Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2018 March 20
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < March 19 | << Feb | March | Apr >> | March 21 > |
| Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages. |
March 20
edit
- Erlan Azahra (talk · contribs)
What should I fix for my article to be accepted? Please Help me . . https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Draft:Nusantara_Turbin_Dan_Propulsi Erlan Azahra (talk) 00:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Erlan Azahra (talk) 00:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
09:52:28, 20 March 2018 review of submission by Carlethan
edit
Carlethan (talk) 09:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
13:42:45, 20 March 2018 review of draft by FloraSanz
edit
Dear librarian,
My name is Flora Sanz and I work as a librarian in the Main Library of UNED.
I have just created the profile of a UNED Professor and scientics named Sara Osuna. She has a profile in the Spanish version too
https://es.wiki.x.io/wiki/Sara_Osuna
and I have several doubts in the English version. May you help me, please?: 1. How can I insert the photo in a biograhical template? 2. How can I insert de Authority Control such as ORCID, VIAF, Google Scholar, Worldcat?
At last, how can I publish the definitely Sara Osuna webpage not a one draft? Best regards and I'm looking forward hearing from you
FloraSanz (talk) 13:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hi FloraSanz. You seem to have figured out how to add a photo. The authority control identifiers come from Wikidata via the {{Authority control}} template. I'm not sure whether it will work while the page is a draft. I suggest reexamining the question after the draft is accepted for publication.
- The draft is in the queue to be reviewed. Osuna is widely cited, so Wikipedia should have an article about her and I expect the draft will be accepted eventually, although whoever reviews it may suggest improvements first. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
- I've tagged the article for notability and COI; Worldbruce; if I've missed evidence that the subject is widely cited, please remove the notability template. Regardless, I think the new user has conflict issues regarding the library where she works, and have left messages for her regarding her edits, at least some of which appear to include copyright violation and promotional content. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
18:40:11, 20 March 2018 review of submission by Nagarashi
edit
While I do understand - partly - why the submission was declined, I'm still finding it rather unclear as to what exactly proper sources of notability are. I've seen many an article on Wikipedia with far less sources and far less coverage in those sources that what I've listed yet they don't seem to have any issues being on Wikipedia.
I understand that the subject in my page isn't exactly the most well-known author on the planet but it seemed to me that I listed plenty of decent sources. Would it be accepted if the page was a bit curtailed or are the sources just not adequate in general? How are video sources being looked at? A 40 minute interview is quite a notable source, I thought.
Nagarashi (talk) 18:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Nagarashi. Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality articles and poor quality articles. The existence of articles that do not meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines does not mean they have been in any way "approved". It may simply mean that no one has gotten around to deleting them yet. They are not a good excuse to create more such articles. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why. If you wish to learn from example articles, be sure to use only Wikipedia's best.
- To the extent that an interview is just Pennington in Pennington's words, it isn't independent of Pennington, and so doesn't help show notability. Interviews in which there is substantive analysis of the subject by the interviewer, often using sources other than the subject, are more likely to be judged as independent secondary sources that contribute to demonstrating notability.
- Reviewers are likely to discount Alumni magazines, notability-wise, because of their narrow audience, their incentive to identify and promote alumni in every issue, and their dependence on their subject for information (they're not scholars or investigative journalists with an army of fact checkers, they're marketers for the university). Curtailing the page might help if it allows you to get rid of some poor sources, doing so can make the better sources stand out, but in general the draft needs better sources - ones that are all three of: in-depth, arms-length, and reliable.
- For an author, the typical way to demonstrate notability is by citing in-depth reviews of their work by professional book critics in reputable outlets (think 1000+ words by Michiko Kakutani in The New York Times). --Worldbruce (talk) 00:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)