Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 July 26

= July 26 =

06:57, 26 July 2023 review of submission by Southpaw70
Does this qualify as a stub article? The album is in pre-order and I have time to add some more existing information. There will be more additional information to add once the album is released. Southpaw70 (talk) 06:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)


 * @Southpaw70: the verifiability and notability requirements are the same for a stub as for any other article. The sources currently cited in this draft are insufficient to establish notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:16, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

09:03, 26 July 2023 review of submission by Incognitopublisher
According to an authentic source, I have written an article about it. However, it was rejected by another user. I would appreciate guidance from someone on how to improve this article. Incognitopublisher (talk) 09:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Unreleased films generally do not merit articles. The discussions about salaries don't override that. 331dot (talk) 09:06, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

09:28, 26 July 2023 review of submission by Davsonbob57
I made some small corrections in the draft originally submitted. Assistance needed. Davsonbob57 (talk) 09:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)


 * @Davsonbob57: this draft has been rejected, and looks likely to be deleted shortly. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:36, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

12:12, 26 July 2023 review of submission by EuroDigi
Hi! Why was my article declined and how I can rectify? EuroDigi (talk) 12:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC)


 * @EuroDigi: do you mean Draft:Rupa Euro? This draft has been not just declined, but rejected, meaning it won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

13:02, 26 July 2023 review of submission by Midnightkidnaper
requesting help for writing aritcle Midnightkidnaper (talk) 13:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Midnightkidnaper. Your draft was deleted due to unambiguous advertising. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise a topic. It is not social media like Twitter, Facebook, or LinkedIn and is not a business directory.
 * Do you have any specific questions about creating an article draft that meets our strict requirements? Please read Help:Your first article.  Qcne  (talk)  13:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

15:43:58, 26 July 2023 review of draft by Mouse1948
I need help understanding what are reliable sources and inline citations. Once understanding them how to physically add them to my draft Mouse1948 (talk) 15:43, 26 July 2023 (UTC)


 * For referencing assistance, please see Referencing for beginners. Please read about reliable sources, but in short reliable sources have a reputation of fact checking and editorial control.(they don't make stuff up or print stuff without checking it for accuracy) 331dot (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

17:37, 26 July 2023 review of submission by Alexxxxx125
My article keep on deleting over and over i dont why Alexxxxx125 (talk) 17:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Alexxxxx125. Your sandbox articles are wholly inappropriate for Wikipedia, as they serve only to promote a subject. This is not permitted. Remember that Wikipedia is not a place for any type of self-promotion or advertisement. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia: not an advertising platform, directory, or a way to promote a subject.
 * Let us know if you have any more questions.  Qcne  (talk)  18:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

17:54, 26 July 2023 review of submission by 103.15.255.71
Where is the issue and what is the solution please guide this article belongs to film production many artist workers associated with this and get work..They also edit many information for this page time to time which is beneficial for others.. Please guide and publish this article on one of the greatest encyclopedia ie wikipedia. Thanks 103.15.255.71 (talk) 17:54, 26 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi IP editor,
 * You do not link an draft article, and your contribution history shows no articles that have been created in draft. Could you link us to the draft article in question please?  Qcne  (talk)  17:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not concerned with if the presence of an article benefits anyone(such as getting people a job). 331dot (talk) 18:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

18:55, 26 July 2023 review of submission by 166.48.119.67
Y 166.48.119.67 (talk) 18:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)


 * You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further at this time. 331dot (talk) 18:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

19:39:44, 26 July 2023 review of draft by BarnardLog
Is there a way to add tags to a submitted draft?

BarnardLog (talk) 19:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)


 * @BarnardLog: you can add project tags either before or after submitting, if that's what you're asking. More generally, you can edit submitted drafts in exactly the same way as before submission. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

20:03, 26 July 2023 review of submission by Arumu
My article in regards to the Biography of a person, keeps getting rejected with feedback from reviewer as references not enough. Please advise. Here is the submitted article. Cynthia Lourde is an American Movie Producer [1] [2] [3] [4], Actor[5] [6] [7] [8], Singer [9] [10] [11] & Philanthropist [12] [13]. She Produced a Movie 'Varnashramam' [14] [15] [16] [17] under her company 'Cynthia ProductionHouse' [18], Movie was released theatrically on February 10, 2023 [19] [20] [21] [22]. She was a debut as female lead in 'Varnashramam’, Media & Press were describing her acting skills were great & amazing that she lived the role though she is a debut actor [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]. She was inspired to make movies after her involvement through Non-profit charity HFCIC [28] that she founded to help the special needs children community [29]. References 1. https://views7media.blogspot.com/2023/02/blog-post_9 2. https://www.tamilstar.com/varnashraman-movie-audio-launch-stills/ 3. https://mobiritz.com/entertainment/top-5-most-powerful-film-producers/ 4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQfOSQrRDAU 5. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/cynthia-lourde 6. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHzQcdpUTlM&t=7s 7. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4KEOxxj8O8 8. https://epaper.deccanchronicle.com/epaper_main.aspx#2626373 9. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4cLW0Jt33E 10. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/videos/entertainment/music/tamil/varnashramam-song-kolai-vizhum-lyrical/videoshow/97732136.cms 11. https://open.spotify.com/artist/3iQeH5gSYOQgcqXoDliNVK 12. https://hfcic.org/ 13. https://www.bloomberg.com/press-releases/2022-10-05/hfcic-launches-new-services-regarding-chronically-ill-children 14. https://www.tamilstar.com/varnashraman-movie-audio-launch-stills/ 15. https://views7media.blogspot.com/2023/02/blog-post_9.html 16. http://flickstatus.com/tamil/66780.html 17. https://behindframes.in/varnasramam-movie-trailer-screening-in-varisu-and-thunivu-release-theaters/ 18. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpm45sOHHb9jWeFMbbmbvWg 19. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/tamil/movie-details/varnashramam/movieshow/97775770.cms 20. https://in.bookmyshow.com/movies/varnashramam/ET00352047 21. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHzQcdpUTlM 22. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHzQcdpUTlM&t=7s 23. http://flickstatus.com/tamil/67095.html 24. https://www.startcutaction.in/varnashramam-movie-review/ 25. https://gtamilnews.com/varnasramam-movie-review/ 26. https://bakkiyamcinematv.com/12747-2/ 27. http://epaper.deccanchronicle.com/epaper_main.aspx 28. https://hfcic.org 29. https://publicistpaper.com/how-can-hfcic-help-chronically-ill-children/ Arumu (talk) 20:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Please do not copy and paste draft articles here. The draft exists; we can see it.
 * Please confirm that you have read and understood the reviews. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:32, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

20:59, 26 July 2023 review of submission by 81.151.20.32
unsure how to redraft the article to read less like an essay as stated in the rejection. 81.151.20.32 (talk) 20:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Writing like an essay usually happens when you make the mistake of writing from your own knowledge and thoughts. But Wikipedia isn't interested - at all - in what you know (or what I know, or what any random person on the Internet knows). It is only interested in what the reliable sources say. A Wikipedia article should never advance an argument or a hypothesis, or reach a conclusion. It may, of course, summarise an argument or a conclusion presented in a single cited source.
 * You start off with a definition; but is that term ("ideological fascism") actually in use? It might be in the single source that you cite, but it is not in the title or abstract (I'm ignoring the dictionary citation, which is generally irrelevant to an encyclopaedia article). Indeed, you have given us no reason to believe that the specific phrase "ideological fascism" even exists as a concept that has been written about, and so is a possible topic for a Wikipedia article.
 * Your job is to find the reliable sources (probably academic papers) that discuss specifically the term "ideological fascism", and summarize what they say about it - nothing more. If you cannot find several such sources (and they will need not to be all from the same author(s)) then no article is possible at present. ColinFine (talk) 15:02, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

23:38, 26 July 2023 review of submission by MandaQoP
Hi,

I put together a page for Mixkit Draft:Mixkit as it was missing from the library of stock footage Stock_footage. The stock footage page has a note at the top saying that it does not represent a worldwide view, so I added Mixkit as it is an Australian stock footage site and I use Mixkit for creating videos on TikTok/Instagram etc... plus it appears in a lot of articles about stock footage sites. The editor for the stock footage page said that Mixkit needed it's own Wikipedia article before it could be added to the list, so I've spent the past week gathering resources that met the criteria after reading through the notable references page, so found sources from universities, educational sites etc..., I then spent three days working on the article to ensure it didn't sound like an advert and was just factual information about the Mixkit library. I based my initial outline on the Shutterstock article as this is an approved article.

The reviewer for the draft Mixkit article declined it very quickly, literally within a few hours of submitting it, so I'm wondering if the references were read? Perhaps the first few were read and these were not good enough so others further down were missed, in which case is it possible to know which ones so they can be removed? All references were checked with the notable references tool WP:RSP. The reviewer's comment says that the references should mention the object of the article in detail and not in passing, for most of the references, the entire reference is either about the Mixkit library or contains detailed information and is not a comment in passing.

The reviewer also said it is worded like an advertisement. I was extremely careful to not word it like this but maybe my idea of factual is different than theirs. I also reviewed other stock library articles that have been approved to see examples of how to best word the article. If any sections are worded like an advertisement, please advise which parts and I will remove or change them.

Any help or guidance for further improvements to the page would be appreciated.

Thanks, Amanda

Update Edit: I've re-read my draft and the first paragraph I agree that the sources aren't great, so will work on those. I've rechecked some of the other stock footage library articles that are approved, most have similar sources, and some of have fewer sources, including some with sources that no longer work (404s). But I'll spend the weekend trying to find some better sources and hopefully will improve that side of things. Still need to know which bits sound like an advert though as this was something I tried extremely hard to avoid.

MandaQoP (talk) 23:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @MandaQoP! Sorry for the wall of text, don't feel pressure to read it all at once. 😁
 * I'm the reviewer who declined the article. First of all, the reason I reviewed it so quickly is that I usually review submissions that were submitted within the last day, because that's usually when the editors are more likely to fix the issues and resubmit, hopefully to be approved eventually. So even though it says there's a four-month backlog, sometimes they get reviewed much sooner, because it isn't a queue and different reviewers have different habits for that kind of thing.
 * Anyway, I'm happy to answer your questions and thanks for being so willing to learn! The main thrust of advertising/promotional tone comes down to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Not only do claims in articles have to be supported by reliable sources, but we also have to avoid making positive or negative claims that don't exhibit due weight for inclusion. The first thing that stands out is that the first sentence says the assets are "high-quality". That may well be true, but it's subjective, and the first sentence of an article is subject to even stricter rules than the rest of it. The cited source also calls the stock clips "amazing" and you might find it easier to see why that wouldn't be appropriate to include in the article.
 * Continuing through the article I see a few more instances of promotional tone, but to be honest it's not egregious. Sentences like However, its potential to extend its offerings to a broader audience was soon recognized seem to serve only to puff up the subject and aren't written in an encyclopedic tone. Calling the assets "exclusive" also stands out to me as something that sounds good but doesn't really mean anything, like the notorious "solutions", which crops up endlessly on drafts about startup businesses. The "Features" section is mostly fine, but a licensing model that is easy to understand and use is not verifiable (unless there are multiple sources establishing this licensing model as particularly easy to use, which doesn't seem to be the case) and is solely promotional, as is a whole subsection about how accessible their user interface is.
 * The main issue, however, would be the sources. Wikipedia's policies on sources can be a lot to take in, so let me go through the ones that were present at time of review and explain why they are or aren't appropriate. Note that if a source is reliable, it may still not be sufficient to establish notability—I'll point out where this applies. Non-reliable sources should not be used at all.
 * 1. de.wikipedia.org. Wikipedia is user-generated and cannot be a reliable source.
 * 2, 6. Australian Financial Review's Rich List. AFR is a reliable source, but the Ta'eed's entry on the list does not even mention Mixkit. Be careful here: you wrote in the article that Envato's founders, the Ta'eeds, founded Mixkit, and cited two sources—one that says Mixkit is an Envato product, and one that says the Ta'eeds founded Envato. This is a sneaky issue, but what you've done is called synthesis and it's a form of original research that Wikipedia editors and articles must avoid. There could be any number of reasons why the Ta'eeds weren't at all involved in the creation of Mixkit. We have to stick to exactly what the sources say.
 * 3. AFR article on Envato. Again, this source is reliable, but only mentions Mixkit in passing as a way Envato might counter their economic downturn. It can be used to cite stated facts, but lacks the significant coverage necessary to establish notability.
 * 4. Mixkit reviews, Slashdot. I'm surprised to see Slashdot doesn't have an entry on the list of perennial sources, but this review page at least doesn't appear to me to be reliable. The description reads like an ad and I would guess there wasn't any editorial oversight here. I'd avoid using it.
 * 5. Envato Facts and Figures. This is a primary source and should be avoided except to support entirely uncontroversial statements—basically, statements that a subject has no reason to lie about. I would say that does apply here, as it's only supporting that Mixkit is an Envato product, but in any case cannot establish notability. After all, if primary sources could establish notability, then anyone could write a few articles about themselves and get their own page.
 * 7. Startup Galaxy. This source cannot be considered independent since it is a platform for investors. Therefore they are going to be biased when describing the companies they deal with.
 * 8. Mixkit.co. Primary source, the above issues apply here also.
 * 9-10. producthunt.com. Content on this website is user-generated and not reliable.
 * 11. 12 best stock music sites of 2022 for creatives, creativeboom.com. Listicles like these are often paid for by the products they promote, and sometimes even provide affiliate links that benefit the publication directly. I'm sure there are some that are reliable, but I'd err on the side of not using them.
 * 12. 12 bancos de videos gratuitos para usar en tus redes sociales, hootsuite.com. Same issues as above, plus this is a blog post and doesn't have editorial oversight. Not reliable.
 * 13. Legally sourcing images, music and videos, RMIT University. This is a funny one: the title and source sound official, but following the link we see that it's just a designer at the university posting about her favorite sources. Not significant coverage and probably not reliable.
 * 14. Mixkit, educatorstechnology.com. There isn't a single word in this article that doesn't aggressively promote Mixkit, and right on the sidebar it says "As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases". While the Amazon thing doesn't apply to this article, those two facts make me confident in calling this source unreliable.
 * 15. CEU Podcast Library. Similarly to the RMIT source, it's just a post about where they like to get resources.
 * 16. Mixkit Review, Kripesh Adwani. This article contains affiliate links and is therefore not an independent source.
 * 17. 20 Truly Best Stock Video Websites and Libraries, freeforvideo.com. Same issues as similar articles above.
 * 18. Video Assets, Xavier University. This link is dead, but it seems like it was similar to the RMIT and CEU sources discussed above.
 * 19. Mixkit License, mixkit.co. It's fine to use this as a source for the terms of the license itself, but as discussed, cannot establish notability due to its status as a primary source.
 * 20. mixkit.co, trustpilot.com. Trustpilot reviews are user-generated and therefore not reliable.
 * 21. Honorable Mention - Mixkit, awwwards.com. The content of this page is one short sentence. I'd avoid using it as a reliable source, but even if it were, it's not significant coverage.
 * 22. How to Find and Use Media Assets Legally, Berkeley. Same issues as RMIT and CEU sources above, though this source does seem better overall. Still doesn't cover Mixkit significantly, however.
 * 23. Mixkit, freetech4teachers.com. This is a personal blog and would generally be considered unreliable unless proven reliable through its own notability.
 * Well, I hope that all helps. As a general rule, stick to news articles about the subject. If you can't find any, then it probably doesn't meet the guidelines for its own Wikipedia page. Also note that just because other articles exist, that doesn't mean this one should be similar—it's entirely possible that those articles are poorly sourced and need improvement or deletion.  WP scatter  t/c 23:11, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Lots of amazing information, thank you. I'll go and do some rewrites. MandaQoP (talk) 23:53, 27 July 2023 (UTC)