Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 September 25

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< September 24 << Aug | September | Oct >> September 26 >
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.


September 25

edit

06:48, 25 September 2023 review of submission by Truthmakesyoufree

edit

I tried to pick something easy and charitable and copied existing templates. How could I fix it and make it better? Truthmakesyoufree (talk) 06:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Truthmakesyoufree: the first thing you need to do is decide what the topic of your article should be, and then stick to that. This will hopefully also clarify the article title.
You then find independent and reliable secondary sources that have provided significant coverage of that topic, and summarise what they have said, citing each source against the information it provides.
Remove all inline external links, as has already been mentioned by the reviewer. If you can use them as references, do.
Start with a lead section (see WP:MOSLEAD) which sets the context, tells the reader clearly what the topic is, and why it is notable.
And finally, if you have an external relationship of some sort with this organisation, please disclose it. I'll post a message on your talk page with advice on this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Working on attempting the changes right now from this context and the context of the person given earlier. Does inline links include Wikipedia pages? I was including reference to try to back up where I got the statements from. Truthmakesyoufree (talk) 07:18, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Truthmakesyoufree: links can be either internal ('wikilinks'), ie. linking to other Wikipedia articles, or external, ie. pointing to URLs outside the en.wiki.x.io domain. Internal ones are encouraged; external ones are not allowed (in body text, that is; they can appear in the end matter, meaning the 'References' and later sections). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:23, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, they are all Wiki links but I think I didn't link them the right way. Trying to figure that out now. Truthmakesyoufree (talk) 07:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:08, 25 September 2023 review of submission by Samuel Scotland

edit

This page keeps getting rejected for not being relevant to the topic, but how could it not be relevant to the topic if it is about him? How could it be relevant Samuel Scotland (talk) 07:08, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Samuel Scotland: it was declined and subsequently rejected for failing to demonstrate notability, not "relevance" (whatever that might mean). It has no meaningful sources, and therefore no evidence that the subject meets our criteria for inclusion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What would classify as a 'meaningful source' because all of the information on him has been collected from his accounts, such as date of birth, place of origin and first YouTube video Samuel Scotland (talk) 07:22, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Samuel Scotland: for notability, we need to see significant coverage of him in multiple secondary sources (newspapers, magazines, TV programmes, etc.) that are reliable and entirely independent of him. In other words, we want to see what others have said about him, not what he says about himself. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:52, 25 September 2023 review of submission by LarsHolmberg

edit

Hi!

I made significant updates to a draft article that was originally denied and resubmitted it but got zero feedback (just exactly the same objections as a previous version got, despite those objections being, imo, resolved).

I asked for feedback, but didnt get any, so I resubmitted the article without changes, hoping for actual feedback or someone else to review it, which instead triggered it to be blocked.

What can I do now? LarsHolmberg (talk) 07:52, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about something and what it does- an article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. Most of the sources you provided are not independent of the topic.
For future reference it's not usually a good idea to resubmit a draft without changes; most reviewers will interpret that as the writer ignoring advice, and it's considered disruptive. 331dot (talk) 07:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, I get that. I really tried to address the concerns about reliable independent sources (adding a couple new sources, one from a proper scientific publication), but received an identical rejection with zero details.
I apologize for resubmitting with no changes, I realize that was a mistake. I was just hoping someone else would have a look and maybe give actual reasons for the rejection, not just reiterate the reasons that were (imo) no longer applicable. Locust is a real thing with lots of users and more than a million downloads every month https://pypistats.org/packages/locust (yes I know that doesn not guarantee notability in itself, but it is another thing that I think should be considered) LarsHolmberg (talk) 15:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@LarsHolmberg: I can see why you might think so, but no. Being popular or famous or having many followers or downloads, or being the 'first X to do Y', or any such factor does not (usually) establish notability, or even contribute towards it. Notability is simply this: do published secondary sources exist, which are reliable and independent, and which have covered the subject in significant extent? Yes – then it's probably notable. No – then it definitely isn't. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thats why I said it doesnt guarantee notability.
But lets get back on track: published secondary sources DO exist (https://www.irjet.net/archives/V7/i5/IRJET-V7I5651.pdf, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0164121222000061#d1e9449), but the reviewer disregarded them. Particularly the first one, which was added in the last "real" request for review. LarsHolmberg (talk) 15:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The science direct source is very technical and doesn't seem to give significant coverage about the software and what makes it important/significant/influential. Irjet seems to be an academic paper comparing the tools, which seems to be original research. Is the paper peer reviewed? 331dot (talk) 15:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm.. you do have a point about the "science direct" source. The one I added was the Irjet one, and it does claim to be peer reviewed: https://www.irjet.net/ LarsHolmberg (talk) 17:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Locust is also described in other peer revied papers, like this one: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332759795_A_Pragmatic_Evaluation_of_Stress_and_Performance_Testing_Technologies_for_Web_Based_Applications (these are the kind of things I could have addressed if I had gotten meaningful feedback instead of just copy paste rejections with no regard for the actual state of the article) LarsHolmberg (talk) 18:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot Can you reopen the article for editing and resubmission? I think I've explained what happened. And obviously I will not resubmit without adding more reliable sources... LarsHolmberg (talk) 11:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have you first attempted to appeal to the reviewer that rejected the draft? That's typically the first step. 331dot (talk) 12:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reason we're having this discussion at all is that @Stuartyeates didnt reply, but lets see if he notices now :)
Pinging @CNMall41 too LarsHolmberg (talk) 07:15, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. I can see now, when I made the request for him to comment I did it on my mobile, but the entry ended up in MY talk page. LarsHolmberg (talk) 07:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've now been alerted to this discussion and will start the conversation again. As a tertiary source, the subjects of wikipedia articles need in-depth coverage in independent sources and the article continues to lack them. Coverage by/associated with the project or it's creators is primary. The release history page is a database listing not in-depth. One of the academic articles appears to discuss a thing someone did with the software but not the actual software. The other article appears to be published in a predatory journal and google scholar shows no evidence of it being cited (but is significantly closer than the others to what we're looking for). I'm more than happy to look at other sources if / when they come to light. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can remove the sciencedirect source entirely (I didnt add that myself, and I agree that it does not give much detail about Locust anyway). Which one is the predatory one, Reasearchgate or Irjet? I'll be happy to put more effort in this if you think it is possible.
The link to Pypi release history is just to show the existence/creation time of Locust (not notability), and for that I think it should be considered credible. Pypi or Github is frequently used to support this kind of claim in other articles (e.g. Jinja (template engine), MayaVi, etc) LarsHolmberg (talk) 12:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reason the draft was rejected was because you submitted it without any improvement. There were five previous declines of the draft as well. How is a reviewer supposed to approve a draft (or even review it) when no improvement has taken place since last decline? --CNMall41 (talk) 20:26, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! The reason I resubmitted with no changes was because I didnt get a reply when I reached out to the reviewer (the reason I didnt get a reply was that I had written my question in the wrong place :)
The article has been significantly improved and rewritten since the first couple of declines, and I'll continue improving it as needed (I'm waiting for another reply from Stuart in the thread above though) LarsHolmberg (talk) 10:53, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:52, 25 September 2023 review of submission by JHvW

edit

I submitted a draft for a specialty in Alsatian cuisine. I was told it needed reliable references.

  • First of all finding reliable references for food items is extremely difficult. I have only been able to find recipes but I do not consider those references.
  • This foodstuff is mentioned in the French Wikipedia but I cannot use that as a reference.
  • Secondly I wonder if this subject could not just be incorporated in the article on dumplings. But as there is specific article on Kartoffelklösse I created a specific article. Although I would also like to point out that the article on kartoffelklösse is well referenced, I am not really impressed by the references.

What am I to do? 

John Do'h 09:52, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JHvW: this is, indeed, a tricky area. As you say, often the sources simply aren't there. And it can also be difficult to decide on the taxonomy, eg. when are two variants of a dish actually the same, vs. two separate dishes, and which dishes should be grouped together into one article, vs. having separate articles on each.
As a general comment, if sources cannot be found which would make this topic notable enough to have a standalone article, then that in itself may suggest it would be better covered in an existing, related one (which in this case could be eg Leberknödel?). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:06, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your answer. I am amused that you have pointed me to the leberknödel article, as this is an example of a foodstuff that has its own article rather than being incorporatedn in a more general article. But I have added a "see also" link to the leberknödel article. I have also added a reference and resubmitted the article. Thank you for time and thoughts. John Do'h 10:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:17, 25 September 2023 review of submission by VariatioDelecta

edit

Hello, I try to create latvian podcast page, so people could better know podcasts and it culture. VariatioDelecta (talk) 12:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@VariatioDelecta: well they certainly wouldn't know much from a blank page.
In any case, Wikipedia is not here to help publicise or promote anything. If the public doesn't know about your podcast, you need to find some other way to tell them. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:48, 25 September 2023 review of submission by 2A00:23C4:B98A:EC01:DD25:C77B:9ED0:7393

edit

Can you please help with sorting out the reliable sources issue. Can I clarify which types are most preferred. We've included papers that have been presented by our CEO at annual trade conferences where he is seen as a thought leader. All of these papers are available for view on our website and may be gated for marketing purposes. If you need easier access to these for verification it can be easily sorted. However, if the issue is actually that we need more 3rd party references or citations please let us know so we can update accordingly.

We can sort out the issue in paragraph 3 where the different publications that we appear in have been listed. Presumably it would be better to talk about this in the abstract and reference them being listed below with the [x]?

We're keen to resolve publication of our page so any help you can offer is gratefully accepted. 2A00:23C4:B98A:EC01:DD25:C77B:9ED0:7393 (talk) 14:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't want to see anything put out by the company or its officers or other parties associated with it. We need instead to see independent and reliable secondary sources, which have of their own volition covered this subject in significant extent, and we need to see multiple (3+) such sources. Note that interviews, press releases or sources based on them, any sort of sponsored content or 'churnalism', etc. do not count, as doesn't routine business reporting (appointment news, new locations opened or markets entered, financial results, M&A, etc.). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:27, 25 September 2023 review of submission by 2600:4041:424C:3600:2C4F:9685:8CC0:FAAA

edit

This article was rejected because apparently the perpetrator was not notable enough, even though he was covered extensively in the press, sexually assaulted hundreds of victims, and resulted in the largest Ivy League settlement of all time. Please restore this.

There is Wikipedia page of a much less significant sexual assault scandal, so why is this taken down? Columbia University rape accusation controversy Emma Sulkowicz 2600:4041:424C:3600:2C4F:9685:8CC0:FAAA (talk) 17:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see other stuff exists. There are many ways inappropriate articles can get past us, this does not mean more may be added. Please discuss your concerns about other articles not meeting guidelines on those respective article talk pages. They may already have discussion related to that.
We don't need the whole url when you link to another Wikipedia article or page; simply place the title of the target page/article in double brackets, as I've done here. 331dot (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:48, 25 September 2023 review of submission by Pangiotis A.

edit

I would greatly appreciate some guidance on how to enhance my article and address the issues you raised. Specifically, I'd like to better understand what you mean when you mentioned that my citations are "hanging at the bottom of the text, instead of after each statement." This terminology is new to me, and I want to ensure I grasp the concept correctly. Additionally, I would like to know what aspects of my writing were "completely unacceptable," I would be most grateful. I understand that my first attempt may have fallen short of expectations, and I'm committed to making the necessary improvements. Pangiotis A. (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pangiotis A., here is an example of unacceptable language: In order to bring their vision to life, the community struck a remarkable agreement with the owners for a single event without any financial transactions involved. This marked the beginning of an intense three-week period, during which a dedicated group of volunteers fervently cleaned and prepared the building. The collective effort showcased the unwavering faith, commitment, and passion that surrounded this extraordinary idea. That is overtly promotional language more appropriate for a fundraising brochure or a website, not for an encyclopedia article. Acceptable Wikipedia articles are written from the Neutral point of view. Wikipedia articles use inline references, with the reference placed after the text it verifies. Your references are all clumped up at the end of your draft. Please read Referencing for beginners. Cullen328 (talk) 19:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:01, 25 September 2023 review of submission by Larsody

edit

I would like to know more about the promotional content in this article. Which section is promotional? The content of this article is very similar to the content of the Wikipedia article on Karl Toriola. I would be grateful if you could provide more specific feedback on the problems with this article. Larsody (talk) 20:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Larsody First, please describe how you know Mr. Adebiyi, since you claim the copyright of the professionally taken image of him.
Please see other stuff exists. It could be that this other article is also inappropriate and simply not addressed yet. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate content to go undetected, even for years. We can only address what we know about. Standards have also changed over time so that what was once acceptable is no longer.
The entire draft is promotional, which is why it was rejected. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about someone's existence and document their accomplishments. A Wikipedia article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. We don't merely want to know what someone does, we want to know what independent sources consider to be important/significant/influential about the person. 331dot (talk) 20:06, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 331dot, thank you for your time and the question asked.
I have a personal relationship with Mr. Adebiyi, which has developed over time through multiple in-person interactions. We have met on numerous occasions, and I've had the opportunity to engage in discussions with him regarding his significant contributions to the field of Nigeria Telecommunication. This personal connection has allowed me to gain a deep understanding of his work, values, and accomplishments in this sector.
One particular instance that showcases our relationship is when I attended Mr. Adebiyi's recent event in Ogun State. During this event, I had the privilege of spending time with him and capturing a photograph. Importantly, I want to emphasize that I obtained Mr. Adebiyi's explicit permission before taking the photo. This gesture not only demonstrates our rapport but also underscores his willingness to collaborate with me in this regard. Larsody (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:02, 25 September 2023 review of submission by 86.123.125.241

edit

I have a famous bird, he is a rook. he played in a movie and was invited to tv shows and was on the national news many times. can i do a wikipedia page for him? 86.123.125.241 (talk) 21:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for asking questions about existing drafts and submitting them. To ask if a particular topic might merit an article, please go to the Teahouse. 331dot (talk) 21:15, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2023_September_25&oldid=1178233708"