Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 August 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< August 21 << Jul | August | Sep >> August 23 >
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.


August 22

[edit]

04:14, 22 August 2023 review of submission by DMMKL

[edit]

Hi all Hello, I would like to Requesting Help Member for review to draft submissions DMMKL (talk) 04:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DMMKL: please be patient, there are well over 4,000 drafts awaiting review, and this can take weeks or even months. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:04, 22 August 2023 review of submission by KKartist

[edit]

Dear sir.. I am trying to create "Ramana Reddy Artist" page in wikipedia..But some querries are getting from review. Where is the problem i have done, i dont understand.Whatever i added whole information is genuine. Please help me to publish this page successfully. Thanks in advance. KKartist (talk) 07:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@KKartist: the problem is that the draft is entirely unreferenced (there are two alleged citations, but they don't refer to a valid source). You have listed a large number of sources at the end, but they have not been cited anywhere, so aren't technically references. Since this draft describes a living person, it is particularly important that inline citations are used throughout to support all material statements. See WP:REFB for advice on referencing. (And please don't cite YouTube, Twitter, etc., as these are not considered reliable sources.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:07, 22 August 2023 review of submission by Jpgroppi

[edit]

I do not understand what is wrong with the text and the Biography of Jean-Pierre. The comments left by the rewiewers are referenced to too much points to look at that at the end I cannot understand what is wrong. Where can I find more clues? Because when I read your tutoriall I do not see errors in my text. The biography I preapred is almost what I found by other pages from other characters. I still do not know if referencing is OK now or not. It is difficult to reference someone dead in 2004 and had is major work done in the 70' since internet was not yet invented. Archive exist I can hold them but are all copies from newpapers at the time and were unfortunatly not archived on-line. I obvously need help more accurate of what should I modify and I would be please to understand who could help me. I really like to have Jean-Pierre return in memories, because he was well know by his time. Thank you anyway for your time. Jean-Marc Jpgroppi (talk) 07:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpgroppi: the first thing you need to do is declare your relationship to this person, which judging by their name and your username is likely to give rise to a conflict of interest (COI). I posted last week a message on your talk page User talk:Jpgroppi querying this; please read and action it now.
You ask for "more clues", yet you also say that there are too many points to look at in the comments; these seem contradictory. Each time a draft is declined, the reasons are given in the decline notice (the grey box/-es inside the large pink one), and those reasons contain hyperlinks to policy and guidance. Additionally, reviewers often leave comments, which can be found underneath the decline notices. There is little point in me repeating all those comments; I would only be regurgitating the same information and pointing you towards the same guidance as has already been provided.
That said, I will summarise the biggest shortcoming with this draft: almost the entire content is unreferenced. This creates two problems. Firstly, the information needs to be verifiable from reliable published sources, but as you cite hardly any sources, this is not possible. Secondly, we need to see evidence that the person in question is notable in Wikipedia terms. This is again done through sources, and therefore we have the same problem that the sources are simply not there.
Finally, regarding your point about pre-internet sources, please note that sources do not have to be online, offline sources are acceptable, as long as they are correctly cited, and of sufficient quality in terms of being independent and reliable, etc. Sources also do not have to be in English.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jpgroppi In addition please use the past tense of verbs. I think English is not your first language. We expect all matters in Wikipedia to be reported speech an to have happened in the past. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your gentle help. I am the wife of the defunct Jean-Pierre, dead in 2004. I get help from a software engineer to write the page. I cannot find your last messages that ask for the relationship in the talk page. Is this a COI?
I own the pictures that are part of the (draft page). Its my own work. But own can I react since it is not a Request for deletion? How can I prove I made this picture?
For the rest I will look on how to make offline reference sources since I still own all the news paper or magazin that mention Jean-Pierre. Thank you for this good help Jpgroppi (talk) 08:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Jpgroppi. Please see the reply I posted to another editor above (#23:30, 21 August 2023 review of submission by Predator2773). One of the things that makes it difficult to write an article when you know the subject is that articles must be entirely based on published material, and almost entirely on independently published material. Absolutely nothing from your personal knowledge of your husband should go into the article unless it has already been published; and nearly nothing should go in unless it has been written and published by people entirely unconnected with you and your husband. ColinFine (talk) 14:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great thank you this info, this is clear now. The biography I wrote was made by an Art critics and was posted almost as is. But seems that I have to write it in the past and not in present (?!). So now I encounter a problem... Also the article is part of news papers and also magazin which I have the originals but cannot find on internet. So I will have to find out a way to reference as offline... Thank you again all for the tips Jpgroppi (talk) 14:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jpgroppi The picture(s) will become available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 4.0; once you provide a statement to the Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team that meets their needs. For the picture to be kept on Wikipedia via the WP volunteers, or, and better, on Wikimedia Commons by your providing that proof to c:COM:VRT. COM:VRT will restore pictures that you can prove your copyright ownership of.
Here, Wikipedia:Precautionary principle applies.There c:COM:PCP applies. We protect copyright owners rigorously, and by doing so we protect the Wikimedia Foundation 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again Jpgroppi. Citing offline sources is perfectly acceptable: the important parts of a citation are bibliographic information like date, title, author, publication. A URL is (in most cases) a convenience for the reader (and reviewer), not a crucial part of the citation.
There may be a language issue here, but I am concerned when you say "The biography I wrote was made by an Art critics and was posted almost as is", and "the article is part of newpapers". If you are saying that part of the text of your draft has previously been published, that is also an issue of copyright, which (as Tim Trent says) Wikipedia takes very seriously.
Generally we recommend that an article summarize the content of its cited sources without plagiarizing the text. Short passages may be presented as explict quotations.
But if part of the text in your draft has previously been published then it may not be copied in Wikipedia unless it has been explicitly released under a suitable licence by the copyright holder (see donating copyright materials. ColinFine (talk) 10:23, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK clear, as you can see the text was modified and shorted a lot. So no plagia. Now I just have to cites this News by offline citation. The confusion is that we cannot write a text by ourself but we cannot also use a text by someone else, we have here some ambiguity. Anyway we start to get the point. We also see an artist that we know very well that made a lot of fake references in WP english and WP let it publish. So beeing serious and humble as we are we should be able to write something that will fit. It will take us some time now. We will not publish very soon. Thank you so much for your precious help Jpgroppi (talk) 11:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:57, 22 August 2023 review of submission by KannappaSara

[edit]

Hi, We are contacting you on behalf of the Tennis Premier League marketing team. We are one of the top 5 leagues in India as attested by Forbes India and we are still not able to create our Wikipedia page as it has got declined twice so far. We are the Indian Premier League, Pro Kabaddi League equivalent for Tennis in India.

Please guide us on the procedure to create the Wikipedia page for Tennis Premier League. KannappaSara (talk) 07:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@KannappaSara: firstly, your entire edit history consists of this post here at the help desk. Have you been previously editing under a different account or IP address?
Secondly, when you say "we are contacting", who is the "we" in that? Please note that Wikipedia user accounts are strictly for use by a single individual.
Thirdly, if, as you suggest, you are associated with the league, you need to make a conflict of interest and/or paid-editing disclosure. I will post a message on your talk page with more information on this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:21, 22 August 2023 review of submission by Khunou S

[edit]

Dear wikipedians, What should I change or improve to get published this Article? please help. Khunou S (talk) 09:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Khunou S: you have submitted the draft, and it will be reviewed when a reviewer picks it up; they will then provide feedback where necessary. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:21, 22 August 2023 review of submission by Creation07

[edit]

I need assistance for helping me in creation of new wikipedia article Creation07 (talk) 11:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Creation07. What assistance do you require? Your draft was declined as it looks like Mukesh does not meet the criteria for a Wikipedia article yet. Please carefully read Wikipedia:Notability (people) which explains what we need to see.
It might be worth reading Wikipedia:Your first article which gives you the dos and don'ts of creating an article, plus the Wikipedia:Citing sources guide that explains how to cite sources.
The easiest way forward is to find reliable, independent, secondary sources that cover Mukesh in detail, and then summarise them in your own words. That should make up the content of your article draft. Note that the sources must be:
- Reliable: Your article should rely on strong, reliable sources that are published by reputable institutions. Primary sources can be used for basic facts (such as a date of birth), but they should be supplemented with strong secondary sources that offer analysis or interpretation.
- Independent: Your sources should be independent of the subject, for example not self-published or from the subject's own website.
- Show significant coverage: Your subject should be discussed in detail in the sources you find. The sources should provide in-depth information or analysis about the subject, going beyond basic facts or promotional material.
- From multiple places: You should find at least three separate reliable, independent, secondary sources that discuss your subject.
- Not original research: Wikipedia articles should summarise existing knowledge about a subject, not present new research. This means you should avoid drawing your own conclusions or analyses from the sources. Stick to summarising what the sources say in a neutral tone.
Remember that your article should be written from a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
If you cannot find multiple, reliable, and independent sources then I am afraid that Mukesh would not meet the notability threshold at this time and therefore cannot have a Wikipedia article. Remember that Wikipedia is not a place for any type of self-promotion or advertisement. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia: not an advertising platform, directory, or a way to promote a subject.
Finally, please note that if you are connected in any way to Mukesh then you must declare your Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.
Hope that helps, let us know if you have further questions. Qcne (talk) 11:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:50, 22 August 2023 review of submission by EtherealOwl

[edit]

How to know if my article is being reviewed or not? EtherealOwl (talk) 13:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@EtherealOwl: it is in the pool awaiting review, if that's what you mean. For all I know, someone may be reviewing it as I type this, but there's no way of knowing.
What I can tell you is that when a reviewer gets around to it, it will almost certainly be declined due to insufficient referencing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. That makes sense. John E. Boyd (talk) 21:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:00, 22 August 2023 review of submission by John E. Boyd

[edit]

Why Delete it? It was meant for a Likely future if sertent issues were not fixed. John E. Boyd (talk) 21:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:09, 22 August 2023 review of submission by Mayson Exantus

[edit]

Cuz im sad Mayson Exantus (talk) 21:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, we don't allow hoaxes, no matter the reason for the hoax. -- asilvering (talk) 22:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:11, 22 August 2023 review of submission by Mayson Exantus

[edit]

please Mayson Exantus (talk) 21:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. It is a long way from being an encyclopedia article. 331dot (talk) 21:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2023_August_22&oldid=1172754503"