Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 June 18

= June 18 =

08:13, 18 June 2023 review of submission by Maxclayman
Is someone able to tell me if my page is neutral & formal? If not potentially help with correcting it? Cheers Maxclayman (talk) 08:13, 18 June 2023 (UTC)


 * You submitted the draft for review, the reviewer will either accept it or provide feedback. 331dot (talk) 08:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

09:07:40, 18 June 2023 review of draft by Clivelliott
{{SAFESUBST:Void|

I am new to Wikipedia and have tried to publish a biography on sandbox but I think I incorrectly published a blank submission. I have been told that the submission is blank and has been rejected. However, I subsequently published a completed page, with hyperlinks but I'm not sure whether that second, correct, page has been reviewed? I'm not sure how to check and am a bit confused by the whole process and would appreciate any help I can get. Thanks, Clive Elliott.
 * {{u|Clivelliott}} Please do not ask for help in multiple locations, this duplicates effort. To answer you, you had edited your user page, which is not article space or space to draft an article, but a place for the named user to tell about themselves as a Wikipedia editor or user only. You should use the Article Wizard or Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft.
 * It appears that you were attempting to write about yourself, while not forbidden, this is highly discouraged, please read the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is not a place for you to tell about your accomplishments and background- it is a place to summarize what independent reliable sources wholly unconnected with you say is your accomplisments and background, with significant coverage, showing how you meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. If you still wish to proceed, please read Your First Article.  You will need to set aside everything you know about yourself and all materials you put out, and only write based on the content of independent sources. That's usually very hard for people to do about themselves. 331dot (talk) 09:35, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

11:41, 18 June 2023 review of submission by Wikijosephs
I need help in editing this article as it is declined for the reason that it Reads halfway between a resume and a PR piece, and (from a quick overview and spot check) none of the sources appear to both be independent of him and also have significant coverage of him. Wikijosephs (talk) 11:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Wikijosephs. By your username, are you Joseph C. Sponholz? If so you need to declare your Conflict of interest immediately. Please also read Autobiography. We strongly discourage writing an article about yourself!
 * The article as it stands is not suitable for Wikipedia: Wikipedia is only interested in summarising what independent third party reliable sources say about a topic or person. Your article instead looks like the type of content that would appear on a company's public relations webpage or a personal website.
 * Your best way forward is to scrap the article, and instead focus on if Joseph meets the Notability (people) criteria.
 * - Reliable Sources: Your article should rely on strong, reliable sources. These sources should be independent of the subject (not self-published or from the subject's own website) and published by reputable institutions. Primary sources can be used, but they should be supplemented with strong secondary sources that offer analysis or interpretation.
 * - Significant Coverage: Your subject should be discussed in detail in the sources you find. A brief mention is not usually enough to establish notability. The sources should provide in-depth information about the subject, going beyond basic facts or promotional material.
 * - Multiple Sources:You should find at least three strong, reliable sources that discuss your subject. If all of your information comes from a single source, it may not be enough to demonstrate that the subject is notable.
 * - No Original Research: Wikipedia articles should summarize existing knowledge about a subject, not present new research. This means you should avoid drawing your own conclusions or analyses from the sources. Stick to summarising what the sources say in a neutral tone.
 * I hope that helps. Qcne (talk) 11:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * . Your draft has 34 references. As far as I can see, not a single one of them is a reliable source independent of Sponholz that devotes in-depth coverage to Sponholz. Quality is vastly more important than quantity. In other words, your draft fails to show that Sponholz is a notable person as Wikipedia defines that term. There are many other lesser problems, but that is the core problem with your draft at this time. Cullen328 (talk) 00:03, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

12:57, 18 June 2023 review of submission by FaisalSalmanKhan123
hello FaisalSalmanKhan123 (talk) 12:57, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * , your draft was overtly promotional and violated the Neutral point of view, which is a core content policy. Promotional, public relations and advertising behavior is not allowed on Wikipedia. Your draft has been deleted for that reason. Cullen328 (talk) 00:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

13:34, 18 June 2023 review of submission by Yusaya 4532
Yusaya Takei - Yusaya 4532 (talk) 13:34, 18 June 2023 (UTC)


 * You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. One incomplete sentence will not be accepted as an article. Please learn more about article creation by using the new user tutorial and first editing existing articles. 331dot (talk) 13:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

15:20, 18 June 2023 review of submission by Shahiqlateefshah
I am a new artist and can’t find my name what should i do to get it on wikipedia Shahiqlateefshah (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)


 * @shahiqlateefshah: absolutely not, do not write about yourself. lettherebedarklight晚安 15:25, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You should go on about your career, and once you make it in the music business, others will take note of coverage of you in independent reliable sources and write about you if you meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician. Wikipedia is not a database of musicians, and has no interest in aiding your career.
 * Also see this page; a Wikipedia article is not necessarily a good thing. There are good reasons to not want one. 331dot (talk) 15:27, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

16:06, 18 June 2023 review of submission by Redyr iksachli
I translated this article from the Swedish one which did not have any citations in it, though it has references in it. Though I still got rejected. note that the references are offline sources. Redyr iksachli (talk) 16:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)


 * @redyr iksachli: we need inline citations, not just general references. lettherebedarklight晚安 16:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This doesn’t explain how some articles don’t have any references or citations, like the article on the War of the Limburg Succession. Redyr iksachli (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * we have many old articles that are not up to modern standards. that other stuff exists is not reason for your article to be not up to standard. lettherebedarklight晚安 16:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC)


 * (ec) Please see other stuff exists. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate content to get by us.  We can only address what we know about; this does not justify adding more inappropriate content, otherwise nothing could ever be removed from Wikipedia. We work on addressing issues with existing articles when they are pointed out- if you want to help us with this, it would be welcome.
 * Also note that different language versions of Wikipedia have their own editors and policies, and what is acceptable on one version is not necessarily acceptable on another. The English version tends to be stricter than others. 331dot (talk) 16:34, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The sv.wiki article does indeed list two sources. One makes the briefest of passing (and indirect) mentions of the Battle of Kemi. The other, judging by the title, is likely to cover the topic more extensively, but if that's all we have to go by then clearly notability hasn't been shown. Maybe also worth mentioning that although the battle took place in modern-day Finland, fi.wiki not only has no article on this subject, but it doesn't even mention it in its main article on the War of the Hats, so there is a good chance this particular skirmish is genuinely non-notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:00, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

19:38, 18 June 2023 review of submission by Engmaj
The reviewer who declined my submission of this draft pointed me here, if I had questions. The given reason seems to be the quality of the sources. I'm puzzled as to why a group that includes a book, a legal journal, a national news source and two magazines is judged insufficient. I have queried the reviewer but thought I would also take the advice to ask here. Thanks for any additional help. Engmaj (talk) 19:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)


 * @Engmaj I think you probably threw your reviewer off with the confusing introduction - someone unfamiliar with the topic will really struggle to figure out what this is about. The first sentence is The Madeleva Manifesto: A Message of Hope and Courage was developed in April of 2000 when fifteen of the women who had delivered the first sixteen Madeleva Lectures for the Center for Spirituality at St. Mary's College gathered to celebrate the new millennium. - it doesn't actually say what the Manifesto is or give any context at all. The article lede makes it sound like the article is about a conference (not typically going to be something notable) and the only suggestion in the article itself that the topic is notable is the line The manifesto has been described as "a milestone in the Gospel feminist movement." But is "the Gospel feminist movement" notable? We don't have an article on it. -- asilvering (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! That's very helpful.  I had already gotten input that I needed to provide a better (shorter and more focused!) lede and then develop the details.  I will work on that.  I also have a line on a couple of other sources to review, but our local community college is on a four-day weekend because of summer hours and today's holiday, so I will have to try to get there later in the week.
 * I was also thrown a bit because I had been using this page as a model: Manifesto of the 343, but was told be earlier reviewers that I could not include the text of this Manifesto despite the fact that this existing Wikipedia entry does and a pdf of the Madeleva Manifesto is freely available on the web. That might have provided greater clarity.  Again, thanks very much asilvering.  I will keep plugging away.Engmaj (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, yeah that's a very old translation from French Wikipedia that no one has fixed up yet. fr-wiki really likes block quotes for some reason (en-wiki editors will tell you not to do that). -- asilvering (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that explanation.Engmaj (talk) 16:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your help with this. I have made a substantial revision to the piece and resubmitted it.  I appreciated your perspective. Engmaj (talk) 14:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Engmaj I added a tag requesting some geographic context. There are dozens of St. Mary's Colleges in a variety of countries. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Good catch.  I will add geographic detail.  Much appreciated.  Engmaj (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2023 (UTC)