Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 October 12

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< October 11 << Sep | October | Nov >> October 13 >
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.


October 12

edit

01:27:30, 12 October 2020 review of draft by 211.245.121.137

edit


Could there be more details on what needs to be fixed in this article so it does not sound like an ad? There isn't any promotional content and the information is cited. In terms of the content, it is also very similar to other similar software: - Sketch (software) - Figma (software) - Adobe XD

Any help will be greatly appreciated!

211.245.121.137 (talk) 01:27, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The draft only confirms the existence of the software and what it does. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the subject, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. Press releases and announcements of routine business do not establish notability. Please see Your First Article for more information.
Please see other stuff exists. Other similar articles existing does not automatically mean yours can too. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can, when they can, it is possible to get inappropriate articles by us. That's why each draft or article is judged on its own merits. I will tag the articles you mention as problematic as they have some of the same issues as your draft. 331dot (talk) 09:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

04:29:39, 12 October 2020 review of submission by Editingwork8

edit

I'm interested in writing about Artificial Intelligence. Please suggest some ideas on which I can write. Editingwork8 (talk) 04:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editingwork8 Can I interest you in taking part in an article I endeavour? Need to gather the sources for a section on AI technologyDraft:CONARC (Consulta National de Rebeldías y Capturas / National Register of Fugitives and Arrests) in ArgentinaMysteriumen•♪Ⓜ •♪talk ♪• look 05:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:57:36, 12 October 2020 review of submission by Playerpage

edit


My draft was rejected with the note "You need to cite secondary sources (such as reviews of the series) to show that it is notable" and a statement that the series is not notable enough for an article. Also a head-pat regarding how to learn to be a "New Editor" when I have been a Wikipedia contributor since 2006. I find this curious (and a little insulting) as the series is connected to the already-covered "Animated Stories From the Bible," and "Animated Stories from the New Testament," which DO have articles on Wikipedia. The sources used are some of the same as with those series, having been produced by the same production company and creative team. This new article is meant to compliment the old ones--all sources are referenced in the same fashion as in those other Wikipedia articles.

Please help me understand why those sources are sufficient for one article but not for another. Playerpage (talk) 08:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Playerpage (talk) 08:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Playerpage: your draft was declined, not rejected. Note that the fact that one artcile exists cannot be cited as an argument for the existence or not-existence of others as articles may slip under the radar, or they may have been created before today's rules were enacted. As this is a volunteer encyclopedia, we can only act on thigns we know about. As for Your draft, it is currently only sourced to imdb.com, which is not a reliable source. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 10:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Victor Schmidt: Declining vs. Rejected seems like a distinction without a difference. The article will never appear on Wikipedia unless I make changes that are vague and unspecific. You are not even the same editor who has "declined" my submission. Without more specific information as you *what* is wanted, I cannot provide it. You say that IMDb is considered unreliable, but your policy link only refers to IMDb as being controversial as of 2019, and even then it sounds like it is a gray area that can depend on the entry--and in the end the policy article says IMDb may be used as an external link, anyway. Please explain how an external link is substantially different than a source, when the point is not to provide a review, but to establish existence. This would make sense if the IMDb reference was brand new, but the "Animated Stories" series, consisting of the Old Testament, New Testament, Book of Mormon, and Animated Heroes, is a project of established animator Richard Rich and is now a good 30 years old or more. In addition, IMDb and IMDbPro are considered the gold standard for movie information in the movie industry, and have successfully defended their positions as such in court. [1][2]

The only real difference I see between my article and the earlier articles referencing the same series is an external link to television schedules regarding the episodes. Were I to add a similar link, would this satisfy the vague requirements?

Thank you.Playerpage (talk) 18:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is user-editable and as such is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia; if courts wish to consider it a reliable source, that is up to them. A link to a TV schedule does little more than confirm the existence of this series; Wikipedia articles must summarize significant coverage. 331dot (talk) 20:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: Again you are now the third editor declaring the article unfit, and third with a new criteria. There are a plethora of articles on Wikipedia--and in the Britannica Encyclopedia--that do little more than reference the existence of something. Including the other articles regarding this same series. How can it be insufficient for THIS article? As a knowledge reference, I find the "Already existing doesn't mean it should" argument absurd, as is the "user-editable" argument. *Wikipedia* is user-editable. I am trying to establish the baseline article so that users with more knowledge than myself may update it as needed. And again-again-furthermore-also (*eyeroll) the only difference between this article and the acceptable earlier "Animated Stories" articles is the lack of a schedule link. Lastly, are you seriously saying that US court decisions referenced in a periodical as established as the Hollywood Reporter are unconvincing? That implies that Wiki Editors are able to place their own POV above sourcing of any kind. I await further clarification, but at this point I will refrain from commenting any more until I am able to decipher how to proceed. Playerpage (talk) 20:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Playerpage It is true that Wikipedia is not a reliable source in and of itself. Wikipedia should not be used as a source for scholarly works or other similar needs for information; readers should go to the sources articles provide to hear from reliable sources themselves- so they can evaluate them for themselves. Again, if a court considers IMDB a reliable source, that is up to them; we do not. You are free to work to change that(at the reliable sources noticeboard) if you wish. This is not about the POV of us Wikipedia editors, but about sourcing and notability standards that need to be upheld. We do our best as volunteers doing what we can when we can, but until there is a paid staff of editors here, improper articles can and will get through. 331dot (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ url = https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/imdb-beats-lawyers-suit-over-alleged-film-date-error
  2. ^ url = https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/imdbs-age-censorship-win-affirmed-by-appeals-court-1299490

09:46:20, 12 October 2020 review of draft by 195.99.60.247

edit


Hello, I am having difficulty with following submission: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Actonians_RFC I do not understand what specific additional sources are needed, or what exactly the people reviewing this require. I have taken care to mirror the approaches taken by similar organisations, who have live pages on wikipedia, but I keep getting the submission declined. Thanks, Marc mowen3278


195.99.60.247 (talk) 09:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the reviewers have told you, you have not provided independent reliable sources to support the content of the article. To merit a Wikipedia article, this club must receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. You have only provided sources that are not independent and/or do not offer significant coverage. Please see Your First Article for more information.
Note that as a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible to get inappropriate articles by us; this is why it is not usually a good idea to pattern what you do after other articles, as those too may be inappropriate. We can only address what we know about. Each draft is judged on its own merits; please see other stuff exists. 331dot (talk) 09:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Marc mowen3278 Remember to log in before posting. 331dot (talk) 09:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:54:09, 12 October 2020 review of submission by SouthernCharm10!

edit


Hello, I understand that my draft has been rejected due to Wikipedia saying that it is contrary to Wiki but I went ahead and followed a similar outline of Trinity Western University. I did not see a difference in their publication to mine.

I have followed the pillars of Wikipedia and do not have any financial gain from this publication. Can you further explain and help me understand the reasons my publication has not been published and what can I do to improve my publication, so it may be publised.

Thank you SouthernCharm10! (talk) 13:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SouthernCharm10! Please note that it is not usually a good argument to cite other similar articles as a reason for yours to exist too; see other stuff exists. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible to get inappropriate articles or article content by us. We can only address what we know about. Note that the article you cite has several maintenance tags for issues that need to be addressed, so it was probably not the best example for you to go by.
Your draft reads as a promotional brochure for the college, as it just tells about the college and what it does. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about an organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Please see Your First Article for more information.
You do not have to have "financial gain" to be a paid editor. If you are an employee of the college and editing as part of your job duties, you are a paid editor even if you were not specifically instructed or directed to edit by your superiors. If you are just a student, that's not paid editing. 331dot (talk) 14:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:41:05, 12 October 2020 review of draft by Monika Antal Craggs

edit


Hi there, I have been tasked to create an entry for the charity I work for (Yorkshire Universities) I am trying to do this during my paid work time. What type of disclaimer should I include? I am trying to make it as objective and neutral as possible to avoid making it sound like a promotion or advertisement and have narrowed it down to the bare minimum facts and included external references. The desired outcome is to have our member universities list and link to the 'YU' wikipedia page as they do with the other membership organisations they belong to. Can you please help me resolve this and publish it?

Monika Antal Craggs (talk) 15:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monika Antal Craggs First, please review the paid editing policy and make the required formal declaration. Any article about your organization should primarily summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about it, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. The reviewer, though declining your draft, seems to think that it is possible to do that, but you need to provide those independent reliable sources. The draft should focus less on what the organization says about itself(the History section is also completely unsourced) and more on what others say about it. You in essence need to forget everything you know about your organization and only write based on what the independent sources state. 331dot (talk) 15:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:17:26, 12 October 2020 review of draft by Smko47

edit

I submitted a biography for John D. Rees over 2 months ago and I was wondering when it will be reviewed or what I need to do to make it go faster. All help is appreciated. Smko47 (talk) 16:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Smko47 (talk) 16:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Smko47 As noted in the submission notice, "This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,620 pending submissions waiting for review." Reviews are conducted by volunteers who do what they can when they can, and in no particular order, so you will need to be patient; you can't "make it go faster".
Just with a quick glance, I'm not certain it will be accepted, as it reads like a resume. I see that you declared a COI, what is the nature of your COI? 331dot (talk) 19:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your quick response. I will revise the content. The COI was just a disclosure that I know the person for whom I am doing the page about. I worked with him 2004-2008 but not getting paid to do the page. I personally don't consider it a conflict but someone from your side asked if I knew him and put the COI on the page. This is all new to me as it's my first and I'm learning as I go. I do want you to know that you are appreciated for being so helpful. With gratitude, Smko47 (talk) 12:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:31:46, 12 October 2020 review of draft by DocFreeman24

edit


Hi all,

I am a relatively new editor to Wikipedia (been editing for a few months now) and would love some feedback on this draft article in order to better understand why it was rejected. From the comment, it looks like there was some concern about a lack of reliable sources and I'd like to know more about that concern. In particular, what about the articles that were linked made them unreliable? I am happy to locate addition references that I believe make this board game sufficiently notable but would appreciate some guidance so that further submissions are better! Thanks!

DocFreeman24 (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DocFreeman24 (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DocFreeman24 The draft does little more than tell of the existence of the game. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the game, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. You offer two external links but it's not clear that they are intended as references; see WP:CITE for information on properly citing references. Those links are just websites offering the game for sale, this does not establish notability. Mentions of niche industry awards rarely do as well. News coverage of the game, published academic papers about the game, independent unsolicited reviews of the game, are the sorts of things that establish notability. If those don't exist, the game would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. 331dot (talk) 19:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback! Let me take a crack at beefing it up further (there are definitely media articles referencing this game) and I'll resubmit. Cheers! DocFreeman24 (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've spent several hours working on this today in the hopes of addressing your comments and the others that were left. I would welcome further feedback! Thanks! DocFreeman24 (talk) 03:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:23:59, 12 October 2020 review of submission by Raddiecat2

edit


Raddiecat2 (talk) 23:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Raddiecat2: this submission lacks independent sources and as such fails to show how this subject meets Wikipedia's definition of a notable person. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 06:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2020_October_12&oldid=985710166"