Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2018 January 19
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < January 18 | << Dec | January | Feb >> | Current help desk > |
| 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. |
January 19 edit
04:19:08, 19 January 2018 review of submission by ABC Di edit
The reviewer rejected the sources: I am wondering why the sources are not reliable as most of them are external sources, meaning that they have not been made by the subject of the article. I have compared this article to many other wikipedia articles about NGOs and such organizations, and they all rely on the NGOs own sources or similar sources. So I don't understand why the sources for this SHARP article are considered unreliable.
Thank you for your help
ABC Di (talk) 04:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Hi ABC Di. The reviewer declined the draft for being promotional, for not being written from a neutral point of view. I agree with that assessment. A common cause of this problem is not using a diverse enough range of sources, but the reviewer hasn't said that the sources cited are not reliable. You've resubmitted the draft, so I'm not going to evaluate the citation overkill. The next review will do that if necessary, and this help desk is not a means of bypassing the queue. Sections on the goals of the organization and the non-notable awards it has won are apt to be seen as promotional. The draft would be improved by replacing them with information about the organization's finances and leadership. Seacology is an example of a well-written article about an NGO. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
07:59:07, 19 January 2018 review of submission by Hellosmarty edit
- Hellosmarty (talk · contribs)
Hellosmarty (talk) 07:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I want to create an article of actor Television and Film’s famous personality shahab khan. So ho can i make it.
- Start by reading the answer you received to the same question at the Teahouse (and also note that people connected with Khan have been trying to promote him on Wikipedia for some time, which is why the title is protected from creation). --bonadea contributions talk 08:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
09:22:23, 19 January 2018 review of submission by Hellinadustcart edit
When making a listing about a membership organisation should you do a link to the external page on their website or do it as a reference?
Thank you
Hellinadustcart (talk) 09:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Hellinadustcart. An article about an organisation may include its website in an "External links" section as you have done, although it is not required. Additionally, it may cite the organisation's website as a source. However, being non-independent, their website does nothing to establish notability. Also, the bulk of the article should be based on independent sources.
- Running an eye quickly over the cited sources, I'm surprised that for an organisation of this age and scope there are no scholarly sources, and that the only news source is a tabloid. Has no academic studied the organisation, have no broadsheets ever written an article about the organisation? --Worldbruce (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. OFGEM and OFCOM are the Government regulatory bodies that have allowed Ombudsman Services to act as Ombudsman. In the Energy field it is the only organisation allowed to do so. Also cited BBC and an independent report on ombudsmen. The CTSI has certified it for non regulated sectors. This service has more references than other ombudsmen on Wikipedia and I believe that this is the largest in the non regulated sector and an equal in the regulatory. I'm really not sure what other references could be made? Is it because it is bigger and longer running that it needs more references? If so will research some more. Also I didn't make my question clear, sorry! I meant, that as a membership organisation it lists all its members. Should that list be reference or a link to the site? (In this example the link or reference would take you to the sites' own website which would list all its members. e.g every energy company in the UK for that sector, about 50% of the telecom companies for that sector and a few retail for that sector etc. Please can you also clarify what you mean by "non -independent"? as my understanding is that the organisation is independent? Many thanksHellinadustcart (talk) 21:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Hellinadustcart: Most of the information in an article about an organization should come from sources sources that are independent of the organization. Other organizations that have a business relationship with Ombudsman Services are not independent sources. For example, a press release from British Parking Association saying that they're working with Ombudsman Services is not an independent source.
- Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources lays out a hierarchy of sources. Scholarly sources are best. If you haven't looked for books and journal articles written by independent academics about the organization, you should do so. After scholarly sources, news reports from reputable media outlets are the next best source. Think The Times (London), The Guardian, The Independent, The Economist, etc. Tabloid journalism such as is practiced by the Daily Mirror is not held in high regard here. You mentioned that you had cited the BBC. BBC News would be a good source (they have a reputation for accuracy, fact checking, and editorial independence), but a BBC webpage that says they've chosen Ombudsman Services to review certain complaints is not an independent source. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi thanks for all your help here. I think Government regulatory bodies that approve ADR schemes are independent? Is that right? If ADR schemes do not fit set criteria they will not be approved so are notable is this respect I think? A critical independent report is referenced and I have added a few BBC, Telegraph and The Times articles. There is now a long list of references and a bit concerned that I am going into territory of doing too many? Please could you have another look as I think it should be okay for submission? It has so much more than similar orgs on here which have very few references so could get little idea from them. Perhaps the others are lacking or rules have changed? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellinadustcart (talk • contribs) 11:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I just had an article submission denied on the grounds that it looked more like an essay where I put forward my own claims than an objective account and summary of reliable sources. In the article I do not present my own opinons (I don't even have much opinions on the topic), I rather try to present what different researchers are saying on the topic and it is my intention to do so in a fair and balanced way. If some sections are too long and detailed I would be happy to remove them but I'm not sure how to improve the article according to the feedback as I don't do any primary research and do not put forward any of my own opinions.
I'd be super grateful for any comments.
Thank you!
Baztlanar (talk) 10:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I put 3 References to make the article senesable but it should not be that it has failed I Need help with it now. 68.102.39.189 (talk) 14:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
68.102.39.189 (talk) 14:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Hi IP user, there are obviously a lot of television articles in this style - see 2018 in British television and 2018 in American television, and obviously an article for the future would have less listings. However, you would need to prove the article meets WP:GNG, and that the article wasn't simply WP:TOOSOON. Future articles on this topic (including this one), were deleted back in 2012 for this reason [1]. However, as it is closer to the time, it may well have enough reasoning for the article to exist, but it would need reliable coverage from third party sources. Currently the article has three sources, and only really one is a good source for this. I'd say the reviewer was right in saying it was WP:TOOSOON. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)