Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 February 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Scsbot (talk | contribs) at 02:28, 17 February 2019 (edited by robot: archiving February 11). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Help desk
< February 10 << Jan | February | Mar >> February 12 >
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.


February 11

[edit]

02:08:14, 11 February 2019 review of submission by FarstinNorwell

[edit]


FarstinNorwell (talk) 02:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 03:57:28, 11 February 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Cimfalab

[edit]


Hi, thanks for the review. But I can't get how can I improve my draft. I am referencinng the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sider_(Automated_Code_Review) I think my draft is like the above page. Please let me know how to ensure the notability. Cimfalab (talk) 03:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

04:54:00, 11 February 2019 review of submission by 122.168.95.13

[edit]


122.168.95.13 (talk) 04:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


04:57:03, 11 February 2019 review of submission by Sewadhamankitgram

[edit]


Sewadhamankitgram (talk) 04:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06:20:33, 11 February 2019 review of submission by Erikven96

[edit]

I have submitted a draft for review 7 months ago. Nothing happened. Today I have submitted it again and it got rejected within two hours without any explanation. Can someone please tell me what is wrong? I have been trying to get this entry posted since last June. I must be doing something wrong. Thank you Erikven96 (talk) 06:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Erikven96 Hi, I believe the rejected draft is User:Erikven96/sandbox/Tatiana Gelfand. Pls read the comment from the reviewer (click the blue highlighted texts for further information) and read Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything. For reliable and independent sources - pls go to HERE. If you still have question AFTER you have read the links provided, then come back here and ask specific questions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hi Erikven96. The way you left your sandbox in July 2018, it was not submitted for review. You can tell by the presence of the bright blue "Submit your draft for review!" button. Had that button been clicked, it would have been replaced by a large yellow "Review waiting" box, usually at the bottom of the draft.
The explanation of why the draft was rejected today can be found in the comment section below the pink box with the stop sign. Creating a new article is much harder and more time consuming than novice editors realize (even if it isn't accidentally left unsubmitted for seven months). If you're interested in improving the encyclopedia, I recommend gaining experience by editing existing article for a while. See Wikipedia:Community portal for ways to help. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @CASSIOPEIA:
Thank you for informative and helpful response.
I have corrected those issues, but unfortunately the original editor keeps rejecting my article.
I have read the explanation on the importance of having secondary and independent sources beyond just sites that belong or controlled by the artist, so I have added Imdb (that lists the credits for movie theatrical work) and Amazon (where books to which the artist contributed show credit for her work), also a listing of a scientific research paper that she has co-authored (listed on researchgate.net! with numerous domestic and foreign citations), as sources which are definitely secondary and are independent of me or the artist (I wish they weren't :) ) but still getting kicked back with the same canned explanation as the first one was.
Directorial work is not critiqued or even recognized outside of the mainstream, and the relatively small circle of big name (mostly movie) directors. There are millions of artists who have significant and verifiable body of work, and for whom having a Wikipadia page is crucial in their effort to establish themselves and put out legitimate and searchable summary of their accomplishments. This is what I am trying to help some young and talented artists.
I have put forward everything that is available online of Tatiana Gelfand's extensive body of work, and it seems like it is still not enough for the person who keeps rejecting it even though there are other pages who got accepted with much fewer (as little as three) and questionable references.
Would you have any advice that you could share with me so I can get this article accepted?
Thank you for your help
Erik — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikven96 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Erikven96, General info: First of all, you need to WP:PING the editor who you intended your message is for so they would receive a notification of the message. Secondly, pls add additional " : " (colon) from the previous message prior starting your message for indentation to section communication threads. Lastly,pls sign your post when you finish your message. In addition, pls read the links from the Welcome message I had sent you to understand the guidelines and policies and useful info which would be beneficial to you.
As for the article, if you have read what I had forward you the links, then you would know, IMBD can NOT be used to contribute to the notability of the subject which Wikipedia required. Secondly, Wikipedia is NOT a platform to WP:PROMOTION and lastly, if no sources could be found that talk about the subject in length and in dept then the subject would not merit a page in Wikipedia. Note: Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 00:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @CASSIOPEIA:
I was not trying to use Wikipedia as a promotional platform. Having a verifiable and independently searchable summary of one's body of work is not in the realm of promotion.
I did read the links you have sent. Possibly not everything since navigating this side of Wikipedia is extremely difficult for someone who is not well versed in the importance and meanings of pings and semicolons and for whom "#FA0" is not a color but a random sequence of characters.
I understood what you are saying and I have to admit that hearing this is extremely disappointing. I imagined Wikipedia to be something more than a celebrity registry, and finding out that notability and merit are measured by how much people talk about a subject and not the actual and factual essence of it, and that lack of that is a more important factor than providing a repository of judgement free online information, is definitely putting Wikipedia in a new light for me. I clearly see now that my intentions and understanding of it were misguided, and my articles indeed do not belong here.
Nevertheless I appreciate you taking the time, and clarifying these matters for me, and I wish you much success for the future.
Erik
Hi Erikven96, Pls do not be disappointed as many new editors did not know the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia and had created draft articles which later were deleted or rejected. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (1) which the subjects of the articles need to pass the notability requirements (2) content need to be supported by independent, reliable sources for (3) verification, (4) Written in neutral point of view, (5) free of copyright infringement and (6) no Original Reseach. Wikipedia is not a repository or directory - see full list of what Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and one of things which most new editors do not aware is Wikipedia content need to support by sources for verification and not the true - see Wikipedia:But it's true!.
I encourage you to start editing existing articles to gain more experience prior attempting to write an article to gain further experience where you would check out Wikipedia:Community portal for ways to help which most of us have started this way. Do pop to my talk page if you need further assistance. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 01:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:12:18, 11 February 2019 review of submission by ChrisMacharia

[edit]


There is a Wikipedia article about Article Video Marketing. I felt that having a definition about article videos can help me write better Wikipedia articles about the concept of Article Video Marketing. Please note that the definition of the term "Article Videos" does not exist anywhere else. So its impossible to have a reference for it. But if we add the entry "Article Videos" and let the community develop the concept, it will help in many ways. It will be the first definition online and will become the basis of what "Article Video Marketing" really means. I am open to suggestions. Please help me here. Thanks. ChrisMacharia (talk) 09:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia covers topics that are covered by WP:RS reliable sources not topics someone wants to invent/popularize/develop. Ping User:ChrisMacharia Legacypac (talk) 02:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:38:02, 11 February 2019 review of submission by ChristinFrohne

[edit]


The article was rejected with the reason of "not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia", so I read the guidelines for notability on Wikipedia again and I am still convinced that the topic is very relevant according to the guidelines. The article is relying on 16 different sources, which show the relevance of the topic. After the last review, I added two more reliable sources (No. 11 and 14), which have been published during the last few weeks.

I would be grateful for having the article re-reviewed and to get a bit more detailed feedback, if there is still anything to improve.

Thanks very much for your help

ChristinFrohne (talk) 09:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, your draft has been rejected four times by two reviewers (one of which was myself, to disclose), and you received negative feedback at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Re-review_Draft:Eclipse_Theia. All three editors questioned the notability of the topic, and two noted that the article is overly promotional and a likely violation of WP:NOTADVERTISING given you are a disclosed employee of a connected firm. We are approaching the need to cite WP:COITALK, as noted by another editor.--SamHolt6 (talk) 06:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SamHolt6, I really appreciate your feedback to the article. As I said before, I admit that the article was quite bad at the beginning. But I tried to learn from your feedback and always improved the article. Now the article is totally different to the beginning. That why I think, it is not fair to say that the article is not good because I got feedback to improve it. I made changes after every comment. I would also like to point out, that the article is about an open-source software. I have been in touch with other open-source editors and can call myself a member of the free and open-source software task force (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Software/Free_and_open-source_software_task_force). Maybe that helps the image you have of me.ChristinFrohne (talk) 10:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:29:41, 11 February 2019 review of submission by Jack Helie

[edit]


You should accept this submitted article for the following reasons:

1) Uses only Verifiable- reliable third-party sources: Reputable online magazines: reuters.com tenextweb.com trendhunter.com entrepremeur.com

Local online newspapers: news.am armenpress.am

Government websites: gov.am

2) Has a Neutral POV- neutral tone throughout, no opinions just facts, no judgmental language, no loaded words, flattery or words that imply lack of credibility, no promotion, only facts

3) No original research- not opinion piece

4)Article content subject is notable, other similar wiki pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_(software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threema https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wire_(software)

Jack Helie (talk) 10:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jack Helie:. This is the third time you've asked this question. Nosebagbear replied comprehensively on 29 January. In case English is not your first language, here is a graphical explanation:
Source Significant? Independent? Reliable? Secondary? Pass/Fail Notes
play.google.com Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN Brief description by the company or based on its marketing materials
itunes.apple.com Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN Brief description by the company or based on its marketing materials
TrendHunter.com Red XN Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN Doesn't have the characteristics of a reliable source, language sounds company-sponsored or based on company's marketing materials
Reuters (x 3) Green tickY Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN All three pieces are press releases
interestingengineering.com Red XN Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN Blog posts are often sponsored and self-published sources are generally not reliable
The Next Web Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN A single-sentence mention in an article about a broader topic
news.am Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN The one paragraph that is not quotes from the company is not significant
www.gov.am Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Red XN A first-hand account of a meeting, without interpretation or analysis
Entrepreneur Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Three sentences in an article about a broader topic
armenpress.am Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Red XN A first-hand account of a visit, without interpretation or analysis
Total qualifying sources 0 There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements
Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality articles and poor quality articles. The existence of an article does not mean it meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and is not a good excuse to create similar articles. The essay WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS may help you understand why. If you wish to learn from example articles, be sure to use only Wikipedia's best.
Paid editors are expected to listen to volunteers and respect their time. Continuing to push the draft without radical improvements could result in you being blocked for disruptive-editing. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for taking the time and even providing a graph! My first language is English... I don't know why'd you make such assumptions just because I'm resending a question. And I sent out the same question once again because I hadn't heard from anyone, I hadn't seen the previous reply. But again, thank you for taking your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Helie (talk • contribs) 07:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:19:40, 11 February 2019 review of submission by Teamsgnr123

[edit]


Teamsgnr123 (talk) 14:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


14:46:38, 11 February 2019 review of submission by Micheal September

[edit]


I'm still learning how to write on wikipedia, it's a bit difficult for me, but I will try to make sure anything further I submit, will be the standard that Wikipedia admin have set. Micheal September (talk) 14:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


15:28:20, 11 February 2019 review of submission by Arazani

[edit]


Arazani (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected my information with respect to Wikipedia policy, but it is deleted. Please help me in this regard.

You simply don't read what reviewers are telling you. Currently we are considering if we delete the page. A reviewer already rejected the topic. Legacypac (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:43:41, 11 February 2019 review of draft by Aamirsaahil

[edit]


Hi, I've removed the non notable sources from the draft and added reliable sources. I have also improved the article. Please review my article. Thanks Aamirsaahil (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is waiting for review. I'll copy your comments to the draft. Legacypac (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:40:44, 11 February 2019 review of submission by Commanderx88121

[edit]


Commanderx88121 (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


publish this shit nigga

No. Play nice. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This user earned his promotional page a free trip to MfD so we can delete his self promotion attempt sooner than later. Legacypac (talk) 21:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:07:23, 11 February 2019 review of draft by Grillage 2

[edit]


Grillage 2 (talk) 20:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I have worked with you folks before and have been to a few of your NY meetings. I am working on a book on New York Bridges for the last 26 years and have copied information from your sites of New York's bridges to give the public basic information about each bridge. I have corrected some areas from corrections from engineers that I personally know and from other books from other fellow authors and photographers that I know. Is it okay to publish this info as some of it is word for word but I am very willing to make note that some of the information IS from Wikipedia. Thank you!! Dave Frieder

Not an AfC issue but here goes. Good luck on your book. What is written at Wikipedia is licensed for reuse under a creative commons license. You should review that license with your publisher. If it were me I'd rewrite the material in my own words. Legacypac (talk) 21:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:09:14, 11 February 2019 review of submission by Hannahpartridgeig

[edit]


Hannahpartridgeig (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This does not remotely resemble an encyclopedia page, so I have deleted it. Please don't do that again. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:28:31, 11 February 2019 review of submission by Olasope

[edit]


Olasope (talk) 21:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC) I have made some changes to the article, particularly regarding copy editing, notability for biographies and additional citations. Please help re-review the article and guide me on how I can make it better.[reply]

User:Olasope I checked your changes and the overall page. I agree with the rejection. You are nowhere near meeting the WP:GNG. I suggest stopping your effort to promote yourself on Wikipedia. Legacypac (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2019_February_11&oldid=883706574"