Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 April 8

= April 8 =

05:38, 8 April 2024 review of submission by Merged account
Hello, please allow me to get some clarification regarding the review of my first article. My article was not published because the "draft needs multiple published sources that are: in-depth, reliable, secondary, strictly independent of the subject. Since the article provides for nearly all statements a reference, is my conclusion correct that only the references are not seen as independent enough? With other words, if I just find more references to replace existing references, it is sufficient. Or is there anything else in the text that needs to be fixed and/or is not yet referenced but needs a reference? I am asking this to avoid running into the wrong direction, because searching for additional evidences may take a lot of efforts. In example, I have listed in the draft the former presidents of Correns Corporation based on the information from the companies website. I understood that this source is not independent. If I can get copies from the trade register records, I just add them and then this list is sufficiently backed up with an independent reference and can remain. Additional question: I have also the Sales volume taken from the companies website. From my point of view, this information is never independent. It may be verified by an external auditor (which report may be anyway covered by an NDA), but the source of the Sales figure is still the company. Do you have any recommendations what kind of reference for this figure can be independent? Looking forward to your advice. Merged account (talk) 05:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Merged account: we need to see multiple sources that meet the WP:GNG standard for notability. I don't believe any of the ones cited in this draft do that (with the possible exception of #1, which is cited in a way that makes it difficult to verify).
 * It could be that "find[ing] more references to replace existing references" would do the trick, but you would need to ensure that the new sources not only establish notability but also actually support the information against which you will be citing them. Possible, but far from guaranteed.
 * You're largely going about this WP:BACKWARDS. You shouldn't first write what you want, and then try to find sources that support that. You should start by finding a few (3-5) sources that clearly meet the GNG standard, summarise what they've said, and cite those sources against the information each of them has provided. This will give you both the necessary referencing and the appropriate content in one go. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * PS: You can use primary sources, including ones close to the subject (eg. the company's own website) to support purely factual, and entirely non-contentious, information such as names of past and current presidents etc. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Please understand that ColinFine (talk) 17:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you all very much for the helpful explanation. I will go ahead to find additional sources and then summarize it again, after I get green light regarding the current concern about paid editing. Merged account (talk) 02:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

07:02, 8 April 2024 review of submission by 1.64.143.147
Hello,

It appears the above article has been rejected erroneously.

each of the references provided are from external third parties, from respected industry news sources (Electrive, New Atlas) which are not just regurgitations from a press release. Another, the Edison Awards, is a highly respected technology awards organisation. Thus, on this basis, do the sources not count as in-depth (detailed analysis on DESTEN tech), Reliable, Secondary and strictly independent (third party industry-focused news publications)?

It would be helpful to know how I may improve the page to secure publication.

Thanks. 1.64.143.147 (talk) 07:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)


 * This draft has been declined, not rejected, and that has been done entirely correctly as there is zero evidence of notability per WP:NCORP.
 * If you are, please remember to log into your account whenever editing. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

10:21, 8 April 2024 review of submission by IT-TueSE
Hello.

My Article about Prof. Dr. Thorsten Bohl got rejected because it 'doesn't meet one of the eight academic-specific criteria'. But thats not true in my opinion. Two of these criterias are: 'The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers or Honorary Fellow of the Institute of Physics).'

As Thorsten Bohl got elected as the chairman of the German School Award jury. The school award is sponsored by various institutions, including ARD, a state broadcaster institution. The award is presented alternately by the german President or the german Chancellor. This alone shows the importance Thorsten Bohl has on the academic field of educational sciences. This is mentioned in my article and also a (german) reference is given. So I'd like to ask how I can get my submission accepted. Thanks in advance! IT-TueSE (talk) 10:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @IT-TueSE: do I understand you correctly, are you saying that membership or chairmanship of the German School Award jury meets criteria 2 and/or 3 of WP:NACADEMIC? Quite simply, I don't believe it meets either.  -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello DoubleGrazing, you understand right. Why shouldn't it meet those criteria? It's the most important award for schools based on educational science criteria that allow a statement to be made about school quality. To be called for chairmanship proves his standing in educational sciences in germany and is a huge honour. I don't want to argue with you I just want to understand why this should not be relevant enough. If this is not the case, then I wonder what is? Kind Regards IT-TueSE (talk) 10:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @IT-TueSE: because criterion #2 of NACADEMIC requires the subject to be the recipient of a major award, not to be handing out awards to others. And criterion #3 talks about scholarly societies and similar, which the School Award body is not. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @DoubleGrazing Okay, I understand. I brought those two criterias up because I thought it was more important and met the given criteria. But I think he also meets criteria 5 and/or 6 as he also is the founder and elected chairman of the Tübingen School of Education. It is a central academic institution for teacher training at the University of Tübingen. In this role he was also involved as a leading role in numerous projects in the teacher-training-quality-campaign funded by the german State Ministry "Ministry of Education and Research". This is also mentioned in the article with given references. IT-TueSE (talk) 11:17, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @IT-TueSE: regarding criterion #5, where is the evidence that this person has held a named or distinguished chair or equivalent? Note that we are looking for something beyond standard tenured professorship here.
 * Criterion #6 refers to highest elected position in the entire university, ie. in your case the Rector. It also specifically says that individual department chairs or deans are usually not covered by that criterion.
 * I can understand why you would like to interpret the guideline 'generously', but so far I remain unconvinced, alas. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

13:49, 8 April 2024 review of submission by Kashi Narain Mishra
If the request for adminship is dropped ,is the concerned man informed Kashi Narain Mishra (talk) 13:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Kashi Narain Mishra: I don't understand the question – what does a request for adminship have to do with this rejected draft, or vice versa? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It is an independent query. Earlier I received a message at regular intervals " A request for adminship is open for discussion." It has stopped now. So, I want to know if it has been dropped. Kashi Narain Mishra (talk) 13:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

17:58:42, 8 April 2024 review of submission by Esmb17
Hello, I am just looking for some feedback on my citations for this article. I am worried that despite the accuracy of the information, I might need to cite it from different places. Esmb17 (talk) 17:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

23:04:32, 8 April 2024 review of submission by Interim22
Hello! When I input the coordinates onto my draft while visual editing, Draft:Al Batinah International School infobox template, it dosent make a map for me. I notices some other school articles always have maps but mine just dosen't do anything. Any assistance would be appreciated. Thanks! Interim22 (talk) 23:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)


 * A map is an extra that can be added once an article is accepted. It will not affect whether the draft is accepted, which depends on whether it cites adequate references to establish notability, and whether it is written in a suitably neutral tone. ColinFine (talk) 15:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)