Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 September 6

= September 6 =

08:31:43, 6 September 2017 review of submission by Diksha thukral
Diksha thukral (talk) 08:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I recently created an article on Mr Universe Tarun Dutta. It unfortunately got declined. I am not getting the exact reason. Please help me out in this. PAGE''' ]]) 17:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Your draft was declined because Wikipedia has very strict policies on biographies of living people. Every fact that you state in the article must be backed up with a citation to a reliable source. For information on how to insert references, see Referencing for Beginners. For what Wikipedia considers to be a reliable source, see Identifying reliable sources. --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|'''TALK

14:06:49, 6 September 2017 review of submission by J.f.appleby
Hello there!. I recently submitted an article (Draft:Spread(Intuitionism), this would not parse in the template provided for some reason so I am linking it here) which was declined; but I don't quite understand the feedback given and (quite helpfully) my reviewer included a link to this page on my talk page.

Specifically, I was informed that the article was declined because "This submission provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter".

I am uncertain if this means that my explanation of the phenomena of spreads was lacking in some way, or if I had simply failed to communicate their place in the world of mathematics?

If it is the latter, I would very much welcome feedback on where the explanation falls down; if it is the former, I would appreciate some guidance on how one would contextualise a mathematical phenomena such as this as this to a non-expert.

I have, similarly, edited the existing page of Bar Induction. I have made substantial improvements over the original which contained several inaccuracies, and the reason I authored the page on spreads (and intend to author the pages on the fan and uniform continuity thorems). Would this page, if subject to review, be found guilty of the same flaw?

Hope to hear from you soon.

J.f.appleby (talk) 14:06, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, J.F. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.  The best source of information as to why your submission was declined will be the reviewer who looked at it.  You can find that reviewer's Talk page link in the "decline box" at the top of the submission.  But before posting here, I took a quick look at it and found that I, too, would have reached the same conclusion.  The issue isn't so much the explanation itself.  Nor, to my way of thinking, is it one of explaining the topic's place in the world of mathematics.  I see the problem as being the one that you yourself suggested -- that of making this topic understandable to a non-mathematician.  Wikipedia is not an academic journal; nor is it a textbook.  It is intended to be an encyclopedia by that will be read by ordinary readers.  We do assume that those readers will be reasonably well-educated, but that's pretty much the only assumption we make.  If this specialised meaning of "spread" has any real-world application, you haven't shown it.  Indeed, you haven't given the general reader any reason to even care that a few mathematicians have invented (discovered?) the concept.  And yes, I would apply these same concerns to the article on Bar Induction. As for your question regarding a review of Bar Induction, that article hasn't ever been nominated for deletion and I'm unwilling to predict how such a nomination would turn out (other than to say that I myself would recommend its deletion).  Indeed, I'd be very happy if other reviewers here at the Help Desk would join in this discussion to let us know what they think.  In my own experience (both in real life and on Wikipedia), the average person's eyes glaze over whenever mathematics gets discussed at anything higher than the middle-school level.  This might explain why so few of Wikipedia's math articles ever receive the scrutiny that I think they should get. On a different note, you do need to improve the referencing in the draft.  Simply listing two books at the end of the draft is not good enough.  You really need to let the reader know where in each book the material in the draft is being taken from.  The techniques for doing this are explained in WP:Referencing for beginners (sorry if the name sounds condescending -- they really ought to re-name it). I hope this response has been helpful.  If you have any questions, feel free to ask.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

16:49:53, 6 September 2017 review of submission by Obxpirates
Hello, I added more Wikipedia links to the Malcolm Cochran Wikipedia page. If I need to do anything else, please let me know. My draft has been rejected twice. I believe I resubmitted it again, but wanted to make sure.
 * Hello, Obxpirates. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.  And yes, your draft has been re-submitted.  With our current backlog, I expect it will take at least a month for another reviewer to take a look at it.  But for what it's worth, I don't think you've overcome the concerns expressed by the most-recent reviewer.  All of your sources appear to be from Ohio, leading me to question whether the subject is of interest to anyone outside of that state.  You might want to take a look at WP:ARTIST, which lists the criteria that we normally use when assessing the notability of a creative person.  I don't see how the subject meets any of those criteria.  But perhaps you disagree and, if so, I'll be happy to discuss the matter with you.  I hope this response has been helpful.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

17:49:25, 6 September 2017 review of submission by Soeunseo
My article for the poet and translator Jake Levine includes numerous established Korean news outlets and an american one, and the subject's bios from famous, noteworthy presses and magazines. He is a very important figure in contemporary Korean poetry in translation, and one of the news sources says so. If I translate and direct-quote that line, will it help? What else can I do to convince others that he is noteworthy? Soeunseo (talk) 17:49, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, Soeunseo. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.  When we look to assess the notability of poets and other creative people, we generally look to the criteria set forth in WP:CREATIVE.  And I don't see how the subject has satisfied any of those criteria.  Most of the sources that you provide in your draft don't give in-depth coverage to the subject.  And the brief biographies contained in some of them were almost certainly written by the subject himself or by a person or organization associated with him.  The only source that even comes close to be substantive is the one from khan.co.kr, and I think this is the one that you specifically mentioned in your posting here.  But this source appears to be largely an interview with the subject, and so is not going to be considered evidence of in-depth third-party coverage.  In all, you haven't convinced me that this poet and translator has achieved encyclopedic notability.  But another reviewer might see things differently when your submission comes up for another review.  I hope this response has been helpful.  If you have any questions, feel free to ask.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

23:50:34, 6 September 2017 review of submission by 24.222.79.230
24.222.79.230 (talk) 23:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Stepwise ways to submit article on wikipedia
 * Hello, IP address. If you are asking how to submit an article to Wikipedia, you might want to take a look at WP:Your first article.  If you have any further questions, feel free to ask.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)