Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 August 23

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation‎ | Help desk‎ | Archives
Help desk
< August 22 << Jul | August | Sep >> August 24 >
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.


August 23 edit

05:58:18, 23 August 2019 review of submission by Torsew edit

Now that the "ToyMakerz" page has been published, I'd like to complete the series information with an episode list. Torsew (talk) 05:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Torsew: I have resubmitted the draft after leaving a comment on the approval of Draft:ToyMakerz. @AngusWOOF: for your notice. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 04:46, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:06:29, 23 August 2019 review of draft by 78.142.182.181 edit


Hi, I am writing because the article in question was made on 14:51, 14 May 2019‎ and is still in pending review and hasn't been reviewed yet. Is there anything we can do to speed up this proceess? 78.142.182.181 (talk) 07:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:30:42, 23 August 2019 review of draft by Biologyfishman edit


Biologyfishman (talk) 10:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I am trying to write my first wikipedia article. Its been rejected twice.

The reason provided is a copy-and-paste 'reads like an advert' with no substantive advice on how to improve the article. As a professional editor, I find this frustrating and disrespectful. I am trying to make a contribution because I frankly feel that this personality whom I have personally met. He has a ton of TV shows and books and a huge following, and I've followed him from day 1 on his bus ride to antarctica, there are a lot of articles written about him. I believe he is much more notable than many of the other Andrew Evans' on wikipedia, yet there is nothing here on probably the best known one. I am concerned about the apparent request to eliminate primary sources all together from the article.

I respectfully request some constructive input on how to change this article to meet your requirements.

thank you,

Brian

@Biologyfishman: This same question has also been asked at the Teahouse. We ask editors to please not post the same question in multiple locations as this wastes the time of volunteers. Hugsyrup 11:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did not notice the double discussion, but I left the comments below regardless and left a note at the TH. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Biologyfishman: Hi Brian. We have thousands of article drafts and very few volunteer reviewers so please excuse the process when the templated responses inevitably end up being impersonal. I assure you that your article has received more attention than most. A lot of writers find that Wikipedia article writing is quite different to journalistic or academic writing in many obvious, but also many subtle ways. It's really hard to explain how exactly, but the best description (I can think of) is that this is an encyclopedia foremost based on sources and the writing is as neutral as possible with no flourishes. This naturally stems from us only using reliable and predominantly secondary sources and avoiding any original research, synthesis of material, etc. For example, these phrasings/expressions would not be appropriate:
  • "developed a taste for"
  • "landed his first book deal"
  • "when social media was in its infancy"
  • "After this epic journey"
  • "encountered a melanistic king penguin"
  • "maintaining an avid following on social media"
  • "grates against the label"
  • etc.
And yes, primary sources are not something we use for anything but the most basic facts. At best, we can use a person's interview, but we avoid content based solely on person's own words/work. Every article should be based on verifiable sources and person's own words cannot be verified (with very few exceptions, such as experts in certain field talking about those fields). This is just a fundamental Wikipedia policy. Similarly, "notable" means notability according to Wikipedia's guidelines, which is not necessarily how someone might interpret the word (e.g. popular, known, deserving of article, etc.). Here it means having at least multiple independent reliable in-depth sources. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:13, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Hellknowz for providing some constructive feedback, I was getting very frustrated. I will give it another shot, but I have been working on this for months now, and yours is the first actual help I've gotten. Biologyfishman (talk) 12:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the sources provided are Q&A interviews, so it is difficult to figure what articles are secondary sources independent of the subject. Then there are videos that are released by National Geographic that show Evans as host. Those are primaries as well and should be replaced by secondary news sources such as San Diego Magazine https://www.sandiegomagazine.com/San-Diego-Magazine/July-2015/National-Geographic-Channels-Worlds-Smart-Cities-San-Diego/ AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:12:52, 23 August 2019 review of draft by Marina Vashchenko edit


Dear Roy Smith,


Thank you for reviewing the article!


I have checked the WP:NCORP and would like to ask for your assistance to identify things that can help with my article.


I’d like to mention a few things that, in my opinion, show the notability of the modules described in the article:


1. Based on the statistics on GitHub, the widgets are used by 39,038 people and starred by 4,838: https://github.com/valor-software/ngx-bootstrap

2. The specifics of usage has been widely discussed on Stackoverflow: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/ngx-bootstrap

3. I posted a couple of articles about implementing ngx-bootstrap by third-party people:

https://stevenschwenke.de/whatToUseNgbootstrapNgxbootstrapManuallyAddingBootstrap

https://www.c-sharpcorner.com/article/steps-to-add-bootstrap-4/

https://www.techiediaries.com/angular-bootstrap-ui/

4. The creators of ngx-bootstrap have been invited by ngHouston for a public speech regarding the usage of modules with the latest Angular renderer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUhCgzs8jR8

5. The widgets are published on npmjs.com (a highly used source of JavaScript development tools)

6. Ngx-bootstrap is open-source software so the possibility of receiving income is minimal. The aim of mentioning already popular widgets in Wikipedia is having them described in additional authoritative source.


Having checked similar articles from the Category:Free software programmed in JavaScript like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wakanda_(software) and considering the preceding facts, the article matches the “has been noticed by people outside of the organization” criteria from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)


In order for the article not to look like an ad, I suggest the following:

  1. Removing the developer of the widgets (Valor Software) from the article body.
  2. Instead of https://valor-software.com/ngx-bootstrap/ link as a website in the infobox, place link to the GitHub repository.


Do you think this will help?


Thank you,

Marina Vashchenko


Marina Vashchenko (talk) 13:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Marina Vashchenko: Hi! Notability on Wikipedia means that these criteria are observed -- to have multiple reliable independent in-depth sources. Each source has to satisfy all those points. We don't use measures such as popularity, GitHub metrics, discussion/forum stats, or any other non-source coverage based stuff.
The quote you cited from WP:NCORP is missing arguably the most important part "independent sources demonstrate that it has been noticed by people outside of the organization". This means no repositories or package managers, affiliated sites and discussions, etc. The promotional nature is because the article uses primary/non-independent sources and we cannot use these to establish notability and can only use to source the most basic facts.
Guide/tutorial-like sources are independent, but are not very good for sourcing. They could be acceptable under some conditions, but these ones don't look to be in-depth in this case as they are purely step-by-step installation guides with no real commentary about the software. What we want is more like reviews to see what real-world impact there is rather than purely technical details. (pinging @RoySmith:) —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 13:37, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:23:37, 23 August 2019 review of draft by Manchesterunited1234 edit


This article is not existable in other wikipedia languages, and it is the 3rd most viewed-French youtube video.

Manchesterunited1234 (talk) 14:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Manchesterunited1234: - is there a particular reason you posted here? It's not currently scheduled for review. Though before you do that this draft needs 2 or more sources. Reviews of the song from reliable sources are best suited. See Referencing for Beginners for a how-to guide. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:27, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:58:05, 23 August 2019 review of submission by Maria Sitkina edit

Please consider the corrections made for further publication of the article. A list of 10 sources is provided in the References section. Maria Sitkina (talk) 15:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Maria Sitkina: looking at the changes [1] made since the rejection of the article, it seems that no new references were added; indeed, it looks like the draft's content has been cut back significantly. As such, I am inclined to let the rejection stand as the previous reviewer's points have not been addressed. SamHolt6 (talk) 18:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2019_August_23&oldid=985267115"