Wikipedia

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

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< July 22 << Jun | July | Aug >> July 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.


July 23

edit

Why Last drop article declined ?

edit

How are these unreliable sources? These are the same websites that are used on other professional film wiki pages. I don’t understand.(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Last_Drop) Fantasy 45 (talk) 01:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fantasy 45: You're conflating the outlet that published those sources with the context of those sources. And the fact is, the more in-depth sources are generally more about the filmmaker than the film itself. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 01:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone help me?

edit

I'm not sure how to address this.

There is an Ashlee Bond.

She is quite often routinely called Ashley Bond.[1][2][3][4][5][6]

But there is already a wp article with someone with that name (who averages zero article views per day). So I can't request a redirect from Ashlee Bond to Ashley Bond.

Would appreciate any help. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:DDA7:B97A:4B36:9255 (talk) 05:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor, I think what you are looking for here is some kind of disambiguation - so one would be Ashley Bond (rugby player), and the other Ashley Bond (show jumping rider), or something along those lines. In the meantime, there was already a redirect ('if you are looking for...') on the rugby player's page, and I have added the same to the rider's page so hopefully that will also help. StartGrammarTime (talk) 07:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the rider is the one who attracts overwhelmingly the most views, should it go to her? And does the dab work in any case with a redirect? And can I create the dab myself as an IP? Many thanks. --2603:7000:2101:AA00:303D:2C0D:7B3D:DA7F (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:26, 23 July 2024 review of submission by Kamila Fomin

edit

I revised the sources more than 5 times, and I am not sure which sources exactly are not reliable, and which ones I need to change. Kamila Fomin (talk) 06:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kamila Fomin: it's not necessarily that the sources aren't reliable, but that they don't adequately support the contents. As I said yesterday (did you read any of the answers?), there are entirely unreferenced sections in this draft, which is totally unacceptable for an article on a living person. In fact, all the sources only support his works, not any of the biographical content.
And when I say 'support', I'm being generous. Eg. source #11 just points to Yahoo movie news portal, which supports nothing in this draft. Similarly, #14 points to the home page of a website, and I can't see Druhora even being mentioned anywhere on that page. There may well be other examples like this. When you say you went through the sources "more than 5 times", I'm wondering how you missed these? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kamila Fomin I have left a comment in the draft.
Please read WP:REFB and WP:CITE. Also please recognise that you have written what you want to say and are not scratching around for references. This is WP:BACKWARDS which you need to read. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:23, 23 July 2024 review of submission by Ahmadghader

edit

hello dear, can you advise me about my topic, what i can edit to accept it and publish it. Ahmadghader (talk) 08:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahmadghader the draft has been rejected, so please don't attempt to resubmit it, like you did here. A single interview doesn't establish notablilty. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:12, 23 July 2024 review of submission by 118.210.162.3

edit

For some reason, my draft was REJECTED, so, I'm wandering if you can do anything about it. 

118.210.162.3 (talk) 10:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there - your draft was rejected as Nocti is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Qcne (talk) 10:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could ask for it to be deleted? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The draft has been deleted and suppressed. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:53:41, 23 July 2024 review of submission by 104.232.119.107

edit


Hello, my draft was rejected for supposedly not having enough reliable sources, but I disagree with this assessment. Some of the sources are wikilinked and are major news sources or encyclopedias in South Korea, and others are local newspapers for Jeju Province, including 헤드라인제주 ("Headline Jeju"), Jeju Ilbo, and 뉴스제주 ("News Jeju"). Plenty of local newspapers are relied on for local features in English-speaking countries; feel like language bias may have a role here. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 12:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SafariScribe courtesy tagging reviewer 104.232.119.107 (talk) 12:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft has been accepted. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 00:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:53:58, 23 July 2024 review of submission by 104.232.119.107

edit


Draft was rejected for supposedly not demonstrating notability. Same reviewer of my other draft just above. These references in the article in particular are major South Korean newspapers and their entire articles are solely about the website in question:

There are also other smaller South Korean newspapers (all of which reliable and wikilinked when possible) in the article. Please give it a look with machine translation to verify. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 13:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SafariScribe courtesy tag again 104.232.119.107 (talk) 13:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@104.232.119.107, I have accepted your draft since I have no doubt of notability. Declining was because the English translations uses "Shared Yard" as a commonname but it's different with your title. Is there any input for that or I would go ahead and rename to Shared Yard? Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 00:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where are you seeing "shared yard"? If you plug the website's name into google translate then that shows up, but when I search that name on google all I see is YouTubers who've probably used google translate instead of searching official or common names for the website. Here's a document from the Korea Copyright Commission that uses the current spelling. And the domain name for the website is "gongu.copyright.or.kr" 104.232.119.107 (talk) 00:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:22, 23 July 2024 review of submission by 76.148.28.254

edit

I have submitted the article multiple times, adding sources each time, and I have not gotten the article approved. I have waited over a week for this review, while my previous submissions were reviewed within a single day. Do you have any ideas for how I can have my article approved and have it be reviewed more quickly? Thank you. 76.148.28.254 (talk) 14:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please log into your account whenever editing (I'm assuming you're TumulousStorm97?).
You most recently submitted this draft ten days ago. As it says on the top of the page, "This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,721 pending submissions waiting for review." Please be patient.
No, there is no way to expedite reviews. Is there a particular reason why you're in a hurry? Note that Wikipedia is not edited to any deadline. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone would like a speedy review, can you tell us why you should get one over everyone else who has a draft submitted? 331dot (talk) 16:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:56, 23 July 2024 review of submission by Zaccwm

edit

This article has been declined a number of times by various people with apparently a templated reason. Seldon Farmer was a recipient of a British Honour the OBE and as such would appear to meet the Biography requirement for notability i.e. "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people) There were many more references from around the world but reviewers requested I remove references as there were too many.

I do not appear to be able to get the balance right, the fact that people are still citing him 40 years after his death seems to suggest that he was notable, and indeed this was confirmed by Roger Statham, author of The Golden Age of Probation: Mission V Market and in Harding, John; Page, Martin; Whiting, Adrian; Cannings, Jim (April 2024). "A Slice of Probation History: The story of Seldon Charles Forrester Farmer". ARCOIP: The Association of Retired Chief Officers and Inspectors of Probation Newsletter: 9–16. Any specific guidance for the article would be helpful to enable it to be published and others to contribute as they see fit. Many thanks Zaccwm (talk) 14:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you resubmit with no edits since the previous decline then you're likely to see the same result.
An OBE is generally not considered sufficient on its own to signify notability for a Wikipedia article (see for example, Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)/Archive 2016#MBE). You therefore need to demonstrate notability with references that show significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject (WP:NBASIC). Do you have three or four sources that meet these criteria (not written by the subject of the article, and not just a passing mention)? Mgp28 (talk) 22:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:43, 23 July 2024 review of submission by Andrewkoper

edit

I made a Wikipedia page for a soccer team in Detroit. The soccer team has been around 15 years and has been published online previously (I have four citations). I summitted the page for review, but a reviewer declined the submission. This seems like it is a legit thing to have a Wikipedia page about. Is there a way to have another reviewer review the draft who could decide the page is good and publish it? Andrewkoper (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrewkoper: it is a "legit thing to have a Wikipedia page about", if it can be shown to be notable in the Wikipedia sense. For sports teams/clubs, this means citing multiple (3+) sources that satisfy the WP:GNG standard for notability, namely secondary sources (newspapers, magazines, books, TV and radio programmes, etc.) that are both reliable and independent of the subject, and that have provided significant coverage directly of the subject. Of the sources cited in your draft, the radio piece (IPR) looks like it could meet this standard, but it alone isn't enough, you need a couple more. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Andrewkoper Do you want to wait for a reviewer who will tell you what you want to hear, or who will tell you the right thing? 331dot (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:59, 23 July 2024 review of submission by WS at Worthington Steel

edit

Requesting further information for why this page was declined. Pop-up said because of unreliable sources, but the sources used were independent and credible. WS at Worthington Steel (talk) 16:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WS at Worthington Steel: Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked as "critiques" in my signature):
I cannot assess the print sources (copy required), but the sources I can assess are all unusable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help! A quick question -- to my knowledge, the Columbus Dispatch article was not routine coverage. How are articles determined routine coverage or not? WS at Worthington Steel (talk) 12:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WS at Worthington Steel: See WP:CORPDEPTH. The Columbus Dispatch story is considered routine because it is business news which would have been reported on as a matter of course (in this case, spinning off a new business unit). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:33, 23 July 2024 review of submission by BtimesLive

edit

Hello I want to publish this Mitesh Narigara's article, What What thing i need to complete this article ? Please guide me for this article.

Thank you Regards BtimesLive BtimesLive (talk) 18:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BtimesLive: No sources, no article, no debate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:08, 23 July 2024 review of submission by Eleanorguy

edit

Page entry has been turned down. Would like to talk to someone live. Eleanorguy (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Eleanorguy We are all alive but there is no live chat here.
Please look at your references. The majority do not even mention Broom Factory. One whcih does is simply a performance listing. I think three are about Broom Factory.
This is your roadmap. Please read the big pink decline notice and see what is required for referencing. Please read WP:REFB and WP:CITE and implement what they say. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:27, 23 July 2024 review of submission by BtimesLive

edit

We need help for article publish, We already added sources on the article. BtimesLive (talk) 19:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for username and promotion. 331dot (talk) 19:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prolly for the better; the sources they added were all payola. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:53, 23 July 2024 review of submission by Jjarchivist

edit

I have a physical newscutting of an obituary in The Times (London) dated 16 February 1996. Is there any copy of this online and how can I use this as a reference? Jjarchivist (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jjarchivist: You don't, at least not directly. You cite it as an offline source with {{cite news}}, providing the paper name, paper edition, article name, article byline, and the page(s) it ran on. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 22:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:02, 23 July 2024 review of submission by Queremalense

edit

This is my first article and I'm somewhat puzzled by the recurring reasons for it's dismissal re reliable and notability.

After consulting this article [10], I believe the draft article indeed satisfies the notability criteria. Similarly, there are several third party references by a mixture of national newspapers (Japan Times), specialist music publications (The Wire), and other independent music specialists (Boomkat).

I would value additional opinions and advice since the same reason for dismissal has occurred twice.

My motivation in creating the article stems from how prominent they have become in the past decade in the Japanese and European experimental music scene, as evidenced by the references I have given, despite the relative lack of coverage in english. I don't speak Japanese and so therefore can't research or link Japanese info and references in creating this page. I'm particularly interested in creating this article so that a Japanese version might next be created and they could mutually support one another as reference articles by sharing links to references that non-Japanese speakers might not find. Queremalense (talk) 23:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Queremalense! The good news is that sources and notability go hand-in-hand, so if you can solve one of those problems you can solve both. Let's go over your sources and see what's holding you back.
The first thing to keep in mind is that to establish notability, each source you use must meet all the criteria in WP:42, our 'golden rule'. Articles need significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Part of the second criteria, reliable sources, requires the source to have editorial oversight (for example, not a blog) and come from a reputable publisher (some places will publish anything if they're paid, so they are not reliable). So here we go!
Source 1, Japan Times, looked promising but unfortunately is an interview (not independent).
Source 2, Bandcamp, is a place to listen to their music rather than containing information about them (not significant coverage, not a reliable source).
Source 3 and 5, Boomkat, are trying to sell you their album (not a reliable source).
I can't assess source 4 and 8 as it's offline and I don't have access. It looks like the same source quoted twice, which is fine, but if it's an acceptable source that only counts as one - you need a minimum of three. Let's assume for now that this source is good.
Source 6, ZDB, is selling tickets for a performance (not a reliable source).
Source 7, gnration, is also selling tickets (not a reliable source).
Sadly, none of the sources I can access are usable. What you need is someone writing about the band who, like you, is not connected to them in any way and is just interested in them. It may be that you do need Japanese-language sources, which is frustrating - we do have translators who may be willing to help, if you can find some sources you think look promising. Google translate should be able to give you an idea of whether any Japanese-language sources are suitable and what they're saying, and you could then ask for a translator to check whether the information you're citing them for is accurate to what the source says.
I hope that's been helpful. Best wishes and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 03:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your detailed response.
To discuss source 1 more and the status of interviews as reliable sources (something I'd like to be clear on if I continue on Wikipedia), if not also about research methodology: on the question of determining when, in this case, a band formed, there are situations where a researcher will rely on an original interview of a primary source / subject to determine certain facts. The assumption is that as an academic or reputable journalist following best practice, one must fact check or verify however possible. In many cases there will be no reliable independent objective source to check e.g. a birth certificate of a band, rather, one has to interview or collate other sources, all of which might not be seen as reliable in the Wikipedian definition, but which, on the whole, can be presented as robust, critically independent, and reliable i.e. a researcher establishes a wider context to prove otherwise unreliable claims.
Put more simply, sometimes all you can do is ask the person for a fact only they know, and they might not even be sure (e.g. when a band formed: at a gig, in the studio, at a meeting, in their head as an idea years before any of the above), but as a researcher you then have to build a critical context to prove or disprove their statement.
Hopefully this is not too anal, but what I mean with this point is that if one dismisses interviews as wholly unreliable, this assumes that the substance of said article has not itself been researched, verified, and judged accurated by the interview author, in this case a writer for Japan Times, a reputable journalistic outfit. My reading of it leads me to believe with confidence that the writer has check the facts provided by the subject, and on the referenced point in question, about when the band formed.
I can think of many interviews where the authorial voice is very much with the interviewer rather than interviewee, and where the former is making some kind of critique of the latter. And so, I question whether articles that contain a mixture of both interview content and original prose should be dismissed in such contexts, because often, in cases where interviewers maintain a critical distance from their subjects, they demonstrate an independent reliability e.g. fact checking, or explaining the interviewees comments when they might be false, misleading, or inaccurate.
I share all this coming from an academic background myself, and in which I find there is often more grey than black and white with these types of epistemological issues.
Still, I'll try to look into Japanese sources using web translate tools in case there are any easy finds of further reliable sources. Queremalense (talk) 06:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again @Queremalense, you did raise a point that I should have mentioned but forgot - my apologies. You are absolutely correct that some information can only really be known by the people involved, and we do accept that kind of basic information (birthdate, partner's name, band creation) from interviews. However, the interview cannot contribute to notability. So you can certainly use the interview as a reference for the band's birthdate, as it were, but it's generally ruled out as a source that will establish that they are in fact notable.
It's possible that if you have an interview that has clearly done fact checking and is prepared to call out false or misleading information, that might be usable as a reliable source. It would probably need a consensus of editors, though - perhaps on WikiProject Music or failing that at Requests for Comment - because you are likely to run into the same problem from another angle, namely that the interviewer might be biased against the subject rather than biased towards them. I'm sure this situation would have come up before in Wikipedia's history but don't know where to even start looking. The Teahouse or Help Desk might be able to find some examples if you're interested in that path.
Thanks for pointing that out, and best of luck with the source hunt! StartGrammarTime (talk) 03:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_July_23&oldid=1246771297"