Help desk
< October 23	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 25 >

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.

October 24

Announcement of draft

Skdwived (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Geeta Arti (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:Skdwived/Geeta Arti (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi All, I have written about this subject

Skdwived (talk) 15:57, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Skdwived: Hello, Skdwived. Did you have a specific question about the draft? NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NewYorkActuary: Just wanted to confirm, if it seems good to submit for review.

I didn't look at it closely, but I saw nothing that would prevent it from being given a serious review after it was submitted. Good luck with it. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:57, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NewYorkActuary: I have submitted the draft but I am looking to use Template:Language with name and transliteration to proper translate in English, can you or anyone else please help on this one.

@Skdwived: I'm unsure what template you really have in mind. If you're talking about the Indic script in the first sentence, you probably want to use the {{lang-hi}} template, which has parameters for both translation and transliteration. If you're talking about the formatted references, most of those citation templates accept the trans-title= parameter, which allows you to supply the translated title (don't forget to put the "|" character before the "trans-title"). On some other notes, your draft uses "&" in place of "and", which runs afoul of our Manual of Style. So too does the increased font size that you use in your section headings. You can address the latter problem simply by adding an extra "=" to both the start and end of each section heading. And Wikipedia articles typically don't end with a "Conclusion" section. The material in that section should be worked into some other section of the draft. I hope this was helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

10:06:19, 24 October 2017 review of submission by CLT

CLT (talk · contribs)
- David Lowe (historian) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am having trouble with the image for page David Lowe (historian). The image appears inside a box within the infobox, and the name appears twice but I can't see any reason for it. Any advice is much appreciated. Thanks!

CLT (talk) 10:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The syntax error was fixed by the accepting reviewer while CLT was posting this question. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

12:07:38, 24 October 2017 review of submission by Eccom H.L

Eccom H.L (talk · contribs)

Hello, I have submitted the above article but it was declined for the reason "The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations". It is a kind of too vague to me. Could you please give me a little more detail on why the article was declined in your convenience? (like which sentences needed citations or which references did not meet the requirements?)
Thank you very much,

Eccom H.L (talk) 12:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Eccom H.L: Hello, Eccom. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. The best source of information as to why your submission was declined will be the reviewer who looked at it. You can find that person's name and Talk page link in the "decline box" near the top of the draft. But before posting here, I took a quick look at your submission and I understand why it was declined. Although your submission is already using in-line citations, it is not using enough of them. As I write this, the references in the article serve only to support the various job titles that the subject has held, plus the existence of one of his books. Nothing else is sourced -- and that means almost all of the material. Thus, you have presented us with a biography of a living person that largely can not be verified via any of the references that you've provided. Without additional reliable sources, it is unlikely that your draft will be accepted for publication. I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

13:22:28, 24 October 2017 review of submission by L weiwei yt

L weiwei yt (talk · contribs)

I do not understand why my article for 'Episode-Choose your Story and Emerald(a story within Episode) 'was declined for 'This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) 'and 'Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable' when I had stated in my article that Episode had 'an whopping 4 billion episodes viewed, with 8.3 million registered ‘authors’ and 73,000 stories. They also have 5 million active users on a weekly basis. ' which means it's not just a mere mention but highly influential in the gaming market(which I had also stated) . The second part of my article, which was on 'Emerald', is an influential 'story' on episode as it had received 1 million 'reads' a while ago.

Another problem stated was the fact I had a lack of references and sources. I had tried to get as many reliable sources as I could for the first part (Episode) but the Help page on Wikipedia suggested that reliable sources include newspapers and books. Episode is a game, so it'll be highly unlikely that it would appear in newspapers or in books. I also had only 5 sources, which you may deemed insufficient, however, that's the best I could do as the 4 websites has all the infomration for Episode. The second part of my article was 'Emerald'. I did not have any sources for that, as none are really needed. I had stated the overview myself after reading the story. I had also summed up the plot myself. The only thing which may have a source is the'blurb', however, that would only be sourced back to Episode, which is what I'd had already got.

I will be very grateful if you could reply to me as soon as possible as this is another contribution to the Wikipedia community. Thanks a lot.

L weiwei yt (talk) 13:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi L weiwei yt. You appear to understand that Wikipedia doesn't accept articles about just anything, only ones on subjects of encyclopedic notability–topics that have gained significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time. Notability is judged based on the extent of coverage in arms length, reliable, secondary sources. We do not evaluate the suitability of a topic for inclusion in the encyclopedia based on views, or registered users, or active users, or size, or any similar measure.

The draft's cited sources are the game and its publisher (neither of which is an independent source) and a TechCrunch article. TechCrunch has been discussed a number of times at WP:RSN. One recent example is, "Are news articles written by TechCrunch staff considered RS?". Its independence is frequently questioned, and it is not held in high regard as a source.

Many games, such as: Chess, Monopoly, Donkey Kong, Myst, and Halo are covered at depth in books, newspapers, and other reliable sources. If Episode and Emerald have not been so covered, then they don't belong in the company of those that have, they don't qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not for marketing, promotion, or public relations. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To sum things up, I'll need to add more reliable sources and more research in order for my article to go public or I change for a different subject. Please do correct me if I'm wrong. L weiwei yt (Posting moved here by NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)}[reply]

14:01:18, 24 October 2017 review of submission by Dkpubc

Dkpubc (talk · contribs)
- No draft specified!

Dkpubc (talk) 14:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question re. rejection of https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:The_CARS_model Hi there. This page was reviewed sooner than I expected it would be (you guys are quick!!). I meant to create it as a shell, to which my students could contribute yesterday during class and throughout the rest of this semester (I was under the impression that we could create a page and keep working on it over time) - I'm sorry if I went about this the wrong way :-(

Anyway, we have had a first run at setting up the page now. I know it still needs a lot of work, but is it sufficiently in shape to be posted with some kind of "draft" / "stub" / "needs work" message affixed to it? Or should we keep working on it, as it is, in draft form (i.e., before resubmitting)?

Grateful for any advice you could give, re. getting it up to your basic minimum standard to be posted (with a view to still working on it).

Thanks very much.

@Dkpubc: Hello, Dkp. Thank you (and your students) for your submission to Wikipedia. And thanks for the kind words regarding our speed, however undeserved those kind words might be. Right now, the draft is in no danger of being deleted and you can take as much time as you need to get this ready for review (technically, there is a six-month deadline, but I get the impression that you don't intend to take that long). When you feel the draft is ready for a review, just click the "Resubmit" button and it will re-enter the review queue. I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:30:51, 24 October 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Pthatch

Pthatch (talk · contribs)
- Draft:The Wetlands Initiative (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello! I'd like advice and help in better referencing this article (after an initial rejection). It was rejected on the grounds that I didn't sufficiently prove the notability of the subject. I was hoping for clarification vis-a-vis whether the article needs more

scientific papers discussing the organizations work (most of these are co-authored by the organization's employees, who are scientists, so that's a problem)
newspaper/press articles proving that the organization exists and does the work the article claims it does
links to press releases from larger foundations proving that the organization has received significant grants
other things?

I also recognize that (as I've disclosed) I'm an employee of the organization, so I'd like to know if there's a way for me to ask other specific users for help editing/writing/reviewing the article so I'm not the sole author.

Pthatch (talk) 15:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pthatch: Hello, Pthatch. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Small non-profit organizations have a tough time here on Wikipedia, despite the fact that many of them are doing exemplary work. There are two basic problems. First, and all too often, the public (including the press) doesn't take much interest in the work. And second, if the work is being done in a limited geographic area (as I suspect is largely the case here), the organization is viewed by Wikipedians as being of only local interest.

I think you are going to need to demonstrate that people outside of the Chicago (or Illinois) area have been discussing the organization in some depth. Although I didn't look through all of your references, some of the ones that I did see simply listed the organization's name as the one doing a certain project. There's nothing wrong with having such sources in an article, but these brief mentions do not constitute "in depth" discussions and can not be used to establish encyclopedic notability. What we are looking for is something more like the write-up on the Millennium Reserve website. (Indeed, that would be a great start but for the fact that it isn't by-lined, leading me to suspect that it might be TWI-generated material.) I assume that there are national (or international) journals and publications that address ecological issues. Might your organization have been written up by any of those? If so, such articles would go a long way towards demonstrating encyclopedic notability.

As for getting help from other editors here, a good place to ask would be on the Talk pages of any WikiProject that might take an interest in this subject. I assume that the two best places to ask will be WP:WikiProject Ecology and WP:WikiProject Environment. Unfortunately, neither project's Talk page seems to generate much traffic and few of the postings generate any responses. So, I don't want you to feel a false sense of hope. It won't hurt to ask, but don't be surprised if you don't get any takers.

I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Pthatch: NewYorkActuary makes excellent points, but here's another take, since I've already typed it up. You may find WP:BFAQ#COMPANY helpful. The best advice is not to author the draft yourself. Instead, ask at Wikipedia:Requested articles for one of our tens of thousands of volunteers who do not have a conflict of interest to write the article.

To demonstrate notability, the topic needs sources that tick all three conditions of WP:42: significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Academic journal articles or books co-authored by TWI staff will fail the arms-length requirement. Press releases from partner organizations will also fail the independence requirement. Newspaper and magazine articles may be the best bet, but they'll need to contain a significant depth of information about TWI, not just proof that it exists or a brief quote from a TWI spokesperson.

I would include this article from The Washington Post. I don't think this Fox News piece is good journalism, but if I were you I'd include it too. See the Law of Unintended Consequences. There are a number of articles in smaller newspapers, such as [1] and [2]. Find the one or two that focus the most on TWI.

You may find it useful to study some of Wikipedia's best writing about non-profit organizations: Seacology, Boy Scouts of America, and Movement for the Intellectually Disabled of Singapore. Note the emphasis on the history of the organization. The funding and management of the organization are other aspects that should be treated. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]