reliable sources, as @EchidnaLives pointed out. Any information in the draft that was based on what was said in the forums needs to be removed from the draft, or else you need to find a better source. David10244 (talk) 09:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:21:47, 16 November 2022 review of draft by Drbluedude[edit]

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

Hello,

I am working on an article "Online Therapy Unit", and have had it rejected for reading more like an advertisement. Essentially, I am just wondering if the concern here is the actual content of the article, or if I need to include more reliable citations. I just don't want to keep submitting if I am not properly understanding the reasoning for rejection.

Thanks so much!

Drbluedude (talk) 15:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:06:58, 16 November 2022 review of submission by Sanjaychandrabarman9434[edit]


Sanjaychandrabarman9434 (talk) 16:06, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sanjaychandrabarman9434: you don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected because it does not even remotely resemble an article, and is therefore clearly not ready to be published. Please see WP:YFA for advice on how to create an article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:22:13, 16 November 2022 review of submission by Love bunnny bug12[edit]


 Courtesy link: User:Love bunnny bug12/sandbox

why did my draft get denined

Love bunnny bug12 (talk) 16:22, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Love bunnny bug12: TBH, I don't think this really requires an answer. I will request that the draft be deleted. Please don't post such content again. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:52:45, 16 November 2022 review of draft by 151.68.132.59[edit]


Where in the draft sources are needed?

151.68.132.59 (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Everywhere. All the material content must be referenced. Currently nothing is, apart from the last section which is copypasted from this source. Please see WP:REFB. See also WP:N and WP:V to understand why we require information to be supported by reliable published sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:03, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:17:43, 16 November 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by WikiEditor242[edit]


Hello, it would b super if another editor could review the article I submitted. From the two sets of comments I received from the current editor, his comments and responses feel very biased. Especially the notes that the coverage is insufficient and the sources are not well known. Having been recognized by a university, an industry standard, and international telecommunications body and a a local org are surely worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Please help. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WikiEditor242

WikiEditor242 (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiEditor242: my advice would be not to start throwing around accusations of bias etc., at least not without solid evidence. You may not agree with the reviewer's assessment, but that doesn't mean they aren't doing a good job.
On a quick glance, the referencing seems to consist mostly of primary sources, interviews, blogs, and routine reporting; at least one doesn't even mention her. But since you will probably disagree with my evaluation as well, let's turn this around: can you please highlight the three sources that you feel are strongest in terms of the WP:GNG notability standard, and I'll be happy to take a closer look at them. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:31, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback!
Have trimmed the citations... happy to trim more :) WikiEditor242 (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also to be very clear, Simpsons' efforts at each of the levels (Technovation, TechWomen and the UNHLP) have been on a volunteer basis - acting as their advocate and ambassador. So the cited sources are independent in that sense WikiEditor242 (talk) 02:33, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2022_November_16&oldid=1123175325"