Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 July 12

= July 12 =

Becoming a participant of the “WikiProject Articles for creation”
Dear Help Desk,

i would like to become a participant if this group but idk how🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️. Please help. Reply on talk page or here(preferably my talk page). Thanks 😀👍 — Preceding unsigned comment added by CLathrop202020 (talk • contribs) 06:14, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Can't submit article
I wanted to submit a article named Draft:Government Boys Primary School, Mothparja but I couldn't. Could someone help me to submit it. FAAHS (talk) 09:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

10:57:45, 12 July 2022 review of submission by CLathrop202020
Why did you edit this. It was fine as it was. Germerican (talk) 10:57, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It wasn't something that would one day could be an *article*. (Which are what things submitted review are) The content was *somewhat* more appropriate for a talk page. Wikipedia is not Facebook.Naraht (talk) 13:15, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

15:48:28, 12 July 2022 review of draft by Jitsujay
Hello Wiki Pros...

I need some of your fine assistance with determining which sources I used are not a wiki "reliable source". If I know which ones to address I should be able to correct and move forwards. I want to thank everyone so far for their help and assistance and look forward to producing my first artificial.

Thanks and be safe...

Jitsujay (talk) 15:48, 12 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
 * We can't use IMDb (No editorial oversight). IMDb is a wiki, and whatever fact-checking they claim to do is ineffectual at best.
 * https://www.rogerstv.com/show?lid=12&rid=9&sid=4272 is useless for notability (connexion to subject). This appears to have been written by or on behalf of the show, for a provider that airs it on one of its channels.
 * https://whfsc.com/2009.html is a non-sequitur.
 * We can't use https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gc8UPQLSdkE (unknown provenance). YouTube is only a usable source if the video is made by an outlet we would normally consider to have editorial oversight and uploaded to that outlet's verified channel. We cannot use the other YouTube cite for the exact same reason.
 * https://www.shinja.us/shinja-masters-council/ is a non-sequitur and would be useless as a source anyway (too sparse).
 * http://www.wakazamurai.com/home/sokecouncil.html " " "-" " " " " " " " " (" "). I am going to make a blanket statement here: Coverage of the dojo's sensei is NOT equivalent to coverage of the dojo proper.
 * https://issuu.com/taekwondotimes/docs/179_january_2011_dmag1 is missing critical bibliographical information (article title, article byline, page numbers). Issuu cites should be treated as if they were cites to print media, as otherwise it becomes a lot more time-consuming to actually assess the source. As to the article itself, it's useless for notability (too sparse).
 * https://uia.org/s/or/en/1100032452 is 404-compliant.
 * None of your sources are usable, with half of them being about the dojo's sensei and not the dojo. —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 16:05, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

16:09:38, 12 July 2022 review of draft by Naani1986
My draft article was declined after submission. I have added additional citations to my draft. There was a note about the neutral tone, which I think I have maintained all over. Please help me with any suggestions for my draft article. Thank you! Naani1986 (talk) 16:09, 12 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I am not very experienced neither but I see the personal life section still don't have any reference. I think you could write some controversies related to him? You can also check WP:WEIGHT. QiuLiming1 (talk) 00:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

18:02:20, 12 July 2022 review of draft by QiuLiming1
This draft was created 7 days ago, and it still hasn't been reviewed, so I went here to ask.(Other drafts I created often got refused in less than 3 days)

I cited a scholar journal 'art technology', it in total has over 3 million downloads, according to CNKI, So I think it could easily pass notability guideline and be accepted.

QiuLiming1 (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The review process doesn't work that way. It's naturally going to take longer because most of the sources are in Chinese (which generally returns word salad in automated translation), and thus would require someone who can read the language. —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 18:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * User:QiuLiming1/Inappropriate illustrations of Chinese textbook got declined in 1 day. QiuLiming1 (talk) 18:56, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * And? —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 18:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I am just questioning does it always require a language expert to review a draft. QiuLiming1 (talk) 19:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

22:25:53, 12 July 2022 review of draft by Delaneysteve
The reviewer who has rejected my latest draft for this entry indicates that the tone of the article is not formal, and that it uses "peacock" terms. I have looked at the definition of peacock terms, but I can't really find any examples of such language in my draft article. Furthermore, I believe the tone is indeed formal, and "just the facts". If someone (perhaps the reviewer) would like to point out specifically which terms are peacock, or where the tone drifts away from formal, than I would be able to address those issues. Failing that, I am at a loss to see what could/should be changed. Please advise!

Delaneysteve (talk) 22:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)


 * At the very least the list of courses and the results table need to be 86'd. —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 22:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply Jéské. I modeled my entry after the Calgary Marathon entry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calgary_Marathon) which is already online, and has been for some time. That entry does include a list of results. I can certainly remove our table of results, and the list of courses, but they are indeed just simple facts. I had thought that providing factual evidence of the history of the event was actually necessary to prove that it deserved an entry.
 * Do you have any advice regarding the "peacock" comments of the second reviewer? Is "oldest" considered peacock? Delaneysteve (talk) 13:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

23:13:00, 12 July 2022 review of draft by Wriphe
My article was declined on the grounds of failing to "meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes." I thought I had sufficient citations, and I didn't think any of my sources were unreliable. I'm not sure what exactly I need to do to correct my mistake. Can someone please point me in the right direction?

Wriphe (talk) 23:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The "Works" section needs to have a source for each and every one. —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 23:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I assume using the artist's website for reference is a violation of Wikipedia's rules against self-citation, yes? (I see other visual artists have have no works listed. Can you advise whether it is better practice to omit individual works altogether?) Wriphe (talk) 00:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * sometime but not always, see WP:ABOUTSELF. QiuLiming1 (talk) 00:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)