Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 May 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< May 7 << Apr | May | Jun >> May 9 >
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.


May 8

[edit]

00:54:22, 8 May 2022 review of submission by YashMane

[edit]


YashMane (talk) 00:54, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As explained before there is nothing there to suggest that you are notable. Theroadislong (talk) 01:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
what do you mean by "you are notable"? I am not writing about myself.
This is a notable, exhibited femal American artist and photographer. I believe the issue is the sources. I'd like to understand what to delete in order to make this publishing ready. Ovaryian (talk) 03:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ovaryian You are replying to another post, this is NOT about your draft Draft:Shari Diamond it is about Draft:Yashraj Mane. Theroadislong (talk) 06:12, 8 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Gotcha, thanks for clarifying. Relatively new to Wikipedia editing and the interface is confusing to say the least! I appreciate your help Ovaryian (talk) 16:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

02:55:14, 8 May 2022 review of submission by 103.67.158.17

[edit]


103.67.158.17 (talk) 02:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

03:37:36, 8 May 2022 review of draft by Ovaryian

[edit]


Can you help me understand the editing changes needed for Draft: Shari_Diamond? Ovaryian (talk) 03:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft Draft:Shari Diamond is awaiting review. Theroadislong (talk) 06:13, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

07:58:20, 8 May 2022 review of submission by 43.245.120.27

[edit]


43.245.120.27 (talk) 07:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 07:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Recreated again and declined. Theroadislong (talk) 08:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:27:50, 8 May 2022 review of submission by Rituraj7379469988

[edit]


Rituraj7379469988 (talk) 08:27, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rituraj7379469988 You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not social media where people tell the world about themselves. This is an encyclopedia where we are interested in what independent reliable sources choose to say about you, showing how you meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Autobiographical articles are strongly discouraged, please read WP:AUTO. 331dot (talk) 08:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:36:40, 8 May 2022 review of draft by SimorghWay

[edit]


Hello everyone

I do not understand why my article was seen as "they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject." I already included "published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject." I included all the available references from renowned sources about the subject of the article. I am confused what else could ever be added. Please advise.

SimorghWay (talk) 15:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SimorghWay The draft just summarizes what the person has done, not why it is significant or in Wikipedia parlance, notable. An article should summarize what independent reliable sources state about the topic with significant coverage, not just document the things that they do. Please see the definition of a notable person and Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 18:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:51:48, 8 May 2022 review of submission by DGoldHunterX

[edit]


Hi. I am requesting a re-review because I think I am following the standards that you require to make a contribution in Wikipedia. Please reconsider by giving exact details of what to ommit and what to edit so so I may finally pass this article. Thanks so much. This article will give more information to the public of how gold has become part of human life since then and until this digital world after being stopped to be circulated and being used as trading currency. Thanks.

DGoldHunterX (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DGoldHunterX The draft was rejected, and will not be considered further, as it is essentially a promotional piece that is written more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. I gather that you have some sort of conflict of interest here, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID as you may have required disclosures to make(declaring a paid relationship is a Terms of Use requirement). Wikipedia is not for merely giving information, it is for summarizing independent reliable sources about topics deemed notable by Wikipedia. Perhaps there is an existing article where something about this topic could be added; please review how to make a formal edit request. 331dot (talk) 18:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:13:56, 8 May 2022 review of draft by Tnval

[edit]


I have added references: articles, interviews and documentaries featuring Max Brandrett from recognised newspapers and video channels. Why are these not being accepted as legitimate? I have published them again below + another list which includes sources.

References Daily Mail article Artist-70-jailed-forging-famous-masterpieces-stage-exhibition-fake-work December 12th 2018 Latest TV interview - The Life and Work of Max Brandrett youtube.com August 26th 2019 Verso TV documentary vice.com how-i-made-millions-forging-priceless-art July 7th 2020 More Radio interview moreradio.online the-master-forger-goes-viral-in-documentary July 23rd 2020 The Argus article theargus.co.uk max-forger-reveals-conned-art-world August 12th 2020 The Times article thetimes.co.uk top-forger-max-brandrett-is-victim-of-his-own-success August 15th 2020 Sussex Express article sussexexpress.co.uk master-forger-becomes-a-victim-of-his-own-success August 18th 2020 Daily Express article pressreader.com daily-express October 7th 2020 Insider TV interview insider.com how-art-forgery-actually-works-according-to-a-former-forger October 29th 2021 KRN TV interview youtube.com November 6th 2021 i News article inews.co.uk art-forger-gives-up-a-life-of-crime-and-teaches-senior-citizens-how-to-paint February 1st 2022 Biography - Britain’s No1 Art Forger – The Life of a Cheeky Faker by Anthony Valentine - Gadfly Press February 28th 2022 Sussex Express article sussexexpress.co.uk britains-no-1-art-forger-reveals-all-from-his-west-sussex-home April 13th 2022 Sussex Express article sussexexpress.co.uk can-you-spot-which-of-these-famous-paintings-now-in-sussex-are-fake April 22nd 2022


References including links to sources Daily Mail article https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6488711/Artist-70-jailed-forging-famous-masterpieces-stage-exhibition-fake-work.html December 12th 2018 Latest TV interview - The Life and Work of Max Brandrett https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFyBYRyF5nc August 26th 2019 Verso TV documentary https://video.vice.com/en_uk/video/vice-how-i-made-millions-forging-priceless-art/5da73154be407711c72fa2a1 July 7th 2020 More Radio interview https://www.moreradio.online/news/sussex-news/listen-burgess-hills-the-master-forger-goes-viral-in-documentary/ July 23rd 2020 The Argus article https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/18647835.max-forger-reveals-conned-art-world/ August 12th 2020 The Times article https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/top-forger-max-brandrett-is-victim-of-his-own-success-8mk6706tz August 15th 2020 Sussex Express article https://www.sussexexpress.co.uk/news/people/mid-sussex-master-forger-becomes-a-victim-of-his-own-success-2946051 August 18th 2020 Daily Express article https://www.pressreader.com/uk/daily-express/20201007/283205855727952 October 7th 2020 Insider TV interview https://www.insider.com/how-art-forgery-actually-works-according-to-a-former-forger-2021-10 October 29th 2021 KRN TV interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=065kugPkQ9g November 6th 2021 i News article https://inews.co.uk/culture/arts/art-forger-gives-up-a-life-of-crime-and-teaches-senior-citizens-how-to-paint-1436205 February 1st 2022 Biography - Britain’s No1 Art Forger – The Life of a Cheeky Faker by Anthony Valentine - Gadfly Press February 28th 2022 Sussex Express article https://www.sussexexpress.co.uk/news/people/britains-no-1-art-forger-reveals-all-from-his-west-sussex-home-3649164 April 13th 2022 Sussex Express article https://www.sussexexpress.co.uk/news/people/can-you-spot-which-of-these-famous-paintings-now-in-sussex-are-fake-3664090 April 22nd 2022


Tnval (talk) 18:13, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Mail is NEVER a reliable source, YouTube very rarely is and press releases and interviews are not independent. Theroadislong (talk) 19:07, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please, if the Daily Mail, Latest TV, YouTube, Vice.com, More Radio, The Argus, The Times, The Sussex Express, The Daily Express, Insider TV, KRN TV and iNews are NOT reliable sources - tell me what is! Max Brandrett is a real person, a famous person, yet you won't accept his entry. Please, what can I do? Tnval (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:39:19, 8 May 2022 review of submission by Nuferdan

[edit]


My submission was declined and I am looking for additional explanation as to why so that I might improve or alter it in such a way that might make it suitable for Wikipedia. I feel strongly this is the right content for Wikipedia as it uses a scientifically-valid methodology to identify what 5 of the top resources in the field agree are the greatest films of all time, which does not exist as a list today and would be incredibly useful to the masses. It also opens the door for additional explorations into genres & decades with the most occurrences in the overall top 100, as well as, potential explorations into gender and race disparities in the film industry. This could serve as a fantastic resource for many purposes and I would very much appreciate guidance into how I might better suit it for Wikipedia.


Nuferdan (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nuferdan I assume this is about User:Nuferdan/sandbox/Highest Ranked Films of All-Time. Original research is never appropriate for Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 22:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe the world needs it, publish it elsewhere. If reliable sources cover your published list, someone may make a wikipedia article. Wikipedia is the last stop for an idea/theory/band/etc once they have been recognized by others, it is never the place something is established.Slywriter (talk) 22:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by original research? Can you clarify? This list is not of my own opinion at all, it's purely a culmination of multiple sources. For instance, I don't see a difference between what this article does and what mine did other than the fact that mine goes a bit more into detail: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/List_of_films_considered_the_best
We even reference the same sources in a few cases. Nuferdan (talk) 23:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nuferdan The list article you cite summarizes what reliable sources consider to be the best. The draft you created is your own judgment using your own methodology. 331dot (talk) 23:17, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm can I just ask to be sure that you read my article? Only asking because perhaps I misrepresented what I did. All I've done is list list the Top 100 Films from 5 different reputable lists and averaged their ranking on those lists. For instance, for The Godfather, the link I reference from Rotten Tomatoes ranks it at 17 of 100, IMDb at 2 of 100, Empire at 3 of 100, AFI at 2 of 100, and Sights & Sounds at 21 of 100. Making its average ranking 8.6666667 which puts it higher than any other film across those 5 lists.
I didn't use my own judgement at all and the only methodology I used was standard averaging. Again, maybe I didn't explain that well enough in the article or am still missing something, but this truly has absolutely none of my own opinion (truth be told, I don't even agree with the top 10 as the data worked out, but such is math). Nuferdan (talk) 23:47, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How did you choose these 5 lists? Averaging is still original research if the information was not presented that way by a reliable source. Are you a notable movie reviewer or film historian? 331dot (talk) 00:21, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you plan to keep this list up to date, forever, as new movies are released? And yes, the averaging methodology chosen does constitute original research. If Rotten Tomatoes has 10 times the readership of Empire, does its ranking get weighted more? Choosing to use equal weights, or unequal weights, is a choice you made, and that choice would affect the results. You might not have realized this, but making these choices does constitute OR. (It's not clear (to me) that equal weighting is appropriate.) 73.127.147.187 (talk) 13:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nuferdan How do you choose to handle "unranked"? Your draft doesn't explain your averaging methodology.
It could be argued that if one of your sites doesn't think that a movie is important enough to be in its "top" list, then it should be averaged in your combined results as if the site had ranked the movie as 200, or 1000, or 1 million.
The four sites that reviewed Apocalypse Now gave scores of 55, 29, 30, and 14. The average of those is 32. If you sum those four and divide by 5, you get 25.6. Are you using 32, or 25.6, or something else for the value to use in the rank? 73.127.147.187 (talk) 14:12, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2022_May_8&oldid=1088173800"