Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 December 19

= December 19 =

10:15:03, 19 December 2021 review of submission by 182.239.187.222
Hi Folks, I ask questions as to how to address an original review of a draft article and I get Wikipedia jargon with no content. I point out that it is not a geographical observation about a location but important Australian history. I am told to take the material for refereed publication in a scholarly journal. I have already done that and point it out. I am then told that I cannot use it in spite of the refereed publication because I wrote it. I point out that it was in effect written or substantiated by seven people starting from two people in 1824. No answer. I point out that an article of identical origin, Sugarloaf Creek, Victoria, Australia, was accepted with no fuss. No answer. Now it is anger and insults, including too many words to read. Where is the calm rational objective review of the facts of the matter and an attempt to reach a mutual understanding. Is this the great Wikipedia, the modern knowledge base of the world? Martin

182.239.187.222 (talk) 10:15, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "the calm rational objective review of the facts of the matter" is just above in your previous post namely "the original reviewer was correct in their assessment that the draft reads like an essay" which part of this do you not understand? See other poor quality articles exist for your argument about Sugarloaf Creek, Victoria. Please also remember to log in whenever you edit. Theroadislong (talk) 10:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

11:07:45, 19 December 2021 review of submission by Mwill66
Hi Folks, I ask questions as to how to address an original review of a draft article and I get Wikipedia jargon with no content. I point out that it is not a geographical observation about a location but important Australian history. I am told to take the material for refereed publication in a scholarly journal. I have already done that and point it out. I am then told that I cannot use it in spite of it having been refereed because I wrote it. I point out that it was in effect written or substantiated by seven people starting from two people in 1824. No answer. I point out that an article of identical origin, Sugarloaf Creek, Victoria, Australia, was accepted with no fuss. No answer. Now it is anger and insults including that there are too many words. Where is the calm rational objective review of the facts of the matter and an attempt to reach a mutual understanding. Is this the great Wikipedia, the modern knowledge base of the world? Martin

Mwill66 (talk) 11:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Please read all the responses above and stop creating new sections, it is beginning to look like WP:CIR applies here. Theroadislong (talk) 11:25, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

16:27:20, 19 December 2021 review of submission by TeddyMinecraft123
TeddyMinecraft123 (talk) 16:27, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

17:46:29, 19 December 2021 review of draft by Globalnomad4
I am writing an article for the schooner Harvey Gamage, which is listed on the Tall Ships America [] wikipedia page. But my page continues to be rejected, first for not having enough references (so I added all I could find) then for not being worthy of being a wikipedia page? There are many similar pages for other vessels, linked to in the TALL SHIPS page...what am I doing wrong? This isn't a controversial topic, just a description of a wooden schooner, similar to a dozen others that have Wikipedia pages.

Globalnomad4 (talk) 17:46, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Please see other stuff exists. That other similar articles exist does not automatically mean that another one can too. It could be that these other articles are also inappropriate. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us. We can only address what we know about.
 * A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a topic, showing how the topic meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability. The sources you have offered do not seem to be significant coverage. 331dot (talk) 18:39, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

There are several pages with long lists of Schooners or Tall Ships, with links to pages for each schooner. I am trying to create a page for some of those schooners, following the model of the multiple ones that already are there, yet mine keeps getting rejected for not being noteworthy enough. Previously I had a message saying 'similar pages exist' is not a valid reason. But this isn't a standalone page, it's adding to the already rich resource of materials, completing some links out of many dozens that are already there. I have added the links to the existant pages to mine...so I have two questions 1) How do I make the other pages (list of schooners, tall ships america) link to the page I am creating? Do I have to edit those pages once mine is published? 2) How do I get mine approved? I think whoever keeps rejecting it doesn't realize that this master lists already exist, with pages created already for dozens of boats, and I am just contributing to this project.

Globalnomad4 (talk) 02:53, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can add links in other articles to yours once it is accepted. Regarding the second question, each article/draft is considered on its own merits. That someone created a list of vessels does not mean that all of them or any of them merit standalone articles. By submitting a draft you are attempting to create a standalone article and it is considered by reviewers as such, not as part of another article. This vessel must have significant coverage in independent reliable sources; as I said, the current sources are not significant coverage. I would suggest looking at articles about other vessels(ones classified as good articles if possible) to get an idea of what is being looked for. Please edit this existing section for any follow up, at least until it is archived. 331dot (talk) 10:53, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

19:11:11, 19 December 2021 review of submission by Nandhu41095
Nandhu41095 (talk) 19:11, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You don't ask a question, but I have fulfilled your deletion request. 331dot (talk) 19:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)