Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 July 22

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< July 21 << Jun | July | Aug >> July 23 >
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.


July 22

edit

09:10, 22 July 2024 review of submission by Lorenzo Chiari-Gaggia

edit

Unclear as to where the sourcing issues are for this declined submission. Lorenzo Chiari-Gaggia (talk) 09:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lorenzo Chiari-Gaggia: you asked a very similar question here a couple of days ago, are you just repeating that question, or is there something you specifically wish to ask (and if so, what exactly)? Also, please don't start a new thread each time, just add to the existing one while it remains on this page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The last post was addressing notability concerns in the article, which appear now to have been fixed. The new reason the declining the post was improper sourcing not notability. So I am asking what what are the examples of improper sourcing that need to be addressed. I recognise that certain sources used are not completely indpendent in certain cases (galleries in collaboration with VH), but in those cases they are used purely to describe an event occuring, such as an exhibition, not to evaulate its success or notability. This was deemed okay in a livechat with an editor. Lorenzo Chiari-Gaggia (talk) 10:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you.   Courtesy ping: SafariScribe – anything you can share? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lorenzo Chiari-Gaggia, there are many unsourced claims in your draft, and they are significant to meet WP:NCORP. Also remove the excessive peacock/advertorial/promotional terms. Let's take a look at "Venetian Heritage has funded over 70 restoration projects [1], 30 publications and organized over 35 exhibitions." The "35 exhibitions" isn't sourced. Same as "Venetian Heritage is a non-profit organization based in Venice and New York focused on the promotion and preservation of the art and architecture of Venice and the nations of the former Republic of Venice. It organizes and financially supports restoration and conservation projects in Venice, curates exhibitions worldwide and funds publications and research projects." I will strike like the above. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 18:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still claims that it was not written in neutral tone. Please could you show where you think it should be edited, thanks. Lorenzo Chiari-Gaggia (talk) 08:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:39, 22 July 2024 review of submission by Sienitoe

edit

Requesting assistance editing the submitted draft for Tini Lam Yuen. The reason provided: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources." I'm new to Wiki and appreciate any helpful feedback or guidance on how to best address the review decision. Thank you. Sienitoe (talk) 09:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Courtesy link: Draft:Tini Inu Lam Yuen
@Sienitoe: at least half of the content is unreferenced. While someone who died nearly 30 years ago isn't subject to our rules on articles on living people (WP:BLP), we still need to know where the information is coming from. You need to cite the sources, so that reviewers (and later, readers) can verify them if needed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thought most of it was already referenced. Could you provide an example @DoubleGrazing thank you! Sienitoe (talk) 07:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sienitoe: I would have thought it's fairly easy to find unreferenced information there, given that eight paragraphs are entirely without citations. But as an example, the final section which contains private personal information – where did that come from? What about his date of birth? Or the family details in the 'Education' section? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:00, 22 July 2024 review of submission by Grantuk1996

edit

I submitted an article with the above title on June 20th using the AFC submitting wizard. It said that the article is waiting to review and can take up to 4 months. Is this correct? As I've heard some articles are getting reviewed a lot quicker than that. Am I able to re-submit a different way to get it reviewed quicker? Grantuk1996 (talk) 11:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Grantuk1996: yes, it is true, we have c. 3,000 drafts awaiting review, and this can take anything up to three months or so. And yes, some drafts are reviewed much quicker than that, as the system isn't a queue, it's a pool. And no, there isn't another way to submit for a faster review.
What is your relationship with this subject? I've posted a paid-editing query on your talk page, please read and respond to it.
Also, have you previously edited this or other drafts under a different account? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: One way you could perhaps help the reviewers would be to cut down on the WP:REFBOMBING: we don't need to see 45 sources, most of which don't contribute towards notability; we need to see max. 4-5 sources that squarely meet the WP:GNG standard as required by WP:NCORP. One way to get rid of a large number of useless sources would be to remove the entire 'Prizes and awards' section, which is promotional and provides no encyclopaedic value. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:33, 22 July 2024 review of submission by Wabbit98

edit

Why am I being picked on? Wabbit98 (talk) 11:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Wabbit98, no one is picking on you. You simply haven't proven notability under WP:NSCHOOL. Qcne (talk) 11:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this school seems to be defunct, I would look at it instead as a historical landmark included in the NRHP, which should make it notable per WP:GEOFEAT? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking closer, I agree, so have accepted. FYI @SafariScribe Qcne (talk) 11:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing, @Qcne, and @Wabbit98, I know the school, even as a defunct one is notable by appearing in the list, but i was a bit confused that the link doesn't point anywhere. It seems to be fixed now, and I love the acceptance; that I wanted to fix before accepting. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 14:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:05, 22 July 2024 review of submission by MasterOfNone67

edit

My submission was rejected because "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." Sources I have included are all reliable as far as I can tell - how can I get around this issue? MasterOfNone67 (talk) 12:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MasterOfNone67: which set of sources are we talking about? You've referenced five sources via inline citations, which creates the customery footnotes at the bottom. You've then listed a number of external links under the heading 'References', without citing them anywhere, so it's difficult to know what information, if any, they are there to support. Perhaps you could clarify? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:00, 22 July 2024 review of submission by Wasif Raza1

edit

I would like to inuqire, why arent we discussing it, as this company has over 1000 visitors daily across its website as well as retail store. 

Wasif Raza1 (talk) 13:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wasif Raza1: this draft has been rejected, as it provides no evidence that the subject is notable; furthermore, it is pure advertising, and for that reason I have just requested speedy deletion. Please note that any sort of promotion is not allowed on Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:03, 22 July 2024 review of submission by Kamila Fomin

edit

Hello! How long will the review of this proposal take? Kamila Fomin (talk) 15:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kamila Fomin: Unfortunately, the Articles for Creation process is very backlogged right now. There are almost 3000 submissions awaiting review. It could take anywhere from a few days to a few months. There is no "queue"; submissions are reviewed in no particular order. C F A 💬 15:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should also take out all the peacock language. Who says the films are "acclaimed"? (No article should ever use such evaluative language, unless it is directly quoting a reliable independnet source).
You should look at every one of your sources critically: does it meet all three of the criteria in 42? If it doesn't, what is it doing there? ColinFine (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kamila Fomin: if you want to avoid a quick decline, you should reference the draft appropriately; currently the first three sections are virtually unsupported – where does all that information come from? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:30, 22 July 2024 review of submission by Ratbabyjones

edit

I am respectfully requesting a specific example of what is NOT in an encyclopedic tone and/or what in this article constitutes a peacock term. All information is factual and cited. I would also appreciate some clarification about why the subject does not qualify for a Wikipedia article based on a lack of "independent, reliable, published sources," as there are multiple references to LA Times coverage specific to Bermudez and spanning multiple decades. Thank you for any help you are able to provide. Ratbabyjones (talk) 16:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ratbabyjones: The draft is mostly a curriculum vitae. A little more prose will go a very long way here. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned more prose will be considered non-neutral or peacocking. Any advice? Ratbabyjones (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ratbabyjones: Keep It Simple. Stick strictly to summarising what the sources explicitly say, do not extrapolate or editorialise. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:05, 22 July 2024 review of submission by Coolelvin2

edit

Don't edit Wikipedia regularly so I need help developing this article. I like Sydney Parrish and think she deserves a page. Coolelvin2 (talk) 18:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Coolelvin2: you need to cite your sources (where you got all this information), and you also need to show that the subject is notable in Wikipedia terms. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:32, 22 July 2024 review of submission by Wyneep

edit

Hello WikiProject Help,

I need to make a small edit to my submitted draft and want to know if it'll change my position on the waiting list so far. Also, is there a limit on how many times I should resubmit a draft for review?

Best, Wynee Wyneep (talk) 18:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Wyneep:
You're welcome to continue editing your draft while you wait for a review. The draft has no 'position', as the system is not a queue, but rather a pool.
In theory at least, you can keep submitting as many times as you like, as long as you're making meaningful improvements in response to reviewer comments. It's normaly only when it looks like the draft isn't developing any further, or there's no realistic prospect of acceptance, that it will be rejected outright.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Why did you disclose a conflict of interest (COI) on your user page, and then delete that? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was an accident. I thought I had to if I took a photo of the person I'm writing about. But I was able to get Wikimedia Commons permission. So that's why I deleted it. Wyneep (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:41, 22 July 2024 review of submission by Melodata

edit

How are these unreliable sources? These are the same websites that are used on other professional basketball players wiki pages. I don’t understand. This is a well known professional athlete Melodata (talk) 18:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Melodata: whether or not the sources are reliable, they in any case don't establish notability per the general WP:GNG guideline. Personally, I would have declined for that reason, rather. And I don't see anything there that would obviously satisfy either WP:NHOOPS or WP:NCOLLATH, either. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Melodata: As of February 2023 top-level play no longer guarantees notability; there are still a lot of basketball articles that were written under the old guideline that have yet to be re-examined yet. You need to have non-routine sources that discuss the player. Statlines and profiles will not cut it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:01, 22 July 2024 review of submission by Shinaimm

edit

Hi, this page waits for a long time. Emily is a famous journalist in Israel and also appear in media around the world. Can you please review her page again? It waits for a lot of months... Shinaimm (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shinaimm the draft has been reviewed and declined again by CFA. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:56, 22 July 2024 review of submission by 71.224.206.35

edit

Hello - I submitted a biography article and it was declined for not having adequate sources. I included scholarly articles and would love more guidance to ensure I include the necessary materials to get this approved. Please advise. Thank you! 71.224.206.35 (talk) 19:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everything that could potentially be challenged by a reasonable person MUST be cited to an in-depth third-party source with editorial oversight that explicitly corroborates it or (failing that) removed. This is not negotiable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:18, 22 July 2024 review of submission by Elekesabel

edit

I'm wondering why the submission was declined. What is missing and how could I improve the page?

Clayton R. Paul is a highly esteemed scientist, highly notable in his scientific field, author of numerous publications and books.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people) Here it says that for an academic "are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources".

For context: I'm a researcher at the Northeastern University, Network Science Institute. We are working on a project, which aims to understand the differences between Human-curated encyclopedias and Machine-created knowledge. As part of this project we plan to upload 100 articles of notable scientist to Wikipedia in the following weeks. Our goal is to understand how can we influence the visibility of marginalized groups, both on human-curated and machine-created knowledge bases.

We would love to receive feedback on the feasibility of our plans and how would you recommend approaching the articles.

Ábel Elekes, PhD Elekesabel (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elekesabel: WP:NACADEMIC is actually the criteria you need to meet, not the stricter NPERSON. Read over NACADEMIC. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano Thank you! I'm wondering how the person in the draft is not meeting the criteria? He has clearly made huge contribution to his scientific field. Elekesabel (talk) 20:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The draft does not make this clear. You write "Clayton R. Paul was a globally recognized expert in electromagnetic compatibility", but don't say who gives this recognition or what specifically led to it. 331dot (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot Hi, thank you for your answer! How would I be able to show this in your opinion? Dr. Paul had several papers with thousands of citations, however I tried to reference scientific sites, but it seemed not possible. Most of the highly cited scientists, such as Dr. Paul, does not have a dedicated Google Scholar page, but if you search his name the publications appear.
Also, he received several awards, I'm not sure if the awards do not have a dedicated website, how should I reference them, other than sources similar to the current references?
In general scientists have very vague coverage on the internet, other than the scientific websites. However, in our opinion they should be present on Wikipedia, since they made huge contributions to society. We conducted an analysis showing that the coverage of scientists on Wikipedia is heavily declining compared to other fields of notabilities, such as athletes or cultural figures. This is one of the reasons we are doing this intervention. Elekesabel (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who is "we"?
Please see the WP:NACADEMIC page and scroll down to the header "Specific criteria notes". This explains what is being looked for to satisfy either of the first two criteria. In short, you need to show that Paul's work is extensively cited in other scholarly/academic publications, or summarize reviews of Paul's work. If he was given an award, there should be some documentation somewhere about why he was given the award. You wrote "Throughout his career, Paul received numerous accolades, reflecting his influence and contributions to engineering", but you don't say what those accolades are or what his influence/contributions were that led to the awards. Sources do not have to be online, they just need to be publicly accessible.(i.e. not something in a private collection inaccessible to the public) 331dot (talk) 22:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot Thank you for your answer!
'We' are the research team working on the project.
Regarding Dr. Paul's contribution and awards: in the references provided it is clearly stated that he received these awards and he has these accolades. How else should I be able to reference this if the specific award has no other dedicated website? Aren't these references the ideal 'secondary' sources?
Most scientists would have similar online presence as Dr. Paul. If you Google them you would find their publications, books and possibly their profile on their current and former university affiliations. But usually not much more, since science in general are not newsworthy and publicized. A lot of the scientists does not even have profiles on major scientific data sources, like google scholar or researchgate.
However, if I can't reference the scientific profiles, or their current affiliation page, how should I be able to create their page that can get accepted?
All the scientist we aim to upload are great scientists with significant scientific contributions, having publications with thousands of citations. We manually curated the list and created these descriptions.
Do you think it is not possible to get these articles, like Dr. Paul's, on Wikipedia at all, because they don't appear on enough websites?
Thank you! Elekesabel (talk) 03:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I again stress that sources do not have to be online.
Note that as stated in the guideline, "For documenting that a person has won a specific award (but not for a judgement of whether or not that award is prestigious), publications of the awarding institution are considered a reliable source." If you're saying that the sources you've already given document the awards he was given, again, that's not clear in the draft. You did write "Paul was the only two-time recipient of the IEEE EMC Society's Richard Stoddard Award for Outstanding Performance, a testament to his exceptional impact on the field", but don't say what that impact is.
WP:NACADEMIC is actually a pretty loose guideline when compared to other notability guidelines, precisely because scientists and researchers aren't usually getting coverage in the news or similar.
I'm sure that Paul has done a lot, but as a lay person reading the draft, it's not clear to me what exactly Paul has done other than he wrote a lot of papers. You said "His work focused on modeling and quantifying interference in cabling systems, laying the groundwork for contemporary EMC practices" but don't say why that's important or who considers it so(such as through Paul's work being cited in other academic publications). 331dot (talk) 06:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Elekesabel! Rather than comment on your draft, I just wanted to give you a heads-up that you may be interested in a similar (established almost a decade ago, still very active) project: Women In Red (WIR). You may know that on Wikipedia articles occasionally have red links, which indicates that someone thinks the subject of that link could be notable and that there ought to be an article about them. WIR's goal is to create articles for as many redlinked women as possible, hence the name. Biographies of women are vastly underrepresented, and their work has been going on for a very long time, so it may be useful for you to contact them and combine forces (or get some data, which they also collect). I can only imagine how few female scientists have biographies, if both women and scientists are underrepresented!
Best of luck with your project, and I wish you happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 05:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:05, 22 July 2024 review of submission by Achehawaii

edit

I want to make sure this is published as a scholarly article Achehawaii (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Achehawaii: The draft as written is promotional and three of its sources are to an organisation he's part of. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 21:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:28, 22 July 2024 review of submission by 72.92.37.34

edit

What does this need to become a page? The company has seemed to have developed a lot of games. 72.92.37.34 (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need in-depth coverage about the company not just a list of their games and some of the source cited make no mention of Altron so not useful. S0091 (talk) 21:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:34, 22 July 2024 review of submission by Funcionais

edit

Can someone explain me why the request for the creation of this article was declined? Funcionais (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Funcionais: For want of sources, primarily. Your sources are a profile of the journal (too sparse) and the organisation that created the journal. Nothing that really explains how the outlet meets WP:NJOURNAL. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 21:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano WP:NJOURNAL is not a recognized guideline so general guideline is what is used. S0091 (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano The SCImago source does show that, which is why I am puzzled. The journal ranking is second quartile, which means it has above median citations. If you search on google scholar (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=The+Quarterly+Journal+of+Finance&btnG=&oq=the+) you can find papers published by this journal with hundreds of citations, but I can't include that in the article because it doesn't feel appropriate. Any suggestions? Funcionais (talk) 21:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_July_22&oldid=1237083784"