Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2018 January 11
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < January 10 | << Dec | January | Feb >> | January 12 > |
| Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages. |
January 11 edit
02:31:51, 11 January 2018 review of submission by Jacq mo edit
Hi! I'm creating the english page of an artist. And most of it is obviusly on videos because artists sing and dance, but it has been not accepted twice. And the reasons are "because the sources are not reliable" and stuff. So i read this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Videos_as_references#YouTube_videos_as_references , and it says that it is ok to cite youtube videos, as long as the main channel is realiable (and in my case it is! all the videos are on the official broadcasting channel). Also, i've been told that imbd cannot be used as a source (but it says it can be used as one, as long as we give more references it's ok), it is an actor, how is it possible that the world's largest media data base cannot be used?. And, last bu not least, is it possible to not accept my article just becasue i didn't cite correctly the sources? I did put them, just not enterily following the format because that takes time and i am still learning it. Thank you
Jacq mo (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Jacq mo: Hello, Jacq. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Your questions raise some basic issues. I'll start with the overall question of notability. You say that most of your references are on video because the subject is a performer. But this misses a basic point -- truly notable performers have been written about by the press. A collection of performance videos is likely to prove nothing more than that the person really exists. Whether that person should have an article is going to be a much more difficult thing to show. Another basic point is that the subject is a member of the band Seventeen, and so you also face the difficulty of showing that the subject is notable for reasons other than his membership in that band. And yet, most of your draft discusses the band. This, too, is going to be an obstacle to having a stand-alone article on the subject.
As for the question of sourcing, you are correct in believing the YouTube videos can be reliable sources. But most YouTube videos either are not reliable or have been uploaded in violation of copyright (and, hence, can't be used here). But so long as your cited videos don't have these problems, you can use them as sources. But, how is the reviewer supposed to know that they are permissible? You have presented them all in the form of "bare URLs". When you do that, you are telling readers (including reviewers) that if they want to know any details about the provenance of the video, they have to leave Wikipedia and find out for themselves. And that runs afoul of WP:CITE, which requires you to provide -- in the citation -- the essential bibliographic information. For YouTube videos, this can be done most easily by using the {{cite AV media}} template. Later today, I'll drop by your draft and format one of them for you, which you can then use as an example for doing the rest. After you've done that, you'll be in a position to have a more meaningful discussion about the notability of the subject.
One last point. Your draft looks like it contains two separate drafts all on one page. You probably should correct that before re-submitting.
I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:45, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
08:53:04, 11 January 2018 review of submission by SoricaNiChearnaigh edit
I'm not asking for a re-review as of yet but can you please tell me how to get this article published? This is a national organisation of importance to all nurses working or trying to work in Cyprus. They are noteworthy in the sense that you cannot legally operate as a nurse in Cyprus without going through them. They are not mentioned in many online sources and any newspaper articles I can cite are in Greek. I'd appreciate some advice. I've seen other organisations listed with hardly any information or sources at all, such as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Nurses_and_Midwives_Organisation
Really any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!
- @SoricaNiChearnaigh:, welcome to Wikipedia. First off, do not worry about sources being written in Greek. The language of publication does not affect the reliability, or noteworthyness of the subject. So, add the Greek citations. Obviously, English citations are better for Wikipedia, as a reviewer will be able to find out if they are reliable more quickly. Sadly, you cannot just say that your article is more notable than one that is already on Wikipedia, as Wikipedia is in flux, and articles are deleted/remade/edited all the time, and such, once an article is published, it is only deleted for not being notable, not for lack of sources. If you have some in depth citations in Greek, I would add them. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
16:34:19, 11 January 2018 review of draft by AMOAKO edit
AMOAKO (talk) 16:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- Hi @AMOAKO: did you have a question? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
16:50:00, 11 January 2018 review of submission by Aaron.Harris edit
- Aaron.Harris (talk · contribs)
I Have Submitted an article about two months ago and on January 10 it was declined. I just want to know the reason and how I can improve the article. This article is about Rima: The Story Begins (videogame), released on October 10, it does not have so many sources on the web. Please help. Aaron.Harris (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- Hi @Aaron.Harris:, see the reviewers comments. All topics on wikipedia need to be notable, and pass a version of WP:GNG. There are other criteria for video games, but generally you need reliable, secondary in-depth sources that talk about your subject. Looking at the references, they're most either primary (anything from Up entertainment), or not considered a reliable source, which is the Toronto game dev articles), they're likely linked too. I've had a look, and the subject simply isn't notible enough for wikipedia, unless it's had some incredible offline press. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
@Lee Vilenski: Thank you for replaying. so what do you suggest me to do? Aaron.Harris (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Aaron.Harris: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines and Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reference library offer recommendations about finding sources for articles about video games. Given the nature and age of the product, if there aren't many sources on the web then there probably aren't many sources at all. If you can find independent, reliable sources, then throw away the contents of Draft:Rima: The Story Begins and start over using those sources. Otherwise move on and write about another topic, one that is notable. We have 5.5 million existing articles to choose from, most of which need improvement. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
21:29:54, 11 January 2018 review of submission by Avatar317 edit
Hello all! I am attempting to get the (my) article, up to Wikipedia standards so that it can be published. Two previous editors: SeraphWiki and Worldbruce gave me constructive criticism on how to improve the article. Thank you to both!!
I have now read more of Wiki's policies (SYNTH and Encyclopedia style) and done numerous edits to attempt to get the article to fit those policies, and then re-submitted it for review, but the most recent reviewer did not (in my opinion) give me any CONSTRUCTIVE criticism on how to improve the article. From his comments, it appears that he really didn't spend more than precursory time looking at anything more than the lead. (His comments are on this page at Jan 8, (Lee Vilenski) ) Since both of you: SeraphWiki and Worldbruce clearly read enough of the article and references to specifically explain how some of my statements were either Original Research or otherwise unsupported in the references, if you have time and inclination, could you have another look at the article (now that I've tried to improve it) and give me some more feedback on it? I would much appreciate it.
Also, after reading wiki's policy on "Encyclopedic style" it seems that some articles are better suited for these two formats/styles than others, and seems hard to apply it to ALL articles.....maybe you can give some advice here? Thanks!!! Avatar317 (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)Avatar317
- Hi @Avatar317:, I'm sorry if my comments weren't enough on the talk page, if you had wanted, you could have asked me directly with the template:Ping. I'm happy to help. I actually replied to your request earlier with a response, which said
The article is still written more like an essay, than a wikipedia article. The draft starts "Since about 1970", which really isn't encylopedic wording. You also can't say things like "The fundamental cause", as it's not fact. It's a good article, but as if written for a school project, not an encylopedia entry
- The main issue with the article remains the format, and that it reads like an essay on the subject. Irregardless of the subject, we need to keep all articles in Wikipedia in line with the same format. The lead is specifically where the issue is, see WP:LEDE, as it doesn't read like a regular topic on wikipedia. The issue with saying "The Fundimental Cause" is that it's conjecture against another persons opinion. However, if a reliable source says it, it's better to quote the source in this instance, such as "California Legislators say the fundimental cause is...", or similar. Sadly, housing developments aren't my area of expertise, however I am always willing to help.
I'd say, if the article was more in the form of a regular wiki article, I'd have most likely have accepted it. Please let me know if you need any more information Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)