Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 March 6

= March 6 =

07:23:33, 6 March 2023 review of submission by Lets xplore
Added citation as the previous review.

Lets xplore (talk) 07:23, 6 March 2023 (UTC)


 * @Lets xplore No new references have been added, you've just added [1] in a few places, so we will not be reviewing it again. Additionally, if you have been paid to edit in a promotional way or you have a conflict of interest, you must declare it on your userpage. See the notice I've left on your talk page for more information. Thanks, echidnaLives  -  talk  -  edits  09:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

08:34:23, 6 March 2023 review of submission by Jupi2
Hallo, I've read the linked pages on Manual of Style and Citing Sources, but I am still not sure why my article draft has been declined. Also taking into consideration that I'm not a native English speaker I'd be very grateful for more specific advise on how I should improve my draft. Thank you very much! Jupi2 (talk) 08:34, 6 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello @Jupi2, thanks for coming to the help desk! As far as I can see, the links to WP:MOS and WP:CS, and decline on the basis of NPOV by @Twinkle1990 seem... questionable. Twinkle, could you please explain the motivation behind this comment and decline? I see very little wrong with the citations and I see no major MOS issues here.
 * However, I wouldn't be prepared to accept just yet. I don't think this meets notability guidelines in it's current state. As anyone can place an obituary on www.legacy.com, it can't be considered reliable. Additionally, is an interview, which typically can't be used to help notability. Finally,  seems to be non-independent, so it can't contribute towards notability. The other website appears to be offline (I'm getting a "This page is currently unavailable" error).
 * Overall, it's a well written draft, good job! If you can find some more reliable, independent and in-depth sources, go ahead and add them, and once you have ~3, click the resubmit button the top of the draft. If you have any questions, let me know or come back here to the help desk :). Thanks, echidnaLives  -  talk  -  edits  09:43, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The Pross is an issue for my see. And the referencing style is not per WP:CS. Hope it clears my take. Twinkle1990 (talk) 09:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your short explanation @Twinkle1990. I don't believe there were enough NPOV issues to warrant a decline for that reason, but I respect your take. However, it would help if you could be more specific. I've checked a few of your recent reviews and many have a similar/identical comment. It makes it hard for people to understand what needs to be fixed. Remember, when we decline something, we do it because it needs improvement. How can it be improved if people don't know what needs improvement? The Manual of Style is ~25,000 words long, and WP:CS is ~10,000 words long. Please try and be more specific in the future. :)
 * @Jupi2, Twinkle1990 does bring up some points (although minor) which may need addressing, but wouldn't be a decline reason on their own. Bare URLs should typically be avoided, and there are some small issues with the prose. Phrases like He soon discovered his knack for technical and mechanical things aren't very encyclopedic, and should also be avoided, maybe with something like He soon developed an interest in technical and mechanical things. would work better. Again, these are minor things, they wouldn't warrant a decline by themselves and can be fixed in just a few minutes (if even that).
 * Thanks, echidnaLives  -  talk  -  edits  10:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * For @Jupi2's understanding, I have done a minor correction in referencing at this dif. Hope @Jupi2 will understand citing sources. References shouldn't be used within bracket, before . or before a comma. Twinkle1990 (talk) 10:17, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, this reply doesn't really acknowledge what I've asked. We shouldn't be criticising newer users for these kind of mistakes. Maybe that kind of thing would matter at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, but this isn't what we should be asking new users to do, especially when there are more important notability issues. Even if we are giving feedback for this kind of thing, we should explicitly say it. Linking to just WP:MOS isn't particularly helpful when only 0.8% of the page covers this stuff. Thanks, echidnaLives  -  talk  -  edits  11:04, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I have restored the draft to pre-review stage. Hope this will resolve the issue. Some other reviewer will review. I won't. Thanks. Twinkle1990 (talk) 11:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Twinkle1990 I just want to make sure you understand per WP:AFCR AfC reviewers should not be declining drafts based on MOS or other minor issues. You do not make it clear in your response so can you please confirm?  S0091 (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I Will be careful on that. Twinkle1990 (talk) 01:22, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Also Twinkle1990, have you made other decline comments based on minor CS/MOS issues? Thanks.  VickKiang  (talk)  22:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I mostly decline if the draft fails WP:THREE. I some, declines, failing notability, I commented where draft reads like essay or sourced without any accessible link given. Twinkle1990 (talk) 01:25, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This is just a quick note regarding drafts failing WP:THREE- it is an essay that asks editors to please consider it a request to post two or three, but no more, of what you consider to be the best sources for the page under discussion. It’s an excellent essay to ask draft creators to identify the best sources instead of inclusion of various clearly trivial/unreliable sources, but it isn’t really a standard that states three sources meeting GNG are required (see User:RoySmith/Three best sources/notes), so I’m not sure how it is “failed” necessarily.  VickKiang  (talk)  01:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This draft failed to prove notability per WP:RS. As you do, I too use to give note Please see WP:THREE. Twinkle1990 (talk) 01:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

10:31:12, 6 March 2023 review of submission by 77.125.175.231
I'm requesting a review since I don't understand what the problem is with the draft article I submitted. The article respects Wikipedia's standards and I have been taking into account all of the reviews I received from previous reviewers. I, again, modified the draft article today to respect as much as possible the guidelines and policy of Wikiepdia and would appreciate that the article be published (or that at least I know why it's not...). Thank you in advance.

77.125.175.231 (talk) 10:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you associated with this person? 331dot (talk) 11:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I am indeed, as stated explicitely :) 212.143.68.89 (talk) 14:06, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

13:47:39, 6 March 2023 review of submission by 2402:4000:11C0:7EC8:C807:A504:4872:1553
2402:4000:11C0:7EC8:C807:A504:4872:1553 (talk) 13:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC) i want to publish my article. i don't know why you guys rejecting.
 * There are two major reasons. First is that there are *no* references in the article, and the second is that it isn't written like an encyclopedia article, it is written like a travel advertisement. Both may be fixable, but it would have to be completely rewritten.Naraht (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

15:29:46, 6 March 2023 review of draft by Contemporary asian artist
Contemporary asian artist (talk) 15:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I have included enough materials in my draft: Ajay Sharma. Still its unaccepted. please guide me how to rephrase the article. Also I am unable to insert photographs in my article. How do I do this?

15:44:09, 6 March 2023 review of submission by 122.52.89.168
done im publish my AFC Submission122.52.89.168 (talk) 15:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC)


 * If you would like to resubmit your submission, please click the "Resubmit" button at the top of the draft. echidnaLives  -  talk  -  edits  22:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @EchidnaLives ok 112.208.242.116 (talk) 04:55, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

20:14:34, 6 March 2023 review of submission by Websterpile
My article was declined because it's only about a politician and therefore, presumably hasn't had significant press mention to be notable. However, that's completely not the case. I have asked the reviewer to please take another look. Taken from same guidelines, it further says: ''The following are presumed to be notable: Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.'' Manny Santos has received substantial press coverage, as mayor and as candidate for U.S. Congress, including winning a major Connecticut Supreme Court case. This coverage has not only been locally, but also significant national and international, some of which has been cited in the article. If he is not notable, there should be fewer individuals listed in Wikipedia. Someone, please review and give me your take. Thanks! Websterpile (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Please remove/replace www.facebook.com and linkedin.com sources, they are NOT reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theroadislong (talk • contribs)