Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 June 7

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< June 6 << May | June | Jul >> June 8 >
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 7

edit

01:31, 7 June 2023 review of submission by Daycole

edit

I have reliable sources but need help citing the info in the article to the sources listed Daycole (talk) 01:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@daycole: see our guide on referencing. lettherebedarklight晚安 07:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:19, 7 June 2023 review of submission by 24.48.59.178

edit

I want to know what’s wrong with it. It’s a real thing going on. 24.48.59.178 (talk) 07:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

can you prove it's a real thing? without citing their social media? lettherebedarklight晚安 07:25, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:00, 7 June 2023 review of submission by Larrybuckley12

edit

kindy, tell me why did you reject my article. Larrybuckley12 (talk) 09:00, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Larrybuckley12: your draft has been deleted because it was promotional. Promotion of any sort is not allowed on Wikipedia.
Also, what is your relationship with this subject? I will post a message on your user talk page about conflict of interest (COI) and how to manage it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He's writing about himself, he posted on the Teahouse. Larry, please only use one help forum at a time. 331dot (talk) 10:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:24, 7 June 2023 review of submission by Shashwat185

edit

Please help me out completing this article. I need your assistance publishing this draft Shashwat185 (talk) 12:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shashwat185 the draft was rejected. This means it is, definitely, not notable. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 14:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:32, 7 June 2023 review of submission by Getmekrishna

edit

Please check this draft. Is it good for submission ? Getmekrishna (talk) 12:32, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Getmekrishna: that's not how it works, we don't provide pre-reviews here. When you feel the draft is ready, including having addressed any reasons for earlier declines, you can submit it for review. A reviewer will then one day pick it up, and check whether it can be accepted for publication. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:37, 7 June 2023 review of submission by Pierre Boltoukhine

edit

I'm truly sorry that the article is not suitable as submitted. I've done my best not to promote the company but only to promote facts with multiple, different sources not related in any way to our company; following guidance from other similar corporate pages. Would you be so kind to show me the parts that are Wikispam to you so that I can edit or remove the troublesome sections from the article? Pierre Boltoukhine (talk) 12:37, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pierre Boltoukhine: the draft has a vaguely promotional tone throughout, but more than that, it is written in an odd narrative style; these two features combine to make it read like something out of the company's marketing department. Which it may well be... on which point, I've posted a message on your talk page about paid editing; please read and action it ASAP. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pierre Boltoukhine It is usually very, very difficult, for company representatives to write about their companies as Wikipedia requires, because your or your company's interests are different than those of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a place for companies to tell the world about themselves, their products, and what they do. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say is significant/important/influential about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. What are your three(and only three, please) best sources that give significant coverage of the company, discussing its importance?
Additionally, logos cannot be in drafts, because they are not "free" images in terms of copyright. As such, they also cannot be on Commons and must be uploaded to this Wikipedia locally. You claimed the logo as your own work- this would mean that you were the designer of the logo; licensing it as your own work would also mean that anyone could take it and use it for commerical purposes as long as they provide attribution and your company would not be entitled to any money from the sale of its logo. You will need to upload the logo to this Wikipedia locally and use it under "fair use". 331dot (talk) 14:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot thank you for your feedback. I've selected a few sources below:
- https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/448493/camera-udm-nasa?
- https://spaceq.ca/nuvu-cameras-new-canadian-eye-in-the-sky/
- https://www.lapresse.ca/affaires/pme/201101/21/01-4362603-nuvu-cameras-voir-ce-que-les-autres-ne-voient-pas.php
I've also noticed that I forgot to put another source but as I was told to no more edit the article here it is https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/the-holy-grail-of-science-montreal-startup-s-high-tech-camera-to-help-nasa-search-for-exoplanets-1.5842207
I'll also note that Nuvu does have an important scientific relevance, as we've cited multiple peer-reviewed scientific articles authored by employees regarding technological advancements. Unfortunately, there is a lot of relevant information regarding the unique aspects of the technology & developments that is relegated to these sources, which are admittedly hard to understand for the general public; hence the interest to create a wikipedia page.
Regarding the logo, thanks for the heads up. Once we will have cleared what I must edit in the draft, I'll take the time to repost it properly. Pierre Boltoukhine (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pierre Boltoukhine The last two sources you describe are interviews with company staff, which are useless for establishing notability. The claim to notability you seem to be making is that NASA buys your company's products. This could work, if independent sources discuss how that shows your company is significant. 331dot (talk) 16:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot I think it becomes relevant to present you the technology through some scientific articles published by researchers unrelated to Nüvü, though the content is quite technical. I’ll provide a brief summary:
https://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/31693/1/thesis_comp.pdf
: PhD thesis using the technology towards the development of quantum computing platforms. In particular, section 4.4 highlights that the technology is crucial for single atom detection and has contributed to improve imaging sensitivity by two orders of magnitude.
https://authors.library.caltech.edu/115177/1/1182310.pdf : Peer reviewed article on the use of the technology in the coronagraph of the Roman space telescope. A highlight would be that the instrument reaches 2-3 orders of magnitude higher contrast than current state of the art coronagraphs for exoplanet imaging. The Roman coronagraph also serves as a demonstrator for future dedicated exoplanet imaging missions, such as HabEX and LUVOIR, further strengthening the case of the technology in the long-term.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1407.0701.pdf : Peer-reviewed article characterizing the technology back in 2014. Here, the authors obtained performances equivalent or lower than reported by Nüvü, validating the technology’s advantages. The technology is also presented as a prime candidate for exoplanet imaging mission, which illustrates the role of the technology in the evolution of this area of research since 2014.
Of course there are many other articles published by researchers using the technology (https://www.nuvucameras.com/publications/). Although these articles will of course focus on their author’s innovations, these are made possible with the unique characteristics of Nuvu’s technology. Pierre Boltoukhine (talk) 12:20, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot I'm sorry to learn that the links don't work for you.
To access those study I've mentionned in my latest message, you can try those links
https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=From+Pauli+Blocking+to+Cooper+Pairs%3A+Emergence+in+a+Mesoscopic+2D+Fermi+Gas&btnG= is the first study, Title is "From Pauli Blocking to Cooper Pairs: Emergence in a Mesoscopic 2D Fermi Gas" : its a PhD thesis using the technology towards the development of quantum computing platforms. In particular, section 4.4 highlights that the technology is crucial for single atom detection and has contributed to improve imaging sensitivity by two orders of magnitude.
https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=The+Roman+Space+Telescope+coronagraph+technology+demonstration%3A+current+status+and+relevance+to+future+missions&btnG= is the second study, Title is "The Roman Space Telescope coronagraph technology demonstration: current status and relevance to future missions" it is a peer reviewed article on the use of the technology in the coronagraph of the Roman space telescope. A highlight would be that the instrument reaches 2-3 orders of magnitude higher contrast than current state of the art coronagraphs for exoplanet imaging. The Roman coronagraph also serves as a demonstrator for future dedicated exoplanet imaging missions, such as HabEX and LUVOIR, further strengthening the case of the technology in the long-term.
https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Characterization+of+a+photon+counting+EMCCD+for+space-based+high+contrast+imaging+spectroscopy+of+extrasolar+planets&btnG= is the third study, title is "Characterization of a photon counting EMCCD for space-based high contrast imaging spectroscopy of extrasolar planets". It is a peer-reviewed article characterizing the technology back in 2014. Here, the authors obtained performances equivalent or lower than reported by Nüvü, validating the technology’s advantages. The technology is also presented as a prime candidate for exoplanet imaging mission, which illustrates the role of the technology in the evolution of this area of research since 2014. Pierre Boltoukhine (talk) 19:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:52, 7 June 2023 review of submission by KevinML

edit

I need help with uploading an image of the album cover. KevinML (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KevinML Non-free images(like album covers) cannot be in drafts, so you don't need to worry about images until the draft is accepted. The draft submission process only considers the text and sources. Most articles about albums have at least one independent review of the album described. 331dot (talk) 15:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to get the image ready for placement in the article once it is placed in the encyclopedia, you may see WP:UPIMAGE for instructions. 331dot (talk) 15:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:08, 7 June 2023 review of submission by 2A01:C22:A40C:1000:F97B:9453:9E15:9604

edit

proessional team is working to address all detailsand links and reliable sources regarding this subject. We would appreciate more time, cooperation and guidance for this article that is to reach out millions through your most valuable infformation 2A01:C22:A40C:1000:F97B:9453:9E15:9604 (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your "professional team" will need to make the required paid editing disclosure ASAP, your draft was rejected and I have tagged it for deletion as blatant advertising. Theroadislong (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

our most professional team are also creating a much more informative wiki page for Daryush Shokof that has somehow been repeatedly deleted in the last 10 years. Our information, links, and descriptions are absolutely reliable also on Shokof which that too will be repaired and submitted soon. 

2A01:C22:A40C:1000:F97B:9453:9E15:9604 (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your "professional team" will need to learn much more about Wikipedia before attempting to edit further. You should all create accounts, and declare as paid editors as the Terms of Use requires. This draft was rejected and is now deleted. If you have further comment, please edit this existing section, instead of creating additional sections. 331dot (talk) 16:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:19, 7 June 2023 review of submission by Sahil023

edit

I don’t know much about wikipedia its my ist article please help me Where i did wrong creating this article Sahil023 (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sahil023 Writing a new article is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia; it's best to learn more about Wikipedia first; please read the Five Pillars of Wikipedia, and use the new user tutorial.
That said, it's unclear to me why the draft was rejected. Dan arndt could you elaborate? 331dot (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:47, 7 June 2023 review of submission by Gohealthgo

edit

How do I make this article not sound promotional? Gohealthgo (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gohealthgo It's purely academic, as the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. All of the sources are related to the company. A Wikipedia article about a company must primarily summarize what independent reliable sources say about the topic and how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization.
If you work for this company, the Terms of Use require you to make a formal paid editing disclosure. 331dot (talk) 19:02, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:05, 7 June 2023 review of submission by IrisSpine

edit

Hi there! Thank you for reviewing my submission! I seriously appreciate the feedback. I am curious what would make this topic qualify for Wikipedia. Are more independent sources required at this time? Thank you for your help! :) IrisSpine (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @IrisSpine, after several declines the draft is now rejected meaning it will no longer be considered. You have asked similar questions here before but ultimately no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability which appears the case in this instance. You did try but at this point best to move on. S0091 (talk) 20:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! Sounds great! IrisSpine (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:42, 7 June 2023 review of submission by WWBM

edit

I'm here again. Where can I find reliable sources about road signs in Russia and post-Soviet countries? Since January 2023, I have been working on creating an article about the comparison of road signs in post-Soviet countries, and during this time, I and other users have managed to make a huge contribution to the creation of this article. My idea arose only to show readers how road signs have changed in various post-Soviet countries after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. WWBM (talk) 20:42, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WWBM: it seems you may be going about this the wrong way. You don't first write whatever you want, and then try to find sources that support what you've written. You find reliable sources that cover the topic, read and understand what they say, and summarise (in your own words) the salient points they have made, citing those sources as you go. Therefore your question "where can I find reliable sources" should never arise. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WWBM: DoubleGrazing is correct, see WP:BACKWARD. A comparison by definition is original research, which is not permitted on Wikipedia, because you are drawing conclusions. That isn't done here, Wikipedia summarizes conclusions that have already been made. 331dot (talk) 08:55, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:51, 7 June 2023 review of submission by DownUnder36

edit

Dear friends of Wikipedia,

I have a question concerning the prospective article on Prof. Wolfgang Meid, obviously a worldwide respected linguist and one of the leading celtologists. - The article I wrote on him has been refused on the following grounds:

"References to the web sites of institutions for which he has worked, or to which he is personally connected in other ways, are not independent sources. References which only briefly mention him, or merely include him in a list, are not substantial coverage."

Well, if you are a university prof, of course you work for your university and maybe its website will publish a CV about you - no suitable source for Wikipedia? If you publish 120 scientific books and these books are registered in independent catalogues like German National Library or in independent online resources on Celtic studies - are these no suitable sources, because they "only briefly mention him, or merely include him in a list"? If you are a member of Austrian Academy of Science and this institution writes something about you on its website, is that no suitable source for Wikipedia, because the person under discussion "is personally connected in other ways" - membership, indeed - with this institution?

Of course Wolfgang Meid's huge scientific work is quoted in the works of hundreds and perhaps thousand other scholars. One can call up something like 45 of these quotes just by searching "Wolfang Meid" in english-speaking Wikipedia. Perhaps such quotes are indeed the most independant sources for an article about a scientist. But I doubt that it is possible to write a CV with such sources and obviously very many (if not almost all) articles in Wikipedia about scientists are mainly based on other sources.

In a nutshell: I fully accept the call for independent sources. But I think this correct criterion is misapplied here. The sources with which the draft works are sufficiently independent.

Last but not least: I am not new to Wikipedia as has been suggested in January. In German Wikipedia I did almost 3000 edits since 2011, in 15 other Wikipedias another 830+ edits. Many of them relate to biographies. In no other Wikipedia have I seen the criterion of independence of sources applied in this way. Best regards! DownUnder36 (talk) 20:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DownUnder36, while this is not specifically addressing the issues you noted, an issue from a Wikipedia perspective are claims like "one of the leading", "he was instrumental", etc. with those claims either being unsourced, source cited does not support the claim or the source is not independent. Please see peacock and note extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. S0091 (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DownUnder36: you need to distinguish between two things here: close and primary sources can be cited, they just cannot be used to establish notability. For example, when referencing the person's DOB (which, incidentally, is currently unreferenced), you can perfectly well use a (reliable) primary source, such as the university's own website. However, that source contributes nothing towards the subject's notability.
If you cannot find sufficient independent and reliable secondary sources to satisfy the WP:GNG notability standard, then you may still be able to establish notability per the special WP:NACADEMIC guideline, but in that case you need to clearly show that at least one of the criteria 1-8 is met (and not just met in your opinion, but objectively and demonstrably so) and include reliable evidence to support this.
Regarding your final point about other Wikipedias, each language version is a separate project with their own rules and guidelines, including but not only in what comes to referencing and notability; and yes, the English-language Wikipedia's requirements are probably the strictest. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:27, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2023_June_7&oldid=1160165535"