Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 June 5

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< June 4 << May | June | Jul >> June 6 >
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.


June 5

edit

08:15, 5 June 2024 review of submission by David.G.82.21

edit

Draft:Top Goal Scorers of the National Futsal Series and National Futsal League

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

Hi Umakant Bhalerao as per comment above, I've been reading again the guide Wikipedia reliable sources (https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources) and wikipedia referencing for beginners (https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Help:Referencing_for_beginners). I've checked the draft mentioned above (Top Goal Scorers of the National Futsal Series and National Futsal League) and the references I've used are from the oficial website of the FA Futsal England, where any future lector of the article can go to and verify the stats of each player per season. Could you please advise me how can be improved my referencing to meet your expectations? if you could chose an example from the draft and let me know with an example, I could use it as a template guide to fix the other ones that are not up to the level of the criteria.

Thanks in advance David David.G.82.21 (talk) 08:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping @Umakant Bhalerao Qcne (talk) 08:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While waiting for the reviewer to come and hopefully answer the author's question, can I just say that IMO this draft is not written in an encyclopaedic manner, but rather as an essay or exposition of some sort (with quite a promotional feel to it, too, especially in what comes to this Maroto chap), and therefore will require quite comprehensive editing. That would also provide an opportunity to ensure that the content is based firmly on what reliable and independent published sources have said about this topic, avoiding any original research or synthesis, polemic, and promotionality. In other words, I would have also declined this, but probably for different reasons (essay, POV). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @David.G.82.21 for reaching out to the help desk and Qcne for pinging me. I completely concure with DoubleGrazing's analysis. This draft is not written in an encyclopedic style; instead, it comes across more like an essay or exposition. It's pushing NFL and NFS, especially Alejandro Maroto. Some of the content in the draft is not backed by sources and I was unable to verify certain information from the sources provided. Please remember, Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. Its content must be written from a neutral perspective and should summarize information from secondary reliable sources. Also after reviewing your draft, it seems like you might have a conflict of interest with the subject which should be disclosed on your userpage as per WP:COI. I would also suggest you take a look at WP:1ST for some general tips on how to write and format a proper Wikipedia article.
Feel free to reach out if you have any questions, either here or on my talk page.-- Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:22, 5 June 2024 review of submission by Hamimuzzamann

edit

why my bio get rejected Hamimuzzamann (talk) 09:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hamimuzzamann the draft has no reliable sources (your facebook page isn't reliable), is promotional in tone, and is poorly formatted. Ideally you shouldn't be writing about yourself anyway. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 09:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:46, 5 June 2024 review of submission by Alexendrew

edit

I seek assistance to publish an article on Md. Tusar Akon, a notable textile engineer and researcher. His innovations in dyeing technology, including cost-effective nylon pretreatment methods and AI-automated processes, have significantly advanced the industry. As a lecturer at BUFT, he mentors future engineers and promotes sustainable practices. His achievements, including the Dean’s Award from BUTEX and recognition in sustainable chemical management, underscore his impact. His work is well-documented on ORCID (0000-0002-2791-5329) and Google Scholar. Alexendrew (talk) 10:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexendrew: Given the tone of your request, it's not surprising the draft itself was deleted as blatant promotion. What is your connexion to Akon? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Md. Tusar Akon is a notable public figure and researcher. The article is intended to provide verifiable, neutral information about his contributions. I will revise it to ensure compliance with Wikipedia’s standards. Please allow the draft to be improved instead of deleted. Alexendrew (talk) 03:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexandrew: The draft was deleted by the time of my first reply above. If you want to see if an administrator is willing to undelete it for you, you can try your luck at WP:Requests for undeletion - but they're very likely going to ask about your connexion to Akon, and you're not going to be able to dodge that question again. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:17, 5 June 2024 review of submission by TriosLosDios

edit

The reason I'm asking for assistance is due to new building and address or location Re: Santa_Rosa_County_Florida Courthouse. When I was very brand new on WP I attempted to correct (the issue) by creating 'a new article'. What is the correct way to implement such a task ? TriosLosDios (talk) 11:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:5. Further, I would like to ask you about your own talk page edits per diff, diff and much more? What you have done is WP:NOT. -- Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:58, 5 June 2024 review of submission by Coubrough, James

edit

I need reliable sources but I don't know what qualifies as reliable. Coubrough, James (talk) 14:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, James. We have a whole list of perennial reliable sources that you can look over. Happy editing! Blueskiesdry (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:50, 5 June 2024 review of submission by Namnatulco

edit

I recently moved this article from its' draft space, because I was unaware of the draft-mechanism (having not edited Wikipedia much in the past years). Most of what I did to the draft article is provide a translation from the German Wikipedia article (in condensed form and closer to what I perceive to conform to English Wikipedia style). I just read Wikipedia:Articles for creation and since I'm not sure whether I technically count as a new editor (having less than 500 contributions and officially no access to the article translation feature), so I wanted to check that I didn't violate any editing rules. Namnatulco (talk) 17:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Namnatulco: Your third paragraph in the "Biography" section lacks sources. I'd also replace the "sharp S" symbol with "ss" where his name appears in the body of the text. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano: Thanks! I'll chase down good sources and/or trim this part accordingly.
As a rule of thumb, is it generally OK to translate pages (that meet the English Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion) even without access to the content translation tool? (this is the part I was particularly unsure about) Namnatulco (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The content translation tool is just that - a tool. If you can translate it yourself without using it, we'll still accept it as long as the translation is accurate and written well. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:12, 5 June 2024 review of submission by Visegradjanin

edit

Can you check now artical and see if is everything corect now. thanks Visegradjanin (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:04, 5 June 2024 review of submission by Misplaced Elf

edit

Hi, I'm trying to add a page and it was just rejected for lacking reliable sources. The book I'm trying to create a page for is a legitimate published book, so I'm wondering what makes a source reliable, if not the book in question?

I'm confused about the reasons why it can't be added and not sure what makes the book itself an unreliable source. It's literally available for purchase on Amazon and was published March 1, 2024 with Philosopher's Stone Books, an imprint of Frequency 3 Media, LLC. Everything about it is legitimate.

So, would you mind explaining to me what sort of information or reliable sources are supposed to be included, to verify the existence of this book so that it can have a page on Wikipedia?

Thank you. Misplaced Elf (talk) 21:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Misplaced Elf: The subject is never a suitable source for itself. Are there any professional reviews or scholarly analyses of the book? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining that--I thought my reading of the guidelines was thorough, but I must have been looking in the wrong place.
The book is in the process of being reviewed by Kirkus. The extended review will be finished by the end of this month. Will one professional review be enough? (Eventually it will have more, but professional reviews can take a long time to acquire, from submission to completion, due to high demand.) Also, do its Library of Congress catalog file and Goodreads page count as reliable sources--they're not being used to say whether or not the book is "good", but just to account for its existence in the public sphere.
I appreciate your help! :) Misplaced Elf (talk) 15:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant notability guideline for books is WP:NBOOK, and more specifically WP:BOOKCRIT, which requires two or more non-trivial reviews or similar. (The alternative guideline, WP:GNG, requires "multiple" sources, which is usually interpreted as three or more.)
Can I ask, how do you know that a Kirkus review is in the pipeline, or that more reviews will be coming later? Do you have a real-life connection of some sort with this subject? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, forgot to ping @Misplaced Elf. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @DoubleGrazing, Thank you for clarifying. Yes, I have a connection: I'm the author. And before you say anything--yes, I'm aware that there's a conflict of interest, which I intend to disclose on my editor profile once a page for the book exists. I'm merely trying to create the page. If you are able to see the page in draft mode, you can see that I'm not trying to "sell" the book or do anything shady/self-serving. The stance on the page I'm attempting to create is entirely neutral, as it should be, and once the page exists I have no intention of editing it further, because it's not my place to do so. However, I now understand that it cannot have a page until it has enough independent reviews/articles to show that it has notoriety to warrant its own page. Thanks, Misplaced Elf (talk) 16:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Misplaced Elf: No, you need to disclose now. You should have disclosed before you started the draft. This is a Terms of Use condition for Wikipedia and isn't negotiable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano I apologize--I thought I could only disclose for an existing page. I will do so immediately. Thank you for explaining these terms. Misplaced Elf (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for disclosing, @Misplaced Elf, and now I can see that you had actually disclosed it earlier already, but removed the disclosure. Okay, we're back on track, and all's well that ends well, etc. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing Yes--when the page didn't get accepted, that's when I removed the disclosure. I misunderstood the way it worked, since I've never created a page before. Thank you for your patience! Cheers, Misplaced Elf (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Misplaced Elf: interesting, you're the second person today to tell me they thought the disclosure wasn't needed until the article is published. Can you tell me what might have led you to conclude that? Maybe there's some piece of text somewhere that we need to make clearer. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing Well, I can only speak for my own experience. When the disclosure box appeared and I clicked on "The Book of Jezebel" article I was disclosing my connection to, it took me to a page that said that article didn't exist. Since it didn't exist (and was declined when submitted) I made an incorrect assumption that I had to wait until the article was published. I can't say for sure that it's anything in the wording of the guidelines, though. It may have been my own misunderstanding and confusion, since it was late in the day when I was working on this.
My overall confusion came from all the different articles/sections on rules and guidelines--the amount of information was somewhat overwhelming, especially when I was in the midst of trying to create the page. The numerous guidelines were somewhat difficult to find. Many of them only came to my attention after other editors, such as yourself, provided the links in your replies to my queries.
It could simply be that I'm not used to using Wikipedia in this way, as an editor/creator. I am also slightly autistic, so while reading, research, and language are my strongest suits, navigating unfamiliar websites is challenging until I get used to their nuances. The learning curve is sharp, no doubt, so I just need more practice. (I often do best learning while doing, but this was more complex than I expected it to be. lol)
I don't know if my answer is helpful, but I hope it is in some way. :)
Cheers, Misplaced Elf (talk) 17:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Misplaced Elf, that is helpful, and appreciated, and I will try to look into the 'user journey' you refer to. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:25, 5 June 2024 review of submission by Peppertrout

edit

I believe I have found the best references available online to write this bio, which is an obscure subject.

The references include Wikipedia sources, as well as genealogy and military history websites.

What is it exactly you require? I'm doing this in my spare time and can't easily go to a library that will have this information. Likely it will require a trip to Denver, 280 miles away for citations from publishes, papered sources. 

Peppertrout (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(merged) My draft was declined. I found excellent online references and included them with citations. Why was the draft declined? Peppertrout (talk) 21:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Note: Question was answered at the Teahouse. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:15, 5 June 2024 review of submission by Carrot6290

edit

Hello! I need help to formulate the article and to add sources and external links in a way that meets the Wikipedia criteria. I am aware that Patrick Levacic has contributed more than enough in Croatian chess community, but I am new to Wikipedia and cant find the best way to express the contributions with all the sources. Please, let me know if this is enough information or I should add more sources in order to make an article.

Regards Carrot6290 (talk) 23:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Carrot6290: I repeat the answer I gave when you asked about this a week ago:

International Master is not enough to establish notability, WP:NCHESS would require the Grandmaster title instead. [...] Otherwise notability relies on the general WP:GNG guideline, which requires significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are both reliable and independent. This draft cites no such source.

Your draft cites only two sources, neither of which contribute anything towards GNG. If any of the sources listed in the 'See also' section (which isn't the right place for them, as that section can only include links to other Wikipedia articles, not external sources) and/or in the 'External links' section (which has too many links at the moment) can be used to establish notability, please cite them as references. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Carrot6290. The Wikipedia criteria for notability are generally about ensuring that there is enough independent reliable published material to base an article on. Remember that nothing written, published, commissioned, or based on the words of, the subject or their associates will contribute towards this: at best, they may be used to add some uncontroversial factual details (such as dates and locations) once an article is written.
It follows that until you have found several such independent sources, anything at all that you do towards creating an article could be time and effort wasted. ColinFine (talk) 12:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_June_5&oldid=1228418662"