Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 March 18

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation‎ | Help desk‎ | Archives
Help desk
< March 17 << Feb | March | Apr >> March 19 >
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.


March 18

edit

01:24:17, 18 March 2019 review of submission by Macropedia

edit

I need to submit this article about child welfare charity in Cambodia, which is important for this article that I need advance to gain fight against child sex trafficking in Cambodia.

Macropedia (talk) 01:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Macropedia: - your one source is probably (not certainly - Vice' reliability can be questionable) good, but organisations need at least 1 more high quality source and usually 2.
Additionally you need more content - what they do, how they do it etc
If you are going to use the Vice article as your main source, you should be including the negatives it involves as well as the positives. This includes concerns about evidence-gathering quality, overreach into police work and a former director being arrested for sex crimes. Unless he's been found guilty, it can be preferable not to include his name.
As a question to go with my comments - are you employed by - or a volunteer with - APLE? Nosebagbear (talk) 07:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This editor has been indefinitely blocked per WP:SOCK so perhaps this thread should be closed or archived. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:42:51, 18 March 2019 review of submission by ChinaUnicomWP

edit


ChinaUnicomWP (talk) 07:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ChinaUnicomWP: - no sources at all, so definitely non-notable. No content beyond the headers. Nosebagbear (talk) 07:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:29:28, 18 March 2019 review of submission by Mwinchina

edit


Hi i have a stated conflict of interest in that i am the publisher of this title, which has been produced since 2005.

I’m guessing its that all the references are self-references (aka links to my own website), but not really sure where to turn for “independent” source.

We have others on Wikipedia linking to us as a source

examples:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_School_of_Beijing see references 9 and 16

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Gate_Gallery see reference 7

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenkeepers See reference 6


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_School_Affiliated_to_Renmin_University_of_China See reference 17

Also, our other English publication is already listed on wikipedia:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beijinger

So I guess my ask is twofold, (1) was my selection rejected due to my COI or that i do not have additional references outside my own website? And (2) does the fact that many Wikipedia pages cite us as a legit reference count as a reference for us?


Mwinchina (talk) 08:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We will not reject because you have a disclosed conflict of interest. Thank-you for being up front about that. When Wikipedia links to your site (assuming the links are within policy) that says edotors find your website to be a WP:RS. This does not help with WP:N however. For example we might find an old book to be reliable but if there are no reviews it does not get an article. What you need are Reliable Sources that talk about your business in depth. Follow the links in the pink box on your draft to understand more. Legacypac (talk) 08:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:18:24, 18 March 2019 review of submission by Saritakaranmpi

edit


Saritakaranmpi (talk) 09:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Saritakaranmpi: - sheer weight of sources is useless. We need reliable sources, which social media definitely isn't. Your draft has been rejected. Please don't resubmit unless you scrap all of the social media sources and add at least 3 in-depth reliable secondary sources. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:30:09, 18 March 2019 review of draft by RamonMPh

edit


Dear editors, My first version was declined due to formatting. I have now revised the formatting to follow other officeholder or ambassador pages I have seen on Wikipedia. Please let me know if the formatting is now ok.

I have also tried to draft in a way to ensure that statements of facts are verifiable. Other than CV, which was written by Luis Moreno Salcedo in the 1990s and used to obtain dates for Luis Moreno Salcedo's early career, no other sources rely on family information. Obtaining those dates would otherwise require going through the archives of the Philippine department of foreign affairs which at this time is not feasible. Please let me know if the references as provided are acceptable.

I should mention that I am Luis Moreno Salcedo's son, Ramon. I understand this can raise issues however, and I would like to ask for your advice on how I could secure approval for this entry. Two points. 

First  I have tried to ensure that all the statements of fact or opinion are from independent sources that can be verified.  I have experience with academic style research (Ph.D Columbia University and an extensive list of publications) so I am conscious of the need to ensure that information is verifiable and opinions are from independent sources.

Second, I wrote this brief because I believe Luis Moreno-Salcedo made an important contribution to Philippine diplomacy. However, he passed away over 30 years ago and it would be difficult to find someone with access to the necessary information to write this article unless they invested even more effort than I did in writing this brief entry. Thanks for your advice, Ramon Moreno RamonMPh (talk) 10:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft was accepted as an article - congrats! Nosebagbear (talk)

11:24:43, 18 March 2019 review of draft by ATAVLATIN

edit


Hello, I am currently editing the article because it lacked references and now I am in the process of adding them, but I also want to make one slight change to the title of the article. Instead of saying "Alexander M. Johnson", I want to change it to "Alexander Johnson (Businessman). Please let me know how to change the article title before I click publish with the other changes.

ATAVLATIN (talk) 11:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ATAVLATIN, first go ahead and save ("publish") the changes you've done to the content. Moving a page to a new title is a separate process. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!! I have done this, now what do I need to do? (ATAVLATIN (talk) 11:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC))[reply]

@ATAVLATIN: Click the blue words in Dodger67's reply to follow the link to an explanation of how to move a page to a new name. If you use parenthetical disambiguation, do not capitalize the occupation. Alexander Johnson (businessman) would be okay. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:19:27, 18 March 2019 review of draft by Angelzulu

edit


I need help with someone who understands Albanian writing to verify my links to the local newspapers referenced? Angelzulu (talk) 13:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Angelzulu. For Albanian language assistance I suggest you ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albania, or ask active editors in Category:User aln-N. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:32:34, 18 March 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Pecunia editor

edit


Hello, the article "PECUNIA" has been declined due to the fact that it is "contrary to the purpose of wikipedia". I disagree with this argument due to the following reasons and ask for a second review process: - The article introduces a Horizon 2020 project deadling with mental health. It is of huge importance to tackle the future challenges in the healthcare sectors in Europe. The article gives an insight into the work and it is planned that the article will become bigger throughout the project and after, including relevant results and other findings from this research sector in an objective, transparent way. - The article will introduce different views and research results on various topics in the area of chronic and mental healthcare - Before drafting the article the team dealt very carefully with all criteria necessary to publish such an article, including notability of the topic, reliability of the sources, independence, objectiveness, quality etc. As examples, we used similar published wikipedia articles of Horizon 2020 projects, such as "Graphene Flagship", "Lingvist", "IPR-Helpdesk", "EU NanoSafety Cluster". - The project team will contribute to other articles in this research field, e.g. stubs ("unit costs", "economic evaluation"), and create new articles (e.g. "patient-reported outcome")

In light of these arguments, I am kindly asking you to check the article again for publication. Thank you! Pecunia editor (talk) 15:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pecunia editor: - the best way to clarify why the reviewer said it was contrary to the purpose is to ask them User talk:Theroadislong will take you there.
I will however give my own thoughts - as a tertiary source, Wikipedia doesn't particularly look ahead - it takes very well documented events such as the next set of elections. Any event where there is a significant chance of failure, not-finishing etc generally does not get an article.
More problematic is the current state of sourcing - for the project itself, high quality secondary sources that are in-depth on the project (as opposed to background knowledge) are needed to demonstrate what we call notability. This means that the Pecunia sources don't count towards it as they are obviously involved as well as primary. The same is the case for the cordis/EU source. The two journals would be good if they were on the actual project, but afaict provide general background knowledge (so are great for that, just not general notability).
This is not a judgement on the importance of the project - I wish it succeeds immensely, but as Wikipedia is not qualified to judge importance, we judge primarily off secondary source coverage. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:04:52, 18 March 2019 review of submission by 2e524a3b5d

edit


Hi, my draft for the Draft:Home_From_The_Sea movie was rejected because "they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject" since the only citation was from the production company website.

I've added another citation from "A Critical Handbook of Japanese Film Directors", which you can see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Home_From_The_Sea#cite_ref-Jacoby2013_1-0.

Is this enough? Can I re-submit for review? Or should I find more citations?

Thank you.


2e524a3b5d (talk) 18:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 2e524a3b5d. It's a step in the right direction, but one sentence in one independent source is not sufficient to meet the notability guideline for films. To justify a stand alone encyclopedia article about the film you would need substantially more. Until then you could add a sentence or two about the film to the article about the director, Yoji Yamada. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:58:01, 18 March 2019 review of draft by 2405:204:282:1DD0:9C5E:3C24:FE45:9CB1

edit


Dear Editors,

It has been quite a while since Draft:Mher Khachatryan (artist) hasn't been reviewed. I would be really appreciate it if anyone here please review it.

Thanks you! 2405:204:282:1DD0:9C5E:3C24:FE45:9CB1 (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@2405:204:282:1DD0:9C5E:3C24:FE45:9CB1: - it's been about 3 weeks since you uploaded it. As the yellow box says, given the current backlog it might take 8 weeks (or a day, it could be any length up to the max) - please be patient don't attempt to jump the link. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:56:16, 18 March 2019 review of submission by MattB REAMP

edit


I'm trying to have this article created and am not entirely sure why it's not notable enough, especially when compared to other articles around similar topics (small energy retailers in Australia).

Any direction would be fantastic.

MattB REAMP (talk) 22:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NCORP has been made tougher to pass over time. In my opinion too tough to pass but no one listens to me. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Legacypac (talk) 23:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is there much I can do about this? Have the article reviewed (if so how? Google wasn't much help)? Or is it just a flat "no"? Thanks heaps. :) MattB REAMP (talk) 23:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2019_March_18&oldid=889174813"