Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 August 28

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< August 27 << Jul | August | Sep >> August 29 >
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.


August 28

edit

03:42:12, 28 August 2019 review of submission by Jordi Scott

edit


Hi hi

For the page of Jeffrey Feinman, any suggestion how i can improve the content and reference for passing the standard to be posted in Wikipedia?

Thanks a lot.

Jordi Scott (talk) 03:42, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jordi Scott: The advice given to you on the draft page is correct. The article has insufficient sourcing. I looked up Dr. Feinman and couldn't find anything that could be used. There's just not enough to show notability. Sorry. TechnoTalk (talk) 21:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:14:36, 28 August 2019 review of submission by Jrkrist

edit


Hi there, can I ask for specific advice on this draft?

I think East Ventures is a notable topic. To my knowledge, all mentions are based on trusted and independent media coverage. Can you recheck the current draft and help point out which sources are still considered unreliable?

Will do my best to adhere to your feedback, which includes if I should remove/add certain sentences or information inside the draft. Thanks!

Jrkrist (talk) 07:14, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article edited and improved with recent coverage, and moved to mainspace. East Ventures TechnoTalk (talk) 01:24, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:17:09, 28 August 2019 review of submission by Jeanephusbesira

edit
The draft is still in the user's sandbox User:Jeanephusbesira/sandbox. Unfortunately, insufficient sourcing and no indication of notability. TechnoTalk (talk) 01:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:59:28, 28 August 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Bethany m m

edit


Hi I have been advised that - All the external links in the body of the article need to be removed, we don't use them. The primary sources need to be replaced with independent sources. For my article submission for EnviroVent, but I do not understand what this means and don't see how all links should be removed the article was created in a similar style to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vent-Axia so what links did they use that I haven't, please?

Greatly appreciate your help.

Thank you!

Bethany m m (talk) 08:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bethany m m: - hi there. So external links are the ones with little arrows next to them (which Vent-Axia doesn't have). They shouldn't be there - the article isn't to naviage people to the content discussed, just inform them on it.
Primary sources are, very roughly, those written by those involved in the topic. This would mean anything written on the company website, but could also cover other areas (like a research report). They should only be used for basic descriptive data (public finance reports are a common example of that exception). You want secondary sources (mainly newspapers, books etc), that are independent - no reason to be biased about the EnviroVent, and no interviews. The two Times sources and the motorcycle news source in Vent-Axia would all be both non-primary and independent. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:53:32, 28 August 2019 review of submission by Vasilis Theofylaktopoulos

edit

Where should the discussion on notability take place for a draft article?

Hi, is the talk page of a draft article the right place for the discussion on notability? If not, where is it? Thanks a lot. I have written a draft and I would appreciate feedback. Best Vasilis Theofylaktopoulos (talk) 09:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC) Vasilis Theofylaktopoulos (talk) 09:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vasilis Theofylaktopoulos: Hi! Yes, this is the best place for discussing drafts. Sources to show notability have to be about the subject and have to be in-depth. This means that profiles, directory entries, obituaries, etc. are not suitable, because they are not in-depth. Interviews, persons work, etc. are not suitable because they are not independent. There is some possible leeway for WP:NACADEMIC and awards, but these do not appear to be significant outside the field (one could show them as significant awards if they, for example, are covered by media outside the immediate field). The award in person's name looks like a good claim for notability, although sources covering this award are likely needed. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:31, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:41:20, 28 August 2019 review of draft by Leakordahi

edit


I am creating a Wikipedia page for the first time and I am quite lost.

  • First of all, I am being paid by the fashion designer to write a Wikipedia page about him. I was wondering if i should state somewhere that this page is a paid editing and is a conflict of interest.
  • Second, it says that my submission felt more like an ad than an encyclopedia page because the references werent all reliable. The thing is is that the fashion designer i am writing about is still not extremely famous and there arent enough reliable articles written about him so i can use. That is why i used as much as i could find.

Thank you in advance

Leakordahi (talk) 10:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Leakordahi: as a matter of urgency you should write on your userpage {{Paid|employer=Saiid Kobeisy|article=User:Leakordahi/sandbox}} (the article will need to change if it becomes a draft or an article). It will turn into a proper statement.
If there aren't enough reliable sources about the individual then your client isn't notable - Wikipedia isn't designed for "up and coming" but already established individuals covered by sources. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:55, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:41:52, 28 August 2019 review of submission by Zul32

edit

This article was rejected, but yet I've primarily modeled the article from a previously published article Summits on the Air, So, this is written in the same format/style as that article. That one was approved, and this one was rejected. I've provided more than enough references to make it WP:N. The primary goal of this article is to bring more awareness and recognition of State Parks, National parks, National Monuments, National Preserves, Wildlife Refuges, Wetland Management Districts, National Wild and Scenic Rivers Systems, Wildlife Management Areas, Antarctic Stations, National Military Parks, Historical Trails, and Amateur Radio. Aside from Amateur Radio, all the previously mentioned areas are places that ham radio operators can travel to and make contact with other ham radio operators (even at other designated locations such as these). Please reconsider and approve this article. Thanks for your time and consideration, Zul32 (talk) 14:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zul32: Summits on the Air (rev) article looks in a very bad state sourcing- and writing-wise, it's mostly supported by non-independent sources. In any case, Wikipedia considers each article/topic individually and not in comparison to other articles that may be majorly changed or even deleted some day. As for "goal of this article", Wikipedia doesn't follow any goals or agendas beyond its core principles. This means we can't give special attention to topics for those reasons and the article notability criteria remain the same -- quality sourcing. None of the sources in the draft are reliable, independent, in-depth and with the focus on the topic, which is the reason for rejection both times. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 14:55, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hellknowz: Thanks for your feedback and information. This helps a lot and I'll keep working on it. I've already removed all references to Facebook, blogs, and Youtube. Zul32 (talk) 16:04, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:54:48, 28 August 2019 review of draft by Emma1910

edit


I am requesting help in connection with the rejection of a draft (Abdülkadir Topkaç).

According to Theroadislong, the references “do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people)”. My draft is a translation of a Turkish article. The original references, which I have retained, are articles devoted exclusively to Topkaç, published by CNN Türk (a Turkish version of CNN), Habertürk (a conservative newspaper), Cumhuriyet (a centre-left up-market newspaper), Sözcü (a Kemalist newspaper), and NTVMSNBC (a news channel).

According to Wikipedia guidelines, “News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact.” All news outlets cited in the Turkish article are well-established. All of them are secondary sources, and they are independent both of each other and of the subject (none of them can be assumed to have a vested interest in Topkaç).

I have also checked the guidelines on the notability of people: “People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.” Coverage seems significant to me on the basis of the original article’s references alone, and there are quite a number of reports in other media as well.

It seems to me that the references completely fulfil the requirements listed under “Common sourcing mistakes (notability)”: • “sources like mainstream newspaper articles, non-vanity books, established magazines, scholarly journals, television and radio documentaries, etc. – sources with editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means generally not random personal websites, blogs, forum posts, Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, self-published sources like open wikis (including other Wikipedia articles), etc.” • “secondary sources written by third parties to a topic that have no vested interest in the subject of their writing or coverage. This means generally not anything written by or on behalf of the subject or anyone connected with the person or organization in any way; not the subject's own website, not the subject's social media, not interviews (with the person, or of an organization's employees, officers or other insiders), and not press releases, regardless of where they are republished. An unconnected source is, for example, a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter.” • “sources that treat a topic in detail”

The one reference that I have added myself is 140Journos (a crowdsourced news outlet). In contrast to the other sources, this is a primary source because the only person talking is Topkaç. I have added the reference because this is the only English-language text on Topkaç that I have been able to find (a film with English subtitles). Is this reference the problem? If not, what is? Any help would be appreciated.Emma1910 (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Topkaç is an amateur astronomer. His birthdate is sourced, the fact he became a master baker is sourced. His assertion that "The moon "wriggles like a snake"" is not supported by the source and it is not remotely clear what else makes him notable? Theroadislong (talk) 16:49, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Theroadislong,
Thank you for your prompt response.
Re “The moon ‘wriggles like a snake’”, this is a point you did not mention before, I think. The statement is actually supported by the original source. In Turkish, Topkaç says: “yılan kıvrılıyor gibi” (2:25). The English subtitle, “as a frizzled snake”, is misleading. (The same idea also occurs in various secondary sources, but the phrasing is clearer in the primary source.)
Re notability, I have checked the GNG once more. It would be helpful if you could explain why you think the notability criteria (significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject) are not fulfilled and why?
Emma1910 (talk) 08:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:18:43, 28 August 2019 review of submission by AnimationMonkey

edit


AnimationMonkey (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AnimationMonkey: - ImDB isn't a reliable source, and the other source wouldn't demonstrate notability of Battle (great name). He is possible he's notable, but you will need to find better sources to support him.
As a side note, your references are formatted correctly - you don't need the footnotes as well. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:58:35, 28 August 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Emilythornberg

edit


Hi, I need help getting this page for Aaron Harmon approved. I've edited and revised the sources multiple times and I keep getting shot down. I'm confused because his work on multiple projects is stated on other Wikipedia pages citing he produced but it still is saying my sources aren't reliable? I'm just wondering how these other sites (i.e. blackbear ANONYMOUS) can be approved saying he is the producer and his own producer page is not accepted. I am feeling like I have no other ideas of how to get this page approved and would greatly appreciate any help here.. Thanks!

Emilythornberg (talk) 16:58, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia, Facebook, IMDb, YouTube, Amazon, Soundcloud and Bandcamp are not reliable sources and need to be replaced. Theroadislong (talk) 17:04, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:12:42, 28 August 2019 review of submission by 94.69.230.41

edit


94.69.230.41 (talk) 21:12, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


22:20:41, 28 August 2019 review of draft by VicenteAssensio

edit


It looks like this article was reviewed 10 days ago, but nothing happened. I am unable to discern the article's status. Can you?

Thanks

VicenteAssensio (talk) 22:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@VicenteAssensio: The draft is awaiting review, as indicated by the large yellow box at the bottom of it. It has not been reviewed since you re-submitted it on 2 August. The backlog is roughly 5 months, so you can anticipate a review by early February 2020. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:03, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2019_August_28&oldid=985267172"