Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category — List (sorting)		ShowcaseAssessmentParticipants
Talk — By subject		Reviewing instructions
Helper script		Help
desk		Backlog
drives
Nov 2023
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Wikipedia Articles for Creation help desk

  • This page is only for questions about article submissions to Wikipedia. Are you in the right place?
  • For your own security, please do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page; we are unable to provide answers via email.
  • Please keep in mind that we are all volunteers, and sometimes a reply may take a little time. Your patience is appreciated.
  • Bona fide reviewers at Articles for Creation will never contact or solicit anyone for payment to get a draft into article space, improve a draft, or restore a deleted article. If someone contacts you with such an offer, please post on this help desk page.
Click here to ask a new question.

A reviewer should soon answer your question on this page. Please check back often.
Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions
Skip to top
Skip to bottom


November 2[edit]

00:01, 2 November 2023 review of submission by Tashialala[edit]

Regarding references Tashialala (talk) 00:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

May I have advice on the press release references? I can also find other Wikipedia articles using many press release sources. Tashialala (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please read other stuff exists; the existence of inappropriate content does not mean more inappropriate content may be added. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate content to get by us. We can only address what we know about.
Press releases may be used on occasion for some purposes, but never to establish notability. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company), showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. You have only described the routine activities of the company.
If you work for this company, the Terms of Use require that to be declared, see WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 00:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

01:01, 2 November 2023 review of submission by 65.92.207.113[edit]

I would like to request help with disclosing that I am a paid editor. I thought I had followed the instructions but the reviewer said that it wasn't there. Does the paid editor disclosure go on the article or my user page? Thank you for your time. 65.92.207.113 (talk) 01:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you forgot to log in before posting. You should place the disclosure on your user page. 331dot (talk) 01:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

10:42, 2 November 2023 review of submission by 185.169.74.90[edit]

Hello! This draft was rejected because of unadequate reliable sources. I was wondering more specifically what this is referring to? Many parts are clearly referenced with links to different sources. Which parts are problematic? Is it a problem that some sources are in Swedish?

I'm hoping to improve the draft and submit it again, because Professor Arrhenius is a very internationally known and distinguished philosopher within the field of population ethics, climate ethics and moral philosophy. 185.169.74.90 (talk) 10:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sources can be in Swedish, they don't have to be in English.
I don't know if this is the reason the reviewer had in mind, but my issue with this draft is that there is information which isn't supported, eg. the DOB and the second half of the middle paragraph. You say "many parts are clearly referenced", but it should be that all parts are clearly referenced, especially as this is a draft on a living person (WP:BLP). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

12:05, 2 November 2023 review of submission by Aniruddh17895[edit]

Sorry but i have written summary wrong now i have written it right please publish this page 

Aniruddh17895 (talk) 12:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your one line of text with no reliable sources has no chance at being an article, and was correctly rejected. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is a place to summarize what independent reliable sources say about a person, not what they say about themselves, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. If you want to tell the world about yourself, you should use social media. 331dot (talk) 12:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

12:18, 2 November 2023 review of submission by Alleycat1995[edit]

Hello! I am writing this because I was hoping that I could have some additional feedback with what meeting the requirements given in the rejection information would look like. The feedback that stood out to me was "Two solid sources from the same time period, but no obvious on-going coverage or impact." Can this please be expanded on? Thank you and have a good day! Alleycat1995 (talk) 12:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are lacking in reliable sources that discuss the use of this term. 331dot (talk) 12:41, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

13:40, 2 November 2023 review of submission by FactsThatFlourish[edit]

Hi, I'd like to contain the section "Sources, notes and other references" in a grey box but can't figure out a way to do this. Any help would be much appreciated. Many thanks. FactsThatFlourish (talk) 13:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@FactsThatFlourish: why would you do that? Pretty sure that wouldn't be compliant with the WP:Manual of Style. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your quick reply. If it's not compliant, I'll simply leave it as it is FactsThatFlourish (talk) 14:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

15:45, 2 November 2023 review of submission by Tmedia12[edit]

This page is redirected on many media pages I have seen. Hence I tried to improve it but I think it didn’t worked. Subsequently need help to improve this article and get it reviewed. Thanks Tmedia12 (talk) 15:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tmedia12: this draft was declined for lack of notability. The sources provide coverage of the various programmes, with only passing mentions of the company. We need to see significant coverage of the company itself, in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @DoubleGrazing hope you are well. I have revised the citations as per my knowledge. Added citations more specific about the company. Additionally can you help to improve the article? Just have a look and please let me know if its ready to be reviewed. I also noticed one major thing missing about this company about its Producer. His page is also not available on Wikipedia. Do you want me to create that? Will that support this article in more better way? Do let me know. Thanks Tmedia12 (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tmedia12: if you feel you have adequately addressed the earlier decline reason(s), then you're welcome to resubmit the draft.
Having an article on the producer in no way affects the chances of this draft being accepted. In any case, if you mean Guroudev Bhalla, then there already exists a draft on him at Draft:Guroudev Bhalla. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

16:30, 2 November 2023 review of submission by Wisest Arab[edit]

Hello , i would like to ask for assistance on this biography. i tried to cut all the not reliable sources.. and it is still rejected, also i tried to rely on good and confident sources such as Scout.org.. i will be thankful if you can help me. thank you Wisest Arab (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rejected means that there is nothing more that you can do- it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 16:35, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is your relationship with Mr. Abdulmonem? (since you took a picture of him) 331dot (talk) 16:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

17:12, 2 November 2023 review of submission by 77.39.234.178[edit]

Thank you for your response. It's indeed a wonderful feeling to contribute to the growth of this encyclopedia. I've made the modifications to the article based on your comment, "You've shown that The Fast Guide to Architectural Form is probably notable, but what about his other books?...." To begin, I've added information about the second book that holds scientific importance. I've corrected the article, but I'm unsure whether it has already been rejected or is still under review. I'd like to know if, in the event of rejection, I will receive further feedback to understand whether I haven't delved enough into the sources or if there's another reason. Additionally, if I'm making any mistakes in the publication process, I'd appreciate guidance on the correct path to follow, as I have several entries related to architecture that I'd like to contribute. In the meantime, thank you, and keep up the good work. 77.39.234.178 (talk) 17:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi IP, I am assuming you are the User George Taylor Bown? If so, please remember to sign into your account. You successfully resubmitted the draft so it is pending which may take some time but yes, if it is declined again you will get feedback. Likewise, if it is accepted you will be notified. S0091 (talk) 18:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

17:15, 2 November 2023 review of submission by Daisy Dhakre[edit]

Please provide assistant to resolve the issue. Daisy Dhakre (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is nothing you can do, the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. 331dot (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

17:44, 2 November 2023 review of submission by SerenityCoxFan[edit]

Wondering what I keep doing wrong? SerenityCoxFan (talk) 17:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further; prior reviews must remain on the draft. You did not demonstrate that she passes the notability criteria, and your sources do not offer significant coverage of her.
What is your association with her, since you took a picture of her? 331dot (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

17:53, 2 November 2023 review of submission by Lj alta[edit]

The editor said that the submission wasn't notable since the source weren't the ones he/she provided as examples. However, looking at comparable pages The LaSallian and The Guidon, the sources are similar in nature. Lj alta (talk) 17:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lj alta, an acceptable Wikipedia article summarizes what reliable sources that are entirely independent of the topic say about the topic. Your draft contains no such references to independent sources. As for the other articles, perhaps they should be deleted. Do not base your draft on poor quality articles. Cullen328 (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lj alta: the sources are three cites of the publication's own website, and one of Scribd (which is user-generated), none of which contribute towards notability per WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

18:40, 2 November 2023 review of submission by Wearefromjersey[edit]

Hi, I wanted to reach out and see if I could get clarification - while I understand why my submission keeps getting denied, I can't help bring this to your attention. I have looked at other independent labels' Wikipedia sites as a reference as to what to correct and they have nearly the SAME reference sources and they are approved. Please refer to Fat Wreck Chords: Fat Wreck Chords You can also refer to Hopeless Records as well: Hopeless Records Please advise, thanks. Wearefromjersey (talk) 18:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See other poor quality articles exist. Their own website’ interviews, press releases and Spotify are not independent sources, Facebook is not reliable. Theroadislong (talk) 18:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If that is the case, what is the protocol then to escalate to have these pages removed. All pages should follow the same guidelines. Wearefromjersey (talk) 19:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not seeing poor quality sources in those articles though? You have used their own website’ interviews, press releases, Facebook and Spotify which are are not independent reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The preferred term is articles, not the broader "pages", this may affect your mindset. Please see Articles for Deletion to learn about how you can propose articles for deletion. I would highly advise you to learn more about Wikipedia guidelines like notability and sourcing before you attempt doing so, or you risk your requests being declined quickly. 331dot (talk) 19:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks so much for your help, I think I realized what I'm doing wrong with the links running through their website. I will find and source the original interviews from the media sources directly and remove Facebook and Spotify as sources as well. Thanks again for all the info! Wearefromjersey (talk) 19:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

19:18, 2 November 2023 review of submission by Mitch199811[edit]

Is there any way I can speed up the publishing process for articles with redirects. I am confident in that it is a fine article and have even gotten approval from a more experienced editor; the one thing slowing me down is that I don't know what to do with a redirect. ✶Mitch199811✶ 19:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you mean that you are confident that the draft would survive in mainspace, and you would move it there but for the existing redirect Hurricane Tammy, then you can request a Technical Move. See WP:RM#T. ColinFine (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

19:46, 2 November 2023 review of submission by IndieSaer[edit]

My draft submission for the lost synth-pop song "Everyone Knows That" was rejected without an explanation. Could you please explain to my why my submission was rejected? IndieSaer (talk) 19:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IndieSaer I fixed your link for proper functionality.(it lacked the "Draft:") The reviewer did leave a reason: "The topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia". 331dot (talk) 19:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. IndieSaer (talk) 19:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

21:54, 2 November 2023 review of submission by BooBoo314159[edit]

Hello,

The draft has been declined with the rationale that the cited sources are not enough to support the content of the article (WP:OR). But I believe all I wrote there can be found in these sources so I am confused.

Could someone help me identify what part is not supported by the sources I cite? Or maybe should I use the sources differently throughout the article?

Thank you for you help BooBoo314159 (talk) 21:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@BooBoo314159 Your first sport of call is to ask the reviewer who declined this. You have a right to understand their reasoning. If that fails, and it should not, please come back here, ideally to this thread, and add to it. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

22:10, 2 November 2023 review of submission by Privinsathy[edit]

I need to create an article for my company. can help to create a good article. Privinsathy (talk) 22:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Privinsathy No, you do not.
If you are a staff member and have been instructed to create an article by your employer, please refer them to WP:PAID. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

22:42, 2 November 2023 review of submission by Skipharris[edit]

I am somewhat new to your processes. I am proposing to replace an existing page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Smith_(surgeon)) with new and more comprehensive material. I have saved my work as a draft and am editing the work now. Once I finalize the new material, how should I send it to you, specifically, how should I note that this is a proposed replacement for an existing entry? Thanks! Skipharris (talk) 22:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Skipharris Please do 'not submit this draft for approval. It will be declined with the firm suggestion that you merge it into the existing article.
Do you have a relationship, business or personal, with Smith? We need the answer to this question before further advice can be given 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Got it. I think. My only relationship with the long-deceased Dr. Smith is my upcoming 400-page biography on him. I was intending to improve your entry, not to promote the book. This is a great deal of work and I could use some advice on how to make it work for you. 2601:500:8784:5E50:7C97:B0C8:76C:34F4 (talk) 00:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

23:07, 2 November 2023 review of submission by 2600:1008:B0A7:F720:973:4B19:EED0:EE2D[edit]

Why is my page being denied ? I don't understand 2600:1008:B0A7:F720:973:4B19:EED0:EE2D (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Asking this, here, is your sole contribution. Question is an article. Draft:Question does not exist. More information please? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

November 3[edit]

00:08, 3 November 2023 review of submission by ReneOliver23[edit]

Please what else do I need to add ReneOliver23 (talk) 00:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your draft was rejected, meaning it won't be considered further. You had no sources to establish notabiliyty. NotAGenious (talk) 05:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

00:23, 3 November 2023 review of submission by Madison.y[edit]

Hi my article has not been accepted, can anyone help me to correct it ? Madison.y (talk) 00:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Madison.y it seems many of the sources are interviews which are not independent so cannot be used to establish notability. See also the notability guidelines for artists. Generally for artists you need critical reviews of their work from reputable publications (ArtForum, major newspapers like the Los Angeles Times, etc.) or to demonstrate they have had solo shows at major galleries or museum, etc. S0091 (talk) 15:04, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

10:30, 3 November 2023 review of submission by Lin Htet Wah Wah[edit]

Notable Achievements: Hla Hla Win has achieved notable recognition and awards for her work in the field of education and social entrepreneurship. Her receipt of the Digital Innovation Award and the Netexplo Innovation Award is a testament to her significant contributions.

Impactful Education Reform: She has been instrumental in reforming the education system in Myanmar and Southeast Asian nations. Her pioneering use of augmented reality and virtual reality technologies to enhance learning experiences is groundbreaking and deserves acknowledgment.

Inspirational Journey: Hla Hla Win's personal journey, from her struggles as a student in the traditional Myanmar education system to her scholarship at Harvard University and subsequent entrepreneurial success, is an inspiring story that can motivate others.

Social Entrepreneurship: As the CEO of 360ed, she has demonstrated the potential of social entrepreneurship to create positive change in society. Her work showcases how innovative technologies can be harnessed for social impact.

Impact on a Vulnerable Population: Her efforts to continue providing education during challenging times, such as the military coup in Myanmar, demonstrate her unwavering commitment to serving vulnerable and underserved populations, particularly children in conflict areas.

Global Relevance: Hla Hla Win's work and mission extend beyond national borders, aligning with global trends in education and technology. Her ideas and solutions hold promise for improving education in other developing communities and countries worldwide.

Recognition by Reputable Organizations: Her acknowledgment by organizations like the World Economic Forum's Schwab Foundation and UNESCO reflects the international recognition of her contributions.

Educational Policy and Innovation: Hla Hla Win's academic background in educational policy and innovation, combined with her practical application of these concepts, makes her a notable figure in the field.

Documented Information: There is a significant amount of credible and verifiable information available about Hla Hla Win's life, achievements, and contributions, making her a suitable subject for a Wikipedia page.

Educational Resources: A Wikipedia page would serve as an educational resource, providing information about the innovative use of technology in education and the potential of social entrepreneurship to bring about change. Lin Htet Wah Wah (talk) 10:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Lin Htet Wah Wah: I don't see a question anywhere in that. In any case, this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. It is also pending speedy deletion, and if you wish to contest that, you need to do that on the draft's talk page, as the attending administrator will not be looking here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

10:42, 3 November 2023 review of submission by Stdedos[edit]

I don't understand what is the problem with my submission. It is a translation from https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astu_(Unix), with fixed links.

How can I get more reliable sources from a copyrighted material? Stdedos (talk) 10:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Stdedos. The French and English Wikipedias are different projects with different standards and guidelines. The English Wikipedia certainly has the most strict content criteria.
For articles about software, check WP:NSOFTWARE which explains what we need to see in a draft. Your draft has a single reference from blogspot, so it doesn't pass the notability requirements. May I suggest you add some of your article content to the existing Mr Robot article instead? Qcne (talk) 10:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The page I tried to translate is the only "crawled" reference that comes up when searching "astu" at Google (some 1.5y ago)
Current results look like this (https://pasteboard.co/fJiY7bNH18xv.png)
Naturally, a more-established domain to store knowledge makes it more worthy.
I am not sure what would make sense including in the main Mr. Robot page, from a small piece that "quickly" describes a fictional command. Stdedos (talk) 11:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mm, sorry but Reddit, Twitter, YCombinator, Blogs etc and such don't count as reliable sources.
Perhaps this simply isn't a topic that is notable enough for Wikipedia. Qcne (talk) 11:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

11:01, 3 November 2023 review of submission by 2001:14BB:A0:2383:7A:628:2AFF:DD0B[edit]

I don't understand why my article keeps getting declined. I possibly need help with making it comply to Wikipedia's rules and standards or someone to explain which parts are not acceptable.

There already exists a few non-english articles of the same software (article) and other UML tools have their own article pages so it shouldn't be a problem to create one for this specific software also. 

2001:14BB:A0:2383:7A:628:2AFF:DD0B (talk) 11:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ps. Forgot to post this question as a logged in user. I haven't contacted the people who have declined the submission before, so I'll try that also. And it seems English wikipedia has stricter standards compared to most other languages. Tapioviina (talk) 11:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Tapioviina. Yes indeed, the English Wikipedia has the strictest content guidelines. The other language are all separate projects with different guidelines and standards.
Looking at your draft, I would suggest the issue is that most of the sources used are WP:PRIMARY, with then some insignificant coverage in secondary sources (like installation tutorials). We would need to see significant coverage in multiple (usually at least three) secondary sources that are reliable and indepednent of the topic. Qcne (talk) 11:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

12:36, 3 November 2023 review of submission by Loreta Chilingaryan[edit]

Hi, my draft article has just been rejected. I want to know the reason of the rejection, so that I can improve it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:SARD_Anti-Cheat Loreta Chilingaryan (talk) 12:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Loreta Chilingaryan. Your article was declined, not rejected. Rejected means you wouldn't be able to re-submit. Your draft relies on two primary sources: we would need to see significant coverage in multiple (usually at least three) secondary sources that are reliable and independent of the software in order for this draft to pass the WP:NSOFTWARE guidelines. Qcne (talk) 13:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
okay, thank you very much for clarification Loreta Chilingaryan (talk) 13:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

12:38, 3 November 2023 review of submission by ParnassusAward[edit]

Dear Friends, Could you please help me to edit and submit an article about my favorite writer Valerian Markarov? I will highly appreciate your support. ParnassusAward (talk) 12:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @ParnassusAward. A few issues:
- you included copyrighted text in your draft. This is strictly prohibited and will likely lead to your draft being deleted. You must paraphrase or summarise the sources you use, do not copy them.
- you have zero references and no in-line citations. Biographies of living people must be fully sourced. See the tutorial at WP:INTREFVE.
- you have not proven that Valerian has passed the WP:NAUTHOR criteria. Only authors who pass that criteria may have an article written about them. You can prove notability by following the guidelines on that page.
- you have some tone issues, i.e. "recognizes talented, famous, and successful writers of the world, whose high-spirited, bright, and noble works promote the universal values that unite peoples and make our world better, such as humanism, peace, kindness, justice, and love" and "While his loving and caring mother taught her son lessons of kindness and morality, Valerian's father introduced him to the wonderful world of art and literature". This type of language is completely inappropriate for an encyclopaedia which must be written in a neutral, dry, voice. See WP:NPOV.
Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 13:09, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

14:40, 3 November 2023 review of submission by Iamsekar[edit]

How can I insert the reliable source for this article Iamsekar (talk) 14:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Iamsekar: for advice on referencing, see WP:REFB. As for what you should be citing, this would be the source that has provided the information in question. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

18:07, 3 November 2023 review of submission by 223.123.6.22[edit]

Why this article is not approving or delayed to approved from Wikipedia Editors. 223.123.6.22 (talk) 18:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi IP, I declined the draft again. Please read through all the links provided in the gray box along with my comments. S0091 (talk) 19:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

18:08, 3 November 2023 review of submission by Dance27[edit]

why ? I added a citation. Dance27 (talk) 18:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's just WP:SPAM? Qcne (talk) 18:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dance27: Usually multiple independent and reliable sources are needed. Regardless of sources, the page you have is blatantly promotional and would never be accepted as an article even if its subject met notability guidelines. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
it is not promotional at all. did you read it ? Dance27 (talk) 18:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's written completely inappropriately, not at all suitable for Wikipedia. Qcne (talk) 18:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
what's so, "inappropriate", about ? I can fix it to make it acceptable. 184.99.59.14 (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can't fix it, as the draft has been rejected and I will not consider it further.
o Qcne (talk) 18:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dance27: Language like "the story of how Lil GAT became a Christian Artist is amazing," is promotional. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
that's not promotional at all. it's telling my personal story. if you knew me, you would truly be amazed. 184.99.59.14 (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only 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. ColinFine (talk) 11:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do not re-submit. I have rejected. It will not be considered further. Qcne (talk) 18:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

18:16, 3 November 2023 review of submission by Aminulzisan[edit]

I want to publish this article but it's not being published for some reason can you tell me why please? Aminulzisan (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Aminulzisan I've rejected your draft because it is just spam. Wikipedia is not to be used for promotion. Just get a LinkedIn or something. The draft will soon be deleted. Qcne (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lol why it's a biography of myself. And how others getting on Wikipedia isn't that promotion? Aminulzisan (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is spam and will soon be deleted. Please go elsewhere to promote yourself. Qcne (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

19:03, 3 November 2023 review of submission by Llightex[edit]

Hi! I wanted to check to learn more about how I can improve this draft. The AfC request was declined because "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people)." In the submission, I included several sources that were independent of the subject and included significant coverage of the article subject. Could you provide more guidance as to why those sources were insufficient and what kinds of sources / coverage would be better to add? Copying @AirshipJungleman29: in case you have any insights as well! (thanks for your review) Llightex (talk) 19:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Llightex, my reasoning was as follows: the duplicate citations 2 and 4, along with 5 and 6, are non-independent, as they are published by the article subject's employer and thus fall under WP:COISOURCE. As for the others, citations 5 and 7 do not provide significant ccoverage, and citation 1 fails to meet WP:NBASIC—it has plagiarized text from the non-independent citations 2/4, which can be seen to have existed since 2020. Hope that helps. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! Llightex (talk) 19:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

19:26, 3 November 2023 review of submission by Yeszzzz[edit]

Hello dear staffs, I want to ask you guys if you can check my draft and maybe submit it and make it an article please, because I give reliable cites and informations, and I’m trying to improve my nation, thank you. Yeszzzz (talk) 19:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Yeszzzz you have already resubmitted the draft so it is pending review which may take while. S0091 (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know but will it be accepted this time because I’ve provided all the reliable and accurate informations. Yeszzzz (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You will discover the answer to that when a reviewer chooses to review the draft. Please be patient. ColinFine (talk) 11:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

20:08, 3 November 2023 review of submission by MagicN7[edit]

I'm wondering why this article has been declined. Do I just need more independent sources? MagicN7 (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @MagicN7. Articles about academics need to show that they pass the WP:NACADEMIC criteria. Are you able to prove that Jared passes one of the criteria in that link? If so, make a note on the article stating which he passes and resubmit. Or let me know which you think he passes here and I or another reviewer can have another look. Qcne (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you @Qcne. He does pass 3, and I'll give proof and resubmit. MagicN7 (talk) 20:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

20:32, 3 November 2023 review of submission by 223.123.1.80[edit]

I made more better to this article and made it simple to read.Please accept it. 223.123.1.80 (talk) 20:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The draft has been rejected so will no longer be considered. See also User talk:Nnn edits. S0091 (talk) 20:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


November 4[edit]

00:24, 4 November 2023 review of submission by MaryGrace0101[edit]

The submission I've created for Charles J. Orlando, from my limited experience and standpoint, does pass notability. So many entries I've read that purportedly "pass" notability are *obviously* paid entries and promotional. Whereas what I've written has clear, notable citations, and mainstream sources. I'm unclear what is not passing. (Disclosure: I'm not affiliated with the subject of this entry. Yes, I've followed him and read his books but that shouldn't equate to my being a shill.) I would welcome advise as to why this is rejected in its current draft. MaryGrace0101 (talk) 00:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MaryGrace0101 If you have actual evidence that an article was created by an undisclosed paid editor in violation of WP:PAID, please follow the instructions provided in that policy.
Your sources either do not mention Mr. Orlando or are interviews with him. Neither establishes notability, which is why the draft was rejected. 331dot (talk) 00:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

01:57, 4 November 2023 review of submission by MadBlade 2[edit]

Because I'm still new to wikipedia, and really don't know how to make Wikipedia well, I really want to know what stuff do I need for my Hank Parker racing Wikipedia. MadBlade 2 (talk) 01:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My advice to you is to spend a few weeks or months working on improving existing articles while you learn how Wikipedia works. Writing a new article before you have learnt the basics is like buying an instrument you've never played before and going busking with it: you're likely to have a miserable time.
In particular, until you've learnt about notability and the golden rule, you're never going to be able to create an article successfully.
What's wrong with your draft is that there is not a single reference with significant coverage. Never mind the results - where has somebody, wholly unconnected with Hank Parker Racing, written in depth about them? If the answer is, nowhere, then they do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and you shouldn't spend any more time on this. ColinFine (talk) 11:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

03:12, 4 November 2023 review of submission by Benking84[edit]

Hi,

I have been trying to get this published for a while now, at first it was not enough sources I now have 33 sources, then the sources were not of high enough quality which I also fixed by finding reputable news sources.

The most recent one is that it sounded like an advert which I fixed, Chat GPT did half the work and I fixed the rest.

Now the latest comment is that it is worse than before? Can you provide any specifics on how? It definitely sounds less like an advert. I have found other new articles with minimal refererences and am confused how these get through but this article cannot? Benking84 (talk) 03:12, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

03:16, 4 November 2023 review of submission by MagicN7[edit]

@Wingwatchers Thanks for looking at the article. I am a little confused by your comment. Aren't I showing notability by the third criterion of WP:NACADEMIC by showing he is an AMS fellow (less than 1800 all time) and a Simons fellow of math (less than 500 all time)? And which source is not reliable? MagicN7 (talk) 03:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MagicN7 I think this is notable under WP:NACADEMIC. That criteria is a special criteria that is distinct from WP:NPEOPLE, and I've certainly made the mistake of forgetting to check if an academic passes that criteria even if they don't seem to pass WP:NPEOPLE. As such, I've accepted the draft. Qcne (talk) 12:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

03:42, 4 November 2023 review of submission by Bobztv[edit]

Has anyone gained any benefit from using gold seal shilajit, i.e,the disappearance of brain fog,mind set,focus,etc.etc.... Bobztv (talk) 03:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That draft has been deleted. Missbellanash (talk) 05:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

08:58, 4 November 2023 review of submission by Sulohia[edit]

Hello. Not sure why the reliability of the sources are being challenged? The references mention multiple leading newspapers in India, including the Times of India which is the largest english newspaper in the world. The references also has links to both Dhirubhai Ambani school which is a leading school in India, and Sevenoaks School which is a leading school in UK. The articles talk about championship victories as well as top 3 podium finishes which are factual in nature. The AI Chess tool that has been made has been covered prolifically in the media and also analysed in detail by Chessbase India which is the largest Chess website in the world. These are all very trust sources and I dont think reliability of these sources should be doubted. I have made more edits now, and added a few more press articles and references. I hope the submission wil be reviewed favourably now. Sulohia (talk) 08:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Times of India is not the best source to be using, see WP:TOI. Interviews and brief mentions do not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 09:12, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sulohia: please note that per WP:BLP, all private personal and family details must be clearly supported by reliable published sources, or else removed. Just because you know the person's DOB or family members' names, thanks to your close relationship, isn't enough; they must be verifiable from publications. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

09:45, 4 November 2023 review of submission by Virgobeach[edit]

how do i remove approved drafts from my sandbox Virgobeach (talk) 09:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Virgobeach: you shouldn't have to. When a draft is approved, it gets moved to the main article space. Often what's left behind is a redirect (as appears to be the case also in User:Virgobeach/sandbox), but you can delete that just by blanking the contents or replacing them with your next draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
wonderful thanks DoubleGrazing, Virgobeach Virgobeach (talk) 09:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

17:07, 4 November 2023 review of submission by Turtle Monarch[edit]

Review this article again please, new information was discovered about this man. A picture of him is yet to be found. Turtle Monarch (talk) 17:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We don't accept nonsense or joke drafts. Edward-Woodrow • talk 17:17, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

20:51, 4 November 2023 review of submission by KannappaSara9[edit]

I have submitted the draft again with proper references and citations. Wanted to know whether it is submitted or not. KannappaSara9 (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@KannappaSara9 you successfully submitted it (see Draft:Tennis Premier League) and it is pending review. S0091 (talk) 20:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

20:57, 4 November 2023 review of submission by TheEvilDrRyley[edit]

I need help removing a reference from this page that was added accidentally TheEvilDrRyley (talk) 20:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@TheEvilDrRyley you have a few references bunched up under the References section but they should be placed next the specific content they are supporting. If those are errors, just click on the footnote number, hit delete, then publish changes. S0091 (talk) 21:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

21:03, 4 November 2023 review of submission by BiGGPanTheRIndia[edit]

How we need to edit the topic. We need to have a topic on calculation of energy requirement of a house BiGGPanTheRIndia (talk) 21:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@BiGGPanTheRIndia the draft was rejected so will not be considered. See also WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:PROMO. S0091 (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

22:00, 4 November 2023 review of submission by 191.81.167.26[edit]

sorry, but these comments are, like most of the comments I've received, garbage. You claim that the article has not undergone significant revisions. That is false. You claim that the article is not written in a neutral tone. That is false. You've rejected the article now on the grounds that the subject isn't sufficiently notable, whereas previous editors already had accepted it as sufficiently notable--and they were right to do so: a WWII vet decorated by not one but two heads of state (the Queen of England and the President of Czechoslovakia) is, indeed, sufficiently notable. Stop being obstructionist; provide some halfway decent feedback that actually tells me what you want me to fix, in concrete terms, not some vague obstructionist nonsense about writing essays (a previous comment told me that the article was written like a CV; I changed that--and now I'm told it reads like an essay. Apparently you don't know what an essay is if you think that Wikipedia doesn't include essays on significant subjects as entries. Every encyclopedia does so). 191.81.167.26 (talk) 22:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

None of your citations have been formatted correctly, and there are no inline citations so we cannot see which citation supports any of the content, the subject may well be notable but you have to make the effort to show that. See WP:REFB for help with correctly formatting your sources. Theroadislong (talk) 22:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

22:16, 4 November 2023 review of submission by Sayednaz[edit]

I need assistance on the article to be published. What do I need to include for this page as a minimum, so that, after publishing I will be continuingly working on this page. Sayednaz (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For a start you need to suggest why they are notable in their own right, notability cannot be inherited from relations. Theroadislong (talk) 22:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sayednaz please read through all linked material in the gray box of the decline message. You need to show the subject is notable, keeping in mind the for Wikipedia WP:notability is not inherited so who their father or siblings are matters not. S0091 (talk) 22:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

23:02, 4 November 2023 review of submission by BARTINLI[edit]

Help me for create Bartınspor page please BARTINLI (talk) 23:02, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

23:58, 4 November 2023 review of submission by Catleeball[edit]

Hi team,

I translated the article from French to English at Draft:Hervé Koubi. The English draft was rejected as insufficiently noteworthy, though.

Do you know if this is intentional for translations of pages? E.g. could a page in one language be sufficiently notable, but not in another language? Or was this a mistake?

Thank you! Catleeball (talk) 23:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Catleeball. Each language version of Wikipedia has its own set of policies and guidelines. Accordingly, you cannot assume that a translation of an article in one Wikipedia will be accepted in the English Wikipedia. You can find more information at WP:TRANSLATE. Cullen328 (talk) 00:39, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Understood, thank you for clarifying! Catleeball (talk) 03:18, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


November 5[edit]

01:07, 5 November 2023 review of submission by CayDyn5[edit]

I don't understand why it's violating copywrite CayDyn5 (talk) 01:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You took the content directly from their website. A Wikipedia article should summarize what independent reliable sources say about the topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia defintion of notability. 331dot (talk) 07:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

01:21, 5 November 2023 review of submission by Wikilover3509[edit]

I have added multiple independent references for notability. How to submit this article for publishing? Wikilover3509 (talk) 01:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is nothing that you can do- the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. If something has fundamentally changed since the last review, the first step is to appeal to the reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 07:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

06:14, 5 November 2023 review of submission by MferrariACWA[edit]

Hi, I would appreciate some guidance on how to improve the quality of citations in this article. MferrariACWA (talk) 06:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You need independent reliable sources with significant coverage of him; the sources you have currently are just brief biographies of him and descriptions of his activities. "Significant coverage" is that which goes beyond just describing what he does or his existence and goes into detail about what the source sees as important/significant/influential about him- what we term notability. 331dot (talk) 07:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

13:41, 5 November 2023 review of submission by 2600:4041:5972:F900:BC2A:D727:E32A:6B09[edit]

Hello I received a denial of the article on the reason that the references are not related to the subject. This must be a mistake....For example if one clicks on one of the references https://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6384/62.full.pdf immediately the Science magazine article that has "Fractional Chern Insulator" in the title appears. Same with the other references. If one googles the first set of 3 papers referenced in the article

T. Neupert, L. Santos, C. Chamon, and C. Mudry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 236804 (2011); D. N. Sheng, Z.-C. Gu, K. Sun, and L. Sheng, Nature Communications 2, 389 (2011); N. Regnault and B. A. Bernevig, Phys. Rev. X 1, 021014 (2011)

one immediately sees they have around 2000 citations altogether (in google scholar) and they contain fractional chern insulators.

So i have no idea why the reviewer says the article contains no published sources!!! There are many science, nature, phys rev letters and other well known journals in the references

please respond as quickly as possible.

thanks 

2600:4041:5972:F900:BC2A:D727:E32A:6B09 (talk) 13:41, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see where the reviewer says that "the references are not related to the subject".
But putting that aside, you're citing 12 sources, but only two are available online, is that really the case? Of course, offline sources are acceptable, but it would make the reviewer's job much easier if you could point to online versions which almost certainly exist for some or all of those sources.
And if you are going to cite offline sources, then you must provide sufficient details to enable them to be reliable identified and verified. In most of these, the papers' titles aren't even mentioned, and generally the information is quite patchy. Journals should be cited specifically using the {{Cite journal}} template, populating the parameters as fully as possible. And please, do not expect reviewers, or for that matter later readers, to Google your sources, they should be made available without any such additional steps. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:03, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As a reviewer can I ask what "phys rev letters" are? Theroadislong (talk) 14:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

14:54, 5 November 2023 review of submission by Aw.griffioen[edit]

This page is rejected because of lack of reliable sources. I am afraid this is a mistake. iBoost technology has been described in detail in a paper in the journal Vaccine (2018) and several follow-up scientific papers, including one in Nature Communications, have been published. In addition, iBoost technology is currently very popular, as clinical studies using the technology are planned to strart. If this is not tracable and reliable enough, please let me know what sources I could add to improve the page. Aw.griffioen (talk) 14:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes it is a mistake your draft was NOT rejected, it was declined, which means you can still work on and bring it up to standard and re-submit, please note that being "popular" is not a valid criteria for inclusion. Theroadislong (talk) 15:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) @Aw.griffioen: Fortunately for you, the draft was only declined not rejected. This means you can resubmit it once you fix the issues. Johannes Maximilian, the reviewer asked in a comment for you to not cite predatory journals. I haven't checked all the sources yet, but I assume this is the issue. Edward-Woodrow • talk 15:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

15:16, 5 November 2023 review of submission by Qemorio[edit]

Hi, I am just wondering why the article was rejected. I am sure I can fix the issues if I know what the issues are. If this is posted somewhere and I have missed it I sincerely apologize. Thank you so much for your time. Qemorio (talk) 15:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Qemorio: firstly, your draft was just declined, not rejected. Rejection provides no option to resubmit the draft. You, on the other hand, can fix any problems are resubmit for further review by clicking the blue Resubmit button on the pink box at the top of the draft.
The draft was declined by Vanderwaalforces, and the decline reason is listed in the grey box. It's a standard decline reason that basically says the topic has not yet shown to be "notable".

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

I hope this helps. Cheers, Edward-Woodrow • talk 15:22, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the clarification (rejected/declined) and information on what qualifies as "notable" I will update and resubmit. Qemorio (talk) 15:44, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

17:04, 5 November 2023 review of submission by Technobabylon[edit]

Hello - Thank you for your feedback. I understand that the reason for rejection of the article is that sources which were not independent and secondary were used. Please could you kindly help point out which articles and references are not compliant with Wikipedia policies exactly? The main first 4 references which are used to describe the subject are ERMC website, World Economic Forum, National University of Singapore and Streamly, none of which were written by the subject. The remainder of the references are just a list publications made by the subject and have no bearing on the description of the subject. Therefore I am really confused as to why this draft is not compliant. Appreciate your kind advice and help. Regards, Technobabylon Technobabylon (talk) 17:04, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Technobabylon anything written by him is a primary source which is not useful so I suggest removing all those sources. A short list of his publications is fine though (around 5-7 of his most notable works based on reviews by reputable critics/publications). What is needed are secondary independent sources that have written in-depth about him or about his work. Also, if you are affiliated with him, you need to declare your conflict of interest. If you have any financial relationship (client, employer, etc.), you need to follow WP:PAID. S0091 (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

17:32, 5 November 2023 review of submission by MarvDjEng[edit]

Can I set the article "free to edit" in another way than it currently is for everyone so maybe together we can achieve to add what is currrently maybe missing? MarvDjEng (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @MarvDjEng. Any Wikipedia article that isn't protected is free to be edited by anyone already, including your draft.
However, us volunteer editors don't usually edit drafts and we don't have a co-editing service. It is up to you to improve the draft and prove notability. Qcne (talk) 17:37, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anyone can edit a draft, but generally drafts are only found by people who already know they exist. 331dot (talk) 19:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. I was thinking of reacjing out directly to people in the bodybuilding subgenre of Wikipedia. I am not looking to "outsource" work but rather to find likeminded people who, together, find the best version that we can get. I just want to make sure it is not against some kind of privacy to do so... MarvDjEng (talk) 21:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was going to suggest you post on WT:WikiProject Bodybuilding, but I see that that project is listed as inactive, so there may not be many people watching it (fewer than 30 people have that on their watchlist). Not sure if there might be another WikiProject that is relevant and ore active? ColinFine (talk) 16:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MarvDjEng try WT:WikiProject Sports, which is the parent project to WikiProject Bodybuilding and is active. There are no privacy or other issues with soliciting help and anyone is welcome to edit drafts. S0091 (talk) 16:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

19:07, 5 November 2023 review of submission by Igreo[edit]

I have inserted and corrected what was highlighted. What more can you do to avoid making another mistake? Do you consider it encyclopedic enough? And in your opinion, is the draft well written? Thank you so much. Igreo (talk) 19:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Igreo if you want another review, please resubmit the draft and a reviewer will take look. We generally do not do pre-reviews. S0091 (talk) 19:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

22:56, 5 November 2023 review of submission by SSEKYANZI FREDERIC OFFICIAL[edit]

help me to upload my docments SSEKYANZI FREDERIC OFFICIAL (talk) 22:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. Please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 23:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

23:19, 5 November 2023 review of submission by Gulbi Balbulus[edit]

Hey,

I wrote the article for this composition for the German Wikipedia and wanted to translate it for the English Wikipedia. My first submission was declined on the grounds of being too much like an essay and not citing enough secondary sources. As everything was already based on academic literature and not my personal opinion I assumed adding references to said sources would suffice. There is now a citation for almost every sentence. However, it was declined a second time with the same reasoning as before. I'm a bit at a loss how to improve any further. Maybe I got the criticism of the article reading more like an essay wrong? My understanding is that it means the article should be based on reliable sources, not my own subjective point of view. But everything said in the article has a citation. I'd be very grateful for any help :) Gulbi Balbulus (talk) 23:19, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


November 6[edit]

00:08, 6 November 2023 review of submission by Dwanyewest[edit]

I have added the dates Anna Buhigas played professional soccer in her inbox and I can't think of any additional improvements I could make since I have provided third person sources about her career. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dwanyewest: I'm not quite sure what you mean by "third person sources", but for notability per WP:GNG, we need to see significant coverage (not just passing mentions, match reports, player stats, etc.) directly of her, in multiple secondary sources (newspapers, magazines, TV or radio programmes, etc.) that are reliable and entirely independent of her (ie. not her club or university, and not interviews or press releases or her coach commenting on her, etc.). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

07:16, 6 November 2023 review of submission by Kristinak98[edit]

Hello!

I have viewed, that my draft of the "Planforge" article was declined. Please review the draft again, as it is an exact translation of the german article "Planforge": https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planforge

Thus, I don't understand, how the draft could not be accepted, as the exact same german article I translated it from, already existed on wikipedia for a long time. Furthermore, as it is a translation, it would be wrong, if I now wrote it completely different than the german one, right?

Thank you and best regards Kristinak98 (talk) 07:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Kristinak98: each language version of Wikipedia is completely separate, with their own policies and requirements (and the ones here on the English-language Wikipedia are probably the strictest); therefore, whether an article exists on one, says nothing about whether the same article will be accepted on another language version. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello @DoubleGrazing! Tanks for your reply, I will try to rewrite my draft and write a complete new article of Planforge for the English-language Wikipedia to meet its policies. Thanks! Kristinak98 (talk) 12:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

08:21, 6 November 2023 review of submission by Pedropaulofb[edit]

Thank you for your review. Could you please elaborate on the aspects in which the article needs enhancements for it to be approved? Pedropaulofb (talk) 08:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pedropaulofbit seems most of it is supported with publications by the same author, Giancarlo Guizzardi and associates, but what you need are secondary sources that have written in-depth about Unified Foundational Ontology and summarize what they independently say. Please also see the WP:Neutral point of view policy. Wikipedia cannot be the mouthpiece for a single person or group's research, theories, etc. S0091 (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

08:39, 6 November 2023 review of submission by Edizengoff[edit]

Trying to understand why the article was declined I tried to make it very similar to other book articles for example this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heather_Blazing Edizengoff (talk) 08:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Edizengoff: please don't model your writing on articles that themselves have problems. You need to instead show that the book in question satisfies the relevant notability guidelines, namely WP:NBOOK / WP:BOOKCRIT, and/or WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the replay!
The book I am writing about won a major literary award and has sevral academic works written about and a film coming out based on it.
The reason it was declined was "There's lots of sources in google from reputable websites. Read some and write a decent article using them as sources." for which parts should I have used Google for?
Which parts of what I wrote werent decent? Edizengoff (talk) 08:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not Google itself you should use as a source, but sources discovered with Google. The book is indeed notable- but you still need to have multiple independent reliable sources summarized in the article. You only have one source. 331dot (talk) 08:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why are sources I have picked arent reliable enough? To prove the books has won prized I have cited the prizes webisite. Regarding the plot sumarry I have cited an academic papper and a blog why isnt that enough?
So instead of the blog should I use the book itself as source? I have looked at many other book articles which for thep lot part dont seem to cite any sources at all. Edizengoff (talk) 11:22, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Courtesy ping @Vanderwaalforces Qcne (talk) 11:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Qcne thanks for the ping. @Edizengoff The book/novel is notable, I must say, but you see that book you made reference to, it is also a notable one, and I guess nobody wants to nominate it for deletion because of it's status, that article is one of Wikipedia's problem page and we don't want this new one you're creating to become one that is why we want it at a better, or at least a good state. Doing a cursory search return quite a handful of useful materials that you can use to develop the article, a lot that I don't want to start listing, when you do the search yourself you'll find useful things on Google.
I hope you understand this and it helps you. Kudos! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Vanderwaalforces
Thanks for the replay I did the Google search read the book itself and read academic papers about which I refrenced in my draft so I am trying to understand how many more sources should be added and in which parts of the article do I need to cite every part of the plot summary and find correct pages in the book? Edizengoff (talk) 11:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Edizengoff As a matter of fact, if you make a statement like The novel received considerable critical acclaim, by its recognition at the Irish Book Awards in 2003 and its nomination for the prestigious International Dublin Literary Award., it should be followed by a citation to a reliable source that says, without confusion, that Oh yes! the novel truely received a critical acclaim by its recognition at the Irish Book Awards in 2003... and so on. It should not be exactly what the source states though, you should write what the source says in your own words. Also, Notably, Alison Light from The Independent provided a commendable review, stating, "McGahern conjures the warmth and decency of working people without sentimentality. should be followed by a citation too, and so on.
These are just examples of what is expected of you. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

09:08, 6 November 2023 review of submission by Digital.niteshsharma[edit]

I need a assistance to guide me to post a article. Digital.niteshsharma (talk) 09:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OP blocked. 331dot (talk) 09:13, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

09:21, 6 November 2023 review of submission by Sirius Stella[edit]

My submission was declined. The reviewer said "close, but not enough independent, significant coverage."

I would love some more detail on what coverage is needed. I thought the references provided were enough in number from multiple independent sources. Sirius Stella (talk) 09:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sirius Stella: I haven't done a source analysis, just going by what you and the reviewer said. Note that it's not enough for the sources to be numerous, or independent, they must be at once independent and reliable and secondary and provide significant coverage of the subject directly, and there must be "multiple" (which is usually interpreted as three or more) such sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

10:38, 6 November 2023 review of submission by 220.253.130.93[edit]

Hello, for the charts is it enough to cite the website that documents music placements, or do I need a reference to a chart position from a news source? Lastly, it looks like peacocking language was used early on but has been edited out - does there need to be any more tidying before this draft is resubmitted? 220.253.130.93 (talk) 10:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm fairly sure you just need a source showing the chart position to establish that they've charted.
As for the rest, we don't really do pre-review reviews; to get feedback, please submit it. 331dot (talk) 10:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

11:05, 6 November 2023 review of submission by Edizengoff[edit]

Why are sources I have picked arent reliable enough? To prove the books has won prized I have cited the prizes webisite. Regarding the plot sumarry I have cite an academic papper and a blog why isnt that enough? Edizengoff (talk) 11:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Edizengoff: please don't start a new thread about the same draft, reply to the earlier one so that the conversation is all in one place. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

12:12, 6 November 2023 review of submission by Talhashakeel374[edit]

How many reference add to publish Quake Services page on Wikipedia. Talhashakeel374 (talk) 12:12, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Talhashakeel374 Hi there, please take a look at writing your first article. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

13:08, 6 November 2023 review of submission by ASKanetkar[edit]

I made my first Article on Wikipedia and want to contribute more on sample cooler topic. This topic is separate from "Steam and Water Analysis System" How can I move my draft Article to Publish it for all viewers ? I can contribute more on this topic. Kindly advice ASKanetkar (talk) 13:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @ASKanetkar: it seems you have created two things, Sample cooler, which was redirected to Steam_and_water_analysis_system#Sample_coolers, as it was not a viable article and completely unreferenced. And also Draft:Sample coolers, which you have not submitted for review yet, and therefore, at this time it is not in the pipeline for publication. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've added the template required to submit your draft. 331dot (talk) 13:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

14:58, 6 November 2023 review of submission by Jbobbink[edit]

I am confused about the reasoning behind references not being accepted. Yes, I added a couple of sources like https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/tagged/health/amsterdams-bynder-bringing-cloud-based-130000325.html and https://www.bynder.com/en/about-us/ that do not comply with being "secondary". However, I do not see what is wrong with sources like https://www.forrester.com/blogs/bynders-acquisition-of-webdam-for-49-million-will-force-big-players-to-innovate/ and https://martechseries.com/content/digi-asset-mgmt/bynder-announces-strategic-acquisition-webdam-49-1-million/ Could you clarify? Jbobbink (talk) 14:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jbobbink: routine business reporting such as M&A, financial results, appointments, opening of new locations or markets, etc. does not constitute significant coverage, and in any case is invariably based on press materials supplied by the organisation and therefore not considered independent or secondary. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! Jbobbink (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

15:48, 6 November 2023 review of submission by 65.215.95.162[edit]

Given the existence of plenty of other reporters with less accomplishments, it seems strange to have Suzanne Kianpour's career be denied and considered insignificant, especially given she's both listed in Wikipedia already under other BBC reporters with Wikipedia pages for themselves.

Here are examples offered below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_BBC_newsreaders_and_reporters

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Willis_(journalist) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Bland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Ghattas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Plett_Usher https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophie_Long

These briefs for other reporters list less accomplishments than Kianpour, yet aren't denied. 65.215.95.162 (talk) 15:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See other stuff exists. Theroadislong (talk) 15:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We don't, and you shouldn't, assess drafts by comparing them to other articles that may exist, but by determining whether they meet the relevant guidelines and policies, in this case regarding notability. If you can cite sources which satisfy the WP:GNG notability guideline, it may be possible to have an article published on this subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi IP editor. I rejected this as every source was WP:PRIMARY, so useless at establishing notability under WP:GNG. If you can substantially re-work the article to prove notability under those criteria, ping me on my user talk page and I will have another look. Qcne (talk) 17:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

16:41, 6 November 2023 review of submission by 2600:1700:B880:5970:9E2:FAEA:8102:807[edit]

Draft has been rejected multiple times and need help with next steps. The page was first rejected for not enough reliable sources. I added in references to make sure the information was well-supported, but the submission was then rejected for having too many sources tied to the subject (this made sense, I did not realize that press releases by related companies were not allowed). I then reworked the page to include information only from independent news outlets and it was just rejected again. I'm a bit unsure what to do next, as I feel like I've shown that Rosen is a notable Cleveland businessman. Can you help me with exactly what next steps to take? Thank you! 2600:1700:B880:5970:9E2:FAEA:8102:807 (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I concur with the latest reviewer. Interviews, passing mentions, press releases / company announcements, routine business reporting and primary sources do not establish notability per WP:GNG. I didn't find even one source among the 18 cited that contributes to that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

17:06, 6 November 2023 review of submission by Dkoltorcan[edit]

Hello, I try to work on the new version of my article about Bernhard Ruchti (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Bernhard_Ruchti). I understand sone of the concerns about the neutral point of view, I can easily fix this. However, I have two questions: - About the comment that is still appearing at the top that says: "This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use." This is not the case and I don't understand why this comment is appearing here, I have no personal relation with the person and I am not paid by him. I don't receive any incentive or anything else. What should I do (apart from the conversation I already had with your colleague) to have this sentence removed? - About the DOB: I was told that I should prove the DOB. Usually this musicians doesn't display his full DOB online (for example on his website there is only is year of birth) but I found it in a printed program when attending one of his concerts. Can I use a printed program as source of DOB? Also, how to quote it properly so that it is considered valid for Wikipedia? For example, when I look at other musicians' Wikipedia page such as András Schiff (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A1s_Schiff) there is no reference after the DOB. Thank you for your help, Dkoltorcan Dkoltorcan (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dkoltorcan: regarding the DOB, I don't think you can use a concert programme as a source, because it may not be available for verification, and in any case almost certainly does not qualify as reliable.
And yes, there are inevitably some articles out there where the DOB isn't referenced, in violation of WP:BLP, but this doesn't mean we should be creating more such problems. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dkoltorcan: forgot to address the paid-editing tag, but this has in the meantime been removed. I was just going to say that it isn't an unreasonable thing to suspect, given that you have uploaded the photo used in this draft as your 'own work', which suggests that you must have been at least once at close quarters with the subject, which in turn may imply some sort of connection. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is because I asked him for the authorization of using his picture. I would not use it without authorization. The Wikimedia contacted him to confirm that I had the right to use his photo and he provided the necessary paperwork. Dkoltorcan (talk) 20:55, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dkoltorcan he cannot authorize only you to use it or only Wikipedia to use it. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for additional information on how the photographer can donate the photo (Bernhard Ruchti is likely not the copyright holder as generally the photographer owns the copyright). Nothing at Commons suggests this has been followed as there is no indication permission has been given. S0091 (talk) 21:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is already done. It was the first step. All the paperwork has been signed and there is no issue with the media. @DoubleGrazingwas asking why I downloaded the picture, I replied. This was to reply on the paid-editing tag, which is not the case. Dkoltorcan (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I mean uploaded, not downloaded :) Sorry for the typos. Dkoltorcan (talk) 21:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dkoltorcan I have started a discussion on the draft's talk page and pinged you there (Draft talk:Bernhard Ruchti). The photo is not the reason for decline but a reason to suspect a conflict of interest. If you are in anyway affiliated with Ruchti then you do need to WP:DECLARE. I will post a query on your talk page to which you can respond, thus ending the discussion here. S0091 (talk) 22:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, noted, thanks. I have been told several times and I have replied. There is no conflict of interest. Dkoltorcan (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you have communicated with the subject, that is a conflict of interest. Articles are typically written without any involvement from, or even the knowledge of, the subject. 331dot (talk) 23:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had to ask him permission to use his picture, but apart from that there is no conflict of interest. Dkoltorcan (talk) 23:22, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is sufficient for a conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok I see. Can you redirect me to the proper action to take then? Because it was not clear to me what to do next and where to display the fact that I asked M. Ruchti's permission to use his picture? Thank you Dkoltorcan (talk) 23:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please see WP:COI, but it will be sufficient for you to just write a statement on your user page disclosing your communication with him. 331dot (talk) 23:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your help. Do I need to give a link to my Draft? Or to the media itself? Dkoltorcan (talk) 23:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I found the Connected contributor section. I added it to my page. Thank you again for your help. Dkoltorcan (talk) 00:42, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

18:27, 6 November 2023 review of submission by Saffiulla Muhammad[edit]

I have a physical hard copy of a newspaper article in English and Odia language. I want to show it as a reference to prove the authenticity of the person in the Wikipedia. How can I use this physical newspaper cutouts. Please help. Saffiulla Muhammad (talk) 18:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Saffiulla Muhammad authenticity is not the issue but showing the subject meets the notability guidelines. Nevertheless, you can use the "Manual" citation method and fill out all the pertinent information (author if known, publication, title, date of publication, etc.). See also WP:CITE. If you need additional help, you can ask at the Teahouse. S0091 (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

18:35, 6 November 2023 review of submission by 108.21.67.83[edit]

Can you please help me create an articles about the biography of Georgios Dritsakos as a Lieutenant General of the Hellenic Air Force, a Lieutenant Colonel and Colonel of the Hellenic Air Force, and Adjutant to the President of the Hellenic Republic Constantinos Stephanopoulos? 108.21.67.83 (talk) 18:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did you read the comment? You need to provide the source for ALL the content you have added, where did it come from? Theroadislong (talk) 21:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

21:09, 6 November 2023 review of submission by Ddllggpro[edit]

I have tried to upload a well known term twice but you keep rejecting my artical. I am starting to think that you do not accept the fact that FeminISISm is real Ddllggpro (talk) 21:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Ddllggpro, firstly a single post on social media does not make something 'real'. Secondly Wikipedia has articles about notable subjects, not ones that just exist. All new articles on Wikipedia have to show the subject is notable (See WP:N) which in most cases requires significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) in multiple independent (WP:INDY) reliable sources (WP:RS). KylieTastic (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

22:05, 6 November 2023 review of submission by Luc1239[edit]

This page was declined for submission. How can I improve the article so that it will be accepted the next time? Luc1239 (talk) 22:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have not established that this musician meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 22:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

23:19, 6 November 2023 review of submission by Melursus Mare[edit]

Helllo! My draft about the magnet school called the Academies of Loudoun. It was rejected for lacking reliable sources. I'm confused about this for two reasons, the first is that many other articles in the same category and locale use the same sources I did. For example, in an article about a high school in the same district (Independence High School in Ashburn) uses sources that came from 6 different publishers, 4 of which I also cited.

Secondly, Wikipedia's reliable sources wiki states that "Similarly, the publisher's web site is likely to be reliable for the fact that the work exists". In my article, for example, I cite the school district's website that certain courses in fact are taught at the school. I frequently cited the school district's website, but only for things that were completely factual, like the population of the school.

Because of this, I'm having trouble finding a way to fix the reputability of my article, how can I do this? Melursus Mare (talk) 23:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Melursus Mare it appears this is resolved as the draft was accepted. S0091 (talk) 18:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

23:31, 6 November 2023 review of submission by Dubaiali[edit]

I added real news source, could you please help me, how can make it live? Dubaiali (talk) 23:31, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You need to resubmit it for review, but you haven't addressed the issues adequately yet. Please read the messages from reviewers carefully. 331dot (talk) 23:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

23:35, 6 November 2023 review of submission by GonetotheDawgs[edit]

This is my first attempt at creating an article, and I can't tell you how much I appreciate the fast feedback, but it looks like I'm going to need some hand holding because of my inexperience. Can you tell me if the primary weakness in the article is the references contained in the following sentences, or is it something else? Thank you!

Myrlie Evers-Williams who called the book “a treasure.”

Lee Smith has called The Queen of Palmyra "the most powerful and also the most lyrical novel about race, racism and denial in the American South since To Kill a Mockingbird," and Kirkus Reviews has described "Gwin's prose [as] profound and Faulknerian in tone." GonetotheDawgs (talk) 23:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @GonetotheDawgs it seems most of it is sources directly to her work which are not independent so not helpful. I suggest adding more reviews from reputable critics/publications, see also WP:NAUTHOR. S0091 (talk) 18:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

23:46, 6 November 2023 review of submission by Dubaiali[edit]

Dear Sir, The article is for a film director and given authenticate news source. Could you help me please how would be the article live as it is declined. Should i change the article formate? Looking for your kind support Dubaiali (talk) 23:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


November 7[edit]

00:19, 7 November 2023 review of submission by Theotherdreadpirate[edit]

I have made some adjustments to the article and would like some feedback on what can be improved in order to increase the chances of it being accepted. Thanks! Theotherdreadpirate (talk) 00:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We don't really do pre-review reviews. The best way to get feedback is to submit it. 331dot (talk) 00:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

03:07, 7 November 2023 review of submission by Variance1[edit]

Good evening, thanks for your feedback. I am attempting to update for the Wikipedia page for DJ /Producer and label owner Jamie McHugh. Jamie featured on the biggest dance releases of 2008, 2009 and 2010 and regularly featured in the dance music press and featured as an artist on BBC Radio 1 and Kiss FM as well as DJing worldwide. He produced three commercial mix CDs and an artist album for Darren Emerson (Underworld) record label Underwater and mixed the Best of Underwater Records album. He also remixed the 50th release for CR2 records and was the first artist to release on their digital label. I have checked Wikipedia and artists with similiar or less notable profiles have been included therfore please advise how i can update this page. Variance1 (talk) 03:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

04:53, 7 November 2023 review of submission by Mcashn[edit]

How can I edit my article title? Mcashn (talk) 04:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mcashn: you can't; you achieve this by moving the draft to a different title. That said, you don't need to worry about the title at this stage, as if/when the draft is accepted it will be moved by the accepting reviewer to a new title in the main article space anyway. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:14, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

08:05, 7 November 2023 review of submission by Harry's Word[edit]

This page contains information from various sources which are duly added about a person who has done many contributions to the art form called Kadhakali. This person went missing a decade ago but still people talk about him as a connoisseur of this art form. Please reconsider the details furnished and consider for publication. Harry's Word (talk) 08:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Harry's Word: this draft has been reviewed and found wanting in terms of evidence of notability. That being the case, what is your question? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:13, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All the press reports supporting this person mentions that he is a notable person. Given that, I am confused on what more evidences of notability are lacking here? Please help me understand that. Harry's Word (talk) 08:42, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Harry's Word: Notability is not 'important' or 'influential' or 'successful'. It's 'the extent to which something has been the topic of media coverage' the extent to which it has been noted.
That being said, Youtube is not a reliable source and should be removed. - RichT|C|E-Mail 09:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The youtube source I have mentioned are the ones that belong to the major news channels and not any silly unreliable one. Harry's Word (talk) 09:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

08:37, 7 November 2023 review of submission by 108.21.67.83[edit]

I just want to ask a question. How do I submit to transfer the draft of Georgios Dritsakos and transfer to the articles in his biography? I want it to be approved and know how to learn it. 108.21.67.83 (talk) 08:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This draft has various issues, but the main one is notability: of the three sources cited, one is a close primary one (his CV on the HAF website), one a passing mention, and the third isn't enough on its own to establish notability per WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

08:45, 7 November 2023 review of submission by Athinam7x[edit]

Hello, I do not understand how it states that this submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. I did submit all the necessary sources which according to your rules are reliable.

I am the granddaughter of Davoud Meftah, Athina Meftah (daughter of Soleiman Meftah), I wrote in my article a few extra pieces of information that are of course without specific sources, but my knowledge of my family.

Since it was the first time I worked on an article for Wikipedia, I did not have the experience and knowledge to understand the problem and resolve it.

I would appreciate it if you would be so kind as to help me.

Thank you very much,

Athina Meftah 

Athinam7x (talk) 08:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The "few extra pieces of information that are of course without specific sources, but my knowledge of my family." will need to be removed, the references need to be placed directly after the content they support. Theroadislong (talk) 08:51, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

10:17, 7 November 2023 review of submission by Gaurav Prateek Actor[edit]

Remove promotional language. This looks like an ad. kindly help me for this. Gaurav Prateek Actor (talk) 10:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gaurav Prateek Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. Your image has no copyright information provided; if you personally did not take the image of yourself or cannot demonstrate that you are the copyright holder(which would be unusual), you need to immediately request its deletion from Commons. 331dot (talk) 10:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

11:30, 7 November 2023 review of submission by Catherine Lemieux[edit]

Hi, My article was rejected because of unreliable sources for the second time. I would like to understand why, since I used only independent established newspapers. Thank you, Catherine Lemieux 

Catherine Lemieux (talk) 11:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Catherine Lemieux: the sources may well be reliable, but the draft isn't adequately supported by them, as there is unreferenced content, and some of the citations may not back up the information provided. By way of an example, the lead section cites only one source, but that source doesn't seem to mention the person's place or year of birth, or that they studied under Šípek... so if those pieces of information didn't come from the cited source, where did they come from? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You’re right these infos come from other articles (4 other sources which are portraits of the artist from mainstream media) included in my first draft, actually reliable media sources but they included interviews so I had to delete all these references. I will review the draft again to make sure all infos are definitely in the article quoted. Thanks for your feedback. 91.141.36.118 (talk) 19:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

12:55, 7 November 2023 review of submission by 137GREAT[edit]

the person involved has generated a major impact on the physics world, and did not talk about himself. there are no online reliable sources to which it is possible to quote his backround and therefore the wiki page was created, the information in the artcile was the first time he shared information about himself. It was not accepted due to "reliability" How can there be sources if the guy is an unknown ? People know him by his name, and therefore the wiki was created. 137GREAT (talk) 12:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@137GREAT: simply put, Wikipedia articles should be written by summarising what reliable published sources have said about a subject. If no such sources exist, then it isn't possible to summarise them, and hence no article can be written. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you want to tell the world about this person, that is precisely what social media or a personal website are for. People must be known to merit articles, you can't create articles to generate notability. 331dot (talk) 16:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

14:16, 7 November 2023 review of submission by 73.161.190.187[edit]

I see that this page was declined, so looking for more guidance. While the news recently of Adam Johnson's death may seem shocking, Injuries to the neck, and by extension other parts of the body, by Skate Blades during on ice activities, are actually quite common. Some of the players on the page have died due to their necks having been cut by skate blades, aside from the aforementioned Adam Johnson. I hesitated to put if a player was deceased due to the injury, or for example how many stiches they needed. Perhaps this is needed information to obtain approval? I also hesitated to put any additional information regarding neck guards, e.g. neck guards have been mandatory in Canada since the deaths of a few players, as I did not want to make this a page about neck guards and as well, I did not want to dive into what parts of the world require neck guards, but perhaps some information is necessary? Unfortunately, skate injuries are not really similar to injuries in other sports, as well as injuries of other types in hockey. The page aims to show the prevalence and severity of these injuries, and not to draw comparisons to injuries of other types or other sports. We can say that surely some players have hard heart attacks while playing a sport, however it is hard to attribute that injury directly to the game. However, skate injuries are in no doubt literally caused by the equipment and players involved in those on ice activities. Thank you in advance for your time and feedback. 73.161.190.187 (talk) 14:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I feel like this would benefit from more context, significance, etc. Now it reads like a list of people injured playing sports – immediately I find myself asking "so what?" I think each entry needs more details: to say that John Doe got injured in 1996 is one thing; to say that John Doe, an experienced professional player got injured in the World Champs final in his neck so badly (without going into too much gore!) that it ended his career, and may have lost his team the medal, is probably a bit more useful. Also, if you could find some sources which discuss the problem of skate-related injuries, perhaps some statistics, etc., and maybe what the athletes, clubs and governing bodies are doing to deal with this problem, it would help flesh out the draft. (I think in saying that I'm concurring with the reviewer also.) HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

15:00, 7 November 2023 review of submission by Dranutoshchakraborty[edit]

Requesting to describe the exact fault. Regards Dranutoshchakraborty (talk) 15:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dranutoshchakraborty: this draft has been rejected, and is awaiting deletion, as non-encyclopaedic. Wikipedia does not host how-to guides, promotional content, personal essays, polemic, nor does it promote pseudoscience, fringe theories and the like. This draft comes under more than one of those headings. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

16:33, 7 November 2023 review of submission by Delshad.j.c[edit]

How to delete draft Delshad.j.c (talk) 16:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The draft was tagged as inappropriate advertising, so I have deleted it for that reason. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Delshad.j.c: you have no drafts to delete, your only draft has been deleted already. In any case, you cannot delete one as you're not an administrator, you can only request deletion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

16:45, 7 November 2023 review of submission by Ivanhoe2012[edit]

Could anyone pls tell me what are "Some of these sources are WP:FRINGE"? I hoped there will be no issues like these cause Society of JZ is state registered spiritual-religious curch in Czech Rep. Its small church, yes, but it is. Thank you. Ivanhoe2012 (talk) 16:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

17:03, 7 November 2023 review of submission by Orion's Toes[edit]

Hi, I see the request for providing more sources and in depth coverage of the topic I attempted to publish, however there is unfortunately no more information to provide. This band is essentially lost media, and practically no information exists on the internet. Yet, somehow, with the limited information I had access to, I believe I managed to write a reasonably in depth article. Even though this topic is small, I portrayed it to the best of my ability and all of my sources are credible and relevant. I really hope that we are able to give the article another chance, because it can really help bring the history of this little known band, and important aspect of Vundabar's(the band that resulted from this one) history to light. Thank you for considering my article. Orion's Toes (talk) 17:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sources do not need to be online. If there are no more sources, there can't be an article about this band at this time. You may want to find an alternative forum with less stringent requirements to tell the world about this band. 331dot (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

18:04, 7 November 2023 review of submission by SriSahi[edit]

can you please share the standard content example SriSahi (talk) 18:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

18:26, 7 November 2023 review of submission by Gruppeder 9b[edit]

Hi, what is the problem with the article? The person in question is by far the most influential person in their field of research. The sources include articles from major German newspapers. How can I fix the problem. Many thanks in advance. 

Gruppeder 9b (talk) 18:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If they are influential, then you need independent reliable sources that state that and describe what makes them so. 331dot (talk) 19:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Transpose what you can from the german wiki and we can see what can be done.
https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernd_Ulmann
I saw your draft. It needs formatting. Will try and help in my free time. Editing and contributing (talk) 07:11, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

18:41, 7 November 2023 review of submission by WaffleHouseEmployee[edit]

Im trying to get an article cleared for reveiw however there are not many credible sources for the topic (Hotdog Water). Do you have any suggestions as to what I should do for this? Thanks! WaffleHouseEmployee (talk) 18:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If there are insufficient reliable sources to summarize, there cannot be an article about this topic. No amount of editing can fix that. 331dot (talk) 19:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

18:46, 7 November 2023 review of submission by ST-UTSCI[edit]

Hello, I am seeking some guidance regarding the rejection of this draft. I believe I can address the concerns of notability (as written, the article notes events/product releases but not how those things affect the broader industry as a whole). However, if possible I would like some feedback on the sourcing.

I cited a number of digital archives of older printed journals and magazines and so I wonder if that is part of the issue? I tried, as much as possible, to draw style, source, and formatting examples from articles on companies of similar age/impact in the broadcasting industry. Any guidance would be appreciated. ST-UTSCI (talk) 18:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your draft was declined, not rejected- "rejected" has a specific meaning, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted. 331dot (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, my mistake. I will use the correct term in the future. ST-UTSCI (talk) 20:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

19:50, 7 November 2023 review of submission by Morganryan17[edit]

Hello! I am attempting to update my draft page for Sean Murphy's biography. I have included a lot of links to things he has written, but there are also several sources where other writers have quoted him in notable media platforms. Can you help me to understand why these do not qualify as external sources that would make him notable? Morganryan17 (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To further elaborate, I know a few other authors, one of which being Jenna Blum, who's page is similar. How is her page notable but Sean Murphy's page is not? Morganryan17 (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Morganryan17 I think you linked to the wrong article; I've fixed it with a link to your draft article.
We don't want just mere quotes from him- there needs to be independent reliable sources with significant coverage of him that discuss what they see as important/significant/influential about him, showing how he meets the definition of a notable author. You've documented his media appearances and his work, but not said anything about how either makes him important/significant/influential.
Beware in citing other articles that themselves could be problematic, which you would be unaware of. See other stuff exists. 331dot (talk) 20:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

20:26, 7 November 2023 review of submission by ItsRaihanArifin[edit]

I want to publish a article about organization Hello I want to to create about The Foreign Investors' Chamber of Commerce & Industry (FICCI) in Bangladesh. If 'Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce & Industry(FICCI)' information is enlisted on wikipedia then why we are not able to published? please help me how i enlisted that? ItsRaihanArifin (talk) 20:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ItsRaihanArifin I fixed your post to display a link to your draft(you had a statement which appeared as a link, which I moved so it doesn't).
Beware in citing other similar articles to compare to yours- these too could be problematic and you would be unaware of this. See other stuff exists. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those classified as good articles, which have been checked by the community.
Your draft does not summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Not every organizaton merits a Wikipedia article, even within a field.
If you are associated with this organization, that needs to be declared, please see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 20:31, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

21:06, 7 November 2023 review of submission by Demon King3333[edit]

MAKE IT ON WIKIPEDIA MY CULTURE MADE THIS HOLLADAY IT'S REAL Demon King3333 (talk) 21:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't care if a subject is real or not (we have articles on unicorns, fairies, and N rays). What Wikipedia cares about is whether a subject has been written about sufficiently (in reliable, independent sources) to ground an article. ColinFine (talk) 12:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

21:43, 7 November 2023 review of submission by Roc0ast3r[edit]

The draft was originally declined for notability issues, then later was re-submitted by the original reviewer, and was declined again for WP:NOTNEWS (at least, I think?). I'll be honest, both comments, at least to me, aren't the most helpful, and I'm having a bit of trouble finding content that violates NOTNEWS. I'm not the most familiar with creating Wikipedia articles, and so I would like to be informed if any content violates that policy. Thanks! RONIN 21:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Roc0ast3r almost all the sources are dated in late January or early February which does not meet WP:SUSTAINED. A short burst of new coverage does not warrant an article. S0091 (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, that explains it better. Thanks for the reply! RONIN 22:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

23:01, 7 November 2023 review of submission by Boohoolane[edit]

Greetings!

I see that the article has been marked as needing more sources. Would you prefer that we remove information so that we can expedite approval? It is imperative that we populate more Middle Eastern / North African / Southwest Asian performer pages with notable credits as it is an under-supported community on Wikipedia (see: status of Iranian sub-communities) and in the Entertainment industry wholly.

We do have some very solid sources from Letterboxd, Hollywood Reporter (Deadline), and more. It is also important to keep in mind that The Persian Version is a struck project - because of this sourcing can be sparce until after the 2023 SAG-AFTRA strike.

We also have compared several existing pages for actors from different backgrounds / with similar resumés that pass the articles of creation and become published. Thankfully we are looking forward to ensuring this page will be adequately updated within all Wikipedia policies and furnished with even more sources. We just need to get the ship moving and send the page to publishing.

Thank you again for your note - please let us know what we can do to ensure the article gets published and we can continue to work on publishing articles on talent from this underrepresented community! Boohoolane (talk) 23:01, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Boohoolane! Thanks for coming to the help desk. The more pressing issue that I see is not the lack of sources supporting the information in the article, but rather the article's subject not meeting wikipedia's inclusion guidelines of two reliable sources providing significant coverage to the subject. While there are reliable sources, there does not appear to be coverage of the subject beyond a few passing mentions. I do not see notability in the subject at this moment with the sources in the article. Justiyaya 12:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While working on an underserved topic area is a noble pursuit, you still need to meet the sourcing requirements; there is no exception for underserved areas in that regard.
Who is "we"? 331dot (talk) 22:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


November 8[edit]

00:46, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Airborne84[edit]

Hello. After multiple improvements, I believe that Draft:Tactical Assault Group (game) clearly meets the requirements in WP:GNG. The last reviewer who declined the submission, reconsidered here, suggesting a resubmission. Perhaps someone here could review? Thank you. Airborne84 (talk) 00:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You need to click the "resubmit" button to place your draft back in the review queue. It will be reviewed in due course the same as any other draft. 331dot (talk) 08:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

01:18, 8 November 2023 review of submission by K-popguardian[edit]

Glitch has recieved significantly more coverage in the wake of The Amazing Digital Circus, GlitchX, and Murder Drones. I'm doing my best to update the page right now but it doesn't look like I can submit it at the moment. Any chance someone could help resubmit this page in the future? K-popguardian (talk) 01:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rejection of a draft typically means that it will not be considered further. If something has fundamentally changed about the draft, such as new sources that the reviewer did not consider, the first step is to appeal to the last reviewer directly. Personally, if I were the last reviewer, I don't think the changes made warrant reconsideration. 331dot (talk) 08:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

02:38, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Snowmentil[edit]

The Wikipedia page that I made was declined, and I don’t know why. Could someone explain? Snowmentil (talk) 02:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your draft should adhere to wikipedia's guideline to notability.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability Editing and contributing (talk) 04:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

05:45, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Erick Wihardja[edit]

Dear Wikipedia Contributors,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to request assistance and guidance with editing and submitting a Wikipedia article.

I have been working on an article about Draft:Vasanta Group (PT. Sirius Surya Sentosa) and have reached a point where I would greatly appreciate the expertise and support of experienced editors to ensure that the article meets Wikipedia's content guidelines and quality standards.

The draft article is currently in progress and can be found at the following link: https://w.wiki/85XJ. I have made an effort to make the content as neutral, well-referenced, and informative as possible, but I understand that there might be areas that need improvement.

Here are some specific areas where I would welcome assistance: 

 1. Ensuring the article adheres to Wikipedia's content guidelines, including neutrality and verifiability.
 2. Reviewing and improving the article's structure, flow, and clarity.
 3. Adding relevant citations from reliable sources to support the information presented.
 4. Identifying and addressing any issues that may hinder the article's acceptance on Wikipedia.

I believe that with the help of experienced Wikipedia editors, we can enhance the article's quality and alignment with Wikipedia's standards. Any guidance, edits, or feedback provided would be greatly appreciated.

If you are available to assist with this project, please let me know the best way to collaborate and proceed. I am open to your recommendations and insights to make this article a valuable addition to Wikipedia.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to the opportunity to work together and improve this article.

Sincerely, Erick Wihardja 

Erick Wihardja (talk) 05:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only 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. ColinFine (talk) 12:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Erick Wihardja I see that you declared a COI; as I assume you are employed by this company in some capacity, the Terms of Use require you to make the stricter paid editing disclosure on your user page. Click that link for instructions.
Your draft is completely unsourced and reads as if it were on the company website. Wikipedia is not a place for a company to tell the world about itself and what it does- that's what your website is for. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. "Significant coverage" in this context is not things like press releases, the company website, interviews with staff, brief mentions, announcements of routine business activities, and other primary sources. Significant coverage goes beyond these things and goes into detail about what the source sees as important/significant/influential about the company, not what it sees as important about itself. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk)

06:27, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Pretty Leaves[edit]

my articles submission on Wikipedia is rejected. so what i have to do to accept my article? also why my article is rejected? Pretty Leaves (talk) 06:27, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pretty Leaves, your draft is nothing like an acceptable encyclopedia article. It entirely lacks context and is completely unreferenced. It presents no evidence at all that the topic is notable. It is pretty much the opposite of an acceptable encyclopedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 06:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

06:30, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Pretty Leaves[edit]

help me to improve my articles for publishing 

Pretty Leaves (talk) 06:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The wikipedia page already exists
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Little_Prince Editing and contributing (talk) 07:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

07:25, 8 November 2023 review of submission by BobTheRobber5[edit]

What was the reason for it being declined? BobTheRobber5 (talk) 07:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BobTheRobber5 I fixed your link for proper display(it lacked the "Draft:"). The reason for the decline was provided by the reviewer. You have few independent reliable sources with significant coverage of her. The award does not establish notability as the award itself does not have an article(like Academy Award or Nobel Peace Prize) or you don't have several independent sources discussing the importance of her receiving this award. The controversy described seems to have little to do with her personally and simply quotes her in her capacity as a school official. 331dot (talk) 08:35, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

07:34, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Aisyahaufaa[edit]

https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Korea-Indonesia_MTCRC Hi im the employee of the company on the page i attached, currently we're trying to work on the english version of the page but the page is always on the draft section, how do i publish it so everyone knows the english version of the page? (original page is Indonesia) Aisyahaufaa (talk) 07:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aisyahaufaa As an employee, you are required by the Terms of Use to make a formal paid editing disclosure(click for instructions).
Please understand that what is acceptable on the Indonesian Wikipedia is not necessarily acceptable here, as the two Wikipedias are separate. Your draft would not be accepted as it is now if you were to submit it for a review. An English Wikipedia article is not a place for a company to tell about itself- it must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. 331dot (talk) 08:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To try and publish, press the button submit for review in the draft page. Reviewers will look and see if it is acceptable to be undrafted and moved to mainspace. I will press the submit button on your behalf and we shall see what can be done. Editing and contributing (talk) 13:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

08:56, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Sree S.Vinod Mahadevan[edit]

hi may i know why you rejected my article Sree S.Vinod Mahadevan (talk) 08:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The reason was left by the reviewer; "This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia". Wikipedia is not a place to provide life tips or advice. 331dot (talk) 08:58, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sree S.Vinod Mahadevan: please understand that Wikipedia is not a free hosting service for your essays or soapboxing. Articles need to summarise what reliable published sources have said about a subject. They also need to be encyclopaedic in tone and content, not promotional pieces or 'how-to' guides. Your current sandbox contents are again way off what is expected. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

09:19, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Ruisleipa[edit]

Hi, I am having some trouble with this article. It has been rejected twice for the same reason despite my edits. The rejection says it is not encyclopaedic enough and should use respectable sources. But all the sources are independent and are research documents from universities and institutes, or published journalistic articles. So I don't know what the person who rejected the article really means. The sources are independent and reliable and the topic is notable by virtue of the objective coverage of it. Would anyone be able to give me some tips as to how to improve the article? Thanks in advance. Ruisleipa (talk) 09:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have summarized the technical information, but that doesn't establish notability. An article must primarily summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage state about this platform and what makes it important/significant/influential- what we call notability. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

10:00, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Katrina masbin[edit]

Dear Colleagues I am faculty member of Royan Institute and I would like to finalize the Wekipedia page of Royan Institute, Tehran, Iran.

Please do me a favor and let me know how I can submit this draft as finalized page for Royan Institute?

Sincerely, Ali

Dr. AliReza Alizadeh Moghadam Masouleh (Ph.D.) Assistant Professor of Nutritional Biology - Research Fellow of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, gyn-medicum Göttingen, Waldweg 5, D-37073 Göttingen, Germany AND - Department of Embryology, Reproductive Biomedicine Research Center, Royan Institute, Tehran 16635-148, Iran 



 Katrina masbin (talk) 10:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Katrina masbin: could you please clarify whether you are actually User:Katrina masbin, or are only using their account? Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll see what I can do as a third party. Editing and contributing (talk) 13:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

11:30, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Wikiaflam[edit]

Hello... we are looking for clarification. This page has already been previously approved and published. I submitted some simple edits and now it is rejected. Thank you for your guidance. Wikiaflam (talk) 11:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikiaflam What makes you think the draft is "approved and published"? 331dot (talk) 11:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

11:41, 8 November 2023 review of submission by WikiCreator2023[edit]

Is it possible to get any help on what more I can add to this page before I submit it for review again. Would rather make sure it is in good stance before just submitting it. WikiCreator2023 (talk) 11:41, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We don't really do pre-review reviews. If you feel that you have addressed the concerns of reviewers, you should resubmit. 331dot (talk) 11:44, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

14:31, 8 November 2023 review of submission by 23.90.66.8[edit]

Liza Soberano 23.90.66.8 (talk) 14:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You don't ask a question, but this draft (such as it is) has been rejected and will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:36, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You have also just continued to copy-paste from other articles. Nothing about the subject and zero sources. KylieTastic (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

14:44, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Jpgroppi[edit]

I do not understand why the biography of Jean-Pierre is defined as "an advertisment". I copy the style of other artists which some of them are really advertising there bravour. I tried to stay as much as neutral as possible. Jean-Pierre Groppx was a well known artist at his time and some people still remember the artist but some people start to ask today who is he. So I thought Wikipedia is there also to refer to events, people, and other thinks that need some reference and memories. In my opinion Jean-Pierre should have the right to be published as others. Please help me to modify the text as it should be less as an advertisment. Thank you for your help. Jpgroppi (talk) 14:44, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

14:52, 8 November 2023 review of submission by 2001:448A:5020:DBB1:5B2:65FF:74F9:F51B[edit]

I just made a list to tidy up the article 2001:448A:5020:DBB1:5B2:65FF:74F9:F51B (talk) 14:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi IP, you do not ask a question but the draft is submitted and waiting for review. S0091 (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

14:55, 8 November 2023 review of submission by 23.90.66.8[edit]

John Benjamin Hickey

Hickey at the 13th Annual Broadway Barks Benefit, at Shubert Alley in New York City on July 9, 2011 Born June 25, 1963 (age 60) Plano, Texas, U.S. Education Texas State University, San Marcos Fordham University (BA) Juilliard School (GrDip) Occupation Actor Years active 1990–present Partner(s) Jeffrey Richman (2003–present) John Benjamin Hickey (born June 25, 1963) is an American actor with a career in stage, film and television. He won the 2011 Tony Award for Best Performance by a Featured Actor in a Play for his performance as Felix Turner in The Normal Heart. 23.90.66.8 (talk) 14:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IP blocked. S0091 (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

14:56, 8 November 2023 review of submission by FactsThatFlourish[edit]

Hi, My initial submission was rejected on the basis that it read too much like an advertisement. Before I proceed to edit my draft, I'd like to enquire in what way exactly? Is it down the content of the article, for instance, or the list of (co-)authored publications? Also, although I referenced a blog article, the blog is written by a reliable art historian and former university lecturer who is independent of the subject. Any help and thoughts on this is much appreciated. Many thanks! FactsThatFlourish (talk) 14:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FactsThatFlourish, your draft has not been rejected. Rather, it has been declined, which is an important distinction. You are welcome to keep working on it. In my opinion, your draft over-relies on works by Katalin Herzog. Also, the sections "Exhibitions (selection)" and "Work in museum collections (selection)" are entirely unreferenced. Those sections either need references or they should be removed. Unreferenced statements like Space and movement are very important for Ton Mars, and this is evident in his works in various ways. Although most of his works look like two-dimensional paintings, they have sloping sides that narrow towards the back and rest against the wall. A viewer walking past can experience these works as sculptures, neatly embedded in the architecture of the exhibition space. come off as promotional and original research, which is not permitted. Wikipedia editors summarize what art critics say. We do not function as art critics ourselves. Cullen328 (talk) 19:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

15:43, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Flint314[edit]

I have tried to attach news and studies and reports to the page. But it is very hard to have lot of citations for something that is pretty new technology, and not so widely known. So how can I get it out there? Flint314 (talk) 15:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can't, it has been rejected Wikipedia is only interested in things that are already out there ie notable. Theroadislong (talk) 15:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My Article Was Drafted for no sources[edit]

Hello, my article Draft:Jasper AI was drafted for having no sources, but I have clearly cited everything, and they mentioned its written in a promotional tone, even though I included negative elements about the company. Is there any immediate reason why this article was drafted? I have no affiliation with the company Comintell (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it was just moved to article space. 331dot (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Interesting, I will take a look. Comintell (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was the one who moved it and think it was script error for saying "no references." It was moved due to tone and sourcing. I see it was moved back to the mainspace so I will take a closer look now. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

16:54:26, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Comintell[edit]

16:54:26, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Comintell


Hello, my article Draft:Jasper AI was drafted for having no sources, but I have clearly cited everything, and they mentioned its written in a promotional tone, even though I included negative elements about the company. Is there any immediate reason why this article was drafted? I have no affiliation with the company Comintell (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

17:08, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Woodrusher[edit]

Hello, this is quite a legitimate entry as I was surprised Caples had no Wikipedia on him, as he is legendary in railroading and the chief engineer for the Clinchfield, in whose Wikipedia entry he is even mentioned. I have also included links to reputable sources in the community. As I am not artful in the processes and determinations of Wikipedia, I politely request guidance so I can make this entry acceptable. All I received was a summary and immediate decline, which is quite discouraging. Anyone knowledgable about railroad engineering and the rather astonishing accomplishment of Clinchfield Railroad, the last major railroad built in the United States and arguably the best engineered, is quite aware of MJ Caples. This is not a fluky Wikipedia entry application.

I also made a typo mistake in the header by putting a comma accidentally where a period should be in the abbreviation, but do not know how to change that.

Assistance on this entry is most appreciated and I believe this is a useful contribution for Wikipedia, Woodrusher (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Woodrusher Tighten your writing and set being discouraged aside. Being pedantic, if he is legendary then he is fiction. This is part of tightening your writing. Avoid praise words. Commit to dull-but-worthy flat toned prose.
Your only objective is to prove he passes WP:BIO. We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

18:39, 8 November 2023 review of submission by TakeDealyo[edit]

The reviewer has declined the draft because subject does not have significant media coverage. There were 13 citations on the subject but the reviewer says that they were just passing mentions. . Secondly, subject is an engineer, and they will not get the kind of media coverage that politicians and other celebrities get. Please suggest how to overcome this objection. Thank you. TakeDealyo (talk) 18:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If there are not appropriate sources to summarize, there is nothing you can do. It is true that Wikipedia's requirement to have independent reliable sources for a topic means that some areas are underserved, but this is necessary for verification purposes. 331dot (talk) 18:44, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for you response. If purpose of notable sources are for verification purposes then some of the citations are from the US Patent Office (USPTO), LinkedIn where someone has posted the review of the book authored by the subject and published by Elsevier (one of the world's largest publisher of STEM books) etc. How to provide more reliable sources? Please help. Thank you. TakeDealyo (talk) 19:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is your association with Mr. Kangovi? (I see you took a picture of him)
I confused you with regards to verification- verification is not the only requirement or need for a source. Sources must contain significant coverage of the subject, coverage that goes beyond merely documenting what they have done and goes into detail about what the source sees as important/significant/influential about the subject- what we call notability. I get that you see him as important, but what matters is if others see him that way.
Patent office documents are primary sources (as they only document he holds a patent) and do not establish notability. If an independent source writes about the significance of the invention that he holds a patent for, that would be what we are looking for. If as you say, they don't have the coverage needed, Mr. Kangovi would not merit a Wikipedia article. You may want to consider alternative outlets with less stringent requirements to tell the world about Mr. Kangovi. 331dot (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. TakeDealyo (talk) 21:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

18:52, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Center&main[edit]

Seeking assistance with this draft. I have provided multiple reliable business sources citing Mahesh's role as CEO of Cleo and his notable background in the technology sector. Center&main (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Center&main You have already declared you are paid by Cleo to write this. Please use that payment to learn how to write and cite drafts that will be accepted.
I will give you a clue.
For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
The draft has been rejected. You may appeal tothe rejecting reviewer if you feel it appropriate. It is unlikely to be reviewed further without their release. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

19:17, 8 November 2023 review of submission by 178.204.251.51[edit]

What should be added to this article to make it more complete? 178.204.251.51 (talk) 19:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you look at the comments on the draft page, multiple reviewers have noted that they don't understand what the article is about. I for one have no idea what an "otok" is. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 19:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm asking how to make the article clearer. On "otok" I made a link to the Chinese Wikipedia 178.204.251.51 (talk) 21:05, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks but I don't know Chinese so I still don't know what an otok is unfortunately. Perhaps the otok article should be translated to the English Wikipedia. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

20:19, 8 November 2023 review of submission by FutsalFan97[edit]

I don't understand why this draft has been rejected twice if you compare my draft with articles like Tennis at the 2023 Pan American Games – Men's singles and Tennis at the 2019 Pan American Games – Men's doubles my draft is pretty much equal and has even more references. Why does it keep being rejected? FutsalFan97 (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FutsalFan97 The draft has been declined, not "rejected". The terms have specific meanings here- "rejected" would mean a draft may not be resubmitted- declined means it may be resubmitted.
You do not have independent reliable sources that discuss this event in depth- you've just posted the results. 331dot (talk) 20:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I don't have independent reliable sources, then why articles like the ones I mentioned who also don't have independent reliable sources are approved? FutsalFan97 (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That another article exists does not necessarily mean that it was "approved" by anyone. There are numerous ways that inappropriate articles can get past us, this cannot justify more inappropriate articles being added. The men's doubles article has the same problem as your draft. There needs to be some sort of source besides the results. 331dot (talk) 20:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

20:30, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Visortelle[edit]

Need help with an article about Apache Pulsar @331dot written: > To pass the submission process, the draft needs to be much less about the technical information and features, and needs to discuss what independent sources say is important about this platform. That's my opinion, feel free to ask others at the AFC Help

I looked a lot. Spent the whole day on it.

Eventually, I asked the Pulsar community for help in finding good references. Hoping for any good recommendations. https://lists.apache.org/thread/vh8v8wch5drt7w6d4sozstpvhdcqn6gx

I don't see any independent, in-depth, and reliable at the same time sources here. Most of the in-depth sources are from the project documentation, StreamNative blog, or DataStax blog.

There are some articles by some bloggers on Medium and similar resources, but I can't they are "reliable".

Half a year ago I made a list of articles about Pulsar: https://github.com/tealtools/awesome-apache-pulsar#articles

Maybe something from this list is suitable?

There are two books on Apache Pulsar. One of the books is written by StreamNative employee, so its not "independent". Unlikely I can cite the second book several times in the article.

What is the concrete threshold of refs per section/per paragraph/per sentence or any other clear metric to article be considered valid for publishing?

I see the same similar situation in the list of Apache_Kafka and RabbitMQ references list. At least half of the references are from "dependent" sources. 


Visortelle (talk) 20:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Visortelle I fixed your post for proper display of a link to your draft(you had what I think you intended as a section title where the draft title should have been) 331dot (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Visortelle You asked about thresholds. We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
That is what we need. How many? That depends upon how many facts you state that are susceptible to challenge (as opposed to simple facts, like "Chalk is white")
I suspect you have answered your own question. No (useful) references = no article. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can't spend a lot of time on attempts and combinatorics. Can we go this way?:
I'll provide multiple sources for each fact. Each of them separately most likely won't be "independent", "secondary" and "in-depth", but in combination, these requirements will be completed.
They will complement each other and not contradict each other. You'll be able to remove some of them. Visortelle (talk) 03:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Visortelle No. Spend the time or don't spend it. Multiple references for a fact is WP:CITEKILL, and will lead to a decline, perhaps rejection. If you want the draft to be an article, please see WP:BURDEN. Wikipedia woudl like articles. but does not need them 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:09, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Visortelle Seems it was rejected. Shame. Never mind. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's now how citations work here- putting multiple citations and saying they only work together would be original research. 331dot (talk) 10:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just offer a choice for the reviewer. Feel free to leave refs you think is suitable and remove what you think isn't suitable.
The review process seems a subjective assessment. Is there any automated ref quality checker or something like that?
For now, it looks to me that reviewers even don't read the content of refs and just reject it for fun. Visortelle (talk) 14:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I provided:
Refs to two books from O'Reilly Media - the very reputable publisher.
Refs to articles on independent blogs.
Refs to an article in pdf by Intel.
What's wrong here? Visortelle (talk) 14:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ 331dot Keeping the discussion in the existing section.
Is the article at inforworld.com a good article? Visortelle (talk) 14:39, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not good for establishing notability. It's a comparison between two products and describes their features, it does not provide coverage indicating what makes it notable.. Blogs(which you refer to) are not generally considered reliable sources as they usually lack editorial control and fact checking. 331dot (talk) 14:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What about books? Visortelle (talk) 15:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Most books are fine as sources(unless they are self-published). I haven't read the books you refer to so I can't comment beyond that. 331dot (talk) 15:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What exactly is wrong with the references in this article?

I'm looking on another Wikipedia articles on related technologies an quality of references isn't better in any way.

Maybe this is a suitable source to refer to? https://www.infoworld.com/article/3379120/apache-kafka-vs-apache-pulsar-how-to-choose.html Visortelle (talk) 14:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Visortelle Please keep the discussion to this existing section. 331dot (talk) 14:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, comparisons to other articles are not usually useful, see WP:OSE- unless those articles are classified as good articles. 331dot (talk) 14:31, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Visortelle:, let's review the sources listed to see if there is enough independent, significant coverage:

1. Not independent or significant coverage.

2. Not independent. "At the time we started"

3. Not independent or significant coverage.

4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 14, and 16. Those sources are okay but they are kind of just random websites. There isn't really any broader newspaper or magazine coverage of this.

6 and 17. I'm not sure specialist how-to books count towards significant coverage.

7. I doubt Powerpoints count towards significant coverage.

8. Interview, not really fully independent.

12. Interview, not fully independent.

13. Company website, not independent.

15. I'm not sure that pdf essay counts towards significant coverage.

Honestly, this is borderline but I'm not sure if it's enough to support a stand-alone Wikipedia article. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 15:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding "this is borderline". If from start the moderators' feedback would contain at least a short per/source review as you provided, it would be smoother and much faster. Visortelle (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the more specific answer.
1. It's not a source, but rather a metadata. It has been added using Wikidata which has a special field for articles about software projects whose source is publicly available. How can it be viewed as a source? https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P1324
3. Same - metadata about this kind of projects.
4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 14, and 16. - should I keep them?
6 and 17 (books) - they cover the subject quite well. The documentation on the official site of course is more up-to-date, but both books have a good introduction into the problems that Pulsar intended to solve, it's history, it's architecture.
The publisher is O'Reilly Media. It's a reputable publisher with editor team.
Rest points: Apache Pulsar isn't a scientific research project. It doesn't imply writing scientific papers, same as many other software projects which have articles on the Wikipedia.
Also its unlikely New York Times, Washington Post, or any other magazine will publish anything about it.

Both books contain all the little amount of information mentioned in this article. Visortelle (talk) 15:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wasn't saying you should remove those sources. I was just evaluating them on whether they contributed towards notability. You can still use sources that don't count towards notability as references for other facts. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 15:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

20:52, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Pangiotis A.[edit]

Hello,

What other correction should I take?

My last revision wasn't clear about what was wrong.

Thank you, Pangiotis A. (talk) 20:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pangiotis A. the draft is rejected meaning it will not longer be considered. Given much of it is unsourced, it appears to be original research and it certainly is promotional. S0091 (talk) 21:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

21:06, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Horophile[edit]

Hi, I was wondering if I can get assistance for how to improve my submission? I am including multiple independence sources but still getting declined? Horophile (talk) 21:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Horophile. No, your sources are not independent. A large majority of them are affiliated with Harvard. Those Harvard sources are of no use in establishing notability. What is required are sources that are entirely independent of Harvard. Cullen328 (talk) 21:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

21:28, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Օֆելյա Հակոբյան[edit]

I have made updates, please help me to know if my article now is in a better situation. Thank you in advance. Օֆելյա Հակոբյան (talk) 21:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Օֆելյա Հակոբյան The way to discover this is to submit it for review 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

23:08, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Morekar[edit]

Their is problem in references but I don't ideo about that. Morekar (talk) 23:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Morekar obviously the technical reference problem is fixed. I make no comment about the draft itself. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:04, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Timtrent, Whenever I starting to edit in desktop mode appeared a note in reflist is – "This reference is defined in a template or other generated block, and for now can only be previewed in source mode".
@Morekar I do not see that I am afraid. If t persists I suggest WP:HELPDESK for that question 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

23:13, 8 November 2023 review of submission by MicroSupporter[edit]

I am struggling to make it different to the previously deleted version on Verdis because I originally made it similar to Liberland another micronation nearby. I added more notable and recent references and information about their 'president' being detained. What can I do? MicroSupporter (talk) 23:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MicroSupporter: Could you please list all of the new references? Thanks. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 23:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. I believe I added the following:
https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/melbourne-teenager-becomes-europes-newest-president,18022 (I saw you wrote it isn't independent but I do not understand why.)
https://www.mylondon.news/lifestyle/travel/southall-teenager-sets-up-new-26385041
https://cointelegraph.com/magazine/20-wild-attempts-to-create-crypto-micronations-or-communities/
https://birdinflight.com/svit/verdis.html (in Ukrainian)
https://metro.co.uk/2023/04/30/verdis-the-sovereign-state-on-croatia-and-serbias-disputed-border-18689539/
https://www.courrierdesbalkans.fr/Danube-le-fleuve-ou-peuvent-naitre-des-utopies-1-3-Bienvenue-en-Syldavie-si-ce-n-est-en-Bordurie (in French)
https://issuu.com/starnewsgroup/docs/2023-07-18_rt_633/1 (some local paper I think)
https://explorersweb.com/terra-nullius-unclaimed-lands/ (I dont think I added this one. I am not sure) MicroSupporter (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also found this older article. The other b92 reference appears to be reposted from Sputnik. This one is independently written. https://www.b92.net/zivot/vesti.php?yyyy=2021&mm=09&dd=20&nav_id=1925054 MicroSupporter (talk) 23:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ARandomName123 sorry I forgot to tag MicroSupporter (talk) 23:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's fine, gimme a sec to review the links. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 23:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MicroSupporter:
Independent Australia: Author writes in first person. Ex. "I", "We"
MyLondon: Maybe, but seems more like an interview converted to article form.
Birdinflight: Seems ok, actually
Metro: Maybe
Issuu: Not really about Verdis, more about aid.
Explorersweb: Passing mention
b92: Maybe, but the coverage is mostly superficial (basic facts).
Also, per the MyLondon source, they have recognition from 1 country (Kingdom of Eswatini), though WP:NCOUNTRY isn't a thing so I'm not sure if this contributes much. In any case, I think this is pretty borderline so a second opinion would be appreciated. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 23:58, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh ok. The Independent Australia article I think the journalist joined the ‘President’ to report on his trip. I would also like to advise looking at the previous references on the page like Većernji List, Total Croatia News, Pagina/12 and LaNacion. I think they are independent.
https://www.vecernji.hr/vijesti/osnovali-drzavu-na-nasem-spornom-teritoriju-cilj-nam-je-pomirenje-naroda-1524432
https://www.pagina12.com.ar/371297-verdis-la-eco-republica-libre-que-preside-un-pibe-de-17-anos
https://www.lanacion.com.ar/revista-brando/la-republica-libre-de-verdis-el-pais-sustentable-que-fundo-un-joven-de-17-anos-en-una-franja-entre-nid03112021/
https://total-croatia-news.com/news/politics/verdis-republic/
are they ok? MicroSupporter (talk) 00:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ARandomName123sorry I forgot to tag again. MicroSupporter (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MicroSupporter: Hi, sorry for the late response. One of the sources is an interview, and the others seem ok, but, as previously mentioned, I would like a second opinion. Feel free to resubmit, linking to this thread if necessary. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 01:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In my opinion, there is too much citation of primary and questionable sourcing in the draft. And as with other 'micronation' articles, this article abuses the infobox to misrepresent the self-promotional claims of individuals of unrecognised zero-population states as having recognised heads of state etc - e.g. naming a supposed 'President' and 'Vice president'. Whether this counts as fiction, fancruft, or an outright hoax, I'm unsure, but in my opinion Wikipedia should not be presenting such fantasies as facts. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have argued with you before. Respectfully, I think you have too much bias against micronations. You are basically saying they should all be deleted in that sense. Also what sourcing is primary except their website? MicroSupporter (talk) 11:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have a bias against misrepresenting fantasy as fact. As does Wikipedia. If people who write articles promoting the fantasies of imaginary country-builders as fact have an issue with that, it isn't my problem. Daniel Jackson is no more the 'President of Verdis' than Joshua Norton was Emperor of the United States. Compare the infoboxes... AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is not a misrepresentation. It says Micronation on the info box. If you feel this way maybe set up an AfD on every micronation. List of micronations MicroSupporter (talk) 11:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, that's exactly the BS the fantasy-country fanclub have been pushing on Wikipedia for years. Find some dubious local paper or the like that describes Imaginistan as a 'micronation' and then spam the article with a whole lot of nonsense about governments, constitutions, currencies etc, etc, etc that exists absolutely nowhere but on some website with delusions of grandeur. This is an abuse of infoboxes, and an abuse of Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ARandomName123: Metro isn't an RS (rsp); it's a tabloid owned by the Daily Mail, although it's not deprecated as the Mail is. – dudhhr talkcontribssheher 17:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah ok, wasn't aware of that. Thanks for letting me know. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 17:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

November 9[edit]

01:37, 9 November 2023 review of submission by Memories of[edit]

I'm not understanding how this draft doesn't show that this music group has received significant coverage. They have been mentioned in the Wall Street Journal, and receieved significant coverage in articles from NPR, Consequence, Paste, and Stereogum. I've seen articles of other groups in the mainspace for years now that don't have as many sources of this nature. Memories of (talk) 01:37, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Memories of Please see other stuff exists. It could be that these other articles you have seen are also inappropriate and simply not addressed yet, and you would be unaware of this. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us. We can only address what we know about. This is why each article or draft is considered on its own merits and not in comparison with other articles. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those classified as good articles, which have been vetted by the community.
Interviews do not establish notability, as they are not independent sources, being the band speaking about itself. 331dot (talk) 09:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

01:57, 9 November 2023 review of submission by 66.41.37.183[edit]

Hello, I have drastically changed the article and make sure the references were better. So sorry about that. May we publish? 66.41.37.183 (talk) 01:57, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your sources are not significant coverage of the company that describes how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. An article must do more than document the existence of the company and what it does, it must summarize independent reliable sources with significant coverage. Typically, after a rejection, the first step is to appeal to the reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 09:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you work for this company, that needs to be declared, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. This is easier to do with an account, but even if you don't create an account, you must disclose. 331dot (talk) 09:09, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

03:55, 9 November 2023 review of submission by Benking84[edit]

I am unclear how any articles can get posted to Wikipedia, this is a subject that has 30 references, some of these are from the largest news organisations in the country.

The feedback has always been addressed as best I can with my limited understanding, so if there are any other sections that need fixing I am happy to take feedback and implement it. Benking84 (talk) 03:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The problem is that it reads like an advertisement, especially the introduction. See "[t]he founders of Swiss 8 have first-hand experience in managing mental health issues;" this is the kind of thing an advert trying to promote Swiss 8 would say, the phrasing is bad for a wiki article. Also "Swiss 8 aims to create a new approach to mental health care that is proactive," this could be rephrased more like "A stated goal of Swiss 8 is to create a new proactive approach to mental health care" There are many other examples as well. Also I can't comment on whether the subject is even notable enough to get an article. PiGuy3 (talk) 04:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Benking84 I see you declared a COI; if you work for Swiss 8, the Terms of Use require you to make the stricter paid editing disclosure. 331dot (talk) 09:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't work for them, I did some volunteering a year or so ago as they are a charity. Even if I did though it is an entity that has had multiple media articles in the biggest papers in the country this year, so is of importance to the public.
Is this the issue? The admins assumed that I was being paid to write the article? Benking84 (talk) 02:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

08:06, 9 November 2023 review of submission by Fbarbe[edit]

My submission has been rejected for appearing to "read more like an advertisement". Note that I have not been paid and have no financial interest in the project (which is a research project) to write this Wikipedia page. I have, however, used Ludii for my bachelor thesis, so I am aware of my bias. This is my first time writing a new Wikipedia article, and would be very grateful if someone could highlight the paragraphs/parts that make it sound like an advertisement and that I could change. Fbarbe (talk) 08:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Fbarbe In the first instance please approach the reviewer who declined it 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

08:31, 9 November 2023 review of submission by Chrisw1117[edit]

Why was it declined? Chrisw1117 (talk) 08:31, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Chrisw1117: for the reasons given in the decline notice and the accompanying comments. Have you read them? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm I based it off another award winner from the same award? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivi_Lin Chrisw1117 (talk) 09:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chrisw1117: the Vivi Lin article has its own problems, mimicking it may not be a good idea. In any case, we don't assess drafts by comparison to whatever may exist out there, but by checking whether they meet the necessary standards for publication. Yours fails on notability grounds, due to its sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:26, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which of the sources is not credible? They are all from news agencies and the award platforms themselves , (sorry I am just trying to learn lol) Chrisw1117 (talk) 09:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The award platforms are what we call primary sources, we need reliable secondary sources. Theroadislong (talk) 09:41, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So would the news agencies that confirmed the awards and discussed not count to support? Chrisw1117 (talk) 10:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

08:54, 9 November 2023 review of submission by Arunvikram2208[edit]

My article is getting declined even after adding independent sources Arunvikram2208 (talk) 08:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Arunvikram2208: there is precisely one source cited!
This draft is being declined for lack of evidence of notability. That requires significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources.
Congrats on creating a strong contender for the longest article title, though. :) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:58, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You say that you added sources, but I only see one source. You should first gather your sources and then summarize them- not write a text and then look for sources to support it- see WP:BACKWARD. 331dot (talk) 09:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

09:19, 9 November 2023 review of submission by 115.114.90.174[edit]

Hi,

Why my article submission is rejected multiple times despite the fact that it provides all the necessary information from relevant trusted sources. ?

Kindly help. 115.114.90.174 (talk) 09:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I find no draft with such a title, and your edit history under this IP address shows only one edit, namely this help desk query. Please provide more details. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, I have been editing the following page: Draft:Bharti AXA Life. I have submitted the article twice as per the requirement. But now, it got's deleted. Please help me to retrieve the same and in editing the article as per the wikipedia guidelines. RahulRaiSahab (talk) 09:25, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Courtesy link: Draft:Bharti AXA Life
Okay, thanks. As you can see, the title is different from what you first gave.
This draft has been deleted as promotional. You may ask the deleting administrator to have it returned to you for drafting, but this is far from guaranteed.
What is your connection to this company? I will post a query on your talk page, please respond to it promptly. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:29, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

10:45, 9 November 2023 review of submission by Vicpaz[edit]

Hello, I've been working on this article about a living musician (that happens to be my husband) for 9 months now, I started by clicking on a red link on his American label's wikipedia page.

I'm not getting any response on my messages to the last reviewer, and he mostly justifies the rejection by the "tone" issue, is the 3rd time I get this reason, I did a lot of work reading the Manual of Style, but it seems I still has some work to do (and stuff to learn)


This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.


Can anybody help me solve this "tone" issue? I collaborated editing many musician's articles (in other languages than English) I honestly I see a similar tone and overall style in my article, but I really appreciate any help.

Since the last rejection I did change some small details, removing references and a couple a words that could be considered "peacock" mostly adjectives .

Thanks in advance Vicpaz (talk) 10:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Vicpaz I do not see it as an advert. The tone looks acceptable. All you need to dos to proves that he passes WP:NMUSICIAN and then resubmit it for further review 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for jumping into this.
What I've found (as sources) satisfies Criteria for musicians #1, 5, 10 and 12.
For 1 there are the press quotes.
For number 5 (Has released two or more albums...on important indie labels) I was asked by a reviewer to remove ref pointing to Discogs (still can't understand why, but I did remove them) and to the label's release announcements. I cant point the article to any better than the label's announcement!
For number 10 there are the film and series placements, but for the major ones (Narcos, Ozark, etc) there are no media coverage, only a mention in the credits and some inclusions I referenced to specialized film-music sites.
For number 12 there for example one interview (1 hour long) that was a full career spanning one, with loads of biographical information. But I included that (somebody's suggestion on the live chat) as a "further reading" link. But it could be a reference to all major bio data in the article. I don't think is great to reference 10 times in the article to the same ref....Then again, you have to listen to the 1 hour interview to find the information (it's in Spanish)...
But thanks for reassuring me that the tone is ok, will look for help about the way to reflect the notability from the references into the article text...
Cheers Vicpaz (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

12:15, 9 November 2023 review of submission by PinneyFowke[edit]

I understand the comments that have been made.

2) I think I have misunderstood how to use Links and References, and included a number of them the wrong way round. I need help: a) To ensure where I should be using Links, and that they are correctly inserted b) To move some citations from Links to References and c) To make sure I type in References in the correct format. I have just included the internet URLs

2) I accept the comment about being a 'connected person', but have borne in mind that the structure of any entry needs to comply with the standards required, and am happy to have this considered, and expected this would be the case.

Thank you 

 PinneyFowke (talk) 12:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is inadvisable and highly discouraged(though not forbidden) to write about ourselves at all, please read the autobiography policy(as well as an article about yourself is not necessarily a good thing).
If you wish to proceed, please see Referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 12:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

17:20, 9 November 2023 review of submission by OkraKemp[edit]

The last reviewer of my article removed an entire paragraph of content, not just references as they state. Is that allowed? Can you direct me in finding the original content that is now missing? OkraKemp (talk) 17:20, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@OkraKemp Please examine their edit. Unless I am mistaken, Mcmatter has done precisely what they said. All prior versions are available to all in the history tab, except in exceptional circumstances.
I have flagged that I cannot find your declaration under WP:PAIDanywhere. I can find a use of {{Connected contributor}} at Draft talk:Okra Energy. Istead you need to deploy {{paid}} with parameters filled out on your User page, and {{Connected contributor (paid)}} on the article talk page. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@OkraKemp I did remove entire paragraphs in this edit, because they were off topic. We have an article on LNG if the reader wishes to know more on that topic, they can click on the link to that article. This draft is supposed to be on Okra Energy not LNG. Stick to the facts of the company and base it on what others have stated about the company in reliable source. As for the question is that allowed? Absolutely, no one owns any particular draft or its content. My edits were to help assist in guiding you to a better draft. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 18:20, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

17:21, 9 November 2023 review of submission by Craigmateo[edit]

Advice needed on how this article could be adjusted to be accepted. I've removed biased language and added 3rd party citations. I'm having trouble understanding that it's not a notable enough topic. Craigmateo (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Craigmateo Please start by approaching the editor who rejected the draft. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:41, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

18:12, 9 November 2023 review of submission by Kimbamy[edit]

Hello, I translated this article from the italian one and I added some more references. I think it is complete enough. Can you helpe me understanding what is missing, maybe with an example? Kimbamy (talk) 18:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

19:19, 9 November 2023 review of submission by 5.101.23.224[edit]

Why are the sources presented not suitable? The authors of the books are well-known scientists 5.101.23.224 (talk) 19:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi IP, VK is not a reliable source as it is user-generated content so should not used. S0091 (talk) 22:38, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, there are links not to VK, but to PDF versions of books written by famous Soviet scientists 5.101.23.224 (talk) 00:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

21:34, 9 November 2023 review of submission by NatalieMeisner[edit]

What exactly do I need to update to ensure I get published :) NatalieMeisner (talk) 21:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NatalieMeisner I fixed your link for proper display- the whole url is not needed. 331dot (talk) 21:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Autobiographical articles are highly discouraged(though not forbidden), please see the autobiography policy as well as how an article about yourself is not necessarily a good thing.
You've summarized your work and desscribed your accomplishments- but the main purpose of a Wikipedia article is to summarize what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about(in this case) a writer, showing how they meet the definition of a notable writer or more broadly a notable person.
Awards do not contribute to notability unless the award itself merits an article (like Pulitzer Prize or Academy Award). 331dot (talk) 21:39, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can I list pages that I am messaged as external links or autobiographical links should not be on the wiki at all? NatalieMeisner (talk) 21:43, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

21:49, 9 November 2023 review of submission by Roddy Quezada Granados[edit]

As a representative and unbiased individual who has professional knowledge of Doreen, I have created this draft with original content and photos for which I obtained her permission to use. I'm puzzled by the rejection of this draft and some guidance would be greatly appreciated. Roddy Quezada Granados (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is only one cited source which is an interview so is a primary source and not independent. What she has said, written or created is not useful. What is needed are reliable secondary sources with no affiliation with her that have written about her (again not what she says, etc.) such as critical reviews of her work. Also, external hyperlinks do not belong in the body of the article. Almost everything under the "Works and Contributions" section is a hyperlink and they all appear to be mostly primary sources (production company, publisher, etc.) so not helpful. S0091 (talk) 22:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ping @Roddy Quezada Granados. S0091 (talk) 22:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Roddy Quezada Granados Pivtures are handled at Wikimedia Commons.mThey are upper deletion there. Visit c:COM:VRT and follow the instructions there, please. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

22:21, 9 November 2023 review of submission by NatalieMeisner[edit]

Can someone help me with trying to resolve these issues in more detail:

that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

I don't see secondary sources that verify the article and prove notability, and the draft itself doesn't look very much like a proper Wikipedia biography.

NatalieMeisner I fixed your link for proper display- the whole url is not needed. 331dot (talk) 21:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC) Autobiographical articles are highly discouraged(though not forbidden), please see the autobiography policy as well as how an article about yourself is not necessarily a good thing. You've summarized your work and desscribed your accomplishments- but the main purpose of a Wikipedia article is to summarize what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about(in this case) a writer, showing how they meet the definition of a notable writer or more broadly a notable person. Awards do not contribute to notability unless the award itself merits an article (like Pulitzer Prize or Academy Award). NatalieMeisner (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@NatalieMeisner Please be specific in the help you woudllike. This is, at the moment a plea for anything and everything. With recision, what abiut the comments you have acted here, is unclear to you. We can start from there.
Be aware that writing your autobiography is not a great idea. It is a rare person indeed who can be unbiased and impartial. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:32, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not writing about myself, I just named the account under the author so I can remember which account is for what information.
well I would like to start on what are the major issues with the writing. NatalieMeisner (talk) 22:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How do I make it look more like a wikiepedia page NatalieMeisner (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@NatalieMeisner by summarizing what reputable sources have written about Meisner, own their own without any input by Meisner. Almost everything in the draft is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article which is why people writing about themselves or those close to them is so strongly discouraged here. Its rarely successful. S0091 (talk) 22:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am writing this based on the author. I am not the author being written about - I accidentally named myself by the username. NatalieMeisner (talk) 22:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@NatalieMeisner Are you using multiple accounts? Please declare which you are using. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No this is my only account. I put my name as the username rather than the article name. This is my first time using Wikipedia NatalieMeisner (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@NatalieMeisner I suggest you change this name to another that is not Ms Meinser's. We have a rule: One person - one account. Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple will be your friend here. It is improper to appear to be adopting the person of Natalie Meisner.
Please make this your first priority 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! I have changed my username to my personal account name. Memeraj (talk) 23:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@NatalieMeisner Thank you for requesting a name change.
With regard to the writing, please read WP:MOS. Put simply, we require dull-but-worthy prose, and for a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
That should be sufficient to get you started. Work by gathering the references first, marshal the facts you intend to use into a storyboard for the draft, and only then write what the references say in your own words, without close paraphrasing. You will be amazed how different the end product is, so consider abandoning your existing words. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Memeraj pinging the correct user! 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How do I fix the look of the wikipedia page... apparently it isnt looking like the proper way it should. Memeraj (talk) 23:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Memeraj HELP:YFA and WP:MOS should guide you 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 00:07, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

23:14, 9 November 2023 review of submission by Likelihoodist[edit]

I hope that you can provide clarification as to the reasons for this rejection as well as suggestions as to how my entry can be improved.

The stated reasons are as follows:

1. Does not qualify for a Wikipedia article.

Odds ratios for matched case-control studies is a standard topic in epidemiologic statistics. As such, I would think that this would make my article notable. This topic is covered in many textbooks on epidemiology. This includes Gordis Epidemiology (ref 1 on my submitted page), which is a standard text that is widely used for teaching elementary epidemiology. Perhaps I should also have referenced Rothman et al.’s Modern Epidemiology (See reference 15 in the Wikipedia article entitled “Odds ratio”). Rothman is a renowned American epidemiologist (see the Wikipedia article entitled “Kenneth Rothman (epidemiologist)” Their text, which covers this topic, is arguably the most authoritative text on advanced epidemiology available today.

Wikipedia does have an article on Odds ratios, which covers odds ratios for independent case-control studies but does not mention odds ratios for matched studies. It also has an article entitled “McNemar’s test”, which describes a test of the association between two dichotomous variables in a matched study. This test is also used to test the hypothesis that the odds ratio from a matched case-control study equals one. However, this page does not mention odds ratios or derive the maximum likelihood estimate for this statistic from these studies. The lack of any entry on odds ratios for matched case-control studies is a notable omission from Wikipedia that I believe should be filled.

Would my article be improved by citing Rothman et al.?

2. In-depth entry

Celentano et al. (ref 1 on my submitted page), Rothman et al. and Breslow and Day all cover this topic in detail. Celentano et al. discuss calculating odds ratios from a matched-pairs case-control study on pages 251–253 and 290 – 291. They do not give a proof as to why this odds ratio estimate is correct. Rothman et al. cover this topic on pages 287 – 288 and reference Breslow and Day 1980 (ref 2 on my submitted page). Breslow and Day provide the derivation of the odds ratio from matched 2x2 tables that is given in my article.

Do I need to clarify that the derivation that I give in my article is due to Breslow and Day and not a proof that I thought of myself?

3. Reliable sources

The references that are given in my article are authoritative. As mentioned in his Wikipedia web page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Rothman_(epidemiologist) , Rothman is a professor of epidemiology at Boston University and a distinguished Fellow at RTI International. The fact that his text is cited by Wikipedia’s “Odds ratio” page speaks to the reliability of his textbook. (His coauthor Sander Greenland is also one of the world’s leading epidemiologists. See the Wikipedia page entitled “Sander Greenland”. N.E. Breslow and N.E. Day were/are renowned 20th century biostatisticians. See their Wikipedia pages entitled “Norman Breslow” and “Nick Day (statistician)”. Leon Gordis was a professor of epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. In short, the references on odds ratios from matched case-control studies could not be more reliable.

4. Secondary source

I’m not sure how this criteria applies to a statistical methods page. I do reference the paper by McEvoy et al. that provides an interesting application of this method. 

What sort of secondary source would be helpful for my article?

5. Independent sources

All of my references are independent from me. My name is Bill Dupont (see https://www.vumc.org/biostatistics/person/william-d-dupont ). I am not a personal friend of any of the authors cited in my article or given above. Also I am not a co-author of any paper written with these scholars.

In summary I am puzzled as to why my article was rejected. It appears to meet the criteria for publication in Wikipedia and would be a worthwhile contribution to the pages that you have already published on epidemiologic methods. I would be most grateful for any advice that you can give me as to how to improve my article to make it suitable for publication in Wikipedia.

References

1. Celentano DD, Szklo M, Gordis L (2019). Gordis Epidemiology, Sixth Edition. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier. p. 149-177.

2. ^ Jump up to:a b Breslow, NE, Day, NE (1980). Statistical Methods in Cancer Research: Vol. 1 - The Analysis of Case-Control Studies. Lyon, France: IARC Scientific Publications. p. 162-189.

3. ^ Jump up to:a b McEvoy SP, Stevenson MR, McCartt AT, Woodward M, Haworth C, Palamara P, et al. (2005). "Role of mobile phones in motor vehicle crashes resulting in hospital attendance: a case-crossover study". BMJ. 331: 428. doi:10.1136/bmj.38537.397512.55.

4. Rothman, K. J.; Greenland, S.; Lash, T. L. (2008). Modern Epidemiology (3rd ed.). Wolters Kluwer, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. ISBN 978-0-7817-5564-1. 


Likelihoodist (talk) 23:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Likelihoodist There is truly no need to out yourself. "Independent" means "Inependent of the Subject"
You might approach the reviewer who declined it. They wish to see an increase in the references. For matters os science we need to be as sure as we can be that things are not fi=ringer hypotheses. References help a great deal here. Is there any coverage external to Academe? If so it is useful. If not, no matter. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

November 10[edit]

02:54, 10 November 2023 review of submission by Cd634011[edit]

Hello! This Wikipedia article has now been rejected two times, very quickly, by two separate reviewers on Wikipedia. This is an academic book that has different standards for notability than other types of books, but it appears the reviewers are using notability standards for other kinds of books (fiction, mainstream press). I followed the guidelines for "Academic and technical books" (see below), and based on these guidelines, this book meets the standards for notability.

This is a highly specialized academic book, so I used those guidelines for notability per the "Academic and technical books" section of this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(books). The book was published in Routledge's Scientific Psychology series, which is a prestigious series that includes books by well-known and respected figures in mathematical psychology, such as Duncan Luce and Louis Narens. Books in this series normally undergo multiple levels of peer review. The following quote comes straight from the page regarding using academic presses as a source of determining notability for an academic and technical book: "Publication by a prominent academic press should be accorded far more weight than the analogous benchmark defined for publication of mainstream book by well known commercial publishers, by virtue of the non-commercial nature of such presses, and the peer review process that some academic books must pass before publication is allowed to go forward.” 

The audience for this book is relatively narrow, as mathematical psychology is not a large field. As a tenured professor in Experimental Psychology, I believe it to be an important contribution and have used Chapters from the book in my graduate seminar in Cognitive Psychology. Indeed, as also referenced on the notability page: "A book's subject may be so specialized, such as in the esoteric math or physics spheres, that only a few hundred (or fewer) people in the world are situated to understand and comment on the material."

I have made edits to include over a dozen additional secondary references from sources that are independent of the book's author. These include references to textbooks, other academic books, and papers from other fields (e.g., neuroscience, education, economics) that use work featured in the book.

Please also note that while many of the original references are connected to the book's author, they are all from peer-reviewed journals and thus have undergone review by other experts in the field. These references are not independent of the subject, but they are in-depth and reliable, and they are important to demonstrating how the work in the book has been scientifically validated. Cd634011 (talk) 02:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Cd634011, thanks for reaching out. Can you go into some more detail on why you think this is a notable academic book per WP:TEXTBOOK? Also, can you list the best 3 or 4 sources that go towards establishing notability? Thank you. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

03:09, 10 November 2023 review of submission by Littleboybrew[edit]

I would like to understand what would make a museum notable? Littleboybrew (talk) 03:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Honestly, those sources aren't that bad. I've seen worse. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1184390050"