Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 December 4

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< December 3 << Nov | December | Jan >> December 5 >
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.


December 4

edit

03:24:52, 4 December 2020 review of submission by Xupnext

edit


Xupnext (talk) 03:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Xupnext: Your help request is blank. Did you have a question? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

03:41:16, 4 December 2020 review of draft by Azi Rafati

edit


Azi Rafati (talk) 03:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Azi Rafati: Your help request is blank. Did you have a question? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Azi Rafati: this submission is undersourced. Imdb.com is not a reliable source. Wikipedia is not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every claim you want to make in an article about a living person needs to be directly backed up by an inline ctaion to a reliable source. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

05:16:18, 4 December 2020 review of draft by Rom0011

edit


I am working on DRAFT: Gilles J Guillemin. My article was rejected because it did "not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article." and that I should "make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject". I have made some edits and I believe I have resolved the problem, but I would greatly appreciate if someone else took a look over it to let me know if I have misunderstood or still need to change things. This is my first article so I am still getting used to and learning the ways things are done. Many thanks. Rom0011 (talk) 05:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rom0011 (talk) 05:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rom0011, I've helped with a bit of copyediting on the draft, and I see another editor has as well. You've listed a significant number of non-notable achievements in there, and that detracts from the strength and credibility of the submission. That can sometimes present to a reviewer as an attempt to disguise the absence of notability. For instance, listing the number of published academic documents he has, his number of active collaborations, his leadership of various non- or semi-notable societies, and his participation in various journals of unknown importance. This one looks especially like WP:PEACOCK: Guillemin has participated in hundreds of national and international conferences, both as presenter and guest speaker. It looks to me like Professor Guillemin may indeed be notable, because of his membership in the Royal Society of New South Wales, and because the contributions the draft suggests he has made to neuroscience. If I were you, I would go through WP:NACADEMIC carefully, and remove non-notable material unless it somehow contributes to an overall narrative, or offers context for another significant point. For example, rather than say that he manages a consulting company, bring that up only if it adds context to his career or scientific trajectory, or to some other notable feature of his life. You seem to suggest in the draft that he has made a significant impact in neuroscience in his investigation of the kynurenine pathway. Spend more text on this, and be sure to use citations where you can to show the impact of this research. (Don't just put up citations of individual research papers he has published on the subject, or individual research papers that cite his research.) Hope this helps. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 05:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:55:13, 4 December 2020 review of draft by Ipsitam

edit


Ipsitam (talk) 08:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ipsitam You don't ask a question. 331dot (talk) 09:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:04:41, 4 December 2020 review of submission by Satyadev yadav

edit

This is orignal content which i have written by myself for my employer company. Why its getting rejected Satyadev yadav (talk) 10:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Satyadev yadav Please read WP:COI and WP:PAID for information on formal declarations you are required to make. Your draft was rejected because it is blatant advertising. Wikipedia is not a place for companies to tell the world about themselves. 331dot (talk) 10:20, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:05:45, 4 December 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Hispring

edit


It's about 3 months that I was working on the draft and trying to fix the issues which were mentioned by reviewers (It was declined 3 times up to now). I provided lots of reliable sources in English, Persian, and even french to confirm the notability of the subject (AloPeyk). In comparison with Snapp!, the subject has been mentioned by more English sources such as financial tribune,bloomberglaw and daily star, meanwhile snapp! is available in Wikipedia but AloPeyk does not get the permission to published.

On the other hand, I used the advice of another user or paid attention to the advice of the second reviewer who said to me try to identify and mimic the language used Uber Eats in my article. But for the third time the draft was declined and the reviewer believed that the Uber Eats has poor quality. I have reviewed other articles like Uber Eats and snapp!, and I tried to use the same construction and language used in those articles in mine. I have tried to do my best to publish an article that follows Wikipedia policies. I tried my article to be non-advertisement and have a neutral point of view. But the draft cant get chance to be accepted. I really appreciate it if anyone helps me. Hispring (talk) 11:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:49:02, 4 December 2020 review of submission by Sj Lahiri

edit


Sj Lahiri (talk) 12:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 12:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:38:04, 4 December 2020 review of draft by Sophie Quenard

edit


Sophie Quenard (talk) 15:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'd like to understand why my page Millennium Global was declined as I respected all guidelines...

I even took as example Kantox, Mesirow, Millennium Management pages as inspirations.

All my resources are reliable (Financial Times, awards... eg).

So please tell me how I can improve the page.

Many thanks, Kind regards,

Sophie

  On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Sophie Quenard#Managing a conflict of interest. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sophie, if you're going to model an article on another, you should probably pick from our Good Article or Featured Article pool. If I tried to build a house using bad blueprints, I'm sure you can guess the result. Further, you need to demonstrate that the subject meets either our General Notability Guideline, which wants mainstream, independent sources to be speaking about the company in detail. Being quoted in mainstream reliable sources or being interviewed does not count as being independent, since the content is entirely reliant on the Millennium Global rep's responses. Someone at the Wall Street Journal (or other reliable source) would have to crack their knuckles and write an in-depth solo piece about the corporation to qualify as "significant coverage ... independent of the subject". Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:03:01, 4 December 2020 review of submission by Ellenfrancisosh

edit

Under "Anglican Religious Orders", all of the active communities are listed. Some have Wikipedia pages and some do not. I submitted an article for the Order of Saint Helena and it was rejected because I didn't have enough references. I resubmitted with references, including published books (not by OSH) and newspaper articles, including the Times (London). It was rejected because I didn't have enough secondary sources.

When I look at the other Anglican orders' pages, I don't see secondary sources, so I'm wondering why the Order of Saint Helena entry was rejected when others have been accepted.


Ellenfrancisosh (talk) 16:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See other poor quality articles exist. Theroadislong (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Ellenfrancisosh: Hi there, your question is predicated on the assumption that those other articles you're referring to went through the same drafting and review process that you are going through, which I don't know to be true (as you didn't provide links). Short answer: the existence of other poorly-sourced articles at Wikipedia doesn't mean the community has accepted those poorly-sourced articles. It's always unfortunate when poorly-sourced content makes its way to live article space, which is why we want to do our best to encourage quality in the drafting phase. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:52:33, 4 December 2020 review of submission by Dalrund

edit


I have gone through the previously submitted draft for Michael Apa and tried to reduce any non-encyclopedic language and content. I would love for any more direction or advice as to how to further move the draft toward a Wikipedia-appropriate tone, should the subject be found notable. Thanks for any guidance someone can provide!

Dalrund (talk) 22:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my question for you: Assuming this guy is an American, in a world where millions of Americans attend college each year and eventually get jobs and work to support themselves and their families, why would we care specifically about this guy? What makes him stand out from the millions of other people in America? This is why we have notability criteria that helps guide people in determining who should be written about in a global encyclopedia. Unless this guy has received lots of attention from mainstream periodicals that have independently written about him I can't see why this article would exist anywhere other than LinkedIn. Wikipedia, unfortunately is not a social media outlet, and we don't exist to host information about rank-and-file proletariat. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2020_December_4&oldid=993316666"