Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 October 18

= October 18 =

03:10:30, 18 October 2021 review of submission by Scootbilly
A rewrite has been completed, can I please request a re-review of WP:IBA and WP:NORG Scootbilly (talk) 03:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Scootbilly. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

04:45:52, 18 October 2021 review of submission by Scootbilly
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Worldbruce paid Scootbilly (talk) 04:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

07:11:58, 18 October 2021 review of submission by Rooz1370
Hello and thank you for your time. I have recently added multiple articles that can elucidate some of the citations that needed further clarification. The text has also had minor changes so the tone could shift to a more reported tone. Thank you again for your time. Yours Sincerely, Rooz1370 Rooz1370 (talk) 07:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 09:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

10:12:49, 18 October 2021 review of submission by Martin.tinku510
Below this line, tell us why you are requesting a re-review. Take as many lines as you need.-->}}

Martin.tinku510 (talk) 10:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

13:10:44, 18 October 2021 review of submission by Pro75008
I contact you concerning the Poxel page. On 7 october, you tell me this : We can't use https://www.biospectrumasia.com/news/50/19009/french-firm-poxel-launches-type-2-diabetes-drug-in-japan.html (unknown provenance). It doesn't help that it reads like a press release. We can't use https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/poxel?countrycode=fr (too sparse). Stock tickers are worthless sources for a generalist encyclopaedia like Wikipedia. We can't use https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/poxel (deprecated). CrunchBase is not an acceptable source because it's user-generated content. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/poxel-sumitomo-dainippon-pharma-announce-063000394.html is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Press release from Businesswire (which only ever publishes same). I cannot assess your last source because it is missing critical bibliographical information (Outlet, edition, byline, page(s).) Of the sources I can assess, three of them are flat-out unusable, and one is written at the company's dictate. Disregarding the article text, this is absolutely fatal for a draft.

but I would like to have more information concerning the sources accepted on wikipedia. what are the steps to follow to put good sources please? Thank you

Pro75008 (talk) 13:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The sort of sources you're looking for are: Les Echos, and PM Live. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

13:39:05, 18 October 2021 review of submission by 117.222.161.162
117.222.161.162 (talk) 13:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Why are you continuesly declining biography Article.Firstly i did all you told.i studied references and edited my mistakes (wrong photo i uesd it was totally mistake.i understand it.but i solved it and added correct reference based things.so i provided material names i used for creating such biography of person lived in 19th CE.why are you deleting my article after added reference?what is the reason? i request you kindly ,what i needed to improve on this article?
 * The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. The draft is completely unsourced. A Wikipedia article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about a topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Creating a new article is the absolute hardest task to perform on Wikipedia- it's good to go into the process with some experience and knowledge first, both by editing existing articles, reviewing some of the help pages like referencing for beginners, and using the new user tutorial(which you need an account for, though). Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

15:09:28, 18 October 2021 review of draft by JMFranklin
I wrote the Ryan Beat page to mirror Jimmie Johnson and other professional race car drivers. Yet, it was declined because it, "read like an ad." I'm at a loss as to what to change. The names of race tracks are often preceded by a sponsor name and the proper way to refer to a driver's race car/truck is to include the title sponsor. I've cited 33 sources that identify Ryan Beat as a professional race car driver as well. Any direction on what exactly needs to be changed would be welcomed. Again, I followed the exact format of other professional race car drivers so not sure how they got approved by Ryan's page did not. Thank you in advance for your feedback.

JMFranklin (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia prefers fewer high-quality sources rather than a large number of poor quality sources. You have lots of citations for race results and mentions of him, but not independent reliable sources with significant coverage of him personally. Please also review the definition of a notable race car driver to ensure that he meets it. I fear that given your conflict of interest you may be too close to Mr. Beat to be able to objectively write about him, summarizing independent sources with significant coverage(not just race results). 331dot (talk) 15:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. When I review the "notable race car driver" list, Mr. Beat meets all these requirements. Also, I have cited large motorsports sources such as OffRoad.com, RACER magazine (one of the largest racing magazines in the U.S.), Four Wheeler, and Race-Dezert. I also cited that Mr. Beat appeared in the Fast & Furious 7 movie along with a commercial for international tire brand, General Tire. What else would I need to provide to demonstrate that he is a professional race car driver? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMFranklin (talk • contribs) 15:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't say he was not notable, but often newer editors do not review the notability definition. The main reason for the decline of the draft, is, as you noted, the fact that it seems like an advertisement. I would take the three sources with the most coverage of Mr. Beat and summarize what they say- the race results and stuff can be added later. You will need to do that while setting aside everything that you know about him. The personal life section is completely unsourced.  Appearances in film productions and ads do not contribute to notability(unless you are also arguing he is a notable actor), as notability is not inherited by association. 331dot (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

15:20:47, 18 October 2021 review of submission by 76.100.26.83
Asking for advice as to how this could get any more notable?

76.100.26.83 (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No amount of editing can confer notability on a subject. The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 15:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Request on 16:58:10, 18 October 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Jennvirskus
Hi! I would love some help with getting this draft in the correct tone of Wikipedia. I've been diligent not to put anything in the draft that was not cited, either from a widely known news publication or from a science journal. (And I've fixed the doi's that were incorrectly added.) I would be thrilled for a 3rd party to take a look and put in any edits that are required.

Thank you!

Jennvirskus (talk) 16:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The tone is decent, although it uses WP:PEACOCK terms and WP:WEASEL words occasionally. Eternal Shadow   Talk  22:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

17:55:07, 18 October 2021 review of submission by Sidhudiid
Sidhudiid (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 17:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

18:33:01, 18 October 2021 review of submission by Dinercouch
Dinercouch (talk) 18:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Twas rejected meaning it won't be considered further and it has been repeatedly recreated by socks and is now page protected. Theroadislong (talk) 18:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Request on 19:54:57, 18 October 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Cabm.2020
Hi,

The page for Maria Gloria Dominguez was rejected due to unreliable sources. Majority of the resources were deleted -- they took a lot of time to input so that was not the greatest thing to have to do.

These are the comments:

Submission declined on 16 March 2021 by EDG 543 (talk). [resolved in my opinion] The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you. Declined by EDG 543 7 months ago. AFC-Logo Decline.svg Symbol opinion vote.svg Comment: Probably notable (holding a named chair likely meets WP:NPROF), but referencing needs to be improved, especially as many sections are unsupported, which is a problem for any article and in particular for WP:BLPs. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC) Symbol opinion vote.svg Comment: Once the sourcing issues are fixed, this should pass WP:PROF both for heavily cited publications and for the named professorship. For this criterion, independence can be relaxed (but reliability cannot): for instance, the official web site of Rutgers (not her personal pages) can be considered reliable for matters like her job title there. However, claims that go beyond such factual matters for instance by saying things about the impact of her research do need to be independent, and every claim in the draft needs a reliable source. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC) {resolved} Symbol opinion vote.svg Comment: Both of your provided references are primary sources. Please find reliable independent sources in order to establish her notability. See WP:REFB for more on citing sources. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 15:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Can you suggest how to improve the page to get approval? What is wrong with the sources?

Thanks

Cabm.2020 (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , The article will be approved if you add independent sources. Independent sources include media mentions and articles. Primary sources, such as publications written by the subject and university staff lists are not enough. Please read WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY. Eternal Shadow   Talk  22:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)