Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 December 8

= December 8 =

14:28:35, 8 December 2022 review of draft by ARKGJL
I am just wondering when you will be able to review this page. We are due to make a significant news announcement over the next month and are expecting a significant increase in searches for the company on Wikipedia so we're keen to ensure the information listed is clear. At present there is a lot of confusion between the company name (Academy of Robotics) and the name of one of our main products, Kar-go, and we would like to rectify this.

ARKGJL (talk) 14:28, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I must be frank- for which I apologize- but Wikipedia is not concerned with search results for your organization. We are also not concerned with any deadlines you are under. As noted on the draft, "This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,270 pending submissions waiting for review."  There isn't a queue; volunteers pick drafts to review out of a category.  There is no way to ensure a speedy review. Additionally, the purpose of a Wikipedia article is to summarize independent reliable sources, showing how it is a notable organization as defined by Wikipedia, not merely to document the existence of the company.
 * Furthermore, I see that you declared a conflict of interest, but you must make the stricter paid editing disclosure, a Terms of Use requirement and mandatory. 331dot (talk) 14:51, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @ARKGJL: What 331dot said. And, to help you on your way, you get a Bastard helper from Hell critique. Note that I will be assessing both for Academy of Robotics and for Kar-go - notability for either is determined for that entity only.
 * https://highways.today/2020/11/11/kar-go-trials-care-homes-uk/ appears to be good for AoR and good for Kar-go.
 * https://www.eurovia.co.uk/news-publications/2019/11/eurovia-uk-and-academy-of-robotics-to-begin-partnership is useless for notability for AoR (routine coverage) and useless for notability for Kar-go (too sparse). Partnership news for the former, name-drop for the latter.
 * We can't use https://www.crowdcube.com/companies/academy-of-robotics/pitches/b0Nv9l (connexion to subject). We don't cite crowdfunding sites as a general rule. This applies to both Crowdcube cites.
 * We can't use https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cars/news/space-farming-flying-race-cars-mars-rover-goodwood-announces/ (unknown provenance). Role byline; who wrote this? (We don't trust role bylines because most of what is printed under them is churnalism.)
 * I cannot assess https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cars/news/space-farming-flying-race-cars-mars-rover-goodwood-announces/ (language barrier, possibly geoblocked).
 * I cannot assess https://www.ft.com/content/85fb853c-9f0a-11e9-9c06-a4640c9feebb (walled).
 * https://www.verdict.co.uk/goodwood-festival-of-speed-2019/ appears to be a non-sequitur for both AoR and Kar-go. If a source doesn't mention, let alone discuss at length, either then it's useless as a source for both.
 * We can't use the text of https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/26/sport/kargo-autonomous-ai-delivery-vehicle-supercharged-spt-intl/index.html (unknown provenance). The text is not a transcript of the video.
 * The video at the link above is useless for notability for AoR (too sparse) and usable for Kar-go.
 * https://www.eetimes.com/a-week-in-european-automotive-reinventing-the-car-last-mile-robocars/ is borderline for AoR and usable for Kar-go. The article goes into a lot of detail on Kar-go while just burning off a screamsheet of facts for AoR.
 * We can't use https://www.highwaysmagazine.co.uk/Eurovia-UK-and-British-AI-partner-to-trial-new-solutions-in-highway-solutions/8178 (unknown provenance).
 * https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=70897 is useless for notability for both AoR (connexion to subject) and Kar-go (" " "). This is a whitepaper of what is ostensibly Kar-go.
 * We don't cite Twitter (No editorial oversight). Cite the Reuters article, if there is one.
 * https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/robot-delivery-vehicle-uk-kar-go-london-b1720330.html is useless for notability for AoR (too sparse) and usable for Kar-go. Most of the stuff in the Indescribablyboring about AoR is Shit The Corpo Says, rather than actual discussion of it. Contrast the in-depth description of Kar-go.
 * https://techcrunch.com/2020/11/09/autonomous-delivery-startup-nuro-hits-5-billion-valuation-on-fresh-funding-of-500-million/?guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9lbi53aWtpcGVkaWEub3JnLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAApw9XHpU5QxoRavH-O3iZep4J4qUrb_mnsoXQ_RrT3EikAZlILkaQm-ZfB2Na8LIzL5lXzfi1sjOI-YfD360MHnCdRD0DFb1TpCHhIuIWN9yHRnmqMciH2RbkcYsjNYu3XXW9FyAtvKxDJ_BMzbxICBI413Y7jfGg1ZFX0Os2HA&guccounter=2 is a non-sequitur for both AoR and Kar-go.
 * The video at https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/lifestyle/raf-trial-self-driving-cars-ve97322bb is usable for both AoR and Kar-go. (The text is too sparse to even be worth citing.)
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5aHG_T3wnI&t=1191s is too sparse for AoR and usable for Kar-go. The coverage of the former is almost entirely a prop for that of Kar-go.
 * I do not have the time to be able to assess InsideAir, and so I will defer to someone who can spare 25 minutes.
 * We can't use https://www.defenceprocurementinternational.com/features/air/autonomous-vehicles-have-been-deployed-on-a-uk-airbase-by-the-raf-for-the-first-time (unknown provenance). Omitted byline; who wrote this?
 * I cannot assess https://www.businessgreen.com/news/4045731/academy-robotics-flicks-switch-crowd-funding-drive (walled).
 * https://www.prnewswire.co.uk/news-releases/british-public-to-receive-the-opportunity-to-invest-directly-in-advanced-self-driving-technology-on-the-roads-today-896459553.html is useless for notability for both AoR and Kar-go (connexion to subject). Cision/PRNewswire only ever publishes press releases.
 * https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/business/20624043.tesla-like-robot-hub-set-norfolk-former-raf-base/ is usable for AoR and useless for notability for Kar-go (too sparse). The article is primarily about the company moving to a new HQ.
 * https://www.forces.net/technology/heart-britains-cold-war-defences-given-second-life-incubator-cutting-edge-tech is usable for AoR and useless for notability for Kar-go for the same reasons as edp24.com.
 * My recommendation is that you split this into two separate articles - one for AoR and one for Kar-go - and to have a more realistic grasp of the timescale Wikipedia works on. We don't exist to do your PR for you; we want the article to be well-written and well-sourced and that's just not something we can do under strict external deadlines. —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 16:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reviewing these sources. I completely agree with your recommendation to split this into two separate articles and this is what I was hoping to do. There is an existing article on Wikipedia on Kar-go which I would like to update by removing most of the content about the Parent Company, Academy of Robotics, and simply link to the Academy of Robotics article. However, this will only make sense if there is an Academy of Robotics article to link to.
 * Regarding timescales, I apologise if I seemed to be putting pressure on the Wikipedia team. That wasn't my intention. I appreciate that you do an incredible job and it takes a long time to review articles properly. I merely wanted to give context to my request, but I had submitted the article for review in September so I was just checking to see if there was an update as the message suggested it takes 3 months or more. Apologies for any misunderstanding.
 * Regarding your feedback on this article
 * "https://www.verdict.co.uk/goodwood-festival-of-speed-2019/ appears to be a non-sequitur for both AoR and Kar-go. If a source doesn't mention, let alone discuss at length, either then it's useless as a source for both."
 * The mention is not right at the top, but there is a +200 word section dedicated to Kar-go where Academy of Robotics is mentioned in the first line as the company who behind Kar-Go. This is the 2nd exhibit reviewed in the article on the "Best Tech on Show" after Lightyear One. Please let me know if there's further information you need for this. Regarding this article https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/26/sport/kargo-autonomous-ai-delivery-vehicle-supercharged-spt-intl/index.html I understand that the text is not a transcript of the video, but i was unsure why this means it can't be used. I understand that this classifies as unknown provenance as the journalist is not referenced in the article, but if it helps, it was Matias Grez https://muckrack.com/matias-grez  who spoke to Academy of Robotics for the article.
 * Please let me know if there is any further information I can help with and thanks once again for your time. ARKGJL (talk) 23:54, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @ARKGJL: I detest sources that hide most of their content behind Javascript. I'll revise my statement on Verdict to "useless for notability for AoR (too sparse) and good for Kar-go". In re the CNN text, that is indeed the problem; the article doesn't credit Grez at all for the text anywhere that I can see (header, footer, etc.). Since the text is otherwise just as useful as the video with respect to AoR and Kar-go otherwise (The reason why I said it wasn't a transcript is for context; sometimes these pages are a video with the text transcript for deaf/blind users underneath) and you'd likely be citing that source anyway for Kar-go, I don't see this as too problematic overall. If need be, you would use and add the journalist's name that way.  —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 14:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for this feedback - very helpful and much appreciated. Should I revise the sources or the article or should I leave this to the editors' discretion? Apologies, for the novice question, but any advice on how I can support the next stage of review, would be very helpful! ARKGJL (talk) 14:19, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @ARKGJL: I would get rid of the useless sources as described above - the longer the bad sources remain, the longer the draft is going to stay a draft. —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 15:06, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

17:07:40, 8 December 2022 review of draft by Presto222
After editing my draft, I try to publish changes but nothing shows, rather it continues to display the mistakes and correction I need to make. Kindly help out.

Presto222 (talk) 17:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)


 * @Presto222: Enable Javascript for wikipedia.org and wikimedia.org in your browser/addon settings. You're getting a CAPTCHA that is being interdicted because Javascript is disabled/blocked. —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 17:09, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

22:44:50, 8 December 2022 review of submission by Klee Bakudan
Klee Bakudan (talk) 22:44, 8 December 2022 (UTC)


 * (Hoax-y draft, rejected, and now speedied.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:36, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

23:54:05, 8 December 2022 review of submission by BMA-Nation2020
Sources say the film is in post-production. It should be fine for now. Can't it not be a draft right now and be as a page with some good sources? It has enough already. Not to mention it's coming in 2023 now.

BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 23:54, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Films are generally not notable until they are released, as you have already been told. Unless there is something very unusual about the production of the film itself(see Rust (upcoming film), where someone was killed in an accidental shooting), it won't merit an article until then. 331dot (talk) 12:36, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Or if a trailer comes out. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 15:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The notability guidelines definintely do not say that. Releasing a trailer is a standard activity and not unusual. 331dot (talk) 09:52, 10 December 2022 (UTC)