Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2018 January 4

= January 4 =

01:46:39, 4 January 2018 review of submission by 2605:E000:151E:81F9:98D6:6622:1C7:CB55
This is a followup on a question I submitted yesterday (about grouping duplicates together under one citation). Many thanks to "Worldbruce" for the help.

I’ve spent the afternoon with the duplicates but haven’t unlocked the code (I still have three duplicates: Foldes in #3 and#7; Sedley in #8 & $10;  Ferrara in #17 & #23)

After reading your advice (about blogs), I went in and took out several citations for Bahadur. I left some in but plan to try and find other sources. Quite often, Bahadur's citations were grouped with others – all seemed to confirm the same information.

Considering Bahadur’s background (King’s College London and the National Gallery) and her articles (on the Art and Aesthetics website she founded as well as the official blog at the University of St. Andrews, Scotland, UK for the Institute for Theology, Imagination, and the Arts), I’m hesitant to discard her entirely. I’d appreciate the official Wikipedia view on the matter.

Another point that I need clarification on for two items: I was able to find and listen to the documentary “Chelsea on the Rocks” as well as Grant’s television program (see quotes below). Information and/or quotes for the draft article were taken directly from the two (online) videos. Did I source this adequately in the references (Ferrara and Grant)?

(1.) While being interviewed by Abel Ferrara in the documentary "Chelsea on the Rocks," Alfredson told of a hotel resident who had a psychotic break and slashed several of Hawk’s paintings….

(2.) Hawk and his wife appeared on Richard E. Grant’s television program “Living and Dying,”[20] part of the “Hotel Secrets” series…

I appreciate your help – although I have a couple more citations to dig out over the next couple of days, I would like to resubmit the article sometime this weekend.

2605:E000:151E:81F9:98D6:6622:1C7:CB55 (talk) 01:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)Leehanson100

2605:E000:151E:81F9:98D6:6622:1C7:CB55 (talk) 01:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

01:55:02, 4 January 2018 review of submission by Leehanson100
This is a duplicate entry since I am uncertain whether I was logged in on the other computer.

This is a followup on a question I submitted yesterday (about grouping duplicates together under one citation). Many thanks to "Worldbruce" for the help.

I haven't been able to eliminate duplicates (I still have three: Foldes in #3 and#7; Sedley in #8 & $10; Ferrara in #17 & #23)

After reading Worldbruce's advice (about blogs), I went in and took out several citations for Bahadur (which may not be a reliable source). I left some in but plan to try and find other sources. Quite often, Bahadur's citations were grouped with others – all confirmed the same information.

Considering Bahadur’s background (King’s College London and the National Gallery) and her articles (on the Art and Aesthetics website she founded as well as the official blog at the University of St. Andrews, Scotland, UK for the Institute for Theology, Imagination, and the Arts), I’m hesitant to discard her entirely. I’d appreciate the official Wikipedia view on the matter.

Another point that I need clarification on is for two items: I was able to find and listen to the documentary “Chelsea on the Rocks” as well as Grant’s television program (see quotes below). Information and/or quotes for the draft article were taken directly from the two (online) videos. Did I source this adequately in the references (Ferrara and Grant)?

(1.) While being interviewed by Abel Ferrara in the documentary "Chelsea on the Rocks," Alfredson told of a hotel resident who had a psychotic break and slashed several of Hawk’s paintings…. (2.) Hawk and his wife appeared on Richard E. Grant’s television program “Living and Dying,”[20] part of the “Hotel Secrets” series…

I appreciate your help – although I have a couple more citations to dig out over the next couple of days, I would like to resubmit the article sometime this weekend.

LeeHan 01:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)Leehanson100

LeeHan 01:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leehanson100 (talk • contribs)


 * Wikipedia policy is unambiguous. Quoting from WP:BLPSPS, "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. 'Self-published blogs' in this context refers to personal and group blogs" (emphasis in the original). A blogger's background, credentials, and other published work don't factor into it. Most editors will argue that if the content is important enough to belong in Wikipedia, it will have been published in a better source.


 * I've consolidated Foldes and Sedley for you. There are some problems with the way Ferrara is used as a source. For a direct quote from the documentary it's appropriate to cite the documentary, but keep in mind the purpose of a citation. Does knowing where the documentary premiered help a reader locate the quote in the source? Does a link to imdb, which, being user-generated, is not a reliable source? What would be useful is so a reader could get the DVD from a library, and a time code (e.g. 21 minutes 19 seconds in) so that they could locate the quote without trawling through the whole work. Citing the documentary will not support the description of the quote as "memorable" or the interpretation of the quote as meaning Alfredson had no animosity. A secondary source that analyzes the documentary would be needed.


 * If you add a time code to one of the Ferrara citations, then it will no longer be possible to combine the two. The second may not be necessary. A synopsis of a work usually doesn't require an inline citation, so long as it would be obvious to anyone viewing the work. The work is understood to be the source. Beware of introducing any opinion of your own into the synopsis. What you see as him speaking "candidly" might be seen differently by someone else, but everyone can probably agree that he is speaking.


 * It won't affect whether the draft is accepted or not, but the list sections of the draft could be improved by following Manual of Style/Lists. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

01:59:54, 4 January 2018 review of submission by Avatar317
Hello. I submitted the above article for creation and it was rejected with the statement: "This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner."

I ATTEMPTED to write it with a neutral point of view, and it includes no original research that I know of, it is all sourced and referenced. The editor unfortunately did not point out any SPECIFIC places of claimed original research or non-neutral point of view.

If those instances exist, could someone please point out the specifics of WHERE they exist in this article so that I can improve it?

Thanks!

(Additional comment) While the section: "Causes" of the CA housing shortage may APPEAR to be original research, it is really points condensed from the CA LAO report (reference 1) p 12-14. If there is a better way to reference these sources, please let me know. I tried using a named reference and including a quote, but I would need to relist the entire link every time I use a different quote, and it would appear as a different source...but if this is the better thing to do, please let me know.

Thanks!

Avatar317 (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi . The draft reads like it was written by someone with a strong opinion. Having an opinion can color the result in unintended ways. Scholarly works (and good Wikipedia articles) tend to be much more guarded than the draft, they qualify statements carefully, and attribute them inline.


 * Consider just one sentence in the lead, "Due to the high cost of housing, California now has the nation's highest poverty rate, at 20.4%, or just over 1 in 5 people, as well as the most homeless persons of any state in the nation, 135,000. (a 15% increase from 2015)."


 * Opinion should be attributed, as in, "According to the California Budget and Policy Center ..." The cited source actually says the poverty rate in California is 16th in the country and only slightly above the national average, but another metric, the new supplemental poverty measure, puts California 1st. Qualify. The source also says the SPM takes into account regional costs of housing, taxes, and medical care. A good source would evaluate to what degree taxes and medical care cause California to have the highest SPM. It's original research to say that "Due to the high cost of housing, California now has ... the most homeless persons of any state". The cited source doesn't say that is the reason. California has a population 50% larger than that of the next largest state, so it is hardly surprising that it also has the most homeless people.


 * Problems like this throughout the draft make it read more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. If you can find scholarly sources, they would help. To some degree the problems can be fixed by editing, but I don't think that will be enough. Many places at many times have had housing shortages, but note that the only other Wikipedia article with "housing shortage" in its title is a relatively recent (2 years old) creation. To me that suggests that shortages and surpluses of housing are generally better dealt with within articles on broader topics. --Worldbruce (talk) 07:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * @Worldbruce Thank you for your constructive criticism. I will do my best to eliminate opinion from the article and source or remove all statements like those you pointed out.


 * I believe that this shortage is significant, in that (as articles I referenced point out) this shortage is (in areas) by far the largest in the nation; is called by most media sources as a "crisis" rather than a shortage, because of its effects; and that its cause is many systemic/structural/legal causes 40 years in the making, (San Franciso is essentially the "poster child" for this shortage) and I feel that it would be helpful if the average person could find an easy to read a summary explaining this situation and causes, and not have to read the entire 44 page CA LAO report and many separate news articles to gain a basic understanding of the OVERALL situation.


 * Again, thanks for your input--Avatar317 (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)Avatar317

10:38:03, 4 January 2018 review of submission by Suydigitra
Suydigitra (talk) 10:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi,

May I know the reason why my article (Suyati Technologies) has been declined?

Is it because of the content or due to lack of "References" in the article? If so could you please mention the ways to improve the article.


 * The reason Draft:Suyati Technologies has been declined is explained in the rejection notice at the top of the draft: "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia." It should also be declined for containing no references to independent sources.
 * If you want to improve it, deleting the nauseatingly promotional language, e.g. "2010 witnessed Suyati’s immaculate growth in terms of clientele, employees and global presence. The company spread its wings to the European IT space", will be relatively easy. It may be harder, or impossible, to find the references to the reliable independent published sources that you'll need to establish that the business is notable. Maproom (talk) 12:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

12:51:00, 4 January 2018 review of submission by Ahadzhiyska1
Hi everyone,

I added an AfC submission for PayU. Unfortunately, there is a box that wrongfully states - according to a Wikipedia admin - that the article is not submitted for review. The admin tried to remove this box, but was unsuccessful. I know that Wikipedia is experiencing a severe backlog when it comes to submissions and I respect your timelines. However, I just want to ensure that the article is indeed submitted for review, as I can't see it under the current Category:Pending AfC submissions list.

Many thanks for your help in advance.

Ahadzhiyska1 (talk) 12:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, I have complete the submission for you, it is now correctly queued for review. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi - Many thanks for your help! It's much appreciated!

Request on 13:00:48, 4 January 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Jakelewis2
The request for assistance is to get an article accepted that has been rejected. Please kindly assist.

Jakelewis2 (talk) 13:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Your article was rejected by a fellow editor because the references don't adequately show notability. Every person on Wikipedia who has a article requires some notability, i.e. they have received significant coverage. It is your responsibility as page creator to show how the person has significant coverage. See the guidelines at WP:BIO. Your article does not adequately show why the person is notable for inclusion and you need to include more references, which are reliable, secondary, independent and verifiable. For example, your sources from Pindula are not reliable sources -- a good start would be news articles on the subject.  st  170  e  14:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You've also got some pretty strong language in that draft which could not survive even with impeccable sources. Wikipedia articles are written in a Neutral tone, which this draft most certainly isn't. KJP1 (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the advise. I will work with the advise you have given. Jakelewis2 (talk)