Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 November 11

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< November 10 << Oct | November | Dec >> November 12 >
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.


November 11

edit

02:04:02, 11 November 2019 review of submission by Asia Football Alhah

edit


Asia Football Alhah (talk) 02:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Asia Football Alhah:, hello. Firstly, you only need to submit a help request once, instead of 3 times. Please only make a new thread if you don't get a response with 2-3 days.
Your draft doesn't have any reliable sources, so it cannot be accepted. Resubmitting it won't change that. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

02:04:28, 11 November 2019 review of submission by Asia Football Alhah

edit


Asia Football Alhah (talk) 02:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Already answered above, please don't submit multiple requests Nosebagbear (talk)

02:04:42, 11 November 2019 review of submission by Asia Football Alhah

edit


Asia Football Alhah (talk) 02:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Already answered above, please don't submit multiple requests Nosebagbear (talk)

02:06:53, 11 November 2019 review of submission by Shadow on da Track

edit


Shadow on da Track (talk) 02:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Shadow on da Track: - as the reviewers have said, the draft doesn't have any sources that meet all of: reliable, independent, in-depth and secondary (newspapers, books etc). The linked words (in blue) in the decline notices at the top will take you to explanations of these in more depth. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:57:44, 11 November 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by TaingrayAngus

edit


I have attempted to create an article on Gizzen Briggs, a local traditional music group based in Tain Royal Academy in Highland, Scotland. The reviewer has pointed out that I should have declared an interest. I am not a member of the group, but I was a colleague of the adults who created and manage it. First question: I have never created an article before and I would like to know if this disqualifies me in this situation.

I was unsure whether the group was sufficiently notable, but I felt that it had been unusually influential in launching the careers of many highly successful young traditional musicians. Indeed, one member of the group mentioned in the article has recently been announced as one of the Saltire Society's "2019 Outstanding Women of Scotland". I used footnotes to register the significance of various people mentioned in my article, but I see now that the footnotes need to show recognition of the significance of Gizzen Briggs and most of mine should be deleted as serving no purpose. Second question: If I could find a record of one of the high profile former members of the group being interviewed and acknowledging the influence of Gizzen Briggs in their careers, would this be the sort of thing required? (I should say that I have not seen such evidence, but I suspect that it may exist.)

The group has had mentions in various newspapers, generally of a local nature. The Ross-shire Journal has contained many reports over the years of concerts the group has given and awards they have received. Third question: Am I right in thinking that local press such as The Ross-shire Journal would not be considered a sufficiently weighty publication to be referenced?

I will continue to look for more convincing evidence of the notability of Gizzen Briggs, but I must recognise the possibility that the group and its achievements are simply not sufficiently notable for Wikipedia.

Meantime, I would be grateful for your clarification on my three questions above. Thank you very much. Angus Gray


TaingrayAngus (talk) 15:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:24:25, 11 November 2019 review of draft by SoniaNoelia

edit


My page was declined because "The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes." However, I did use footnotes to cite my sources. I need more information regarding why my page was rejected so I can make the necessary changes. Thank you for your help. SoniaNoelia (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of unsourced content in your draft, for instance none of the awards are sourced. Theroadislong (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:26:12, 11 November 2019 review of draft by Iorek100

edit


Hi - I'm unclear how a proposed page on what amounts to a philosophical/pedagogic principle can be written in a way that does not 'sound like an essay' (which is the reason given for the rejection of this proposed page). The concept of the least dangerous assumption needs adding to wikipedia because its existence, meaning, and implications need documenting in an encyclopedia (i.e. it's a concept that needs logging). For example, in what ways is the page on Geragogy (for example - arbitrary choice of comparison page!) different to what I have drafted, other than that the Geragogy page is mostly in bullet form (which is less essay like)?

I'd like to get this page established somehow, because it's an important thing, so any help you can give would be much appreciated.

thanks!

Andy

Iorek 17:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@Iorek100: Howdy hello! I took a look at the article, and there are two main issues: notability, and clarity. For starters, I'm not sure if the term is notable enough to be in an Encyclopedia. Our notability standards for neologisms, which this seems to be, require widespread usage in the media. I'm not seeing evidence of that. Assertions of importance are usually not sufficient for notability, as we generally don't decide how important something is. We outsource that job to reliable sources. The second issue is clarity. The article should clearly state what the thing is. From reading it...I still don't know what it is. Remember that most Wiki readers have no specialized knowledge in a subject, and thus articles must succinctly and in common terms describe a subject. The page doesn't need to be in bullets, but the wording must be clear and concise. I would warn you to not use Geragogy as a comparison page, as it is very low quality and may not even qualify for its own article. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Iorek100, I disagree with CaptainEek on several points. Firstly the notability of the concept is indisputable, as evidenced by the existence of several hundred high quality academic sources, published over several decades, so it's absolutely not a neologism. (Put the phrase into a google scholar search, all will be revealed.) When evaluating coverage of a subject one must look in the apropriate places; corporate news in financial media, sport in sport magazines, academic subjects in academic journals and textbooks, etc.) The draft's prose is quite dense but I had no real difficulty parsing it. Style of prose, unless it is really nonsensical, is not a valid reason to decline a draft. The readability can be improved by editing, I think an article such as Dignity of risk is a fairly decent example of an "easy read" about a similarly esoteric topic. Having said all this I'm going to accept this draft. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:45:06, 11 November 2019 review of submission by Belka Gorlanova

edit


Hello! Can you please help me with more precise comments about what i can/need to change in my article about Olivier Varenne. Because im not sure what kind of mistake i made and a bit lost in direction of changing. Thank you so much!

Belka Gorlanova (talk) 17:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Belka Gorlanova, This article has no inline references. You should read WP:REFB, the intro guide to referencing. Claims made in the article need to have inline references. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:45:30, 11 November 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Wkigenyi

edit


I have collected what I think are enough references but the reviewer says the references do not significant coverage. The references I selected are solely about the subject and they are independent. Comparing with the example I have given ie Andrew Kitaka, what do I need to add to my article to improve it?


Wkigenyi (talk) 18:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:55:52, 11 November 2019 review of submission by Chardonel

edit

he guy a have a problem where I can't publish an article about me, so I wanna know why they keep declined my article and give me some advice on how to be apart of that.

Chardonel (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have collected all my references but the reviewer says the references do not significant coverage, what can I do? I need help, please Chardonel (talk) 18:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chardonel, firstly, please don't write autobiographies.
Secondly, for a subject to have an article here, we require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic (see wp:42). This is so that the claims made in the article can be verified. You simply don't have significant coverage yet, so we can't have an article about you. See the criteria for musicians at WP:MUSICBIO. The relevant criteria to you are:
- Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.
- Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.
- Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country.
- Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.
- Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).
- Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.
- Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.
- Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition.
- Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.
- Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.
Until you can demonstrate that you meet any one of the criteria, we can't have an article about you - please read Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 09:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:06:11, 11 November 2019 review of submission by Shadow on da Track

edit 
I submitted my articles three-time and they keep rejecting them, I wanna know what all the mistakes I make and show me how to correct them, thank you

Shadow on da Track (talk) 19:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shadow on da Track. Your fundamental mistake is that you've chosen a topic that is not notable (not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). See Wikipedia:A primer for newcomers, especially the section "Pick something notable". --Worldbruce (talk) 02:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:16:16, 11 November 2019 review of draft by Kvibbert

edit


I am creating a page for Karen Countryman-Roswurm. I tried to follow the guidelines but after I published it was still earmarked for a few issues. I have a COI that I listed in the talk page after I was notified of that requirement. Another problem is that it said it read like a resume (Which I was actively trying to avoid). I edited the page to remove all primary sources (there were a few, but I had seen other pages that had similar sources so I wasn't sure the leniency on it). The page has been greatly simplified and focuses primarily on the recent notable work of Countryman-Roswurm.

If I publish the article for review, will I receive further feedback if it is not accepted?

Kvibbert (talk) 22:16, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kvibbert, Once your draft is reviewed, the editor should provide you a reason, and ideally feedback. If they don't elaborate, please leave a message on their talk page asking for more explanation. If they don't reply within a few days, please come here and raise the issue. Please be patient while waiting for a review, the review queue is quite backlogged at the moment. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2019_November_11&oldid=985269153"