Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2018 September 5

= September 5 =

07:43:40, 5 September 2018 review of submission by 194.224.168.10
194.224.168.10 (talk) 07:43, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augur_(software), and this if it has notoriety? Wings has more users and clients than this application. In addition to having a co-invented JSON team member and also has one of the creators of iota serguei popov


 * Firstly, importance (or notoriety etc) aren't equivalent to notability which is whether there is in-depth, reliable, sources about the topic.


 * Secondly, one article or another being in Wikipedia doesn't mean yours should - otherwise one insufficient article could mean we'd have to let anything in. It is possible that it means the Augur article shouldn't remain in the guide.


 * The Augur article has an in-depth source from Fortune. Your draft only uses either crypto sector coverage, all of which is functionally non-independent when it comes to talking about crypto currencies. The latter source is almost entirely a press release (so also isn't independent). Companies/products must meet higher notability requirements, your draft is a significant distance from managing to do so. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

10:43:52, 5 September 2018 review of submission by Dean.Connor
Hi there,

I have submitted a change to an award on this page. Please let me know if this has been approved.

Thank you.

Dean.Connor (talk) 10:43, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

14:04:22, 5 September 2018 review of draft by Camnoble1
How do I add a discography?

Camnoble1 (talk) 14:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

14:37:07, 5 September 2018 review of draft by Colby983
I'm not sure exactly what kind of sources are needed. I already have multiple great sources that should be fine. Please help me to understand this. Colby983 (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, . Unfortunately your sources aren't great for proving notability. They require secondary sources (so not from the schools/groups involved) that are in depth, reliable and independent (so have no interest in pushing any particular point of view - this can include interviews).


 * Try looking for non-school (preferably non-local) newspapers, books/book chapters etc.


 * You also don't really clarify what makes this a particularly notable rivalry - of more note than the tens of thousands of rivalries between nearby schools over sports. WHen you find better sources you should use them to help you expand on this, too.


 * Hope this helps. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

16:13:59, 5 September 2018 review of draft by 196.91.89.196
196.91.89.196 (talk) 16:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi - can you expand on what you are wanting to ask? Nosebagbear (talk) 16:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

17:56:19, 5 September 2018 review of draft by Martasam
Hi there, I have created a page for approval (Gina Cody) I had received a notification that the photo I uploaded would be removed, yet I had sent the necessary permissions from the copyright holder/author to use it. Will the photo be put back up?

Thank you.

Martasam 17:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

19:32:05, 5 September 2018 review of submission by Bobowikiedit
Thanks for reviewing my article. This is my first time creating an article on Wikipedia and I thought I had followed all of the guidelines. My article was rejected as it states that it "reads more like an advertisement." I reviewed all of the guidelines and did my best to keep the article as factual as possible and added a number of external links/references from major publications. I also included information from the subjects company websites, but that was just to add further to the references. I'm happy to modify the content, but I'm not sure what could be changed to make it more "encyclopedia" like. Very much appreciate any help.

Bobowikiedit (talk) 19:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Two major problems:
 * There's a lack of focus (except maybe "gee, what a swell guy!" which gives it the advertising tone)
 * Many of the sources really aren't that good. It's putting quantity over quality.  Really, an article just needs a minimum of three high-quality sources, not tons and tons of "meh" sources.
 * My usual advice for writing an article about anyone or anything:
 * 1) Choose a topic whose notability is attested by discussions of it in several reliable independent sources.
 * 2) Gather as many professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources you can find.
 * 3) Focus on just the ones that are not dependent upon or affiliated with the subject, but still specifically about the subject and providing in-depth coverage (not passing mentions). If you do not have at least three such sources, the subject is not yet notable and trying to write an article at this point will only fail. This fixes the second problem.  Don't bother with Google patents because those are just directory listings.  Especially do not use "PRNewswire.com" or any other press release sites.
 * 4) Summarize those sources left after step 3, adding citations at the end of them. You'll want to do this in a program with little/no formatting, like Microsoft Notepad or Notepad++, and not in something like Microsoft Word or LibreOffice Writer.  Make sure this summary is just bare statement of facts, phrased in a way that even someone who hates the subject can agree with.  This fixes the first problem.
 * 5) Combine overlapping summaries (without arriving at new statements that no individual source supports) where possible, repeating citations as needed. Again, make sure this combined summary is something that even someone who hates the subject can agree with.
 * 6) Paraphrase the whole thing just to be extra sure you've avoided any copyright violations or plagiarism. Again, make sure this paraphrase is something that even someone who hates the subject can agree with.
 * 7) Use the Article wizard to post this draft and wait for approval.
 * 8) Expand the article using sources you put aside in step 2 (but make sure they don't make up more than half the sources for the article, and make sure that affiliated sources don't make up more than half of that).
 * Doing something besides those steps typically results in the article not being approved, or even in its deletion.
 * I would also suggest that the initial redraft focus on just one career, not five. Start with the one that has the most independent sources, then tack the others if they are attested to by independent sources.  If no independent sources verify a particular career, don't bother mentioning it.  Ian.thomson (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)