Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category — List (sorting)ShowcaseParticipants
Apply — By subjectReviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives

Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

• This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
  • For questions on how to use or edit Wikipedia, visit the Teahouse.
  • For unrelated questions, use the search box or the reference desk.
  • Create a draft via Article wizard or request an article at requested articles.
• Do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page.
• Watch out for scammers! If someone contacts you saying that they can get your draft published for payment, they are trying to scam you. Report such attempts here.

Ask a new question Please check back often for answers.

• Top of page
• Table of Contents
• Today's posts
• Bottom of page

July 18

01:26, 18 July 2024 review of submission by Eva Jacinto

• Eva Jacinto (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:JOAN GARRIGA BACARDÍ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I have multiple questions: 1. How can I ask someone to proofread my draft in order to be sure it fits all the requirements? 2. I cannot upload a photo. How can I prove I have permission to upload it? 3. There is an error about soft hyphen which I can’t solve 4. I am interested in translating this page, if it becomes a deputed by wikipedia, to Portuguese and English. I am not finding how to do it 5. Could someone give me a structure or an example of a biographical page that works well?

Sorry for such a long message. Thank you in advance Eva Jacinto

Eva Jacinto (talk) 01:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@Eva Jacinto: In order:

1. You do that by submitting it for review. "Pre-reviews" are inherently meaningless. (That being said, we wouldn't even begin to attempt to do this as this draft is in Spanish; the English-language Wikipedia will not accept content written in the Spanish language.)
2. You don't, because you having permission means absolutely nothing. Permission is needed by the entity hosting the photo, and Wikipedia will never seek or use such permission.
3. "soft hyphen" is a phrase I have never seen before today, so I have no context for this error.
4. See WP:Translation. Note that this implies you're translating from the Spanish-language Wikipedia (es.wikipedia.org).
5. Any Good or Featured class biography will work for this, but since we're discussing a living person here (where special rules apply) the closest example would be a Good or Featured BLP. Martin Rundkvist seems a good example.

—Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 06:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

3. Soft hyphen is used to indicate where a word should be divided, if it needs to be divided, and will only display then. I come across this in Finnish, where long compound words are common, so the editors insert soft hyphens to indicate possible locations where to divide the word onto two lines. They are invisible, so are hard to detect, but can be found by moving the cursor through the word in question one letter at a time. When you find a location where trying to move the cursor doesn't seem to move it, that's where the soft hyphen is (so in reality, moving the cursor does move it, it just moves it past the invisible hyphen). HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Eva Jacinto (talk) 22:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your great help.

Still don’t catch how to put a photo. Eva Jacinto (talk) 22:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Please forget about photos until you have made a draft that has any chance of being acceptable as an article - which yours does not, because you have written it WP:BACKWARDS. You are in the position of somebody who does not (yet) know anything about how to build a house, but has put up a frame that is about to fall down, and is asking how to install windows.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft.. ColinFine (talk) 10:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your didactical answer (even though not encouraging).

I didn’t submit any article, just working on it. I understood that sandbox works as a testing room, a space where we can work slowly. Am I wrong?

Every time I ask things I get a better idea how wikipedia works. It’s almost impossible to read all the articles that wikipedia offers to teach people how to contribute.

Contribution: that is what I am trying to do with a subject that interests to thousands and thousands of people, whom would like to search and find a neutral and clarifying article. I hope you can help me on that.

With such rigorous policies I wonder why there are so many bad articles in wikipedia.

Thank you again Eva Jacinto (talk) 15:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

01:30, 18 July 2024 review of submission by GokuSS400

• GokuSS400 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:List of Kamen Rider Gotchard episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

So I noticed that unlike other modern Kamen Rider series, Gotchard did not have an episode list publicly available on wiki so I tried to submit one. However I'm told that the page doesn't have enough reliable sources (45), and that all of the sources being from the same source/place is not enough and thus the page requires more. In this specific case all sources are from the Japanese tv network TV Asashi, which is the network that Kamen Rider airs on. However I've looked at all the pages for the other Reiwa Era Kamen Rider shows and each of their episode list pages without exception cite only from Tv Asashi. So I'm confused here as to why there seems to be different standards, and what I should look for to improve this article, especially given the series is very near to its end. GokuSS400 (talk) 01:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

GokuSS400 You have made a common mistake for inexperienced users in that you based what you wrote on other articles; that is not usually a good idea, see other stuff exists. It could be that these other articles have the same issues as your draft and you would be unaware of that as an inexperienced user.(you've had an account since 2009 but only have 42 edits). It's more likely that these other episode lists should be removed, not more added.

As this is a volunteer project, people do what they can when they can; we try our best to be consistent, but we are only as good as the people who choose to help and choose to be familiar with relevant standards. 331dot (talk) 09:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I mean yes you answered the first half of the issue (regarding why the other articles can get away with this...sort of), but you did not answer the core part of the issue of the fact that more sources are being asked for. There are ultimately a couple issues with that request. First of all you're not going to get anything more authentic/official than Tv Asashi on this matter since the show is broadcast on their network. The show is from Japan, so any source with information on the show would have a 50% chance of being lost in translation (as Japanese and English do not translate 1:1).

So this ultimately leaves me scratching my head trying to figure out what more would work here, which is part of what I'm asking guidance on. GokuSS400 (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

06:23, 18 July 2024 review of submission by Kresnabasudewa

• Kresnabasudewa (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Vasko Ruseimy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

i have edit the content and referensces, please check. Kresnabasudewa (talk) 06:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Kresnabasudewa The draft has been rejected and will not be considered further at this time. It is not enough for a politician to merely be seeking public office, they must win their election or actually hold public office to merit an article as a politican, see WP:NPOLITICIAN. You haven't demonstrated that he meets the broader notable person definition either. If something fundamentally changes about this, you should first appeal to the last reviewer directly.

If you have a connection to him, that must be disclosed, see conflict of interest. If you work for him or his party, the Terms of Use require disclosure, see paid editing. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

i want edit, but not as a politician but as a young entrepreneur, can i do? Kresnabasudewa (talk) 09:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@Kresnabasudewa: no, for the same reason as explained, ie. there is no evidence of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok, i am surrender Kresnabasudewa (talk) 11:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

09:43, 18 July 2024 review of submission by Meattaeiwondota

• Meattaeiwondota (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Lav Kumar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why not accept my article Meattaeiwondota (talk) 09:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@Meattaeiwondota: the reasons why I declined Draft:Lav Kumar are given in the decline notice. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I not work for any party.I am her to improve my writing skills.I am PHD student this is my 3 years. Meattaeiwondota (talk) 09:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Can I publish research paper in forms of article. Meattaeiwondota (talk) 09:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@Meattaeiwondota: do not resubmit drafts without any attempt at improving them. Fair warning: next time, I will reject this outright. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Please help me.I am not aware about..

What I have to Improve? Tell me Meattaeiwondota (talk) 10:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@Meattaeiwondota: meant to say also that you're not supposed to be writing about yourself in any case, see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Are you comedy me? Who give responsibility of this..your sentence like a children writing in class 6-5. Meattaeiwondota (talk) 10:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I not writing about my self.. It topic after study on internet but it not on Wikipedia. Meattaeiwondota (talk) 10:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@Meattaeiwondota: your user page literally says "I am Lav Kumar website developer,News article writer." -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

This is user page it about me. But on article I have written that is different you an search on internet. Meattaeiwondota (talk) 10:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

You can see information on google AI or WhatsApp AI you ask about Lav Kumar Taekwondo player.you will get information. Meattaeiwondota (talk) 11:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

AI hallucinates. Anything written by it is worthless for notability. (You could argue that it'd be acceptable if someone actually edited its output, but that would make the source no longer AI given the extensive rewrites that would be required to make it accurate and sensical.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

09:52, 18 July 2024 review of submission by Fcontrepois

• Fcontrepois (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Cloud FinOps (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello amazing team.

I do think that the topic of Cloud FinOps is of interest, but I do not manage to express it a encyclopedia way. Can I ask others to take over the writing of this article in a more encyclopidic style and submit again? Have a great day Frank Fcontrepois (talk) 09:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Which article are you talk about. Meattaeiwondota (talk) 09:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I am Individual not in Team.. Meattaeiwondota (talk) 10:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@Fcontrepois: this draft has been rejected, which means the end of the road for it. I think it's unlikely anyone (certainly anyone here at the help desk) will want to get involved in editing a rejected draft, although I guess it's always possible someone may choose to write a new one on this subject at some point. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Help me to improve my rejected article.. Meattaeiwondota (talk) 10:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@Fcontrepois: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. This doesn't read like an encyclopaedia article at all; it reads like an internal whitepaper from an IT firm was stitched together with an investors' brochure to create a Frankenstein's Creature of inappropriate-for-Wikipedia. What is your connexion to Cloud FinOps? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for the feedback. I was trying my best. I hope other will try to write the article better.

Cloud FinOps is a discipline, not a company. Most of the current standards are set by the FinOps Foundation that is under the Linux foundation. Fcontrepois (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@Fcontrepois: Which doesn't answer my question: What is your connexion to (companies entities promoting) Cloud FinOps? This sort of article isn't accidentally written by someone with no direct connexion to a subject or to entities with a stake in that subject. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I am very involved in FinOps, I work for a company that in involved in FinOps, I have a podcast on it and participate in setting the standards. Fcontrepois (talk) 18:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@Fcontrepois: The second of those things requires a disclosure even if your work on Wikipedia is otherwise completely divorced from that firm's business operations. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Can you answer my initial question: Can I ask others to take over the writing of this article in a more encyclopidic style and submit again?

Or in other words, how can this topic be worked by others and submitted? Fcontrepois (talk) 11:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

10:56, 18 July 2024 review of submission by Meattaeiwondota

• Meattaeiwondota (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Neurolinks (Research Paper) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Give some advice Meattaeiwondota (talk) 10:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not publish research papers, so the best advice: please publish it somewhere else, such as at a blog. Valereee (talk) 12:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

14:45, 18 July 2024 review of submission by Monniejaym

• Monniejaym (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Podcast (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How do we cite original sources like podcasts with the artist making statements? Monniejaym (talk) 14:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Presumably this is about  Courtesy link: Draft:Kenyon Dixon?

It's basically web content, so you can cite using {{cite web}}.

That said, an artist talking about themselves or their work is primary source and therefore of limited use, and can only support factual, non-contentions statements, but does not contribute towards notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

19:21, 18 July 2024 review of submission by Forgettonexo114

• Forgettonexo114 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Brody Bailey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I wasn't expecting it to be published but I think that it would be a good placeholder until I can sit down and finish the page the more. Forgettonexo114 (talk) 19:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 10:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

20:23, 18 July 2024 review of submission by VWellsMicro

• VWellsMicro (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:IndexNow (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am having a difficult experience with the Wikipedia editor for the topic I am attempting to publish. I've provided numerous verifiable sources and citations, but he has declined every single one. This is a digital online code and protocol for search engine optimization that provides direct communication to search engines, similar to the Sitemaps protocol that Wikipedia has published. However, the reviewer does not see digital industry journals as having integrity on the subject. This is very confusing. I'm not sure how to proceed from here. With all due respect to him, I'm not sure anything I provide or do will satisfy him. Is there a way to have another editor review my submission? VWellsMicro (talk) 20:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

The draft has been declined by 4 different reviewers. I haven’t checked the sources but the draft is promotional in tone and stuffed with spam links, the “Benefits” section is also entirely inappropriate. Theroadislong (talk) 20:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@VWellsMicro I have left an overlapping comment on the draft. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@VWellsMicro "he has declined every single one." Er, no. You have had multiple separate reviews by multiple reviewers. Multiple different opinions telling you that this draft is declined. What you need to do is to do the work that has been outlined. Perhaps we need be clear:

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.

I hope that helps you to earn how to check your references. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

There are no spam links. This is a protocol that works as an interface between search engines and websites. It is offered as a plug in on multiple content management systems and delivery networks such as Wix and Duda, which is why they are mentioned. This is a completely legitimate internet protocol utilized by tons of major companies - and is currently administrated by Microsoft Bing. And thank you I believe I have done the work. It's an online protocol that is written about in online digital journals like Search Engine Journal that has a readership over of over 1 million people. Here is a completely valid article on the protocol by the journal. I recognize this may be a bit complicated subject. Ive tried providing everything I can. VWellsMicro (talk) 21:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@VWellsMicro You can argue, or you can take advice. Your move. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I have no reason to argue. I am simply trying to get this published. I simply thought that we were supposed to link out, there is no goal of spamming here. I am not a spammer. I am just trying to publish this article. I am sorry for the confusion. I will remove all of the outbound links. VWellsMicro (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@VWellsMicro Then please take the advice. Generally, reviewers here know more than new editors. You have declared that you are paid by Microsoft for your edits here. (I tidied up the note on your user page, please correct any inaccuracies). Please use your salary to learn what you are doing. A paid editor should be able to get their article accepted on their second attempt (assuming it passes our notability criteria).

If you want it to be accepted, please do the work, and do not resubmit for review before you have done it. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@VWellsMicro You are wrong, your draft has 21 spam links to involved companies, we simply don't use external links in this manner. Theroadislong (talk) 21:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@VWellsMicro: Apart from the other problems which have been mentioned, the draft is unsuitable as a Wikipedia article because it is totally promotional. It reads exactly as though it was written by a marketing professional (which it probably was) and is full of what looks exactly like marketing copy. As for the question of whether it contains spam links, I think the word "spam" may not be appropriate, as it suggests deliberate dishonest aims, whereas you were probably acting in good faith, unaware of Wikipedia's requirements. However, the draft contains a large number of links which are clearly intended to attract readers of the Wikipedia article to the websites of various businesses or other organisations, with the purpose of publicising those businesses or organisations and their products. That is editing for promotional purposes, and is not allowed by Wikipedia policy. JBW (talk) 10:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

The links were provided to show the credibility of the subject as previously we were told that it lacked appropriate references. I think I am the 3rd person to attempt to come in and get this post up. Removing all links and will attempt again to provide what you are looking for. VWellsMicro (talk) 16:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

20:53, 18 July 2024 review of submission by Hasalaka Sumiththa thero

• Hasalaka Sumiththa thero (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Hasalaka Sumiththa Thero (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

approve page Hasalaka Sumiththa thero (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@Hasalaka Sumiththa thero You have not submitted the draft for review. In its current state it will not be accepted. Please read the notice at the top and do the work it explains 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

why your article submission was declined Hasalaka Sumiththa thero (talk) 20:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@Hasalaka Sumiththa thero Please DO NOT open multiple threads here.

You deleted the notices when it was declined. They told you why. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

July 19

03:25, 19 July 2024 review of submission by TonyGadreal

• TonyGadreal (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Tony Gadreel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am a New article creator TonyGadreal (talk) 03:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@TonyGadreal: you don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. You should not be writing about yourself at all, see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Copying text from freely licensed material to Wikipedia

Can I partially copy text from freely licensed material, such as works by the Government of India (and licensed under GODL) to create articles?

I am asking specifically about text. @CharlieMehta had mentioned that there is a possibility that this is allowed only for images & diagrams. Is it true? Skratata69 (talk) 04:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@Skratata69: this isn't really the place to ask about copyright, but in basic terms, if by "freely licensed" you mean material in the public domain, then as long as there is evidence of this status, and you're clearly citing the source, and the copying is otherwise appropriate, then you can use such material. See WP:Public domain for more info on this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@Skratata69 However, it is a general truth that text from external sources is unlikely to be of the style or quality required by Wikipedia. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes I agree, I was not blindly copy pasting it. I took a lot of time and wrote content and added comparisions on my own, since it was my first article. It got a ~50% overlap with the freely licensed content so my draft article was declined. Skratata69 (talk) 08:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@Skratata69 If the location of the freely licenced content contains a compatible licence you will not have this problem again. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for all sorts of details to help you. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@CharlieMehta Please enter this discussion, there appears to be unfinished work here 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The website is of the Reserve Bank of India, a body of the Government of India. The government has licensed all non-sensitive content automatically under a free license as seen here, so there is no need for an explicit license on every site.

[1](page 5 here) Skratata69 (talk) 17:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

04:42, 19 July 2024 review of submission by 2409:40D1:101C:B19F:8000:0:0:0

• 2409:40D1:101C:B19F:8000:0:0:0 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Silver Statue Valmiki Temple (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I don't know how to add references and What should I do to improve it. Please tell me🙏🏻 2409:40D1:101C:B19F:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 04:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Technically speaking, you have correctly added references, so you know how to do that in theory. It's just that you cannot cite Wikipedia as a source on Wikipedia, you need to cite the sources where you got all this information from. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

05:32, 19 July 2024 review of submission by Panchayet

• Panchayet (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:TCG CREST (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Could you please provide feedback on how to improve this? Panchayet (talk) 05:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@Panchayet: the draft is completely unreferenced, with zero evidence of notability, and as such is basically just the subject telling the world about itself, which makes it inherently promotional. This is why it is pending speedy deletion.

What is your relationship with this institute? I've posted a conflict-of-interest query on your talk page, please read and respond to it. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

09:10, 19 July 2024 review of submission by Lorenzo Chiari-Gaggia

• Lorenzo Chiari-Gaggia (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Venetian Heritage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The article was declined for insufficient citation. Would it be possible to see what claims need the addition of a citation or better sources. The subject of the article means that scholarly sources are not particularly available. Instead, most information is derived from the websites of galleries which I would see as being fairly accurate when discussing thier own galleries. The range of citations used in inline with pages on similar topics. Lorenzo Chiari-Gaggia (talk) 09:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I see that the references are not seperated from the last section (they are just at the bottom of the article without a seperate subheading). Could this be part of the problem? Lorenzo Chiari-Gaggia (talk) 09:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@Lorenzo Chiari-Gaggia: no, that's not the problem; that's easily fixed.

It's also not about insufficient citations. That point was added just as a comment.

The reason for declining is that the sources do not demonstrate notability. Please click on each of the links in the decline notice to see what sort of sources we require. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Lorenzo Chiari-Gaggia We (primarily) don't want to know what associated galleries say about this organization, we want to know what independent reliable sources say about this organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. As the reviewer notes, much of the draft is unsourced(especially the history section)

Are you associated with this organization? 331dot (talk) 09:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. So with regards to notability adding more sources such as news articles or books referencing the work of Venetian Heritage would fix that. There are existing articles on similar organizations some of similar notability. No I am not directly affiliated witht the organization but am from Venice (and am interested in its history) so am well aquianted with their work, history and activities. Lorenzo Chiari-Gaggia (talk) 09:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

That's right - as long as the articles and books weren't written, published, or commissioned, by VH or anybody it works with.

As for other articles: we have many many seriously flawed articles, which nobody has got around to doing anything about. If you want to compare an existing article, make sure it is a Good Article or a Featured Article. See Other stuff exists . ColinFine (talk) 20:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

09:56:17, 19 July 2024 review of submission by EbrietanPhasmid

• EbrietanPhasmid (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Hare (programming language) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I'm new to wikipedia and am having trouble creating an article that passes review. This article was declined on the grounds that it does not fit the criteria for a wikipedia article due to lack of depth/reliable sources. I was wondering what advice you could give me when it comes to improving this article?

My digging only yielded two secondary sources which I have made use of. The remainder of my article utilises primary sources (the language's creators).

How can I make this article fit for the wiki?

-EbrietanPhasmid (talk) 09:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@EbrietanPhasmid: by finding, and citing, 3+ sources that meet the WP:GNG standard for notability. If you cannot find such sources, then the subject is probably not notable enough, and the draft cannot be accepted. It's all about the sources, no amount of editing will magic notability out of thin air. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Note that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 11:38, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

12:17, 19 July 2024 review of submission by Janep1814

• Janep1814 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Adrienne Cullen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This article was rejected and in the accompanying explanation, it states that the copyright violation that caused it to be rejected has been removed. Does this mean that I can re-submit it and that it will be re-assessed or do I have to do something else first? I've made no edits to the draft myself. Thanks Janep1814 (talk) 12:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Janep1814 Fixed your link, it lacked the "Draft:" portion. 331dot (talk) 12:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means it may be resubmitted. 331dot (talk) 12:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah, ok.Thanks for the clarification. Does this mean I can resubmit without making any other changes (as the copyright violation has been cleared)? Janep1814 (talk) 12:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you may. On the surface it looks remarkably good (and well-sourced) for a new editor's first attempt. I haven't looked in any depth, though. ColinFine (talk) 20:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll resubmit. Janep1814 (talk) 09:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

12:35, 19 July 2024 review of submission by Malaysian guy who likes politics

• Malaysian guy who likes politics (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Ironland (Micronation) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am making my first article about a micronation that is named Ironland. It was established on 26 Jun 2024. I am new to making articles so that's the reason I need the advice. Malaysian guy who likes politics (talk) 12:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@Malaysian guy who likes politics I like _magnify, but this micronation is not yet a notable topic for Wikipedia. The draft has therefore been rejected and will not be considered further for the time being. Qcne (talk) 12:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@Malaysian guy who likes politics: please see Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

When you can point to at least three independent, reliably published, articles or books which talk in some depth about your micronation, then it might be worth considering it as a possible topic for a Wikipedia article. Until then, no. ColinFine (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

12:46, 19 July 2024 review of submission by KnotWhen52

• KnotWhen52 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Mehdi Kordi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My Article is about a national sports coach who is also a published sports scientist - I am aware that the article fails due to notability. Can you advise on what steps I should take to rectify? For example, should I make the article shorter, should I remove some citations and references that aren't relevant? Do I not have enough? I've tried to be as detailed as possible, so any guidance would be helpful. KnotWhen52 (talk) 12:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@KnotWhen52: as the draft has been declined for lack of notability, that is what you should address. Find sources that satisfy either the general WP:GNG or the special WP:ACADEMIC notability guideline. Other edits may be useful also, but they won't help you get around the notability problem. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

12:52, 19 July 2024 review of submission by Malaysian guy who likes politics

• Malaysian guy who likes politics (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Ironland (Micronation) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This article was considered to be deleted because it states that it's just a "hoax" rather than an factual article. I am requesting assistance because this is the first time I am establishing an article. It took two days for me to submit this article. Malaysian guy who likes politics (talk) 12:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@Malaysian guy who likes politics: this draft has been deleted. Please don't recreate it.

And please don't start a new thread with each comment. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

14:03, 19 July 2024 review of submission by Pratap555

• Pratap555 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Last Drop (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why the article declined Pratap Keshari Das (talk) 14:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The reason was stated by the reviewer at the top of your draft. Please read it, and the policies linked therein, carefully. 331dot (talk) 14:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

15:26, 19 July 2024 review of submission by 2A02:AB88:8502:1000:986F:28B3:A16A:3E4

• 2A02:AB88:8502:1000:986F:28B3:A16A:3E4 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:József Móczár (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Béla Sipos, who has edited the article until now, does not understand the information the Auric reviewer provided. József Móczár wrote the request for help, as Béla Sipos gave up further editing, citing insufficient programming knowledge. After several years of corrections, please finish the editing and publish the Wikipedia article. 2A02:AB88:8502:1000:986F:28B3:A16A:3E4 (talk) 15:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

You can resubmit it for review by clicking the blue "Resubmit" button at the bottom of the decline notice. It won't be accepted unless it is written in the neutral point of view, which it is not right now. Articles are not supposed to promote the subject. Since it is a biography of a living person, all statements must be supported by inline citations to reliable sources. If you have a conflict of interest with the subject, you must also disclose that before editing it. C F A 💬 16:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

16:40, 19 July 2024 review of submission by Lucasirby

• Lucasirby (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:SquishyMuffinz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Would like to know how/why more references are not reliable Lucasirby (talk) 16:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@Lucasirby: We don't cite Liquipedia (no editorial oversight) or the subject's own website (connexion to subject). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

17:13, 19 July 2024 review of submission by Clarkin1573

• Clarkin1573 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:P.C. Rossin College of Engineering and Applied Science at Lehigh University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am new to wikipedia, and it is unclear to me how the page I have created in materially different from many many other university pages on wikipedia, including these:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Institute_of_Technology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Pennsylvania_School_of_Engineering_and_Applied_Science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purdue_University_College_of_Engineering

Clarkin1573 (talk) 17:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@Clarkin1573: You cannot use the presence, absence, or condition of tangentially-related articles to argue for your own. And unlike the other three articles, this lacks usable sources and is written primarily to promote the college. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

17:41, 19 July 2024 review of submission by Wyneep

• Wyneep (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Amadea Angela Aquino (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Wikipedia Help Desk, I just resubmitted this post for review last week and would like to know if I am going to get assigned the same reviewer for my submission that I had the first time around. If so, is there a timeline I should follow for when the Wikipedia draft will be reviewed? If not, is there a way of following up with someone at Wikipedia to get a better sense of what to expect? Thank you. Wyneep (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Nobody "assigns" reviewers at all, ever. Reviewers look through the list of drafts awaiting review, and choose which they wish to pick up, and which order to deal with them. I suspect that some reviewers, sometimes, look at the oldest waiting drafts and pick them up even when they don't really want to (but I'm not a reviewer, so I'm only guessing that). ColinFine (talk) 21:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Not all reviewers find drafts the same way. Some look at drafts relating to their specific interests, some go by date, some go alphabetically, and some choose them randomly (which is what I do). Unfortunately, the Articles for Creation system is very backlogged right now (there is almost always around 3000 drafts submitted for review at any given time!). You shouldn't have to wait any longer than 3 months for a review. C F A 💬 21:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

17:49, 19 July 2024 review of submission by Heikdong

• Heikdong (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Dong Suk-Kee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This page was deleted and restored. Submission was declined on 21 October 2023 by Rich Smith (talk). He stated that: "This submission has now been cleaned of the above-noted copyright violation and its history redacted by an administrator to remove the infringement. If re-submitted (and subsequent additions do not reintroduce copyright problems), the content may be assessed on other grounds."

I have resubmitted the draft with the corrections and removal of infringements. What's the next step? I'm new to Wikipedia and have taken over this page from previous person who is no longer working on this page.

Thank you, HK Dong Heikdong (talk) 17:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing you need do other than wait.

However, if you want to increase the chances of a reviewer accepting your draft, you will carefully read what we mean by a reliable source, and get rid of all the obviously unreliable ones you have cited at present. We do not accept social media, blog posts, and we certainly don't accept articles from random weirdly-named sites that all have exactly the same appearance and the same "about us".

Obviously, when you get rid of a source, you get rid of all information which is cited to that source - unless you can find a reliable source which provides the same information.

When you say you "have taken over this page from previous person", what is your relationship to that previous person, and to Dong? If you are in any way employed by or on behalf of Dong or his church, you must formally declare your status as a paid editor. ColinFine (talk) 21:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

18:42, 19 July 2024 review of submission by Elithton

• Elithton (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Green Gold Dex (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How long do I have to edit the text?What content is prohibited, and what should I avoid using in the text? Elithton (talk) 18:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletions may be carried out at any time as long as an admin feels the criteria is met- I believe that's the case, so I deleted it. I would suggest that if you have independent reliable sources that give this game significant coverage, that you start fresh. I would advise you that writing a new article is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia, and it is a good idea to first get experience under your belt by editing existing articles, and using the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 18:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

19:03, 19 July 2024 review of submission by Mdahmke

• Mdahmke (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Computalker CT-1 Speech Synthesizer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I've added a couple of references... I wrote much of the original material about the Computalker for BYTE and onComputing back in the late 70s and developed applications for the computalker. Unfortunately there are very few other independent sources. Mdahmke (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

If there are very few other independent sources, then by definition, this system does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and no article is possible. ColinFine (talk) 21:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

19:39, 19 July 2024 review of submission by Linwoods96

• Linwoods96 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Klubjumpers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I was told I did not have enough reliable sources for verification. I included a reference section which included at least two articles, plus discogs to verify music Klubjumpers worked on. Do I need another article to verify their notoriety? Also, I am not sure how to include the links within the body of the article. I need help putting the citations in. Please help. Linwoods96 (talk) 19:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@Linwoods96: We can't use Discogs (no editorial oversight). All of your references need to be in-line, citing specific claims, rather than just slapped on the end of the article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 20:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

19:42, 19 July 2024 review of submission by Brandonweiss8

• Brandonweiss8 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Matt Levine (Sports Pioneer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I submitted the draft with many references as noted at the bottom. Not sure what the issue is here. Thanks Brandonweiss8 (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Brandonweiss8. The ADDITIONAL REFERENCES section seems redundant- surely these should all be converted to in-line citations to support material in the body of the draft. Otherwise, what is their purpose? Qcne (talk) 20:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello, yes I did just that when re-submitting 4.7.17.138 (talk) 20:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure you have (and please remember to log in while replying). For example, the Silicon Valley Business Journal reference has no accompanying in-line citation, and doesn't appear in the References section. Qcne (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Brandonweiss8, please read WP:CIRCULAR. You cannot use Wikipedia articles as references. Cullen328 (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

July 20

01:44, 20 July 2024 review of submission by Charles Nsugbe

• Charles Nsugbe (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Onyebuchi Chris Ifediora Foundation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

please what do i need to do for my article to be accepted Charles Nsugbe (talk) 01:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@Charles Nsugbe: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

02:40, 20 July 2024 review of submission by Rasilshrestha

• Rasilshrestha (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Ram Krishna Bantawa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am seeking assistance for feedback on my recent submission. I would like to address the concern regarding the subject's notability and the coverage in reliable, secondary sources.

The entire article focuses on the author and provides extensive information. In addition to the online references provided, there are also significant offline sources that I have cited, including reputable newspaper articles. These sources offer in-depth coverage and are crucial in establishing the subject's notability.

Furthermore, I have previously communicated with a reviewer who declined my article for similar reasons. I had ermailed him through the reviewer's talk page email i found and provided attachments of all offline resorces i had in which he advised that the inclusion of offline sources is acceptable and can be used to support the subject's notability.

I hope this clarifies the issue and demonstrates that the subject meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. Please let me know if there are any specific adjustments or additional information required to facilitate the approval of the article.

Thank you for your consideration. Rasilshrestha (talk) 02:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to @Fade258 who reviewed the draft, and possibly above. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 02:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

02:41, 20 July 2024 review of submission by CymaSonic

• CymaSonic (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Natsuyo Nobumoto Lipschutz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello. I do not understand why my article is not approved. I thought I had a good selection of reliable third party reference resources. Is this based on language differences? CymaSonic (talk) 02:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@CymaSonic, welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for your contributions too. While Wikipedia isn't based on language differences, it seems you didn't read the reviewer's comment about the draft. Since you're here, look at what is needed. Your draft is about a living person, and per Wikipedia policy, such biographies needs adequate sourcing to almost every credible/noteworthy content. In your draft, there doesn't seem to be any citation in the "Early life and education", and "career". Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 02:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

14:45, 20 July 2024 review of submission by ArtHistorian1014

• ArtHistorian1014 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Punkmetender (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello! This submission was just rejected because of unreliable sources, and I was hoping for more clarity into which sources were unreliable so I can avoid using similar ones in the future. I'm trying to add prominent contemporary artists to Wikipedia and believe Punkmetender is among them so would love to optimize this page to a place of submission acceptance. Thank you!

ArtHistorian1014 (talk) 14:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @ArtHistorian1014! A point of semantics first - I know this will sound a bit silly, but 'rejected' and 'declined' are different in Wikipedia terms. Rejected means the draft won't be published; declined means you have another chance. Luckily, your draft is only declined!

In terms of sources, you're trying to find sources which meet all three criteria in WP:42, our 'golden rule': significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. More info in that link! As a quick note, 'reliable sources' here also means the source must have editorial oversight (eg not someone's blog) and be a reputable publisher (eg doesn't accept pay-to-publish articles). If sources do not meet all the criteria, then they can't help establish notability.

For bonus difficulty points, because Punkmetender is a living person, your second goal is to comply with the WP:BLP (biography of living people) rules; this means that every statement needs a good source. You can use interviews for basic details (birth date, when he started painting) but they are otherwise worthless to you. I know this is probably very frustrating. Writing new articles is the hardest task on Wikipedia, and BLP articles are the hardest of all.

You may have too many sources for the reviewers to tackle easily at the moment, so cutting the list down a bit should make it more manageable. I'll go over your first 10 and hopefully that will give you enough direction to look at the rest yourself - of course if there's some you're really not sure about, please feel free to come back and ping me if you wish!

1) only has a paragraph on the artist, so it's not significant coverage; it's mostly about an exhibition.

2) is an interview, which is not independent of the subject.

3) is a gallery of work, and it seems to me that they are selling his art, so that's a problem both in terms of significant coverage and independence (the gallery has a financial stake in what they write)

4) is a forum thread, which is user-generated content and thus not a reliable source.

5) is also an interview, see 2)

6) also seems to be a gallery selling his work, see 3)

7) looks like a biography written by the artist, or at least approved by him, so this is also not independent.

8) is not actually about him, but rather about current trends in the art world, so it is not significant coverage. If this were about him, I'd say it's a reliable source since everything else checks out - you're looking for this kind of coverage, except you need it to be focused on the artist in order for it to count.

9) says it's an artist profile, but either there's nothing there or my computer is really upset with the site. Whichever it is, I suspect this would also be written or at least approved by the artist, so see 7)

10) is another gallery of his work, so not significant coverage.

Unfortunately, I don't think any of these sources help to establish notability. That sucks, because he and his art seem very cool!

Despite being a disappointing analysis, I hope that is of at least some help as you decide what to cut and what to look for in new sources. Good luck and happy editing - I hope you find some great sources and this draft can become an article! StartGrammarTime (talk) 16:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for this thoughtful feedback, I really appreciate the time it took you to write all of that. To clarify, when you offered those numbers, were those in reference to that number citation? As an Art History professor, I want to make sure I submit the best and most thorough draft for future review so it's accepted! ArtHistorian1014 (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@ArtHistorian1014, you're very welcome! I'd love to see more interesting artists getting articles on Wikipedia, so it's a pleasure to help.

Yes, when I say 1) I meant the first reference in your list at the time (Bakian). Sorry, I should have been clearer about that. And just to reiterate, I'm more than happy to help out with more source analysis if you find something you're not sure about - feel free to come ask on my talk page. Plus of course this page is always here for any questions you might have! I'm not an academic myself but I spent most of my working life being their administrative fixer-upper, so I have a soft spot for those in the field.

One final note - you probably don't need it, but just in case - make sure that whenever you submit the draft for review again, you've done your best to fix up whatever the last reviewer noted as a problem. Reviewers understandably get very frustrated when people resubmit the same thing over and over, and it usually leads to the draft being rejected since the assumption is that no other sources exist so the subject can't be notable. If you make a minor edit to the draft at least once every six months, it won't be deleted, so you can work on it for as long as you need. By minor edit I mean even just adding a space, pressing 'publish', and then editing the space back out again.

So once again best wishes, happy editing, and I look forward to seeing more drafts about fascinating artists! StartGrammarTime (talk) 03:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

16:59, 20 July 2024 review of submission by Electricgirl22

• Electricgirl22 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Ruby Gillman (Character) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My draft is a little bit of some help, could you help me make this draft even better, I couldn’t do this by myself. Electricgirl22 (talk) 16:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@Electricgirl22: This seems like it would be more appropriate for Fandom, even disregarding the article's poor sourcing. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok, but could you at least improve it for me. Electricgirl22 (talk) 17:05, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@Electricgirl22: I invite you to read what I just wrote. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Sure thing, but where can I read it. Electricgirl22 (talk) 17:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Here. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Note that the article has already been mostly copied from https://rubygillman.fandom.com/wiki/Ruby_Gillman. It can technically be licensed from there but it is not going to be accepted with no references and a non-encyclopedic tone. C F A 💬 17:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

There are references, but I needed you to rewrite it in a non-encyclopedic tone, as you just said. Electricgirl22 (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

The onus falls on the editor(s) who want the content, not on random people who read and reply on a noticeboard. If you want this, you need to do the research and put in the work yourself. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I actually done the research and did the work myself. Electricgirl22 (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Dear @Electricgirl22, as much as we'd like to assist you, please be reminded again that the responsibility for making the article suitable for publication lies solely with you. We can provide guidance and suggestions and point you to our policies and guidelines, like we have already done. However, if the article requires a more encyclopedic tone and proper referencing, like it clearly does in this case, you are responsible for making these adjustments. Zingarese talk · contribs (please  mention me on reply; thanks!) 17:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Electricgirl22 (talk) 17:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@Electricgirl22: Then I'll stop being coy to avoid hurting your feelings and will start actually tearing down your draft. I'll start with the sources as currently there (Refer to my /Decode subpage, linked in my signature as "critiques"):

• https://deadline.com/2023/06/ruby-gillman-teenage-kraken-interviews-dreamworks-animation-1235414795/ is useless for notability (wrong subject). This is pre-release publicity for the film and inasmuch as it mentions the character we cannot use this as anything more than a reference for conception of that character. Even so, it doesn't really discuss Ruby Gillman the character, it discusses Ruby Gillman the film.
• https://www.cartoonbrew.com/feature-film/teenage-kraken-dreamworks-kirk-demicco-226970.html is useless for notability (wrong subject). Again, this is a pre-release article and doesn't discuss Ruby Gillman the character; it discusses Ruby Gillman the film.
• https://keyframemagazine.org/2023/06/12/lets-get-kraken/#:~:text=Ruby%20is%20the%20first%20female,to%20fit%20into%20high%20school. is useless for notability (wrong subject). Pre-release article in an industry publication dedicated to animation; this one is pretty much unambiguously about Ruby Gillman the film.
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/movies/2023/06/27/ruby-gillman-teenage-kraken-movie-review/ is borderline. It's a review that briefly mentions the character, but doesn't go into any real depth on her.
• https://deadline.com/2023/03/dreamworks-movie-ruby-gillman-teenage-kraken-lana-condor-toni-collette-1235301376/ is useless for notability (wrong subject). No discussion of Ruby Gillman the character; article is about Ruby Gillman the film.

The fact that your sources almost all pre-date the film's release is a problem bigger than a kraken's tentacle. In order to have an article about a character, we need to have articles discussing that character and their impact on the cultural zeitgeist, which universally means that sources need to come after the media the character debuted in. We cannot judge a character's impact based on their unreleased debut media (regardless of the notability of that media). If you don't have such sources, then you flat-out don't have an article until sources that discuss the character specifically are released. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

18:32, 20 July 2024 review of submission by Artico13

• Artico13 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Vitale Vidal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It will not publish the article without a reference but we have taken this from The Gazzetino newspaper in Italy which is a reputable newspaper which wrote Mr. Vidals' obituary at the time. How can we reference this newspaper properly so that the article can be published? Artico13 (talk) 18:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@Artico13 Is this a verbatim translation? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@Artico13: How do you know of Mr. Vidal? C F A 💬 02:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Please see WP:REFB for how to cite sources.

You need more than one independent reliable source in order to establish that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability.

The text is not written in a neutral way, but is full of peacock words: for example, "influential", and "universally recognized". ColinFine (talk) 15:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok we will remove these peacocks and then we have already added a few references. 151.69.99.82 (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

21:10, 20 July 2024 review of submission by LuminousPathGlimmer

• LuminousPathGlimmer (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Shuying Li (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Need help: This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources. Thanks so much! LuminousPathGlimmer (talk) 21:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@LuminousPathGlimmer: Everything that could potentially be challenged by a reasonable person MUST be cited to a strong third-party source with editorial oversight that explicitly corroborates the claim or (failing that) removed. This is not negotiable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 06:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

21:12, 20 July 2024 review of submission by LuminousPathGlimmer

• LuminousPathGlimmer (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Shuying Li (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'd really appreciate some help in identifying which citations are not reliable and should be removed. Thanks so much! LuminousPathGlimmer (talk) 21:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@LuminousPathGlimmer: Haven't looked at the references in depth, but the "Early Life and Education" section is completely unsourced. All claims on Wikipedia should be verifiable with a reference. Since your draft is a biography of a living person, inline citations are required after essentially every claim. Happy editing, C F A 💬 02:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Very kind of you to review it for me. I've added more reliable citations - would you mind helping me again? Thanks! LuminousPathGlimmer (talk) 03:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@LuminousPathGlimmer: Lots of sources look reliable, though they seem to be mostly primary which might not be very helpful for establihsing notability. The Wind Repertory Project appears to be an open wiki, which would not be reliable on Wikipedia because it is user-generated content. There also appear to be quite a few blogs, like this one, this one, this one, this one, etc. Blogs are self-published sources and not reliable on Wikipedia, especially for verifying claims about living people. I'd recommend replacing those with more reliable sources. If you want to resubmit your draft for review, you can click the blue "Resubmit" button at the bottom of the decline notice. C F A 💬 03:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

This is so helpful! Thank you :) I've edited more and resubmitted it. Feedback and comments are always much appreciated. Enjoy your weekend! LuminousPathGlimmer (talk) 03:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

July 21

04:09, 21 July 2024 review of submission by Gvbkwikiya

• Gvbkwikiya (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:G K Sudeep (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would like to delete the draft and start again. How can I do that?

Gvbkwikiya (talk) 04:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Looks like the draft deletion has already been done. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 06:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

09:05, 21 July 2024 review of submission by Metroboy2011

• Metroboy2011 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:SpongeBob SquarePants Geoart Series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have put some references in place, put I am not sure, how to implement these. I am very new to this, I believe, the geocache description page is reputable enough as it is the subject of this Wikipedia page. Metroboy2011 (talk) 09:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

You have no independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this collection of geocaches that show how it is notable as Wikipedia uses the word. A Fandom wiki is user-editable, so it is not a valid source. The other source you use seems to just document the existence of this collection. You need independent reliable sources like news reports or published books that detail what makes this collection important/significant/influential. Personally, it seems unlikely to me that such sources would exist. 331dot (talk) 09:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

10:41, 21 July 2024 review of submission by Metropolisrunner

• Metropolisrunner (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Ali Shahmohammadi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello. I created a page for Ali Shahmohammadi with reliable references and enough out sources but this page was declined. may I ask you why it was declined even though all the links and references were reliable? Thank you so much Metropolisrunner (talk) 10:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Please don't start multiple threads. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

10:43, 21 July 2024 review of submission by Metropolisrunner

• Metropolisrunner (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Ali Shahmohammadi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I created a page for Ali Shahmohammadi but it has been declined. May I ask you why even though all the links and refences were true and reliable. Thank you so much Metropolisrunner (talk) 10:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@Metropolisrunner: it was declined for the reasons given in the decline notice, namely insufficient referencing and lack of evidence of notability. Please study the decline notice, following all the links therein, which expand on the reasons. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

12:25, 21 July 2024 review of submission by Mildm8nnered

• Mildm8nnered (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:SwiftLint (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'd like to ask your advice regarding this article, which was rejected for "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources.". I'm trying to understand what I'm missing

The three references I've attached all

1. Dedicate multiple pages or a section to SwiftLint, according to their tables of contents.

2. Are references to published print books, published or distributed through mainstream publishers (Manning, Springer, etc)

3. Are independent of the subject

I'm not sure what I'm missing to meet the in-depth, reliable, secondary, independent criteria.

I'd totally agree that the wording of my link to the references ("It is the most commonly recommended Swift linter") is slightly clumsy, but in terms of the references themselves, can you give me any clue as to what I'm missing? Mildm8nnered (talk) 12:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Mildm8nnered You have done a good job documenting the existence of this software and what it does, but Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about it, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. "Significant coverage" goes into detail about what the source sees as important/significant/influential about the topic, more than just telling what it does or other routine information. 331dot (talk) 12:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

17:38, 21 July 2024 review of submission by Takeru Watanabe

• Takeru Watanabe (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Merano Poetry Prize (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello! My draft has been declined a few days ago (for a second time). I don't really understand why according to its edit history. The draft had been reviewed back in March and declined by User:DoubleGrazing who told me: "Possibly notable, but the sources cited are not enough to establish this." Furthermore, User:DoubleGrazing kindly explained to me: "We need to see at least three sources that meet the WP:GNG standard, namely secondary published sources (books, newspapers, magazines, TV or radio programmes, etc.) that are both reliable and entirely independent of the subject, and that have of their own volition (not 'sponsored' content, advertorial, based on press releases, etc.) provided significant coverage of the subject." So subsequently, I added four new in-depth, reliable, secondary and independent sources (University of Innsbruck, Austrian newspaper "Die Furche", Austrian newspaper "Der Standard", Austrian national brodcaster ORF) and submitted my draft for a re-review. Then, a few days ago the draft has been declined again but strangely for the same reason as back in March. I asked the reviewer (User:Youknowwhoistheman) for advice but until now they have not come back to me so I don't know what to do now. I would be very glad, if you could help me out here because I'm of the opinion that I did what was required from me and that the draft now meets the required standard. Best, Takeru Watanabe (talk) 17:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Takeru Watanabe! I don't speak German, so please forgive me if I miss anything from the sources, but I'll see whether I can work out what's going on for you.

Source 1 (Hell) seems to be discussing the poetry of the winners of the prize in 2004, rather than anything about the prize itself, so this would not be considered significant coverage.

Source 2 (Zeller) looks like a great source - that's one!

Source 3 (Kinzl) - this one is identified as a blog in the URL, and although you've cited an author and university publisher I'm not actually sure how you got that information. It doesn't look much like a reliable, reputable source as presented. Is that definitely the right URL? And perhaps more importantly, is it a blog? Blogs are generally not considered reliable sources, so that might be the problem.

Source 4 (OE1) is also a bit of a puzzler since on the surface it looks good, but I also don't see an author listed and I'm not certain how reliable the site is. The reviewer/s may have seen it as unreliable, or at least not been sure whether it was reliable or not - I tend to agree that this source may not be usable without more information (or possibly a reviewer who's very familiar with German sources).

Source 5 (Salto) suffers from the same problem as 1 (Hell) - it seems to focus on the winning poetry from 2024 rather than on the prize itself.

I hope that's at least a bit useful for you, and I will ping @DoubleGrazing and @Youknowwhoistheman for you to see if they have any feedback. As I'm not a reviewer, please take their advice over mine if we have conflicting ideas on sources! Best wishes and happy editing, StartGrammarTime (talk) 09:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I've not checked the two new sources added since I reviewed this, but for refs #1-3 I concur with StartGrammarTime; also to add that #3 is a primary source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @User:StartGrammarTime! Thank you very much for your answer which is very helpful for me.

Please let me explain what I - in light of your comments - now think about the different sources.

Source 1 (Hell): I used this source in order to verify that 1993 was the year in that the Merano Poetry Prize was established ("Man kann es dem Lyrikpreis Meran nicht hoch genug anrechnen, dass er seit 1993 nun schon zum siebten Mal die Devise "Lyrik im Gespräch" ausgegeben hat"). So, I think it serves this purpose.

Source 3 (Kinzl): This is no private blog but in fact the "iPoint-Archiv der Universität Innsbruck" (https://www.uibk.ac.at/archive/ipoint/blog/_ottereendex.html). Under www.uibk.ac.at/ you find the homepage of the University of Innsbruck. The "blog" is something like the university's internet log archive. The source therefore in my opinion is reliable and also reputable. As for the name Martina Kinzl: I didn't come up with that, it was added automatically so I'm going to remove this detail manually.

Concerning @User:DoubleGrazing's remark (Hi and thanks also to you!), I don't see how the University of Innsbruck is supposed to be a primary source in this context. The students visiting the event might be but they don't give the relevant statement which is: "Dieser Literaturpreis, der 1992 erstmals ausgeschrieben wurde, wird alle zwei Jahre vergeben und ist neben dem Leonce-und-Lena-Preis und dem Christine-Lavant-Preis einer der bedeutendsten und renommiertesten Lyrikpreise im deutschsprachigem Raum. Das Echo der internationalen Presse auf die Preisvergabe ist sehr groß. In diesem Jahr feierte der Meraner Lyrikpreis seine 10. Ausgabe." This statement is made by the Innsbrucker Germanistik-Institut as an institution: an information of a matter of fact.

Source 4 (OE1): Ö1 is part of the Austrian national broadcaster ORF which is the equivalent to the BBC in Great Britain and is broadly considered as the most reliable media source in Austria. The news delivered by ORF are usually not linked to specific authors. The boradcaster itself serves as the source of information.

Source 5 (Salto): This source has been added deliberately at the position "Winners/2024" to verify the names of the three winners in 2024. That's its only purpose.

Okay, I hope could shed some light on my way of thinking about the matter and the reasons for choosing these specific sources.

Please let me finally say something general: I noted that most of the articles about German-language literature prizes lack the required sources, for example even the famous Büchner Prize. I think the reason for that is that in the first place literature prizes can be considered as prestigious without being the topic of feature articles in major newspapers ever. You know what I mean?

Anyway, the Merano Poetry Prize is without doubt a highly prestigious international prize for German-language and I think many people would profit from it having an article in the English Wikipedia.

So, again thanks a lot for your help!

Best, Takeru Watanabe (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi again @Takeru Watanabe! I see where you're coming from with some of those now, thank you for clarifying!

The difficulty you may run into with using 1 (Hell) and 5 (Salto) to support small facts - while totally valid - is that you still need a minimum of three sources that cover the entirety of the subject, and so if one of them seems unsuitable then you've run out of options (since you have five sources, and two are not designed to support the whole subject). My advice would probably be to see if you can find one or two more good sources before your next resubmission, just so you have some backups if a reviewer has the same concerns that DoubleGrazing and I raised. I also wonder whether copy-pasting the background info you have given here for 3 (UoI since we're unsure about the author I guess?) and 4 (OE1) to the draft's talk page would be useful for future reviewers and indeed readers/other editors.

As for the Büchner Prize, alas, the reason is even simpler than you might think - the article is just very, very old, so it was created in the 'wild west' days of Wikipedia, when sources were optional and one-sentence articles were fine. Luckily it's had other interested editors over the years (since 2005!), so it isn't in bad shape compared to some other articles. The standards now are much stricter, because there are millions of old articles that need to be cleaned up and not enough editors to work on them all. There's an entire essay on "what about X?" because of all the sub-standard articles floating around...

Can I just say that I appreciate you not only spotting an article (Büchner Prize) in need of help, but then actually doing something about it? Having really good quality articles on the German-language literature prizes benefits everyone, and I suspect a lot of us don't speak/read German fluently - I sure don't! - so we're not much good with source-checking and adding information.

I'm not sure I can be of much more assistance to you, but I think you're definitely on the right path - so I will wish you happy editing and hope to see you around! StartGrammarTime (talk) 00:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi again @StartGrammarTime and also thanks again for your kind assistance and for your encouragement. These pieces of information are really helpful to me. Also, I appreciate your idea of providing some background information for future reviewers on my talk page.

I think I have found two more suitable sources in the meantime that meet the requirements and cover the content of the draft in its entirety. So, I'm quite optimistic concerning the next submission of the draft.

In case, you might want to have a look and tell me what you think about the sources, here they are:

Source 6 [now reference 1]: https://www.planetlyrik.de/ferruccio-delle-cave-martin-hanni-hrsg-lyrik-im-gesprach/2010/07/

Source 7 [now reference 2]: https://www.fr.de/kultur/literatur/leitpranken-meran-11684636.html

Hope to see you around, too! Best, Takeru Watanabe (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

17:45, 21 July 2024 review of submission by Immigrant laborer

• Immigrant laborer (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:The Ambassador (Israeli TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm not sure why this was declined for lack of reliable sources. The article references dedicated pieces from the BBC, New York Times and Variety. Immigrant laborer (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

The article has little information about what makes the show notable in the special way Wikipedia uses the word. The sources do little more than document the existence of the show. Some professional reviews of the show would probably help a lot.331dot (talk) 09:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I won't lie; I'm worried that we're heading into Wikipedia:Bring_me_a_rock territory right now.

From the Variety source:

Beginning in November, the show was an immediate hit, topping the ratings throughout its 12-week run. The final episode was watched by 1.5 million viewers, which equals 25% of the population.

- Immigrant laborer (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

In case part of the problem was a paywalled source (NYT), I've added an archive link for that one and also removed the external link in the text (since current policy is not to put them in the body of the article, and that's another small change that may help). To my not-super-experienced eyes you have good sources; I wonder whether adding information about why the show was created in the first place and perhaps a section on how it was received would improve the draft further? I know you do have a little bit about the reception of the show in the lede, but it's only a sentence and I'm positive there must be more.

I can see you've been around here for a lot longer than I have, @Immigrant laborer, but have you been hanging around in the article creation feedback/info pages? New articles are expected to be pretty darn good right off the bat, and I get the sense that much more is being asked of new articles now than it was even a few years ago. The problem with three sources is that if even one is inaccessible or unsuitable in some way, there's no backup.

If you'd like a volunteer, I'm now very interested in this show so I'd be happy to go digging for more sources if that would help you. Right now I'm not super coherent thanks to chronic pain nonsense, but I might even try my hand at a paragraph or two when my thoughts line up properly if you don't mind. StartGrammarTime (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @StartGrammarTime! I will see if I can find more sources in Hebrew, perhaps. - Immigrant laborer (talk) 23:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

No worries @Immigrant laborer! If I find anything I'll take it to the draft talk page, that way we're not overlapping work. I can't read Hebrew but I can be very persistent in looking for English-language sources at least! StartGrammarTime (talk) 00:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Egov.Press

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Good afternoon. I ask you to consider restoring the article about the petition site Egov.Press, since authoritative sources have appeared that prove the importance of the resource.

https://kaztag.kz/en/news/problems-with-access-to-the-popular-petition-site-alash-online-began-in-kazakhstan

https://press.kz/novosti/vkazahstane-zablokirovali-nezavisimiy-sayt-dlya-petitsiy-alash-online-iz-za-petitsii

https://newtimes.kz/obshchestvo/188824-kazakhstantsy-ispytyvaiut-trudnosti-s-dostupom-na-sait-petitsii-alash-online

https://zonakz.net/2024/05/27/problemy-s-dostupom-na-populyarnyj-sajt-peticij-alash-online-nachalis-v-kazaxstane/

https://time.kz/news/society/2024/05/27/problemy-s-dostupom-na-populyarnyj-sajt-petitsij-alash-online-nachalis-v-kazahstane 176.64.31.9 (talk) 18:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi IP editor, you'll need to speak to the rejecting editor directly, @Theroadislong. Qcne (talk) 19:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I have added the submit template so it can be re-submitted, I don't read Russian so can't assess the new sources and will recuse myself from reviewing again. Theroadislong (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

19:42, 21 July 2024 review of submission by DFP32301

• DFP32301 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Operation New Tape (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How do I include primary-source images taken on location at the flight-line during the Operation? DFP32301 (talk) 19:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@DFP32301: You don't. (Or, more specifically, the images will do nothing for the draft. Assuming they were done by an American government or military agent in the course of their duties, they are public-domain.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 06:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Advanced Party article

why was my draft declined? the sources I used are from university presses, the national library of Israel and teh isdrael democracy forum, all credible! The article for Mizrachi (political party), a party from this same tiem period, literally has ZERO citations and is still up... Rh0809 (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Advanced

@Rh0809: please link to your draft, so we don't have to go hunting for it.

A university press isn't a source, it's a publisher; something they publish is a source. But in this case that source is cited with very little detail to indicate what it is, and what information in the draft it supports (giving the page range as "p 38-100" is also too broad to be useful). It's also not clear, to me at least, what the last source is. Offline sources are acceptable, but must be cited with full bibliographical details to enable them to be reliably identified for verification. Non-English sources are also acceptable, but it would be helpful for the benefit of all reviewers, and not just those who happen to read the language in question, if some information on the source was provided in English, possibly even a brief translation of the salient point you're wishing to rely on.

There are any number of problematic articles among the nearly 7m in the English-language Wikipedia, but that is no reason to create more such problems. I agree that the Mizrachi (political party) article is unreferenced, and I have now tagged it as such; thank you for flagging that up. You're of course more than welcome to improve that article, or to begin deletion proceedings should you so wish.

One last point: please do not simply resubmit a draft without at least attempting to address the decline reasons. If you disagree with the review, you could just publish the article yourself, since you have the sufficient permissions. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

July 22

09:10, 22 July 2024 review of submission by Lorenzo Chiari-Gaggia

• Lorenzo Chiari-Gaggia (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Venetian Heritage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unclear as to where the sourcing issues are for this declined submission. Lorenzo Chiari-Gaggia (talk) 09:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Lorenzo Chiari-Gaggia: you asked a very similar question here a couple of days ago, are you just repeating that question, or is there something you specifically wish to ask (and if so, what exactly)? Also, please don't start a new thread each time, just add to the existing one while it remains on this page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

The last post was addressing notability concerns in the article, which appear now to have been fixed. The new reason the declining the post was improper sourcing not notability. So I am asking what what are the examples of improper sourcing that need to be addressed. I recognise that certain sources used are not completely indpendent in certain cases (galleries in collaboration with VH), but in those cases they are used purely to describe an event occuring, such as an exhibition, not to evaulate its success or notability. This was deemed okay in a livechat with an editor. Lorenzo Chiari-Gaggia (talk) 10:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. Courtesy ping: SafariScribe – anything you can share? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Lorenzo Chiari-Gaggia, there are many unsourced claims in your draft, and they are significant to meet WP:NCORP. Also remove the excessive peacock/advertorial/promotional terms. Let's take a look at "Venetian Heritage has funded over 70 restoration projects [1], 30 publications and organized over 35 exhibitions." The "35 exhibitions" isn't sourced. Same as "Venetian Heritage is a non-profit organization based in Venice and New York focused on the promotion and preservation of the art and architecture of Venice and the nations of the former Republic of Venice. It organizes and financially supports restoration and conservation projects in Venice, curates exhibitions worldwide and funds publications and research projects." I will strike like the above. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 18:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Still claims that it was not written in neutral tone. Please could you show where you think it should be edited, thanks. Lorenzo Chiari-Gaggia (talk) 08:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

09:39, 22 July 2024 review of submission by Sienitoe

• Sienitoe (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Tini Lam yuen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Requesting assistance editing the submitted draft for Tini Lam Yuen. The reason provided: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources." I'm new to Wiki and appreciate any helpful feedback or guidance on how to best address the review decision. Thank you. Sienitoe (talk) 09:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Tini Inu Lam Yuen

@Sienitoe: at least half of the content is unreferenced. While someone who died nearly 30 years ago isn't subject to our rules on articles on living people (WP:BLP), we still need to know where the information is coming from. You need to cite the sources, so that reviewers (and later, readers) can verify them if needed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

11:00, 22 July 2024 review of submission by Grantuk1996

• Grantuk1996 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Grant UK (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I submitted an article with the above title on June 20th using the AFC submitting wizard. It said that the article is waiting to review and can take up to 4 months. Is this correct? As I've heard some articles are getting reviewed a lot quicker than that. Am I able to re-submit a different way to get it reviewed quicker? Grantuk1996 (talk) 11:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Grantuk1996: yes, it is true, we have c. 3,000 drafts awaiting review, and this can take anything up to three months or so. And yes, some drafts are reviewed much quicker than that, as the system isn't a queue, it's a pool. And no, there isn't another way to submit for a faster review.

What is your relationship with this subject? I've posted a paid-editing query on your talk page, please read and respond to it.

Also, have you previously edited this or other drafts under a different account? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

PS: One way you could perhaps help the reviewers would be to cut down on the WP:REFBOMBING: we don't need to see 45 sources, most of which don't contribute towards notability; we need to see max. 4-5 sources that squarely meet the WP:GNG standard as required by WP:NCORP. One way to get rid of a large number of useless sources would be to remove the entire 'Prizes and awards' section, which is promotional and provides no encyclopaedic value. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

11:33, 22 July 2024 review of submission by Wabbit98

• Wabbit98 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Plana School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why am I being picked on? Wabbit98 (talk) 11:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Wabbit98, no one is picking on you. You simply haven't proven notability under WP:NSCHOOL. Qcne (talk) 11:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Given that this school seems to be defunct, I would look at it instead as a historical landmark included in the NRHP, which should make it notable per WP:GEOFEAT? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Looking closer, I agree, so have accepted. FYI @SafariScribe Qcne (talk) 11:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing, @Qcne, and @Wabbit98, I know the school, even as a defunct one is notable by appearing in the list, but i was a bit confused that the link doesn't point anywhere. It seems to be fixed now, and I love the acceptance; that I wanted to fix before accepting. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 14:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

12:05, 22 July 2024 review of submission by MasterOfNone67

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

My submission was rejected because "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." Sources I have included are all reliable as far as I can tell - how can I get around this issue? MasterOfNone67 (talk) 12:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@MasterOfNone67: which set of sources are we talking about? You've referenced five sources via inline citations, which creates the customery footnotes at the bottom. You've then listed a number of external links under the heading 'References', without citing them anywhere, so it's difficult to know what information, if any, they are there to support. Perhaps you could clarify? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

13:00, 22 July 2024 review of submission by Wasif Raza1

• Wasif Raza1 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Wasif Raza1/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would like to inuqire, why arent we discussing it, as this company has over 1000 visitors daily across its website as well as retail store.

Wasif Raza1 (talk) 13:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Wasif Raza1: this draft has been rejected, as it provides no evidence that the subject is notable; furthermore, it is pure advertising, and for that reason I have just requested speedy deletion. Please note that any sort of promotion is not allowed on Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

15:03, 22 July 2024 review of submission by Kamila Fomin

• Kamila Fomin (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Daniel Druhora (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello! How long will the review of this proposal take? Kamila Fomin (talk) 15:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Kamila Fomin: Unfortunately, the Articles for Creation process is very backlogged right now. There are almost 3000 submissions awaiting review. It could take anywhere from a few days to a few months. There is no "queue"; submissions are reviewed in no particular order. C F A 💬 15:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

You should also take out all the peacock language. Who says the films are "acclaimed"? (No article should ever use such evaluative language, unless it is directly quoting a reliable independnet source).

You should look at every one of your sources critically: does it meet all three of the criteria in 42? If it doesn't, what is it doing there? ColinFine (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Kamila Fomin: if you want to avoid a quick decline, you should reference the draft appropriately; currently the first three sections are virtually unsupported – where does all that information come from? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

16:30, 22 July 2024 review of submission by Ratbabyjones

• Ratbabyjones (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Luis Bermudez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am respectfully requesting a specific example of what is NOT in an encyclopedic tone and/or what in this article constitutes a peacock term. All information is factual and cited. I would also appreciate some clarification about why the subject does not qualify for a Wikipedia article based on a lack of "independent, reliable, published sources," as there are multiple references to LA Times coverage specific to Bermudez and spanning multiple decades. Thank you for any help you are able to provide. Ratbabyjones (talk) 16:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Ratbabyjones: The draft is mostly a curriculum vitae. A little more prose will go a very long way here. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I am concerned more prose will be considered non-neutral or peacocking. Any advice? Ratbabyjones (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Ratbabyjones: Keep It Simple. Stick strictly to summarising what the sources explicitly say, do not extrapolate or editorialise. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

18:05, 22 July 2024 review of submission by Coolelvin2

• Coolelvin2 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Sydney Parrish (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Don't edit Wikipedia regularly so I need help developing this article. I like Sydney Parrish and think she deserves a page. Coolelvin2 (talk) 18:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Coolelvin2: you need to cite your sources (where you got all this information), and you also need to show that the subject is notable in Wikipedia terms. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

18:32, 22 July 2024 review of submission by Wyneep

• Wyneep (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Amadea Angela Aquino (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello WikiProject Help,

I need to make a small edit to my submitted draft and want to know if it'll change my position on the waiting list so far. Also, is there a limit on how many times I should resubmit a draft for review?

Best, Wynee Wyneep (talk) 18:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Wyneep:

You're welcome to continue editing your draft while you wait for a review. The draft has no 'position', as the system is not a queue, but rather a pool.

In theory at least, you can keep submitting as many times as you like, as long as you're making meaningful improvements in response to reviewer comments. It's normaly only when it looks like the draft isn't developing any further, or there's no realistic prospect of acceptance, that it will be rejected outright.

HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

PS: Why did you disclose a conflict of interest (COI) on your user page, and then delete that? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

It was an accident. I thought I had to if I took a photo of the person I'm writing about. But I was able to get Wikimedia Commons permission. So that's why I deleted it. Wyneep (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

18:41, 22 July 2024 review of submission by Melodata

• Melodata (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Derek Reese (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How are these unreliable sources? These are the same websites that are used on other professional basketball players wiki pages. I don’t understand. This is a well known professional athlete Melodata (talk) 18:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Melodata: whether or not the sources are reliable, they in any case don't establish notability per the general WP:GNG guideline. Personally, I would have declined for that reason, rather. And I don't see anything there that would obviously satisfy either WP:NHOOPS or WP:NCOLLATH, either. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Melodata: As of February 2023 top-level play no longer guarantees notability; there are still a lot of basketball articles that were written under the old guideline that have yet to be re-examined yet. You need to have non-routine sources that discuss the player. Statlines and profiles will not cut it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

19:01, 22 July 2024 review of submission by Shinaimm

• Shinaimm (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Emily Schrader (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, this page waits for a long time. Emily is a famous journalist in Israel and also appear in media around the world. Can you please review her page again? It waits for a lot of months... Shinaimm (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Shinaimm the draft has been reviewed and declined again by CFA. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

19:56, 22 July 2024 review of submission by 71.224.206.35

• 71.224.206.35 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:JoAnn Nallinger Grant RN BSN (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello - I submitted a biography article and it was declined for not having adequate sources. I included scholarly articles and would love more guidance to ensure I include the necessary materials to get this approved. Please advise. Thank you! 71.224.206.35 (talk) 19:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Everything that could potentially be challenged by a reasonable person MUST be cited to an in-depth third-party source with editorial oversight that explicitly corroborates it or (failing that) removed. This is not negotiable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

20:18, 22 July 2024 review of submission by Elekesabel

• Elekesabel (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Clayton R. Paul (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm wondering why the submission was declined. What is missing and how could I improve the page?

Clayton R. Paul is a highly esteemed scientist, highly notable in his scientific field, author of numerous publications and books.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people) Here it says that for an academic "are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources".

For context: I'm a researcher at the Northeastern University, Network Science Institute. We are working on a project, which aims to understand the differences between Human-curated encyclopedias and Machine-created knowledge. As part of this project we plan to upload 100 articles of notable scientist to Wikipedia in the following weeks. Our goal is to understand how can we influence the visibility of marginalized groups, both on human-curated and machine-created knowledge bases.

We would love to receive feedback on the feasibility of our plans and how would you recommend approaching the articles.

Ábel Elekes, PhD Elekesabel (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Elekesabel: WP:NACADEMIC is actually the criteria you need to meet, not the stricter NPERSON. Read over NACADEMIC. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 20:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano Thank you! I'm wondering how the person in the draft is not meeting the criteria? He has clearly made huge contribution to his scientific field. Elekesabel (talk) 20:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

The draft does not make this clear. You write "Clayton R. Paul was a globally recognized expert in electromagnetic compatibility", but don't say who gives this recognition or what specifically led to it. 331dot (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@331dot Hi, thank you for your answer! How would I be able to show this in your opinion? Dr. Paul had several papers with thousands of citations, however I tried to reference scientific sites, but it seemed not possible. Most of the highly cited scientists, such as Dr. Paul, does not have a dedicated Google Scholar page, but if you search his name the publications appear.

Also, he received several awards, I'm not sure if the awards do not have a dedicated website, how should I reference them, other than sources similar to the current references?

In general scientists have very vague coverage on the internet, other than the scientific websites. However, in our opinion they should be present on Wikipedia, since they made huge contributions to society. We conducted an analysis showing that the coverage of scientists on Wikipedia is heavily declining compared to other fields of notabilities, such as athletes or cultural figures. This is one of the reasons we are doing this intervention. Elekesabel (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Who is "we"?

Please see the WP:NACADEMIC page and scroll down to the header "Specific criteria notes". This explains what is being looked for to satisfy either of the first two criteria. In short, you need to show that Paul's work is extensively cited in other scholarly/academic publications, or summarize reviews of Paul's work. If he was given an award, there should be some documentation somewhere about why he was given the award. You wrote "Throughout his career, Paul received numerous accolades, reflecting his influence and contributions to engineering", but you don't say what those accolades are or what his influence/contributions were that led to the awards. Sources do not have to be online, they just need to be publicly accessible.(i.e. not something in a private collection inaccessible to the public) 331dot (talk) 22:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@331dot Thank you for your answer!

'We' are the research team working on the project.

Regarding Dr. Paul's contribution and awards: in the references provided it is clearly stated that he received these awards and he has these accolades. How else should I be able to reference this if the specific award has no other dedicated website? Aren't these references the ideal 'secondary' sources?

Most scientists would have similar online presence as Dr. Paul. If you Google them you would find their publications, books and possibly their profile on their current and former university affiliations. But usually not much more, since science in general are not newsworthy and publicized. A lot of the scientists does not even have profiles on major scientific data sources, like google scholar or researchgate.

However, if I can't reference the scientific profiles, or their current affiliation page, how should I be able to create their page that can get accepted?

All the scientist we aim to upload are great scientists with significant scientific contributions, having publications with thousands of citations. We manually curated the list and created these descriptions.

Do you think it is not possible to get these articles, like Dr. Paul's, on Wikipedia at all, because they don't appear on enough websites?

Thank you! Elekesabel (talk) 03:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I again stress that sources do not have to be online.

Note that as stated in the guideline, "For documenting that a person has won a specific award (but not for a judgement of whether or not that award is prestigious), publications of the awarding institution are considered a reliable source." If you're saying that the sources you've already given document the awards he was given, again, that's not clear in the draft. You did write "Paul was the only two-time recipient of the IEEE EMC Society's Richard Stoddard Award for Outstanding Performance, a testament to his exceptional impact on the field", but don't say what that impact is.

WP:NACADEMIC is actually a pretty loose guideline when compared to other notability guidelines, precisely because scientists and researchers aren't usually getting coverage in the news or similar.

I'm sure that Paul has done a lot, but as a lay person reading the draft, it's not clear to me what exactly Paul has done other than he wrote a lot of papers. You said "His work focused on modeling and quantifying interference in cabling systems, laying the groundwork for contemporary EMC practices" but don't say why that's important or who considers it so(such as through Paul's work being cited in other academic publications). 331dot (talk) 06:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Elekesabel! Rather than comment on your draft, I just wanted to give you a heads-up that you may be interested in a similar (established almost a decade ago, still very active) project: Women In Red (WIR). You may know that on Wikipedia articles occasionally have red links, which indicates that someone thinks the subject of that link could be notable and that there ought to be an article about them. WIR's goal is to create articles for as many redlinked women as possible, hence the name. Biographies of women are vastly underrepresented, and their work has been going on for a very long time, so it may be useful for you to contact them and combine forces (or get some data, which they also collect). I can only imagine how few female scientists have biographies, if both women and scientists are underrepresented!

Best of luck with your project, and I wish you happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 05:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

21:05, 22 July 2024 review of submission by Achehawaii

• Achehawaii (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Who Is Professor Dr. Yan Kwai Leung PhD? (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I want to make sure this is published as a scholarly article Achehawaii (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Achehawaii: The draft as written is promotional and three of its sources are to an organisation he's part of. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 21:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

21:28, 22 July 2024 review of submission by 72.92.37.34

• 72.92.37.34 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Altron (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

What does this need to become a page? The company has seemed to have developed a lot of games. 72.92.37.34 (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

You need in-depth coverage about the company not just a list of their games and some of the source cited make no mention of Altron so not useful. S0091 (talk) 21:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

21:34, 22 July 2024 review of submission by Funcionais

• Funcionais (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:The Quarterly Journal of Finance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can someone explain me why the request for the creation of this article was declined? Funcionais (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Funcionais: For want of sources, primarily. Your sources are a profile of the journal (too sparse) and the organisation that created the journal. Nothing that really explains how the outlet meets WP:NJOURNAL. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 21:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano WP:NJOURNAL is not a recognized guideline so general guideline is what is used. S0091 (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano The SCImago source does show that, which is why I am puzzled. The journal ranking is second quartile, which means it has above median citations. If you search on google scholar (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=The+Quarterly+Journal+of+Finance&btnG=&oq=the+) you can find papers published by this journal with hundreds of citations, but I can't include that in the article because it doesn't feel appropriate. Any suggestions? Funcionais (talk) 21:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

July 23

Why Last drop article declined ?

How are these unreliable sources? These are the same websites that are used on other professional film wiki pages. I don’t understand.(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Last_Drop) Fantasy 45 (talk) 01:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@Fantasy 45: You're conflating the outlet that published those sources with the context of those sources. And the fact is, the more in-depth sources are generally more about the filmmaker than the film itself. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 01:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Can someone help me?

I'm not sure how to address this.

There is an Ashlee Bond.

She is quite often routinely called Ashley Bond.[2][3][4][5][6][7]

But there is already a wp article with someone with that name (who averages zero article views per day). So I can't request a redirect from Ashlee Bond to Ashley Bond.

Would appreciate any help. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:DDA7:B97A:4B36:9255 (talk) 05:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

IP editor, I think what you are looking for here is some kind of disambiguation - so one would be Ashley Bond (rugby player), and the other Ashley Bond (show jumping rider), or something along those lines. In the meantime, there was already a redirect ('if you are looking for...') on the rugby player's page, and I have added the same to the rider's page so hopefully that will also help. StartGrammarTime (talk) 07:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

As the rider is the one who attracts overwhelmingly the most views, should it go to her? And does the dab work in any case with a redirect? And can I create the dab myself as an IP? Many thanks. --2603:7000:2101:AA00:303D:2C0D:7B3D:DA7F (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

06:26, 23 July 2024 review of submission by Kamila Fomin

• Kamila Fomin (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Daniel Druhora (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I revised the sources more than 5 times, and I am not sure which sources exactly are not reliable, and which ones I need to change. Kamila Fomin (talk) 06:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@Kamila Fomin: it's not necessarily that the sources aren't reliable, but that they don't adequately support the contents. As I said yesterday (did you read any of the answers?), there are entirely unreferenced sections in this draft, which is totally unacceptable for an article on a living person. In fact, all the sources only support his works, not any of the biographical content.

And when I say 'support', I'm being generous. Eg. source #11 just points to Yahoo movie news portal, which supports nothing in this draft. Similarly, #14 points to the home page of a website, and I can't see Druhora even being mentioned anywhere on that page. There may well be other examples like this. When you say you went through the sources "more than 5 times", I'm wondering how you missed these? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@Kamila Fomin I have left a comment in the draft.

Please read WP:REFB and WP:CITE. Also please recognise that you have written what you want to say and are not scratching around for references. This is WP:BACKWARDS which you need to read. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

08:23, 23 July 2024 review of submission by Ahmadghader

• Ahmadghader (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Paul saad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

hello dear, can you advise me about my topic, what i can edit to accept it and publish it. Ahmadghader (talk) 08:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@Ahmadghader the draft has been rejected, so please don't attempt to resubmit it, like you did here. A single interview doesn't establish notablilty. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

10:12, 23 July 2024 review of submission by 118.210.162.3

• 118.210.162.3 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Nocti Akura (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

For some reason, my draft was REJECTED, so, I'm wandering if you can do anything about it.

118.210.162.3 (talk) 10:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi there - your draft was rejected as Nocti is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Qcne (talk) 10:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I could ask for it to be deleted? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The draft has been deleted and suppressed. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

12:53:41, 23 July 2024 review of submission by 104.232.119.107

• 104.232.119.107 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Saeseom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, my draft was rejected for supposedly not having enough reliable sources, but I disagree with this assessment. Some of the sources are wikilinked and are major news sources or encyclopedias in South Korea, and others are local newspapers for Jeju Province, including 헤드라인제주 ("Headline Jeju"), Jeju Ilbo, and 뉴스제주 ("News Jeju"). Plenty of local newspapers are relied on for local features in English-speaking countries; feel like language bias may have a role here. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 12:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@SafariScribe courtesy tagging reviewer 104.232.119.107 (talk) 12:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Your draft has been accepted. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

13:53:58, 23 July 2024 review of submission by 104.232.119.107

• 104.232.119.107 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:GongU Madang (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Draft was rejected for supposedly not demonstrating notability. Same reviewer of my other draft just above. These references in the article in particular are major South Korean newspapers and their entire articles are solely about the website in question:

• [8] in Kyunghyang Shinmun
• [9] in Kyunghyang Shinmun
• [10] in Yonhap News Agency

There are also other smaller South Korean newspapers (all of which reliable and wikilinked when possible) in the article. Please give it a look with machine translation to verify. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 13:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@SafariScribe courtesy tag again 104.232.119.107 (talk) 13:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@104.232.119.107, I have accepted your draft since I have no doubt of notability. Declining was because the English translations uses "Shared Yard" as a commonname but it's different with your title. Is there any input for that or I would go ahead and rename to Shared Yard? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Where are you seeing "shared yard"? If you plug the website's name into google translate then that shows up, but when I search that name on google all I see is YouTubers who've probably used google translate instead of searching official or common names for the website. Here's a document from the Korea Copyright Commission that uses the current spelling. And the domain name for the website is "gongu.copyright.or.kr" 104.232.119.107 (talk) 00:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

14:22, 23 July 2024 review of submission by 76.148.28.254

• 76.148.28.254 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Eric Feichthaler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have submitted the article multiple times, adding sources each time, and I have not gotten the article approved. I have waited over a week for this review, while my previous submissions were reviewed within a single day. Do you have any ideas for how I can have my article approved and have it be reviewed more quickly? Thank you. 76.148.28.254 (talk) 14:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Please log into your account whenever editing (I'm assuming you're TumulousStorm97?).

You most recently submitted this draft ten days ago. As it says on the top of the page, "This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,721 pending submissions waiting for review." Please be patient.

No, there is no way to expedite reviews. Is there a particular reason why you're in a hurry? Note that Wikipedia is not edited to any deadline. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Everyone would like a speedy review, can you tell us why you should get one over everyone else who has a draft submitted? 331dot (talk) 16:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

14:56, 23 July 2024 review of submission by Zaccwm

• Zaccwm (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Seldon Charles Forrester Farmer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This article has been declined a number of times by various people with apparently a templated reason. Seldon Farmer was a recipient of a British Honour the OBE and as such would appear to meet the Biography requirement for notability i.e. "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people) There were many more references from around the world but reviewers requested I remove references as there were too many.

I do not appear to be able to get the balance right, the fact that people are still citing him 40 years after his death seems to suggest that he was notable, and indeed this was confirmed by Roger Statham, author of The Golden Age of Probation: Mission V Market and in Harding, John; Page, Martin; Whiting, Adrian; Cannings, Jim (April 2024). "A Slice of Probation History: The story of Seldon Charles Forrester Farmer". ARCOIP: The Association of Retired Chief Officers and Inspectors of Probation Newsletter: 9–16. Any specific guidance for the article would be helpful to enable it to be published and others to contribute as they see fit. Many thanks Zaccwm (talk) 14:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

If you resubmit with no edits since the previous decline then you're likely to see the same result.

An OBE is generally not considered sufficient on its own to signify notability for a Wikipedia article (see for example, Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)/Archive 2016#MBE). You therefore need to demonstrate notability with references that show significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject (WP:NBASIC). Do you have three or four sources that meet these criteria (not written by the subject of the article, and not just a passing mention)? Mgp28 (talk) 22:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

15:43, 23 July 2024 review of submission by Andrewkoper

• Andrewkoper (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Corktown Pheasants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I made a Wikipedia page for a soccer team in Detroit. The soccer team has been around 15 years and has been published online previously (I have four citations). I summitted the page for review, but a reviewer declined the submission. This seems like it is a legit thing to have a Wikipedia page about. Is there a way to have another reviewer review the draft who could decide the page is good and publish it? Andrewkoper (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@Andrewkoper: it is a "legit thing to have a Wikipedia page about", if it can be shown to be notable in the Wikipedia sense. For sports teams/clubs, this means citing multiple (3+) sources that satisfy the WP:GNG standard for notability, namely secondary sources (newspapers, magazines, books, TV and radio programmes, etc.) that are both reliable and independent of the subject, and that have provided significant coverage directly of the subject. Of the sources cited in your draft, the radio piece (IPR) looks like it could meet this standard, but it alone isn't enough, you need a couple more. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Andrewkoper Do you want to wait for a reviewer who will tell you what you want to hear, or who will tell you the right thing? 331dot (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

16:59, 23 July 2024 review of submission by WS at Worthington Steel

• WS at Worthington Steel (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Worthington Steel, Inc. (2023-Present) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Requesting further information for why this page was declined. Pop-up said because of unreliable sources, but the sources used were independent and credible. WS at Worthington Steel (talk) 16:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@WS at Worthington Steel: Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked as "critiques" in my signature):

• We don't cite government documents because they are government documents and thus primary sources.
• We can't use https://www.forbes.com/sites/joecornell/2023/11/16/worthington-industries-to-spin-off-worthington-steel-on-december-1/ (no editorial oversight). Anything written by a Forbes contributor is a glorified op-ed unless it was published in a print edition, where Forbes editors got a crack at it.
• https://finance.yahoo.com/news/worthington-steel-joint-venture-twb-200000402.html?guccounter=1 is useless for notability (connexion to subject). BusinessWire only ever publishes press releases. Same applies to https://finance.yahoo.com/news/worthington-steel-named-2023-supplier-124500389.html and https://finance.yahoo.com/news/worthington-steel-earns-recognition-john-124500431.html
• https://www.dispatch.com/story/business/2023/12/04/worthington-industries-celebrates-split-with-7-5-million-donation/71769936007/ is useless for notability (routine coverage). Spinoff news.
• https://www.newsweek.com/rankings/americas-most-responsible-companies-2024 is useless for notability (too sparse). Listing for a non-exclusive award.
• https://www.thefabricator.com/thefabricator/news/metalsmaterials/worthington-steel-president-named-2024-steel-executive-of-the-year is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Clearly-labeled press release.

I cannot assess the print sources (copy required), but the sources I can assess are all unusable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! A quick question -- to my knowledge, the Columbus Dispatch article was not routine coverage. How are articles determined routine coverage or not? WS at Worthington Steel (talk) 12:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

18:33, 23 July 2024 review of submission by BtimesLive

• BtimesLive (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Mitesh Narigara (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello I want to publish this Mitesh Narigara's article, What What thing i need to complete this article ? Please guide me for this article.

Thank you Regards BtimesLive BtimesLive (talk) 18:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@BtimesLive: No sources, no article, no debate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

19:08, 23 July 2024 review of submission by Eleanorguy

• Eleanorguy (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Broom Factory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Page entry has been turned down. Would like to talk to someone live. Eleanorguy (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@Eleanorguy We are all alive but there is no live chat here.

Please look at your references. The majority do not even mention Broom Factory. One whcih does is simply a performance listing. I think three are about Broom Factory.

This is your roadmap. Please read the big pink decline notice and see what is required for referencing. Please read WP:REFB and WP:CITE and implement what they say. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

19:27, 23 July 2024 review of submission by BtimesLive

• BtimesLive (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Mitesh Narigara (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

We need help for article publish, We already added sources on the article. BtimesLive (talk) 19:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for username and promotion. 331dot (talk) 19:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Prolly for the better; the sources they added were all payola. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

21:53, 23 July 2024 review of submission by Jjarchivist

• Jjarchivist (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:John James (philanthropist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have a physical newscutting of an obituary in The Times (London) dated 16 February 1996. Is there any copy of this online and how can I use this as a reference? Jjarchivist (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@Jjarchivist: You don't, at least not directly. You cite it as an offline source with {{cite news}}, providing the paper name, paper edition, article name, article byline, and the page(s) it ran on. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 22:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

23:02, 23 July 2024 review of submission by Queremalense

• Queremalense (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Goat (Japanese band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is my first article and I'm somewhat puzzled by the recurring reasons for it's dismissal re reliable and notability.

After consulting this article [11], I believe the draft article indeed satisfies the notability criteria. Similarly, there are several third party references by a mixture of national newspapers (Japan Times), specialist music publications (The Wire), and other independent music specialists (Boomkat).

I would value additional opinions and advice since the same reason for dismissal has occurred twice.

My motivation in creating the article stems from how prominent they have become in the past decade in the Japanese and European experimental music scene, as evidenced by the references I have given, despite the relative lack of coverage in english. I don't speak Japanese and so therefore can't research or link Japanese info and references in creating this page. I'm particularly interested in creating this article so that a Japanese version might next be created and they could mutually support one another as reference articles by sharing links to references that non-Japanese speakers might not find. Queremalense (talk) 23:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Queremalense! The good news is that sources and notability go hand-in-hand, so if you can solve one of those problems you can solve both. Let's go over your sources and see what's holding you back.

The first thing to keep in mind is that to establish notability, each source you use must meet all the criteria in WP:42, our 'golden rule'. Articles need significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Part of the second criteria, reliable sources, requires the source to have editorial oversight (for example, not a blog) and come from a reputable publisher (some places will publish anything if they're paid, so they are not reliable). So here we go!

Source 1, Japan Times, looked promising but unfortunately is an interview (not independent).

Source 2, Bandcamp, is a place to listen to their music rather than containing information about them (not significant coverage, not a reliable source).

Source 3 and 5, Boomkat, are trying to sell you their album (not a reliable source).

I can't assess source 4 and 8 as it's offline and I don't have access. It looks like the same source quoted twice, which is fine, but if it's an acceptable source that only counts as one - you need a minimum of three. Let's assume for now that this source is good.

Source 6, ZDB, is selling tickets for a performance (not a reliable source).

Source 7, gnration, is also selling tickets (not a reliable source).

Sadly, none of the sources I can access are usable. What you need is someone writing about the band who, like you, is not connected to them in any way and is just interested in them. It may be that you do need Japanese-language sources, which is frustrating - we do have translators who may be willing to help, if you can find some sources you think look promising. Google translate should be able to give you an idea of whether any Japanese-language sources are suitable and what they're saying, and you could then ask for a translator to check whether the information you're citing them for is accurate to what the source says.

I hope that's been helpful. Best wishes and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 03:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed response.

To discuss source 1 more and the status of interviews as reliable sources (something I'd like to be clear on if I continue on Wikipedia), if not also about research methodology: on the question of determining when, in this case, a band formed, there are situations where a researcher will rely on an original interview of a primary source / subject to determine certain facts. The assumption is that as an academic or reputable journalist following best practice, one must fact check or verify however possible. In many cases there will be no reliable independent objective source to check e.g. a birth certificate of a band, rather, one has to interview or collate other sources, all of which might not be seen as reliable in the Wikipedian definition, but which, on the whole, can be presented as robust, critically independent, and reliable i.e. a researcher establishes a wider context to prove otherwise unreliable claims.

Put more simply, sometimes all you can do is ask the person for a fact only they know, and they might not even be sure (e.g. when a band formed: at a gig, in the studio, at a meeting, in their head as an idea years before any of the above), but as a researcher you then have to build a critical context to prove or disprove their statement.

Hopefully this is not too anal, but what I mean with this point is that if one dismisses interviews as wholly unreliable, this assumes that the substance of said article has not itself been researched, verified, and judged accurated by the interview author, in this case a writer for Japan Times, a reputable journalistic outfit. My reading of it leads me to believe with confidence that the writer has check the facts provided by the subject, and on the referenced point in question, about when the band formed.

I can think of many interviews where the authorial voice is very much with the interviewer rather than interviewee, and where the former is making some kind of critique of the latter. And so, I question whether articles that contain a mixture of both interview content and original prose should be dismissed in such contexts, because often, in cases where interviewers maintain a critical distance from their subjects, they demonstrate an independent reliability e.g. fact checking, or explaining the interviewees comments when they might be false, misleading, or inaccurate.

I share all this coming from an academic background myself, and in which I find there is often more grey than black and white with these types of epistemological issues.

Still, I'll try to look into Japanese sources using web translate tools in case there are any easy finds of further reliable sources. Queremalense (talk) 06:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

July 24

00:17, 24 July 2024 review of submission by Banjo Bilby

• Banjo Bilby (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Arid Recovery (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there, I have added lots of references from academic journals and gov websites, however, it keeps getting rejected on the grounds of referencing. Can I gets some tips and help please? Banjo Bilby (talk) 00:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

@Banjo Bilby: Anything from Arid Recovery's own website is useless for notability and can only be used for uncontroversial claims (connexion to subject). Anything from Australia's government as a whole is also useless for notability by dint of being government sources. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 00:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

The Arid Recovery website I get. The government pages are species profiles from the EPBC act, which is weird to ignore. Thanks for the help though. Banjo Bilby (talk) 00:31, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

00:25, 24 July 2024 review of submission by CymaSonic

• CymaSonic (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Natsuyo Nobumoto Lipschutz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Wikipedia Editors, I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to seek guidance regarding an article I have been attempting to submit to Wikipedia. Despite my best efforts to adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines and standards, my submissions have not been approved. I would like to emphasize that I have:

Carefully reviewed and followed Wikipedia's editing guidelines. Included numerous third-party references to support the article's content. Provided citations from reputable publishers to ensure the information's credibility. Made multiple revisions based on previous feedback (if applicable).

At this point, I feel I have exhausted my options for further edits without additional guidance. I would greatly appreciate your insights on:

Specific areas of the article that still require improvement. Any particular concerns about the current content or structure. Suggestions for additional sources or types of references that would strengthen the article. Any other steps I can take to meet Wikipedia's standards for publication.

Your expertise and advice would be invaluable in helping me understand how to proceed. I am committed to contributing high-quality content to Wikipedia and am eager to learn from your feedback. Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your response and the opportunity to improve my submission. CymaSonic (talk) 00:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

@CymaSonic, using AI for guidance might not be effective, and it seems AI may have been used to write your draft, making it read promotional. Additionally, your draft lacks proper citations to reliable sources. Ignoring the decline notice, which includes reasons for the decline, is not advisable as it contains valuable information to help improve your draft. Please review it thoroughly and seek guidance before resubmitting. Cheers. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Dear @SafariScribe ,

Thank you for your prompt feedback on my draft. I appreciate your time and would like to address the points you raised:

1. Use of AI: I want to clarify that I did not use AI to write the draft. My process involved organic Google searches to find existing resources, which I then verified individually. The guidance I followed came from Wikipedia's own guidelines.
2. Citations and reliable sources: I understand your concern about proper citations. I'm currently investigating official links for the awards mentioned. For the career section, particularly regarding McKinsey (internship) and Itochu Corporation, I found it challenging to locate third-party articles due to the relatively minor nature of these positions in the subject's overall career.
3. Promotional tone: I apologize if the draft came across as promotional. This was not my intention, and I will work on maintaining a more neutral, encyclopedic tone.
4. Previous decline notices: I assure you that I have been carefully reading all feedback. If I've missed any crucial points, I sincerely apologize and would greatly appreciate if you could highlight them again.

Based on your feedback, I propose the following changes:

1. Remove the career section that lacks strong third-party references.
2. Focus on the awards and recent speaking engagements, ensuring each has verifiable sources.
3. Revise the entire draft to ensure a neutral tone and compliance with Wikipedia's standards.

Would this approach be more suitable? I'm committed to improving this draft and would greatly appreciate any additional guidance you can provide.

Thank you for your patience and assistance in this process. CymaSonic (talk) 00:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

@CymaSonic: I have a couple of suggestions. The first is covered by the advice at WP:BACKWARDS. When you create a draft, each sentence should be based on what a source says. That way, you do not end up with content that is not apparently based on any source. Minor positions in a person's career that are not covered by secondary sources can safely be omitted from the draft.

I'd also like to point out the policy at WP:TRADEMARK to support removal of the TM and R symbols you've included in your draft. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

09:08, 24 July 2024 review of submission by Tamsragow

• Tamsragow (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Shammai Kancepolsky (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My draft has been rejected twice due to unreliable sources, but I believe the issue is that the sources are in another language. Is this usually a problem or will I be able to get the draft approved with these sources? Tamsragow (talk) 09:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft submission process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.

Sources do not need to be in English as long as they meet all other criteria for being a reliable source. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Sources in other languages are acceptable, if there are no equally good English ones. It often takes longer for a draft with non-English sources to get reviewed, because it will wait for a reviewer who can either read that language or is prepared to put them through a translator and review them.

However, if a reviewer has reviewed the draft, they will have looked at the sources in one of those ways, and concluded that they are inadequate.

Note that while the message say "reliable sources", there are three separate criteria that sources must meet - reliability, independence, and significant coverage; and it is often one of the others: see the golden rule. ColinFine (talk) 09:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you so much for responding. The sources I used are secondary and primary sources about the subject and the article was reviewed rather quickly despite the majority of the sources being in Hebrew (this makes me think that those reviewing do not understand the language). The majority of these exact sources were used in a Wikipedia article about the same subject on the Hebrew Wikipedia page and were accepted as entirely reliable. Are there different standards for the English one? Tamsragow (talk) 09:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, each language version of Wikipedia is a separate project, with their own editors and policies. What is acceptable on one is not necessarily acceptable on another. The English version tends to be stricter than others. 331dot (talk) 09:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

So in other words, the sources were 100% checked by someone who understands the language even though they were once checked within 3 days? I just want to be sure. Tamsragow (talk) 09:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Wikipedia editors! I hope this finds you well. I am wondering if you find the website "nil.org.il" to be unreliable because many of my sources come from this website as it is the website for the National Archive of Israel, so many old news articles can only be found there. Was this the issue with my draft or were the sources found on this website reliable?

The sources included, https://www.nli.org.il/he/newspapers/hadashot/1987/05/07/01/article/141?&dliv=none&e=-------he-20--1--img-txIN%7ctxTI--------------1&utm_source=he.wikipedia.org&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=%22%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%99+%D7%A7%D7%A0%D7%A6%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%A1%D7%A7%D7%99%22&utm_content=itonut,

https://www.nli.org.il/he/newspapers/mar/1990/12/17/01/article/256?&dliv=none&e=-------he-20--1--img-txIN%7ctxTI--------------1&utm_source=he.wikipedia.org&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=%22%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%99+%D7%A7%D7%A0%D7%A6%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%A1%D7%A7%D7%99%22&utm_content=itonut,

https://www.nli.org.il/he/newspapers/ahr/1950/05/09/01/article/29?&dliv=none&e=-------he-20--1--img-txIN%7ctxTI--------------1&utm_source=he.wikipedia.org&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=%22%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%99+%D7%A7%D7%A0%D7%A6%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%A1%D7%A7%D7%99%22&utm_content=itonut,

and

https://www.nli.org.il/he/newspapers/dav/1964/05/22/01/article/158?&dliv=none&e=-------he-20--1--img-txIN%7ctxTI--------------1&utm_source=he.wikipedia.org&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=%22%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%99+%D7%A7%D7%A0%D7%A6%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%A1%D7%A7%D7%99%22&utm_content=itonut.

Additional sources were www.gov.il which is a statement from the Israeli government. https://www.gov.il/BlobFolder/reports/roots_1996_1/he/roots-1996-1.pdf

Was there an issue with these specific sources?

Please let me know! I really appreciate your time. Tamsragow (talk) 10:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

NLI is not the source of these, but merely where they are to be found. The first is published by Hadashot, and the second by Maariv, and they should be cited with title, author, publisher (the newspaper), date, page number, and (optionally, for reader convenience) links to the NLI archive. Their reliability depends on that of the newspapers, possibly with other considerations as well, not on NLI. Since they are scans, Google translate won't work on the content, so I don't know how readily reviewers will be able to evaluate them (my Hebrew is pretty weak).

Statements from goverments are almost always primary sources, and do not contribute to establishing notability. Nor do any sources which do not meet the triple criteria of reliability, independence, and significant coverage of the subject: see WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 12:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi! thank you so much for looking into my sources. Within the draft I wrote all of my sources are cited properly in the way that you described above (I just happened to describe them poorly in writing here), yet I am still having my draft declined due to "unreliable sources". Two reviews have been completed over the course of three days which have each had the same result. This makes me think that they are not being looked at properly, especially after being informed by two different Wikipedia reviewers that it takes a long time to look over sources such as these. I am just very confused as to which sources on my article draft are considered unreliable and would really appreciate some assistance. Please let me know! Tamsragow (talk) 13:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

12:59, 24 July 2024 review of submission by עומר תשבי

• עומר תשבי (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Amir Ziv-Av (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This article was immediately declined due to supposably lack of resources and references. However, there are plenty of references in the article, noting the subject by name, and extensively. The subject also has an article in Hebrew. Also, There are old magazines from the 80's which are not online, but I have referred to one of them in the article. would it be good to refer to more of them? עומר תשבי (talk) 12:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

@עומר תשבי: "plenty of references" isn't the point, it's the quality we look for, not quantity; 30 flaky sources will not establish notability, whereas 3 solid ones may well do. I've not done a source analysis, but I did notice that there are several sources cited which contribute nothing towards notability.

Whether there exists an article on this subject in the Hebrew-language Wikipedia is neither here nor there, as each language version is entirely separate and acceptance into one language version does not guarantee acceptance into others.

And yes, offline sources are acceptable, as long as they otherwise are up to the required standards in terms of reliability etc. See WP:OFFLINE for advice on citing them. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

First of all, I will add offline (notable) sources. Second, these are not flaky sources: This are prominent Israeli news websites, websites of academic institutions, etc. I think that If you would analyze these sources, you will see that not only they directly refer to the subject, but that there are notable sources. עומר תשבי (talk) 20:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

14:03, 24 July 2024 review of submission by Belarusgap

• Belarusgap (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Liliya Busarova (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hej, I made English translation of the Belarusian-approved page https://be.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D1%96%D0%BB%D1%96%D1%8F_%D0%91%D1%83%D1%81%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B0. So why the English page should be different one when it comes to sources? Also, many Belarusian Wikipedia articles include facebook and instagram links- why is this allowed? Best regards, Ludmila Belarusgap (talk) 14:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

@Belarusgap: the Belarusian and English Wikipedias are completely separate project, and what is acceptable on one, may not be on the other. Any article accepted here must comply with our policies and guidelines, and the English-language Wikipedia has probably the strictest requirements in terms of notability and verifiability of any language version.

Specifically, social media, such as Facebook and IG, is user-generated, and as such not considered reliable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

thank you. I just feel that it gets too complicated. Belarusgap (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

14:37, 24 July 2024 review of submission by Mateo radovan

• Mateo radovan (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Palace Hotel Zagreb (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, can you please tell me what do I need to change, its pointless for me to keep changing and you keep declining everything I change. SatelitteChange 14:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

@Mateo radovan: you need to show that this subject is notable, by citing sources which satisfy the general notability guideline WP:GNG. That requires secondary sources that are independent and reliable, and provide significant coverage of the subject. Your draft cites no such source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

15:19, 24 July 2024 review of submission by 151.69.99.82

• 151.69.99.82 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Vitale Vidal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

We are trying to get this published but keep having it declined. The only external reference we have available is a newspaper article with his obituary. Will this work?

151.69.99.82 (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

If all you have is a single source, you will find it all but impossible to establish that the subject is notable.

If the obit is reliable (meaning, written by a professional journalist or subject-matter expert, and published in a reliable secondary source such as major newspaper), it probably is good enough for verifying the information, but note that not all obits are like that, some are written by a personal acquaintance or relative of the deceased, etc. In any case, a single source isn't ideal for verifying an entire article.

Did all the information in this draft really come from that one source, then? If so, I hope you didn't directly translate or even too closely paraphrase what it said, because that could violate the source's copyright. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

How do we send you a copy of the article. I do not know the journalist. The newspaper is a major one here yes ofcourse. 151.69.99.82 (talk) 15:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

We are not really sure how to have this published, Vidal and Pino Silvestre are household names in Italy. It is like asking a Japanese person if Sony or Toyota exist. 151.69.99.82 (talk) 15:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

If it's a household name, you should have no difficulty in finding reliable sources to establish they are a notable person. Who is "we"? 331dot (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Is there a problem with using these prefered pronouns? We are comfortable using We/Us/Ours. Do you have an issue with this? 151.69.99.82 (talk) 15:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Instead of asking about our pronouns maybe you can be practical and explain how "we" can reference. Do we have to upload articles? 151.69.99.82 (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

IP editor, usually "we" refers to plural and Wikipedia accounts can only be used by a single person. If your chosen singular pronouns are "we/us/ours" that's fine, but it's normal for us to ask that. Qcne (talk) 15:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sources do not need to exist online and they don't have to be in English, but the draft has to make it clear which bit of information is verified by which source. Assuming that you are User:Artico13 (please remember to log in!), there is more information on your user talk page. --bonadea contributions talk 15:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

With respect, it isn't the same as Sony or Toyota, because plenty of sources exist on those, both for notability and verifiability purposes. Whereas you're saying all you have a single source. Ergo, it's not a comparable situation at all. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Using Toyota or Sony as examples highlights how universally recognized these brands are in Japan, similar to how Italian brands Vidal and Pino Silvestre are well-known in Italy. If you were to stop a Japanese person on the street and mention Toyota or Sony, they would immediately recognize these brands due to their prominence in everyday life. The same goes for Italians with Vidal and Pino Silvestre. In fact, if you were to walk into any supermarket in Italy, you would find Vidal and Pino Silvestre products readily available.

The very reason we are writing this article is to address the lack of comprehensive references for a company that holds a similar status, albeit on a local level and not comparing global financial power. This is a service not only to Italy and Venice but to the general public. We need to add articles to the reference section, is this what you are requesting? 151.69.99.82 (talk) 15:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

See also the response given above about the same draft. --bonadea contributions talk 15:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Content like ”widely recognized as one of the most famous cosmetic brands in Italy, synonymous with quality and tradition” is ridiculous in an encyclopaedia WP:TNT is required here and a complete re-write in a dry neutral tone referring only to what independent, reliable sources say. Theroadislong (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

16:06, 24 July 2024 review of submission by IqbalHossain

• IqbalHossain (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Korvi Rakshand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Korvi Rakshand received the Ramon Magsaysay Award in 2023. He also received several international awards. And many international news media wrote on his works. So, why the submission request decline? which points should be improved? I need instructions. Thanks in advance. --- IqbalHossain (talk) 16:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

@IqbalHossain: Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked as "critiques" in my signature):

• https://www.prothomalo.com/bangladesh/v9ve734gct verifies he won the award but otherwise is useless for notability (too sparse). The article doesn't discuss him.
• I can't assess https://www.kalerkantho.com/online/national/2023/09/01/1313886 (language barrier). Google Translate on the page returns a blank article.
• https://www.dhakatribune.com/webiners-and-interviwes/324594/korvi-rakshand-jaago-will-expand-into-the is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Interview with non-substantial lede.
• https://futurestartup.com/2011/12/14/korvi-rakshand/#:~:text=Korvi%20Rakshand%20is%20the%20Founder%20of%20JAAGO%20Foundation.,300%20students%2C%20two%20branches%2C%20and%20thousands%20of%20volunteers. is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Interview with non-substantial lede.
• We can't use https://www.gdn.int/bangladesh-piloting-solarized-digital-schools-guarantee-high-quality-education-children-rural (unknown provenance). No byline; who wrote this? (We tend to be sceptical of role/absent bylines because they're commonly used to publish content that bypassed the editor's desk.) Even if it did have a byline, it'd be useless for notability (wrong subject) as it's about JAAGO Foundation, not Rakshand. Coverage of the organisation is not coverage of its personnel.
• https://www.daily-sun.com/printversion/details/207613 is useless for notability (wrong subject). This is about JAAGO Foundation receiving a prize.
• We can't use https://www.thedailystar.net/star-weekend/opinion/korvi-rakshand-named-asia-21-young-leader-asia-society-119095 (no editorial oversight). Classified as an op-ed and credited to the JAAGO Foundation.
• We can't use https://www.tbsnews.net/bangladesh/korvi-rakshand-named-181st-commonwealth-point-light-249712 (unknown provenance). Role byline; who wrote this?
• We can't use https://bangladeshpost.net/posts/korvi-rakshand-gets-commonwealth-points-of-light-award-60463 (unknown provenance). Role byline; who wrote this?
• We can't use https://www.thedailystar.net/tech-startup/news/jaagos-korvi-receives-magsaysay-award-the-nobel-prize-asia-3407591 (unknown provenance). Role byline; who wrote this?
• https://www.thedailystar.net/star-youth/news/promoting-eco-friendly-menstrual-hygiene-2100369 is a non-sequitur.

Does this help? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

16:40, 24 July 2024 review of submission by TRTGUSA

• TRTGUSA (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:TRTGUSA/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why was my article rejected? TRTGUSA (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

@TRTGUSA: It was rejected and will not be considered further because you wrote an advert for TRTG. We have zero tolerance for being used as a billboard. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

18:06, 24 July 2024 review of submission by Artico13

• Artico13 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Vitale Vidal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have added some references and removed the peackcok words. The tone seems netural now. Artico13 (talk) 18:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

@Artico13: No, it doesn't. Your sourcing is also poor. What is your connexion to Vidal or his estate? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

@Artico13: please don't open a new thread, just add to the exiting one. You now have three threads on this page. And please remember to log into your account whenever editing. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)