Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2016 February 5

= February 5 =

07:46:30, 5 February 2016 review of submission by Vikash rajendran
please review my supreme sundar article. Because I could not get any review from ur side.

Vikash rajendran (talk) 07:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


 * It was resubmitted only two days ago, there's no hurry. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

12:31:14, 5 February 2016 review of submission by Kjagan2
My sources online are less but I do have print out and scanned copies of the news articles that are focusing exclusively on Mr. JebaSingh, How do I use them as reference and Can someone tell me what part of the article requires more references.

Kjagan2 (talk) 12:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Kjagan2, the easiest way to cite a newspaper article is to simply give the complete details of the article in the reference. At a minimum you must give the name of the newspaper, the date, the article title and preferrably also the page number. If the newspaper has an online version you can also give the link to the article in the reference. Generally you need to give references for any disputable claim, but we prefer that everything except totally obvious facts (the sky is blue) should be referenced to a published source. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Request on 17:08:34, 5 February 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Tal1962
Although a professional journalist, this is my first time submitting an article. I've written one about an indie singer. I submitted feeling it might be rejected, and it was. I'd like to discuss the issues with this kind of performer and wiki-rules, as well as some assistance in revising the article in order to resubmit. I don't want to do so until it is correct along wiki lines. But I also have found that quite a few others have had similar issues when it comes to submitting or writing articles for musicians like this.

I would appreciate relevant guidance and consideration of the following in order to improve this article:

Unfortunately, as with most indie performers who prefer to follow their own indie path, some of the links I have used have been considered unacceptable. There is a problem insomuch as these kinds of performers rarely chase traditional PR. That said, this particular performer does meet more than one of the criterion required to have a wiki page. Nearly all of the platforms who review these kinds of artists are themselves indie-platforms. Although I respect the rules wiki has set, I also notice that these have been hotly debated when it comes to some of the reasons the article was declined.

The reasons given were (please understand that I am not debating these reasons, but am asking for guidance and consideration based on my perspective and the issues facing this sub-culture):

1) "Do not use the person's own works as references."

Unless I am misreading the wiki policy on this, but the attribution page states:

"Material from self-published or questionable sources may be used in articles about those sources, so long as: it is relevant to their notability (In this case I believe it is) it is not contentious; (It is not) it is not unduly self-serving; (I suppose this depends on the editor's perspective) it does not involve claims about third parties; (This may be a snag in some places within the article) it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; (I don't believe it does) there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it; (there is not) the article is not based primarily on such sources (it is not)"

2) "Also, you cannot use personal sites (Boundless world) or social media as references."
 * The personal site in question links not to an article but to an interview. Is the issue here merely the type of site, or the interview itself?
 * Also, the only SM reference pertains to the artists musicpreneur success thus far. Surely there is no greater evidence than a link to the artists actual SM page (in this case, Twitter) as well as to an indie article that also covers this same topic.
 * Finally, as stated on the attribution page, "Material from self-published or questionable sources may be used in articles about those sources...it is relevant to their notability." In this case it certainly is.

3) Mention was also made that I should "See wp:NMUSIC for the criteria for notability of musicians." That criteria includes:


 * Is cited in reliable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching in a particular music genre. [He has]
 * Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture. [He has, but this hipster sub-culture is almost exclusively catered to by the very kind of sites that have been disputed as being notable.

4) My apologies if I have not formatted this correctly. There also appears to be some debate about that as well and I find it a bit confusing. Thank you in advance for any assitance that can be offered!

Tal1962 (talk) 17:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi. (first, I renumbered your questions above, to differentiate the 2 #2's). I'll attempt to answer some of your questions. First, your conflating whether a source can be used for attribution purposes, which is the section you quote above, versus whether or not that same source can be used to establish notability. Two different things. The two overriding concepts regarding using self-published, or non-reliable, sources for notability purposes are WP:SELFPUB and WP:SELFSOURCE, which clearly show that they cannot be used to establish notability. However, once notability is established, they can be used as a source to verify underlying facts in the article, as long as those facts aren't what I call "assertions". In other words, you can use the artists' webpage to confirm date of birth, or marriages, tour dates, etc., but you can't use it to back up a claim that they are the greatest guitar player who ever lived. In your article, for instance, using a primary source (which an interview is) to verify the claim that he uses a variety of artists as inspiration is perfectly okay, but that fact adds zero to his notability. I think that answers part of your "interview" question as well. In addition, the Boundless site seems to have no editorial oversight, so therefore it wouldn't pass being a reliable source - it's simply a blog.


 * I can't speak to the essence of question #3. It's why I try to avoid evaluating musical articles. There's so much niche stuff, and so much of the niche stuff doesn't come close to passing RS muster.


 * On a completely different tack, even if your article had enough references to show notability, it's written in too informal a style for an encyclopedia. Your prose soars with too much fluff for an encyclopedia article. Articles on Wikipedia attempt to simply state facts. They should be dry. Phrases like "surrounded by a wild ocean and rugged mountains", and "modern-day troubadour, a storyteller and a musicpreneur", while vivid, should really go away, as well as industry colloquialisms such as "gigs". Hope this helps.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

19:30:44, 5 February 2016 review of submission by 50.35.13.146
50.35.13.146 (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, do you have a specific question about a draft in particular? Thanks, /wiae   /tlk  19:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

22:20:07, 5 February 2016 review of submission by Markcalogero
My sense is that this whole process of submission is quite cryptic. Even the process of asking questions.

I tried to submit an entry (referenced above). I received a clear critique--to provide more context. I followed the critique.

The second critique gave no further editorial suggestion; merely reiterated the first critique that I had clearly responded to.

again, am not sure how to reference my piece. am hoping the cut and paste will do it.

it might be referenced by my name: Mark Calogero

or should be found under "Theory of Narrative Thought applied...."

thank you.

Markcalogero (talk) 22:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Markcalogero, you have not actually addressed the main issue of the previous review(s) - it is still very hard for the average reader to form a coherent idea of what the subject of the article is. If you look at well written articles, the vast majority of them start with a simple declarative sentence that defines the subject of the article: "The greater striped wurzelfuss is a mythical animal featured in the Magical Mystery World books by A N Author." Your draft should start with a clear definition of it's topic.
 * However, from what I was able to pick out of your draft, upon very attentive reading, it seems to be about a case study performed by a college class of one specific instance of the application of Theory of narrative thought to a particular court case. This presents us with another problem, because as a rule Wikipedia does not cover individual case studies of a general topic, unless that specific case study itself has become notable through being the subject of further commentary and analysis by people not involved with the case study itself. So basically, unless the college class asignment itself was the subject of further exposition and commentary by recognized experts in the field, published in the mainstream academic literature, the case study is not itself notable and we can never accept an article about it. Yet all is not lost, the Theory of narrative thought article needs quite a lot of improvement, and you seem to be qualified to do such improvement. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)