Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 July 21

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< July 20 << Jun | July | Aug >> July 22 >
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.


July 21

edit

04:09, 21 July 2024 review of submission by Gvbkwikiya

edit

I would like to delete the draft and start again. How can I do that? 

Gvbkwikiya (talk) 04:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the draft deletion has already been done. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:05, 21 July 2024 review of submission by Metroboy2011

edit

I have put some references in place, put I am not sure, how to implement these. I am very new to this, I believe, the geocache description page is reputable enough as it is the subject of this Wikipedia page. Metroboy2011 (talk) 09:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have no independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this collection of geocaches that show how it is notable as Wikipedia uses the word. A Fandom wiki is user-editable, so it is not a valid source. The other source you use seems to just document the existence of this collection. You need independent reliable sources like news reports or published books that detail what makes this collection important/significant/influential. Personally, it seems unlikely to me that such sources would exist. 331dot (talk) 09:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:41, 21 July 2024 review of submission by Metropolisrunner

edit

Hello. I created a page for Ali Shahmohammadi with reliable references and enough out sources but this page was declined. may I ask you why it was declined even though all the links and references were reliable? Thank you so much Metropolisrunner (talk) 10:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't start multiple threads. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:43, 21 July 2024 review of submission by Metropolisrunner

edit

I created a page for Ali Shahmohammadi but it has been declined. May I ask you why even though all the links and refences were true and reliable. Thank you so much Metropolisrunner (talk) 10:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Metropolisrunner: it was declined for the reasons given in the decline notice, namely insufficient referencing and lack of evidence of notability. Please study the decline notice, following all the links therein, which expand on the reasons. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:25, 21 July 2024 review of submission by Mildm8nnered

edit

I'd like to ask your advice regarding this article, which was rejected for "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources.". I'm trying to understand what I'm missing

The three references I've attached all

1. Dedicate multiple pages or a section to SwiftLint, according to their tables of contents.

2. Are references to published print books, published or distributed through mainstream publishers (Manning, Springer, etc)

3. Are independent of the subject

I'm not sure what I'm missing to meet the in-depth, reliable, secondary, independent criteria.

I'd totally agree that the wording of my link to the references ("It is the most commonly recommended Swift linter") is slightly clumsy, but in terms of the references themselves, can you give me any clue as to what I'm missing? Mildm8nnered (talk) 12:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mildm8nnered You have done a good job documenting the existence of this software and what it does, but Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about it, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. "Significant coverage" goes into detail about what the source sees as important/significant/influential about the topic, more than just telling what it does or other routine information. 331dot (talk) 12:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:38, 21 July 2024 review of submission by Takeru Watanabe

edit

Hello! My draft has been declined a few days ago (for a second time). I don't really understand why according to its edit history. The draft had been reviewed back in March and declined by User:DoubleGrazing who told me: "Possibly notable, but the sources cited are not enough to establish this." Furthermore, User:DoubleGrazing kindly explained to me: "We need to see at least three sources that meet the WP:GNG standard, namely secondary published sources (books, newspapers, magazines, TV or radio programmes, etc.) that are both reliable and entirely independent of the subject, and that have of their own volition (not 'sponsored' content, advertorial, based on press releases, etc.) provided significant coverage of the subject." So subsequently, I added four new in-depth, reliable, secondary and independent sources (University of Innsbruck, Austrian newspaper "Die Furche", Austrian newspaper "Der Standard", Austrian national brodcaster ORF) and submitted my draft for a re-review. Then, a few days ago the draft has been declined again but strangely for the same reason as back in March. I asked the reviewer (User:Youknowwhoistheman) for advice but until now they have not come back to me so I don't know what to do now. I would be very glad, if you could help me out here because I'm of the opinion that I did what was required from me and that the draft now meets the required standard. Best, Takeru Watanabe (talk) 17:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Takeru Watanabe! I don't speak German, so please forgive me if I miss anything from the sources, but I'll see whether I can work out what's going on for you.
Source 1 (Hell) seems to be discussing the poetry of the winners of the prize in 2004, rather than anything about the prize itself, so this would not be considered significant coverage.
Source 2 (Zeller) looks like a great source - that's one!
Source 3 (Kinzl) - this one is identified as a blog in the URL, and although you've cited an author and university publisher I'm not actually sure how you got that information. It doesn't look much like a reliable, reputable source as presented. Is that definitely the right URL? And perhaps more importantly, is it a blog? Blogs are generally not considered reliable sources, so that might be the problem.
Source 4 (OE1) is also a bit of a puzzler since on the surface it looks good, but I also don't see an author listed and I'm not certain how reliable the site is. The reviewer/s may have seen it as unreliable, or at least not been sure whether it was reliable or not - I tend to agree that this source may not be usable without more information (or possibly a reviewer who's very familiar with German sources).
Source 5 (Salto) suffers from the same problem as 1 (Hell) - it seems to focus on the winning poetry from 2024 rather than on the prize itself.
I hope that's at least a bit useful for you, and I will ping @DoubleGrazing and @Youknowwhoistheman for you to see if they have any feedback. As I'm not a reviewer, please take their advice over mine if we have conflicting ideas on sources! Best wishes and happy editing, StartGrammarTime (talk) 09:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've not checked the two new sources added since I reviewed this, but for refs #1-3 I concur with StartGrammarTime; also to add that #3 is a primary source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @User:StartGrammarTime! Thank you very much for your answer which is very helpful for me.
Please let me explain what I - in light of your comments - now think about the different sources.
Source 1 (Hell): I used this source in order to verify that 1993 was the year in that the Merano Poetry Prize was established ("Man kann es dem Lyrikpreis Meran nicht hoch genug anrechnen, dass er seit 1993 nun schon zum siebten Mal die Devise "Lyrik im Gespräch" ausgegeben hat"). So, I think it serves this purpose.
Source 3 (Kinzl): This is no private blog but in fact the "iPoint-Archiv der Universität Innsbruck" (https://www.uibk.ac.at/archive/ipoint/blog/_ottereendex.html). Under www.uibk.ac.at/ you find the homepage of the University of Innsbruck. The "blog" is something like the university's internet log archive. The source therefore in my opinion is reliable and also reputable. As for the name Martina Kinzl: I didn't come up with that, it was added automatically so I'm going to remove this detail manually.
Concerning @User:DoubleGrazing's remark (Hi and thanks also to you!), I don't see how the University of Innsbruck is supposed to be a primary source in this context. The students visiting the event might be but they don't give the relevant statement which is: "Dieser Literaturpreis, der 1992 erstmals ausgeschrieben wurde, wird alle zwei Jahre vergeben und ist neben dem Leonce-und-Lena-Preis und dem Christine-Lavant-Preis einer der bedeutendsten und renommiertesten Lyrikpreise im deutschsprachigem Raum. Das Echo der internationalen Presse auf die Preisvergabe ist sehr groß. In diesem Jahr feierte der Meraner Lyrikpreis seine 10. Ausgabe." This statement is made by the Innsbrucker Germanistik-Institut as an institution: an information of a matter of fact.
Source 4 (OE1): Ö1 is part of the Austrian national broadcaster ORF which is the equivalent to the BBC in Great Britain and is broadly considered as the most reliable media source in Austria. The news delivered by ORF are usually not linked to specific authors. The boradcaster itself serves as the source of information.
Source 5 (Salto): This source has been added deliberately at the position "Winners/2024" to verify the names of the three winners in 2024. That's its only purpose.
Okay, I hope could shed some light on my way of thinking about the matter and the reasons for choosing these specific sources.
Please let me finally say something general: I noted that most of the articles about German-language literature prizes lack the required sources, for example even the famous Büchner Prize. I think the reason for that is that in the first place literature prizes can be considered as prestigious without being the topic of feature articles in major newspapers ever. You know what I mean?
Anyway, the Merano Poetry Prize is without doubt a highly prestigious international prize for German-language and I think many people would profit from it having an article in the English Wikipedia.
So, again thanks a lot for your help!
Best, Takeru Watanabe (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again @Takeru Watanabe! I see where you're coming from with some of those now, thank you for clarifying!
The difficulty you may run into with using 1 (Hell) and 5 (Salto) to support small facts - while totally valid - is that you still need a minimum of three sources that cover the entirety of the subject, and so if one of them seems unsuitable then you've run out of options (since you have five sources, and two are not designed to support the whole subject). My advice would probably be to see if you can find one or two more good sources before your next resubmission, just so you have some backups if a reviewer has the same concerns that DoubleGrazing and I raised. I also wonder whether copy-pasting the background info you have given here for 3 (UoI since we're unsure about the author I guess?) and 4 (OE1) to the draft's talk page would be useful for future reviewers and indeed readers/other editors.
As for the Büchner Prize, alas, the reason is even simpler than you might think - the article is just very, very old, so it was created in the 'wild west' days of Wikipedia, when sources were optional and one-sentence articles were fine. Luckily it's had other interested editors over the years (since 2005!), so it isn't in bad shape compared to some other articles. The standards now are much stricter, because there are millions of old articles that need to be cleaned up and not enough editors to work on them all. There's an entire essay on "what about X?" because of all the sub-standard articles floating around...
Can I just say that I appreciate you not only spotting an article (Büchner Prize) in need of help, but then actually doing something about it? Having really good quality articles on the German-language literature prizes benefits everyone, and I suspect a lot of us don't speak/read German fluently - I sure don't! - so we're not much good with source-checking and adding information.
I'm not sure I can be of much more assistance to you, but I think you're definitely on the right path - so I will wish you happy editing and hope to see you around! StartGrammarTime (talk) 00:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again @StartGrammarTime and also thanks again for your kind assistance and for your encouragement. These pieces of information are really helpful to me. Also, I appreciate your idea of providing some background information for future reviewers on my talk page.
I think I have found two more suitable sources in the meantime that meet the requirements and cover the content of the draft in its entirety. So, I'm quite optimistic concerning the next submission of the draft.
In case, you might want to have a look and tell me what you think about the sources, here they are:
Source 6 [now reference 1]: https://www.planetlyrik.de/ferruccio-delle-cave-martin-hanni-hrsg-lyrik-im-gesprach/2010/07/
Source 7 [now reference 2]: https://www.fr.de/kultur/literatur/leitpranken-meran-11684636.html
Hope to see you around, too! Best, Takeru Watanabe (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:45, 21 July 2024 review of submission by Immigrant laborer

edit

I'm not sure why this was declined for lack of reliable sources. The article references dedicated pieces from the BBC, New York Times and Variety. Immigrant laborer (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article has little information about what makes the show notable in the special way Wikipedia uses the word. The sources do little more than document the existence of the show. Some professional reviews of the show would probably help a lot.331dot (talk) 09:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I won't lie; I'm worried that we're heading into Wikipedia:Bring_me_a_rock territory right now.

From the Variety source: 

Beginning in November, the show was an immediate hit, topping the ratings throughout its 12-week run. The final episode was watched by 1.5 million viewers, which equals 25% of the population.

- Immigrant laborer (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In case part of the problem was a paywalled source (NYT), I've added an archive link for that one and also removed the external link in the text (since current policy is not to put them in the body of the article, and that's another small change that may help). To my not-super-experienced eyes you have good sources; I wonder whether adding information about why the show was created in the first place and perhaps a section on how it was received would improve the draft further? I know you do have a little bit about the reception of the show in the lede, but it's only a sentence and I'm positive there must be more.
I can see you've been around here for a lot longer than I have, @Immigrant laborer, but have you been hanging around in the article creation feedback/info pages? New articles are expected to be pretty darn good right off the bat, and I get the sense that much more is being asked of new articles now than it was even a few years ago. The problem with three sources is that if even one is inaccessible or unsuitable in some way, there's no backup.
If you'd like a volunteer, I'm now very interested in this show so I'd be happy to go digging for more sources if that would help you. Right now I'm not super coherent thanks to chronic pain nonsense, but I might even try my hand at a paragraph or two when my thoughts line up properly if you don't mind. StartGrammarTime (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @StartGrammarTime! I will see if I can find more sources in Hebrew, perhaps. - Immigrant laborer (talk) 23:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries @Immigrant laborer! If I find anything I'll take it to the draft talk page, that way we're not overlapping work. I can't read Hebrew but I can be very persistent in looking for English-language sources at least! StartGrammarTime (talk) 00:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Egov.Press

edit
Constant spam/promotion target by a blocked user/users. And no, these sources don't demonstrate notability. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Good afternoon. I ask you to consider restoring the article about the petition site Egov.Press, since authoritative sources have appeared that prove the importance of the resource.

https://kaztag.kz/en/news/problems-with-access-to-the-popular-petition-site-alash-online-began-in-kazakhstan

https://press.kz/novosti/vkazahstane-zablokirovali-nezavisimiy-sayt-dlya-petitsiy-alash-online-iz-za-petitsii

https://newtimes.kz/obshchestvo/188824-kazakhstantsy-ispytyvaiut-trudnosti-s-dostupom-na-sait-petitsii-alash-online

https://zonakz.net/2024/05/27/problemy-s-dostupom-na-populyarnyj-sajt-peticij-alash-online-nachalis-v-kazaxstane/

https://time.kz/news/society/2024/05/27/problemy-s-dostupom-na-populyarnyj-sajt-petitsij-alash-online-nachalis-v-kazahstane 176.64.31.9 (talk) 18:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor, you'll need to speak to the rejecting editor directly, @Theroadislong. Qcne (talk) 19:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the submit template so it can be re-submitted, I don't read Russian so can't assess the new sources and will recuse myself from reviewing again. Theroadislong (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

19:42, 21 July 2024 review of submission by DFP32301

edit

How do I include primary-source images taken on location at the flight-line during the Operation? DFP32301 (talk) 19:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DFP32301: You don't. (Or, more specifically, the images will do nothing for the draft. Assuming they were done by an American government or military agent in the course of their duties, they are public-domain.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Party article

edit

why was my draft declined? the sources I used are from university presses, the national library of Israel and teh isdrael democracy forum, all credible! The article for Mizrachi (political party), a party from this same tiem period, literally has ZERO citations and is still up... Rh0809 (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Courtesy link: Draft:Advanced
@Rh0809: please link to your draft, so we don't have to go hunting for it.
A university press isn't a source, it's a publisher; something they publish is a source. But in this case that source is cited with very little detail to indicate what it is, and what information in the draft it supports (giving the page range as "p 38-100" is also too broad to be useful). It's also not clear, to me at least, what the last source is. Offline sources are acceptable, but must be cited with full bibliographical details to enable them to be reliably identified for verification. Non-English sources are also acceptable, but it would be helpful for the benefit of all reviewers, and not just those who happen to read the language in question, if some information on the source was provided in English, possibly even a brief translation of the salient point you're wishing to rely on.
There are any number of problematic articles among the nearly 7m in the English-language Wikipedia, but that is no reason to create more such problems. I agree that the Mizrachi (political party) article is unreferenced, and I have now tagged it as such; thank you for flagging that up. You're of course more than welcome to improve that article, or to begin deletion proceedings should you so wish.
One last point: please do not simply resubmit a draft without at least attempting to address the decline reasons. If you disagree with the review, you could just publish the article yourself, since you have the sufficient permissions. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_July_21&oldid=1236899336"