Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2015 November 24
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < November 23 | << Oct | November | Dec >> | November 25 > |
| Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages. |
November 24
edit00:45:38, 24 November 2015 review of submission by Andersc11
editI believe the entry I created was notable and would like to know how many more sources it would take to make it acceptable. Andersc11 (talk) 00:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- Ramirez.b01 (talk · contribs)
Ramirez.b01 (talk) 05:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
13:29:41, 24 November 2015 review of submission by Cluetrekk
edit
My Article on the New Swears was accepted by Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) but she removed a significant amount of content. I was just wondering why that was done.
It was also reviewed by 3 other reviewers and they had not suggested removing the content.
Without further clarification, I am inclined to put it back.
Cluetrekk
Cluetrekk (talk) 13:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Cluetrekk: Hi, welcome to the Help Desk. Tokyogirl79 left a message on the New Swears talk page explaining why they removed some content; have you seen that message? Thanks! /wia /tlk 13:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Cluetrekk: The reason I removed the content was because there was some serious issues with things. To start with, the article had some promotional overtones that needed to be removed. Some of the material was a bit dodgy, such as "notable reception". The other issue, and perhaps the biggest of the two, was that you misrepresented several of the sources. You took a lot of routine notifications of events and tried to make them into more than what they were. A great example of this was where you included an article that simply notified readers that the NS were going to perform at an event. It was clearly written prior to the event itself (since they were telling people to go see them), yet you tried to pass this off as a review. I'm not sure why you did that and to be honest, it came across like a deliberate attempt to mislead the reader. You cannot and I repeat CANNOT take a source and pass it off as something that it simply is not. I hate to sound WP:BITE-y, but saying that a notification of an event is a review of the event itself is such a large misrepresentation of the source that it's pretty much the same as lying. I need to stress that doing things like this is extremely deceptive. As far as the other reviewers go, not every person who edits an AfC will actually do the legwork to verify everything and we've had issues of people accepting articles that had content that was incorrect. Others will only point out one thing wrong with the article and will not actually go into depth. Most will not edit the article substantially at all. Just because others didn't remove the content doesn't mean that it wasn't problematic. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Tokyogirl79: Thanks Tokyogirl79. I understand why you have done what you did and appreciate the time you took to prepare the text. It is clear that the notification of the event is not the same as a review of the event so that should not be included. I just want to point out that in the previous 4 times the article was submitted for review there was concern over the notability of the NS and reference was made to consult the established notability criteria. After reviewing the criteria it was clear that the band had met 5 of the criteria i.e. criteria 1, 4, 5, 7 and 10 and some of the added text was meant to address these points. However, many of these entries to support the notability were removed by you making this whole process rather frustrating. Again, I appreciate the time taken to review and accept the article and will reexamine the text to ensure that the statements are not misleading nor too promotional. Thanks very much, Cluetrekk
- @Cluetrekk: The sources that were reviews for the festival appearances would be enough to establish notability. However the catch with the claims that you kept re-adding is that the sources need to back up the claims and the accomplishments need to be major. For example, a band can perform a song that appears on a soundtrack, but this only counts towards notability if the film itself is notable. If the film isn't notable, then it's something that's only mentioned as an aside. The same thing goes for things appearing on "best of" lists. If the list is a notable one or the people who issue the list are considered a particularly reliable source, then it can count towards notability. The catch here is that nominations alone do not count towards notability, so even if you source the PunkNews.org claim, that wouldn't count towards notability. Now when it comes to the radio station, that's a bit more tricky. The problem there is that the source is dead and by all accounts the show appears to be a minor, local show. Statements like that from a minor local show are generally considered to be non-notability giving claims. This is because there are hundreds of thousands of radio shows out there and only an extremely small portion of them hold enough weight to really count towards anything. This means that even if you could back it up, it very likely wouldn't count towards notability if the article went up for deletion. However I doubt that it will, since the article still has enough sources to where they would pass as a whole. Also, please avoid using phrases like "notable reception". Phrases like that tend to send up warning signals to other editors since the term "notable" is very relative when it's used in an article. This is partially because the term tends to be used by PR marketers that come in to beef up pages for topics that wouldn't normally pass guidelines. (Prestigious is another term frequently thrown around.) I don't think that you're one of them - the reason I'm mentioning this is more to give you a little explanation as to why myself and another editor kind of raised an eyebrow at this. It's usually better to post that they had a positive reception and maybe name one of the more major publications. The term notable tends to kind of be relative since a publication that may seem notable to one might end up being minor-ish on Wikipedia.
- Basically, there's no reason for concern about the band's notability because the sources I left on the page should assert notability. If it does get nominated, I'd fight for it to remain on Wikipedia, FWIW. However I think that the only way it would get nominated is if the guidelines suddenly became more strict, which is possible but unlikely at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
13:30:34, 24 November 2015 review of submission by 41.57.89.26
edit- 41.57.89.26 (talk · contribs)
41.57.89.26 (talk) 13:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- Hello, welcome to the Help Desk. Do you have a specific question about your draft? It's been submitted and a reviewer will be along in the coming days to assess it. Thanks, /wia /tlk 13:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
14:05:35, 24 November 2015 review of submission by Trenty1000
edit- Trenty1000 (talk · contribs)
Hi, I received notification of the my submission being declined on 18 November 2015 by SwisterTwister An earlier draft submission was previously declined on 27 June 2015 by Eclipsed
The original comments rejection comments were "This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia." On reflection I could only agree with this criticism and so I amended the draft. I had hoped the addition of the second submission addressed the issues, with the addition 4 external links and 1 (to our own site) link. The revised text also explained more about our approach and cited some genuinely 'unique' facts - some awards won and an industry first.
So I am requesting more general pointers as to what aspects to re-work in order to get approval.
From my reading of the guidelines I can see that the introductory paragraph may read like a product list and so may need revision/deletion
That the Overview could be considered a press release 'style' statement and so may need revision/deletion I Hope Objectives and Achievements meets your requirements Regulation and governance - is never going to be a cracking read but it does contain certain verifiable facts, but again this may not be the kind of information you are looking for.
I have compared our submission to our peers VetUK (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VetUK) and MedicAnimal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MedicAnimal) and ours seems comparable and equally referenced as VetUK, while MedicAnimal is more succinct - in which case I can happily wield the editing pencil!
Any pointers greatly appreciated Trenty1000 (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Trenty1000 (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- Hello @Trenty1000:. You want to look for sources where other experts talk about the subject, not where people related to the subject are quoted. So you would want an analyst talking about the company's impact on an industry or locality or Ad Age talking about how a promotional campaign flopped. For corporations the alternative criteria are WP:CORP maybe those would be easier to verify.
- And regarding your last comment, Wikipedia now has over 5 million articles and the fact that a significant quantity fail to meet the proper standards is known, but not reason to allow more that fail the quality check to be presented to our "consumers". And this being a Wiki, YOU can help! (but not on articles where you have a conflict of interest like the articles about your competitors.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
15:06:19, 24 November 2015 review of submission by Renzild
edit
I have cited multiple independent sources to prove notability.
- hello @Renzild:. As outlined in "The Golden Rule" - it is a 3 prong test and in order for the coverage to help establish notability, 1) independent, 2) reliably published with a reputation for accuracy and editorial oversight, 3) cover the subject in a significant manner. the source has to meet all 3 parts - To me, it does not appear that any of the links meet all three. Which one(s) do you believe qualified under the 3 criteria? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I received the following message from Swister Twister re my draft article, Benjamin's Field.
"This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability—see the general guideline on notability and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject."
I've included several references. I've seen articles with fare fewer. Thanks Cap603 (talk) 23:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- Not directly related to your article, but to your final comment: Yes. There are over 5 million articles in English Wikipedia and there are a good many of them that are not up to par. but , you can help! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)