Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 September 15

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< September 14 << Aug | September | Oct >> September 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.


September 15

edit

06:18, 15 September 2023 review of submission by Ana Padovana

edit

I believe, @Johannes Maximilian rejected the article about shared intentionality due to a misunderstanding (link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Shared_intentionality). Reviewer left the reason: "This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, see WP:FORUM. New terms or principles must be established elsewhere." However, this article does not introduce a new concept; shared intentionality is not a new psychological construct. To my knowledge, this concept is generally accepted in cognitive sciences. For example, Dr. Michael Tomasello (cited in the article) has received the prestigious David Rumelhart Prize 2022 as an award for his insights into cognition evolution and, specifically, the knowledge development about a contribution of shared intentionality to cognition and social reality formation (https://cognitivesciencesociety.org/rumelhart-prize/ , this is prestigious prize in the Cognitive Science Society). Rigorous academic journal Frontiers in Psychology recently published special research topic dedicated to shared intentionality (https://www.frontiersin.org/research-topics/35928/exploring-shared-intentionality-underlying-mechanisms-evolutionary-roots-developmental-trajectories-and-cultural-influences). Each sentence of my article is a quotation of reliable peer-reviewed academic article. Now, the article has 11 reliable references. How can I appeal this case? Best regards, Ana Padovana (talk) 06:18, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ana Padovana: you can appeal this case by discussing it directly with the rejecting reviewer.
On a different note, whilst you're here, I would like to offer a layperson's perspective on this draft. To me, it reads like an abstract from a scientific paper, full of specialist jargon, and fairly impenetrable to someone with only a limited understanding of the domain. The audience of a scientific journal is quite different from that of a general encyclopaedia. Encyclopaedia articles need to enlighten the reader by explaining the concept(s), putting the subject in a context, and outlining its significance and/or application. In so doing, it often helps to also add section headings and wikilinks. (This is just my subjective opinion, of course, and not the reason why the draft was declined or rejected, so do with it as you wish.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the kind advice. Regarding my appeal this case by discussing with rejecting reviewer Johannes Maximilian, I wrote to Johannes Maximilian on 11th of September and I have still expecting his answer. Ana Padovana (talk) 07:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ana Padovana: you probably just need to wait a bit longer; we're all volunteers, and do what we can, when we can, and in any case Wikipedia is not edited to deadline. This editor seems to have had very little activity since the 11th, and may simply be busy IRL. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Ana Padovana (talk) 07:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:54, 15 September 2023 review of submission by Natalia.zawadzka

edit

Hi, I submitted an article I translated from Polish (https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korpusomat) and it was declined. The reason given was that the references are not good enough (not in-depth, reliable, etc.). The problem is that the majority of the sources are peer-reviewed scientific journals. I don't know of any source that would be more reliable than that. Can somebody please fix this? Natalia.zawadzka (talk) 08:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Natalia.zawadzka: the first source doesn't even mention Korpusomat. Sources 2 and 5 are authored by developers of the software; yes, they may (or may not) have been peer-reviewed, but they are still primary sources ie. people associated with the subject talking about it. Sources 3 and 4 don't provide any significant coverage. This being the case, what is it that you feel requires "fixing"? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I did not mean it in that way. I am a scientist, but Wikipedia-wise just a relative beginner, and I started with a topic I am most familiar with. And this is standard practice in the academia: primary sources are cited, and they are considered reliable. Really, if you cited a secondary source, where someone writes about someone else's work, that would be more likely to be considered unreliable.
For example, I had a look at the article about a similar tool for linguistic analysis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sketch_Engine), and they also cite mostly papers written by its creators.
In any case, thank you for your feedback, I will find sources which could be considered more reliable by Wikipedia standards. And once again, I am sorry if I caused any offense, that was definitely not my intention. Natalia.zawadzka (talk) 12:05, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Natalia.zawadzka: let me clarify slightly, it's not so much a question of reliability, but rather that Wikipedia articles are by definition based on summarising what secondary sources have said about a subject. Primary (especially close, ie. non-independent) sources can be used only to verify non-contentious facts, but not to establish notability per WP:GNG. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:14, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:55, 15 September 2023 review of submission by Jamal al-Lail19

edit

DO NOT DELETE Jamal al-Lail19 (talk) 08:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamal al-Lail19: we don't delete anything here at the help desk. Now that speedy deletion has been requested, an administrator may come at any time and either delete it or not. If you wish to contest the deletion, the instructions are provided in the deletion notice. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Left 'm my educational deletion notice. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:07, 15 September 2023 review of submission by VectorVoyager

edit

Suggestions for making the article more specific. Casual review of the draft by someone that is interested in AI if possible. VectorVoyager (talk) 11:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@VectorVoyager: we don't really get involved in content or copy editing here at the help desk, we're here mainly for dealing with the review and acceptance (or not) aspects of drafting. We're also not experts in any particular subject domain, other than by coincidence. Your best bet is probably one or more of the WikiProjects that you've tagged on the draft talk page; contact them to ask if anyone would like to collaborate with you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:04, 15 September 2023 review of submission by Rakeshvshettigar

edit

Why is it getting rejected though I am giving suitable links as proof Rakeshvshettigar (talk) 14:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:19, 15 September 2023 review of submission by Rakeshvshettigar

edit

I am providing all proof yet it is getting rejected why Rakeshvshettigar (talk) 14:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rakeshvshettigar: you are citing non-reliable sources (YouTube, Facebook, Wikipedia), and there is too much content which is not supported by citations at all. The draft is also promotional. All these have been given as reasons in the decline (not rejection, this hasn't been rejected yet) notices. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How can I improvise this article. I don't hav any proof other than these sources 49.207.211.92 (talk) 14:58, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't have any other sources, @Rakeshvshettigar, then there can be no article. Sorry. Qcne (talk) 17:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:36, 15 September 2023 review of submission by Masohpotato

edit

Also Draft:2016 in Belize. I look at similar pages like 2016_in_Suriname which are literally my drafts but a different country and less content. I have been rejected for not having notability and not having references. I have added references, but am confused as to how it is not notable.

Masohpotato (talk) Masohpotato (talk) 14:36, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:38, 15 September 2023 review of submission by Skmartists2017

edit

Article was rejected I believe unfairly based on other articles that have been accepted on similar topics. I an appealing for reconsideration from Wikipedia to accept this article. Only one editor rejected it. Two previous editors who requested changes did not. Skmartists2017 (talk) 14:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Skmartists2017: it should be the case that "only one editor rejected". The way the system works is, reviewers decline drafts which they think need to be worked on but can be resubmitted, until that process reaches its end, when the draft may be rejected outright, after which it cannot be resubmitted again. If you wish to 'appeal' that, you need to make your case directly to the rejecting reviewer. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply DoubleGrazing, but the rejection reason was " not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." Shouldn't that have been noted on the initial submission? It's kind of burying the lede, don't you think? The material facts of the topic did not substantially change from the first draft to the last. It seems illogical to ask for structural and source changes if, i in the opinion of the editorial collective, the topic was not sufficiently notable for inclusion. While I appreciate the effort on your behalf, it would seem that the more important component of decision-making for inclusion should focus on the topic itself instead of the technical aspect of format and sourcing. It would save everyone time, which is the most valuable commodity we all possess.
I've already replied to SOO91 to appeal. Enjoy your weekend. Skmartists2017 (talk) 15:58, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in an ideal world, a draft would get declined for the most 'important' reason. But in practice, it doesn't always work out like that. If I see a draft in a language other than English, I will decline it for not being in English, and won't even look into notability. Similarly, it could be that the first submission is completely unreferenced, so it gets declined for that, and when the referencing later appears, it eventually shows that there is actually no evidence of notability. Much of the draft development and review work is iterative, and sometimes it takes a few iterations to get to the bottom of the matter. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That other articles exist does not mean that they were "approved" by anyone. This process has not always existed, and is not required of all users. 331dot (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:04, 15 September 2023 review of submission by Nanchang17

edit

My draft was rejected, with the reason saying that there are no reliable sources. It isn't even 2024 when it was created. Why would there be anything? Dumb people. I created the draft so no one else would.

Question: Why do they still want reliable sources even though there is literally nothing reliable about the 2024 season? Nanchang17 (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nanchang17: the draft was declined (not rejected), and I'm not surprised, because there's hardly any content there, just empty sections, and it doesn't cite a single source. Clearly we cannot publish articles that have nothing in them, merely as placeholders, just so that you can have the creating credit.
And personal attacks or insults will not be tolerated, not against an individual reviewer, and not collectively against a group, so please make sure that was your last one. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:08, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wdym by declined? Whats the difference? Nanchang17 (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'Decline' means the draft cannot be accepted as it is, but can be resubmitted for another review once the reasons for declining have been addressed. 'Reject' means the draft is either not appropriate for Wikipedia, or the subject is non-notable, and resubmission is not possible – 'the end of the road' for that draft, in other words. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nanchang17 wait until it is the actual 2024 Atlantic hurricane season so you can populate your draft with content? We can't accept basically blank submissions. Note that no editor WP:OWNS an article they have created, so don't try and jump in and be "first" to create an article to prevent other editors from doing so.
Also please don't call our volunteers dumb, thanks. Qcne (talk) 17:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How do you delete a draft Nanchang17 (talk) 07:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nanchang17: you can just leave it there, and if no human edits are made for six months, it will get automatically deleted. Or if you're the only editor to have created substantive content, you can request deletion by either blanking the contents (deleting everything) or by placing the {{db-author}} tag on top of the page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:18, 15 September 2023 review of submission by RedNotice

edit

Thanks for reviewing, just curious as to how I can meet the threshold for significance. More external links/articles? RedNotice (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @RedNotice. Carefully read WP:NORG which lays out the criteria for organisations. However your draft has been rejected so you can't re-submit it: you'll have to appeal to the last reviewer directly. Qcne (talk) 19:23, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks @Qcne appreciate it! RedNotice (talk) 19:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:25, 15 September 2023 review of submission by Cgrant3d

edit

By chance can I get more specific guidance for the draft being declined so I can make the appropriate edits? I'm not sure if its the copy itself, the citations, etc,.. even ran this last round through chatgpt asking it if it was neutral before decline, so any guidance you are willing to provide would be exceedingly helpful and much appreciated! thanks in advance! Cgrant3d (talk) 22:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cgrant3d: firstly, expressions like "the firm has a history of innovative architectural solutions and a commitment to sustainability" are peacocky and need to be rewritten or removed. Secondly, and more fundamentally, there is nothing of encyclopaedic value in this draft; it simply states that such a firm exists, and gives a brief history of it. We need to see some reason why this company should be included in a global encyclopaedia – mere existence is not enough. That lack of noteworthiness, combined with the apparent lack of notability, means that this draft is essentially just 'creating awareness' of this firm, and that makes it by definition promotional (see WP:YESPROMO). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:29, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
YES PLEASE Nanchang17 (talk) 10:41, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:10, 15 September 2023 review of submission by KaylaLoebl111

edit

Hi I have a question of why this was considered copyright. There are only so many ways I can rewrite the same researched facts about a civil rights lawyer. Any tips are appreciated. Thanks. KaylaLoebl111 (talk) 23:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@KaylaLoebl111: it was considered a copyright violation, because the copyright detector reports significant similarity with this source. I think you'll find that there are in fact countless different ways to write, so you really should have no need to copypaste or closely paraphrase text from elsewhere. More information on this topic has been posted on your talk page, please study it carefully, and rewrite the violating content.
Do you have an external relationship with the subject of this draft? If so, it needs to be disclosed. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disclosed it and thanks for the clarification. 2607:FB91:2C36:4B64:AC39:8131:E1C8:3FFD (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2023_September_15&oldid=1176346212"