Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 March 25

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< March 24 << Feb | March | Apr >> March 26 >
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.


March 25

edit

00:02:00, 25 March 2020 review of submission by Punk Hazard

edit

First I want to say that it doesn't make sense to judge classical music compositions by the general music notability guidelines, which obviously don't take it into account at all. You can't expect any divertimento's recording to be on a billboard, and that's definitely not what may make such works notable.

But at least I think it complies with the first rule. Sequenza21 and Musicweb International are serious independent sources on classical music and pretty much online magazines. They aren't personal blogs, they have a staff structure. AllMusic even has its own article. While a CD liner notes being a secondary source may technically be disputable, they are written by Morohide Katayama, who isn't some Naxos Records employee but a musicologist and politologist and has published books on the topic (20th century Japanese classical music) so I believe that provides some academic assessment on the composition.

Punk Hazard (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Punk Hazard, your article wasn't rejected, so it can sources likely exist out there that could establish notability. I assume you're referring to WP:NMUSIC. Although some of these guidelines are biased towards more "popular" music, I will admit, but some of them, like being rotated on a major radio station, aren't. Classical radio stations do exist. But anyway, that's by there are also general notability criteria. This allows articles that don't fall into any of the categories specified in specific notability criteria to still be labelled as notable if they are supported by multiple independent reliable sources that mention the subject of the article non-trivially. I'll go by the general criteria and evaluate each of your sources for you.

I went through them, and actually I do agree with you: these sources in general indicate notability. The reason I think it might have been misleading to a reviewer (I would be confused too) is that the sources you provide that have professional reviews appear in a user generated format, when really they aren't. I'm going to move the article to the mainspace for you, as it now meets notability standards. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I do hope you continue as I see you've written a great article here! Sam-2727 (talk)

01:31:30, 25 March 2020 review of submission by Iregno8

edit

Hello, I am requesting a re-review of the page created as I was incorrectly assumed to be the subject the page is about. I, in error, used the subject's name as the username when creating an account hence why I'm here. Can you please have a look and let me know where I stand? Thanks! Iregno8 (talk) 01:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iregno8, I've removed the rejection and resubmitted the article. It will be reviewed again in due time, but I would highly recommend continuing to try to establish notability. Sulfurboy (talk) 06:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sulfurboy I have added to notability - subject was invited and spoke at the Oxford Union in 2016 (link to YouTube video included) as well as an interview on ITV's Good Morning Britain. Hope this is sufficient. Iregno8 (talk) 09:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sulfurboy:, just an FYI, interviews rarely add to notability, as they are inherently non-independent Nosebagbear (talk) 10:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nosebagbear, I assume you meant this to be directed towards Iregno8? Sulfurboy (talk) 13:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sulfurboy, yes, apologies Nosebagbear (talk)

06:19:16, 25 March 2020 review of submission by Lita Evandre

edit


Lita Evandre (talk) 06:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:19:16, 25 March 2020 review of submission by Lita Evandre


Hi Lita Evandre, your submission doesn't have any prose content. A Wikipedia article must go beyond an info box. Also, autobiographies are highly discouraged. Finally, you must provide sources that establish the notability of the subject. That is, multiple independent reliable sources that mention the subject significantly. Your article has been rejected, which means no further action on it can be taken. If you enjoy editing Wikipedia, I would recommend you edit an already created article as creating your first article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia. Sam-2727 (talk) 13:30, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:31:20, 25 March 2020 review of submission by Aslah k

edit


Aslah k (talk) 08:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aslah k, Wikipedia articles are not for promotion. Wikipedia articles are encyclopedia articles: collections of facts for a reader. Thus Wikipedia articles must be written in a neutral tone without promotional language such as "pioneered upon the efforts of two college students" and "An excluseve video posted" (although these are just examples). Also, a reviewer has determined that the subject of your article likely isn't notable, which means no further action can be taken. That is, your submission won't be reviewed again. If you would like to continue editing Wikipedia, I would suggest you edit an already existing article as creating your first article is one of the hardest tasks on Wikipedia. Sam-2727 (talk) 13:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:53:00, 25 March 2020 review of submission by AbdulRehman0364

edit


AbdulRehman0364 (talk) 09:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AbdulRehman0364 What is your question? 331dot (talk) 09:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:58:09, 25 March 2020 review of submission by 198.200.115.29

edit


P.S. I know it can take a long time to get back with a response for submissions such as mine and as such I am grateful that you wer able to get back so quickly. Thank you 198.200.115.29 (talk) 10:58, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Your article is essentially a resume of the subject. That is, except for the last sentence, it is a list of their accomplishments. Also, a reviewer has determined that the subject of your article likely isn't notable. That is, there aren't multiple independent reliable sources that mention the subject of the article non-trivially. If you would like to continue editing Wikipedia, I would encourage you to edit an already existing page as creating your first article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia. Sam-2727 (talk) 13:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:36:44, 25 March 2020 review of draft by Jcollinsycc

edit


I am adding a scientific paper citation for this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Charles_S._Fuchs His most cited work has over 300 collaborative authors (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22810696). When I'm listing the names of the authors for the citation, should I include all of the names, or just the first few and then Dr. Fuchs? Is there a way to add "et al" to the citation, if that would be appropriate? Not sure of the best way to proceed. Thank you for any help! Jcollinsycc (talk) 12:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jcollinsycc, I think the way to do that is to just use the automatic citation creator. So just enter the link, and the citation comes out as this[1]. Let me know if you have further questions! Sam-2727 (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sam-2727, I didn't even know that was an option - thanks so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcollinsycc (talk • contribs) 14:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cancer Genome Atlas Network (2012-07-18). "Comprehensive molecular characterization of human colon and rectal cancer". Nature. 487 (7407): 330–337. doi:10.1038/nature11252. ISSN 1476-4687. PMC 3401966. PMID 22810696.

Request on 14:27:15, 25 March 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Sawhitney36

edit


Hi there, I would like to understand why my draft was declined, I'd like for the understanding to be a bit clearer, from Robert McClenon's review I'm understanding that it was because it didn't qualify for an article to be made on it as it didn't have significant coverage. But that's what I don't understand. It charted and was talked about and I found a page on here about an EP that doesn't have siginicant coverage: Sarah Close's Caught Up EP the page is almost empty. I know I'm still a beginner editor but Wikipedia's rules and guidelines confuse me a lot. There's also a lot of rules and guideline pages on Wikipedia and I haven't read most of them because I haven't been able to find most of them. If it's badly written, can I at least have some help with that from better editors? Or do I have the wrong understanding of their review?

Sawhitney36 (talk) 14:27, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


This better not be declined... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:E5A0:2C60:4C33:3369:AEC8:B806 (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Sawhitney36. Not all articles on Wikipedia are model examples. The page you reference likely isn't notable (at least by the sources provided in the article). The problem of Wikipedia having too many guidelines is a common complaint. Let me help you out a bit. I do agree that your source is notable. I'd just clean up the article to make that clearer. First off, just remove all of your unreliable sources. That is, any time you reference twitter or youtube, just remove that from the article (and the information that it is being used to back up). Also remove references to the "yungblood store," as this isn't a secondary source. This will make your article supported by only reliable sources. Finally, try making the article less of a promotional tone. Specifically, remove the phrase "Credits adapted from Tidal." (just cite directly from that source, no need to say "adapted from"). I would also in general delete that entire "personnel" section as it isn't necessary to know every sound engineer that was part of the production of the album. There are also slight examples throughout the article of stating opinions as facts. For example, "that he had a surprise in London on a boat at the," this is presumably a surprise from the opinion of the artist, not everybody. So put "surprise" in quotes or quote the artist here to ensure that the "surprise" isn't stated as fact. Let me know if you have any other specific questions. Sam-2727 (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, Sam-2727. Thank you for reading the article through thoroughly and helping me out. I have removed all of my twitter and youtube sources but I'd just like to ask why a twitter source, when coming straight from the artist, is an unreliable source? I have also removed the Personnel section and adapted the surprise part and artists store. I had formatted the page from other EP and album pages on here so I thought the Personnel section and referencing to the artist store was a thing that you were supposed to do. I'm slowly learning a lot about Wikipedia rules, do's and don'ts and I have actually learned a lot from your reponse so thank you. Sawhitney36 (talk) 14:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sawhitney36, I'm going to respond to you on your talk page before this gets archived. Sam-2727 (talk) 02:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:32:10, 25 March 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Renwang101

edit


I recently submitted an article to Wiki, but unfortunately been rejected, I asked the reviewer to provide more specific reasons, but only some words that didn't make sense to me. The article URL is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Document_Management_in_E-government

I hope to get some help to make this article been published.

Best regards,

Ren

Renwang101 (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Renwang101, sorry for the late reply. Your article has been rejected as being written in a promotional tone. That is, it doesn't present article factually, stating opinions as if they were facts. Let me know if you have any more specific questions. Sam-2727 (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:32:53, 25 March 2020 review of submission by Lijmaar

edit


Lijmaar (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC) Por qué no recibe mi nombre en wikipedia?[reply]

Aún no eres notable. Theroadislong (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:51:52, 25 March 2020 review of submission by 2600:1700:E5A0:2C60:1138:9EB0:D861:6BA8

edit


2600:1700:E5A0:2C60:1138:9EB0:D861:6BA8 (talk) 16:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have not submitted any drafts to review. 331dot (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you're asking about Draft:Battle For Dream Island, it has been rejected because the topic is not notable (not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). Rejection is meant to be final, to convey that no amount of editing will make the draft acceptable, so volunteers do not intend to review it again. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:35:40, 25 March 2020 review of submission by Ennex2

edit

The submission of the page List of Excel functions was rejected and the link to the draft brings up a page that says it has been deleted. Is it possible for me to retrieve the code of the page that was submitted and deleted? I need it for my own reference. Ennex2 (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ennex2. You may ask the administrator who deleted it, DeltaQuad, but because it was deleted for infringing copyright, it's unlikely that anyone will retrieve it for you. More details can be found in a number of essays dealing with your situation, such as: Help:My article got nominated for deletion! and Wikipedia:Why was the page I created deleted?. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:05:53, 25 March 2020 review of submission by Eeberbach

edit


Eeberbach (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Our submission does not advertise our research, and it does not constitute attack on a person or organization either. It is neutral and objective. It does not constitute new research, and is based on well-known reliable sources. It does not present new original theories, opinions, or insights that were not published before by many reputable sources. The article is notable in the sense that it covers important topics of scalability and expressiveness of EC, not addressed by other Wikipedia pages. We expanded introduction section to address the notability and importance of topics covered by this article. That approach is well-known for specialists in the EC area, but we believe that it should be interesting and useful for general Wikipedia readers who have all necessary explanations and defined concepts included in this submission. We added also the links to several existing related Wikipedia pages Note that the authors of this submission have many years of research and rich publication record in the area of submission – they were in program committees of multiple EC conferences, organized special sessions in congresses on EC, were associate editors and organizers of Ubiquity Symposium on EC in ACM Ubiquity Magazine journal with publications by top EC specialists (e.g., David Fogel, Zbigniew Michalewicz, Xin Yao, Hans-Paul Schwefel, David Wolpert, Moshe Sipper), and published many articles in the area (books, book chapters, journal and conference papers). Thus for sure, the authors of this submission can be considered the experts in EC area. Please unblock our submission (it was corrected according to advice Theroadislong) to allow unbiased neutral review. So far I have an impression that I am talking to the wall.

Eeberbach (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eeberbach Who is "our"? Each account should be exclusively operated by a single individual and not shared. The draft does read as a explanatory essay rather than an encyclopedia article, which should only summarize what independent reliable sources state about a subject. The draft was rejected after numerous prior declines, meaning there is little chance it can be improved, unfortunately. 331dot (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eeberbach, see also the multiple pieces of advice you have been given in the past at the AFC help desk. Sam-2727 (talk) 23:01, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Our" is my co-author and authors of many publications used in this submission. I share their knowledge and reliable sources in the area. Both knowledge and sources are shared, and belong to humanity which is superset of Wikipedia. Because I used their work, I say "our", what should be interpreted in the positive and not negative term. The account is operated by a single individual, i.e. me, who does not hide behind anonymous names (like other Wikipedia editors), thus I did not violate any Wikipedia rule in that.

331dot can claim without any proof that the submission is still a[n] explanatory essay rather than an encyclopedia article despite that article does not diverge from other published pages on EC (evolutionary computation) - it is easy to verify that. It uses exactly independent and reliable sources - please prove that it is otherwise. I understand that for someone everything might look like an essay, despite that it is not. I can write and prove that 2 + 2 = 4, but someone can still claim that for him/her it does read as 5 rather than 4. And for such convictions anybody (including myself with my Ph.D.in mathematics) would be powerless.

331dot wrote that "The draft was rejected after numerous prior declines, meaning there is little chance it can be improved, unfortunately." Exactly, it was 6 declines and final rejection by Sulfurboy who wrote nonsense, did not understand anything from submission,thus with pleasure he blocked the submission entirely. All these were decisions based on misunderstanding, not real reviews. The first decline should not be counted as decline at all (Liance) - he declined it as an "empty" submission - I sent it in pdf, because information about formats accepted by Wikipedia were confusing and not sufficiently clearly provided. Only 3 next "reviews"/declines should be counted: one by Praxidicae who helped me with formatting sources (references and citing them in text). It looks that I convinced him that sources are reliable and their number is sufficient for Wikipedia submission. Next, 2 declines were by Theroadislong repeated practically the same comment about "reliable sources", despite that everything has been corrected, and then I started to understand that "The road to publishing the article would be really long" and steep. The 2nd review by Theroadislong was very short: "Appears to be original research." Note "Appears" - this means that he suspected that it might be original research, but was not sure about that. I proved that it was not original research but an encyclopedic summary of original research based on multiple reliable sources. After that I had 3 "reviews" (2 declines + 1 reject) by Sulfurboy who did not understand anything from submission, and was very subjective and biased in his opinion. He was the first to call it an essay, despite that submission did not have anything common with an essay. Additionally, two his first reviews were exactly the same, thus should be counted as one not two. Either, he was lazy to write a new text or this was an example of Wikipedia "stuttering", because it did not provide any new useful information for the author. After that, I got from Theroadislong some really useful comments (not counted as an official review, nevertheless useful). I agreed with his comments, and made all requested corrections, and I was totally astonished that as the result I got the final rejection from Sulfurboy, who became personally offended because earlier I questioned his motives and knowledge of the area of submission. He did not care about any corrections and wanted simply to penalize me as the retaliation. Because 3 of reviews by Sulfurboy were biased and not objective - I asked for an independent review done by person(s) who knows a little more the area of submission and will not write things that obviously were false. I never got any chance for that, despite that I asked for that multiple times, and made new corrections on rejected text. Thus from 7 reviews only 3 could be considered as reviews, and I should not be blocked by knockout Sulfurboy's decision in such circumstances - to not have any chances for publication in Wikipedia, which I consider that the submission in question would be very useful for general Wikipedia readers.

Eeberbach (talk) 01:31, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eeberbach, Your apparent WP:COI with this article is quite overwhelming. You have accused and attacked multiple editors, insisting at nearly every turn that you are right and they are wrong. Your comments and continued use of an account by multiple people has made it clear that you do not have a willingness to follow even the most basic of Wikipedia policies.
This is exactly why Wikipedia highly discourages people from writing about subjects they have a close connection to, because people are not able to view criticism neutrally and further they view that said criticism as being based in ethos instead of logos. You/You all have called in to question the credibility of Wikipedia, but then turned to it for assistance in the same breath. Please understand that Wikipedia is not an outlet for you to further publish your research. Wikipedia is a collection of topics that are clearly demonstrated to be notable and (this is key) presented in a neutral and formal tone expected of the encyclopedia. Your name calling, accusations, degrading of the encyclopedia's integrity, willful ignorance of basic rules, and insistence of playing the intellectually superior card show that you approaching the topic neutrally is impossible to expect. This, in combination with the fact that the article is still so far from the expected tone show that continuing to review the topic would be an act of futility.
Name calling, accusing others of bias without merit, deriding a communal publication and insisting on intellectual superiority do not work in any academic field I'm aware of. I'm not sure why you (the collective we) thought it would work here. Sulfurboy (talk) 02:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:22:45, 25 March 2020 review of submission by NuvaTelcon

edit

Hey all. I posted on the Teahouse and was asked to come here. I just tried out my first Wiki article, a biography of a living person. It was declined due to not meeting the sourcing requirements: "Sources need to be independent of the subject". I was sure two of my sources, that of a large Guardian article and a short film published by National Geographic would be correct, with all the other sources supporting the information. However, both the reviewer and the users in the Teahouse disagreed. I've since added more sources which don't feature interviews with the subject, but I fear they won't be enough. Any chance I can get some advice, or a good example of a source or biography that fits the Wiki requirements? NuvaTelcon (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NuvaTelcon. To be frank(and I apologize), the source you added are no different. They either consist of interviews/comments from Dunn or are not about him personally, but what he has done. What you have offered might make a good contribution to the 3D printing article, or perhaps an article about 3D printing in space, but not one about Dunn personally. Others may disagree with me, so feel free to get other opinions, but that's what I see. If you haven't already, please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 20:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
331dot, no worries about being frank. Thank you for your comments, both here and on the Teahouse. I understand your point of view - it could be hard to tell clever (or clumsy) self-promotion with sympathetic publications instead of a journalist genuinely going out to interview the subject. I was really hoping The Guardian had enough journalistic heft to be the latter. I had hoped, over time, to tie his article, along with Aaron Kemmer/Made In Space, Inc. and other NewSpace companies, into a better NewSpace article, or an article on industrialisation of space (I argued that Dunn is a leading advocate of this, and thus is notable). Maybe someone has a different opinion, but perhaps I'll just throw in the towel until more articles come out. NuvaTelcon (talk) 20:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NuvaTelcon And it certainly could be that Dunn will get more coverage later. Your draft was declined, not rejected- which means there is at least a chance it can later make it into article space. It might just be too soon right now. Since your draft is in your sandbox, it will stay there for you to work on over time. 331dot (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2020_March_25&oldid=985275782"