Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 July 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< July 16 << Jun | July | Aug >> July 18 >
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.


July 17

[edit]

00:05, 17 July 2023 review of submission by 2A02:6B62:D835:0:8053:29E4:70DD:9422

[edit]

Thanks for reviewing the submission. Reasons for Wikipedia dealing it as is are understood. A redraft edited down to even more encyclopaedic content and even more neutral content will be attempted. However this won't get round the problem that I am indeed the film's director! No clumsy attempt at self promotion being made here, and any of us connected with the film will encounter the same issue of not being seen as impartial - so we decided might as well be the director doing it... I was at pains to try to ensure neutrality (obviously not enough yet) and to make only the baldest reference to myself at the end (you do advise though to make clear any connection?). 1) Should we take it that this article will never likely achieve Wiki publication if written by me - in any version?

2) Can you perhaps indicate if the citations looked to be of suitable number, valid and viewed as reliable sources?

3) Would it be better to try and somehow find an external submitter/editor to present this for Wiki inclusion?

4) I would hope the draft did at least make clear this is essentially a very genuine archival and history driven project, not a commercial endeavour seeking to generate revenue, and that the event itself most certainly has significant historical importance in UK/European LGBT+ history and is as yet underdocumented. That is the primary reason for trying to submit to Wiki.

Would be extremely grateful for any advice. Submitting valid usable content to Wikipedia is not at all an easy task - neither should it be.

Kind regards Rob Falconer, original submitter 

2A02:6B62:D835:0:8053:29E4:70DD:9422 (talk) 00:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Finding someone to submit it for you would simply transfer the COI to that person. Articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the subject, who take note of coverage of the subject in independent reliable sources and choose on their own to write about it. You don't have to have a commercial purpose or be generating revenue to be promoting something.
Wikipedia is not the first place to write about a topic, it is the last. We don't lead, we follow, in terms of covering a topic. This film needs to be documented elsewhere first, so that we have sources to summarize. 331dot (talk) 00:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

00:58, 17 July 2023 review of submission by Jjcoste2

[edit]

I am about to edit a rejected page. There will be multiple edits. Should I do each one separately, or do the whole page and then submit it? Does each edit become a post? Is posting different than publishing? Jjcoste2 (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jjcoste2: this draft has been only declined, not rejected, so you're welcome to edit it further. Whether you do all your edits in one go or in stages doesn't matter, although you may find the former easier and safer; just remember to leave edit notes with each edit, so that you and others can later see what has been done.
Each time you click on the 'publish changes' button, it saves the latest version of the draft, with each intermediate version remaining accessible in the edit history. 'Publishing' in this context simply means saving the draft, and making your changes available to others looking at that draft. This is different from publishing the article into the actual encyclopaedia (when it becomes available for public consumption and indexing by search engines, etc.), which is what happens once your draft has been accepted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you DoubleGrazing. So, if I edit the draft (30+edits) in one go, would I need to number each edit or just describe each in a sentence? Jjcoste2 (talk) 17:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also: Since I am attempting to do these edits in "visual", when I click on the edit button I do not see a box for leaving notes as I do if I see the draft in "source". Where would I put the notes in the "visual" mode? Jjcoste2 (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does something like this work?
Reared in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Snyder was encouraged as a young child to pursue art. Additionally, he was inspired by his Central High School art instructor Frederick Gill’s enthusiastic love for spontaneity. {edit #1, removed (1) -removing all references that are not exclusively for Dan Snyder artist } Opting Jjcoste2 (talk) 18:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have competed an edit, but when I hit the publish button I get this message:
Something went wrong
⧼No stashed content found for 1140753667/e08e44c8-1f5a-11ee-8c71-b04f13be4f10⧽
How can I proceed? Jjcoste2 (talk) 21:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

01:14:41, 17 July 2023 review of draft by MatthewDalhousie

[edit]


Hi there, noting that there's a gap of articles on women in science, particularly Australian women, I've pulled together this draft on an Australian behavioural scientist https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft_talk:Jemma_B_King

Have worked hard at providing reliable sources, but as it's my first go of a BLP in the science/academia category, so would really appreciate it if someone could point out any further improvements I could make.


MatthewDalhousie (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MatthewDalhousie: we don't provide 'pre-reviews'; the draft has been submitted and will be reviewed properly when a reviewer happens to pick it up. It will come down to whether the sources cited are sufficient to establish WP:GNG notability, given that there doesn't seem to be anything to make this person WP:NPROF notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying the process @DoubleGrazing - haven't done the official submission approach before. Yes, I believe the subject has General Notability given the number of secondary sources, from general news article etc. Thanks for setting that out. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 07:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:22:19, 17 July 2023 review of draft by Lkitrossky

[edit]


Hi! I followed remarks by the reviewer and add sources for biographic facts and also reviews of the book recently published by Masha Karp. The reviewer is not well now and recommended to ask help. Is the draft good enough now to release it into the main space? What to improve further?

The positive reviews include Wall Street Journal and NY University library. Thanks a lot,

lkitross (talk) 08:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lkitrossky We don't really do pre-review reviews here. If you would like a review, please submit it again. If you are confident that your draft would survive a hypothetical Articles for Deletion discussion and you have no conflict of interest with the topic, you are free to place the draft in the mainspace yourself, though it is not recommended unless you have experience in having other drafts accepted. 331dot (talk) 08:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Submitted, thanks! lkitross (talk) 09:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:07, 17 July 2023 review of submission by Omarfarukbd1

[edit]

What causes it to decline? Omarfarukbd1 (talk) 09:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reason was left by the reviewer at the top of the draft. Do you have more specific questions about it? Your draft is completely unsourced. Any article about you must summarize what independent reliable sources choose to say about you, showing how you meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Please note that writing about yourself is highly discouraged, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 09:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:31:46, 17 July 2023 review of draft by TempusCommunications

[edit]


Hello. I submitted an article for creation, but I could not figure out how to change the page name from Tempus Communications (the account name) to Tempus (the desired page name). Please let me know how to ensure if the page is approved, it appears as just "Tempus"? Thank you!

TempusCommunications (talk) 16:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TempusCommunications: firstly, you have been blocked, so unless you manage to resolve that, you won't be editing any further.
Secondly, you have an obvious conflict of interest (COI), which you must disclose if you manage to get yourself unblocked.
Thirdly, and in answer (sort of) to you question, I would have moved this draft to Draft:Tempus (company), but there already exists a draft at that name. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:53:04, 17 July 2023 review of draft by Mb.mts

[edit]


Mb.mts (talk) 17:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question, @Mb.mts? You have resubmitted this draft and it is awaiting review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi@DoubleGrazing
If you are able to approve the draft page, please approve it. I have done lot of research to write about this organisation of Prerna Parivar Welfare Foundation. Mb.mts (talk) 18:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed the draft and declined it. Drmies (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Drmies,
Why you have declined the page Mb.mts (talk) 18:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Mb.mts, did you read the note that @Drmies left on the draft? This is still a promotional piece, and lacks secondary sources to prove notability. It needs a complete rewrite, and proper sourcing Qcne (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mb.mts: it was declined for the reason given in the decline notice; to wit, apparent lack of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That and the promotional writing, DoubleGrazing... ;) Drmies (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:33, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mb.mts I previously informed you that the draft needed a fundamental rewriting, to summarize what independent reliable sources choose to say about your organization and what makes it notable- not merely document its activities and existence. You may be too close to your organization to do this. 331dot (talk) 08:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:25:49, 17 July 2023 review of draft by 2603:8080:1001:1AA8:9170:BADD:46A2:A21

[edit]


Hello! I am new to wikipedia and am wondering if there are any formatting errors in this draft that I can address as this is waiting for review. Thank you for your time!

2603:8080:1001:1AA8:9170:BADD:46A2:A21 (talk) 18:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2023_July_17&oldid=1166671560"