Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 April 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< April 2 << Mar | April | May >> April 4 >
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.


April 3[edit]

06:21, 3 April 2024 review of submission by Andrewa[edit]

I can't understand why this was declined. Happy to work on it but I need to know what to fix. Andrewa (talk) 06:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrewa: I'm not sure either, probably need to ask the reviewer Tutwakhamoe directly? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I will. But I wanted to see first whether there's some blatant flaw in the draft that I'm missing but was obvious to others. That has happened before!
He seems clearly notable by the references given. So it would be better to have a stub article even if not perfect... well no article is perfect. Andrewa (talk) 10:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perfection is not expected, but to pass this process minimum standards must be met.
I'm fairly sure that the issue is that at least two of the sources you provided are interviews with Mr. Martin; interviews do not contribute to notability as by definition they are not an independent source(though interviews can be used for other purposes)
This process is usually voluntary(unless you are a new account/IP user, have a COI, or one is subject to a topic ban requiring its use). If you want to just create a stub, you can do so, but you would be rolling the dice. It's usually better to work out any issues while in draft. 331dot (talk) 10:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The thing that threw me is that it wasn't declined for notability but for POV. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He might meet WP:BIO; less sure about NACTOR as only one notable role isn't "multiple", though his contribution to his field could be "unique"(#2 criterion). Perhaps the reviewer could clarify? The POV issue could be related to the interviews. Another source just seems to document his association with something. 331dot (talk) 11:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I didn't write the draft, in fact I have not as of yet even edited it.
I was thinking of writing an article after seeing him mentioned in a blog. I did a web search on him and lo and behold, multiple RSSs and also this draft article! So looked at the draft, and it looked in every way a good stub, yet the request to move to mainspace had been declined. So I came here.
I'd obviously like to improve the daft, but it seems a waste of time for me to try if as far as I can see there's nothing wrong with it.
So my question was really, what am I missing? And it seems that I'm missing nothing. It's a good draft and would make a good stub as is. So, where to from here? Andrewa (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the time of the review I thought the tone of writing in "awards and recognition" section wasn't too fitting for an encyclopedic entry about a person. Upon reexamination I guess I was too harsh then. Sorry about that. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 02:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, where to from here? Andrewa (talk) 22:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:10, 3 April 2024 review of submission by AdvanceWriterKilly[edit]

What should I add? More references, I would say more childhood life story like when he was born and so on. descriptive details about his workplace and references. What else? Thank you kindly AdvanceWriterKilly (talk) 10:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AdvanceWriterKilly: given that this draft is entirely unreferenced, and has no evidence that the person is notable (which is demonstrated through the sources), your primary objective is to add referencing which both verifies the content and shows that the subject meets the WP:GNG notability standard. Everything else at this point is secondary. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I'm a good student AdvanceWriterKilly (talk) 13:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may be a good student, but like many new editors, you have attempted to write a draft before you have acquired the basic skills to do so. If you were starting to learn engineering, would you make your first project to build a car from scratch? If you took up a musical instrument, would you arrange a public recital as the first thing you did? No, you would practise on less demanding projects while you learnt the craft.
I would very strongly advise you that you will save yourself a great deal of frustration and disappointment if you forget about creating a new article for several months, while you gradually learn about how Wikipedia works (and most particularly about Verifiability, reliable sources, and Neutral point of view) by making improvements to some of our six million existing articles..
If you insist on working on this draft now, you would be well advised to translate it from vapid PR-speak into plain English; for example, the plain English for He pursued his education at Camosun College, where he gained valuable knowledge and skills that would later aid him in his entrepreneurial journey is "He was educated at Camosun College". See also WP:PEACOCK and WP:SOLUTION, and remember that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely 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. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 15:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are a legend! On it. I didn't want to write over 2000 thousand words and regret. I will get more verified source, engineer the paragraph and add more professional language. Truly, I appreciate you guys AdvanceWriterKilly (talk) 22:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:12, 3 April 2024 review of submission by Lyncher24[edit]

I need to find out why my article is considered advertising. I may work at the company, but I tried to make the article as neutral as possible. I am missing relevant sources in the article or what all I need to add to make the article verified on wikipedia. Lyncher24 (talk) 10:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lyncher24 First, if you work for the company, the Wikipedia Terms of Use require that to be disclosed, please see the paid editing policy.
Second, you uploaded the logo of your company to Commons, which can only host images that are in the public domain or with a copyright compatible with Wikipedia(which allows for reuse for any purpose with attribution). You uploaded the logo without providing information on who created it. Putting the company logo on Commons means that you want to make it available for anyone to use for any purpose with attribution. This would mean, for example, someone could take the logo, print it on shirts, sell them, and your company would not be entitled to any money from the sale of its own logo. If your company wants to do that(and you have the authority to make that decision), fine- I wouldn't if it were my company, but that's up to you. If you didn't intend to do this, you must remove the logo and request its deletion from Commons immediately.
Logos are typically uploaded under "fair use" rules to this Wikipedia locally. That does carry some restrictions, like not permitting use in drafts. Images are not relevant to the draft process, which only considers the text and sources. Don't worry about images until your draft is accepted.
The entire draft is promotional. Many parts are unsourced and the sources you did provide don't seem to have significant coverage of the company. Any article about your 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. "Significant coverage" is that which goes beyond merely telling basic information or the activities of the company, and goes into detail about what sources see as important/significant/influential about the company, not what it sees as important about itself(as every company thinks what it does is important). It is usually very difficult for a company employee to set aside what they know about the company and summarize what others choose to say about it. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:51, 3 April 2024 review of submission by Lily Arami[edit]

Alexander Chikunov is currently being confused with a namesake. In this article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Chikunov), the person has links only to themselves and similar press releases. Our facts and publications are independent - for example: receiving CF29 certification from the Financial Conduct Authority in December 2019 (this is the regulatory body of the UK). What evidence do you need? We can provide the necessary documents. Lily Arami (talk) 10:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "our"? Are you associated with this person?
Government documents or certifications are considered primary sources, not indepedent reliable sources. External links should not be in the body of the article; you need to format these as references if that's what you intend them as, see Referencing for Beginners. Whole sections of the draft don't appear to mention him at all, or very little. 331dot (talk) 10:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:56, 3 April 2024 review of submission by JacobseanMatthews[edit]

Hello, my draft has been declined because of insufficient reliable sources. I'm trying to write an article about my favourite fishing app, and unfortunately turns out not many people have written about it till this day.

I tried to back my writings with all the relevant sources I could find, I even translated text from different languages, as well as transcripted text from foreign language videos. I'm a bit disappointed, because the whole writing and referencing process has taken quite a bit of time from me, whilst trying to contribute to my beloved fishing community.

Im happy for all the answers/help I can get. Thank you! JacobseanMatthews (talk) 11:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JacobseanMatthews You might think this is an odd suggestion, but you could consider writing an article for a fishing magazine or similar publication. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to take that as a compliment :)
But in all seriousness, I'm no journalist/specialist or anything similar. Just wanted to spread the word about an app I started using a few years back, contributing to the crowdsourcing platform that is Wikipedia, where ordinary people (like me) can also share their knowledge...at least that's what I thought. Seems to be trickier than I expected. JacobseanMatthews (talk) 12:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that "spread[ing] the word" about something is pretty well the definition of promotion, and not permitted in Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles summarise what has already been published about a subject by indepedent commentators, that's all. ColinFine (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. I'm going to try and redo/fix my references, do you maybe know some appropriate sources (article spaces of some sorts, knowledge hubs?), or give me at least a few examples of them, so I can try and do my best by finding a close approximation.
Thank you for your time and consideration! JacobseanMatthews (talk) 07:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JacobseanMatthews: it seems you're going about this WP:BACKWARD, first writing what you know about a subject, and then trying to find sources to corroborate what you've written. What you should do instead is, first find a few sources that meet the WP:GNG standard and which have provided significant coverage about the subject. Summarise (in your own words, and without adding any 'spin' or commentary) what they've said, citing each source against the information it has provided. That gives you the appropriate content and necessary referencing, as well as proof of notability, all in one go. And remember, your job is only to describe the subject, not to promote or praise it in any way - keep it dry and factual. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Will do. JacobseanMatthews (talk) 11:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:15, 3 April 2024 review of submission by Franktu1807[edit]

I'd just like to clarify what the reviewer found missing with the sources, since these are official sources issued by governments and/or highly regarded peer-reviewed articles...? I'd really appreciate having your feedback so that I can update the sources again. 

Franktu1807 (talk) 12:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Official sources issued by governments" are almost always primary sources, and do not contribute to establishing that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability.
Which three sources best meet all the criteria in golden rule? ColinFine (talk) 15:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:55, 3 April 2024 review of submission by Mara Lafontan[edit]

Please help to create article befor closing of draft. I cannot to create IT pages so perfectly to needed standarts. please Mara Lafontan (talk) 12:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

help to create pages. please. we use tour visa with a program and must be faster and truth. Mara Lafontan (talk) 12:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the autobiography policy; people writing about themselves is highly discouraged.
Wikipedia articles cannot be used to reference other Wikipedia articles per WP:CIRCULAR; social media is not acceptable as a reference. You will need to essentially start over; first gather independent reliable sources with significant coverage of you that describe how you meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person; these should not be interviews with you or mere descriptions of your activities, but in depth coverage as to what sources say makes you important/significant/influential- not what you say is important about yourself. You should then summarize those sources. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 13:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:43, 3 April 2024 review of submission by TRoseUB[edit]

I started drafting a new article on April 2, 2024 titled: Cyrenius Chapin but today I cannot find it. What did I do wrong? TRoseUB (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to your edit history, the only thing you did to your draft was create it without any content(other than the technical stuff). If you thought you wrote content, it wasn't saved. 331dot (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:39, 3 April 2024 review of submission by Nandiniwriteswiki[edit]

Can you tell me why my draft was declined? I can change the specifics. Thank you! Nandiniwriteswiki (talk) 15:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nandiniwriteswiki: there are quite a few peacock expressions and hyperbole like "pivotal moment", as well as several verbatim quotes from Venditti and other primary sources. All of this gives the draft very much the feel of a magazine, rather than encyclopaedia, article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:14, 3 April 2024 review of submission by Aluminium6063[edit]

Hello! I just got my first submission for a new article declined based on tone. This seems fair to me, I was trying to walk what feels to me like a fine line between "justifying that this person has notoriety" and "neutral tone" and I think I went too far in one direction.

I wonder if a quote from Adam Ondra or Alex Honnold stating that they consider her one of the best female climbers would be appropriate, or if I should keep it simple and leave superlatives out entirely. 

Aluminium6063 (talk) 21:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aluminium6063: I assume you mean 'notability', or possibly 'noteworthiness' etc., rather than 'notoriety'? Anyway, neutral tone is always what is called for; we do not want to see anything promotional or peacocky.
Your job is merely to summarise what reliable and independent secondary sources have said. If such a source has used superlatives, eg. stated that this person is the best climber in their category, then you can include that, as you're merely summarising a source. If you no source can be found saying that, then you also cannot include it in the article, as it is then just puffery.
Anyway, you have resubmitted this draft and it is awaiting another review now. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_April_3&oldid=1217989141"