Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 February 27

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< February 26 << Jan | February | Mar >> February 28 >
Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.


February 27

edit

03:00:59, 27 February 2020 review of draft by TobiasRagg2001

edit


I am very keen to get this article in a fit state to be accepted and published. As an organisation, the London Youth Choirs are much more notable within the industry than similar choirs that already have articles written on them (such as Taplow Choirs and the Millennium Youth Choir). I would appreciate some guidance with regard to what I should add to the article in its present state to ensure it is accepted. Alternatively if a more experienced editor would be willing to make necessary edits to ensure the successful publication of the article, that would also be greatly appreciated

Many Thanks,

TobiasRagg2001 (talk) 03:00, 27 February 2020 (UTC)TobiasRagg2001[reply]

TobiasRagg2001 (talk) 03:00, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TobiasRagg2001, Guidance has already been provided in the form of the linked articles in the decline messages on the draft pages. Do you have any specific questions about those policies? Also, in response to you bringing up other articles Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. WP:INN. And you should put in the effort to improve your own article instead of just asking someone else to fix it for you. We're happy to help but you have to make an effort to at least meet us halfway. WP:BUILDER Sulfurboy (talk) 03:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Sulfurboy, I have fixed the edits suggested by guidance within the articles and everything stated is referenced. I have resubmitted the post for approval

TobiasRagg2001 (talk) 13:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)TobiasRagg2001[reply]

03:15:12, 27 February 2020 review of submission by Jot143

edit


Jot143 (talk) 03:15, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jot143, What is your question? Sulfurboy (talk) 03:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


03:26:06, 27 February 2020 review of submission by 106.205.120.180

edit


106.205.120.180 (talk) 03:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question? Sulfurboy (talk) 03:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:32:51, 27 February 2020 review of submission by 47.20.134.183

edit


47.20.134.183 (talk) 07:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand why the page is not allowed to be published. It's hard to understand your responses sent in writing.

There are no edits from your IP other than the above, so I cannot tell you what is wrong with your draft. If you created it while logged in to an account, remember to log in before posting. 331dot (talk) 10:16, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:33:04, 27 February 2020 review of submission by The Supermind

edit


My draft will be speedy deleted if I can remove promotional contents but it looks like encyclopedic and I cannot identified which section is promotional. Can you help me please?

The Supermind (talk) 09:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Supermind Your draft does nothing other than tell that this person exists. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must indicate with significant coverage in independent reliable sources how the subject, in this case a person, meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. You have no sources at all in the draft indicating significant coverage, like news stories about this person. Most "YouTubers" do not merit Wikipedia articles; the number of subscribers or views is completely irrelevant to this. It depends on the coverage in sources. 331dot (talk) 10:15, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:23:14, 27 February 2020 review of submission by Vivalionel1

edit


Hi, I am asking for a re-review because I'm befuddled at the reasoning, as the player made his professional debut in the third division which can be seen as not a fully professional league, this is understood, but he then went on to play in Segunda divion which is a fully professional league with Real Zaragoza. I was meticulous in understanding that Segunda B is not a fully professional league, but Segunda Divion is. He played a season in Segunda divion which meets the criteria for inclusion. Vivalionel1 (talk) 11:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vivalionel1. If I understand your argument correctly, you think he meets criterion #2 of WP:NFOOTY because he was on the roster of Real Zaragoza in the 2014-2015 season, during which Real Zaragoza was in the Segunda División, a fully professional league. Assuming everything about Real Zaragoza and the Segunda División is correct, there remains the problem that the draft shows zero appearances for Real Zaragoza. He may have been on the team, but the draft doesn't show that he had any playing time there. For the purposes of the notability guideline, "played" means having appeared in a match either in the starting lineup or coming on as a substitute. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Worldbruce (talk) 13:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Worldbruce, your assumption would be correct, I have corrected the appearances on the draft he made at Zaragoza, which now shows the correct appreances he made - matched with the external links thanks. Vivalionel1 (talk) 13:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:43:45, 27 February 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Nwankwoibekwe

edit


I am asking for your assistance to enable this article to be created. At this point, I do not know what to do next based on the comments by the reviewer. The reviewer commented about passing mentions about the subject matter. Kindly assist me overcome this issue of passing mentions as I am new in Wikipedia article creation.

Nwankwoibekwe (talk) 13:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:22:20, 27 February 2020 review of submission by Vivalionel1

edit

Hi Sulfurboy, I have made changes to show the appearances he made as a professional, in Segunda division which lines up with the requested criteria. Vivalionel1 (talk) 20:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:26:00, 27 February 2020 review of submission by Aceggert

edit

The article I recently submitted was denied and what looks like a boilerplate response was given. To ensure I don't spend a lot of time fixing the wrong thing, submitting, and being denied again, I'm wondering if someone was able to explain which parts weren't up to Wikipedia's standards. And thanks - I really appreciate what you all do! Aceggert (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aceggert, Lines like "In 2013, the Minneapolis/St. Paul Business Journal honored Zaheer’s professional achievements, leadership qualities, and contributions to the broader Twin Cities community with its Women in Business Award." are particularly troubling. The decline message is a boiler plate, but it narrowly tailored to the exact issues of informal tone and neutrality concerns that we see all the time. I would advise reading the linked articles and learning about standards of tone and neutrality and then work to re-write the article. We're not going to go in for you and line by line point out every problem. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I definitely don't need a line-by-line, but the boilerplates can be difficult to decipher, especially when they flag multiple potential issues (is it sourcing? tone? neutrality? all potentially very different!). Now I should be able to go in and make the necessary changes. Aceggert (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:35:00, 27 February 2020 review of submission by 223.176.101.121

edit


223.176.101.121 (talk) 17:35, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have a question? Sulfurboy (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


18:26:15, 27 February 2020 review of submission by TobiasRagg2001

edit


I am request a re-review as I firmly believe that the subject matter of this article is of sufficient notability to warrant an article. I have included reliable secondary sources from industry recognised organisations such as Rhinegold and the Association of British Choral Directors. The organisation was founded by a highly regarded member of the industry and has patronage from internationally renowned musicians. The organisation appears regularly on national radio and television and appears at internationally renowned concert venues (as is referenced within the article - with references from independent organisations such as the BBC and the London Philharmonic Orchestra)

I feel this post has been unfairly rejected, despite my corrections to ensure the article is well-sourced and neutral in its composition. I request that this article is re-reviewed by an independent member of the Wikipedia community (i.e. someone who hasn’t already reviewed the article prior to my making necessary changes) and/or a member of the community who is an expert in the field I am writing about.

I look forward to your swift reply,

TobiasRagg2001 (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)TobiasRagg2001[reply]


TobiasRagg2001 (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TobiasRagg2001, Comments such as "the organisation was founded by a highly regarded member of the industry" show me that you still have not made the effort to review what is required for notability standards. You were repeatedly resubmitting the article while making minimal improvements and thus clogging up our already backlogged queue. As for your list of demands in a re-review, if you can find an AfC reviewer who happens to also be an expert in the field of youth choirs then you are welcome to invite them to review your article. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Sulfurboy, I do not see how me stating that Suzi Digby OBE is a highly regarded member of the industry is going against the notability guidelines. I have made significant change to my article, ensuring there are over 25 references (including those from the BBC and national newspapers) and the whole article is neutral in its composition (as you would see if you took the time to properly read the article). I would appreciate it if you could clearly state what is wrong with my current article in its current form. I also do not appreciate you referring to my requests as demands - I personally believe that is putting my very polite request in a bad light, which isn’t needed since we are both working towards the common goal of making Wikipedia a more informative place.

Yours,

TobiasRagg2001 (talk) 18:56, 27 February 2020 (UTC)TobiasRagg2001[reply]

TobiasRagg2001, Again, if you read the articles that have been linked to you, its not a matter of how many sources you have, its the quality of them. The BBC 'source' is not an article covering the choir, its just an announcement page. A huge chunk of the sources are just different pages from the choirs website. The actual secondary, reliable sources either fail to show significant coverage or are only covering WP:ROUTINE things such as auditions. This has all been fully explained to you on multiple occasions with all of us encouraging you multiple times to read and understand what defines a quality source. The subject doesn't come close to meeting WP:GNG and its doubtful that any continuing work is going to change that. The time we've sunk into explaining this is getting a bit crazy, so if I come off a bit tepid you should understand why. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sulfurboy, I thank you for your time and I hope that, with time, the article’s subject matter will be of enough notability to warrant an article.

Yours,

TobiasRagg2001 (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2020 (UTC)TobiasRagg2001[reply]

20:13:19, 27 February 2020 review of submission by MovieDude2019

edit


Hi, I've been attempting to put a wikipedia article together for an independent documentary, Purdah, that I think is worthy of one. I am still new to creating articles and I'm trying to learn more, so I appreciate any help you can offer.

The article I was creating was rejected yesterday because it "appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia," so I changed the tone so it didn't sound like the article was overly highlighting the film's accomplishments. After removing some sentences and phrasing that could have sounded overly positive or promotional, the topic was rejected because "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." It feels a bit like the article is caught between needing to sing the film's praises so that it is worthy of inclusion but not so much that it is reading like an advertisement.

There are lots of independent films on Wikipedia that have similar or lesser accomplishments, so I'm trying to figure out what would be required for this article to be approved that would also be realistic for an independent film. From looking at the article on Wikipedia:Notability (films), it seems like the film would satisfy numbers 1 and 3, and perhaps 5, though that article indicates a film may not need to satisfy any of the five to still be deemed notable.

Regarding #1 (1.The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.), Purdah is distributed internationally and available around nearly the entire globe via Amazon, iTunes, Google Play, and three other platforms. The film has received five reviews from nationally known critics that are on the well-regarded Rotten Tomatoes list of TomatoMeter-Approved Critics.

Regarding #3 (3. The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking), the film has received two awards, one from Dances With Films and The Big Syn International Film Festival London, and both are listed in the article. The film was recognized for overall excellence in the documentary category and for the crafting of the its trailer, poster, marketing, and overall film. Purdah is currently nominated for another award to be handed out in April, which brings its total nominations to five, though unofficially the number is much probably much higher since most official selections are up for awards at every festival. Perhaps most significantly, the film was listed on a prominent critic's Best Films of 2019 list, being one of just four independent films to receive recognition in that category. That is cited in the article.

Regarding #5 (5. The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.), the film screened at the educational Association for Asian Studies Annual Conference as an educational tool and to be used as in university classrooms in the future. A citation of the conference's screening schedule was recently added to the article. The film is also distributed in the educational market to universities and libraries via the distributor Collective Eye Films. A review from a University of Illinois professor and Head of Research and Information Services was cited in Library Journal in the last revision of the article. Precise sources of the film being taught in classrooms might be harder to track down at this time, but it could be possible to find this.

With this information it feels like Purdah is notable enough. If it's simply a matter of crafting the article appropriately, I would love anyone's assistance in terms of how to make that happen. Thank you!


MovieDude2019 (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MovieDude2019, The five reviews on Rotten Tomatoes are by five blog critics. There's not a single source on the page that shows significant coverage by a secondary source, and not a single major news outlet did a review on this movie. This simply doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:NFILM and I don't think there's anything you can add that's going to change that. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick response, Sulfurboy. Based on what I had seen with other independent films that have approved articles on Wikipedia, and I guess my own reading of the notability threshold, it seemed like Purdah could be interpreted to meet that threshold since I was attempting to model the Purdah article on other independent films that had been approved. For example, here are approved films from the same distributors or film festivals that have similar or lesser accomplishments and sources - We Make Movies The Disenchanted Forest Ekaj Portrait of a Zombie. Is Purdah missing something that each of these articles have?

Do organizations like Screen Anarchy and Film Threat have significance despite their current online-only presence? Both organizations have Wikipedia articles of their own (fwiw), have a major following, and even Film Threat used to be in print but simply adjusted to the reality of the times and went web-only. Are academic journals like Video Librarian and Library Journal, as well as the film's inclusion in the Association for Asian Studies Annual Conference enough for academic notability? Purdah is in newspaper articles that discuss it and other films more broadly as highlights at film festivals, such as Metro Silicon Valley, The Culver City Observer, as well as public broadcasting affiliates KQED (NPR/PBS) and SWR2 (part of 2nd largest broadcast organization in Germany). These are currently included in the article, some in the Further Reading section, but should they be moved into the body of the article and used as a reference? It just feels like Purdah is at least close to meeting the requirements and perhaps the article hasn't positioned the most important items that could show that it has. Thanks so much in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MovieDude2019 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MovieDude2019. It's natural to learn by example, but in doing so it's important to use excellent examples. Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality articles and poor quality ones. The existence of an article does not mean it meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or has been "approved". It may only mean that no one has gotten around to fixing it or deleting it yet. So generally it isn't productive to compare a draft to other pages. The essay "Other stuff exists" may help you understand why. If you want to learn from examples, be sure to use only Wikipedia's best.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources lists sources that Wikipedians have found useful when writing about film. Being an online-only publication is not a disqualification. Prior discussions at WP:RSN suggest that Film Threat is probably reliable, and Screen Anarchy (formerly Twitch Film) may be reliable, although consensus has not been overwhelming. I'm unfamiliar with Video Librarian, but Library Journal is not an academic journal. It's a trade magazine. It is reliable, but its reviews, at least of books, are of the capsule variety, which doesn't help demonstrate notability. I'm not sure what you mean by "academic notability", but I wouldn't think that being exhibited at the 2019 Association for Asian Studies Annual Conference would have any bearing on whether the film is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. You may be able to get more targeted help by asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! MovieDude2019

Request on 20:30:44, 27 February 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Vincedagenais

edit


Can you help me to transfert my Delta20 page in English to the French Wikipedia site please?

Vincedagenais (talk) 20:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vincedagenais. The French Wikipedia is located at https://fr.wiki.x.io. You can copy what you've written from here to there, but be aware that the guidelines of each language version are set by the community of editors who contribute there, so I'm not familiar with the French rules and don't know whether your material will be acceptable there. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:27:54, 27 February 2020 review of submission by Aditya belnekar07

edit

Hi team please review the article and help in some good changes please i request you thankx Aditya belnekar07 (talk) 22:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aditya belnekar07: I looked at the sources and this is basically advertising. I agree with reviewer's assessment. All sources are just puffery pieces and PR blurbs and I'm pretty sure most if not all were not written by actual journalists. Even if they are all legit reliable sources (which they are not), it still would not be significant coverage that is needed for notability. You should also disclose any conflict of interest. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 22:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2020_February_27&oldid=985274760"