Help desk
< October 15	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 17 >

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.

October 16

06:32:55, 16 October 2020 review of submission by Acanga Luke

Acanga Luke (talk · contribs)

Acanga Luke (talk) 06:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC) Hello, would like to find out why my article has been declined?[reply]

@Acanga Luke: does the big pink box at User:Acanga Luke/sandbox/The Modern Academic Library not help you? Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 07:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NOTESSAY. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:08:34, 16 October 2020 review of submission by Maiti Meghna

Maiti Meghna (talk · contribs)

The article provided by me is genuine and at present, this movement is going on in West Bengal, India. Please, I'm requesting the Wiki authority to accept my article. Maiti Meghna (talk) 10:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:56:59, 16 October 2020 review of draft by Ron.challinor

Ron.challinor (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Moreton Paddox, Warwickshire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My submission has been moved to a draft because I have deprectaed and unreliable sources. How do I overcome these. Also, in one case I have a citation needed that I am unable to supply.

Ron.challinor (talk) 10:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ron.challinor. Everything in Wikipedia must be verifiable. If you can't cite a reliable, published source for a statement, then that material should not be in the encyclopedia. If a statement cites an unreliable source, such as a self-published blog or The Daily Mail, then the content must be removed unless you can find a reliable source to replace the unreliable one. A local library or historical society might be able to suggest sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:21:15, 16 October 2020 review of submission by Glen Hodgson

Glen Hodgson (talk · contribs)
- No draft specified!

I have written a page on Budapest Process which is being investigated for copyright issues. I have contacted the Budapest Process website administrators and they are happy for the material to be used. They will also send across an e-mail confirming this.

Glen Hodgson (talk) 11:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This page is no longer in draft space, but to be clear: Generally any text provided by the subject themselves is not suitable for Wikipedia, whether because it's not neutral or not reflected in credible secondary sources. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 14:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:05:05, 16 October 2020 review of submission by Kyrawalenga

Kyrawalenga (talk · contribs)
- User talk:WS Audiology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm wondering why it "reads like an advertisement" when they are simply the facts of the company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyrawalenga (talk • contribs) 14:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because it reads like an investment brochure. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 14:34, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:56:04, 16 October 2020 review of submission by Thatoilguy

Thatoilguy (talk · contribs)

Did I correctly add citations and sources for AFC? I found many sources for my first AFC - Even linked to official london stock exchange site for citation.

Thatoilguy (talk) 14:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:21:04, 16 October 2020 review of submission by Francis Bea

Francis Bea (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Nreal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I just reviewed the feedback and wanted to see if I could get a clarification on the reason for the article's rejection. For those familiar with the AR/MR industry, Nreal is considered to be on par with Magic Leap and Hololens and in fact typically mentioned in the same sentence as the company is the industry as the only one to have launched consumer mixed reality glasses on the market - following Magic Leap's pivot. Not to mention the founder is from Magic Leap. But on the mention regarding the criteria of notability Magic Leap had gone out of its way to sue the company, which resulted in independent, albeit unfavorable coverage about Nreal.^[1]

Francis Bea (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

16:38:06, 16 October 2020 review of draft by Nthanhou

Nthanhou (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Ray Tauser (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have authored an article on Ray Tauser that required additional references which have been supplied. I "published" this but no response, yet. Here is a link to the DRAFT article: Draft:Ray_Tauser

Would you please help me get this approved or what is needed for publication? I have just finished a documentary about Ray Tauser and having a Wiki page will be visited as a result.

Thank you, Ned Thanhouser (nthanhou)

Nthanhou (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:46:31, 16 October 2020 review of submission by Willairwin

Willairwin (talk · contribs)

Greetings! I submitted this bio on September 24, having complied -- or attempted to comply -- with the proper in-line referencing format. I was almost immediately referred to how to properly format. I believe I have done so, so I re-submitted the bio yesterday. Could please tell me the status, and if it is still not properly formatted, could you please tell me what I need to do to correct it.

Thank you very much.

Willairwin (talk) 16:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC) Will Irwin[reply]

Willairwin (talk) 16:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly haven't read WP:REFB as advised and you have not re-submitted it for review? Theroadislong (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:43:20, 16 October 2020 review of submission by Pilotmichael

Pilotmichael (talk · contribs)

Trying to get this article published and there are questions of reliable independent sources. Pilotmichael (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pilotmichael: please list your WP:THREE below. Keep in mind that we are looking for sources that meets all of these criteria:

They are reliable. Commonly unreliable sources include user-generated sources such as most social networks. There is a non-exhaustive list of sources which were frequently discussed regarding reliability at WP:RSP.
They are independent of the subject. Not regarded as independent are interviews with the subject (or the subject's employees), and press releases
They offer significant coverage of the subject. One of two paragraphs should be enough, thoug more is always better.

I dont realy want to generate a full source assesment, because I dont consider it worth the time needed to create it. You may also want to look at WP:CSMN. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. The sources do meet all three of the criteria. They are reliable, independent and significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilotmichael (talk • contribs) 19:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC) And, there are numerious sources sited that are reliable, independent and significant. So I do not understand the problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilotmichael (talk • contribs) 19:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pilotmichael: Which are the numerous sources cited that you think are all three: reliable, independent, and significant? Most of the sources appear to be coming from exploringwineregions.com. Of those sources, some are potential copyright violations, since it's unclear whether there is adequate permission for the republication of that material. Having looked at a few, I don't see anything specifically in-depth. The Vancouver Sun one, for instance, includes a few sentences about one of the books. Same with the Chicago Tribune's four sentences. Also, even if you were able to demonstrate that one of the books might meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, you are writing an article about a series of books, and notability is not inherited. Hope that helps. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoidbomb Thank you for being specific about this. Of the 35 sources cited, 34 are independent. I am understanding that reliable is not an issue. Regarding significance. Some are short and some are long; however, all are significant in terms of quality. Quality is more important than quantity, correct? You mention Chicago Tribune for example having just one paragraph. That one paragraph is quite significant when you consider that the Chicago Tribune receives and reviews thousands and thousands of books and this book was chosen as one of six winners. That is actually very significant! Regarding inherited notability, I understand. And not concerned. The second book is quickly becoming even more notable. For example, today, the book won a major book award against the books of the big publishing houses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:C850:4760:8823:FCAD:8D98:AA4F (talk) 02:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the ones that appear on exploringwineregions.com are simply photographs of the articles being memorialized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:C850:4760:8823:FCAD:8D98:AA4F (talk) 02:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to login. You wanted me to make a special assesment, well, here we are:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
http://exploringwineregions.com/news/#1475592880668-aeb4fc2d-9c06	HTTP 404	page not found	page not found	✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04bL9NpfLCU	Interview	Seems to be WP:UGC	~ 6:41,	✘ No
On Show Live ñ Rudy Maxaís World (Americaís #1 travel radio show)	? Unverifyable, neither a link nor anything given	? Unverifyable, neither a link nor anything given	? Unverifyable, neither a link nor anything given	? Unknown
A Kind Voice on Books, by Host Erin Rae Daniels	? Same Problem as #3	? Same Problem as #3	? Same Problem as #3	? Unknown
On The Air with The Wine Guy - Talk Show Guest on The Good Life Show, with Host, Mike Wreyford (The Wine Guy)	Same Problem as #3, howewer, appears like interview	? Same Problem as #3	? Same Problem as #3	✘ No
Featured Guest on The Donna Seebo Show - On BBS Radio, broadcasted worldwide	? Same Problem as #3	? Same Problem as #3	? Same Problem as #3	? Unknown
http://exploringwineregions.com/pdf/GrapeExperiences-Review.pdf	Written by the book author	? I haven't assesed the website yes, but It looks like a fail	4 pages	✘ No
https://www.exploringwineregions.com/news/#1475592880679-7057fa8c-efb9	404 Not Found	404 Not Found	404 Not Found	✘ No
https://theprovince.com/category/life/	Another 404	404	404	✘ No
https://www.exploringwineregions.com/about-us/	Very much dependent	Subject's self description. WP:COI	~ a lengthely paragraph	✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqFOf5cMcZk&feature=youtu.be	~ Interview	Television show	about 30 minutes	~ Partial
http://exploringwineregions.com/pdf/IBPA-Indie-Titles.pdf	Looks like a vanity publisher *			✘ No
https://www.chicagotribune.com/dining/drink/sc-wine-books-food-1007-20161005-column.html	Apeears to be independent	Newspaper	~ One paragraph about one book	~ Partial
http://exploringwineregions.com/pdf/EWR-ChicagoTribune.pdf	this is a scan of the chicago tribune newspaper *			✘ No
http://exploringwineregions.com/pdf/OutTraveler-Review.pdf	~ Yet another scan *	~	not even a full paragraph	✘ No
http://exploringwineregions.com/pdf/HonestCooking-Review.pdf	Another scan *	? I havent looked at the source	One specific book, not so much about the book series	✘ No
http://exploringwineregions.com/pdf/BoozeMuse-Review.pdf	*	? website could be affilated, but sicne this is a scan it is not determineable	About the same book we had ~10 times before	✘ No
http://exploringwineregions.com/pdf/LuxuryTravel-Review.pdf	~ another scan *	? Looked at the source, author missing	this is more what we look for.	? Unknown
https://books.apple.com/us/book/exploring-wine-regions-argentina/id1187444781?ign-mpt=uo%3D10	Largely written by the book author or closely affilated	Largely written by the book author or closely affilated	~ coverage	✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqFOf5cMcZk&feature=youtu.be	Interview or liekwise	Channel name-> Affilated with author	30 min	✘ No
http://exploringwineregions.com/pdf/HighEnd-Vol6.pdf	Largely what the book author said *	Source affilated wiht author	1 page of text	✘ No
http://exploringwineregions.com/pdf/VancouverSun.pdf	Appears to be independent *	? I havent yet looked at the source	1 short paragraph	✘ No
http://exploringwineregions.com/pdf/PW-Cover.pdf	appears to be independently published in original *	Immediate source affilated with book author	virtually none	✘ No
http://exploringwineregions.com/pdf/BooksForWinelovers-Review.pdf	likely independent *	No indication of reliablity, see also WP:RSP	~ 1 paragraph	✘ No
http://exploringwineregions.com/pdf/THRILLIST.pdf	appears to be independent *	likely reliable	~ 1 text page, many images	~ Partial
http://exploringwineregions.com/pdf/American-journalist-travels-the-Ruta-del-Vino.pdf	~ See below. *	~	~	~ Partial
Higgins, Michael C. (2016). Exploring Wine Regions: Argentina. ISBN 978-0996966016.	One of the books this article talks about	? Unassesable right now. Probbably reliable	? I would need to get the book to check that.	✘ No
Higgins, Michael C. (2020). Exploring Wine Regions: Bordeaux France. ISBN 978-0996966023.	One of the books this article talks about	? Unassesable right now. Probbably reliable	? I would need to get the book to check that.	✘ No
https://www.exploringwineregions.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Readers-Favorite-Review.pdf	? Appears to be independent *	? No so sure. With all this glory words.	definitely significant coverage	? Unknown
https://www.exploringwineregions.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Departures-The-Ultimate-Book-for-Wine-Lovers.pdf	Book announcement *	This website appears to be affilated with the author -> WP:COI	would be decent coverage	✘ No
https://flyingadventures.com/about-us/	CMon. Affilated with the book author	? Affilated with the author	Not realy coverage of the book series	✘ No
https://www.exploringwineregions.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/FranklinAward.pdf	Appears to be an independent source *	? Independence of the award is t.b.d.	? Yust a certificate. can be enough if the award establishes notability.	? Unknown
https://www.exploringwineregions.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/NABE-Award.pdf	appears to be an independent award *	? independence of the award is t.b.d.	? If the award is mayor according to WP:NBOOK this could be enough for notability	? Unknown
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6295110/	? IMDB can be edited by anyone, thus, independence cannot be determined	WP:UGC	directory listing	✘ No
http://www.tcpalm.com/story/specialty-publications/your-news/indian-river-county/reader-submitted/2017/02/28/lights-camera-taste-check-out-best-fest/98470680/	reads like a press release/advertisement	Seems to be a reliable news website	no coverage of the subject whatoever	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

I do the last few assesments later when I've got more time. *Note for all uploads to exploringwineregions.com: I am not so sure if exploringwineregions.com has the rights to republish those texts. They appear to be from at least 15 distinct sources. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Updated and completed. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So how do we resolve this and get this article published? Reading you say you are not so sure if exploringwineregions.com has the right to republish those texts. We are absolutely sure we can republish those texts per the Fair Use Provisions and backed by EWR's registration with the US Copyright Office. Besides, this is of no issue for Wiki and you show exactly why it is necessary as you say the last source has nothing to do with EWR. That is because the publisher changed what was on that page. You nor we have the ability to keep the text we want because they are independent. Independent! And further, they provide the necessary source documentation.

You go on to say you don't like what journalists write. That is not for you to critique, they are independent, and if they like to write like a press release or have lots of glory words, then, if anything, that further indicates the true significance of the books.

Why do you think the one paragraph with the Chicago Tribune is not significant (for example)? Are you saying that quantity is the determining factor, not quality? The one-paragraph (acceptable by Wiki's written standards) represented the significance that this book was chosen out of thousands of books. That is very much significant and does not need the rambling of paragraphs that you seem to feel is what makes something significant.

You show many of the sources withOUT a "no" for meeting the standards. That is because they DO meet the standards, so do many that you say no to unjustifiably.

So, how do we get this resolved and get the article published? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilotmichael (talk • contribs) 17:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to jump in to briefly explain "significant coverage": Per WP:GNG, this does not mean that you or I find it significant that the Chicago Tribune mentioned the book. Significant coverage, as described at WP:GNG wants the ~~content~~ article cited to talk about the subject in detail. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention is what the guideline states and notes that The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM. While book-length material about a book series is not going to be the threshold for this article to exist, the sources cited will need to talk about the book series in abundant detail, which the four sentences at the Chicago Tribune do not do. The types of questions we'd expect to see answered: Who wrote the series? When was the series written? Who published the series? How many units were sold? What events inspired the series? How long did it take to assemble each book? Did the series win any awards? What impact did the books have on wine tourism? Etc. This is a non-exhaustive list. My point is that significant coverage would provide lots of details, not just a quick synopsis of what one book is about. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC) Strikethrough "content" as bad word choice. Changed to "article cited". Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Cyphoidbomb for the information, especially the type of questions that need to be answered. I will go back to the article and update to make it more complete. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilotmichael (talk • contribs) 14:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pilotmichael: Perhaps I wasn't clear. I wasn't saying that the draft article you are writing has to have this information, I was saying that a reference that the Wikipedia community would consider as providing "significant coverage" would be one that talks about the book series in great detail, providing answers to questions like the ones I raised above. It seemed to me that you were confused about what we consider "significant coverage" to be. A four-sentence acknowledgement in the Chicago Tribune would likely not be considered significant coverage by the Wikipedia community. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. Chicago Tribune is just one of 35 sources. Others have lengthy information. I do feel some of the questions you raised would be good to have in the article and that was what I planned to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilotmichael (talk • contribs) 17:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:26:24, 16 October 2020 review of draft by Floridaracingnews

Floridaracingnews (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Andy Cobb, Auto Racer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am requesting help to make sure the copyright release for photos has been received as well as making sure the layout of the article is uniform with other auto racing articles.

I would also like an opinion on the citations and links provided to make sure they are what is required to verify the information.

I have received notice on the copyright release for the photos used on this article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Floridaracingnews (talk • contribs) 15:03, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Floridaracingnews (talk) 20:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://www.theverge.com/2019/6/18/18684164/magic-leap-nreal-light-chi-xu-lawsuit-ar-glasses-design-ripoff

[2] ttps://www.wired.com/story/apple-ar-glasses/

[1]

[2]