Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 June 15

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation‎ | Help desk‎ | Archives
Help desk
< June 14 << May | June | Jul >> June 16 >
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.


June 15 edit

01:25:25, 15 June 2022 review of submission by Briankoh97 edit


Would like to know if there are problems regarding the writing style; i.e. if it seems like an advert (written this with as neutral a tone as I could on my first attempt). Making changes to the references btw. Any advice is much appreciated! Briankoh97 (talk) 01:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Briankoh97 I see you declared a COI. If you work for them, you must make the stricter paid editing disclosure, a terms of use requirement.
You seem to have a common misunderstanding about Wikipedia. It is not a place for a company to tell the world about itself and what it does. It is a place to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company "Significant coverage" goes beyond the mere reporting of company activities, and cannot be based on materials from the company like interviews, announcements, press releases, etc. 331dot (talk) 08:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @331dot, thank you for the response! As such, I have updated the sources, including reports from The Star and FOCUS Malaysia (respected news organisations in Malaysia). Other that, duly noted regarding the disclosure, which I will make clearer as I am indeed an employee. Other than that, would there be further advice on this piece? Thank you so much for your time once again! Briankoh97 (talk) 08:32, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Briankoh97: The pieces in The Star and FOCUS Malaysia that you added as sources are not independent, for the reasons that 331dot outlined above. Please make sure that you take a moment to read the information linked from the notices on your user talk page. One important and fundamental thing is that sources should not only be reliable and independent, but that they actually verify the content in the article. That is, all information should be supported by a reliable source, and sources that do not verify the information in the article fill no function. (Example: The first paragraph under "Products and Services" has a source at the end. The source leads to a page on the company website that doesn't verify any of the content.) --bonadea contributions talk 10:34, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:10:54, 15 June 2022 review of submission by 2600:1700:7274:1290:D981:364B:7470:E6BF edit


2600:1700:7274:1290:D981:364B:7470:E6BF (talk) 06:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 08:21, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:08:11, 15 June 2022 review of submission by Serafina1248 edit


Serafina1248 (talk) 17:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering why my draft submission 'The Melismatics' wasn't accepted. I've fact checked everything twice and showed no emotion like you wanted, so I don't understand why you're declining it. If it's because the band isn't relevant enough, I've seen an entire wiki page about 'rotten apples'. With all due respect I think a page about a modern rock quartet is more relevant than rotten apples. Please re-think your decision to decline this entry.

@Serafina1248: did you actually read the comment the reviewer left (underneath that big pink box)? It says this is pretty close, just needs a couple of more reliable sources. And also that some of the sources you've used aren't acceptable, and need to be replaced. So it needs a bit more work, that's all. (As for your comment on 'relevance', this doesn't really come into it; notability does, but I'm passing no judgment on that at this stage.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing: Would you mind telling me what reference are incorrect and which parts need more clarification? And for your information, I did not see the 'big pink box' otherwise I wouldn't be here asking for help. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Serafina Serafina1248 (talk) 18:09, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing: Nevermind, I see the box now. I wasn't quite sure what you were talking about before. I will work on all of this and thank you for your time. Sorry for the mix-up. Serafina1248 (talk) 18:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:27:06, 15 June 2022 review of submission by Jordis DASComm22 edit

Hello, I am creating a page for the Nebraska Department of Administrative Services, and my first draft was declined because of lack of non primary sources. Are .gov websites not trusted sources? If anything, at least relating to information about state government entities, it is the most accurate source.

In response to the reviewer's comment of " the actual context of what the agency is is not clearly written in an encyclopedic manner." What would be a good reference to see how to transform the following statement into encyclopedic terms?

" DAS serves the public through assisting other agencies by providing services such as procurement and surplus of property through Materiel Division, building repairs through the 309 Task Force, motor pool leasing and maintenance through the Transportation Services Bureau, HR business partnerships, process improvement through the Center of Operational Excellence."

While I do have DAS in my account name, this isn't an official account. I am an employee of DAS, just making this page in my free time as a retirement gift to my department's director. I am not trying to solicit or advertise through wikipedia. Just creating a page on a department that currently doesn't have one.

Thank you for your assistance.

Jordis DASComm22 (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jordis DASComm22: yes, .gov and similar websites usually are reliable, but that's not the issue here. We cannot have an article based solely on what the subject says about themselves, we need to see what others have said about them.
That wasn't really the reason for declining, though; this was declined because it reads like a corporate brochure or some such, not an encyclopaedia article. Please rewrite it in concise, factual language, avoiding jargon and buzzwords, so that it is as accessible as possible to the greatest number of readers. And support it also with sources other than just the close and primary ones associated with the State gov't. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jordis DASComm22 I revised it a bit to make it more encyclopedic, but it still needs more sources. What about announcements of its activities that might have been picked up in local media? TechnoTalk (talk) 18:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And Jordis DASComm22 you'll have more success if you refer to the proposed encyclopedia article as an article rather than a page. This is different than social media. TechnoTalk (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TechnoTalk and @DoubleGrazing thank you! I feel like I have run into a lot of problems in my time in wikipedia and most people are just looking to decline articles rather than help just edit it to fit the criteria or point me in the right direction. I will search for news sources outside of the .gov range for citations, I included one on the article from Politico. Would that be an acceptable source?
Do either of you have an example of a state government department article I could see as a reference? Is this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Department_of_General_Services) a good reference? Jordis DASComm22 (talk) 18:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jordis DASComm22, to put this in perspective, wikipedia would find [1] far more relevant and due than routine press releases published. Now you probably don't want that audit covered, which is why per WP:AUTO, it's not always a good idea to have a Wikipedia page since you have no control of the content.Slywriter (talk) 18:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)@Jordis DASComm22: Like everywhere, there are factions and cliques, but we do our best to try to move the encyclopedia forward with a minimum of drama. There is a somewhat negative reaction when connected people edit about their businesses, agencies or particularly themselves, because the tone and content is not normally good, and it makes more cleanup work for others. That being said, the California article you pointed out is also poorly sourced, but since it was written in July 2007 before there was much attention on notability standards, it got a pass, and it sits there today unmolested. Someone might flag it for needing more sources, or even nominate it for deletion, or better yet, try to improve it with third party sources. We are all volunteers here and work in areas that interest us. Politico is generally reliable. You can see the reliable sources noticeboard here Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. You could also read WP:RS to see what you should be looking for. TechnoTalk (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jordis DASComm22: in a way, that's what we do at AfC, we "just look to decline articles"; meaning, we look for the reason why a draft cannot be accepted. If we find one, then we decline, because by definition we must. Whereas if we don't find one, then we accept. (Or maybe that's just me.) In any case, it's nothing personal. We're all here to build an encyclopaedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:43:08, 15 June 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Alb0077 edit


I need help on whata wrong in this arcticle?

Alb0077 (talk) 18:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alb0077: Please read the comments you've been given. To summarize, the sourcing doesn't demonstrate notability. Please read WP:GNG and WP:YOURFIRSTARTICLE. If you're the subject, please also read WP:COI. TechnoTalk (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:28:30, 15 June 2022 review of submission by Christian12Fischer edit


Christian12Fischer (talk) 19:28, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  Question: I provided almost 40 information sources under References. For almost each type of food there are two information sources. How many do I have to reference? Or I am not referencing it correct? Can you please explain?

Christian12Fischer Original research is not permitted on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide me an examle which is bad and an example how it can be rewritten to be accepted? One sentence will be enought. Christian12Fischer (talk) 19:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For example I have "Similarities between the people from North Macedonia and Bulgaria". Can I write Food in North Macedonia and Bulgaria?
Will you accept this? Christian12Fischer (talk) 19:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given the subject matter I've dropped an WP:ARBEE alert on their talk page. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Christian12Fischer I am not a experienced Wikipedia user neither, but I know Wikipedia itself and blogs are almost always unreliable sources. Furthermore, no sources listed directly mentioned the comparison between North Macedonia and Bulgaria. You explained the similarity on food, but your sources did not mention both countries, they are just cooking guides. Also, it is not sufficiently notable enough, I personally think one sentence can summarize this whole article. QiuLiming1 (talk) 01:14, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Scholar sources about every day food of two small countries.... yes, sure. What I did is providing at least 2-3 independant sources from where one can obviously confirm that what I wrote is correct. I have seen many articles on wikipedia without scholar sources or referenced scholar documents. 2A02:908:1983:E620:1032:E77F:6264:FC08 (talk) 21:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2 sources per food I mean... 2A02:908:1983:E620:1032:E77F:6264:FC08 (talk) 21:37, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Christian12Fischer @2A02:908:1983:E620:1032:E77F:6264:FC08 Correct does not mean it should included in wikipedia. It should be Wikipedia:Notable, which the sources should say "people from North Macedonia and Bulgaria is similar because ..." QiuLiming1 (talk) 01:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend you to go to Wikiversity instead, where original research is allowed. "I have seen many articles on wikipedia without scholar sources or referenced scholar documents", you can give us an example and I am sure other experienced Wikipedia users could show you why the article is not deleted QiuLiming1 (talk) 01:55, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I missed the wikiversity proposal. Will try there. Thank you. 2A02:908:1983:E620:158F:8692:CACC:7919 (talk) 11:44, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point me where the Scholar sources in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonian_cuisine are? Christ12fischer (talk) 18:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonian_cuisine Christ12fischer (talk) 18:47, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Italian Riviera - Wikipedia Christ12fischer (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this article does not have many sources, but it is obviously famous enough (it have 15+ articles in different languages of Wikipedia). I guess it's just nobody is willing to add sources to the article. QiuLiming1 (talk) 01:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You making the connections is original research. If scholars discuss the similarities, then its possible an article could be written showing what scholars say about the similarities. Without such scholarly publications, this will not be published.19:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2022_June_15&oldid=1094167545"