Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 June 24

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< June 23 << May | June | Jul >> June 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.


June 24

edit

04:06:32, 24 June 2019 review of submission by NJDevil1

edit

Hello! I'm wondering why my submission, a list of regional beverages of the United States, was rejected. There is a Wikipedia page for "List_of_regional_dishes_of_the_United_States" but there is nothing for beverages, and I don't see the difference between the two (besides one being a solid and the other a liquid). As an example, Manhattan Special is virtually unheard of outside of the New York City area, while most New Yorkers have never seen NuGrape or Big Red. Why shouldn't Wikipedia make it easy to find regional beverages? NJDevil1 (talk) 04:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NJDevil1, I suspect it's the lack of sources. All of the list items already have an article (or a section of an article, in the case of the gin fizz) so I've gone through and added a citation to each of the list items. --valereee (talk) 12:28, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

04:50:51, 24 June 2019 review of draft by Mirkyton

edit


I'm confused by the submission process and don't seem to be able to submit my draft for review. I just keep ending up back at the grey draft box without the "submission-received" box appearing.

Mirkyton (talk) 04:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mirkyton: I've fixed it. You had a broken HTML Comment which caused the yellow box to be hidden. Jannik Schwaß (talk) 05:36, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

05:25:41, 24 June 2019 review of submission by Kenny12021202

edit


PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY MY Article is rejected? Kenny12021202 (talk) 05:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kenny12021202. Most businesses, including this one, are not notable (not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia). See WP:BFAQ#COMPANY for more information. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

05:41:07, 24 June 2019 review of submission by Unknownunknownunkown

edit


Unknownunknownunkown (talk) 05:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06:41:50, 24 June 2019 review of submission by Kevinbade

edit


Kevinbade (talk) 06:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I have two questions regarding the Ken Davis Music page I have worked on. 1) There is no conflict. Ken has engaged me to help with writing the page because of my background in online application development and have known Ken since the mid 1980s. There is no conflict of interest. how can that be fixed? 2) The page was rejected because the topic wan't notable enough for Wikipedia. Why is that. Please help. Thanks, Regards Kevin

If Ken has engaged you to help with writing the article then you have a VERY clear conflict of interest. Theroadislong (talk) 09:14, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kevinbade,
  1. Your description of your relationship to Ken Davis is a clear match to the description of a conflict of interest as described in the message on your talk page. It's a commonplace of COI that the writers are unable to see just how (non-)notable their subject is and unable to see how their relationship taints their objectivity and judgement. You fit the model to a T. How can that be fixed? - I don't know, but I suspect that if you fix the COI you'll no longer be interested in writing about him.
    COI often leads to the author uploading copyright material from the subject's website because they assume permission, and hey, look, there it is... https://i0.wp.com/kendavismusic.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/ken_profile_home_2.jpg uploaded to c:File:KenDavis1.jpg. On wiki you claim it's your work, there it's claimed by "KEN DAVIS MUSIC" - a bit of a discrepancy there.
  2. The rejection note linked to the guidelines for notability. WP:MUSICBIO is a more specific set of guidelines for musicians. Cabayi (talk) 09:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:03:19, 24 June 2019 review of submission by Osguhisar

edit

A beginner on wikipedia, am working for Om Sterling Global University and we wish to have our page/article on Wikipedia. Please suggest the changes or edits. Osguhisar (talk) 09:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:21:44, 24 June 2019 review of draft by Nikatomka

edit


Hello, my article has been rejected for publication. I am new in Wikipedia publishing and I did not get the comment about the references I should improve. I included reliable scientific publications which can be found on Pubmed. Could you please give me more detailed feedback? It would be really helpful. Thanks!

Nikatomka (talk) 09:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)\[reply]

It seems OK now and I have just accepted it. And you are correct that lack of references was not the initial problem, but rather that at the time it was not formatted as a WP article. DGG ( talk ) 12:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:38:26, 24 June 2019 review of draft by Revival1991

edit


I am confused about creating the page and submitting them for review. Revival1991 (talk) 09:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Revival1991. You were given a slew of links in the welcome package on your talk page that may clear up your confusion. Wikipedia:Your first article contains extensive how-to information on the subject. Editors are rarely successful at creating new pages until they've learned to edit existing pages constructively. See Wikipedia:Community portal for ways to start helping out. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:01:55, 24 June 2019 review of submission by Osguhisar

edit

Need help in editing the page. Osguhisar (talk) 10:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Osguhisar: Wikipedia is not a venue for advertising your institution. Theroadislong (talk) 10:05, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:40:19, 24 June 2019 review of submission by 62.248.208.95

edit


Do you think this is constructive?

62.248.208.95 (talk) 10:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


10:53:07, 24 June 2019 review of submission by Sophea M. Lay

edit


Please kindly help review our article again. Could you please allow us to submit it again because the previous submission was clicked the wrong function. Thank you very much.

Sophea M. Lay (talk) 10:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


12:05:17, 24 June 2019 review of submission by Seema Chari

edit

I am trying to create a digital presence for me and my firm. and only publishing true data. i do not want to publicize or market myself on the platform. i just want to put the correct data online. Seema Chari 12:05, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Seema Chari. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a business directory or a place to write about yourself. Using it to "create a digital presence for me and my firm" is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and will not be tolerated. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:25:10, 24 June 2019 review of draft by 41.115.20.224

edit


41.115.20.224 (talk) 13:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@41.115.20.224: You've not re-submitted the draft for review. I would say that currently this person doesn't meet the WP:NPROF criteria, or the General Notability Guideline. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:20:37, 24 June 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by JaneStroup

edit


I work as an occasional editor for John C. Goodman. He asked me to post information about the Goodman Institute because there is no entry for his organization at present and he is not an editor. Was the entry rejected because I am modestly paid for working with Mr. Goodman? Or because of the content of the entry? I would be happy to modify the content or find someone else to post it if one of those is necessary. The Goodman Institute is a viable and important organization that should have its own entry. Jane Stroup.


JaneStroup (talk) 14:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JaneStroup. The draft was rejected because the organization is not notable (not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). Things written by John C. Goodman or published by the Goodman Institute can't demonstrate the notability of the institute. Reliable secondary sources independent of the institute and containing significant coverage of it (not, for example, simply quoting it) could show notability, and are the kind of sources that the bulk of the draft would have to be based on. In the reviewer's judgement, no such sources exist, and based on my own searches, I concur. Therefore no amount of editing can make the topic acceptable. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:40, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:27:28, 24 June 2019 review of submission by TrasaccoGH

edit

Hello. Thank you again to the editor who took the time to review my article and shared tips on editing. I have revised the article to further comply with the Wikipedia guidelines and would appreciate a re-review for submission. TrasaccoGH (talk) 15:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As the initial review was legitimate, I've resubmitted for a 2nd review. The reject reason no longer stands, but I've not checked for notability etc Nosebagbear (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:41:44, 24 June 2019 review of draft by Wordcobbler

edit


Wordcobbler (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC) I am confused. On 12 April 2019, Clarityfiend said that “he does satisfy WP:AUTHOR. I’ve found multiple reviews of several of his books. Incorporate those and the article will be accepted.” On 17 April 2019, Lopifalko said that “You need to find some independent reliable sources focusing on Harriss himself.” I then added voluminous quotations from independent reliable sources commenting on my four books. Sources like The New York Times, Publishers Weekly, and The Los Angeles Times, among others. This should have satisfied both commentators. Clarityfiend, who was sympathetic to the article, has since disappeared, leaving only Lopifalko, who persists in being critical but is unclear in describing exactly what else, beyond the additions I have made, is required. The two editors appear to be contradicting each other and making conflicting demands. Furthermore, the decision on whether my journalism has been significant is entirely subjective. I believe the quotations I cite demonstrate that much of my work has had impact. I see many other journalists who have WP pages who have done less than I have, and whose entries are frankly skimpy, but who have been accepted. Readers often like to know more about the authors whose articles and books they enjoy. I see this page as a service to them. I should have thought that WP editors would agree.Wordcobbler (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wordcobbler: Reading your draft through a fresh set of eyes, I am not convinced that you meet the WP:AUTHOR notability requirements. You need to add references that show that other publications have written about you. If you're the kind of author that should have an article about them in an encyclopedia then that will be easy to achieve. You've not provided sources for the various critiques of your books, so I presume they're from the dust-cover, where anything is bound to be highly promotional. Who has independently written about your life, and your contributions to journalism? John Barron is included in Wikipedia as recipient of a notable award (George Polk Award). Have you won such awards? If so, please state which. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:44:11, 24 June 2019 review of draft by McDaire

edit


Hi, My article about a tabletop RPG was declined citing not enough references from independent sources. However, I did cite multiple references from independent news sites and I have seen other comparable games with less references approved (e.g. Blades in the Dark). I have written to the reviewer but received no reply yet. How should I proceed?

McDaire (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi McDaire. Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality articles and poor quality articles. The existence of an article does not mean it meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. It may only mean that no one has gotten around to deleting it yet. So generally it isn't productive to compare a draft to other pages. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why. If you wish to learn from example articles, be sure to use only Wikipedia's best.
The One Shot Podcast is a self-published source, so don't cite it as a reference. The ENnie Awards and Geek & Sundry are reliable sources. That gives you two of the recommended minimum of three (multiple articles from the same outlet usually count as a single source). If the game is notable, you shouldn't have any trouble finding at least one additional independent, reliable, secondary source that contains significant coverage of the game.
The bulk of any draft should come from independent sources. Right now the only part of the draft based on such sources is the "Reception" section. So the next problem is that the rest of the draft needs to be radically slashed. Keep anything the independent sources can support, but not much more. For any non-independent material you keep, identify the source - page n of the rule book, page x on company website, back of game box, etc. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Worldbruce, this is super helpful and actionable. I'll edit the article and resubmit. --McDaire (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:29:01, 24 June 2019 review of draft by Allisonm519

edit


I am in need of some help with adding references to my article. I don't know how to correctly add references so that the Reflist has the correct reference format for websites.

Allisonm519 (talk) 16:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Allisonm519. There isn't much guidance better than WP:REFB, to which you've already been directed. As an example, I've added to Draft:Dan Hocoy an inline citation to a website you plagiarized. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:37:45, 24 June 2019 review of draft by Martingraybensonjr

edit


Martingraybensonjr (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am unsure why my article is not currently submitted for review. Does this mean it was never read, or has been read and already declined? What do I need to do to publish, or to know what changes need to be made.

Thank you.

You need to click the blue button that says "Submit" but before you do that you need to find independent reliable sources, your draft has none and will not be accepted as it is. Theroadislong (talk) 16:43, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:58:57, 24 June 2019 review of draft by Eveerdonk

edit


Dear reviewer,

Last week the Wikipedia page I submitted on Mike Massé was declined, because it was not adequately supported by reliable sources. I would like to edit the page and resubmit it, but before I do so, I would like to make sure that I understand what needs to be changed in order for the page to be accepted.

Has the page been declined because references to unreliable sources (IMDb and Ovation guitars) are included? Or is there any information that requires a source that is lacking right now? Or is it a combination of the two?

Thank you in advance.

Kind regards

Eveerdonk (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eveerdonk. The problem is a combination of things. A number of the cited sources are not reliable, and should not be used as references:
  • IMDb, being user-generated, is not a reliable source.
  • The Daily Mail is not a reliable source per WP:DAILYMAIL.
  • Boing Boing is a group blog, so not a reliable source.
A number of the cited sources (Twitter, Facebook, Huffington Post, and Dumpert), are poorly thought of on Wikipedia. They may be reliable for the content they support, but they generally don't help establish notability and may distract reviewers from any better sources in the draft. Seriously reconsider whether the content they support is encyclopedia-worthy. The draft may be improved by leaving it out.
The body text of the draft contains a number of external links, ones that take the reader away from Wikipedia. That is not allowed. Convert them into references if applicable, remove them, or move them to an external links section at the bottom.
Large parts of the draft cite no sources (the entire "Early life" section, and several paragraphs of the "Career" and "Personal life" sections, for example). If you can't cite a reliable published source for the content, remove it. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:06:14, 24 June 2019 review of draft by Tmgmt

edit


Tmgmt (talk) 21:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tmgmt, your submission was declined because it did not have any reliable sources in which Graves is discussed in significant detail. Nole (chat·edits) 21:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm building my SEO and music profile. That information provided is acurate. Tmgmt (talk) 22:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tmgmt, on Wikipedia we require all information to be verifiable. This means that just because something is accurate doesn't mean it automatically gets to stay on the site. You must add sources that demonstrate the notability of the topic, and the sources must be come from reliable organizations, like newspapers or books. Nole (chat·edits) 22:05, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Princess Graves and my information and criminal history can be found inside of public records. I have made a Wiki pedia in hopes of building my music profile and SEO my label links have been shared in the entire Wiki page profile. I need to start somewhere. The music is going to be released in 10 days.

This is my label and Teamwork management abbreviated TMGMT. Tmgmt (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tmgmt, please see the message that Huon left on your talk page. Wikipedia is not a space for building a music profile. Nole (chat·edits) 23:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2019_June_24&oldid=984855587"