Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 February 25

= February 25 =

01:31:04, 25 February 2020 review of submission by HsChamberlain
An article I submitted was reviewed and declined on the grounds that the citations did not meed minimum standards. The comment stated that footnotes must be used. My article included footnotes. I added a citation I felt was necessary and resubmitted the article. The second review was also declined and the reviewer left the following comment: "It was outlined to the page creator where all inline citations were needed and this was resubmitted without being fixed Sulfurboy." If there was indeed an effort to "outline" where the article needed citations, it was certainly not made immediately obvious. I am more than happy to correct, properly format, or add citations as necessary. However, it remains unclear what exactly is problematic about the footnotes or inline citations in the original article. Thank you.

HsChamberlain (talk) 01:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

05:56:49, 25 February 2020 review of draft by Daphinevadhera
Hi Team, the article is in review for a long time. I have made a log of changes to make it Wikipedia worthy. Please share your thoughts.

Daphinevadhera (talk) 05:56, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There are thousands of draft waiting for review; reviews are conducted in no particular order by volunteers, so you will need to be patient. Just looking at it quickly, I'm not clear on how this development meets the special definition of notability; the draft does little more than state that the development exists. Wikipedia articles must do more than that, summarizing the significant coverage given to a subject by independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 09:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you 331dot for sharing your thoughts. If you just do a google search for Hiranandani Parks Oragadam, you will find the amount of interest generated by users for this project. Apart from the development, the page also carries a brief history of the project with references from independent reliable sources and I have also added some more information about other details like Green Base with reliable references. Regards Daphinevadhera (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I re-reviewed it. I concur with 331dot and previous previous reviewers. — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 12:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

09:38:27, 25 February 2020 review of submission by Lottie1306
Hi there - I have submitted the draft page three times now and each time stripping the content right back in accordance with the feedback I have been given. Having compared my submission for the page titled "MAISON de SABRÉ" to other pages of a similar nature, I feel we are very much in line with the tone of voice, factualness and referencing as the others. I would appreciate some more detailed feedback as to why my page keeps getting rejected and what we can do to get it across the line for publishing. Thanks so much in advance for your help! Lottie1306 (talk) 09:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If you work for or represent this business, you must formally comply with WP:COI and WP:PAID. In the draft, you should remove everything cited to the business's website, Wikipedia articles should only summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage state. I see at least one blog cited; blogs are not usually reliable sources as they usually lack a reputation of editorial control and fact checking. The buzzfeed source is also inappropriate. If there are not a sufficient amount of independent reliable sources with significant coverage, the business would not merit an article at this time, and no amount of editing can change that. 331dot (talk) 09:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

11:50:17, 25 February 2020 review of submission by 167.192.187.68
167.192.187.68 (talk) 11:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Do you have a specific question about something? — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

13:33:01, 25 February 2020 review of draft by Minjah
I am not quite sure what the problem with the sources is. The fact that they are in Finnish? Are they marked wrong? I can't do anything about the language as it is a Finnish person the article is about... Minjah (talk) 13:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a biography and as such everything in it has to be cited and no content is allowed that does not appear in reliable sources (no personal websites or autobiographies). There are many sentences in the draft that have no citation attached, so it is unclear which sources were used for those. Sources being in Finnish is fine. — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 15:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

16:08:06, 25 February 2020 review of draft by Vdroulia
Hi, I see that my draft for ACSR: Aids and Cancer Specimen Resource was declined for submission. I added more sources and I'm hoping this does the trick. Is there anything else I can do?

Thanks!

Vdroulia (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You've added references, but it isn't clear what they are referencing because you don't have any inline citations. Please read WP:CITE for information on this. The mission statement should be removed, as it is impossible to independently verify what an organization's "mission" is.  Wikipedia articles should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about the subject, not what the subject says about itself.
 * If you are associated with this orgnaization, you must review and comply with the conflict of interest and paid editing policies(the latter applies even for unpaid interns/volunteers). 331dot (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

17:29:23, 25 February 2020 review of submission by Maria Pereira5
In first place thank you for the feedback.

My intention was to create an article that would reveal how important this event is for marketing, especially in Europe. I intended to write an article about one of the most important european marketing event that takes place in Oporto, Portugal, for everyone's interest. In line with what I did there are many other articles like this one: https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Summit

How can I do so that my article is accepted by you. Can you please help?

Thank you very much in advance. Maria Pereira5 (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The major part of your draft is not written in English this is the English Wikipedia so Portuguese is not acceptable, also Wikipedia cannot be used as a source. Theroadislong (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

17:31:53, 25 February 2020 review of submission by Wrestle12345
Sources are now added in and reliable. This is the top American Freestlye Wrestler at his weight and a an Olympic hopeful.

Wrestle12345 (talk) 17:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Sources have to be independent and in-depth. theopenmat and uwbadgers are short PR-like news snippets, so they are not significant coverage. flowrestling is mostly person's own words, so it's not really independent. As an interview it might tip the scales if there were other quality sources, but on its own it's insufficient. — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 18:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

18:28:27, 25 February 2020 review of submission by Martindrechsler
Hi,

I recently submitted the above article about ecological-economic modelling which however got rejected very soon with the explanation: "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 would like to revise my article to get it into an acceptable form and for this have a couple of questions. I do agree that the article reads like an essay but I am wondering in which way it differs here from numerous other related wiki articles like the ones on ecosystem models or system dynamics. If my article is an essay, what is, e.g., the article on ecosystem models then? Or, how much an essay may an article be to be suitable for Wikipedia? The second recommendation above seems to emphasise the preference of secondary over primary sources. Again taking the article on ecosystem models as an example, the related wiki articles I read contain as many or even more references to primary sources (original scientific research papers); various of these wiki articles also include references to textbooks which might be regarded as secondary sources (?), - as are the books cited in my article. So (how) should I revise my references list? Lastly, a neutral point of view was demanded. I perfectly agree with this requirement, but I cannot find any violation of this in my article. Except that the article presents my personal view on the method of ecological-economic modelling, but how can one write something without a personal view? I would think most Wikipedia articles are based on personal views, and to my understanding for this very reason it is the philosophy of Wikipedia that articles are open to amendments by other authors if these think their views are underrepresented.

To summarise, I would be eager to revise my article to meet the Wikipedia standards, but frankly, I have no idea how to do this. The guidelines on how to write a Wikipedia article which I had consulted before drafting my article, are too general to be of help here. So I'd be glad if you could give me some specific advice.

Best, Martindrechsler

Martindrechsler (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


 * In short, Wikipedia articles should be 0% essay. The relevant policy is the linked no original research -- everything has to be supported by sources. Wikipedia is open to editing by anyone, but only within the policies and community guidelines. Reducing bias and representing sources proportionally is the goal, but not adding personal views or disproportionate coverage of alternate views. Other articles, especially on obscure or specialized topics, often have issues, so you should be careful using them as examples (most were never approved through a formal process like this). Ecosystem model looks like it cites almost everything and states facts directly without any speculation. Research papers may or may not be primary sources, depending if they are directly connected with a topic and which content is actually used. They may or may not be reliable, depending on authors, peer review and publisher. — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 18:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Also be wary of citing what you see as other similar articles as a reason for yours to exist. As this is a volunteer project, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected, even for years. See other stuff exists. 331dot (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

18:45:34, 25 February 2020 review of submission by Circabambam
Circabambam (talk) 18:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Do you have a specific question? The band is is not notable as far as we can tell from the sources provided. — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 18:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

19:26:33, 25 February 2020 review of submission by Netabomani
Hi, I submitted my first draft for an article on Stephanie Dinkins and it was rejected because the subject was deemed not to be notable enough. I improved the citations on the page in order to denote notability and was wondering if someone could let me know if I'm on the right track. This is an artist who is featured in recognized museums, institutions, publications, radio, television etc. and I want to make sure other people can learn about them on Wikipedia. Thank you.

Netabomani (talk) 19:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

19:34:38, 25 February 2020 review of submission by VAnalytica
How can I make this better. It is important for his online precense to excist on wikipedia. +

VAnalytica (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * First, you must change your username immediately, as usernames cannot be that of a business or organization- please visit either Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS to do so. Second, you must review and comply with the conflict of interest and paid editing policies(the latter is a Wikipedia Terms of Use requirement and mandatory).  Regarding your draft, Wikipedia has no interest in aiding anyone's career or "online presence", or in enhancing search results for them. This is not social media. This is an encyclopedia, where article subjects must be shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources to meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability; in this case, the definition of a notable actor. Wikipedia has no interest in what a subject(or its representative) wants to say about itself.  If this person does not meet our notability criteria, they would not merit an article here at this time and no amount of editing can change that. Wikipedia also prefers that independent editors write articles and not those with a conflict of interest.  If you just want to tell the world about your client, you should use social media. 331dot (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

23:40:49, 25 February 2020 review of submission by 84.24.122.95
{{SAFESUBST:Void|

Below this line, tell us why you are requesting a re-review. Take as many lines as you need.--> Can You Move this page to Non-draft? 84.24.122.95 (talk) 23:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You've been given an answer to this question on your draft itself. 331dot (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC)