Help desk
< September 12	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 14 >

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.

September 13[edit]

04:11:38, 13 September 2022 review of draft by Nhutchison[edit]

Nhutchison (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Hot Club of San Francisco (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

My article submission for the Hot Club of San Francisco was rejected by a reviewer because it was not adequately supported by reliable sources. I'm thankful for the speedy review and respect Wikipedia's policies to ensure the veracity of information. I (now) understand that the Hot Club of San Francisco's website is not a verifiable source and have removed it, however I would really appreciate some clarity/specifics on my remaining sources and/or the info they pertain to. Would it be possible to look at my article and identify some potentially problematic sources/statements? Anything you can point out that you think would make the article submission adhere to Wikipedia's standards (and make it more likely to be accepted) would help. Thank you so much!

Nhutchison (talk) 04:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nhutchison without doing a full review it is difficult to tell so I suggest resubmitting it. However, I recommend correcting the URLs for the citations. I did the first one as an example. Also be mindful interviews are not independent so cannot be used to establish notability and standard announcements about performances, album releases or the like are generally considered trivial coverage, which are fine to use for verifiability but do not nothing for notability. Generally for musicians in-depth coverage comes from reviews of their work. S0091 (talk) 17:52, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much S0091. I really appreciate your help! Nhutchison (talk) 19:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

05:54:09, 13 September 2022 review of submission by Rainbownautinspace[edit]

Rainbownautinspace (talk · contribs)

My article got rejected for lack of reliable sources. As it is the first article i've drafted could i receive some guidance on how to improve these references! Rainbownautinspace (talk) 05:54, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Rainbownautinspace,

I've had a look at some of the sources, and I agree with the reviewer who declined (note: not rejected) this draft. For example this eShe piece is from a publication which doesn't seem entirely reliable to me; more of a glorified blogging site, by the looks of it. Meanwhile this EdEx article, while being (possibly) a more established publication, is essentially an interview, or rather a series of back-to-back direct quotes from the subject. Neither seems to me to meet the required standards of independence and reliability. And although these are just two of the sources, they are both cited multiple times, and between them account for a third or so of the draft's citations.

There are also some statements which are not supported. The person's DOB is given, but this is not backed up by a reliable published source. And in the 'Early life and education' section, her degrees are enumerated in some detail, but the source cited against them (incidentally, a reprint of the eShe article, so cannot be counted as a separate source) doesn't actually provide that level of detail. Not only can we not accept information which cannot be verified, but this also raises the question — from where is this information coming, if not from published sources?

HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot @DoubleGrazing! I am going to take all these suggestions in account and rework it! I had added the early life and education as enumerated on the website of TAOS and on her linkedin but did not reference it as it wasn't an independent source. Again i found a mention of that here https://jaipurliteraturefestival.org/speaker/tanya-abraham so i added it as citation but removed it subsequently as it doesn't seem like a reliable source for wikipedia. I will remove that information (also dob which i got from soc media) unless i find a reliable source mention. I understand the article would be shorter but it is better to have good source citations. Rainbownautinspace (talk) 07:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Once again my genuine gratitude for your guidance. If it is not too much, could you answer a few of my questions.

I have made some of the changes as you have mentioned but still had a few doubts-

1.I have removed the Eshe article as refererence but instead used the Moneycontrol one in 2 places- it is the same article and author, but moneycontrol seems a much more reliable source. What is your opinion on this?

2. I have kept EDex as a source- It is an ed supplement for The Indian Express a reputable news source.

3. I have removed all unreliable information as mentioned and added some more reliable references!

Is there anything else I can do to improve the article before resubmitting? Rainbownautinspace (talk) 09:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:30:36, 13 September 2022 review of submission by Ad manum servus[edit]

Ad manum servus (talk · contribs)

I'd like to know how to remove the advertising tone of the article. Should I rewrite the career achievements os is there a problem with the utilized sources?

Thanks in advance. Ad manum servus (talk) 09:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ad manum servus: I agree with the reviewer, the tone is quite promotional, with puffery throughout the text — it reads like someone introducing him as a guest of honour at a gala dinner, or perhaps how he might describe himself in a job application. Just stick to the facts, without positive spin or embellishment. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"a member of the Top Executive Team" and "has an extensive background in automotive sales, marketing and business operations" is promotional trumpery for example. Theroadislong (talk) 11:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ad manum servus: I made some improvements. I'll point out that Top Executive Team is a direct quote from the source. It could use some more biographical info, such as where he was born and non-Jeep coverage, to show he's notable independently of Jeep. Otherwise consensus would be to put his info in the Jeep article and redirect searches for his name there. TechnoTalk (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:57:25, 13 September 2022 review of submission by Tcastles[edit]

Tcastles (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Immuta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you for your feedback. I have been told that this submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a wikipedia article. However, it is unclear how the references fall short and why this article does not meet inclusion criteria.

Here are guideline's from Wikipedia: Notability (organizations and companies): A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

Our main sources are all reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Particularly, these four sources in Forbes, Boston Globe, TechCrunch, and Fortune speak to the company's growing notability:

Rogers, Bruce. "Matthew Carroll Creates Immuta To Provide Secure Data Access Control". Forbes. Retrieved 2022-07-11.

Gardizy, Anissa (June 9, 2022). "Software firm Immuta raises $100 million, becoming Boston's newest unicorn". Boston Globe. Retrieved 2022-07-11.

"Data governance startup Immuta lands $100M to pursue acquisitions". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2022-07-11.

"Intel Capital leads $40M investment in data privacy startup Immuta". Fortune. Retrieved 2022-08-17.

The remaining sources are niche trade publications, but just as reliable and indicative of the company's notability in the data governance/security community. They are also secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

I was very careful to remove all primary, non-independent sources. Now, the article only includes reliable, secondary sources.

Please let me know what else I can do to improve this article.

Thank you!

Tcastles (talk) 13:57, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tcastles: per WP:ORGCRIT, routine business reporting (M&A, investment rounds, appointments, opening of new locations, etc.) does not establish notability, nor do interviews, press statements, or any kind of churnalism. Of the sources cited in this draft, the Forbes piece looks closest to significant coverage, but the publication is known to feature sponsored and paid-for content, and as such is generally considered unreliable (see WP:FORBESCON). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DoubleGrazing, thanks so much for your feedback here! I understand your point about routine business reporting, particularly pertaining to funding rounds. As @TechnoTalk mentioned below, the organization's funding rounds, particularly its most recent $100M Series, are not routine. They have led to the organization's $1B valuation, ranking them among Boston's Unicorn startup organizations, which is notable to Wikipedia with precedent, as evidenced by Wikipedia's page devoted to unicorn startup companies. I'm curious how this would impact the reassessment of this article.

Thanks again for your feedback! Tcastles (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tcastles: To remove all ambiguity, consensus is to deprecate any Forbes content written by someone listed as Forbes Council or Forbes Contributor, Senior or otherwise. If it says Staff or Former Staff, it's fine. Aside from that, all Forbes content can be used to source info just like a press release can, but it depends on what is being sourced, and how it's written, and it generally does not help move the notability needle. I'm also going to disagree with DoubleGrazing. The three non-Forbes sources are the most significant coverage, since they contain independent reporting in reliable sources, in addition to company announcements and press releases. Unicorn funding is not routine. That's why we have List of unicorn startup companies and an article about the term, Unicorn (finance). TechnoTalk (talk) 18:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your feedback, @TechnoTalk. The main reason I wrote this article is because the organization's most recent funding round landed them in the list of Boston's unicorn startups — I'm glad to know that precedent shows that Wikipedia finds these type of companies noteworthy. Are there additional steps I can take to resubmit this article, or other ways I can improve it before resubmitting?

Thanks again! Tcastles (talk) 17:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tcastles:} I'm not on Wikipedia as much as I used to be. Real life has become a bit more enjoyable. Your article has unfortunately been rejected and won't be reconsidered in its present format. Your edit history suggests you have a conflict of interest. You got a message on your talk page about that, which you haven't responded to. It's not impossible, but unlikely that a relatively new editor would take so much time trying to write an article about a new and emerging company, unless they have a connection. Here's the relevant info about disclosing a connection Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Paid editors. It's too late for this article, but you can save the draft, and wait for more media coverage to come out. You can then try to resubmit using the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process. Read the COI info carefully. You can always ping me if you need more help or advice, and I'll respond when I eventually come back. TechnoTalk (talk) 19:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:22:18, 13 September 2022 review of draft by Missinternational2022[edit]

Missinternational2022 (talk · contribs)
- User:Missinternational2022/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can someone help with editing and the submission process. I don't understand what is wrong with my article.

Missinternational2022 (talk) 16:22, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Missinternational2022: the draft was citing sources which are not acceptable; most of them have been removed already, but the Instagram one also should go, and I think the Gulesider one may reveal too much personal info so I'd take that out, too (I realise it's in the public domain, but doesn't mean we need to link to it). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I noticed that you uploaded the photo as your 'own work'. I cannot of course know whether you are the photographer Ina Stenvig, but if you are, I hope you realise you have now made the image available under Creative Commons licence for anyone to do pretty much whatever they want with. And if you're not the photographer, then she probably won't be best pleased with this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:37, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:41:53, 13 September 2022 review of draft by Peonae[edit]

Peonae (talk · contribs)
- Draft:CGVerse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there! Thank you for reading my message!

I am writing a draft article about CGVerse, an online concept art school. Multiple submissions were completed, each with accurate improvements.

The last edit by Greenman suggested I add more significant coverage. I agree and content within these references is significantly and directly impacted by CGVerse, ie., in-depth interviews with the school's mentors and students. Other Wikipedia articles do not have references with significant coverage and seemed to encounter successful approvals.

Would you share details of how to navigate the approval process with more clarity?

Thank you for your time and looking forward to hearing from you!

Sincerely, Peonae

Peonae (talk) 22:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Peonae: the reviewer wasn't saying you need to add more significant coverage, but rather that you need to add sources with significant coverage (of CGVerse). In order to demonstrate notability, which is a fundamental requirement for an article to be published in Wikipedia, we need to see significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. Your draft currently cites no such source. (And as for your point about other articles which may also be lacking such sources, please see OTHERSTUFF.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thanks for replying. Yes, I understand editors want sources with significant coverage.

I'm a bit baffled - the interview source from 80 lvl.com for example is completely independent and a leader of publishing within that industry. What other significance is required? This is a young company and it will not have the same publicity as, say, Amazon yet. The nature of this company is a school and I'm bound to sources where it talks about its instructors, students etc. I'm not sure what other significant coverage will look like without making it too promo. I would love some examples of other online schools where it shows what editors require please.

Another note: I agree with having more sources and I will try to improve this in the next submission. The otherstuff link I'm not sure what to do there. Can you explain that a little bit?

Thank you! Peonae (talk) 18:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Peonae I fear there is a mismatch in your understanding of what Wikipedia needs in referencing and what Wikipedia really needs.

We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.

Of the things you offer as references, some do not even mention CGVerse. Others are user generated content. One tells us that Google owns the domain. Please rethink your referencing from scratch. We do not want more references. We want better references. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Fiddle Faddle Thanks for the links. I'm getting a better understanding now. To check if I am on the right track:

"secondary, reliable" sources mean other authors summaries, synposis, interpretation etc of these primary sources where it states facts about this company? Therefore, the sources from 80 lvl.com is sufficient, the medium.com interview is sufficient, but the rest is not, is that correct?

Thank you. Peonae (talk) 20:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Peonae Forgive me, I have not delved into the draft in minute detail, but I have examined the references, as shown above. I will give you a general response about interviews.

An interview is not, of itself, useful in establishing notability, though it may be used for verifying facts niot subject to challenge. The medium that published an interview can matter; unreliable sources are unreliable, period. However, even in a normally reliable source, an interview which is with the subject of the draft and where're there is largely no commentary by anyone about the content of the interview means it is useless. What we need is commentary by those independent of the subject, in depth. If an interview is part of that so be it.

When I looked at your putative references I did not find one that met our needs. That is a problem for you, going forwards. Other reviewers may have subtly different opinions, but we work to the same broad principles. Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles.

Wikipedia records what others have said about the su bject in independent reliable sources. If the sources cannto be found then your quest is at an end. This essay may be helpful. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Peonae I note that the picture decorating the draft is a screenshot on Wikimedia Commons, made by an editor whose name suggests they are associated with CGVerse. However, there are no permissions associated with that screenshot. Commons has very stringent rules about pictures, and I have tagged it there as requiring formal permission. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:24, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]