Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 September 20

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< September 19 << Aug | September | Oct >> September 21 >
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.


September 20

edit

03:05:52, 20 September 2017 review of submission by The wicked ape

edit


It's simple. I submitted a page - Username the wicked ape. The page is called The Pineapples. I submitted it from the sandbox. The title says "Draft: The Pineapples." I want to make sure the final title that comes up in search is The Pineapples. Not Draft: The Pineapples.

Thank you,

Michael The wicked ape (talk) 03:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The wicked ape. The leading "Draft:" in the name of the page identifies a namespace, other than the main article space, where the page is located. If Draft: The Pineapples is accepted for publication, it will be moved to the main article space, where the page name will not begin with "Draft:". --Worldbruce (talk) 04:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 04:06:33, 20 September 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by 24.80.215.57

edit


My page draft has been rejected due to not having reliable sources. I'd like to know which of my sources are not seen as reliable and why. He's a very accredited person and I would like some guidance on the type of sources I need.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:James_L._Elder

Thank you,

Ashley 24.80.215.57 (talk) 04:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

24.80.215.57 (talk) 04:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ashley. It was not declined because some of the sources are unreliable, but because there are some statements in the draft that the reviewer felt should be backed up by reliable sources but which cite no sources. The entire "Early life" and "Affiliations" sections, for example, cite no sources.
Also note that Wikipedia does not normally list an academic's journal articles, only their books. See Wikipedia:Writing better articles for other ways to improve the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

04:41:15, 20 September 2017 review of submission by AndyBPA

edit


Hi, I am Andy Wiltshire from BulletProof - the developer of the game Brutes.io. My page has been rejected twice, apparently for unreliable references - but that information doesn't tell me how I need to improve it. I'm the developer of the game, the game is released and playable, what else do you need to know? I based my page off this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_of_Ages_II:_Bigger_%26_Boulder - which as far as I can see basically has the same sort of info - In fact I list all links to everything to do with the game. So what do I actually need to do, in detail, to get my page approved? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Brutes.io Thanks in advance...

AndyBPA (talk) 04:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AndyBPA: Hello, Andy. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the delay in response.

Regarding the existence of other pages that have similar sourcing problems, Wikipedia has more than five million user-generated articles and it is inevitable that some will exist even though they shouldn't. But the fact they do exist just means that someone should consider deleting them -- it does not mean that we should lower the bar for accepting future articles.

The way to improve your chances of getting your article on Wikipedia is to demonstrate that this not-yet-released video game has been the subject of "significant commentary or analysis in published sources that are independent of the game developer". That quote is taken from our notability guide for video games, which will provide you with more detail. Right now, the only source material that is not directly related to the game (i.e., developer or publisher) is the brief capsule review from AlphaBetaGamer (and it isn't all that clear to me that this is a reliable authoritative source anyway). I don't know which particular additional sources might prove helpful to you, but I do know that you need to do a better job of finding those additional sources.

I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NewYorkActuary: Hiya. "not-yet-released video game" - ummm, the game is very released and very playable... https://brutes.io | It was also accepted on Gamepedia: https://brutesio.gamepedia.com/Brutes.io_Wiki | And has an IndieDB page: http://www.indiedb.com/games/brutesio - what more could you need?
@AndyBPA: Thanks for following up on this. Sorry about the confusion regarding release status. I guess I was misled by the statement in the draft that release was "slated for October 2017". But as for the main point of your follow-up -- the draft still does not demonstrate that the game has been the subject of "significant commentary or analysis in published sources that are independent of the game developer". The new references you've added -- your "official Wiki" and the listing at IndieDB -- don't make that demonstration. I still don't see how you've satisfied our notability guide for video games. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:22, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

14:28:13, 20 September 2017 review of submission by The wicked ape

edit


The page was denied because of "inadequate referencing." I've looked at other music pages, for example MV & EE and some more obscure topics, and there is no referencing. So, the page we've submitted has links to reviews, articles and lists which support all the statements of fact in the page. I need to know more specifically what type of reference is needed. It simply says the subject isn't notable. I think it is. Is there an example of a reference which can show notability? The wicked ape (talk) 14:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The wicked ape: Hello, Wicked Ape. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the delay in response.

I don't know if this band is notable, but I do know that you've done a poor job of demonstrating it. Other than that unnecessary reference to Carlos Castaneda, all of your references are simply "NAME OF NEWSPAPER, DATE". This falls far short of providing the essential bibliographic detail required under WP:CITE. Who wrote these referenced sources? What pages are they on? And what are they? Are they album reviews? Interviews? Ads? Feature articles? You've given the reviewers no basis for knowing and it isn't surprising that they found the article's referencing to be inadequate. There's also a second problem -- there seems to have been little effort made to present the information in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Instead, you've presented us with something that appears to have been written by a fan of the band. Even if the sourcing issues are fixed, this draft would still face difficulties for its overly promotional tone.

I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

23:02:25, 20 September 2017 review of submission by Nhpackard

edit


Hi.

I am patiently waiting for any issues on the McCaskill article (submitted over 3 weeks ago). John McCaskill is a historically important scientific figure of significant renown, so I don't think there should be a problem.

I have a problem with the picture I uploaded of him. It has now been removed, with the cited problem being "Lack of licensing information". I was pretty careful to follow instructions for including the copyright information, and I obtained a letter from the copyright holder conforming to instructions (below), taken pretty much straight from your templates. But I have the impression that perhaps there is something wrong with the letter? I would appreciate any clues for how to proceed.

Best regards,

Norman Packard

nhpackard@mac.com


Begin forwarded message:

From: Nerissa Escanlar <nescanlar@gmail.com> Subject: John McCaskill Image ausage Date: August 14, 2017 at 4:29:05 PM PDT To: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org Cc: Norman Packard <n@protolife.com>


I hereby affirm that I, Nerissa Escanlar, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of John_McCaskill.jpg, and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work.

I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0). I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Nerissa Escanlar

Copyright Holder

August 13, 2017


Nhpackard (talk) 23:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nhpackard. There may be nothing to worry about. The backlog at Commons:OTRS is approaching two months, so they may not have processed the email yet. In that case, when they do reach the email, if everything is in order they should restore the deleted file. If you're concerned that there many have been a problem with the letter, you can contact them at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2017_September_20&oldid=802416646"