Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 June 29

= June 29 =

01:57, 29 June 2023 review of submission by Paris Cotz
Hello. I'd like to know how to make this page better. Jerry Ross Barrish is an important figure in San Francisco socio-political history as well as art history. Unfortunately most of his important essays are printed only. How can I best cite a printed source? Paris Cotz (talk) 01:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)


 * @Paris Cotz: to answer your question "how to make this page better", you need to first and foremost improve the referencing, which is lacking in both quality of sources and quantity of citations. (IMO you should cut down those long lists of exhibitions etc., focusing only on the most notable ones, as Wikipedia is not intended as a comprehensive catalogue of everything someone has done.)
 * As for printed sources, the first thing to note is that many sources which were originally in print-only have been digitised and made available online, so please try to find online versions of such sources if at all possible. But if you cannot, then offline sources are also acceptable, as long as they are cited in a way that makes it possible for others to locate and verify them. See WP:OFFLINE for more info on this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

02:01, 29 June 2023 review of submission by Icelyn.ca
Some of the article is first-hand Biography Material/ and some is referenced from articles, podcasts, and magazine articles. Can someone please specify what requires additional citation? Icelyn.ca (talk) 02:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)


 * @Icelyn.ca: the short answer is, everything needs to be referenced. The slightly longer answer: every material statement, anything potentially contentious, and all private personal and family details must be clearly supported by inline citations to reliable public sources.
 * And these citations must come immediately after the statement they support, it isn't enough to tag a cite at the end of a long paragraph and say that that cite supports everything in there. Case in point: the 'Police Career' section has four paragraphs, the first three of which are unreferenced, and then at the end of the last para there is one citation. Even if it were the case that that one source genuinely provided all the information in that whole section, this is far from clear from the sparse referencing.
 * Another example: this person's DOB is shown in the infobox, but isn't cited. Which source provides this? (And if none of them do, then where did you get that from?) Unless the DOB has been published in a reliable source, you must remove it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I appreciate your clear explanation and will be working on the adjustments accordingly. Icelyn.ca (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

07:24, 29 June 2023 review of submission by Kishan kotak
can u tell me why my article rejected and what changes should i di? Kishan kotak (talk) 07:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)


 * @Kishan kotak: yes, I can tell you, and indeed you could have also figured this out yourself, if you read the notices on the draft page. It has been rejected, and will shortly be deleted, because it is a blatant copyright violation. Please read and understand WP:CV, to avoid such incidents in the future.
 * In any case, a quick scan of this draft suggests that it isn't suitable for Wikipedia in any case, as we don't publish how-to guides or similar.
 * And finally, please don't start several threads here at the help desk. Asking once is enough; someone will eventually get around to answering your question. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

09:31, 29 June 2023 review of submission by RajuS24
I added all the necessary details and then also rejected why Please help me still what details needed. RajuS24 (talk) 09:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @RajuS24.
 * Your draft article was only declined, not rejected. If it was rejected you would not be able to submit this article for review further.
 * The problem with your draft article and the reason why it was declined is that it currently cites only primary sources. Every fact and statement in your article needs to be backed up by independent and reliable sources. This is so anyone can verify that the statements in your article are accurate and to ensure that your topic is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia.
 * Please remember that IMDB cannot be used as a source as it is User-generated content.
 * It might be worth reading Your first article which gives you the dos and don'ts of creating an article, plus the Citing sources guide that explains how to cite sources.
 * The easiest way to fix your article is to find reliable, independent, secondary sources that covers Marana Shasana in detail, and then summarise them in your own words. That should make up the content of your article draft. Note that the sources must be:
 * - Reliable: Your article should rely on strong, reliable sources that are published by reputable institutions. Primary sources can be used for basic facts (such as a date of birth), but they should be supplemented with strong secondary sources that offer analysis or interpretation.
 * - Independent: Your sources should be independent of the subject, for example not self-published or from the subject's own website.
 * - Show significant coverage: Your subject should be discussed in detail in the sources you find. The sources should provide in-depth information or analysis about the subject, going beyond basic facts or promotional material.
 * - From multiple places: You should find at least three separate reliable, independent, secondary sources that discuss your subject.
 * - Not original research: Wikipedia articles should summarise 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.
 * If you cannot find multiple, reliable, and independent sources then I am afraid that #arana Shasana would not meet the films notability threshold at this time and therefore cannot have a Wikipedia article. 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.
 * Hope that helps,  Qcne  (talk)  09:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * (ec) The draft was only declined, not rejected. "Rejected" would mean it could not be resubmitted.  "Declined" means it may be resubmitted.  Unreleased films generally do not merit articles, see the film notability guidelines- unless there is something unusual about the production of the film or extensive coverage of the production of the film beyond routine announcements of casting/staff.  An article about a film generally must contain at least one(preferably a few) review of the film by a professional film critic or reviewer.
 * You seem to have an association with the film, if so, please read conflict of interest and paid editing. 331dot (talk) 09:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

11:59, 29 June 2023 review of submission by Leon W2023
The article draft is objective and I don't understand why it gets flagged as "promotional" when the sources are trustworthy, what needs to be changed to get it approved from your perspective please?

BR Leon W2023 (talk) 11:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)


 * User indeffed for sockpuppetery.  Qcne  (talk)  12:05, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

13:10, 29 June 2023 review of submission by Ian0510
Hi,

I'm just writing to get more clarity on why my draft got declined. I am new to this so was perhaps wondering if somebody could specify in more detail, where I may be going wrong with this particular article at all?

Many thanks in advance,

Ian Ian0510 (talk) 13:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Ian0510.
 * Every fact and statement in your article needs to be backed up by independent and reliable sources. This is so anyone can verify that the statements in your article are accurate and to ensure that your topic is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Your draft article currently has no in-line citations and the only references are to HSE - only one of which mentions The Water Management Society in passing.
 * It might be worth reading Your first article which gives you the dos and don'ts of creating an article.
 * The easiest way to fix your article is to find reliable, independent, secondary sources that covers The Water Management Society in detail, and then summarise them in your own words. That should make up the content of your article draft. Note that the sources must be:
 * - Reliable: Your article should rely on strong, reliable sources that are published by reputable institutions. Primary sources can be used for basic facts (such as a date of birth), but they should be supplemented with strong secondary sources that offer analysis or interpretation.
 * - Independent: Your sources should be independent of the subject, for example not self-published or from the subject's own website.
 * - Show significant coverage: Your subject should be discussed in detail in the sources you find. The sources should provide in-depth information or analysis about the subject, going beyond basic facts or promotional material.
 * - From multiple places: You should find at least three separate reliable, independent, secondary sources that discuss your subject.
 * - Not original research: Wikipedia articles should summarise 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.
 * Hope that helps,  Qcne  (talk)  13:29, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

14:03, 29 June 2023 review of submission by 201.235.248.233
hi we have this page uploaded more than 5 months and it is freezed, can you help us to optimize and approve it ? what are the problems there?

thanks Marcelo 201.235.248.233 (talk) 14:03, 29 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi Marcelo,
 * Courtesy link.
 * Your draft article was declined on 22 June 2023. This is because your references do not show that Techunting qualifies for a Wikipedia article at this time. Have a read of the guidance in that link which explains what type of sources you need to prove notability in a Wikipedia context. You can prove notability only by finding reliable, independent, secondary sources that covers Techunting in detail - that go beyond basic facts and offer interpretation and analysis of the company. If you cannot find multiple, reliable, and independent sources then I am afraid that Techunting would not meet the notability threshold at this time and therefore cannot have a Wikipedia article.
 * Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia: not an advertising platform, directory, or a way to promote a company.
 * Finally, as you are the co-founder of the company, you must immediately declare your Conflict of interest.
 * Hope that helps,  Qcne  (talk)  14:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Also just for the record, while the draft may have been created 5(ish) months ago, it was only submitted for review last week. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

15:34, 29 June 2023 review of submission by Bbcrossword
Hi, The draft article includes references and citations for the inpatient fall prevention technology launched by Palarum LLC. Can you elaborate on how or where it fails to meet the guidelines for notability? Or, content that could be added to match the guidelines? Thank you. Bbcrossword (talk) 15:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Bbcrossword. Do you mean your draft article Palarum LLC which was declined over five years ago? Or do you mean User:Bbcrossword/sandbox which has yet to submitted for review.
 * In either case, please 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. Wikipedia is not a social media site like Facebook, Instagram, or LinkedIn.
 * For our notability guidelines for organisations, please see Notability (organizations and companies). That policy explains what we mean be notability and how to prove notability for a company. In essence, you need to find reliable, independent, secondary sources that cover Palarum Smart Sock in detail, and then summarise them in your own words. That should make up the content of your article draft. Note that the sources must be:
 * - Reliable: Your article should rely on strong, reliable sources that are published by reputable institutions. Primary sources can be used for basic facts (such as a date of birth), but they should be supplemented with strong secondary sources that offer analysis or interpretation.
 * - Independent: Your sources should be independent of the subject, for example not self-published or from the subject's own website.
 * - Show significant coverage: Your subject should be discussed in detail in the sources you find. The sources should provide in-depth information or analysis about the subject, going beyond basic facts or promotional material.
 * - From multiple places: You should find at least three separate reliable, independent, secondary sources that discuss your subject.
 * - Not original research: Wikipedia articles should summarise 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.
 * If you cannot find multiple, reliable, and independent sources then I am afraid that Palarum Smart Sock would not meet the notability threshold at this time and therefore cannot have a Wikipedia article. Not every company or product on Earth can have a Wikipedia article, only ones that pass that notability threshold.
 * Also, I see you have placed a Paid-contribution disclosure tag on your User page, however you have not filled in the bit which tells us which organisation you work for. Please correct that immediately.
 * Hope that helps,  Qcne  (talk)  15:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

15:50, 29 June 2023 review of submission by Bwthhybl
I was just wondering if I submitted an article and it is under review then if I edit it, will it put me back in the queue for waiting for publication? It was submitted it a month ago and it says the review will take around 4 months, but if I edit it will I lose my place in the queue? It's also currently categorized as a C:class article, are there any recommendations to improve it so that it would be B or A and does that help my likelihood of getting it reviewed faster? Bwthhybl (talk) 15:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Bwthhybl.
 * Firstly, it sounds like you work for a company or organisation and you and your colleague(s) are writing a draft article about that company or organisation? If so you must declare your Conflict of interest immediately (also see Paid-contribution disclosure).
 * You can still make edits to a draft after submitting for review- there is no queue: drafts are reviewed in no specific order and it can take several months for your draft to be reviewed. There is nothing you can do to speed up this process, as draft reviewing is all done by volunteers in their own time, and Wikipedia gets 100s of new drafts a day.
 * If your draft article is declined, you can then make improvements to it. Only if it is rejected have you reached the end of the road as that means your article will no longer be considered.
 * The easiest way to improve a draft and make it more likely to be accepted is to ensure it meets the Notability threshold. Only topics that meet this threshold can have an article on Wikipedia. In essence, you need to find reliable, independent, secondary sources that cover your topic in detail, and then summarise them in your own words. That should make up the content of your article draft. If you cannot find multiple, reliable, and independent sources then I am afraid your topic would not meet the notability threshold at this time and therefore cannot have a Wikipedia article.
 * Hope that helps, let me know if you have any more questions.  Qcne  (talk)  15:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

16:22, 29 June 2023 review of submission by NurAlamSr
Why This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia? NurAlamSr (talk) 16:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I rejected that submission as being contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia because it serves primarily to advertise a company and its services. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or advertising vehicle. This is also an issue because of WP:NPOV, a very important policy which states that all content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view. Separately, the article subject does not seem to be notable, which means no article on it should exist. Actualcpscm (talk) 16:29, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

16:56, 29 June 2023 review of submission by 2601:18B:300:9F10:A423:D8B6:DAD7:F471
I need to learn why my article was rejected, so that I can attempt to improve it and make it acceptable. 2601:18B:300:9F10:A423:D8B6:DAD7:F471 (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)


 * It was rejected because it isn't written like an encyclopaedia article. See what Wikipedia is not. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of things in that link that don't match my particular error, whatever that may be. I am willing to correct this, if I can be pointed more directly at where I have strayed. Thanks for elucidation. HealthLogger (talk) 17:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi! Your submission was written like an essay or opinion piece. Wikipedia articles are entries in an encyclopedia, which means they need to have a clearly defined subject that meets notability guidelines, and they need to be written from a neutral point of view. I think one key issue is that you're not writing for an encyclopedia.
 * Smoking cessation might provide some guidance on how to approach this kind of topic. Actualcpscm (talk) 19:29, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

17:11, 29 June 2023 review of submission by HealthLogger
There is another Wikipedia article on Smoking Cessation. My article on Quitting Vaping / Vaping Cessation, was rejected because it was stated it read too much like an essay, and was thus "contrary to the purposes" of Wikipedia. Would a longer distinct introduction to the topic improve its chances of pulbication? What else does it need to become encyclopedia worthy? HealthLogger (talk) 17:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @HealthLogger.
 * Check out the Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal section of this policy for an explanation why your article was rejected: What Wikipedia is not.
 * Your article would be more appropriate for a health blog, not an encyclopaedia.
 * Hope that helps,  Qcne  (talk)  18:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Should I use the smoking cessation wikipedia page as a template ? HealthLogger (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @HealthLogger actually look at Electronic cigarette and also note that Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. For the topic you are writing about, sources will also need to meet WP:MEDRS.  S0091 (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

17:29:10, 29 June 2023 review of draft by Sahas P.
On the U.S. Route 30 page, I had noticed there was no link for US 30 in Wyoming, as there was for US 20. I created a draft of it, taking over 2 hours to do, and when I was done, I forgot to add the "Major intersections" box. I thought it would be easy to do, but it turns out it wasn't. No matter how many times I tried, it just wouldn't work. I even looked at other U.S. Route pages for help, but that didn't go well either. When you get the chance, please look at this message and help me add the box whenever you can. I would really appreciate it, and don't forget to fix any edits and help revise the "Route Description" box. Here is the link: Draft:U.S. Route 30 in Wyoming Sahas P. (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Sahas P. did you see KylieTastic's response to a similar query you made at User talk:KylieTastic. It seems you started WP:BACKWARD (read that) using what you know rather than starting with sources then summarizing what they have written about the topic.  Adding an infobox is not going help the draft meet the notability guidelines nor do the ones that are already there so is a poor use of anyone's time, including yours.  What you need to focus on is finding reputable sources with in-depth coverage about the topic.  S0091 (talk) 21:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

20:41, 29 June 2023 review of submission by 8.9.93.13
That was a hoax anyway. 8.9.93.13 (talk) 20:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

20:44, 29 June 2023 review of submission by 2A02:C7C:DAAE:A400:6CF8:3575:22E0:79D
Because I'm actor and I need this up and ready 2A02:C7C:DAAE:A400:6CF8:3575:22E0:79D (talk) 20:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not your website, social media or a means of promotion (see WP:NOT). Only subjects that meet the the meet the notability criteria warrant an article which you do not meet so best to move on.  S0091 (talk) 20:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

22:09, 29 June 2023 review of submission by Elton Heta
I have added additional information from official sources along with relevant references, I do not know if they are sufficient and what additional information you suggest I find and add for the article. Elton Heta (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC)


 * @Elton Heta The article has been rejected. We don't recommend you add anything to the article. This isn't Linkedin. Wikipedia doesn't publish this kind of article. -- asilvering (talk) 22:14, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The article was rejected but additional information and references were requested and I just did it, I didn't understand what you wanted to say with Linkedin because I couldn't make the connection, what does this mean? Elton Heta (talk) 22:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The first time, the article was declined - that's when you were asked to add more references. The second time, it was rejected - no further editing is encouraged. What I meant by "this isn't Linkedin" is that Wikipedia is not social media or somewhere to post a CV/resume. That's what you have done here, with links to your github, facebook, etc. -- asilvering (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * For an IT platform that verifies its work, they are, just as they are for singers Spotify, Youtube, etc., so is GitHub in this case, so it is not that it is being treated like Linkedin. Elton Heta (talk) 06:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Spotify and YouTube are also not reliable, independent sources. -- asilvering (talk) 09:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

22:24, 29 June 2023 review of submission by 2009cATBOOK
My page of a high rise in Kansas City was rejected for being insignificant. However, there are many buildings in New York City and other such cities that are shorter and of less significance, and yet they have been accepted. What can I do to make this page relevant? 2009cATBOOK (talk) 22:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)


 * You need to show reliable coverage in independent, secondary sources (see WP:GNG). Those sources aren't independent. By the way, you might be interested in WP:ARCH, a wikiproject for editors interested in architecture. asilvering (talk) 22:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Just a note: saying that other pages exist in defense of your own is rarely a good plan; no article is perfect, also see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 18:46, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

23:58, 29 June 2023 review of submission by 47.40.238.193
How do I improve this page? I had hoped to make the page available to edit for other users given the significance of the topic in recent-day culture and the scope of his impact was something that was well-worth examining. I attempted to write from a neutral perspective and included criticisms. If anything came off as biased, I am open to changing it. 47.40.238.193 (talk) 23:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)


 * This draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further; hence, there is nothing to improve. Sorry, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that you work on adding content to Depp's article about his impact. 331dot (talk) 08:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)