Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2018 November 27
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < November 26 | << Oct | November | Dec >> | November 28 > |
| 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. |
November 27
[edit]02:34:06, 27 November 2018 review of draft by HarryKernow
[edit]- HarryKernow (talk · contribs)
Hello, I am not exactly sure why my draft page was declined. The reason was not enough reliable citations, but I have 8 citations apart from official releases from Zorin itself (ie the developing company). There are plenty of pages that currently exist with far fewer citations. I completely disagree with this line of reasoning and would like a more in-depth explanation. Here are examples of similar articles with fewer citations that apparently are worthy of a Wikipedia page: Aurora SPARC Linux, Berry Linux, EduLinux, EnGarde Secure Linux, Fuduntu, PUD (operating system), etc etc etc. I think that even without these examples (of which there are many more) the article can exist as is. Any help would be appreciated.
Essentially, how is it that the article has too few reliable sources when, in reality, there are plenty for an article of its size? Is anything in the article not directly supported by a citation? HarryKernow. Talk. 02:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- AfC reviewers give their opinion. The process is optional. If you don't like their opinion you are free to do what you like with the page. Legacypac (talk) 02:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
04:59:24, 27 November 2018 review of draft by Nannochloropsis
[edit]
Hi, I recently created the above draft. I realize that as an extended confirmed user I have the ability to create articles directly to the mainspace without going through the AfC process. Is it possible I could simply copy what I have now to a new article titled "Claude Fuess" and have the "Draft:Claude Fuess" either be ignored or deleted? Thank you! --Nannochloropsis (talk) 04:59, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
05:02:51, 27 November 2018 review of draft by Josephwcarrillo
[edit]
I may need some info on what type of and or how many press reference urls to include in cite tags.
Are there limits on the quality and or quantity of press references? If so what are the limits?
Josephwcarrillo (talk) 05:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
{{SAFESUBST:Void|
Hello............the administrator requested this" Could you take your time to remove the external links? They’re not allowed in the article unless u put them under external links. Was not sure if I am to remove the exertnal links fro, the footnotes cited or remove external links under External link column? Because originally we had the external links under External link column. Could you please clarify,
thank you
Eliasm920 (talk) 05:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Eliasm920. You've made extensive changes since the reviewer left the comment about external links. Some of those changes, such as removing external links from Caffé Chino and The Judson Poets Theatre, have been good. (There should be no links in the running text that would take the reader away from Wikipedia.) But the number of links in the external links section has grown dramatically. A typical article of this type would have only one or two external links, so having twenty is alarming, suggesting that you aren't grasping their purpose. The number of references is small, and they do a poor job of supporting the content. If you continue with the draft, which, if it is autobiographical, would be a very bad idea, the draft's sourcing would have to be completely reworked. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for the purpose of references and how to cite sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:32, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliasm920 (talk • contribs) 05:03, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
05:57:21, 27 November 2018 review of submission by Timeverhart
[edit]- Timeverhart (talk · contribs)
I am curious as to how an article is chosen for EverybodyWiki rather than Wikipedia and if there is any way to migrate content from the former to the latter?
Timeverhart (talk) 05:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Timeverhart. Those questions are outside our scope because EverybodyWiki is not affiliated with us (Wikipedia) or our parent organization, the Wikimedia Foundation. You would have to ask EverybodyWiki about their inclusion criteria. They are unlikely to follow the same principles as Wikipedia, so I would guess that migrating content from there to here is out of the question. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:24, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
06:39:13, 27 November 2018 review of draft by EllenHewitt458
[edit]
Firstly, I would like to make it clear that I work for Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery, the gallery that represents the subject of this article. My only intention is to create a factual, unbiased article about this important subject. I do not view this as a marketing or advertising opportunity. As the subject's representative and thus primary source of info on this subject's career, we are perfectly positioned (and in some ways, responsible) for creating an article that visual art educators, students and other interested parties can access.
I am having trouble satisfying the notability of persons requirement. Daniel Boyd is a leading contemporary artist. He has won extremely important awards that prove this and many institutional, public art galleries label him as such. (Both have been cited in the first part of the article). It is also proven by the significant galleries he has exhibited in, the major collections he is a part of and the material written about him, all of which I have included in the article.
There are plenty of independent citations in the article. Aside from the sentence I address above ('Daniel Boyd is referred to as one of Australia's leading Contemporary artists') nothing I have written could be considered more an opinion than a fact.
Many of the sources are written by individuals inside the art field (working in galleries or events that have exhibited the artist ect.), perhaps warranting an argument that they are 'too close' to the subject. However, this is the nature of the art field itself - there are no citations for any artist that aren't written by authors who have worked or are working in the field - often with the artist in question themselves. Even so, none of the citations are just opinion articles, they are reliable sources in recognized publications or by public/national art galleries.
Perhaps to make it clearer to me, you might be able to point out specific sentences that are warranting this notability rejection? Or point out why some sources are not good enough?
Please let me know what I can do to improve. Many thanks.
EllenHewitt458 (talk) 06:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- @EllenHewitt458: I've left a comment on Draft talk:Daniel Boyd (artist). --Worldbruce (talk) 08:49, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
07:24:42, 27 November 2018 review of draft by Neha Maria Thomas
[edit]
Neha Thomas (talk) 07:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- Editor has been blocked for undisclosed paid editing.--Worldbruce (talk) 15:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I could not understand what type of changes are required regarding my Draft on Nitanshi Goel. I would like to have more specific and clear instructions on that since it is my first time making a Wikipedia page. Also, the same page was published on wikipedia Indonesia with very little information on it. So, I do not understand why not here. Please help me.
NamrataDiengdoh (talk) 08:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- Hi NamrataDiengdoh. Each language version of Wikipedia operates according to its own policies and guidelines, set by the community of editors who contribute there. So an article may satisfy the rules for the Indonesian Wikipedia but not the English one, or vice versa. Here, novice editors are commonly advised to cite at least three independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage of the topic.
- The reviewer's comment was that The Times of India is a good source because it is in-depth, but the other three sources barely mention Goel. The reliability of Business TV and Tellychakkar.com is also questionable. Don't include anything in the draft for which you cannot cite a reliable, published source. Keep The Times of India and replace the other three sources with two more as good as The Times of India. If such sources don't exist, it may be WP:TOOSOON for an encyclopedia article about Goel. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
08:32:56, 27 November 2018 review of draft by Shanisun
[edit]
Hello there, I am still waiting for my draft to be re-reviewed after the last reviewer said she is not able to review it again since she is less professional in the area of my draft. Please can someone help?
This is a well known and respected man in Israel and also has a hebrew wiki page.. from some reason I was asked to supply cites for him having kids which is a little strange but I did the best possible. please see if you can tell me what to do and how to speed up the process a little since it's been a few months by now. with great respect Shanisun (talk) 08:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Shanisun (talk) 08:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- I'll accept it. Legacypac (talk) 13:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi, my recent wiki page Xclusive Yachts has been declined - https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:Xclusive_Yachts
It is not written with a promotional interest - it would be nice to have this page up since there are lot of public figures also associated to it. The parent company has other sub brands that even offer a school - (Official RYA training center in Dubai). People both regional and international look up to these information and feel that a wiki page will be reliable.
Please advise how can I take this forward? Thank you
Neha Thomas (talk) 08:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- Editor has been blocked for undisclosed paid editing.--Worldbruce (talk) 15:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
12:48:47, 27 November 2018 review of submission by Vincas1984
[edit]- Vincas1984 (talk · contribs)
Vincas1984 (talk) 12:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Dear Sir or Madam,
my recent entry on jewellery artist Draft:Vita Pukštaitė-Bružė has been declined: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Vincas1984/sandbox The reviewer left a comment: I can't check on the sources but right now please avoid using adjectives which makes it look promotional.
After reading the comment, I have checked the text for unnecessary adjectives. I have found a couple but no more which could be deleted without harming the harmony of analysis. Reviewing this article is important to have in mind that there is an entry on art jewellery. Those adjectives are used in a part where the style of an artist is analysed. There are no adjectives at all only pure facts in other parts of the article. The part where the style of the artist is analysed is based on eight different sources. Yes, they are in Lithuanian but using Google translate one could easily check how accurately I have used those sources. Also, only one of the used sources is created by the artist himself - taken from her personal website. Other sources are from media, exhibitions catalogues or reviews of art jewellery experts. I want to state clearly by writing this that the analysis refers to a range of independent, reliable, and published sources. Discussion about objectivity in the analysis of art style is a question of standpoint itself and could not be a reasonable argument to say that somebody is subjective. One has to analyse these objects himself and to say what was said inaccurate or wrong about them.
Kind regards Vincas1984
- I removed the copy in your sandbox as we will only consider one version. See Draft:Vita Pukštaitė Bružė please. Legacypac (talk) 13:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm confused about this latest decline of the submitted article. The company is clearly notable--second largest solar developer, largest independent solar developer, developer of the record low solar price in the USA. The links and citations are not press releases, they are legitimate news articles from well-respected trade and news outlets. Please advise. Thank you.
QueensExpert11372 (talk) 14:36, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- Did you read the comments by the reviewers? The draft is written from the standpoint of the company, and consists mostly of a history. It isn't easy for a paid editor to write a neutral draft. The viewpoint of a paid editor is inherently different from that of neutral volunteers. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- I did read the comments and submitted a new draft. The new draft was declined for this reason: This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
There are additional citations that could be added, however previous feedback was to reduce the number of citations.QueensExpert11372 (talk) 14:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
15:13:35, 27 November 2018 review of draft by Mcatricala
[edit]- Mcatricala (talk · contribs)
I would like to change the title of this article. There is another David S. Weiss, and I'd like to use his full name as to alleviate any confusion.
Mcatricala (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- I'll adjust it Legacypac (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello,
I would like some help with this, if you can. I have submitted this article numerous times and keep receiving the same feedback: include more sources. Each time I re-submit, I include several additional legitimate sources. The subsequent rejections don't make sense to me. This is a well known filmmaker and producer who certainly qualifies for an article. Are there any suggestions you can give me that will help this article be published?
Thanks very much, B
Barrett92 (talk) 17:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- I've left a comment on the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
18:07:22, 27 November 2018 review of submission by Htewarso
[edit]My article on Jenny Thomann-Koller was accepted in October by Legacypak. Since then I made many changes, including references, links, etc. The last one were made on November 18. I have not had any response since then. Can I get help to finalize this text?/ Thank you!
Htewarso (talk) 18:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- Page is already in article space. No further feedback will be provided from AfC. Good that you continued to improve the page. Legacypac (talk) 18:29, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
18:46:34, 27 November 2018 review of submission by Dcharchour
[edit]- Dcharchour (talk · contribs)
K.e.coffman Thank you for taking the time to review Draft:Jeff Wald This was rejected due to "this topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." Though I wanted to ask for advice. The subject has been covered across several local and national secondary sources which demonstrate the topic's notability in its respective industry, meeing WP:GNG. Please let me know if you believe the content is not sufficiently cited. If so, could you provide additional guidelines? Thanks
Dcharchour (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Dcharchour#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:25, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Dcharchour: Thank you for declaring your paid connection. Running a quick eye over Draft:Jeff Wald, I see no obvious evidence of notability, so am inclined to agree with the first reviewer that the topic is a non-starter on Wikipedia. Now that you're in compliance with Wikipedia's terms of use, you may ask for a third opinion by using the blue "Ask for advice" button on the draft. If you do so, I strongly encourage you follow the guidance at WP:THREE when putting the case for the topic. You'll get much more focused feedback that way than by simply asserting that there are sources that demonstrate notability. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:24, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
20:57:31, 27 November 2018 review of submission by Malek404
[edit]