Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 November 5

= November 5 =

01:07, 5 November 2023 review of submission by CayDyn5
I don't understand why it's violating copywrite CayDyn5 (talk) 01:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)


 * You took the content directly from their website. A Wikipedia article should summarize what independent reliable sources say about the topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia defintion of notability. 331dot (talk) 07:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

01:21, 5 November 2023 review of submission by Wikilover3509
I have added multiple independent references for notability. How to submit this article for publishing? Wikilover3509 (talk) 01:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)


 * There is nothing that you can do- the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. If something has fundamentally changed since the last review, the first step is to appeal to the reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 07:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

06:14, 5 November 2023 review of submission by MferrariACWA
Hi, I would appreciate some guidance on how to improve the quality of citations in this article. MferrariACWA (talk) 06:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)


 * You need independent reliable sources with significant coverage of him; the sources you have currently are just brief biographies of him and descriptions of his activities. "Significant coverage" is that which goes beyond just describing what he does or his existence and goes into detail about what the source sees as important/significant/influential about him- what we term notability. 331dot (talk) 07:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

13:41, 5 November 2023 review of submission by 2600:4041:5972:F900:BC2A:D727:E32A:6B09
Hello I received a denial of the article on the reason that the references are not related to the subject. This must be a mistake....For example if one clicks on one of the references https://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6384/62.full.pdf  immediately the Science magazine article that has "Fractional Chern Insulator" in the title appears. Same with the other references. If one googles the first set of 3 papers referenced in the article

T. Neupert, L. Santos, C. Chamon, and C. Mudry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 236804 (2011); D. N. Sheng, Z.-C. Gu, K. Sun, and L. Sheng, Nature Communications 2, 389 (2011); N. Regnault and B. A. Bernevig, Phys. Rev. X 1, 021014 (2011)

one immediately sees they have around 2000 citations altogether (in google scholar) and they contain fractional chern insulators.

So i have no idea why the reviewer says the article contains no published sources!!! There are many science, nature, phys rev letters and other well known journals in the references

please respond as quickly as possible.

thanks

2600:4041:5972:F900:BC2A:D727:E32A:6B09 (talk) 13:41, 5 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't see where the reviewer says that "the references are not related to the subject".
 * But putting that aside, you're citing 12 sources, but only two are available online, is that really the case? Of course, offline sources are acceptable, but it would make the reviewer's job much easier if you could point to online versions which almost certainly exist for some or all of those sources.
 * And if you are going to cite offline sources, then you must provide sufficient details to enable them to be reliable identified and verified. In most of these, the papers' titles aren't even mentioned, and generally the information is quite patchy. Journals should be cited specifically using the Cite journal template, populating the parameters as fully as possible. And please, do not expect reviewers, or for that matter later readers, to Google your sources, they should be made available without any such additional steps. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:03, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * As a reviewer can I ask what "phys rev letters" are? Theroadislong (talk) 14:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Physical Review Letters is a top physics journal, just as Nature and Science are two of the most prestigious scientific journals. Preimage (talk) 11:11, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

14:54, 5 November 2023 review of submission by Aw.griffioen
This page is rejected because of lack of reliable sources. I am afraid this is a mistake. iBoost technology has been described in detail in a paper in the journal Vaccine (2018) and several follow-up scientific papers, including one in Nature Communications, have been published. In addition, iBoost technology is currently very popular, as clinical studies using the technology are planned to strart. If this is not tracable and reliable enough, please let me know what sources I could add to improve the page. Aw.griffioen (talk) 14:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes it is a mistake your draft was NOT rejected, it was declined, which means you can still work on and bring it up to standard and re-submit, please note that being "popular" is not a valid criteria for inclusion. Theroadislong (talk) 15:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Fortunately for you, the draft was only declined not rejected. This means you can resubmit it once you fix the issues., the reviewer asked in a comment for you to not cite predatory journals. I haven't checked all the sources yet, but I assume this is the issue. Edward-Woodrow  •  talk  15:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

15:16, 5 November 2023 review of submission by Qemorio
Hi, I am just wondering why the article was rejected. I am sure I can fix the issues if I know what the issues are. If this is posted somewhere and I have missed it I sincerely apologize. Thank you so much for your time. Qemorio (talk) 15:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)


 * firstly, your draft was just declined, not rejected. Rejection provides no option to resubmit the draft. You, on the other hand, can fix any problems are resubmit for further review by clicking the blue button on the pink box at the top of the draft.
 * The draft was declined by, and the decline reason is listed in the grey box. It's a standard decline reason that basically says the topic has not yet shown to be "notable".
 * I hope this helps. Cheers, Edward-Woodrow  •  talk  15:22, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification (rejected/declined) and information on what qualifies as "notable" I will update and resubmit. Qemorio (talk) 15:44, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification (rejected/declined) and information on what qualifies as "notable" I will update and resubmit. Qemorio (talk) 15:44, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

17:04, 5 November 2023 review of submission by Technobabylon
Hello - Thank you for your feedback. I understand that the reason for rejection of the article is that sources which were not independent and secondary were used. Please could you kindly help point out which articles and references are not compliant with Wikipedia policies exactly? The main first 4 references which are used to describe the subject are ERMC website, World Economic Forum, National University of Singapore and Streamly, none of which were written by the subject. The remainder of the references are just a list publications made by the subject and have no bearing on the description of the subject. Therefore I am really confused as to why this draft is not compliant. Appreciate your kind advice and help. Regards, Technobabylon Technobabylon (talk) 17:04, 5 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @Technobabylon anything written by him is a primary source which is not useful so I suggest removing all those sources. A short list of his publications is fine though (around 5-7 of his most notable works based on reviews by reputable critics/publications).  What is needed are secondary independent sources that have written in-depth about him or about his work.  Also, if you are affiliated with him, you need to declare your conflict of interest.  If you have any financial relationship (client, employer, etc.), you need to follow WP:PAID.  S0091 (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

17:32, 5 November 2023 review of submission by MarvDjEng
Can I set the article "free to edit" in another way than it currently is for everyone so maybe together we can achieve to add what is currrently maybe missing? MarvDjEng (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @MarvDjEng. Any Wikipedia article that isn't protected is free to be edited by anyone already, including your draft.
 * However, us volunteer editors don't usually edit drafts and we don't have a co-editing service. It is up to you to improve the draft and prove notability.  Qcne  (talk)  17:37, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Anyone can edit a draft, but generally drafts are only found by people who already know they exist. 331dot (talk) 19:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I was thinking of reacjing out directly to people in the bodybuilding subgenre of Wikipedia. I am not looking to "outsource" work but rather to find likeminded people who, together, find the best version that we can get. I just want to make sure it is not against some kind of privacy to do so... MarvDjEng (talk) 21:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I was going to suggest you post on WT:WikiProject Bodybuilding, but I see that that project is listed as inactive, so there may not be many people watching it (fewer than 30 people have that on their watchlist). Not sure if there might be another WikiProject that is relevant and ore active? ColinFine (talk) 16:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @MarvDjEng try WT:WikiProject Sports, which is the parent project to WikiProject Bodybuilding and is active. There are no privacy or other issues with soliciting help and anyone is welcome to edit drafts.  S0091 (talk) 16:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you all for your support! Happy writing! MarvDjEng (talk) 11:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

19:07, 5 November 2023 review of submission by Igreo
I have inserted and corrected what was highlighted. What more can you do to avoid making another mistake? Do you consider it encyclopedic enough? And in your opinion, is the draft well written? Thank you so much. Igreo (talk) 19:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Igreo if you want another review, please resubmit the draft and a reviewer will take look. We generally do not do pre-reviews.  S0091 (talk) 19:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

22:56, 5 November 2023 review of submission by SSEKYANZI FREDERIC OFFICIAL
help me to upload my docments SSEKYANZI FREDERIC OFFICIAL (talk) 22:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. Please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 23:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

23:19, 5 November 2023 review of submission by Gulbi Balbulus
Hey,

I wrote the article for this composition for the German Wikipedia and wanted to translate it for the English Wikipedia. My first submission was declined on the grounds of being too much like an essay and not citing enough secondary sources. As everything was already based on academic literature and not my personal opinion I assumed adding references to said sources would suffice. There is now a citation for almost every sentence. However, it was declined a second time with the same reasoning as before. I'm a bit at a loss how to improve any further. Maybe I got the criticism of the article reading more like an essay wrong? My understanding is that it means the article should be based on reliable sources, not my own subjective point of view. But everything said in the article has a citation. I'd be very grateful for any help :) Gulbi Balbulus (talk) 23:19, 5 November 2023 (UTC)