Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2018 June 24

= June 24 =

00:19:00, 24 June 2018 review of submission by Sparktorn
Hello, could anyone please help to add on anything to this political ideology and make it "acceptable" for Wikipedia standards? Cheers. Sparktorn (talk) 00:19, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * - You'll need more, and stronger, sources if you want to show this is a serious political philosophy. At present, you've three, partisan and POV, blogs and an author who is described on the German Wikipedia as an "activist" and doesn't appear to be either a political philosopher or an historian. That's not nearly enough to show this is a serious political position that has been discussed in credible and reliable sources. As a personal aside, from your description, it doesn't sound very like a serious philosophy. KJP1 (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

05:49:20, 24 June 2018 review of submission by Srunger72
Srunger72 (talk) 05:49, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I am new to creating a page -- Shirtless Violinist (Matthew Olshefski). I received feedback from three reviewers and made changes. People responded within a day to those re-submissions. However, I have been waiting 5 days tor a response to my last submission. I also received another noticed that sounded like my submission was approved in several categories. But I see no change.

Can you look to see the status of my submission and let me know what happens next in the process or what I may need to do. I am really in the dark.


 * We get to about 75% of submissions within a couple days, but it can take 3 weeks due to the 1000 page backlog. Easy declines often happen quickly but more complex analysis may take longer. Legacypac (talk) 05:58, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

08:12:52, 24 June 2018 review of submission by 2405:204:3484:32C:CFB:ABAD:1304:44C
2405:204:3484:32C:CFB:ABAD:1304:44C (talk) 08:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you haven’t got any sources. Sources are the lifeblood of Wikipedia. They demonstrate Notability and they allow readers to Verify the content. Without them, you’ve not got an article. KJP1 (talk) 14:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

14:31:40, 24 June 2018 review of submission by Chezzy79
I'm having trouble understanding what you would consider to be a "neutral" source... I have referred to other already-approved Wikipedia articles when writing this Jon Kuhn article, such as Jack Storms, Gary Beecham, and this Jon Kuhn article contain far more neutral, verifiable, and unbiased sources. Also, I have found Jon Kuhn's mention here [] and that was not added by me, as you can see. However, it clearly shows the need for Wikipedia to have an entry on Jon Kuhn, and most of the artists on that page ALREADY WITH Wikipedia entries, are far less notable artist than Jon Kuhn with much less verifiable contents in their pages. I do not understand the basis of this Jon Kuhn article being rejected, when these articles entries in Wikipedia.

I also would think that PBS, Smithsonian, Henry Ford Museum, etc. are more than credible sources to be used to indicate the notability of the artist, but as a contributor, I would appreciate it if you could explain why you wouldn't agree, and show me an example of something you would consider worthy for Wikipedia.

Chezzy79 (talk) 14:31, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi . You asked this question at User talk:The Mighty Glen and received a good answer. To elaborate:


 * Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality articles and poor quality articles. The existence of articles that do not meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines does not mean they have been in any way "approved". It may simply mean that no one has gotten around to deleting them yet. They are not a good excuse to create more such articles. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why. If you wish to learn from example articles, be sure to use only Wikipedia's best.


 * Sources must be reliable, and the bulk of an article about Kuhn should be based on sources that are independent of Kuhn (i.e. not written by or supplied by him, not from a gallery selling his work, not a press release, not a primary source interview). I've added a couple potential sources to a "further reading" section of the draft.


 * Sources need not be neutral, but a Wikipedia article must be written from a neutral point of view. In other words, it must represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." The draft may not say in Wikipedia's voice things like "renowned as one of the world's leading", "the pioneer behind the now-popular technique", and "Light is an important element in Kuhn's work". Opinions need to be attributed, such as "According to curator so-and-so, ..." or "Art critic so-and-so writes, ..." Any original research does not belong.


 * Kuhn holds the copyright to his 3D sculptures. To publish a photograph of one requires a license from him. See Donating copyrighted materials for how to do that. The number of photos you have uploaded attributed to yourself, and your single-minded purpose at Wikipedia of writing about Kuhn suggests that you have a close connection to him that may facilitate obtaining and documenting the necessary permissions. That would be wonderful. We love photos that we can legally use. It also suggests that you have a conflict of interest, in which case you should declare that connection and really shouldn't be editing an article about him. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

20:59:12, 24 June 2018 review of submission by Audrey1125
I would like to know why the page "The Civility of Albert Cashier (musical!" I put up for publishing has been declined. Thank you! Audrey (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * - The main problem is sourcing, as the reviewer indicated. You've removed the 19-odd from a music uploading site, none of which were reliable, but you're still some way from "significant coverage". Of the five you've now got, three are plain listings and one's not independent. That leaves one, Source 4. That's fine, but it's only one source. You need greater coverage to demonstrate Notability. A few more reviews like 4 and you're there. As a secondary issue, the plot summary is too long. KJP1 (talk) 22:00, 24 June 2018 (UTC)