Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 September 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< September 26 << Aug | September | Oct >> September 28 >
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 27[edit]

07:11, 27 September 2023 review of submission by Jesse Paul Blue[edit]

Interested about citing sources. I have not quoted anyone in the article. do I still need to cite? If so what then? Jesse Paul Blue (talk) 07:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jesse Paul Blue. As this is a biography of a living person, every material statement must be cited with an in-line reference. This is non-negotiable. Please have a read of WP:BLPRS and WP:INCITE, and for a tutorial on citing see WP:INTREFVE. Qcne (talk) 10:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:15, 27 September 2023 review of submission by Samaneh2894[edit]

Hi dears! In Help desk

Hope this message find you all well & in perfect heath.

I would like to inform you that I have just removed the external sources from the draft. But, I was not able to 1. find any unreliable references & 2. to understand tone of draft mentioned by the dear reviewer of the article as problems required to be fixed.

I have studied the relevant sessions on Wikipedia and found that my article is written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries are written, indeed, from a neutral point of view, with a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Would you please do me a favor and help me to resolve the problems in line with publishing my article on your useful free encyclopedia? Best Regards 

 Samaneh2894 (talk) 12:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I gather that you are associated with this company. If so, please read about conflict of interest and paid editing(which includes employment) for information on required formal disclosures you must make.
You have a common misunderstanding about Wikipedia in that it is not a place to merely tell about a company and what it does. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Your draft does not do that; Wikipedia wants to know what those unaffiliated with the company consider to be important/significant/influential about it, not merely what it does.
Please understand that the Persian Wikipedia is a different project, with its own editors and policies, and as such what is acceptable there may not be acceptable here, and vice versa. You may want to write this for the Persian Wikipedia. There is nothing special about the English Wikipedia, it is not the "premier" Wikipedia.
If you feel you have addressed the concerns of the reviewer, you may resubmit the draft. 331dot (talk) 12:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:09, 27 September 2023 review of submission by Sam Veroone[edit]

Hello,

One user declined my draft for the Suyin Aerts article. While in Dutch the same article has already been published. How can I get another user to review the draft so that not a single person has the decision-making power? And how can I directly answer the user on his rejection of the draft?

Thanks in advance.

Greetings, 

Sam Veroone (talk) 13:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sam Veroone The Dutch Wikipedia is a separate project, with its own editors and policies. What is acceptable there is not necessarily acceptable here. The English version tends to be stricter than others.
You can communicate with the last reviewer directly on their user talk page. Click the word "talk" next to the reviewer's name in the box with the decline message. Typically, a different reviewer will review it if you make changes and resubmit. 331dot (talk) 13:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's clear. Thank you for your prompt response. Sam Veroone (talk) 13:19, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would also have declined the draft, the content doesn't suggest that they are notable in Wikipedia terms. Theroadislong (talk) 13:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:10, 27 September 2023 review of submission by Carolinemoncure[edit]

My article was rejected so I made an edit and I *think* I resubmitted it. How can I tell if I have resubmitted for review? Carolinemoncure (talk) 14:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Carolinemoncure: yes, it has been submitted. You can tell by the big mustard-coloured box titled "Review waiting, please be patient." -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Carolinemoncure (talk) 14:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:00, 27 September 2023 review of submission by MilesJ22[edit]

Subject: Inquiry Regarding Rejection of Wikipedia Submission

Dear Wikipedia Editor,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to seek clarification on the rejection of my recent submission to Wikipedia, as I am eager to understand the reasons behind the decision and, more importantly, to rectify any issues identified.

The rejection notice stated that the draft lacked references demonstrating the subject's qualification for a Wikipedia article. Specifically, it was mentioned that the references should be in-depth, reliable, secondary, and strictly independent of the subject. I appreciate the importance of adhering to these criteria for the credibility and neutrality of Wikipedia articles.

Additionally, I noted the feedback regarding the submission potentially reading more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. I understand the significance of maintaining a neutral point of view and referencing a range of independent, reliable, published sources to establish notability and meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy.

I am committed to ensuring that my submission aligns with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. To facilitate this, could you kindly provide more specific feedback on the shortcomings of my initial submission? This would greatly assist me in understanding the areas that require improvement.

Furthermore, if you could offer any guidance or suggestions on how to enhance the submission properly, I would be extremely grateful. I am dedicated to contributing to Wikipedia in a manner that upholds its standards and values, and your assistance in this matter would be invaluable.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your guidance on how to revise and resubmit my entry appropriately. MilesJ22 (talk) 15:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MilesJ22 Discussing this with the declining editor will be the most use.
What I see is a lack of useful references. To remind you, ee 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.
I have not looked at the way it is written. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Courtesy link: Draft:The Phone Up Studios Inc.. Note that Draft:The Phone Up Studios Inc has been deleted on 22 and 25 September as advertising. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:08, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MilesJ22: just for the record, your first attempt was rejected, and subsequently deleted, as a copyright violation. Your second attempt was only declined, but also deleted, for being promotional. The third one has also only been declined (not rejected). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And also note that Google search, Wikidata, Linkedin.com and company profiles are NOT reliable independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:16, 27 September 2023 review of submission by 173.174.211.237[edit]

Hi Help Desk: What do I need to do to improve this new article to make it publish worthy? Thank you in advance for your help. PS: I did read the guidelines before submitting the draft, but I could use some help. :) 173.174.211.237 (talk) 17:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remove all citations to unreliable sources, such as iMDB. Remove all sources that are adverts, such as the Stormchasersusa one. Remove any sources which are not independent, such as the StockFootage one (Wikipedia basically isn't interested in what the subject says or wants to say). Wherever you have multiple sources supporting a single claim, remove all but one - choose the strongest, according to the golden rule.
Doing this may not get the draft all the to an acceptable state, but it will stop it looking like a "can't find any high-quality references, so I'll pack it with dozens of feeble ones to make it look impressive". ColinFine (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Links not accepting[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:XERI_MUSIC/sandbox

These was the article was i was creating on my sandbox but I can't add links like YouTube links or external links when I added the links it's saving and publishing for review please can anyone help out with this XERI MUSIC (talk) 17:37, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@XERI MUSIC: I don't know what problem you're experiencing, or even what exactly you're asking, but I'd say your main challenge is demonstrating notability, of which there is no sign at the moment. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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. The only sources that matter at this stage are ones that meet those criteria (see Golden rule. External links to YouTube are almost certainly completely irrelevant.
Wikipedia doesn't want links to the song: it wants citations to in-depth reviews published in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 19:37, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:41, 27 September 2023 review of submission by Jellybull[edit]

I don't know, what I'm missing! I've got in depth, reliable & independent! What else does it need? Jellybull (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:The Scratch 3.0 Show
As the draft has been rejected, you will need to contact the rejecting reviewer directly, usually through their talk page. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 17:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jellybull I will go through your sources one by one:
1) A WP:PRIMARY source, so not independent
2) A WP:PRIMARY source, so not independent
3) A WP:PRIMARY source, so not independent
4) A WP:PRIMARY source, so not independent
So, could you explain how you think your four sources are "independent"? Qcne (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:41, 27 September 2023 review of submission by Simogasp[edit]

Hello, I still do not understand why the article has been continuously refused. The content is factual and supported by ~30 references of scientific, peer-reviewed papers published in international conferences or international journals. Each of them cites the software as it has been used in their work. Frankly, I don't know what could be done more to meet the standard. Simogasp (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Simogasp: as this draft has been rejected, you will need to make your case directly to the rejecting reviewer. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One reviewer said "Peer review does not make a secondary sources (with the exception of 'review articles' in special journals which usually have the word 'review' in the title). [2] These independent academic journal articles appear to mention the subject only in passing. We require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (per WP:GNG)". The mere use of the software does not make it notable. 331dot (talk) 18:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your answer. I can add a bunch of scientific peer-reviewed papers (conferences and journals) that provide direct comparisons between Alicevision and other commercial or open-source similar software in terms of quality of results. Would that help to improve the reliability of the sources? Simogasp (talk) 16:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:21, 27 September 2023 review of submission by MARIATINEOOO[edit]

Hello, I added more information to what I've written. Is there anything else that I need to improve? MARIATINEOOO (talk) 18:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MARIATINEOOO: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:24, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:52, 27 September 2023 review of submission by 217.155.50.169[edit]

I feel that the last feedback, "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources" 

I unfair and does not qualify on reasonable grounds for rejection.

Can you please advise. Best wishes, Holly 217.155.50.169 (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Holly, did you read the decline notice left by the reviewer? "All statements need to be sourced, such as the year of birth, and the entire early life section. WP:External links should be removed or converted to inline citations where appropriate". For the guidelines, please carefully read WP:BLP.
This draft was therefore declined appropriately, but you are welcome to address the issues and resubmit by clicking the big blue Resubmit button. Qcne (talk) 18:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:13, 27 September 2023 review of submission by 2603:6081:F05:7700:8C37:6404:3A43:39F7[edit]

It has been rejected twice, and I would like some help to fix it so it shall not be rejected thrice. 2603:6081:F05:7700:8C37:6404:3A43:39F7 (talk) 19:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor. It's only been declined, not rejected, which means you can re-submit once you've addressed the issues. Your sources aren't great: only #5 and #6 are secondary sources- all the rest are WP:PRIMARY which does not count towards the criteria set out in WP:NBOOK. You need to find significant coverage in secondary sources, or prove how it meets another WP:NBOOK criteria. I'll also note that those two sources aren't formatted well and it is going to be harder to verify them. Can you please provide ISBN number for the T.S. Elliot book, and possibly an archive link for the newspaper article? Qcne (talk) 19:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:20, 27 September 2023 review of submission by DWBarbour[edit]

I submitted this page recently and it was rejected. I would love some guidance as to why, as I am more willing to adjust it.

I also have another, odder question. This was prepared by a number of people who are acquainted with David Young, a published poet of note. As a favor, I made the submission. After it was rejected, David Young -- with whom I have never been in direct contact -- received an email from a person named Laura N. Walters. She was aware that the submission had been rejected and offered to consult on fixing it for a fee of $380. Is this how Wikipedia usually does business? I am particularly baffled as to how Ms. Walters found Mr Young, especially as he is quite ill. Any guidance you can provide is welcome. Thanks.

David Barbour DWBarbour (talk) 19:20, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DWBarbour.
Firstly, the "pay money to ensure your article is approved" is a common scam and absolutely not how Wikipedia operates. Please see WP:SCAM. I'm sorry that he had this interaction with a scammer- as Wikipedia edits and logs are all public, it is fairly trivial for scam rings to follow an article and backtrace to try and extort the subject.
Articles about poets need to pass the WP:NBASIC or specifically the WP:NPOET criteria. The easiest way to pass this criteria is to find reliable, independent, secondary sources that cover David in detail, and then summarise them in your own words. That should make up the content of the article draft. Note that the sources must be:
- Reliable: strong, reliable sources that are published by reputable institutions. Primary sources can be used for basic facts (such as a date of birth), but they should be supplemented with strong secondary sources that offer analysis or interpretation.
- Independent: independent of the subject, for example not interviews, self-published, or from the subject's own website.
- Show significant coverage: discussed in detail in the sources you find. The sources should provide in-depth information or analysis about the subject, going beyond basic facts or promotional material.
- From multiple places: ideally at least three separate reliable, independent, secondary sources that discuss your subject.
- Not original research: Wikipedia articles should summarise existing knowledge about a subject, not present new research. This means you should avoid drawing your own conclusions or analyses from the sources. Stick to summarising what the sources say in a neutral tone.
Remember that the article should be written from a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, here's the actual link to your draft, @DWBarbour: Draft:David_Young. It has not been rejected, only declined (by me, in fact!). You have zero sources, so please have a read of WP:VERIFY and WP:BLPRS which explains that all articles must be sourced as my guidance above, and this is particularly strict for articles about living people. Qcne (talk) 19:37, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's a relief about the scam. But when you say there are zero sources, there are, in fact 11 footnotes that to my mind seem to fulfill the criteria you are looking for. They include several journals and the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial foundation. His books are linked to well-known publishers, including Alfred A Knopf and several leading university presses. There are no direct quotes in the entry. Can you give me a clue? DWBarbour (talk) 14:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DWBarbour: there are indeed 11 items listed, which probably are the 'footnotes' you refer to; it's just that they blend into the 'Literary Criticism' section so can be hard to spot.
Please see WP:REFB for advice on correct referencing using the preferred system of dynamic (as opposed to manually-numbered and rigid, as it is now) inline citations and footnotes. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again @DWBarbour. This is my fault, then- your footnotes were directly under the bullet points in the Literary Criticism and I mistook them for a continuation of those bullets. Usually we'd see the references in the empty References section below it. As it was empty, and you had plain text inline citations, I thought there were no references. Sorry about that.
There's a tutorial for creating proper inline citations at WP:INTREFVE which I'd recommend you follow to set up the in-line citations correctly. It will automatically generate a reference list for you.
Do that, and then re-submit. Qcne (talk) 14:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, really my mistake. Thanks for the clarification. I'll fix it up over the weekend and resubmit. DWBarbour (talk) 15:08, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:15, 27 September 2023 review of submission by XERI MUSIC[edit]

I want to add more notable sources but only these are the sources I could find on the internet and I wanted to improve more by writing lot more i wanted to know the notable sources I found on the internet are all true and then why my article was rejected. XERI MUSIC (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. The song does not meet Wikipedia's special definition of a a notable song. If the sources do not exist, as you claim, no amount of editing can confer notability. 331dot (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:21, 27 September 2023 review of submission by 78.82.216.152[edit]

Today I have made several edits and some clean-ups. I need help to understand if I am going in the right direction. 78.82.216.152 (talk) 21:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what direction you're going in, but there are certainly several issues to sort out.
First and foremost, the draft seems to include content copied from external sources, which needs to be cleaned up. Please see WP:CV for important information on copyright violations.
Secondly, assuming you're Derekhal22 (in which case, please log into your account when editing), you need to respond to the paid-editing query on your user talk page before doing anything else.
And as to your draft, there is no indication that the subject is notable, which is why it has been declined. The draft is also promotional in both tone and content. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will check this out. It would help if you could show me an example, and also to advise how that example should be writtten. Derekhal22 (talk) 20:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The thing to remember, Derekhal22, is that 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. It looks to me as if (like most beginners) you have written the article BACKWARDS. ColinFine (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2023_September_27&oldid=1178329740"