Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 May 10

= May 10 =

00:54:51, 10 May 2020 review of draft by GenreandPoliticsComplutence
GenreandPoliticsComplutence (talk) 00:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

can you help me with the reviwing of the content and references placement in order to publish the article. Also i would have need some help with image for infobox template. Thank you.

09:37:57, 10 May 2020 review of draft by SahanaPrasad
SahanaPrasad (talk) 09:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC) I am still unsure about the feedback given. What other changes do I need to do

12:54:44, 10 May 2020 review of submission by Pappukhan2312
Pappu Khan 12:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a social media network like Facebook etc. If your only goal here was to create an article about yourself, then I'm afraif that this is the end of the story. You might want to consider alternative outlets. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

13:18:19, 10 May 2020 review of submission by Georgeko
Dear Wikipedia,

The reasons given for rejection are extremely broad. In order to consider an appeal or a rewrite, it would be helpful to understand what specific criteria the reviewer relied on to conclude that the article must be rejected.

Thank you.

Georgeko (talk) 13:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi . To know what was in the reviewer's mind, you really would need to ask the reviewer directly, but I'll try to explain what may have factored into their decision.


 * Websites under sites.google.com are self-published, without editorial oversight. It is not clear who the author of the cited one is, what their credentials are, or whether they have any reputation for accuracy and fact checking. So it is not a reliable source and should not be cited by the draft. That leaves two sources: a page from a book, and a primary source research article in a journal. The general notability guideline advises that, "Sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." The reviewer indicated that the topic is not sufficiently notable to justify a stand alone encyclopedia article. They may have reached that conclusion because the draft cites a single secondary source of unclear depth.


 * Being unsuitable for a stand alone article doesn't mean the topic can't be covered within an article on a broader topic. It might be suitable, for example, to say something about the variety in Penny (Australian coin). How much emphasis to give it there would best be discussed on that article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics.


 * Rejection is meant to be final, to indicate that reviewers do not intend to review the draft again, no matter how much you revise it. There isn't really an appeal mechanism, because Articles for Creation is an optional process. You are asking for the advice of experienced Wikipedians. If you don't trust that advice, then as long as you don't have a conflict of interest, you're free to create the article directly in mainspace. Of course if the reviewer was correct, it will more likely than not be deleted, but that's the risk you run. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Dear Worldbruce,

Thank you for your very comprehensive explanation.

Please note that the draft article was based entirely on the arguments and evidence presented in a peer-reveiwed academic journal. The research underlying the journal article was also extensively footnoted. The google.sites reference (which also belongs to the author that wrote the journal article) was a minor point that referenced some further research that the author had recently conducted.

Within the very broad subject of numismatics there is a myriad of stand alone topics. For example, a search on "1930 Australian Penny" will generate more than 2.8 million hits on Google (including a plethora of academic sources) due primarily to its unique historical significance. There are hundreds of other similarly important coins that are likewise worthy of individual attention and cannot simply be scooped under a single general article on 'Australian coins'. That's like asking a historian to fit their article on Henry VIII under a single article on Kings and Queens of England.

While I appreciate the difficult tasks of reviewing new article submissions, I think the underlying problem here is that reviewers should not endeavour to apply policies and rules to subjects they are not themselves familiar with. I don't expect there to be an expert reviewer on every subject, but if you're not an expert then you should at least have the courtesy of offering the author the benefit of the doubt and asking for further information before deciding to reject.

Just a suggestion! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgeko (talk • contribs) 23:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I have no idea whether the reviewer of the draft is a numismatist or not. I'm not a professional one, but as a collector have a keen interest in the subject. The best place to get advice from Wikipedians who are involved in numismatics is WikiProject Numismatics.


 * The backlog of Articles for Creation drafts awaiting review was kissing 6 months as recently as last September. Despite as many as 445 new ones dumped on our desks every day, the backlog is now down to 7 weeks. Typically, two-thirds of all reviews are performed by a cadre of 10-20 reviewers. So as a practical matter, the amount of individual attention that each can receive is limited. Any ideas you may have about how to attract additional reviewers, specialist or otherwise, would be most welcome. It would be more effective to discuss process improvements at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation rather than at this help desk. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

15:46:11, 10 May 2020 review of submission by Deepaksingh21
Deepaksingh21 (talk) 15:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a place to write about yourself. Further, according to the block logs, this page was a self written vanity page. Please note that Wikipedia is not for advertising or "spread the word" about anything. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

16:18:03, 10 May 2020 review of submission by Shenayahewagama
Android Wedakarayo is a top-level Tech media in Sri Lanka similar to TechRadar, TechCrunch. Therefore I thought it is very useful to publish a Wikipedia article that will be very useful to people who will search about them. if you search them on google as Android Wedakarayo, Android wadakarayo, androidwedakarayo, androidwadakarayo the results will be on the top. Shenayahewagama (talk) 16:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Alexa, Whois, blogs, Facebook, Twitter and YourTube are not reliable sources, you removed my comment from your draft, you asked for advice didn't you?. Theroadislong (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

if the sources are not reliable, then why TechRadar got the approval https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TechRadar

Shenayahewagama (talk) 17:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

StoryJumper draft rejected May 10 2020
Why was it declined? 111.88.15.184 (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Request on 19:44:15, 10 May 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Helen Puffer Thwait
Hello, I am a relative newcomer to Wikipedia, and have only completed one full article. I recently submitted a new article for review, and received a message indicating that another article with the same title (created by a different user) is waiting for review. That article was submitted about two months ago and rejected. (Here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dewey_Johnson_(musician).) Given that the existing article has not been revised or resubmitted since being rejected, and since the article I am proposing contains the information in the existing article (plus a great deal more), what can I do to move things forward? If the person who created the existing article does not revise and resubmit it, does my article remain in limbo indefinitely? (Here is the link to my article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Helen_Puffer_Thwait/Dewey_Johnson_(musician)) Is there any way to communicate with the creator of the existing article in order to ask if they plan to revise it? Many thanks in advance for your help. I apologize for the "newbie" questions! Regards, Helen Helen Puffer Thwait (talk) 19:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I should re-submit the draft, your version is far better sourced. Theroadislong (talk) 19:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

20:16:31, 10 May 2020 review of draft by AlbastruMaria
So my article was first declined because it didn't contain enough citations, now it's declined because you can't use social media as reference even though that is where I got most of my information. Guess I'll just use the interviews, because what other people say about the band is better info than what the official band biography on their website says, but I guess yea, not my rules, this will have to do now. Am I wrong for thinking this doesn't make any sense?

I can give you a list of similar pages to the one I want to create that literally have 3 references, of the same kind as mine. I feel like my article is just dismissed because the reviewer is too lazy to actually read and inspect my changes. I would not be so insistent with this if I didn't put so much work in it. I just want to create good content and I feel like I am not taken seriously.

Thank you!

AlbastruMaria (talk) 20:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Other inappropriate articles existing does not mean that yours can exist too. See other stuff exists. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected, even for years. We can only address what we know about. It seems that this band does not meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable band. If it does, you need to demonstrate that by providing independent reliable sources to show it, and the article should only summarize what those sources say. Social media and interviews with the band are primary sources and not acceptable for establishing notability. 331dot (talk) 20:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

22:18:34, 10 May 2020 review of submission by Moonraccoon
This article was rejected for not meeting WP:NACADEMIC criteria; however, Dr. Roberts meets #1 by creating the field of commercial content moderation (she is cited on Moderation_system), #2 by winning an EFF Barlow Pioneer Award, #3 as a Carnegie Fellow , and #7 for her work on commercial content moderation (I have provided additional citations in support of #7 on the article draft). Thanks! Moonraccoon (talk) 22:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Moonraccoon (talk) 22:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)