Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 July 28

= July 28 =

03:07:10, 28 July 2023 review of submission by Hameltion
You are invited to join the discussion at. &#x0020;A review is requested for a draft (possible Recent deaths nomination) by an editor with a conflict of interest (me). Hameltion (talk &#124; contribs) 03:07, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

07:28, 28 July 2023 review of submission by Dineshmhatre
Am I doing anything wrong or page for Rajaram Salvi can not be created at all? Dineshmhatre (talk) 07:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC)


 * @Dineshmhatre: this draft has been rejected for lack of notability (and, I might add, any obvious claim of noteworthiness, meaning even if accepted it would inevitably be deleted on sight). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:34, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

08:56, 28 July 2023 review of submission by JAMB2023
I could not upload images for the articles I wrote, including this one. It says my IP is blocked. But, I can write and edit articles. JAMB2023 (talk) 08:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

12:05, 28 July 2023 review of submission by Yodamaster1
There are multiple references in the article, which are:


 * in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
 * reliable
 * secondary
 * independent of the subject

which are provided by professors of mathematics, other educational projects referenced and software built in the project as well as examples of the type of resources created by the SMILE organization.

I do need help with the formatting of references though. Yodamaster1 (talk) 12:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Yodamaster1.
 * There are only two references in this draft - the vast majority of your content is unreferenced. Every statement in your draft should have an appropriate reference, otherwise it looks like Original research. Readers need to be able to verify all the content in an article. Your two existing references do look appropriate, but either your draft should be a lot shorter and just paraphrase these two references in your own words, or you need a bunch more reliable, independent, secondary references that discusses SMILE in detail.  Qcne  (talk)  12:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

14:19, 28 July 2023 review of submission by 2605:59C8:1C5:7810:CCAF:EE91:8242:F7C
I need help understanding which references are allowed. Thank you! 2605:59C8:1C5:7810:CCAF:EE91:8242:F7C (talk) 14:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi IP editor. Courtesy link: Draft:Lynn Sorensen. I am afraid that your draft has been rejected and therefore Lynn can not have an article on Wikipedia at this time, there is nothing you can do. For future reference, a reference cannot be a Wikipedia article (because Wikipedia is inherently unreliable, as it is User-generated content), and a reference cannot be a random Google Search for "Bad Company Live at Wembley" for hopefully obvious reasons. I would have a read of Referencing which explains why all articles must have robust references. Hope that helps,  Qcne  (talk)  21:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

14:49, 28 July 2023 review of submission by Sarahafifi
Article should be reviewed Sarahafifi (talk) 14:49, 28 July 2023 (UTC)


 * OutsideNormality (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Sarahafifi. Could you let us know how Kayed passes the criteria set out in the Notability (people) threshold?  Qcne  (talk)  21:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Qcne
 * Talking about a real person ( poet ), I have added supporting references, I did my part as a wiki user but I need support from others. Sarahafifi (talk) 12:54, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I am sure nobody is doubting that they are a real person, but what you need to do is explain how they pass the criteria at Notability (people). Theroadislong (talk) 14:07, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

15:45, 28 July 2023 review of submission by 109.76.88.29
My son is doing a project on this author and there is no Wikipedia entry for him. There should be one! 109.76.88.29 (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Your son should not be using Wikipedia as a source for any scholarly work, as Wikipedia is not a reliable source. 331dot (talk) 15:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

17:22:55, 28 July 2023 review of draft by Nawaazpoi
I am requesting help as this is my first submission and it was rejected for using peacock terms, not enough references to sources and not using a neutral tone. I have modified the original submission and use more of a neutral tone and encyclopaedic writing style I have also added references. I now need help for any other reasons why my submission may be rejected again. I would welcome any improvements or suggestions.

Nawaazpoi (talk) 17:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Nawaazpoi. Your article has only been declined - if it was "rejected" you'd not be able to resubmit for review. A few issues with the language jump out at me:
 * - Today, it stands as a natural space, reflecting the area's transformation... this sentence is not written in an encyclopaedic way.
 * - equivalent to the height of five "Angels of the North" sculptures stacked on top of each other... let's not have random measurements, stick to the facts.
 * - Addison Village, a close-knit community, flourished around the pit... not very encyclopaedic.
 * - diligently working... peacock wording.
 * - the reserve offers an opportunity to experience the reserve while respecting the delicate environment. this is marketing speech.
 * Quite a lot of the History section is closely paraphrased from https://www.gateshead.gov.uk/article/4454/The-history-of-Addison-and-Hedgefield-Woods. Sometimes a little too closely, though. I would cut down a lot of the fluff from this, and if you can find some secondary sources so you're not just relying on Gateshead Council's website.
 * And then there's a few issues with sourcing, which again I'll point out below:
 * - evidence suggesting that mining activities were carried out here during the Roman era. What evidence? This needs to be sourced.
 * - mining rights were granted to Queen Elizabeth I by the Bishop of Durham How can I check this is fact? It need a source.
 * - this event marked a significant technological advancement. Why did it make a significant technological advancement? Who said it did?
 * - In June 2014, the management of Addison and Hedgefield Reserve... Source?
 * Hope that helps,  Qcne  (talk)  21:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey QCNE, thanks for your help you have valid points I have made changes to the next revision of my submission and hopefully I can correct the errors you have pointed out I have also included more sources and references like you said.
 * Thanks again Nawaazpoi (talk) 11:01, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

18:19, 28 July 2023 review of submission by Sebrandon
Hi, I'm having trouble getting this Wikipedia page up and running. I thought I sufficiently addressed Greenman's edits but the second reviewer said I didn't. What should I do next? Sebrandon (talk) 18:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)


 * You declared a conflict of interest, what is the nature of it?
 * You still have an external link in the text(at the beginning). Such a link should go in a section at the bottom. 331dot (talk) 19:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

20:25, 28 July 2023 review of submission by Semilore90
Hello, please i need help in reviewing this article this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ola_Oresanya

It has as been declined a couple of times and i also follow recommendations of the reviewers. but yet they keep declining for different reasons each time I resubmit

I also requested for help through https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IRC_help_disclaimer. Some people there were kind enough to make some corrections and other suggestions.

The following changes have been made to the article to improve its neutrality: The promotional tone of the article has been removed. The article now presents a more balanced view of Oresanya's career, including both his successes and his challenges. The article now uses more neutral language, avoiding subjective statements and opinions.

Semilore90 (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

20:32, 28 July 2023 review of submission by 162.33.234.234
Hello Help Desk, I am writing as my article submission was denied. The reason states that the material must be neutral and refer to independent, reliable, published sources.

I want to confirm that the content is neutral and all the references are reliable and published sources. The sources include Forbes, Barron's, The Economist, The New York Times, BBC, CNET, HuffPost, Wired, TechCrunch, and local media such as Seattle Times and Puget Sound Business Journal. Rferences are no pulled from the MicroVision website.

Can you please review my entry again? You will see that all sources are reputable and valid. Thank you so very much! 162.33.234.234 (talk) 20:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)


 * You may submit it for another review, but you will need to make changes in order for it to be accepted. Most of your sources are announcements of routine business activities, which does not establish notability(see WP:ORG). There needs to be independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this company summarized in the article. "Significant coverage" is that which goes beyond documenting the activities of the company and goes into detail about what the source sees as important/significant/influential about the company.
 * If you are associated with this company, that needs to be declared, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 21:09, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi IP editor.
 * Firstly, can I just confirm you don't have a Conflict of interest with MicroVision Inc? i.e. are you employed by the company? If so you need to make a conflict of interest declaration immediately, see that link for information on how.
 * Your draft article has some problems which I will address below:
 * - MicroVision has been in the lidar industry for 30 years... this paragraph doesn't read very encyclopaedic, and is not sourced (though the founding date is sourced in the section below). Check Neutral point of view for guidance on how to write in a neutral tone.
 * -Automotive lidar technology helps with... this paragraph is not suitable for this article. Your draft should just focus on the company, not explanations of the science behind the product, which should go into the existing LIDAR articles. This background content (which crops up a lot) is much more suitable for the company's website, not an encyclopaedia.
 * - The automotive ADAS... this sentence is just marketing, so should be removed.
 * - Tiny, ultra-low-power lasers painted... again, focus on the company not the background behind the products.
 * - 1996 Going Public. this section heading isn't written in an encyclopaedic way, and really you don't need an entire section just for five words.
 * - The monocle was worn in front of the eye... unneeded background, see above.
 * - The projectors beamed bright, high-resolution video...unneeded background, see above. I'm going to stop pointing these out now because they're throughout the article.
 * - Corporate Affairs. Remove this section, not appropriate for an encyclopaedia.
 * - Offices. You don't need an entire section for office locations, a single sentence somewhere in the article is more suitable.
 * There's also some issues where you have lots of paragraph splits, it seems you've split into a new paragraph after every source. This isn't needed. Check Manual of Style/Layout for more information. You can cut out a lot of the fluff: probably half the article content isn't needed.
 * Hope that helps,  Qcne  (talk)  21:09, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

21:28:15, 28 July 2023 review of draft by SmallTownBook
Hi there!

Wondering if I could get any further clarification as to why this page has been declined? Is there a particular area that is the cause of this? The sources listed are incredibly reputable, independent secondary sources (The New York Times, Forbes, Travel + Leisure, Conde Nast Traveler, Fodor's Travel, Minnesota Department of State). Is there a specific source that is the issue? Information taken from the Travel Beyond website is strictly factual (founders, founding date, areas of expertise). Any detailed information/thorough feedback you could provide would be great.

Thanks in advance for your help and review! Much appreciated.

SmallTownBook (talk) 21:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC)


 * @SmallTownBook it's "in-depth" that you're missing here. Where is the significant coverage about Travel Beyond? -- asilvering (talk) 07:36, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I've cut out the two lists (they're not really encyclopedic content, more like the sort of thing a company would put on their website). See how there's now... basically nothing? That's the issue. There isn't much about the company itself sourced to reliable sources in the draft. Cutting off those two lists makes that really obvious. -- asilvering (talk) 07:41, 29 July 2023 (UTC)