Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 February 22

= February 22 =

00:56:45, 22 February 2022 review of submission by Asher Wasserbauer
Asher Wasserbauer (talk) 00:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand why my article for Draft:S._M._Chäruzu got refused. I understand he's a fairly new author but I tried to stay impartial in my article. The world should learn about this guy, his work is stunning with a lot of potential to come!
 * When you say "The world should learn about this guy, his work is stunning with a lot of potential to come" those are clues that he probably does not yet meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable author. It is too soon for an article. He must already have arrived and be notable in order to merit an article. You offer no independent reliable sources with significant coverage of him to summarize. Please read Your First Article. If you just want to tell the world about him to spread the word, you should use social media. 331dot (talk) 01:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

02:12:50, 22 February 2022 review of submission by SDC3021
Hi my draft Draft: Samsung Developer Conference has been rejected, not considered to have enough notability to be included in Wikipedia. However, it has several references from different sources. I am wondering why it is considered not enough notable for Wikipedia and if there is any way to publish this page in the future. Thank you. SDC3021 (talk) 02:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

07:13:37, 22 February 2022 review of submission by Twistar48
I believe my draft would add valuable content to Wikipedia and below I will explain why I'm requesting a re-review.

My draft was rejected by user:Eviolite with the following reasons cited:

- "This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia."

- "Wikipedia is not a gallery. The text info/equation you have here is better off incorporated in existing articles, such as Atomic orbital."

Regarding the second point, after asking in the community for advice I was further referenced to review WP:GALLERY.

I will now address the objections. First I will address the gallery objection. First I look at WP:GALLERY. Frankly, my entire goal with this article is perfectly captured in the paragraph which describes when galleries may be permissible:

"Generally, a gallery or cluster of images should not be added so long as there is space for images to be effectively presented adjacent to text. A gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. Just as we seek to ensure that the prose of an article is clear, precise and engaging, galleries should be similarly well-crafted. Gallery images must collectively add to the reader's understanding of the subject without causing unbalance to an article or section within an article while avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made."

Regarding the first sentence, if I felt there was room in any of the atomic orbital, hydrogen atom, or hydrogen-like atom articles I would have put the gallery there. However, those articles are already encumbered with covering many topics and they are already highly redundant with each other. Adding the content of my draft page to one of these articles would have resulted in additional duplication, rather, my longer term goal is to make a personal (and hopefully community supported) effort to curate these pages involving some content shuffles and merges. My goal with this page is to lighten the content load borne by those other pages so that they can more surgically focus on other interesting topics without getting bogged down in specific important details about, specifically, the equation describing the solution to the non-relativistic schrodinger equation, the geometric properties of that solution, and visualizations of that equation. Instead, they can focus on other aspects of atomic orbitals such as historical information, more sophisticated model, applications, etc. In summary, it is my feeling that "there is space for images to be effectively presented adjacent to text" is something which is not the case for the current nexus of atomic orbital, hydrogen atom and hydrogen-like atom, all of which describe atomic orbitals.

Regarding the second sentence: "if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images". My gallery falls exactly under this category. My gallery, by showing many atomic orbitals in close proximity, as well as in an exhaustive way (rather than only showing some representative orbitals), allows the reader to glean multiple aspects of the subject that cannot be easily described otherwise. These aspects include: (1) An easy opportunity to visually compare patterns between orbitals of different quantum numbers. Including orbitals out to a high (high being relative to what is "typical" or found elsewhere on Wikipedia, but not necessarily anywhere in the literature) principle quantum number makes these patterns particularly more apparent. and (2) an easy opportunity to compare and contrast real and atomic orbitals. Something which is rare to come across in the literature or Wikipedia, though it can be found.

I have taken great pains to ensure that this gallery is very well crafted and presents the information in a way that is very clear to the reader. This includes explanatory sections before the main gallery begins and explanatory captions throughout. I've made sure the images are all of high quality and themes and formats are consistent throughout. This is because I understand the importance of clear presentation. Because of the complicated nature of the atomic orbitals it can be difficult to show all of the 3D information. For this reason, at the top of the gallery, I explain multiple types of visualizations that appear in the literature and how they work. I carefully chose a 1/8 hemisphere cutaway for the main gallery to balance showing the full orbital with showing the geometric detail within the orbital. I will mention here that there are higher quality (in terms of resolution and visual beauty, not content) versions of some of the images I've included in circulation on Wikimedia commons and on the other pages I've linked. It would be one of my future goals for this page to bring all of the images up to top resolution, but I don't think such detail is necessary at this point for publication of this article as it would only slow me down and have me spending my time focussing on a less critical aspect instead of adressing more important issues like those I'm discussing now.

Finally, regarding the last sentence: I would say the gallery definitely collectively adds to the readers understanding, and if someone would claim many images are similar I would counter that it is critical to include all images shown because I am trying to draw points of contrast and comparison between the different images. In particular, if any images are excluded then the reader is left to infer certain patterns, and it is exactly my goal for this article that the reader does not have to infer the patterns, but rather, can see them, guess as to what they are, and then mentally test them against other examples in the table.

So in summary of this point, I would say that this paragraph on galleries perfectly describes, and elegantly anticipates, the case of my proposed draft page.

I will now address the two statements and links from Eviolite. First, about Wikipedia is not a gallery. I will address the bullet points that appear when following that link. I am not trying to use Wikipedia as a mirror or repository. Rather, I am trying to present visuals to help aid readers understanding of a particular subject. I don't believe the bullet points about external or internal links applies at all to my draft page as I am not using a large amount of links. I am not using public domain material, rather I am using self-generated images that were generated according to procedures described in relevant literature. Finally regarding photographs or media files, I would say that two things will provide "encyclopedic context" for the images in the gallery. The first is the accompany text at the top of the gallery. The second is the context in which this article will be placed within the nexus of articles about atomic physics, chemistry, and atomic orbitals in particular. I want to take this moment to share that it is my full intent to support this article, if it is created, with work spent on these other pages to link to it in a way that jives with the context and themes of those articles, but further supports them. In short, I see little in this link that stands as a mark against my article.

Eviolite also states "The text info/equation you have here is better off incorporated in existing articles, such as Atomic orbital." I agree to some degree that some of the material could be incorporated into existing articles, but as I've described above I do not believe it would be "better off" to do so. As I've said above, I believe that the atomic orbital, hydrogen atom, and hydrogen-like atom articles could use revision and merging so that they more clearly present information about atomic orbitals. One difficulty that all of those 3 pages are jockeying to explain and visualize exactly what I am trying to show in my proposed draft page. Like I said above, this page would unburden each of those pages from feeling the need to (a) describe and visualize the mathematical equation for non-relativistic hydrogen atom and (b) do so without stepping on the toes of the other pages. This is how I feel about the organization of the current state of Wikipedia's presentation of atomic orbitals, however, I admit that this is a topic on which reasonable people could disagree and somewhere where I would value feedback from more experienced Wikipedia editors. The reorganization is likely something I could not do by myself so I would need buy in and support from the physics/chemistry community. The only place I know where to start is the talk page for WikiProject Physics, but I would welcome suggestions for where else I could start a conversation about a re-organization of these pages. What I'll say here is that this is my only personal hesitation about this article. I do realize that, created as is now, it would duplicate information that appears in those articles. However, if my vision for these articles is a good one, I think it makes sense to start with the existence of this article, rather than trying to modify those articles in anticipation of the existence of something like this article appearing somewhere. For example, I could decide "ok all the atomic orbital information should go in atomic orbital" and beef up atomic orbital with a lot of info that is already covered in hydrogen-like atom, but then I'd have to pretty much delete the entire hydrogen-like atom article. While I think that may be a good course of action I could easily imagine myself very valid protestations of that course of action. The existence of this draft article would give an unambiguous place for a certain subset of the information in these articles to land and I think that would be valuable and aid in the general cleanup process.

Finally, Eviolite said "This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia." Frankly, I don't see how this article is in any way contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. (1) This is encyclopedic information. Thought of one way, it is a visual compilation of particular facts about a particular mathematical/physical phenomenon. These facts will be properly contextualized within the field with supporting references and via internal Wikipedia links. (2) this article takes a neutral point of view. It is difficult to not take a neutral point of view on a mathematical equation, but as a point of example, I will point out that there was some controversy on the talk page regarding the naming nomenclature for some of the images. I had a particular point of view on nomenclature and user:Geek3 had another. Frankly, Geek3's criticism encouraged me to do more research and as a result I modified the images to include both nomenclatures in, what I think, is a nice way. I think this was a perfect example of Wikipedia working as intended and I think the draft is stronger for it. (3) As these are all self-made images that I've released under appropriate licenses by publishing on Wikimedia commons, I don't think there are any use issues whatsoever. I've spent hours working on this because I am excited to share about it. (4) Again, I think the interaction with Geek3 provides a nice example of users treating eachother with respect and civility. I was in fact original inspired by a number of images that that user has posted about atomic orbitals throughout Wikipedia to go forward and make this page, so I am very happy for their input on it, and as I said above, this involvement only made the article stronger. (5) Wikipedia has no firm rules. I think many editors' and reviewers' kneejerk reaction to my article is "Wikipedia is not for galleries". Upon digging into some of the policies about galleries it is clear that while Wikipedia is wary about having galleries, it does recognize that in some cases galleries can be an important part of an encyclopedia. I encourage future reviewers to think about the importance of good visualizations for understanding of complex mathematical topics, and I even link to a successful popular youtube channel that demonstrates this astoundingly: 3Blue1Brown, https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYO_jab_esuFRV4b17AJtAw.

Finally some closing comments: I am a new Wikipedia editor. I'm excited to share some of my knowledge and understanding that I've gained through hard training as a scientist with others so it doesn't have to be as hard for them. This article is a good faith effort on my part to do that. I'm excited for detailed feedback on my article on ways to improve the content and making it more valuable for readers. I have ideas for the broader sub-topic of atomic orbitals, but I want to come in with humility and work to fit myself into the community. There is a lot I still have to learn about the Wikipedia community and I will need help from more experienced editors, whose input I value, to help get me up to speed.

Thank you very much for your time, attention, and consideration in reviewing this article for creation.

Twistar48 (talk) 07:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions so far. You have chosen to take on one of the most difficult and daunting tasks on Wikipedia. Let me give you some advice on getting more effective feedback. Don't write a large wall of text, everyone here is a volunteer and will generally not read a wall of text like the one above. You points may be valid but are lost in the verbose comment. I would perhaps recommend condensing your point down to 5 sentences at the most, below my comment, and let discussion grow from there. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 17:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello and thank you for the thoughtful comment. I would firstly like to apologize for the statement "This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia" – I agree that it is very harshly worded and the link was not the most helpful, but it was the only relevant option the software gave me (as it indirectly links What Wikipedia is not). My main concern with the draft that it was primarily a gallery, and per WP:NOTGALLERY  The majority of the article was images with short captions and no further information, the lead section consisted of equations that could fit in existing articles, and the body sections appeared to be uncited original research that specifically related to the rendering of atomic orbitals. As WP:GALLERY (which you linked and is different from WP:NOTGALLERY) also notes, When we review articles, our main question is whether the draft would likely survive a deletion discussion if it became an article; I based my decline on the fact that the only deletion discussion of a gallery in the past 5 years had consensus to delete or move out of mainspace, and several earlier discussions that kept the article had arguments based on the fact that it helped link to many other articles, which is not the case here. I of course welcome any other reviewer to reevaluate the article, though my suggestions for increasing the chance of acceptance are to:
 * Reformat the Wikipedia draft article to be more of a list or table format, so that you could note more information about each orbital with citations, although I am not sure if it's possible to have more info than what's already at Atomic orbital.
 * Create a gallery page on Wikimedia Commons (here), in a similar fashion to the gallery of graphs in graph theory, which is Wikipedia's sister site for hosting and showcasing images and media. As Bduke pointed out, Wikipedia is primarily an encyclopedia, not a teaching tool, so even though the image collection may be helpful it is better fit to other sites.
 * Happy editing!  ev iolite   (talk)  17:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Would a rename to Wavefunction solutions to the Schrodinger equation for the Hydrogen atom or something similar help? &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 10:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The draft has a lot of images, but that should not prevent adequate supporting text, so it need not be submitted as a gallery. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 09:23, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Request on 16:54:02, 22 February 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by User6483701
I rewrote the page and pressed resubmit. Literally one minute after the resubmission, it gets declined. That's a bit odd to me. I don't really understand what you are going on about that it "reads like an advertisement". Every company profile you have on Wikipedia reads the same.. Microsoft, Apple, BlackRock, Google, whoever.

Please be more descriptive in your rejection. What parts are reading like an advertisement? I merely described the company, what it is about, and provided relevant information regarding the management fund.

Is it that I linked to external sites? What is it exactly? What exactly are you rejecting here with your generic, un-attentive, robotic, unhelpful rejection and response.

User6483701 (talk) 16:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There are ZERO company profiles on Wikipedia. We have articles on notable businesses. Theroadislong (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The Microsoft article is nothing like your draft. Wikipedia is not for merely telling about a company. An article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. 331dot (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If you removed the press releases and the links to the companies' own sites (known as primary sources), there's not much left to demonstrate notability. I suggest you take a look at WP:YOURFIRSTARTICLE. And also WP:COI will help you avoid future frustration. TechnoTalk (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

18:46:17, 22 February 2022 review of submission by Chriswchen
I just submitted a draft and it was rejected for lack of references. There are not any public sources that I could find on-line. I referenced a Newsweek article of which I have a hard copy. Unfortunately, much of what the article is about took place decades ago, so references are hard to come by. Any suggestions? Chriswchen (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, without proper sourcing, there's no way to determine if the Church is notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. There may be ways to identify archives for the material you have in hard copy. You can cite print sources and put them in the reference section. Someone else will have access to scanned print archives and can verify them. See Citing sources for how to do proper referencing. Of greater concern is that you may be writing about a family member. See WP:COI for how to address this.  Lastly, the article seems to be as much about the founder as the Church.  The focus will need to be tightened. See WP:YOURFIRSTARTICLE for general content advice about writing an article. It's a hard process even for experienced editors. TechnoTalk (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)