Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 October 7

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< October 6 << Sep | October | Nov >> October 8 >
Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.


October 7

edit

00:18:26, 7 October 2017 review of submission by Drakside

edit

Hello! I had requested this Wikipedia page for review but unfortunately was declined. I’ve provided links where talk clearly about this person’s popularity. This person is very known by his social media accounts and ,as well, has appeared in some tv shows. I’ve read about Wikipedia guidelines and I think this person is eligible to have a Wikipedia article. I would like to get help on what type/specific websites can be used for it to be accepted. Please help me get this article published on Wikipedia! Thanks in advance! -Drakside

Drakside (talk) 00:18, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Drakside: As I explained to Annonymous4 a couple weeks ago, examples of reliable sources for entertainment news include: El País, El Mundo, and ABC. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources for resources that Wikipedians have found useful in writing about film, and, by extension, about actors.
The sort of sources that do not demonstrate notability are the subject's website, their social sites (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube etc.), user-generated content (IMDb, Ancestry.com, wikis), and sources with no reputation for accuracy and fact checking. In other words, the sources that Draft:Jan Doblado and Draft:Manu Rios cite. If no one can come up with in-depth coverage in independent, reliable sources, then neither draft stands any chance of being accepted. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

02:20:53, 7 October 2017 review of submission by Nmmoore

edit

How do I link material in the External Links section? I can not find it. Thanks! Nmmoore (talk) 02:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nmmoore: The "External links" section is one you can create below the "References" section. See WP:ELCITE. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

14:00:20, 7 October 2017 review of submission by OxanaSelekhova

14:06:22, 7 October 2017 review of submission by OxanaSelekhova

edit

{{Lafc|username=OxanaSelekhova|ts=14:02:14, 7 October 2017|link=

Draft:'LATO, or Liquidity Asset Token --> Hello, I created an article which was rejected 3 times now based on referencing and i need your help please.

  • Comment: The only good reference is to a 'Forward contract', and the topic already exists in Wikipedia. Do not resubmit. David.moreno72 09:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

David.moreno72 wrote to me that The references have to be about the topic, not something else.

When I looked into the article again, I realised that I input all articles about the subject into -External links instead. If I try to re-arrange and let’s say, link LATo related articles into referenecing, like I did to number 3 and 5 (References) does it look better?

[3]Will Blockchain Ignite Fractional Ownership Market For Homes? [4]Cryptocurrency Exchanges Are Increasingly Roiled by Hackings and Chaos [5]LAToken Implements Blockchain to Sell Fractions of Any Assets – From Real Estate to Art Objects.

  • I need your opinion if you find references 3 and 5 appropriate?

I took it from external links and linked it to referencing, is it better? Can I re-submit? David.moreno72 wrote to me - Do NOT resubmit, Is it a final don't or it can be impoved ?

Thank you ! I very much appreciate your help… OS 14:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC) OxanaSelekhova

Hi OxanaSelekhova. Pages under www.forbes.com/sites that are written by contributors (rather than Forbes staff) are not the same as Forbes magazine. They are click-bait blogs with little or no editorial oversight. They are not reliable sources for facts, only for the opinion of the author. So the webpage Will Blockchain Ignite Fractional Ownership Market For Homes? should not be used as a reference, and does not help establish notability. The Fortune article is a reliable source, but does not mention LATO or Liquidity Asset Token, so it does nothing to establish the notability of 'LATO, or Liquidity Asset Token.
Based on the cited sources and my own searches, I have to agree with reviewer David.moreno72 that this topic is not a suitable one for an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not for marketing, promotion, or public relations. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

15:38:39, 7 October 2017 review of submission by Bappi847564

edit

15:38:39, 7 October 2017 review of submission by Bappi847564


My draft has reliable source. Why my article has declined Bappi847564 (talk) 15:38, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Bappi847564 (talk) 15:38, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined for the reasons explained on the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

16:42:37, 7 October 2017 review of submission by Adarrah

edit


I have a number of comments to make on latest assessment of my submission on Helen and Frank Schreider.

First of all, I have fully revised the original submission and have now included a number of additional sources, addressing both notability and reliable sources, expanding the footnotes from 16 to 41.

With respect to the notability of Helen and Frank Schreider, I note that what is required is “objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability.” I wish to point out that both Worldbruce and the previous reviewer ignored the significance of the last paragraph and its footnote (last paragraph in the original submission but now the 4th last paragraph in the revision), followed by the current footnote 37. To simplify matters, this is the paragraph: “Frank had been inducted as a member of the Explorers Club in 1956 but Helen wasn’t since this was a club for men only. Eventually, women were also accepted but it wasn’t until 2015 – 59 years later – that Helen finally caught up with Frank, becoming a Fellow National, not just a Member of the Explorers Club.[37] “ What had been ignored is the significance of the fact that both Helen and Frank had been in inducted into the Explorers Club, Frank as Member and Helen as Fellow National – and this is listed in their bios.

The Explorers Club is a prestigious body that includes every significant explorer in the world. This includes Robert E. Peary & Matthew Henson (first to the North Pole, 1909), Roald Amundsen (first to the South Pole, 1927), Sir Edmund Hillary (first to the summit of Mt. Everest, 1953), Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin & Michael Collins (first to the surface of the Moon, 1969).

By being elected as members of the Explorers Club, Helen and Frank were put in the same league and category as the above-mentioned explorers and all other major explorers in the world. If this isn’t “objective evidence” of “notability” as explorers, what else could be better? What else should be required for them to gain “verifiable” evidence of their notability? Although other references pale in acclaim compared to the recognition by the Explorers Club, I have now included other references as well.

Also with respect to this matter, there is this point: There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. The Explorers Club is of such high quality that multiple sources may not be required in this instance, but I have included others.

For example, the fact that before they had been become members of the Explorers Club, Dr. Melville Bell Grosvenor, the head of National Geographic at that time, hired Helen and Frank Schreider to work for the magazine on the basis of their exploration abilities exhibited on their first major trip. I have cited this in the revised submission. Surely this is additional proof of their “notability” as explorers.

The article that I cite in current footnote #37 is from the Explorers Log (Vol. 47, No. 4, 2015). It explains that although Frank was inducted into the Club in 1956, Helen wasn’t because at that time this was a club for men only. It was only in 2015 – 59 years later – that the oversight of not including Helen was rectified and she was made a Fellow National. To make amends, Fannya Rose, a former past president of the Club, flew from New York to Santa Fe to present to Helen in person a framed Fellow National diploma at a surprise party. In my revision I did not include this point but I am wondering if this fact should be included, although it is mentioned in the article listed in footnote #37. Please advise.

A further matter that contributes to Helen’s notability is that in 1976 she received the Presidential Design Award from President Ford for her work as a museum designer for the exhibit that she had created at the Statute of Liberty for its bicentennial celebration. This indicates notability in an area other than exploration. It seems that you haven’t considered this to be significant.

After one of their journeys they had been interviewed at 60 Minutes, an hour-long feature on them. Also Helen had been a guest on either What’s My Line or To Tell the Truth (TV shows in the 50s)…she can’t recall which one. So far I have been unable to get a response to my inquires about these shows. Would this now be necessary?

Aside from this Helen has a collection of articles that were published on their travels and exploration in Time, the Christian Science Monitor and other publications. If anything further would be required to add to the substance of their “notability” I could include some of these.

As a final point I’d like to note that I had occasion to use a hyperlink for a person’s name to refer readers to a source, but nowhere in Wikipedia resources was I able to find the procedure for doing this. I created the hyperlink in my draft but this was removed when I entered the text. Ironically, throughout your instructions hyperlinks are used extensively, but you don’t provide the instructions on how to do this. I wound up using a footnote instead.

I hope that my revision now meets your required standards for notability and reliable sources.


Adarrah (talk) 16:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Adarrah. As you can see I have moved your draft article from your sandbox to Draft:Helen and Frank Schreider, as that is the normal place for AfC submissions. I'll have a closer look tomorrow and get back to you here, but my first impression is that they are notable and you just need some extra/improved sourcing which is fairly easy to find, e.g. this lengthy obituary in the New York Times or this lengthy review of their book 20 Thousand Miles South, also in the New York Times. In other words, you need more independent sources which are about the Schreiders and their work, not sources by them, although they can be useful for filling in some details. Voceditenore (talk) 17:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

17:39:01, 7 October 2017 review of submission by Human Venue

edit


The wide ranging references for Alan Read (Writer) include leading publishers, peer-reviewed journals, the BBC, institutional web sites with stringent quality control and verifiable sources from notable figures in the disciplinary field. The subject of the entry happens to be a Professor at an established University, but as the entry makes clear is more significantly a widely published writer with a curatorial history at internationally significant venues such as the Institute of Contemporary Arts in London, is involved in public, academic and curatorial events of international note, and has a history of involvement in influential artistic practice. The question of Notability is indeed a critical one and one that the subject fulfils in both the disciplinary field in question (Theatre and Performance Studies) but also in the wider international sphere of curation and artistic practice. A further review taking these criteria into account would be appreciated. Human Venue (talk) 17:39, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Human Venue The draft suffers severely from a couple forms of citation overkill. Many of the references only prove that a person or organization exists, they fail to show any connection between them and Read. Remove all such chaff to help expose the wheat. When there are multiple, presumably self-written, biographical profiles of a person (such as on the websites of employers, publishers, etc.), there is usually no need to reference each one. Cite the most recent or most complete one, and cite older ones only if they add some unique detail. A good source, well used, will support content in several different places in a well-written article. If each source is cited exactly once, the author is probably doing something wrong. See Help:Referencing for beginners#Same reference used more than once for the best way to cite a source multiple times.
Be more discriminating as you summarize his life. That will help make what he is notable for stand out. Be particularly ruthless in trimming long lists of people and organizations, especially ones that are not notable themselves, and those whose connection with Read is not covered by third-party sources.
The draft must not contain original research. Statements such as, "what Susannah Clapp of The Observer has described as 'Tompkinsesque' characteristics of theatrical design, could be said to share significant features with Read's long running concerns ..." cannot be made just because the similarity is apparent to you. Clapp doesn't refer to Read, so such a statement must be supported by a reliable published source that has analyzed what Clapp and Read wrote, and has observed substantial similarity between the two. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2017_October_7&oldid=805102818"