Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 August 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< August 14 << Jul | August | Sep >> August 16 >
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.


August 15[edit]

02:37, 15 August 2023 review of submission by Johsebb[edit]

The rejection of this article (with an invitation to revise) is based on a number of factors, but I'm puzzled by them. Some appear to be general:

  • This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. My sources are all published and most are well-known. Articles are in refereed journals. Which sources are not reliable? Which statements are not adequately supported? A number of points are supported by wikilinks rather than books or journal articles: Is that a problem?
  • This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view... What are examples of a non-formal tone or a non-neutral point of view?

In addition, the reviewer has made three comments:

  • Not enough inline citations. What are examples of statements that fail to have a needed citation?
  • Does not read like a Wikipedia article. This is a bit unclear. I have tried to follow both the general Wikipedia style requirements and those more specifically of the Mathematics WikiProject. Where have I failed?
  • Overly complicated to the average reader. The subject of this article is technical and theoretical. I've tried to make the article accessible by introducing it with examples that anyone can play with, and by continuing to use illustrative examples throughout. I feel that I have pitched this article at roughly the same level as, say, those on group theory and finite fields, for example. Is this not true?

I would sincerely appreciate clarification of these points so that I can move forward on a revision. Thanks for any assistance. Johsebb (talk) 02:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:52, 15 August 2023 review of submission by Lucy Ingram[edit]

I don't understand why my article on Stephen Buoro was declined (by someone who doesn't even have a special interest in Nigeria or Nigerian literature) for not having good enough references. It has 13 references. The article on Maddie Mortimer only has 8 and that got published. Lucy Ingram (talk) 07:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lucy Ingram: firstly, a reviewer does not need to be a subject matter expert to evaluate whether a draft meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for publication.
Secondly, you should not make assumptions as to other editors' expertise or qualifications.
And thirdly, it isn't the number of sources which matters. Three solid ones may be enough to establish notability, whereas 13 flaky ones may not.
And finally, by comparing your draft to other articles that may exist you're on a hiding to nothing. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It definitely has more than three solid sources. Lucy Ingram (talk) 08:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lucy Ingram: and which ones would those be? Note that interviews don't count, as don't any other primary sources. I'd say the PW piece is okay, but that's just one, and one isn't enough. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Lucy Ingram. Please read the golden rule carefully, and evaluate the sources against those criteria. ColinFine (talk) 19:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement that article reviewers or Wikipedia editors in general be experts in, or even knowledgeable in, the topic areas that they write about. Wikipedia is written by lay people for lay people, summarizing what independent reliable sources say about a topic and showing how it is notable- such as a notable creative professional.
For one, interviews with the subject cannot be used to establish notability. They can be used for other purposes, but not that.
You write that his first novel had positive reviews- this could mean that his novel merits an article but not him personally- an article about the novel could summarize those reviews. To write about him personally it would help to summarize reviews of him as a writer generally. 331dot (talk) 08:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:58, 15 August 2023 review of submission by S.s.Grigera[edit]

Hello, this website was already declined 2x although it is similarly structured like other spin-off companies and uses similar reference sources. Could you please double check if it will be rejected again? Thank you for your support. S.s.Grigera (talk) 07:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

S.s.Grigera Please see other stuff exists. It could be that these other articles that you have seen are also inappropriate, and you would be unaware of this. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate content to get by us, and even exist for years. We can only address what we know about. Standards have also changed over time and what was once acceptable may be no longer, and it too is simply unaddressed yet. If you would like to help us, you are welcome to identify other inappropriate articles you have seen for possible action. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those classified as good articles, which have been vetted by the community.
Note that companies do not merit articles just because they exist- there is criteria for inclusion, which we callnotability, like the definition of a notable company. The vast majority of companies (just like people) do not merit articles. An article must not merely document the existence of the company and tell what it does- it must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it is notable. We want sources that, on their own and not based on company materials(like interviews, press releases, and announcements of routine activities) to tell what they see as important/significant/influential about the company(not what the company sees as important about itself). Please read Your First Article.
It seems that you work for this company(as you uploaded its logo), please make the Terms of Use required paid editing disclosure.
I would add that by uploading the company logo to Commons, you have made it available for anyone to use and sell as long as attribution is provided. If your company wants to do that, that's fine, but if not, it will need to be removed from Commons and uploaded to this Wikipedia directly under "fair use". This does carry some restrictions like not being able to be used in drafts, but images are not relevant to the draft approval process anyway, which only considers the text and sources. 331dot (talk) 08:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@S.s.Grigera: publicity materials and (other) primary sources do not establish notability per WP:GNG; we need to see significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:20, 15 August 2023 review of submission by 83.122.52.29[edit]

Javad Ramezani 83.122.52.29 (talk) 09:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:55, 15 August 2023 review of submission by 66.214.255.122[edit]

Preemptively submitted an article for review before a coworker was able to review it. Any possibility of removing it from the public sphere to review? 66.214.255.122 (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor, we don't really do pre-reviews but I can say your article in it's current form is unsuitable for Wikipedia (which is why a speedy deletion tag has been placed on it.)
It is full of promotional language and reads like a PR piece for an advert. This is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, which does not allow promotion of any kind.
A Wikipedia article serves only to paraphrase what reliable, independent, secondary source say about a subject. Please also check Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) which is our threshold for what companies and organisations can have a Wikipedia article. If AEA Ribbon Mics does not pass the criteria in that policy, then it cannot have a Wikipedia article at this time.
You also mention that you submitted it before a coworker was able to review it. By chance, are you an employee of AEA Ribbon Mics? If so, you must declare that you have both a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and make a Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. Not doing so is a breach of the Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Service.
Writing a new article on Wikipedia is difficult. You must remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia: not an advertising platform, directory, or a way to promote a subject. Wikipedia is not a social media site like Facebook, Instagram, or LinkedIn.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here: Get help at the Teahouse
Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 20:07, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:46, 15 August 2023 review of submission by BurningBlaze05[edit]

Do have any suggestions for my page? There's lots of pages on Wikipedia that have little to none quality. How should I get my page up to a standard that is acceptable? BurningBlaze05 (talk) 21:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BurningBlaze05 No precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into idiocracy
Please confirm that you have read the decline reason, and what additional help you feel you need 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:06, 15 August 2023 review of submission by Globalsoccerhero[edit]

Can someone please assist–this page continues to be deleted even after following citing requirements. I am also using the same citing sources as other Guyana National Team players. Globalsoccerhero (talk) 22:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see other stuff exists. Perhaps those other articles are problematic as well and simply not acted on yet. The draft was rejected and won't be considered further. 331dot (talk) 22:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:03, 15 August 2023 review of submission by Jujupiter[edit]

Hi there! I'd like to add an image of the artist but have no idea how to get an image free of rights of him. What can I do to get one? I have sent him a direct message on Instagram but no replies. Any ideas what I could do? Thank you for your help! Jujupiter (talk) 23:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Images are not relevant to the draft approval process, which only considers the text and sources. It's not necessary to have an image in order for the draft to be accepted.
That said, the easiest way to get an image in terms of copyright is to take the image yourself. If that's not possible, and if the person does not make an image of themselves available with the appropriate copyright, there's not much you can do. 331dot (talk) 23:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than worrying about an image, I suggest you put your effort into finding better sources for your draft. I haven't looked in detail, but it looks to me as if none of your sources are independent| of the artist. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources.
Please study the Golden rule, and look for sources that meet all the requirements there (they do not have to be in English, if English sources are not available). If you do not provide some, I predict that the draft will not be accepted. ColinFine (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2023_August_15&oldid=1171414636"