Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 July 31

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< July 30 << Jun | July | Aug >> August 1 >
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 31

edit

07:46, 31 July 2024 review of submission by Wolfpack1999

edit

need advice on how to improve on the article Wolfpack1999 (talk) 07:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wolfpack1999: This isn't an article, it's a self-help essay. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read What Wikipedia is not, especially the section "Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal". ColinFine (talk) 13:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:54, 31 July 2024 review of submission by Wolfpack1999

edit

Need to add a motivation , self-improvement/help company. what are the things to watch for? Wolfpack1999 (talk) 07:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfpack1999, promotional editing of any kind is strictly forbidden on Wikipedia, and the neutral point of view is a mandatory core content policy. WP:NCORP is the stringent guideline governing articles about businesses and companies. Cullen328 (talk) 08:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:44, 31 July 2024 review of submission by CoTangent

edit

I translated a German wikipedia article about a mathematical subject ( de: Pro-Lie-Gruppe) into English and wanted to submit it to the English Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Pro-Lie_Group

Unfortunately, the submission was declined becauce 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.

My problem is that I think the article is supported enough by reliable sources (I know that is not a good argument, but it was enough for the German wikipedia). Furthermore, it is not a very controversial topic and all the definitions are pretty standard. Does anyone know how I should go on? All the best, and thanks for your help! CoTangent (talk) 08:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CoTangent: I think this was correctly declined. Your draft cites only two sources, one of which appears to be a WordPress blog of some sort. Those sources are cited against two relatively minor statements in the 'Examples', with the vast majority of the draft unreferenced. We do need to know where the information comes from, so that it can be verified.
Whether an article on this subject and with these references exists in the German-language Wikipedia is their business, and has no bearing on its acceptability here, as each language version is completely separate with their own rules and requirements. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CoTangent Please understand that each language version of Wikipedia is a separate project, with their own editors and policies. What is acceptable on one version is not necessarily acceptable on another. The English version tends to be stricter than others. It is up to the translator to ensure that the article they are translating for another Wikipedia meets the requirements of that Wikipedia.
You have only two sources; to pass this process, most reviewers generally look for at least three independent reliable sources that discuss the topic and its importance. 331dot (talk) 08:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your explanation! CoTangent (talk) 11:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:49, 31 July 2024 review of submission by Leemhwiki12

edit

Hi there, I have updated the article as suggested. I've changed the format to academic bio and added in appropriate references. I am wondering if this is enough before I submit it again? Appreciate any help or suggestions, thank you. Leemhwiki12 (talk) 10:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Leemhwiki12: I have no concerns about notability, but there are still unreferenced statements which need to be supported. Even something relatively innocuous like "Kenardy completed a Bachelor of Science (Honours) in 1981 and Ph.D. in Psychiatry in 1989 from the University of Queensland" might cause someone to raise an eyebrow and think how do we know that's true... and the reader should never have the need to ask such a question. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback. I can reference this statement to his online university profile, but in my last submission it was rejected. I’m curious as to what reference you would deem appropriate. Leemhwiki12 (talk) 01:20, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:47, 31 July 2024 review of submission by Rugantino73

edit

Good morning, despite the fact that the page complies with all the rules of Wikipedia, is not self-referential, and has encyclopedic value, I am unable to get it published. I have included all the required sources to enhance the content, making this page better than many others that are already present and published on Wikipedia. I find your attitude excessively hostile towards me and, above all, discriminatory. I urge you to publish the page without further disputes. Best regards. 

Rugantino73 (talk) 12:47, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rugantino73: this draft most certainly does not comply with "all the rules of Wikipedia", it breaks quite a number of them. And you have 'referenced' it mostly with pictures and links to Amazon. As it stands, this will absolutely not be published.
As for whether this is better or worse than other articles that may exist out there, is completely irrelevant. We do not assess drafts by comparison to other articles, but instead by reference to the applicable policies and guidelines.
And before you start throwing around accusations of discrimination etc., I hope you have solid evidence to back up such allegations, as otherwise you may find yourself sanctioned. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Find a common line. Your colleagues informed me that links to Amazon could be added without any issues, the page has been modified according to your indications, it was simpler at first. If you want the sources and those sources are on Amazon (it is a publishing house like the others), you will have links to Amazon. I can remove everything. Try to think that you are a free encyclopedia and that there should not be companies proposing the creation of paid pages. When a new page is submitted and is rejected because it does not reflect your publishing principles, that is fine, but those principles must also apply to other similar pages that are online; this is what I consider discrimination, and I do not think I should be the one to be sanctioned. Have a good day. Rugantino73 (talk) 13:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need to find a "common line". If Amazon is the publisher of these books, they are clearly self-published vanity titles, that confer nothing in terms of notability. If Amazon isn't the publisher, it is acting as a retailer, and we don't cite shops as sources. In any case, even if Amazon were the publisher, you don't need to add spammy links to your draft, you can simply cite the books with standard bibliographical details.
It is not discrimination that we are declining your draft, when it is clearly not ready to be published, while sub-par articles exist among the nearly 7m in the English-language Wikipedia. (See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.) It is simply us applying objectively our policies and guidelines regarding what is acceptable for publication.
And one final point: be aware that if you resubmit the draft without any attempt at addressing the decline reasons, it may be rejected outright without the option to resubmit, because this signals your unwillingness and/or inability to develop it further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Hold on, what is your involvement in Draft:Marco Nica? It seems you've made exactly one edit to it. Are you working with, or operating also, the user account BearThatRun? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are two working on it: Rugantino73 and BearThatRun. Rugantino73 (talk) 13:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lists of works are a decoration, like images. The important part of any article is a summary of what people unconnected with the subject have published about them in reliable sources.
The important part of your draft - the biography - is almost unreferenced, and contains non-neutral language ("his passion for"; "original"; "famous").
You have almost certainly written this draft BACKWARDS, as new editors usually do if they attempt to write a new article before learning how Wikipedia works. First find your reliable, independent, sources, with significant coverage of the subject (see WP:42). Then write a summary of what those sources say, not of what you know. If that adds up to an article, you can add a selected bibliography - preferably citing everything to independent sources, because if you can't find an independent source that talks about a work, why is that work relevant to an encyclopaedia article?
I don't know who told you that "links to Amazon could be added without any issues", but they were wrong. See WP:VENDOR for the limited circumstances in which commerce sites may be cited.
Rugantino73, and @BearThatRun: what is your relationship with Nica? If you know him (as suggested by BearThatRun's comment on the images "He gave them to me", then you should declare your conflict of interest.
Also, @BearThatRun, I have nominated both images for deletion, as you have not provided any evidence that the copyright holder has put them in the public domain. If the copyrighht holder (who is probably not Nica) has made that statement, it must be evidenced by them: see WP:donating copyright materials./ ColinFine (talk) 15:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
alright, I'm going to ask about the release of rights. Thank you! BearThatRun (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know him by email since when i was creating the page i needed images. Other than the books/shows i saw. BearThatRun (talk) 07:54, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:28, 31 July 2024 review of submission by Río de las Ánimas

edit

I'm not sure why the citations are not worthy. There are several sources, including books, news articles, and websites such as local museums. Any advice? Río de las Ánimas (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Río de las Ánimas: what do you mean by "several sources, including books, news articles, and websites such as local museums"? This draft has three citations, of two sources, and both sources appear to be newspapers. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies; I didn't publish the changes. I've added a website for the Animas Museum. And I have a very old book, self-published by the old owners of the hot springs: https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/trimble-hot-springs_leith-lende-bear/52117571/. Thanks for any advice and help. I'm a fan of Colorado hot springs and noticed the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hot_springs_in_Colorado has links to several hot springs that don't have pages or have really outdated info, like Trimble. Thanks again. Río de las Ánimas (talk) 17:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:10, 31 July 2024 review of submission by Monniejaym

edit

I have now submitted this twice and read everything about reliable sources. Can someone give more detailed feedback as to what is not reliable? Monniejaym (talk) 19:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are not independent sources, YouTube is not a reliable source and Soundcloud is a primary source. Theroadislong (talk) 19:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:45, 31 July 2024 review of submission by JFBB12345

edit

Hello, I want to make sure that the five selected papers cited for this subject are referenced in the correct academic format. I have given them all numbered references, as there must not be any links in the article outside of Wikipedia cross-reference links. Please can you advise whether 'Authors: Bailey, J. et al ' should appear in the actual numbered reference (and if so, what is the text code for this, as I do not seem to have put it in the correct small box when 'inserting a journal reference'... Thanks for your assistance! JFBB12345 (talk) 21:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JFBB12345: are you asking about refs 15-19? Yes, they appear to be correctly cited using the {{cite journal}} template. That template can also accommodate author details, but that's probably not necessary in your case, given how you've listed these papers in your draft.
BTW, what is your relationship with this person? I've posted a conflict-of-interest (COI) query on your talk page, please read and respond to it. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for confirmation that the reference citation format is acceptable, much appreciated. No conflict of interest, will reply to your comment on the appropriate page. 2A0A:EF40:C:DA01:7064:E8DF:AE10:6B95 (talk) 20:21, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:23, 31 July 2024 review of submission by Dalex247

edit

I'm using similar references to other similar published wikipedia pages. Why is this declined? Dalex247 (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dalex247: you can't really say you're using "similar references". The English-language Wikipedia has nearly 7m articles, ranging from completely unreferenced to far stronger referencing than in your draft, therefore "similar" becomes meaningless. In any case, comparing yours to other articles, aka. the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS approach, is not how we assess drafts. We compare them to what is required by the applicable policies and guidelines.
The sources in this draft are mostly primary, and the couple of secondary ones provide only passing mentions. One source is an interview, published in a blog. None of these contribute towards notability per the general WP:GNG guideline for notability. (Hockey has no special guideline, hence why GNG applies. Cricket does have one, and having played internationally could make a player notable, but only for countries with test status, which Wales isn't.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:50, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing Ok, fair enough... the question was vague, but thanks for the feedback regardless. Now I've got you, I've added a more detailed question on the talk page of the draft but will summarise here. Any help would be much appreciated.
I have updated my Draft to include more references from reliable sources and have taken inspiration from similar pages that have been accepted, notably Phoebe Richards - Wikipedia and Sarah Jones (field hockey) - Wikipedia (Eloise Laity - Wikipedia and Rose Thomas (field hockey) - Wikipedia) who played alongside Joanne Westwood. Firstly, I mistakenly removed the AfD template as the declined template from my first draft was still showing. Will this template be updated after review or should I change it to the original draft template again so its picked up again?
Secondly, and this may come up when its reviewed, but any advice as to how I can improve this draft? I'm not sure what I'm doing differently to the pages for other Welsh field hockey players with similar careers.
Following your feedback, finding secondary references that are more than passing mentions from reputable sources would be the way to go? Can this include video interviews? and appreciate the "WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS approach" is not how drafts are assessed but is there any inspiration I can take from the pages I mentioned above? as they all played together, they will likely have similar references available. Dalex247 (talk) 08:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews do not establish notability. They can be used for other purposes, but not that.
If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles, which have received community vetting. 331dot (talk) 08:25, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dalex247: the GNG guideline, which is what you need to be working towards, requires multiple (3+) secondary sources that are reliable and independent (of each other, and of the subject), and provide significant coverage directly of the subject.
As 331dot notes, interviews may have some limited use in verifying non-contentious information, but they are not independent (they are the subject talking, usually about themselves), and not necessarily reliable either (since no fact-checking or editorial oversight is applied), and cannot therefore be used to establish notability.
I haven't looked at the other articles you mention, but just to say that not every article that exists has been 'accepted', nor would they necessarily be acceptable. Some pre-date the AfC review process. Some were created when referencing and notability requirements were more relaxed than they are today. Some were published by authors who have user permissions allowing them to bypass article reviews. And due to the large number of articles in the 'pedia, these issues simply haven't been picked up yet.
Finally, yes, I saw that you had removed the earlier review template, and I replaced it. The templates need to stay there until the draft is accepted, as they form an audit trail of the review process. They will just continue to pile up, until they are all automatically removed upon acceptance. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:58, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot@DoubleGrazing Thank you both thats really helpful. I'll find a few more references Dalex247 (talk) 09:31, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_July_31&oldid=1238861641"