Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 August 23

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation‎ | Help desk‎ | Archives
Help desk
< August 22 << Jul | August | Sep >> August 24 >
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.


August 23

edit

06:17, 23 August 2024 review of submission by Bonejoint

edit

There is a suggested change to the current article "title". The suggested new title is "LAMA2 muscular dystrophy". This title is more comprehensive and inclusive of other disease subtypes. 

Bonejoint (talk) 06:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bonejoint: The proper way to do this is to follow the WP:Requested moves process on Talk:LAMA2 related congenital muscular dystrophy. This help desk is specifically for help with AfC submissions and cannot help with page moves outside that context. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:46, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:23, 23 August 2024 review of submission by Astronomyspokesmann

edit

Hello! I am asking for help about the page above. This page was written about an official, public, and non-profit science department.

The page was claimed by 3 editors earlier that it has no reliable sources and references. So, I took the effort to gather 20+ different reference, including per-reviewed published research. Then, some other editors claimed it has no relevance to academic institutions, so I put two more paragraphs about the department's establishment history which extends to the late 1960's, and a paragraph about the courses given at the department-and of course, all with references. Now I got the refusal, saying that it's not notable department, and it's a promotion page. Please note:

This department is the only astronomy operating academic institution in my country, that deals with space physics and astrophysics. Thus, it is notable by all means.

Also, stating that it is the only department of the kind is not an attempt for promoting, it is simply a fact. Should there be many other departments of the same interests for this topic, in order for mentioning it to be non promoting, is a matter of absurdity.

Please also note that, other than stating "this is the only department of it's kind in Iraq"; there is no single other place in the article that has "promoting" spirit. There are no sentences or words that advertise or describe the department's goodness.

The reason of refusing the article is not suitable, I think. May be and perhaps the editor who refused it sees it unworthy, but that's not a good reason.

All this been said, why the first three editors didn't mention the notability issue? The page was created earlier in July, and many editors have given notes for weeks, and there were some effort to meet the early requirements.

Now it seems the issue isn't about references or being an academic institution, but about notability and promotion. The updates are quite different, and inconsistent.

It seems like a maze when one should satisfy the opinions of many people, each has a different point of view, and all think that only their own opinions reflect rules of Wikipedia.

Please note that I searched for academic departments before writing this one. So this is not the only (or first time) when an article about a science department was found in Wikipedia.

If you please, could you help me out with this? I thought Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia for providing a general and public knowledge- and knowledge isn't biased to opinions. Creating a page about this institution was meant to be within this scope, providing knowledge, no more. So help, please.

Thank you. Astronomyspokesmann (talk) 08:23, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Astronomyspokesmann I fixed your link, you lacked the "Draft:" portion. As a faculty member, you must become familiar with conflict of interest if you aren't already.
You have a common misunderstanding about what it is we do here. Wikipedia does not merely provide information, nor is it a place for organizations to tell the world about themselves and what they do. That's what social media is for. Wikipedia articles about organizations must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. You haven't done that, you just described the offerings of your department and its activities.
Beware in using other articles as a guide, as these themselves could be inappropriate and just not yet addressed by a volunteer editor. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles, which have been vetted by the community.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 331dot (talk • contribs)

10:56, 23 August 2024 review of submission by Joseph77237

edit

hi. is this ok?, or do I need to correct something else? regards. Draft:Praeterintention Joseph77237 (talk) 10:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need the whole url when linking to your draft. You have submitted it for a review, the reviewer will leave you feedback if it is not accepted. 331dot (talk) 11:57, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:34, 23 August 2024 review of submission by GreenAppleClimber

edit

Hello, I'm wondering if there's a place I can submit this draft for more community support? I'm hoping more people can help me edit the page. GreenAppleClimber (talk) 13:34, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can request assistance at the general Help Desk- but you or others will need to fundamentally change the draft to address the main concern- your draft just tells about the software and what it does- instead, it should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about it, showing how it is notable as Wikipedia uses the word. For products that is usually product reviews written by professional reviewers unsolicited. 331dot (talk) 13:39, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:33, 23 August 2024 review of submission by ArthurTheGardener

edit

The page Bear Head has just gone live, but I see whilst linking it elsewhere that it has been mistakenly described as a 2024 novel by Adrian Tchaikovsky, rather than the correct publication date of 2021. I'm not experienced enough to know how to change this, but I'd would appreciate it if someone corrected this. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ArthurTheGardener: I take it you meant the 'short description' meta data? I've changed that to 2021. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:24, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, yes. Thank you so much for your help. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 16:31, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:07, 23 August 2024 review of submission by Luijtenphotos

edit

Hi!

I would like to write articles about major YouTube channels (that are in the Top 1000 according to Social Blade), but my first article was rejected (by someone named OnlyNano) without clear, constructive criticism. During my time as a student, I wrote articles for the Dutch, French, and Limburgish Wikipedia and never had any issues.

The sources were said to be unreliable, but I used only verifiable sources alongside primary ones. OnlyNano did not provide examples or explain why he found my sources (except for Fast Company, which he claimed was "a good start") unreliable.

He particularly has an issue with the source Boing Boing, but there is nothing about a negative, unreliable reputation in the Wikipedia article about Boing Boing. Through Google, I also find several other Wikipedia articles that use the same site as a source, from which I can conclude that the distrust OnlyNano feels about the website does not seem to occur with other Wikipedians. Furthermore, all information (mainly descriptions of videos) can be verified by the reader, from which you can conclude that the sources are reliable. If websites that focus on pop culture are not considered reliable sources, in my view, it becomes impossible to write an article about most YouTube channels.

Is there a moderator who could perhaps help me?

Kind regards,

Luke 

Luijtenphotos (talk) 22:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I find that this new (?) system does not work in practice. I see several articles on these pages that have been wrongly rejected. For example, the SpangaS article (which was rejected because the reviewer did not know the sources and therefore found them unreliable) or the Microsoft Azure Quantum article (which was very well substantiated). My article was rejected by someone whom I estimate, based on their profile, to be someone still in middle school (based on their language use, idols, glorification of 'cool' drugs, and juvenile expressions like "this user is a Satanist"). I have no desire to argue with a child or beg to have my article approved. I was probably already writing Wikipedia articles for the Dutch, Limburgish, and French Wikipedias before they were even born. And I never had any problems there. There, the community would write the article together or improve a mediocre one. I had planned to write a lot of articles about major YouTube channels, but with this abuse of power, all the fun is gone. Luijtenphotos (talk) 02:25, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Luijtenphotos: I was going to respond to your thread next, but I think I'll give it a miss. It seems you're only here to belly-ache about how the AfC project is going about its business, and I don't think the help desk is the right forum for that. And personal attacks and slurs are absolutely not acceptable, so please cut them out now. If you prefer to edit "the Dutch, Limburgish, and French Wikipedias" rather than the English-language one, no one is standing in your way.-- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:55, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I was going to respond to your thread next, but..."
Such veiled blackmail or displays of power do not impress me and I have the full right to express my opinion. I have invested time in writing an article, and if one person, presumably very young, can reject it without substantive justification, I find that wrong. And not just for me, but also for other articles on this page. I see pleas for help that are ignored. People who provide very well-supported explanations for why their sources are valid and then receive just a link in response. I find that very rude, wrong and very unfortunate! Also for all the information that is lost.
"If you prefer to edit 'the Dutch, Limburgish, and French Wikipedias' rather than the English one, no one is standing in your way."
Wow. I indicate that other Wikipedias have a decentralized system (in my opinion way better), and you use this argument for a "if you don't like it, go back where you came from"-fallacy. Is there no room for substantive criticism here? Luijtenphotos (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Luijtenphotos This process is almost always voluntary. You are free to directly create articles and roll the dice that other editors will see that they meet guidelines like notability and sourcing. Editors on any version of Wikipedia are free to do as they wish- you can't force other editors to help you. If you want to see an article created, you need to do it yourself. 331dot (talk) 09:27, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find the "but it's voluntary" argument not very convincing. If a cook is a volunteer at a nursing home but puts too much salt in the food, people have every right to complain, even if he is not paid. Similarly, I have the right to complain about volunteer Wikipedians who incorrectly reject articles. It would be better if it were a decentralized process where multiple people contribute to writing an article, rather than having one person without knowledge of the subject make that determination. Luijtenphotos (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you can show where the reviewer has violated a Wikipedia policy, please make your case to the community here. I see you've written for other language Wikipedias, the English verson tends to be stricter than others. What is acceptable there is not necessarily acceptable here.
Again, you are free to disregard the reviewer and create the article yourself. You might get other editors to help you, but those editors could also initiate a deletion discussion. If you get a draft to pass this process instead, that risk is greatly lessened. 331dot (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The English version tends to be stricter than others."
And I don't have a problem with that. Strictness is not the issue here. The skewed power dynamics and lack of knowledge (resulting in information being lost) are.
"If you can show where the reviewer has violated a Wikipedia policy, please make your case to the community here."
If it is not against the rules for one person to reject an article without justification, then, in my view, the Wikipedia policy is flawed. I may not be able to change it, but I have the right to point it out. Luijtenphotos (talk) 16:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can disagree with the justification, but that doesn't mean none was given. It was very clearly left by the reviewer. If you feel it is utterly wrong, resubmit the draft or just place it in the encyclopedia yourself. Both of these aren't dependent on any one person.
If you want to change this process to, say, require a committee review the draft(which would be cumbersome and time consuming) or some other change in this process, you are free to work to do that. 331dot (talk) 17:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"(which would be cumbersome and time consuming)"
Yes, I really don’t want to be involved in a power struggle over a simple article. In my view, an opinion that is not substantiated is not very useful. If someone (for example) writes an article about the color green, then they cannot do much with the feedback 'rejected: numbers are not allowed'. Luijtenphotos (talk) 17:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Luijtenphotos: Then let's look at your sources, which is what the reviewer pointed out. Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked as "critiques" in my signature):
None of your sources are usable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Luijtenphotos, your unkind words about OnlyNano are absolutely uncalled for and I strongly suggest you start applying one of the pillars of Wikipedia: assume good faith. We do not tolerate personal attacks here. Administrators (which I think you meant by moderators) confine their work solely to ensuring people behave civilly to each other and there is no disruption to the Wikipedia; if they wish to help with a draft, they do so as an ordinary editor. They are certainly not going to overrule OnlyNano, who has given you good advice for working on your draft if you want to continue.
On en-WP, we don't write in articles anything that has not been written by a reliable source. Since no reliable source is likely to care about whether Wikipedia thinks a particular source is or is not reliable, we don't put things like 'Boing Boing is not reliable' in the article about that source. Instead, we use the list of perennial sources, which are common sources that have been discussed among editors on en-WP. You will note that BoingBoing is listed as 'no consensus', and then the notes call it a 'group blog', which are both warning signs that it should not be counted on.
If you're not enjoying the experience, en-WP might not be for you - no one here wants you to do something that's frustrating or upsetting you when you could be having fun at another version of Wikipedia. This is widely considered to be one of the strictest Wikipedias in terms of sourcing, which can be difficult for editors used to other Wikipedias. I wish you happy editing wherever you choose to write. StartGrammarTime (talk) 12:34, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not an attack, just my opinion based on my observations. I regret that the Wikipedia of decentralized projects has mutated into a project where one person determines what constitutes a good article for others. Even if the writer of the article has more knowledge, the article can still be rejected by the reviewer without a valid justification. I find that an unfair power dynamic. Additionally, I am also disappointed that the power does not lie with people with specific expertise, which causes a lot of information to be lost unjustly. Luijtenphotos (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Luijtenphotos See WP:EXPERT. Wikipedia is written generally by lay people for lay people, summarizing what independent reliable sources say about a topic. Expertise in a topic area isn't required in order to write or otherwise contribute about it. There are encyclopedia writing projects out there that do only allow experts to write, if that's what you're looking for. People contribute in the areas they choose too based on their own interests. It is not accurate to say one person has all the power to decide the fate of an article. As I said, this process is usually voluntary. If you want to roll the dice and take a chance, you can. 331dot (talk) 16:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"As I said, this process is usually voluntary. If you want to roll the dice and take a chance, you can."
It does indeed seem like a game of chance when articles are rejected randomly without strong justification, but that is precisely what I find wrong with the new, centralized system. This is also why I mentioned Wikipedia in other languages as examples. There, it's not a game of chance, but rather your chances are determined by the content. If the content is incorrect, the community improves it, ensuring that no information is lost. Luijtenphotos (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unclear as to why you refer to this process as a "new system". 331dot (talk) 16:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To me it was a new system. Luijtenphotos (talk) 17:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Luijtenphotos: The AfC process as we know it today has been around for just about 13 years. And as a counterargument, it's more likely that articles posted directly to mainspace languish and see no practical improvement for years. We're still working on cleaning up obscure articles on various topics that are basically still in the same poor condition they were back when they were coldposted pre-2011, and not all of that is the English-language Wikipedia's standards increasing; some of it is just nobody noticed the article in the first place to edit it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My articles are still all there and have been significantly expanded over time. Maybe because they were good in the first place. I have nothing against quality control. I do believe that the control should be done properly though. I see on this page various articles that have been unjustly deleted, sometimes due to a lack of knowledge on the part of the reviewer. That bothers me. Luijtenphotos (talk) 17:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, it's up to you to provide that knowledge to the reviewer. 331dot (talk) 17:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I choose to let the information be lost. I find it very unfortunate, but I don't have the impression that I can convince the reviewer. Luijtenphotos (talk) 17:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just going by what's redlinked here at the time of this edit:
—Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:14, 23 August 2024 review of submission by Dogstar Gazer

edit

The previous author did not complete citations and the article was declined. I would like to publish the article by correcting or adding to the citations and applying appropriate tags. How can I best proceed? Dogstar Gazer (talk) 23:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dogstar Gazer: I don't know what you mean by "did not complete citations". This draft was routinely deleted as a creation by a likely sock puppet. I would steer clear of it, personally, but if you want to create a new draft with appropriate references etc., that's your call of course. You will find pretty much all the advice you need for draft creation at WP:YFA. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:39, 23 August 2024 review of submission by CBathka

edit

The page has been rejected twice. I have gone through the sources to ensure they meet the rules of verifiability. Yet I am still unsure what copy if any is not meeting WP guidelines. Can someone walk me through our latest updated copy and tell us what the specific areas of concern are? CBathka (talk) 23:39, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a real shame that such an interesting and well-supported article can be rejected by just one person who is not familiar with the subject. A lot of good articles get lost this way. A good article about a Dutch film was rejected above. The sources are solid, but because the reviewer doesn't know them, they are considered unreliable. I've never seen this on foreign Wikipedias. There, the focus is on improving the text, rather than rejecting it without substantive reasoning. :( Luijtenphotos (talk) 01:30, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Luijtenphotos: if you don't have any advice to offer, please don't unnecessarily contribute to other users' threads just to air your own grievances. And your insinuations of incompetence or negligence, or whatever you're implying exactly, are not helpful. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:52, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"[...] please don't unnecessarily contribute to other users' threads just to air your own grievances"
Please stop with these accusations! The way you think, says nothing about me.
The illocutionary act was not advice, but support. Luijtenphotos (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Familiarity with the subject is not required to assess sources amd if those sources are accurately summarized. Sources aren't even the main issue with this submission, nor is this dependent on one person. That is utterly false, this person has the same avenues open to you, seek another assessment, discuss the concerns with the reviewer, or ignore us and put the article in the encyclopedia themselves. Perhaps you would be happier participating in a project that limits participation to experts. I concur with DoubleGrazing that unless you have advice to offer about the draft, move on. 331dot (talk) 19:19, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CBathka: this draft has been declined, not rejected. Decline means that you're welcome to resubmit the draft once you've addressed the decline reasons. Rejection is terminal.
I don't know if this is what the reviewer had in mind (you may have to ask them directly), but my issue with this draft is that it is pretty impenetrable industry jargon and marketing buzzspeak. As it happens, I used to work in high-performance computing and big data etc., and I'm having to read every sentence twice to understand what is actually being said. I expect my grandmother would probably have to read everything thrice (if they weren't both dead, that is). I think the language would benefit from simplification, as well as from a more concise and factual approach. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_August_23&oldid=1242841554"