Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 February 13

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation‎ | Help desk‎ | Archives
Help desk
< February 12 << Jan | February | Mar >> February 14 >
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.


February 13

edit

01:22, 13 February 2024 review of submission by 51.175.231.6

edit

Looking for final review for the Draft:WikiDNS article on WikiDNS 10.0.0 - DNS Records in JSON with Python 3. 51.175.231.6 (talk) 01:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. ltbdl (talk) 06:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:30, 13 February 2024 review of submission by RAVESZN

edit

I am requesting this because I am a tiktok content creator I want to have my first page RAVESZN (talk) 03:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@raveszn: the draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. ltbdl (talk) 06:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RAVESZN, self-promotional editing is forbidden on Wikipedia. Stop or you will be blocked. Cullen328 (talk) 08:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:29, 13 February 2024 review of submission by יאַנקל

edit

I would like to continue editing this draft, but the editing option seems to be no longer available. יאַנקל (talk) 09:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@יאַנקל: looks fine to me, and you're of course welcome to continue working on it while it awaits another review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!
However, I seem to no longer be able to access the "edit" option, all I can see is "edit source". יאַנקל (talk) 09:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@יאַנקל: ah, okay. I'm guessing that has to do with the editing modes (visual vs. source), but I can't help you there as I haven't used the visual editor in years, and can't remember anything about it. I've even disabled that option, so for me 'edit' = 'edit source'. In any case, as this is more of a general help query, you may want to try asking at the Teahouse. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:37, 13 February 2024 review of submission by Miladitb

edit

How to resubmit it for review? Miladitb (talk) 12:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can't; that's what rejection means, it will not be considered again. If something has fundamentally changed about the draft that addresses the concerns raised, the first step is to appeal to the last reviewer directly.
If you are associated with this topic, that must be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 13:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPI filed. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not associated someone of this topic. Please check Draft:Kavya Kishor, I have removed most of advertising content from this article.
  • actually I want to work with all rejected Articles, to improve (if be notable).
Miladitb (talk) 02:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rejected drafts should not be worked. Read the reject notice. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the advertising content from this draft. Now, It may eligible to submit for review. Additionally, Draft:Kavya Kishor is like Xmag or The Lagos Review (I think, based on web). So, It should to submit again for review. Miladitb (talk) 10:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Miladitb Please see other stuff exists as to why the existence of other articles has little bearing on other articles. The draft still does little more than tell of the existence of the magazine. The award does not contribute to notability as the award itself does not have an article(like Academy Award or Nobel Peace Prize). I don't think this should be considered again at this time. Is there a particular reason you are so strongly invested in this draft? 331dot (talk) 11:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:331dot Yes, It is one of the major online literary magazine from Bangladesh after Anannya.
After that, The Lagos Review also not received any Award like Noble Prize and others.
However, I think Draft:Kavya Kishor should to review again. Miladitb (talk) 13:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Miladitb you will have to appeal to the rejecting reviewer @CNMall41 directly. Qcne (talk) 13:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have said to his User talk:CNMall41 page. Miladitb (talk) 13:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't hear back in a few weeks (we're volunteers) then feel free to ask me for a second opinion. Qcne (talk) 13:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was spending time with family this week and just getting back to this. I would not be inclined to pass the draft into mainspace. At this point, let's wait on the CU and then we can have further discussion. --CNMall41 (talk) 10:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now? Can i work work with this article to improve it (with appeal to rejected user)? Bee of Sciences (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bee of Sciences what is your connection to the account @Miladitb Qcne (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No connection, whay are you want to know this? Bee of Sciences (talk) 23:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:48, 13 February 2024 review of submission by Fadesga

edit

Good morning, fellow Wikipedians. Sorry for popping up. Yesterday I submitted the draft:Agustín Pardella for review. DoubleGrazing rejected it because "the references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article", etc. OK, being DoubleGrazing an experienced draft reviewer, I took his advice and added further references from reliable sources (apart from re-reading the already available ones). La Nación, El Comercio (Peru), El Observador, Ámbito Financiero, elmundo.es, are all respectable publications in the Spanish-speaking world. Further, Agustín Pardella is no newcomer to acting and, in top of this, he portrayed one of the three main characters of Society of the Snow, a Spanish film that won 12 Goya Awards. And, if you let me (I know this might be subjective): I am a compatriot of the real-life characters depicted in the film, who miraculously survived a world-famous tragedy. So, please, be so kind and review the notability of the sources. Thank you so much for your time and consideration. Regards from Uruguay, Fadesga (talk) 12:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Fadesga: sorry, you get me again! :)
Just for the record, I only declined the draft, not reject it. Rejecting would mean the end of the road, whereas declining allows you to continue editing and resubmit it for another review.
I had to decline it, because the vast majority of the content was unreferenced: there were four citations, and they were all in one short paragraph. Articles on living people have particularly strict referencing requirements, with every material statement, anything potentially contentious, and all private personal and family details needing to be clearly supported by inline citations to reliable published sources.
Once you've done that, you can resubmit the draft, and it will be reviewed again. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:22, 13 February 2024 review of submission by That guy who plays games

edit

Can you review my article please? I’d love that. That guy who plays games (talk) 13:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@That guy who plays games: we don't do on-demand reviews here at the help desk. That said, I can tell you that this would be declined for lack of notability. Per WP:NBUILD, bridges and the like must satisfy the WP:GNG notability standard, which requires significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent. "Multiple" is usually interpreted as 3+, whereas your draft cites only a single source (another appears to have been attempted but is throwing an error message). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I actully found many secondary sources on the replacement bridge. That guy who plays games (talk) 13:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@That guy who plays games: great, add them!
Just to remind/clarify, though: it's not enough that the sources are secondary, they must also be both reliable and independent of the subject, and (and this is usually the tricky one) provide significant coverage (not just passing mentions) directly of the subject (and not of any indirectly related matters). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:09, 13 February 2024 review of submission by Reeta Singh

edit

recently i have submitted my bio data . when people searches in google by name reeta singh it should be visible on it so what should i do ? please can you help me out asap Reeta Singh (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot just promote yourself on Wikipedia. 𝑭𝒊𝒍𝒎𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔 (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Reeta Singh: Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. We don't publish "bio data", we publish articles on subjects which are considered notable. You have been advised against writing about yourself. You have also had your draft declined twice because it is entirely unreferenced and provides no evidence of notability. This is now the end of the road for your draft. You need to find an alternative platform to tell the world about yourself. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:26, 13 February 2024 review of submission by Yathu.karunailingam

edit

not sure why my draft was rejected Yathu.karunailingam (talk) 15:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yathu.karunailingam: your draft was rejected because it is promotional and violates our autobiography guidelines. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:40, 13 February 2024 review of submission by Vividporpoise

edit

I created a page for notable mid-20th century American rabbi Morris Adler. The page contains numerous reliable sources including scholarly works on the history of Jewish Detroit, a book specifically about the life and assassination of Rabbi Adler, and newspaper reports from the time. My submission was not accepted due to an alleged lack of reliable sources and doubt of notability by a reviewer.

Two options are before me: 1) In order to address the notability issue, the page could be changed from a biography of Adler to a page about his murder, per the notability guidelines. 2) Addition of more scholarly sources showing Adler's notability in the context of Jewish American history and the history of Jewish Detroit.

I have already begun implementing the latter solution and would like advice on whether the former solution would be appropriate in this scenario. I was, frankly, surprised by the article not being accepted given the amount of detailed citation of academic secondary sources. Thank you! Vividporpoise (talk) 15:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:49, 13 February 2024 review of submission by Cminorftw

edit

I got refused because of the referencing but I already put references. is it because the article is in english and the references that I posted are in french? I'm only allowed to put the reference in the same langugage? thanks for your help. Cminorftw (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cminorftw I fixed your link, the "Draft:" portion is required. No, references are not required to be in English, but they do need to be independent reliable sources that offer significant coverage of the topic. 331dot (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your answer 331dot!
But then why did I got refused it says:
The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.
How can I fix this in your opinion? Cminorftw (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Four of the five paragraphs of the draft are unsourced. This is not acceptable in an article about a living person.
Furthermore, few of your sources seem to be the required independent, reliable sources which contain significant coverage of the subject. ColinFine (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now makes more sense about my mistakes! Thanks for taking the time and helping me improve! Cminorftw (talk) 05:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:42, 13 February 2024 review of submission by BinaryBlazer

edit

I dont really know why my sandbox article had been rejected again. I think I followed all rules and the guidelines. But Im not really sure. BinaryBlazer (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BinaryBlazer: it was rejected, because even at the third review of your third attempt, there is no evidence of notability per WP:NCORP; your draft only cites the company's own website. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:50, 13 February 2024 review of submission by MoniqueEscamilla

edit

Hello, I am editing this draft article to add in more verified sources and am hoping to resubmit; however, right now it only says the page is not notable enough and doesn't give me an option to submit or resubmit... is there a way to get this option again? MoniqueEscamilla (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MoniqueEscamilla: this draft has been rejected, meaning there is no option to resubmit. If you have evidence of notability which wasn't previously considered, your only option is to make your case directly to the reviewer who rejected this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @MoniqueEscamilla. When you first submitted the draft in December you had a single primary reference and very promotional language completely unacceptable for Wikipedia.
You have improved the draft slightly but I am afraid your new sources still do not prove that Colt meets our strict notability criteria (which you can see at WP:NPEOPLE.
If you further improve the draft and want me to take another look, please leave a message on my Talk Page. Qcne (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:03, 13 February 2024 review of submission by Paola-D99

edit

Dear team,

i did this draft but my intention is that of improving the article about GIsella Marengo that already existed. The draft was declined cause the page already exist. coudl you please explain me how to improve that page? 

Paola-D99 (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Paola-D99, abandon your draft and work to improve the existing article Gisella Marengo instead. Refrain from non-neutral promotional phrasing like known for her dynamic presence in both European and American cinema. The Neutral point of view is a core content policy, after all. Would you write about another actress that she is known for her non-dynamic lack of a presence in both the cinema of Antarctica and the most remote regions of the Sahara Desert? Who thought up that "dynamic presence" stuff anyway? It only belongs if attributed to a clearly reliable, independent source. Cullen328 (talk) 07:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks.
could you please explain me how to do it? I tried to edited my original page but my changes were not accepted. that's why I started doing a draft.
thanks you Paola-D99 (talk) 13:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Paola-D99: you said in your edit note at Gisella Marengo that you are editing "with the consent of the person in question". This creates a clear conflict of interest (COI), which you must disclose, as instructed on your talk page.
You are also not allowed to use Wikipedia for promotional purposes. That means both the content and tone of editing.
All edits must be supported by referencing reliable published sources, whereas yours were unreferenced. Articles on living people (WP:BLP) have particularly strict referencing requirements.
Finally, just because your edits to this articles were reverted is no reason to start a new article on the same subject, as it couldn't be published anyway. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_February_13&oldid=1218807990"