Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 August 8

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< August 7 << Jul | August | Sep >> August 9 >
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 8

edit

04:16, 8 August 2024 review of submission by Montied

edit

(Specifically regarding Draft:Seirei_Gakuen_High_School) Is it that there needs to be a number of reliable and independent sources, as well as more information? If not, why is the Japanese language version of the page considered notable? Montied (talk) 04:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Montied, your exceptionally sparse two sentence draft fails to make the case that this high school is notable. The draft mentions Arnold Janssen but his biography does not even mention Japan, which calls that claim into question. You need to write a draft that makes a convincing case that this school complies with WP:NSCHOOL. As for the Japanese Wikipedia, each language version of Wikipedia is an autonomous project that sets its own notability guidelines. The presence of a poorly referenced article about a topic on another language version is worth nothing on the English Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 04:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'll work on it, thank you for explaining. Montied (talk) 04:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:33, 8 August 2024 review of submission by ValerieCo

edit

Hello, I have made some edits to the article after it was declined last month including adding sources and editing the tone. I wanted to some advice on whether this is now acceptable before I resubmit. Thanks in advance. ValerieCo (talk) 04:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ValerieCo, please explain the meaning of "Co" in your username. We do not use the registered trademark symbol in encyclopedia articles. Your draft has an inappropriately promotional tone. Rigorous neutrality is required and promotional editing of any kind is forbidden on Wikipedia. The notion that some interesting building used timber from some specific company is not an argument that the company is notable but possibly that the building itself is notable. I have spent 40 years working in construction and major commercial buildings use products from thousands of companies. Cullen328 (talk) 05:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's just the first two letters of my surname. Are you able to share any constructive feedback on sections I should change? ValerieCo (talk) 05:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, ValerieCo, Your draft has an inappropriately promotional tone so it should be clear to you that you should edit your draft to bring it into rigorous compliance with the neutral point of view. Many editors may well assume that "Co" is an abbreviation of "company" which may adversely affect your editing experience since company accounts are not allowed. You might want to consider changing the name of your account, and also to refrain from editing in a fashion that implies that you are editing on behalf of a company. Cullen328 (talk) 06:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, ValerieCo. Nothing in the draft suggests that this is a company that the world has taken any particular note of. Awards count for little unless they are themselves notable - every industry has a ton of awards that nobody outside the industry is the least bit interested in.
Which wholly independent source described them as "carbon-negative"? We can't take their own word for such a value-laden property.
As far as I can see, not one of your sources meets the triple criterion of being reliable, independent, and containing significant coverage of Abodo: that is the only kind of source that contributes to notability. See WP:42.
Remember that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 20:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:54, 8 August 2024 review of submission by Janep1814

edit

I've received feedback that my draft article reads like a CV. Can you provide some pointers on how to change this? Thanks, Janep1814 (talk) 10:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:34, 8 August 2024 review of submission by 112.209.9.48

edit

Hello new storm in the 2024 Pacific typhoon season Can Submit the draft? 112.209.9.48 (talk) 14:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello edit contents for Typhoon see WP:TEA#Draft 112.209.9.48 (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:46, 8 August 2024 review of submission by 51.9.253.114

edit

I sent my suggested updating of my page Maggie Humm (in my sandbox) out for review (I am unable to update due to conflict of interest). It was declined immediately the reason given that the page already exists! Of course it does but not the updated version! How do I resolve what should be a very simple update? 51.9.253.114 (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to log into your account whenever editing, Maggie Humm.
I don't know if you saw my comment, that you should instead make edit requests via the dedicated wizard Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
many thanks! I have resubmitted as you suggest via the dedicated wizard (above). Crossing fingers it works this time! 51.9.253.114 (talk) 19:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for respecting procedures regarding COI. But I'm sorry, you have not succeeded in 'resubmitting' anything. The Edit Request Wizard is a system which allows you to request specific targeted changes to an article, supported by reliable, independent sources. Putting paragraphs of text on the article's talk page will achieve very little. You have not submitted a request to the edit request system, so editors who normally patrol that system will not know you have posted. If they do happen to see it, they will see an almost unreferenced piece of writing, which it will take significant work for anybody to compare with the existing text and decide whether or not to make any edits to the article from it.
Given that there does not appear to be a single source cited which is both reliable and independent, I do not imagine that many editors will be willing to put in that work.
What you need to do is to use the wizard to make very specific requests ("Replace X by Y"; "Remove Z"; "Add W after J"), and make sure that every piece of information you wish to add is cited to a reliable published source, and (unless it is uncontroversial factual information like places and dates) to a source wholly independent of you and your associates. Making separate requests will increase the likelihood that people will pick them up, one by one.
Bear in mind that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 20:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice! I have included reliable independent sources as hyper links which can easily be verified. And kept all of the original sources which have already been verified. The existing text is only four lines plus a book list. I have changed none of this simply added. I imitated the Susan Sellers entry which uses the same kind of language because Susan has a similar career to mine.
I thought that I had requested an editor to review.
I would be grateful to know how to make that request and where? Thanks again. Maggie Humm (talk) 13:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:54, 8 August 2024 review of submission by Faruk Raj1

edit

what is my article problem.why you are rejected my article. please accepted my article Faruk Raj1 (talk) 18:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Faruk Raj1: your draft has been rejected, and I have just requested that it be deleted. There isn't any sign of notability, and in any case you're not supposed to be writing about yourself (see WP:AUTOBIO). You may want to try the likes of LinkedIn etc. instead. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:56, 8 August 2024 review of submission by AI Thabiso

edit

I can't find my reable source's help me please, edit it for me I'll be so pleased if you do so.. AI Thabiso (talk) 18:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't find reliable sources, then it is likely that the club does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability|. Sorry. ColinFine (talk) 20:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:01, 8 August 2024 review of submission by Abeeha Awais

edit

Need suggestions to improve the draft and making it capable for the main space please Abeeha Awais (talk) 20:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has been rejected, which is the end of the line: the reviewer has decided that there is not enough material available to establish that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability - certainly, not one of the sources you cite meets the triple criteria of reliability, independence from the subject, and significant coverage of the subject. If you think there are suitable sources, you could approach the reviewer who rejected it, Qcne, but I advise you to make very sure that every one of the sources you propose meets all three of those criteria, or Qcne is likely to be justifiably annoyed at you wasting their (voluntary) time. ColinFine (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:04, 8 August 2024 review of submission by CBathka

edit

The article has been updated with a formal tone and neutral POV. Please advise whether there are sections that require further edits to tone and POV. Thank you! -CB CBathka (talk) 23:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CBathka: sorry, we don't provide pre-reviews here at the help desk. You have resubmitted the draft, and will get feedback once a reviewer comes along to assess it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, thank you for the information. CBathka (talk) 14:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_August_8&oldid=1240384805"