Help desk
< March 16	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 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.

March 17

05:57, 17 March 2024 review of submission by Jaclyn.v108

Jaclyn.v108 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:River Faught (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My article was declined for lacking enough references but I have quite a few, 41 total, most of which are not published by the subject. Can you please elaborate or give me any tips on how to add enough references? What else do you see that I can reference? I’ve seen other wiki pages with way fewer references than mine. Please assist. Jaclyn.v108 (talk) 05:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaclyn.v108: the sources you're citing are user-generated or otherwise of poor quality, failing both the core requirements of verifiability and notability. Meanwhile, almost the entire body text is unreferenced: the referencing only appears in the 'Filmography' and later sections. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see other stuff exists; what happens on other articles(that themselves could be problematic, and you wouldn't be aware of this) is not that relevant. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles, which have received community vetting. 331dot (talk) 08:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:47, 17 March 2024 review of submission by Vis-Techeditor

Vis-Techeditor (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Sam Beklik (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Could you please clarify exactly what you tagged for deletion on this article? The last feedback and review, in August 2023 by Johannes, suggested that the article requires stronger references and improvement in terms of its unencyclopedic tone. There is no promotion in this article. it is solely the biography of the artist. Vis-Techeditor (talk) 09:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@vis-techeditor: oh come on.

Beklik embarked on his artistic journey with a focus on photography at MTF Tehran. He further honed his skills at the International Summer Academy for Fine Arts in Salzburg, Austria. Seeking a more comprehensive artistic foundation, he pursued studies in stage and costume design, film, and exhibition architecture at Mozarteum University Salzburg.

ltb d l (talk) 11:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, ltb d l, for the feedback! But I'm still confused about how this is written in a promotional tone. Do you have any suggestions for improving this paragraph? Vis-Techeditor (talk) 13:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You declared a conflict of interest with regards to this individual, what is the general nature of the conflict? I'm just wondering if you have a marketing background and perhaps are unable to see how you are being promotional.

Language like "journey" and "honed his skills" is just promotional fluff. Articles should be written as dry and matter-of-fact as possible 331dot (talk) 13:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you 331dot for the feedback. is it now better now?

Beklik studied photography at MTF Tehran before continuing his education at the International Summer Academy for Fine Arts in Salzburg, Austria. He then pursued studies in stage and costume design, film, and exhibition architecture at Mozarteum University Salzburg. Vis-Techeditor (talk) 13:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I ask again, what is the general nature of your conflict of interest? I see that you took a picture of this individual, how do you know him?

There are still many promotional areas of the text; the last reviewer has rejected the draft and nominated it for speedy deletion. 331dot (talk) 13:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm writing as the artist's assistant, and I want to confirm that I have this photo directly from the artist. Yes i see and that makes me confused because on the last review, in August 2023 by Johannes, suggested that the article requires stronger references and improvement in terms of its unencyclopedic tone, as i did but today another reviewer has rejected the draft. is there any way to fix it? Vis-Techeditor (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; if by being his assistant you mean he employs you, the Terms of Use require you to make the paid editing disclosure, which is stricter that the COI disclosure.

You may discuss the rejection with the reviewer that rejected it, that's the first step. 331dot (talk) 14:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Vis-Techeditor (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:45, 17 March 2024 review of submission by MasterOfNone67

MasterOfNone67 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Watchlist (play) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm a first time Wikipedia page creator / editor and need assistance creating a page. Any advice on how to improve my current draft would be much appreciated. MasterOfNone67 (talk) 11:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:36, 17 March 2024 review of submission by KülTegin.Alp

KülTegin.Alp (talk · contribs)
- Draft:World Alpagut Federation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

We want to publish this page, please review the page and help if there are any errors. KülTegin.Alp (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have submitted the article for review. Please be patient.

But while you are waiting, you should do what the comment says, and remove all external links from the text.

You should also review all your cited sources against the criteria in the golden rule, and remove most of those which are not indepedent of the WAF (such as anything based on interview and press releases). Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 09:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:37, 17 March 2024 review of submission by 1Mamalujo

1Mamalujo (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Columbia 30 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm a bit confused why this article was denied based on sourcing. The type of sourcing used is typical for articles on production sailboats: owners association pages, manufacturer data, and sailboat data guides like https://sailboatdata.com, https://sailboat.guide, and https://sailboatlab.com. See this article as an example: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Columbia_34. Same sources.Now, I understand that the formatting for the citations was a bit screwy, but that can easily be fixed by an editor proficient in such things. There may be boats which sold in the thousands like the Catalina 30 which have broad press coverage, but that is not the case with most boats and most of such articles on Wikipedia. The sources cited are reliable. Most of the facts are boat spec and dimensions, matters about which owners associations, sailboat data sites, and manufacturer sites give reliable info. This isn't some controversial political subject where reported facts are controversial and varying and super rigorous sourcing is needed. It seems a shame to deny the readers an article on a boat made by a highly notable manufacturer. Also, the article was denied puportedly based on sourcing, not notability. 1Mamalujo (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not every individual model of boat merits an article. It depends on the coverage. Please see other stuff exists as to why the existence of other articles that themselves may be problematic cannot justify the addition of more inappropriate articles. Please point out these other articles so action can be taken. 331dot (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The boat was reviewed, upon its debut, in the New York Times, and noted for its "'years ahead' innovations in yacht design", citing three specific such "design breakthrough(s)". Sounds a bit more notable than just "other stuff". Thousands of production yacht models have been made. Few of them are even reviewed, much less given accolades for multiple "design breakthroughs" in one of the Anglophone world's papers of record such as the New York times. I've now cited the NYT article in the draft. 1Mamalujo (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT article reads to me as "these are the wonderful things that Tripp says he has done", not as an independent review. ColinFine (talk) 09:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:12, 17 March 2024 review of submission by Itsarnovnm

Itsarnovnm (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Arno Vanmassenhove (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Wikipedia Editorial Team,

We noticed the cancellation of our client Arno Vanmassenhove's Wikipedia page and would appreciate clarification on the decision. Arno's significant contributions to entrepreneurship and personal development warrant recognition on Wikipedia. We are eager to address any concerns and ensure the accuracy of his page.

Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,

Cris Cawley Game Changer Publishing Itsarnovnm (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, only a single person should be operating your account.

Your draft was wholly promotional and has no place on Wikipedia. If you were specifically paid to edit Wikipedia, I suggest you return his money. You have much to learn before you can write in the area of your conflict of interest. Please see WP:PROMO, WP:BIO, and Your first article. Wikipedia is not a form of recognition or means to honor someone. Our only interest is in summarizing independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]