Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 December 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< December 14 << Nov | December | Jan >> December 16 >
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.


December 15

[edit]

03:16, 15 December 2024 review of submission by Nehasrm2518

[edit]

please share advice Nehasrm2518 (talk) 03:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nehasrm2518: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:51, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:13, 15 December 2024 review of submission by WistahHoney508

[edit]

Question about needed edits for approval Hello,

My draft article for Caitlin McCarthy was recently rejected: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:Caitlin_McCarthy. Is there anything that I can add to help the approval process? The subject has many articles about her, as listed on her website www.caitlinmccarthy.com/press.

Thank you so much! WistahHoney508 (talk) 04:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WistahHoney508: your draft was declined (not rejected) because in the reviewer's assessment the sources cited do not establish notability. I won't go through all 31 (!) of them, but a quick scan finds a few user-generated sources (not considered reliable), and also a few where the link is merely pointing to a website home page, suggesting that the linked URL may not necessarily support information in this draft. If, as you say, this person's own website contains useful media coverage, you can cite them here; just make sure to cite the actual media, not her website. Also, note that such coverage must be in-depth, and about her, not written by her or with her commenting on things (such as interviews).
I must also point out that this draft is poorly referenced, with most paragraphs without a single citation. This is unacceptable in articles on living people, which have particularly strict referencing requirements. You must make sure that every material statement, and especially anything potentially contentious, any direct quotations, as well as all private personal and family details, are clearly supported by inline citations to reliable published sources (that actually verify them, per my earlier point), or else removed.
In fact, there is so much unreferenced content, eg. in the entire 'Early Life' section, that I need to ask where does all this information come from – do you have some sort of real-life relationship with this person? If so, that must be disclosed. I will post advice on this on your talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WistahHoney508 I fixed your post so the header links to your draft, you had what I think you thought was a header where the title of your draft should be. The whole url is not needed when linking to another Wikipedia page. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I'm new to this and learning. Appreciate your help! WistahHoney508 (talk) 13:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found info about early life from interviews and her mother's obituary. I don't have a real-life relationship with Caitlin McCarthy. I'm new to Wiki and learning, so I appreciate any and all advice on how to make this acceptable. I can go back and link to the actual articles with this information. Thank you! WistahHoney508 (talk) 13:03, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:21, 15 December 2024 review of submission by Pineapplebunbun

[edit]

What sources are missing for this page? Will media coverages help or by adding an external IMDb link? Thank you. Pineapplebunbun (talk) 07:21, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pineapplebunbun: we need to see sources that satisfy either the general WP:GNG or the special WP:NFILM guideline for notability. Pre-release publicity is not enough, as it's just part of the producer's marketing ramp-up, and we will not be used as a channel for that. In practice, unreleased films are hardly ever notable, so you probably need to wait a couple of months until this has been released and hopefully received some reviews. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Thank you for your reply. It's helpful. Pineapplebunbun (talk) 07:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:43, 15 December 2024 review of submission by Trishanthreddy

[edit]

How can I upload my article, I changed it 50 times but no use, and I am new joined member, please help me and accept my submission please please, I am unable to understand what you wrote. Trishanthreddy (talk) 07:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Trishanthreddy: you cannot; it has been rejected, both versions, and that's the end of the road. As I said on your talk page, you need to find some other topic to write about, as we cannot keep reviewing this over and over again. Please drop this now. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Trishanthreddy: can you please confirm that you have read what I've written on your talk page at User_talk:Trishanthreddy#Advice? I'm asking because your behaviour suggests otherwise. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:33, 15 December 2024 review of submission by Join Africa

[edit]

Pls sir I need your assistance to guide me on how to be a better editor,teach me how to edit it in a proper way,I want to learn,I will be the happiest man on earth if I know how to edit with Wikipedia Join Africa (talk) 08:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't say what specific help you are seeking. I can say that you have not shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources how this person meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician or a notable creative professional or more broadly a notable person.
Writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia. You may wish to first gain experience by editing existing articles in areas that interest you, as well as use the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:16, 15 December 2024 review of submission by User DEV 18

[edit]

My this page got rejected User DEV 18 (talk) 09:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need the "Draft:" portion when linking to your draft, I fixed this for you. Your draft was declined, not rejected, rejected would mean that you could not submit it again. Declined means you can. You have resubmitted it, and the reviewer will leave you feedback. 331dot (talk) 09:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:41, 15 December 2024 review of submission by 2409:40F0:DF:CAFA:8000:0:0:0

[edit]

My school has given me project to write a article on wikipedia about Our school, if I fail this test they don't give me good grades please accept this page or I'm gonna fail. 2409:40F0:DF:CAFA:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 09:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't responsible for assignments you have been given. Our only interest is in if our criteria is being met. I'm sorry your teacher has put you in a difficult position, but they have given you a poor assignment. Your teacher should review the Wikipedia Education Program materials to learn how to design lessons that do not put their students in a difficult position. Please show your teacher this message. 331dot (talk) 09:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your account has already been blocked. Blocks apply to you as a person, not your account, and you should appeal it instead of editing while logged out. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...as indeed I already told them.
I was trying to AGF by issuing only a short block to calm things down, but they seem determined to prove me wrong, more's the pity. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:09, 15 December 2024 review of submission by 93.161.72.99

[edit]

Had William Owen been composer to the hymn: "Lo, he comes with clouds descending"? 93.161.72.99 (talk) 11:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the messages left by reviewers, as well as the policies linked to therein. You need to format your references so they appear in line next to the text they support. 331dot (talk) 11:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:33, 15 December 2024 review of submission by Fckthewar

[edit]

I don't know why it got rejected. Fckthewar (talk) 13:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fckthewar: because Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a social media platform for some fictional clan war fancruft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:31, 15 December 2024 review of submission by Steyncham

[edit]

I feel really helpless about this : an article being resubmitted after taking into account remarks from a previous reviewer has been declined with arguments that are at least difficult to make sense of, at worst biased or unfair: -"does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article" : this is woefully unspecific,and plainly wrong for what concens this article -the article would not be neutral : the secondary sources being quoted in the first version where mostly positive, but this was not the ressult of cherry-picking, these are the only ones I found. I have added new references that provide a contrarian viepoint, but they are about ecomodernism in general rather than about WePlanet in particular -"should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources" : this is the most grossly unfair comment : there are 22 references in this draft, mostly from very well-known media such as the Guardian "avoid peacock terms that promote the subject." WHERE are there such terms???

When I resubmit, can I have the assurance that the article would be reviewed by another reviewer?? Steyncham (talk) 14:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Draft:WePlanet. I'll correct your link in a moment.
@Steyncham You have, however, created a magazine article, not a Wikipedia article. It contains glowing prose drawing conclusions. Please see WP:NOR. The article appears to me to be a brochure, an advertisement. And that means whole sentences of peacockery need to be eliminated. We require flat, neutral, dull-but-worthy prose, not advertorial.
It's a best practice not to review a draft a second time by the same reviewer, but there are exceptions to this. Have you raised your concerns with Tavantius directly? That should be your first action when not understanding a review. How can anyone else guess what was in their mind? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did raise all these issues with User:tavantius first thing, but did not get a reply Steyncham (talk) 14:55, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply, but again WHERE do you see "whole sentences of peacockery"?? Such a demeaning comment would require being more specific Steyncham (talk) 15:10, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the reviewer but "Organizations affiliated with WePlanet claim, according to their websites, to differ from the more technocentrist tendencies of ecomodernism and to be human-centered and grassroots-oriented, with a strong emphasis on fulfilling the needs of developing countries and preserving practices rooted in traditional cultures, in a sustainable and consensual way. "
Im not the most experienced editor on wikipedia but this counts as peacockery or at least too promotional Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean he ain't wrong on the "formal tone" thing
sounds like some promotional ad Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Steyncham: Note, first of all, that the reviewer comment was "not written in a formal tone", which is different from "written like an advertisement". The draft is not written like an advert. There are promotional bits, however; for instance "Advocating the benefits of technical progress for the environment, WePlanet is spearheading a trend that is gaining popularity among a new generation of green activists in northern Europe" – according to whom is WePlanet spearheading this trend, and according to whom is that a trend that is becoming more popular? The source used to support the claim is this Guardian article, but when there is an evaluative comment or claim in a Wikipedia article, it is not enough to provide a citation marker – the claim has to be attributed as well. Wikipedia can't make evaluative claims in its own voice.
It is also important to rely as little as possible on primary sources. Wikipedia is not interested in what an organisation says about itself, but in what other, independent and reliable sources have said about the org. Organisations often produce press releases which are (by definition) primary sources, and which are often reprinted in several places. This source and this source are two copies of the same press release. Only one instance could be used as a source, and only for limited purposes – see WP:PRIMARY for information about what primary sources can be used for. --bonadea contributions talk 17:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:44, 15 December 2024 review of submission by EmsterUze

[edit]

I cannot find any sources to the article EmsterUze (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about the sources, the article was rejected because it seems you are just testing how to create article, of which your sandbox is available for that. Also, Article about Wikipedia exist already. Tesleemah (talk) 14:55, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:57, 15 December 2024 review of submission by EmsterUze

[edit]

What are credible sources for UNIS Technology? EmsterUze (talk) 14:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just add some sources at least, your draft has no sources at all Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see reliable sources for more information as to what is considered a reliable source. 331dot (talk) 16:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:06, 15 December 2024 review of submission by Thehistorianisaac

[edit]

What will happen to my draft if i don't edit it in a while? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After 6 months, it will be deleted however you can retrieve it Tesleemah (talk) 15:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thank you Thehistorianisaac (talk) 16:55, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:30, 15 December 2024 review of submission by Pbioilp

[edit]

i didnt understand why my draft was declined, i would love to understand why so i can fix it Draft:Wang Ke (Singer) Pbioilp (talk) 15:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbioilp: this draft was declined for lack of evidence of notability. The sources are insufficient for establishing general notability per WP:GNG, and there is nothing in the draft to suggest the subject would satisfy WP:MUSICBIO either. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:07, 15 December 2024 review of submission by Suryapadma1

[edit]

please help writing this page this is the original telugu wiki page with sufficient links https://te.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B0%AC%E0%B1%8A%E0%B0%B2%E0%B1%8D%E0%B0%B2%E0%B1%8B%E0%B0%9C%E0%B1%81_%E0%B0%AC%E0%B0%BE%E0%B0%AC%E0%B0%BE

can somebody with more editing skills do the needful kindly Suryapadma1 (talk) 18:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That a topic is acceptable on another Wikipedia does not necessarily mean it is acceptable on this one. Please see the message left by the reviewer. Note that the phrase "do the needful" is often considered rude outside of India. 331dot (talk) 18:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:29, 15 December 2024 review of submission by Theguyfromermesinde

[edit]

Is because My draft kept on being rejected Theguyfromermesinde (talk) 18:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is completely unsourced. You failed to add sources so it was rejected. If you have sources, please see Referencing for beginners to learn how to add them. You can then ask the reviewer to reconsider. 331dot (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:18, 15 December 2024 review of submission by 54rt678

[edit]

I think that William Trump is notable because he is a big face in fighting disability stigma and he says a lot about the personality of Donald Trump 54rt678 (talk) 20:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@54rt678: the subject is notable, if multiple (3+) reliable and independent secondary sources have provided significant coverage of him. Being a "big face" (whatever that means) etc. doesn't come into it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
multiple (3+) reliable and independent secondary sources have provided significant coverage of him 54rt678 (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, cite them then, and base the article on what they say only. ColinFine (talk) 13:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:42, 15 December 2024 review of submission by 156.34.173.206

[edit]

Why did it get rejected? 

156.34.173.206 (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
well it didn't before but now it does 54rt678 (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
but if you're talking about your article I think that it is not notable 54rt678 (talk) 22:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What does that mean? Wikiwhatwhatbob (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:00, 15 December 2024 review of submission by Wikiwhatwhatbob

[edit]

Why was it rejected and now I can’t resubmit it:( Wikiwhatwhatbob (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was rejected because "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.". It just seems to be your unsourced musings, not a summary of what independent reliable sources say about the topic. 331dot (talk) 23:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:50, 15 December 2024 review of submission by 2001:D08:D8:D574:F97C:2B25:9F2D:FF97

[edit]

Why,can't you see the source I shared and the source in Google Books is not there and I can only get the source on google .if you don't believe you can check on wikipedia (SPECIAL OPERATIONS TEAM) and in the operation.you can see the operation 2001:D08:D8:D574:F97C:2B25:9F2D:FF97 (talk) 23:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I don't think any of us understood your question. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 05:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_December_15&oldid=1264712077"