Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 July 6

= July 6 =

02:41:28, 6 July 2020 review of draft by Socratesart
I have read all the articles and help links that have been given above regarding submitting new articles, articles on living persons, neutral language, citations, and notability. I am still confused by reviewers comments and the situation. I am new at Wikipedia, and doing the best that I can and want to learn. Will someone help me?

As far as my work on this article, I have written all that I can, given the information that I have and have no ability to add anything more, unless something more is published on or by this person. I am willing to make any and all corrections, but I have no idea what corrections to make, as I do not know what to change in terms of the reviewer's comments. To make corrections I would need the answer to the following points.

1] First, the reviewer's comments on sources as using videos posted on Youtube as sources. Yes, the article does refer to two videos [both are documentaries made by well-known documentation videographers] but neither video is used as a primary source for any information in the article. They are just given as additional things out there on the web one can go to and could easily be deleted without effect to any part of the article. The article only says that some information in the article was ALSO mentioned in a documentary video. It was not used as a primary source for that information. As for videos, how does one cite videos for an online reference? What am I missing here?

2] All information in the article is cited from independent, published sources with the exception of the subject's current location and wife's name, which seem to only exist on the subject's website, which seems to me to be the way to get this information accurately- as any published information may not reflect current status. But this can be deleted as well without damage to the article. I am not used to making citations, as I do not usually do that kind of writing, so I will be the first to admit that I may not have done the citations correctly. Someone else may have to add or correct citations. Most of the citations in this articles are to published books or articles in hard-copy periodicals [that is, not virtual or internet-based].

3] the reviewer says the language is promotional. But the language used in this article is no different from the language used in any other article already on wikipedia or that I have used to make corrections to any other wikipedia material. I've been professionally editing for 35 years, I know the difference. Or thought I did. As far as I can see, there is nothing in this article that promotes the artist or makes any claims for the artist, but maybe I'm missing something. If so, would someone please tell me what it is? Will someone please explain to me why this article is "promotional"? and what would have to be changed to make it appropriate for submission? I have interpreted the standards the best that I know how and would at this point need specific editorial mark-up [copy-editing] to know what to change to meet the standards. Maybe someone can give me some pointers as to how to correct the language?

4] as for notability of artists, Wikipedia's standards clearly state that a visual artist who has shown in museums [in this case has had solo exhibitions in museums] qualifies for notability. Would someone please explain to me why this person still does not meet the notability standards for wikipedia?

5] Independent of my work on this article, the person covered has reported to me that they have been contacted by an editor that can correct everything in this article and get it published ... for a fee. They were pretty upset, thinking I had something to do with it. I had nothing to do with this. Is this how wikipedia works? by extortion? this person said they were a longtime Wikipedia editor named R. Gauran at lunamarian@protonmail.com. How is this usually handled at Wikipedia? Is it normal for an editor to refuse an article and then have an editor contact the subject of the article and extort fees from them to get the article published in Wikipedia? If that is the case, I suspect it will work in this case. Socratesart (talk) 02:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Socratesart (talk) 02:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi . With regard to your fifth point, please refer Mr. Reel to Articles for creation/Scam warning, and ask him to report the details of the bogus offer to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org. No one can guarantee the outcome the con artist is promising. The scammer may not even be a Wikipedia editor, but if they are, Wikipedia wants to root them out. Artist biographies are not my speciality, so I'll give others here an opportunity to answer your other questions. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding number 4 "a visual artist who has shown in museums qualifies for notability" you have provided no independent sources for this, only his CV which is not an independent source.Theroadislong (talk) 16:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thank you so much for taking a look. Your last comment implies I am not making my citations clear enough, since there are also citations to three catalogs of his shows, two published by museums (both solo museum shows have a catalog (ie., an independent book) citation) and the third by an American university, the University of California, Santa Barbara. I will look at how to correct this and using better citations; I appreciate your observation. I can leave that particular citation to the CV off without changing the article, which I am figuring is a good idea in light of your comment. Thank you again for your help. I will forward the info you suggest to Mr. Reel, who I believe is not otherwise involved with Wikipedia. Thank you. It is my understanding that the rejection of the article came after the offer to do the article for pay was refused. Both the offer and the rejection came from editors operating from India who work on similar topics (same person???). Socratesart (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

03:16:40, 6 July 2020 review of submission by 216.174.72.69
Changes have been made! He is considered a saint of the Serbian Orthodox Church and as such is worthy to be listed just as much as others on the "List of Serbian saints".

216.174.72.69 (talk) 03:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Pinging as the reviewer. the middle paragraph of the "Bography"-section still lacks a source. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 08:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks . In my opinion, the draft is not significantly improved. 1292simon (talk) 10:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

04:39:33, 6 July 2020 review of submission by Zisan 07
Zisan 07 (talk) 04:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Your submission lacks reliable sources that are independent of the subject in some detail. Youtube and instagram are often not considered reliable (and in this case are not independent either]]. Not accepted are primary sources including anything written by the subject rather than on the subject, interviews and press releases. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 08:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

05:05:31, 6 July 2020 review of submission by Zisan 07
{{SAFESUBST:Void|

Below this line, tell us why you are requesting a re-review. Take as many lines as you need.--> Dear sir if this Wikipedia need some edits please tell me that what's for the changes in this wikipedia Zisan 07 (talk) 05:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

06:27:43, 6 July 2020 review of submission by JasbeerPhoghat
JasbeerPhoghat (talk) 06:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Duplicate of WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

06:49:55, 6 July 2020 review of submission by Ralamad
I have created the first draft where I had taken content from nssa.gov.bh, the second published draft, I added references to all the content. Then I found the draft page had been deleted although I had referenced all the content. Kindly explain? Ralamad (talk) 06:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere.. Thats why I prefer the term "reference" over "source" in some cases. Please familarisize yourself with WP:Copyright and Copyright violations. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 08:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

07:17:05, 6 July 2020 review of submission by Vedu 20
Vedu 20 (talk) 07:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Your submission lacks reliable sources. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 08:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

07:31:26, 6 July 2020 review of draft by Amar.rathore.jdh
Amar.rathore.jdh (talk) 07:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Request on 07:51:49, 6 July 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by BraydinBaker
The reason why is because im new to this and i was just posting this youtuber. Idk how this works.

BraydinBaker (talk) 07:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You can have a look at WP:YFA for the stuff about creating new articles. Please be aware that Wikipedia doesnt want to be used to promote or "support" or "generating awareness" for a youtube channel (or other things/people). Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 08:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

08:51:37, 6 July 2020 review of submission by Edson Markho
Edson Markho (talk) 08:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * his draft lacks reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source. The subject's own social media pages are not independent. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 08:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

08:58:46, 6 July 2020 review of submission by Aneshphari
The person referred as Devmohan is a Mollywood actor who made debut as a lead actor in the movie sufiyum sujatayum.He played the title role as sufi.His fan following has become 45k + from 5k in just 3 days and it's still counting..(Instagram:https://www.instagram.com/p/CCQ-TTxBV0R/?igshid=n9x2g3itf9xz). Interviews with Mr.Devmohan are published in all leading news papers ,like Deccan herald,India Today,The Hindu,Gulf news(please find the link in draft of DevMohan under reference). The article deserves to be published as the actor will surely be searched.Kindly consider

Aneshphari (talk) 08:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , Interviews with the gentleman are words said by him and are not considered to enhance his notability. I note that the draft has been rejected. The place to start is to ask the rejecting reviewer what their rationale is. All reviewers must be able to justify their decisions to anyone who has a legitimate reason to ask them
 * Please read WP:NACTOR with care. the gentleman must satisfy relevant criteria here, or he may just not be notable yet
 * If you feel he passes that set of criteria, your job is to demonstrate that. For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. Fiddle   Faddle  11:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Aneshphari - Acting notability is based on multiple significant roles. Your draft lists only one role.  Robert McClenon (talk) 13:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If you feel he passes that set of criteria, your job is to demonstrate that. For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. Fiddle   Faddle  11:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Aneshphari - Acting notability is based on multiple significant roles. Your draft lists only one role.  Robert McClenon (talk) 13:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

10:35:45, 6 July 2020 review of draft by EmmaWiki2020
Dear Help desk!

Maybe you can give us some more advice on our draft. It was declined by an editor, because it appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. We reworked the draft and wrote it from a neutral point of view, and refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources (including several that not from us as creators). We kept the description of the draft similar to other articles about medical image processing frameworks on Wikipedia, like MeVisLab, 3D Slicer, OsiriX. Please see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MeVisLab https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3DSlicer https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/OsiriX

The sources are from publishers with a very good reputation, like IEEE and Springer, and have all been peer-reviewed by the international scientific community.

Looking forward your help! EmmaWiki2020 (talk) 10:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)EmmaWiki2020

EmmaWiki2020 (talk) 10:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , ✅ The draft looks perfectly acceptable to me. I submitted it on your behalf and accepted it. I note the word "our" in your question. Are you associated with Studierfenster? If so that association must be declared. Please see connected contributor and connected contributor (paid) and consider whether either are required on the article's talk page. If the latter (the word 'paid' is very broadly construed) you also need to make a declaration on your user page.  Reading WP:COI will assist you here.  Fiddle   Faddle  11:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Dear Faddle, Thank you so much! Yes, I am associated with Studierfenster, but not paid. I declared the association on the on the article's talk page and I will also make a declaration on my user page. EmmaWiki2020 (talk) 14:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)EmmaWiki2020

17:42:36, 6 July 2020 review of submission by Christinedkg
Christinedkg (talk) 17:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

18:01:18, 6 July 2020 review of submission by Abhinavsidharth
I have added more citations. Abhinavsidharth (talk) 18:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

21:50:29, 6 July 2020 review of draft by Tiffany.ngan
Hello! I would like feedback on my article as to how to write it in a more neutral tone; I've made some minor edits but am not sure what counts as "neutral". I'm trying to meet academic notability criteria but I don't have feedback on that yet as my article was declined for other reasons. Thank you! Tiffany.ngan (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , There seems to be an important point made about conflict of interest. Has that been resolved, please? Fiddle   Faddle  12:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Tiffany.ngan (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Timtrent - I see that the submitter declared on her user page that she is employed by Don A. Moore. The draft was initially declined for tone reasons.  User:Tiffany.ngan - It is very hard for a paid editor to write a neutral draft, and the reviewers, who are volunteers and are neutral, have to be very careful in reviewing to ensure that drafts are neutrally worded.  Robert McClenon (talk) 13:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'll template the draft talk page and have a look. No promises of a review Fiddle   Faddle  13:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , To write in a neutral tone, think 'Dull-but-worthy'. Consider how someone might report on another person. "Fred is a wonderful writer" obviously fails because it glows. "Fred has received plaudits for his writing" with very carefully selected citation that states the plaudit, that is more what we are always after. That assumes a serious plaudit, like a Booker Prize, whatever those are called today. Even then some editors will consider my second statement too effusive!
 * The trick is to read through your draft prior to resubmission challenging each statement "Is this neutral? Can I flatten it?" Fiddle   Faddle  14:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)