Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 July 5

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation‎ | Help desk‎ | Archives
Help desk
< July 4 << Jun | July | Aug >> July 6 >
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.


July 5 edit

00:11:52, 5 July 2023 review of submission by Nephellium edit

I am having trouble making my article and I may need some help. I do not know the problem. Thank you for understading!Nephellium (talk) 23:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I indicated before, a source to "indianjournals.com" is completely useless. I presume your intention is to point to a specific paper in a specific journal. If so, give us the bibliographic information: title, authors, publication, date, page if possible. See Template:cite journal.
Similarly for the second reference: you've given us a title and an author, which is helpful; but what about a publisher and a date? Is it a book, a journal issue, a paper? Is there a particular page that you are citing? ColinFine (talk) 14:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for helping!🙂 Nephellium (talk) 22:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

01:21, 5 July 2023 review of submission by Jedorton edit

Douki Gel is an important archeological site in Sudan part of the kerma cullure. Jedorton (talk) 01:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:13, 5 July 2023 review of submission by মোঃ সাব্বির হোসেন বিডিইউ edit

I kindly request your assistance in the construction of this article. If any segments require reformatting to adhere to the appropriate academic standards, please do so. Additionally, if specific references are required to strengthen the content, please specify these needs, and I will promptly provide you with the respective reference URLs. 

 মোঃ সাব্বির হোসেন বিডিইউ (talk) 09:13, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @মোঃ সাব্বির হোসেন বিডিইউ.
Your article draft only cites three sources:
- The Daily Sun: This just seems to be a re-print of the University circular, so probably does not establish itself as an Wikipedia:Independent sources.
- du.ac.bd: this is a Wikipedia:Primary sources so cannot be used to establish notability, only to reference basic facts.
- The Business Standard: This article only mentions the Professor in passing as a quote.
You need to find reliable, independent, secondary sources that cover Mahbuba in detail, and then summarise them in your own words. That should make up the content of your article draft. Note that the sources must be:
- Reliable: Your article should rely on strong, reliable sources that are published by reputable institutions. Primary sources can be used for basic facts (such as a date of birth), but they should be supplemented with strong secondary sources that offer analysis or interpretation.
- Independent: Your sources should be independent of the subject, for example not self-published or from the subject's own website.
- Show significant coverage: Your subject should be discussed in detail in the sources you find. The sources should provide in-depth information or analysis about the subject, going beyond basic facts or promotional material.
- From multiple places: You should find at least three separate reliable, independent, secondary sources that discuss your subject.
- Not original research: Wikipedia articles should summarise existing knowledge about a subject, not present new research. This means you should avoid drawing your own conclusions or analyses from the sources. Stick to summarising what the sources say in a neutral tone.
Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 09:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:04, 5 July 2023 review of submission by Cart453 edit

I updated the article with more sourcing. Can it be re-evaluated now? Cart453 (talk) 12:04, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @Cart453. Your article has been rejected and therefore cannot become a Wikipedia article, there is nothing you can do. Your article has zero third party, secondary, independent, and reliable references that discuss "Brokenism" in detail My bad, the blank References section looks like it has no sources, but it does seem to have at least one reliable one. Qcne (talk) 12:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does. It has the New York Times, the Niagara Independent, and the Globe and Mail. Cart453 (talk) 12:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- theglobeandmail discusses Canadian politics, not brokenism (though "brokenist" is referenced twice but that seems to be tenuous at best?)
- The NYT looks to be an interview and only mentions brokenism in passing
- niagaraindependent is probably the best source as it does discuss brokenism in detail and offers some interpretation and examination. If you can find at least two more sources like that you might be getting somewhere.
Please do also read Wikipedia:Citing sources as the Reference section in your article is blank, which makes it look like it has no sources. You need in-line citations with footnotes.
Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 12:38, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help! Do journalistic podcast interviews work? This one is from an NPR affiliate: https://www.ctpublic.org/show/the-colin-mcenroe-show/2023-04-12/exploring-the-divide-between-brokenists-and-status-quoists Cart453 (talk) 12:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that CTPublic interview is that it is a Wikipedia:Primary sources as it involves Newman directly. If you can find an independent source that analyses that CTPublic interview, for example, that would be more suitable. The sources need to be Wikipedia:Independent sources of Newman, so not an interview or from her podcast or website. Qcne (talk) 12:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Makes sense. TY! Cart453 (talk) 12:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And this? https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/12/america-is-not-broken/ Cart453 (talk) 12:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
National Review's content is better, but do check Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources which shows that National Review may not be a Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Qcne (talk) 12:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:00, 5 July 2023 review of submission by Rhiannon1991 edit

I kindly disagree that the sources used here are not independent and am appealing this decision. These are basic facts established in printed articles by news organizations such as Crains and the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. I am appealing this rejection and the decision that this individual is not notable when they have been recognized as an influential figure by multiple independent authorities sourced in the article. Rhiannon1991 (talk) 13:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhiannon1991: if you wish to appeal a rejection, you must do so directly with the rejecting reviewer. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:10, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Rhiannon1991 (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:56, 5 July 2023 review of submission by Blue Edits edit

Hi, I can't find a guide for the appropriate post format so I hope this works.

Draft:Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2023 is not my draft/submission, but the article has been waiting for re-review for nearly three months, and the event is happening in the next four-- time is therefore of the essence. It was initially declined for WP:GNG reasons. The initial reviewer declined to re-review it on his talk page last month because "it's not notable"; however, it now has 66 separate, non-refbomb references from a wide range of national broadcasters and newspapers across Europe (which are not "closely tied to Eurovision" as the reviewer says, given that they're national media outlets and not the European Broadcasting Union, which runs the event). Every other JESC article existed in mainspace as soon as enough WP:GNG-passing sources were found (e.g. Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2022 was moved to mainspace in December 2021), and the various 2023-specific 2023 articles are already in mainspace (e.g. Georgia in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2023). WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:TOOSOON no longer hold when multiple reliable, independent, mainstream news outlets from multiple countries have been reporting on it for months and it is receiving 8k+ page views a month despite being in draft space.

Typically someone from WP:EUROVISION would've moved it by now, but the mainspace page was protected after WP:CRYSTALBALL edit-warring earlier in the year. I understand AfC queues are long, but given that the initial reviewer is opposed to reviewing it again despite the article being clearly ready for main space + the coverage being time-sensitive, is there anything that can be done? Blue Edits (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, Blue Edits, I'm afraid that time is not of the essence. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a news source nor a promotional site, and there is no deadline. Assuming the subject is notable, then there can be an article, but it is of zero importance to Wikipedia whether the article is accepted before or after the event takes place. ColinFine (talk) 19:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It reads like an advertisement and YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and JuniorEurovision.tv are not reliable independent sources. Also see WP:REFBOMBING Theroadislong (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very familiar with WP:REFBOMBING as a recent changes patroller myself. I know there are a lot of refs including some from social media, but it's a long article, and it isn't any more refs than in other ESC articles including Junior Eurovision Song Contest, which is a GA, or Romania in the Eurovision Song Contest, a FA. (Not to mention that several of the social media links are of media outlets such as CBBC). In addition to those refs, there are reliable, independent, significant refs from public broadcasters such as Macedonian Radio Television (ref), AVROTROS, DR (broadcaster) (ref), Suspilne (ref), Telewizja Polska (ref), and Georgian Public Broadcasting (ref), plus other outlets such as Radio Eska (ref)... I'm not going to link all of them, obviously, but these and dozens of the other refs are all significant coverage from sources that are not involved in the higher organization of the contest (leaving out all of the primary sources and France TV). I don't see how this doesn't pass WP:GNG.
As for sounding like an advertisement-- I didn't write the draft, but at a glance it looks like the other ESC/JESC articles to me. If you could point out the parts that are promotional, please direct me towards them so I can fix it/point it out to the Wikiproject. Thanks! Blue Edits (talk) 08:37, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Could you point me to where it looks promotional so I could rewrite it or direct the Wikiproject's attention to it? It looks the same to me as the other Eurovision and Junior Eurovision articles (not a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS given this is essentially the same stuff) (e.g. Eurovision Song Contest 2023 or the articles preceding 65-ish contests, or Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2022) Blue Edits (talk) 08:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I find this months-long back and forth very weird. Each year, a new article for the next edition is created around the same time (the 2022 article was moved out of draft space in December 2021, for example). There is no doubt that the event is notable and there are nearly 70 sources listed to both primary and secondary/independent sources in this draft. There was a claim that the sources are just social media posts by randos, but that was easily debunked. Then there was a complaint about refbombing after the reviewer specifically requested more varied and independent refs. There is a whole category of these articles for every year and I'm not seeing what's different about this year's contest. If you truly believe this subject is not notable, let's move it into the article space and you can start an AfD discussion. This feels like an inappropriate use of AfC when there is past precedence and consensus for this article to exist already in the mainspace. Grk1011 (talk) 13:19, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Theroadislong: just in case you didn't see this. Grk1011 (talk) 22:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:01:00, 5 July 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Deepak285 edit



Deepak285 (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but please see your user talk page for important information, and reply there. 331dot (talk) 20:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:48, 5 July 2023 review of submission by Ilianna Xar edit

How can this article get published? 

Ilianna Xar (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
it will never be published. the draft has been rejected. lettherebedarklight晚安 01:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:08, 5 July 2023 review of submission by Slgrandson edit

Acting on behalf of this page's IP creator. Mr. Ramiandrisoa is mentioned three times on PQ, two references from which are provided below. Any better sources, and I'll reach back.

  • "En bref: Baccalauréat". Aujourd'hui France (in French). Saint-Ouen. 2018-06-14. Retrieved 2023-07-05 – via ProQuest. [based on Bing Translate] This year's youngest baccalaureate candidate is 11 years, 10 months old. A record! The previous one was Arthur Ramiandrisoa, who achieved this honour at 11 years and 11 months of age in 1989.
  • Charnet, Agathe (2016-06-13). "Bac : 700 000 candidats et 4 millions de copies attendus". LeMonde.fr (in French). Retrieved 2023-05-07 – via ProQuest. [based on Bing Translate] This year, the youngest aspiring bachelor is 14 years old; the oldest, 82. Not enough to surpass Malagasy-born Arthur Ramiandrisoa, who became France's youngest baccalaureate at the age of 11 years and eleven months upon taking the exam in 1989. Educated at home by his parents, Ramiandrisoa--now an urban planner--obtained his doctorate in numerical analysis when he was only 19. Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 23:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Slgrandson: did you have a question you wanted to ask? This draft (such as it is) has been rejected, and I don't think the sources you've brought here is going to change that. Or am I missing something? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 04:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No questions--just suggesting refs so that this topic can be redeemed. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 07:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2023_July_5&oldid=1164781059"