Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 November 24

= November 24 =

04:04:07, 24 November 2021 review of submission by Hotmail1234
04:04:07, 24 November 2021 review of submission by Hotmail1234

Hotmail1234 (talk) 04:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)Just some editing to make sure the page is right for Wikipedia and is long-lasting for this person who has worked really hard.

Hotmail1234 (talk) 04:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further, same with your draft. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 04:42, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

12:54:52, 24 November 2021 review of draft by Nghiwanwa
Good day how are you

i need your help in publishing my help page on wiki, am new to this and am failing with reference

below is the lp age url https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Batlang_Comma_Serema

Thank you so much

Nghiwanwa (talk) 12:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:REFB, which will help you. 331dot (talk) 13:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

15:55:33, 24 November 2021 review of submission by NTDEV
15:55:33, 24 November 2021 review of submission by NTDEV NTDEV (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We do not accept tutorials. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 16:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

16:47:57, 24 November 2021 review of draft by SpaceOMIX
Can someone experienced help us connect the expansive / large news items and links shown under the external links of this draft with the body text of the actual wiki entry. Also - the external links one word don’t appear quite right - shoild they be labeled different ? Perhaps show the actual link ? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Essentially - you will be helping us in showcasing the first ever Maltese experiment sent to the International Space Station by Borg and a start of a journey that will keep on expanding. For instance another mission is taking place next May 2022 as part of SpaceX CRS25 to the ISS.

We thank you 🙏

SpaceOMIX (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)


 * @SpaceOMIX generally that is a task that the editor wishing to have the draft accepted will do.
 * While you are working at that task please lok at the paragraph ending with "adult bone marrow" where you have a prime example of WP:CITEKILL. Instead we need one excellent reference per fact asserted. If you are sure it is beneficial, two, and at an absolute maximum, three. A fact you assert, once verified in a reliable source, is verified. More is gilding the lily. Please choose the very best in each case of multiple referencing for a single point and either drop or repurpose the remainder. Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 17:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You keep saying "we" and "us" please note that user accounts are strictly for single person use.Theroadislong (talk) 17:17, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

18:13:54, 24 November 2021 review of draft by 198.168.48.212
198.168.48.212 (talk) 18:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Nothing to review - it's an empty page. Nthep (talk) 18:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The IP blanked the page almost wholesale. I'm going to revert it, but this is an unsourced biography of a living person, which are always going to be summarily rejected. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 18:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

18:35:00, 24 November 2021 review of submission by Djgsyr
Djgsyr (talk) 18:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

20:14:32, 24 November 2021 review of draft by Seiyukaras
{{SAFESUBST:Void|

Good afternoon, the article was rejected and this was taken as a reference

The references in this post do not show that the topic qualifies for a Wikipedia article; that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) on the topic in secondary, trusted, published sources that are independent of the topic (see guidelines for scholars). But on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jorge_Duany It is almost identical to the one I did, I read and took this as a reference, and yet this one is approved and the one that I did not see, you can tell me why the two are almost the same Seiyukaras (talk) 20:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)


 * @Seiyukaras No precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into idiocracy Fiddle {{sup| Timtrent }}  Faddle {{sup| Talk to me }} 08:58, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

20:54:34, 24 November 2021 review of submission by Vivian S Zitek
I've been having a hard time understanding the exact qualifications for a reliable source. The article subject has a number of publications that I've added as inline sources, and I'd like to understand what disqualifies them from being valid sources. My best guess at the moment is that, although the sources were not published by Twice As Good, the sources don't count because the information is derived from direct interviews. I think it'd be helpful to know which (if any) of the sources qualify as reliable, so I have a benchmark to help me understand. Any guidance is appreciated, and I thank you for your time.

Vivian S Zitek (talk) 20:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Interviews with the subject or surrogates thereof indeed are not considered reliable, as they're not third-party. A usable source (1) discusses the subject at length, (2) has professional editorial oversight that fact-checks, discloses and retracts as necessary, and (3) has no direct connexion to the subject or their surrogates. Refer to the top table here:
 * https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/father-son-blues-duo-on-the-rise/ seems fine.
 * https://biscuitsandblues.com/twiceasgood is useless for notability (online storefront). At best this can verify that they were scheduled to have a show there on that date, but this isn't helpful in the overwhelming majority of cases unless they no-showed for an unusual reason (such as to check into rehab mid-tour, dying, or committing a crime).
 * We can't use https://www.dailyrepublic.com/things-to-do/05-05-2018-twice-as-good/ (Unknown provenance, no editorial oversight). The article is explicitly noted to be written by a "member of the community", with nothing more specific than that nor any indication that the page was subject to the editorial process.
 * We can't use https://music.apple.com/us/album/2xg/119658763 (online storefront). This applies to Apple Music/iTunes as a whole.
 * We can't use http://newsfromnativecalifornia.com/store/issues/fall-2007/ (too sparse). Images are rarely useful to cite, and if they are cited then their caption is what's being cited and not the image itself.
 * We can't use https://www.allmusic.com/album/live-at-pala-casino-2007-mw0001643530 (too sparse). AllMusic reviews are usable; mere track listings are not.
 * https://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/article/Blues-times-2-twice-as-nice-2532868.php seems fine.
 * Forgive me, but I can't assess https://nativeamericanmusicawards.com/nama-12 without knowing if the award counts towards notability. (If it does then you've likely met, or come damn near close to meeting, WP:NBAND.)
 * " ", " " " " https://www.powwows.com/indian-summer-music-awards-2013/ " " " " " " " ". (" " " " " " ", " " " " " " ", ".
 * https://www.si.edu/object/indian-summer-showcase-twice-good%3Ayt_TrG3T1i25Wg isn't as helpful for notability as you might think. A performance that's enshrined in the Smithsonian arguably helps for the general guideline, but not for NBAND.
 * http://gualalaarts.org/2015/10/native-arts-expo-concert-twice-as-good/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject). They're hosting 2XG.
 * The good news is I see some usable sources here, and a possible argument for passing WP:NBAND flat-out. The good, however, is drowned out by the garbage. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 01:43, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Request on 22:13:27, 24 November 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Vpolinger
I asked for help from Citation bot. The message was "Bad gateway". What does this mean and what can I do to improve it? vpolinger (talk) 22:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

vpolinger (talk) 22:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Citation bot is just that - a scripted bot - and cannot reply to queries. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 00:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

23:45:52, 24 November 2021 review of submission by 128.243.2.16
128.243.2.16 (talk) 23:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Multiple new references and citations have been added. References to old revision notes should not be applicable to reviewal.
 * The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 00:19, 25 November 2021 (UTC)