Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 June 29

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< June 28 << May | June | Jul >> June 30 >
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.


June 29

edit

03:58, 29 June 2024 review of submission by Mashrafi H Antu

edit

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feroze_Ahmed_Swapan Username is not right that's why we have problem to mention on another page. Correct username is 'Feroz Ahammed Shapon' Mashrafi H Antu (talk) 03:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moved page from the original to your request. TheNuggeteer (talk) 06:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mashrafi H Antu see WP:MV for instructions on how to 'rename' a page by moving it. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 06:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:13, 29 June 2024 review of submission by Zainashrafofficial

edit

How can I write data about Zain Ashraf Official that will be publicly available to the community on Wikipedia and also should be available in search. Zainashrafofficial (talk) 07:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zainashrafofficial: you should not write about yourself, and you also should not try to use Wikipedia to promote anything or anyone. Try somewhere like LinkedIn instead.
This draft has been rejected and is awaiting speedy deletion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:13, 29 June 2024 review of submission by Kastark

edit

Hello! I've been referred to the help desk by User:SafariScribe who recently reviewed my submission. SafariScribe declined the submission without comment beyond the pro forma, and when I asked for clarity on their reasons on their talk page they were unwilling to explain further beyond stating that some sources were unreliable, and instead referred me here. Could anyone provide me some further insight on why the article failed to meet WP:RS? As I understand the policies, the article should now meet the criteria by including multiple reliable sources (in-depth, reliable, secondary, independent). I want to engage in the AfC process in good faith but without any meaningful explanation as to why the reviewer disagreed, I'm left unsure what the issue is and how to fix it. Kastark (talk) 10:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the draft seems to be about promoting the non notable game Lancer? Theroadislong (talk) 10:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(comment from involved editor) Hi @Kastark, your draft was declined because it lacks reliable sources to meet notability. It is not about having many sources in a particular article, it is having reliable and verifiable citations to support what you wrote. For example, a national newspaper, broadcasting channels, etc. Most of your sources are blogs which I showed you on my talk page. Please do not assert "unwilling" because I provided you all that you needed. Maintain civility. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 10:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm remaining civil here - when I said unwilling, it was because you said you didn't want to discuss it further and sent me here. I am very legitimately confused by your decision and I'm trying to understand what you mean - I think there are sufficient reliable sources to meet the policy criteria. As I understand it, the policy is inclusive rather than exclusive, so simply finding one or two sources you think are unreliable isn't a good reason to decline the submission (particularly since some of the examples you brought up are actually notable news sources in the industry). In 20 years of editing Wikipedia this is my first time creating an article, so I'm very willing to accept that I might be wrong and regular AfC users might know better, but if that's the case I'd really appreciate an explanation as to what the issue is so I can understand the process better. Kastark (talk) 10:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have had an account here for about one month and your only edits have been to promote your own business, paid editors will always be held to a high standard. Theroadislong (talk) 10:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have declared my COI and followed all appropriate policies, I'm very aware of wikipedia's justified skepticism but I don't think that's a reason to decline the article (in fact users with COIs are specifically instructed to use the AfC process). For reference and in full disclosure, this is not my business but I have worked with them on contract. Kastark (talk) 10:45, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In 20 years of editing Wikipedia this is my first time creating an article is a good stat. So, what's your previous account? I also believe Theroadislong is "absolutely" correct. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 10:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SafariScribe, as you know Wikipedia has always been welcoming of IP editors and I've never seen the reason to create an account until it was literally required to do so. I feel like I'm being attacked here without good reason and I'd like to ask folks to take a moment before accusing me of acting in bad faith. Kastark (talk) 10:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi folks, is there anyone available who can answer my questions about policy and reliable sources? Specifically, have I misunderstood how WP:RS is supposed to work, and is there a reason that multiple articles from reputable news outlets aren't enough to establish notability? I would still like to improve the article and after the discussion above I've gone back to re-read WP:CS, WP:RS and WP:CORPDEPTH, but it's still unclear to me what the actual roadblock here is. I would greatly appreciate anyone taking the time to explain this to me. Kastark (talk) 17:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see a single reliable independent source in the draft

1 is a primary source, 2 is a blog (not reliable) 3 is about Lancer not Massif Press, 4 is a commercial link to purchase Lancer, 5 is about Lancer, 6 is about Lancer, 7 content on Forbes.com is written by contributors or "Senior Contributors" with minimal editorial oversight, and is generally unreliable. 8 doesn’t mention Massif Press, 9 is about Lancer, 10 is an interview with publisher of Lancer so not independent, 11 is about Lancer, 12 is about Lancer, 13 is about Lancer, 14 is their own website so not independent, 15 passing mention, 16 unreliable, 17 topic not mentioned, 18 forum, not a reliable source. Theroadislong (talk) 18:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to go through each of the sources and provide a breakdown, this is illustrative. By the way you've summarised these am I right to think that the issue is that the sources establish the notability of the game rather than the publisher? And would it therefore make sense to refactor the article to be about Lancer itself rather than Massif Press? Kastark (talk) 20:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That looks like a possibility. Theroadislong (talk) 21:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know! Thank you once again :) Kastark (talk) 21:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:23, 29 June 2024 review of submission by Anskrev

edit

What sources are problematic and caused rejection of submission? Anskrev (talk) 11:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Anskrev, your draft was declined and not rejected, meaning there is still room for improvement. The sources must be about the company and not it's founder. Also, your draft was written in a promotional tone that the sources doesn't credibly show the company's importance. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 12:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do suggest merge and redirect to Donnel Baird. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 12:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SafariScribe Thanks for the feedback. My aim is to create a BlocPower page independent of the founder and then scale back the BlocPower content on the Donnel Baird page. I've edited the page and re-submitted for review. Anskrev (talk) 01:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your submission is declined again. You are not trying to understand the notability criteria of an organisation. Twinkle1990 (talk) 13:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Twinkle1990, I have further removed Donnel Baird focused sources, other than the citations that Donnel Baird launched the company. Anskrev (talk) 14:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, someone will review it. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Anskrev   Declined with reasons given. Please do the work before resubmitting. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added additional secondary sources and attempted to remove promotional sounded content and re-submitted. Hopefully I understood the issues correctly. Anskrev (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Anskrev I have left a comment on the draft wth respect to the references you have chosen. I will not re-review it. Why are you in such haste? Work slower, and better, please.
We need references meeting these tough criteria:
We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
There is a great deal of work to do. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent Thanks for the links. When creating articles is there any process that facilitates seeing more granular feedback for problem areas of an article? Should I be starting much smaller? E.g. is any of the article okay?
Maybe I can break down my thought process on the first paragraph and see if I'm on the right track. BlocPower is active in city governments across the country and is the primary partner for the Green New Deal in Ithaca, which set some of the most ambitious climate targets in the country. In theory, that seems notable. So it seems like the primary issue here is my understanding of doing the referencing properly.
To begin the article I am aiming to state what the company is and what its businesses practices are and that it has attracted praise and critiques.
For the first paragraph the references I have are:
https://cleantechnica.com/2023/03/03/blocpower-brings-energy-efficiency-to-low-moderate-income-families/
Cleantechnica has its own wikipedia article, so must have gone through some level of notability vetting. It doesn't appear to be an organization or author that is connected to BlocPower. The site does use advertisements, and I suppose it's possible they were paid for the article, but it doesn't disclose that if so. The article clearly does have a promotional tone, however, I am not sourcing it for the promotional content. I am sourcing it as a reference for the facts surrounding the BlocPower business (that they use SaaS software and provides financing, project management, etc.). I chose this as a secondary source.
https://info.ornl.gov/sites/publications/Files/Pub209093.pdf#page=8
This publication from ORNL is certainly a reputable source, and has many authors listed and references. However, The project covered in this report is a partnership between ORNL and BlocPower, so I was unclear whether it would be considered a primary or secondary source. I am again using the publication to establish the facts of BlocPower's business activities. However, the publication details work on a specific project, while I am using the publication for the general business description it provides, which is tangential to publication's focus. This seems secondary?
https://www.habitatmag.com/Publication-Content/2023/2023-November/Featured-Articles/Equipment-Leasing-Unlocks-Electrification-for-Brooklyn-Co-op
Habitat has been around for decades, and like Cleantechnica, has an established wikipedia article. This article has passing mentions of BlocPower, however, the whole article is on leasing equipment and says that BlocPower is the company facilitating that, therefore the whole article is about the business activities of BlocPower, even though it's not mentioned by name extensively throughout the article. I sourced this as a secondary reference to support that BlocPower provides financing for building owners.
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2023/06/brooklyn-based-company-helps-buildings-become-cleaner-and-greener/
This is an initiative out of Yale University, which should be reputable. I am again using this as a secondary source to establish that BlocPower provides financing.
In the next section I sought to establish that BlocPower has been reported on as being innovative in its approach to concurrently tackling climate change issues and helping marginalized communities.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/05/tech/blocpower-green-energy/index.html
This article is from CNN, a well-known established source. I used this as a secondary source to establish that building owners from lower-income communities were reported to have praised the company.
https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/workforce-diversity/this-innovative-cleantech-job-training-program-is-changing-lives
Canary Media advertises itself as an independent, nonprofit newsroom. It's an initiative of the decades old Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) that was launched three years ago. I used this as a secondary source to support the claim that BlocPower focuses on marginalized communities and uses reportedly innovative tactics in its business.
For the last sentence, I sought to establish that BlocPower has also been critiqued for its practices.
https://prospect.org/environment/2023-09-06-energy-insufficiency-blocpower/
The American Prospect has a wikipedia article. I used this as a secondary source to establish that there have been reports of customers not seeing the savings they were expecting.
https://nysfocus.com/2023/01/23/ithaca-blocpower-goldman-sachs-green-new-deal
NY Focus has a wikipedia article and is purportedly a member of the Institute for Nonprofit News. I used this as a secondary source to establish that there is disputed understanding regarding BlocPower's fees.
https://www.thecornellreview.org/blocpower-svb-and-the-decarbonization-dilemma/
Cornell Review is a well-established student newspaper at Cornell University, with a wikipedia article. I used this as a secondary source to establish that the costs may not be as upfront as they seem.
So, for that first paragraph, am I on the right track with my thinking in regard to how I am using these sources?
I don't have any particular haste on this article (it has been in draft for 3 months). I'm just trying to separate it from Donnel Baird. Several reviewers encouraged expanding the Donnel Baird article's BlocPower section, which I don't understand. It seems like without BlocPower, the Donnel Baird article wouldn't be notable. It's possible to find coverage of BlocPower independent of Baird, while the reverse may be harder. So if there is one article it seems like it should be a BlocPower article (with much of the Donnel Baird content moved to the BlocPower history section).
Cheers!
P.S. Stumbled upon this which is a little apropos ;) https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/climate-crisis/wikipedia-has-a-climatetech-problem Anskrev (talk) 19:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Anskrev I fear you have started in the wrong place. Read this essay, one of many that deal with creating an article, and look at the process.
We have to start with the references, then build a storyboard from them, and write in our own words what the references tell us.
Forgive me if I do not respond directly to your carefully thought out text above. I could do so, but it will not be valuable for you. For the present, restart your draft from the references up. Find, and chose to select or reject references. Only then write the prose. Be succinct, but do not use close paraphrasing of what the reference says.
If the draft ends up shorter, then it ends up shorter. All you want, all, is to prove by the referencing that the topic is notable. That is your sole objective. Length is a side issue. Long drafts may be awesome, or poor. The referencing decides. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:53, 29 June 2024 review of submission by Mckenziedavid011

edit

I don't know what im supposed to do by a simple article Mckenziedavid011 (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are supposed to demonstrate that the subject "Teams with the most championshipts in NA Sports" has had enough published about it to meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. You should also cite sources for all the numbers. ColinFine (talk) 18:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:34, 29 June 2024 review of submission by 80.7.88.94

edit

It’s a horror story it Hass to be good and juicy 80.7.88.94 (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are an encyclopaedia, not a website for creative writing. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that Google Fonts was a reliable source!

edit

It was sourced in Product Sans! 2600:1016:A102:27A9:503A:59DE:C4D:4443 (talk) 20:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In order to establish notability, a source must be independent of the topic and devote significant coverage to the topic, as well as being reliable. In addition, references to multiple high quality sources are required. Cullen328 (talk) 20:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In striking contrast to Product Sans, your Draft:Yarndings is only a single sentence, and your single reference is to a source that is not independent and does not devote significant coverage to the topic. Cullen328 (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thank you. Next time I will have reliable sources. 96.83.255.53 (talk) 23:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exact same person. 96.83.255.53 (talk) 23:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:34, 29 June 2024 review of submission by 220.255.242.109

edit

Please see comments on the article. Thanks you. 220.255.242.109 (talk) 20:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, which means that it will not be considered further, and there is no point in appealing here. The only possible way of continuing with it is for you to appeal directly to the reviewer that rejected it, Zoglophie, and convincing them that something has changed to make it worth considering again. ColinFine (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:57, 29 June 2024 review of submission by Clare Nassanga

edit

Hello I request advice on how i can make the article better. Clare Nassanga (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please go through the need of general nobility of biography of people. Twinkle1990 (talk) 09:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_June_29&oldid=1232681699"