Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 January 21

= January 21 =

03:35:26, 21 January 2020 review of submission by Tonysy191
Would like to ask for review of this article. Tonysy191 (talk) 03:35, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , It was previously reviewed, and rejected. It is an unsuitable topic. Please find something else to edit. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Request on 03:47:51, 21 January 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Severen Tezvel
I noticed UAB School of Medicine and UAB School of Dentistry have Wikipedia pages so I created a page for the UAB School of Health Professions. This page was declined saying it should just be part of the main UAB page. Then I look at the University of Alabama on Wikipedia and notice they have separate pages for the College of Communication and Information Sciences, and the College of Engineering, and the College of Arts and Sciences, and probably all of their Colleges. Why are they allowed to have separate school/college pages but the UAB School of Health Professions cannot? While you consider granting us our own page like the other schools/colleges, I will work on cleaning up the outside links and any other errors. Thank you for your time and for your consideration of this request. Kind regards.

Severen Tezvel (talk) 03:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality articles and poor quality ones. The existence of an article does not mean it meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or has been "allowed". It may only mean that no one has gotten around to deleting it yet. So generally it isn't productive to compare a draft to other pages. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why.


 * I've merged three of the college articles into University of Alabama. That's as much clean up as I have time for now, but someone else will doubtless merge University of Alabama College of Communication and Information Sciences into the parent institution.


 * The essay College and university article guideline contains information about what should and should not be in an article in this domain, and how best to structure it. Do what the reviewer said, discuss at Talk:University of Alabama at Birmingham whether a separate University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) School of Health Professions is warranted. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:11, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

05:42:34, 21 January 2020 review of submission by 2409:4066:108:7940:5B0C:6DEE:D6B4:E3C5
The topic is authentic & not a topic based on individual sources. The reference provided is real. May I know why it is rejected.

2409:4066:108:7940:5B0C:6DEE:D6B4:E3C5 (talk) 05:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It has been rejected because it is not notable. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

06:34:19, 21 January 2020 review of submission by Olivia Chyntia Devi
Added an explanation about the logo and also revise some paragraphs Olivia Chyntia Devi (talk) 06:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi . Rejection is meant to be final, to convey that the topic is not notable (not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). No amount of editing can fix that problem. There is no option to re-submit the draft because volunteers do not intend to review it again. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

11:24:54, 21 January 2020 review of submission by Torontopedia
Hello! Hope you are doing well.

I was wondering if you could re-review the Loizza Aquino page, as I recently revamped the page and updated the content on it.

Thank you so much!

Torontopedia (talk) 11:24, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi . The draft is in the pool to be reviewed. The current backlog is 3-4 months, so you can anticipate a review by April-May-ish. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much ! Have a great day.

12:34:38, 21 January 2020 review of submission by Niftyrules
I need help on the review of the draft. I have actually done the needful but wants it to be reviewed and brought to the main space.

Niftyrules™ 12:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niftyrules (talk • contribs)
 * for the reasons explained on the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

12:44:18, 21 January 2020 review of submission by The Red Hussar
My article has been declined for lack of neutrality, but talking about the Neo-Nazi I dont really understand what does it mean. Any critics or support is highly welcome. Thanks, --The Red Hussar (talk) 12:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

The Red Hussar (talk) 12:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , This is an encyclopedia. We write in a neutral tone. That goes for every subject. For writing about neo-nazism, we don't need to add inflectives that say how bad it is. Our readers know that neo-nazism is quite evil. Our job is to write an article that presents the facts without commentary. That doesn't mean supporting neo-nazism, it just means that the article should read formally. At the end of the day, our articles do not take a political stance. They take a factual stance. So we talk about the rise of neo-nazism, and the numbers surrounding it, and the crimes they commit. Our readers are smart, they can infer the rest. Also, make sure that you are only saying what reliable sources say. Wikipedia only says what sources say, nothing more.
 * For examples of problems, it begins in the first paragraph. "a problem of Ukrainian society related to an increased level of extreme far right ideology promoting " is you taking a stance on why the issue exists. You could say "source X blames the problem on". But really the intro should read something neutral like "Neo-nazism in Ukraine covers the activities of a variety of far right groups that promote..."
 * "In public discussions the nationalists are rehabilitated and even glorified, their names are given to urban streets, in the honor of them monuments are erected and the national history is revised." While the individual points here are likely true, this reads like an opinion piece. Another example of wording that needs cleanup. An example cleanup might be ""The Nation" notes that Ukrainian nationalists are being increasingly rehabilitated, or even glorified. For example, various urban streets now bear the names of Nazi collaborators, and monuments have been erected to collaborators such as X." the last bit should stay off altogether, unless solid evidence is had, and the evidence, not the assertion, is presented.
 * I'm not going to find every example, but suffice to say that the article needs a general rewrite to ensure that it reads neutrally. Also, if you are not a native English speaker, you may wish to ask for some help in writing the article in good English. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "In public discussions the nationalists are rehabilitated and even glorified, their names are given to urban streets, in the honor of them monuments are erected and the national history is revised." While the individual points here are likely true, this reads like an opinion piece. Another example of wording that needs cleanup. An example cleanup might be ""The Nation" notes that Ukrainian nationalists are being increasingly rehabilitated, or even glorified. For example, various urban streets now bear the names of Nazi collaborators, and monuments have been erected to collaborators such as X." the last bit should stay off altogether, unless solid evidence is had, and the evidence, not the assertion, is presented.
 * I'm not going to find every example, but suffice to say that the article needs a general rewrite to ensure that it reads neutrally. Also, if you are not a native English speaker, you may wish to ask for some help in writing the article in good English. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to find every example, but suffice to say that the article needs a general rewrite to ensure that it reads neutrally. Also, if you are not a native English speaker, you may wish to ask for some help in writing the article in good English. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

13:00:31, 21 January 2020 review of submission by Sharon winston
Sharon winston (talk) 13:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

the article not finished yet !!


 * It looks like you accidentally submitted the article for review. I readded the submission template for when you are ready. Don't click the blue "Submit your draft for review!" button until you want it to be eventually reviewed. Edit and save the page by using the "Edit" at the top; see Help:Editing. You can continue editing it and adding sources. It also looks like you have not followed WP:DISCLOSE, you must disclose conflict of interest. — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 13:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

14:42:48, 21 January 2020 review of submission by Ajnk1234
Good morning! Just want to flag that I updated the Wedding Spot entry with suggestions given to me by the help desk. I added a few more pieces of information and cited a handful of additional credible news sources to help with the notability issue.

Thanks in advance for your consideration!

Ajnk1234 (talk) 14:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

16:16:18, 21 January 2020 review of draft by Siegien123
Siegien123 (talk) 16:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , please let us know why do you need a review. The reviewer has explained on the draft page that notability is not established properly. Kindly read WP:GNG (or WP:ANYBIO). Regards. --Titodutta (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

23:12:25, 21 January 2020 review of submission by John Johnson Gallery
John Johnson Gallery (talk) 23:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Dear QueerEcofeminist  please assist me with this article. Thank you very much.

Best regards, John
 * I cleaned up the article syntax, but it does not demonstrate notability. There need to be more references showing that independent writers and journalists have written about the artist.  Also, your user name and singular focus of your account suggests that you should read WP:COI. And please sign your comments with four tildes so we know who you are and can respond to you. TechnoTalk (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)