Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 August 23

= August 23 =

03:22, 23 August 2023 review of submission by BestCorinth1867
How can I reply to comments about my article? BestCorinth1867 (talk) 03:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @BestCorinth1867: if your reply is relevant to the draft review and needs to be seen by other reviewers, you can just manually edit the draft and enter your comment below the one you're responding to, although please keep it brief as that part of the draft isn't meant to be a discussion forum as such. For more extensive discussion, you can use the draft talk page, pinging in relevant users. Or if your reply is more of a personal one and less relevant to future reviewers, you can comment on the user talk page of the reviewer you are responding to. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

06:37, 23 August 2023 review of submission by Chikko waiter
Jay Pizzle has been mentioned in many reliable sources in Nigeria. He is a top producer who has worked not only with A-list musicians in Nigeria but also with international musicians. If articles about new or unknown producers like these are on Wikipedia, then it's likely my article that needs correction. Therefore, could you please provide me with guidelines and point out the mistakes I made so that I can make the necessary adjustments? Chikko waiter (talk) 06:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Chikko waiter. The most important thing you read is Notability (music). Only artists who meet the criteria set out in that policy document can have a Wikipedia article.  Qcne  (talk)  07:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

08:12, 23 August 2023 review of submission by Jaipasltemps
Hello, I would like to make a Wikipedia reference page or a biography for a character I am online.

I would really like to know how I could achieve my goal. If it cannot be done, I would like to know why to be able to understand.

Thank you so much! Jaipasltemps (talk) 08:12, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, but Wikipedia is not for that purpose. That is what social media is for. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia about notable topics that receive coverage in independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 08:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jaipasltemps: you cannot, and my advice is to stop now. Wikipedia is a global encyclopaedia, and we publish articles on subjects that are notable. This is not a fandom, social media or blogging site, or any other platform to tell the world about yourself or your fictional alter egos. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok sorry, I was missunderstanding. I am new here. Thank you for taking the time to let me understand, I appreciate it a lot! Jaipasltemps (talk) 08:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's okay. If you have a look around, read some articles, you'll get an idea of what sort of things we publish. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

10:27, 23 August 2023 review of submission by Ryan Saigon
Hello everyone, my article has been waiting for more than 4 months now and still have no official feedback. Please kindly help so I can work further on it. Thank you very much Ryan Saigon (talk) 10:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * As noted on your draft, it could take four months or more. There are thousands of drafts waiting for review and a limited number of reviewers to conduct reviews. Please continue to be patient. 331dot (talk) 10:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

12:04, 23 August 2023 review of submission by 46.109.187.225
pls submit it its a youtuber that i knoww

Please, its a youtuber that i know and he would be happy if you accepted 46.109.187.225 (talk) 12:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

15:17, 23 August 2023 review of submission by Sufiyan Brom
please guide me why my draft is decline Sufiyan Brom (talk) 15:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @Sufiyan Brom: it was declined for the reason given in the decline notice, namely that the draft provides no evidence of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:20, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

15:21, 23 August 2023 review of submission by Nsbfrank
Hello Please, I need assistance with the review of the reference I provided for this draft: Beyond Vision. I want to kindly as for clarity on the reference sources that are not qualified for the Wikipedia page. Nsbfrank (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Here are the references used -
 * "O voo seguro e multifacetado que o 5G inaugurou na indústria dos drones" (in European Portuguese). 2023-03-21. Retrieved 2023-08-23.
 * SecurityMagazine (2022-02-16). "Drone da Beyond Vision participa em simulacro no Porto de Aveiro". Security Magazine (in European Portuguese). Retrieved 2023-08-23.
 * Visão (2021-03-10). "Drones da Beyond Vision ajudam na produção de azeite". Agroportal (in European Portuguese). Retrieved 2023-08-23.
 * Habli, Ibrahim; Sujan, Mark; Gerasimou, Simos; Schoitsch, Erwin; Bitsch, Friedemann (2021-08-25). Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security. SAFECOMP 2021 Workshops: DECSoS, MAPSOD, DepDevOps, USDAI, and WAISE, York, UK, September 7, 2021, Proceedings. Springer Nature. ISBN 978-3-030-83906-2.
 * Drones | Digital Arctic Shipping". das.nersc.no. Retrieved 2023-08-23.
 * Chilkunda, Adarsh; Nakama, Sarah; Chilkunda, Vikram; Pedro, Dário; Matos-Carvalho, João P.; Campos, Luís (2023-03-20). "UAV-based Scenario Builder and Physical Testing platform for Autonomous Vehicles". IEEE: 77–84. doi:10.1109/CIoT57267.2023.10084885. ISBN 979-8-3503-9669-0.
 * Portuguese Navy Trials Beyond Vision UAV in Recovery and Resilience Plan". Retrieved 2023-08-23.
 * MEO. "IOT Challenge - Edições anteriores | MEO Empresas". MEO (in European Portuguese). Retrieved 2023-08-23.
 * Nsbfrank (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Nsbfrank: I've not analysed the sources in any depth, but a quick glance suggests that none of them meet the WP:GNG standard for notability (independent and reliable secondary sources, with significant coverage of Beyond Vision).
 * They (some or all of them) may be used to support some of the content in the draft, but that isn't enough for acceptance into Wikipedia. And even then, there remains some content which isn't referenced. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @DoubleGrazingMany thanks for the feedback. So the WP:GNG did mention books and journals as recognizable references, and in this case, the company has over 60 of these publications with IEEE, MBPi, Google Scholar, and so on. I only picked the ones that are linked to the article. Also, the other links are just platforms that have published the company's EU projects, awards, and recognitions. So I need more clarity on what made them not qualify for Wikipedia. Nsbfrank (talk) 15:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * They are not independent. Theroadislong (talk) 16:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's true as well. While a publication may in and of itself be independent, it can still feature non-independent content, as I believe is the case here. A paper in a scientific journal co-authored by someone involved with the subject is only independent to an extent. Similarly, an article in a trade magazine which is based on publicity materials and/or written 'collaboratively' with the subject is not the same as a journalist doing their research without reference to the subject, and being free to report what they find, warts and all. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Nsbfrank: probably the biggest problem is lack of significant coverage; just being mentioned in a book or journal etc. isn't enough, the coverage must be extensive and detailed enough to satisfy the SIGCOV definition. And on a wider point, all the sources (of which there must be three or more) that you rely on to establish notability must meet every aspect of the GNG standard, ie. be independent and reliable and secondary and provide significant coverage. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

22:47, 23 August 2023 review of submission by Dhpzq
Hello, I've set up a new page and have linked to external websites to make sure the sources are there. But it says I don't appear to have put in any citations and I'm wondering what I should put in. Also, I don't seem to be able to get back to the 'easy' editing page, and seem to have got in a bit of a muddle. Advice appreciated. Dhpzq (talk) 22:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @Dhpzq: firstly, do not "link to external websites", this is not useful, or actually even allowed; what we need to see are references, preferably using the inline citations and footnotes method, see WP:REFB.
 * Secondly, even if you cite all current external links as references, they are all primary, and most are close to the subject, and therefore do not establish the subject's notability.
 * Thirdly, the draft is purely promotional in nature. If LMH wishes to market their foundation year, they are welcome to do so, of course, but Wikipedia is not the channel for that. Speaking of which, do you work for LMH, or have some other connection with them? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:33, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

23:22, 23 August 2023 review of submission by TomahF
I have spent numerous hours on this effort to create a timeline of mechanical engineering innovation. Before doing so, I looked at several similar examples, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_electrical_and_electronic_engineering. I've attempted to respond to each of the review comments and correct any outstanding issues. I think this page would be very useful to engineer-historians and am hope that the issues may be resolved. Any advice on making this page suitable would be greatly appreciated. Thomas Fehring, P.E. ASME History and Heritage Committee Past Chair and Current Member TomahF (talk) 23:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello @TomahF: this draft has been rejected (nearly two years ago), and won't therefore be considered further. If you would make your case for reopening it, you need to approach the rejecting reviewer directly. Or, given that you have extended confirmed status, if you believe this meets the core requirements of notability, verifiability, copyright, etc., you are of course within your rights to publish this yourself, and a New Page Patroller will then assess it. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:27, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @TomahF It's clear that this has been huge task. The fundamental issue I see on a quick skim read is the lead, where you describe all the research you have done. I'm glad you have done the research, but we do not find that interesting, nor useful.
 * All we care about is recording what is said in multiple, reliable, secondary sources. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @TomahF. Further reading shows a lack of references, coupled with an abundance inline links (not useful).
 * Then this analysis shows it to be a vast copyright violation. That was picked up previously. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:37, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The copyright issue is not valid; the document the analysis refers to is the same one that I created, but subsequently placed on the ETHW.org website, after being rejected numerous times by Wikipedia. I would greatly prefer if the page was posted on Wikipedia, because it would receive far greater exposure. TomahF (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Get it right and it will be able to be posted here. Probably now you have to prove that you are the author there and here.
 * Show us why the rejection should be overturned, please. Right now I see WP:OR and the wrong tone. 🇺🇦  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:33, 24 August 2023 (UTC)