Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 June 21

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< June 20 << May | June | Jul >> June 22 >
Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.


June 21

edit

04:09:23, 21 June 2022 review of submission by Golusingh1410

edit

how can i list our business on wikipedia

Golusingh1410 (talk) 04:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Golusingh1410: do you plan on asking this daily? Did you even read my reply to your previous question?
TL;DNR = you probably cannot "list [y]our business on wikipedia" (sic). --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

05:07:43, 21 June 2022 review of submission by Bharatguntu

edit

I Have submitted all details , tell me where i went wrong and review is taking longer time.

Bharatguntu (talk) 05:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bharatguntu Unreleased films do not merit articles per WP:NFF, unless there is something very unusual and notable about the production of the film itself(see Rust (suspended film) for an example). In three days when it will apparently be released, it will merit an article. 331dot (talk) 09:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

05:53:09, 21 June 2022 review of submission by Nabenmes

edit

My post on "Breakthroughs in Longevity Technologies" was rejected due to the mention of futuristic lonevity scenarios which are mostly hypothetical at this stage. Fair enough, and I thank the reviewer for taking the time to give input.

I did update the page, and removed all references to any use-case happening in the future. All techs stated on the page right now are in-market and companies of all sizes are leveraging the same to solve world's taughest health problems.

Appreciate you taking a look at the page again and giving feedback. Thank-you! Nabenmes (talk) 05:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nabenmes: this reads very much like a magazine article or perhaps a webinar script, whereas Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Possibly some of the content in your draft could be used to create an encyclopaedia entry — then again, possibly not — but this would require a wholesale rewrite, which is beyond the scope and remit of this help desk. Sorry, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough - I’ll do my best to get it right.
I’ll scale down the content as much as possible and make it brief enough to get through the initial approval wall and we (the healthcare community) iterate on the content front there. Does that sound good? Nabenmes (talk) 07:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No comment, except to remind you that the draft has been rejected, meaning there is no automatic right to resubmit. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What’s the next step, and how can I take this forward? Nabenmes (talk) 08:25, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the topic is covered in Life extension, I suggest you add well sourced content to that article instead. Theroadislong (talk) 08:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all - I went through the life extension content, i think it is quite informative and I enjoyed reading through it. However, our goal here is to have a page dedicated to the technology side of longevity medicine, which is the foundation for existing and upcoming healthcare breakthroughs.
Ultimately, in the future, all medicine related content in Wikipedia would point to our page for technology related reference.
I hope this makes sense! I look forward to partnering with you folks to get this page out to the world.
Thank-you for the opportunity! Nabenmes (talk) 09:28, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You say "our goal here" please note that user accounts are strictly single person use. Theroadislong (talk) 10:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nabenmes: I think you need to drop this idea; the more you say about your plans and goals, the less convinced I am that there is an acceptable draft likely to come out of this. "In the future all medicine related content in Wikipedia would point to our page"? No, not going to happen; nobody gets to monopolise any content area. And in any case, there is no "our" page (whoever you mean by that; cf. Theroadislong's previous point), as you do not 'own' any article even if you were the one who originally created it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologize for the misunderstanding. It is less about monopolizing content and more about enabling re-usability and sharing information. Think about it - a page summarizing foundational techs leveraged as building blocks to accelerate breakthroughs and discoveries that come on top and across different field areas in longevity medicine.
Folks, let’s keep the conversation productive. No one has commercial incentives here to drive monopolization or ownership. Only good intention!
I am going to re-edit the content and resubmit - would you gents help me review it please? :-) Nabenmes (talk) 11:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nabenmes: Think about it - a page summarizing foundational techs leveraged as building blocks to accelerate breakthroughs and discoveries that come on top and across different field areas in longevity medicine Um. I'm sorry, but speaking for myself, that's not really something I can think about! It's a string of (mostly) empty jargon that doesn't add up to anything – could you rephrase it, please? On the other hand, enabling re-usability and sharing information sounds pretty much like what Wikipedia aims to be, so you won't find any dissenting opinions there.

I'm the reviewer who rejected your draft; one reason was, as you say, that it focused on hypothetical future developments, but that was not the only reason. Did you have a chance to read this policy, which was linked from the rejection notice? In particular, read the section on synthesis, because from what you are saying here it sounds like your aim is to create a new resource that discusses and compares different technologies in a novel manner. And that's definitely not the purpose of a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is intentionally not positioned at the bleeding edge of innovation – and when it comes to biomedical information, there are strict policies on what kind of information is appropriate to include (this information is crucially important). Finally, if you do decide to submit your draft again, nobody will stop you from doing so, but please don't ask reviewers for preferential treatment ("would you gents help me review it please"). Sorry if I come across all curmudgeonly, but if you submit it for review, it will show up among the waiting drafts, and it will be reviewed at some point. (Not necessarily by a gent.) Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 18:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing: you say you removed all references to any use-case happening in the future which I mistakenly interpreted to mean that the draft no longer made predictions about future hypothetical situations. But that's clearly not the case; the draft is still very much a case of crystalballing. (A detail which puzzles me is that in the first sentence of the draft, "Modern medicine in the 20th century benefited from unprecedented scientific breakthroughs, resulting in improvements in every aspect of healthcare", "healthcare" links to healthcare industry rather than to health care.) --bonadea contributions talk 21:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank-you so much for the detailed feedback. I will re-phrase the content and resubmit as soon as possible. Nabenmes (talk) 05:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nabenmes There is also a problem with respect to the inadequate detail of the contents. To say merely "Digital polymerase chain reaction accurately detects pathogens and gene mutations." is a totally inadequate summary of what DPCR is, what it does,and what it is currently used for, and what it might be potentially usable for. Similar is the case for every one of the items included: the material provides essentially no information, aand what there is provided is inadequate or inaccurate. It amounts to a mere list of topics, and the links in our general articles procvde this is a better manner. WP is intended for the general public, and the minimal level of sophistication for scientific articles is is that of an advanced high school or college student, though some of our science articles try to at least provide an even more accessible summary.
If one were to attempt to summarize this material for , say, a junior high school student, ot would still take more than one sentence on each topic, and cague generalities. If you want to work in this field, my advice to you is to first read and understand all of our generally excellent articles on the subject that the current sketch links to, or to take an appropriate college level academic course, or the equivalent. First understand the material, and then pick an appropriate small area where we may have insufficient coverage, and expand it. I've taught molecular biology for years at the university level in an earlier phase of my career: it's a fascinating subject, and deserves the work you will need to do in order to master it. DGG ( talk ) 14:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey!
This is my 1st WP publication, I am more than willing to learn from the experts and improve.
Thanks for your feedback! Nabenmes (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:09:30, 21 June 2022 review of submission by Cyan2021

edit


Hello! I'm hereby kindly asking for a reviewer (or several reviewers) with good understanding of the German language to have a look at my Draft:WebID Solutions.

Back in July 2021 I submitted the draft for review. It was rejected by now blocked User:Hatchens, who has accepted drafts in return for undisclosed payments, see WT:AFC#User:Hatchens. Thus, I decided to contact User:331dot on his talk page (User talk:331dot#Draft:WebID Solutions), and he said that "out of a desire for fairness, he would be willing to allow me to resubmit the draft". I cannot do this myself (otherwise I would have already done this); only AFC reviewers seem to be able to resubmit the draft in the name of the original submitter.

Now, the problem is that I have cited several high-quality, German language sources which I believe are WP:SIRS-compliant, (i.e they are secondary, independent, reliable and cover the topic significantly), but User:331dot told me that he cannot read German, and that he thinks that the sources are not independent, based on a Google translation. There also might be some fundamental cross-national or cross-cultural differences here, so I would really appreciate if a reviewer with good understanding of German, or even a native DACH reviewer had a look at the draft and see whether or not the sources are actually WP:SIRS-compliant.

The draft's best three sources per WP:THREE would be Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (citation 3), Handelsblatt (citations 9, 12), and Tagesspiegel (citation 26). I have also cited Wirtschaftswoche (citation 2, 7), Heise (citation 6), Frankfurter Neue Presse (citation 17), Börsen-Zeitung (citation 13), Rheinische Post (citations 8, 16, 20), and Bundesanzeiger (citations 11, 14, 15). I can send PDF copies of these sources to reviewers if that's necessary.

Best regards, --Cyan2021 (talk) 08:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyan2021: as Theroadislong has already said in the comments, interviews and press releases etc. are not independent; so while (some of) the publications cited are undeniably RS, there is more to it than that. Most of the sources look to me like routine business reporting on a ROTM company, at best.
On a separate but related point, there is very little if anything of encyclopaedic value in this draft, once you strip out the marketing and 'company presentation' type blurb. I appreciate your client would dearly want this to be included, but Wikipedia has little or no interest in publishing such content. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have been given various advice that is not really related to my draft. I totally understand that sources such as Wikipedia, press releases, or interviews cannot be cited in Wikipedia articles. This is why I have based the article on WP:SIRS-compliant sources instead. What I don't understand is why people keep telling me about the aforementioned "Don'ts": See, User:Theroadislong commented on the draft that I cannot cite Wikipedia as a source (Special:Diff/1092305151), and it seems bizarre to me. It just makes no sense, because I haven't cited Wikipedia as a source. Then he told me that interviews and press releases are not independent, reliable sources (Special:Diff/1092305151); again, why would a reviewer do this? None of the cited sources are actual interviews. There is also only one press release citation (out of 31 total citations) in the entire draft and it is even a double citation, i.e. had I removed it prior to his comment, there wouldn't have been a single press release source cited.
I understand that analysing and evaluating the sources might be challenging because they are mostly German sources (both in terms of language, and journalistic culture). I can also see why someone not used to German sources would believe that the sources are interviews. What the sources basically do is discuss a certain topic, and sometimes ask people involved (e.g. WebID Solution's managing directors). In case of the latter, the sources discuss and evaluate what the people involved said, i.e. how truthful or factually correct the said things are. It doesn't work like interviews where the interviewed persons can freely promote their own opinion. It also doesn't work like these cases where a firm's managing director dictates the journalist's article, and where the journalist only provides his name, but not the article itself
Frankly, I didn't expect that the German sources would raise so much concern and misunderstanding. I still believe that a reviewer used to German language sources would know or understand what I described above. Possibly, there is a list or category of German AFC reviewers that we could notify? Best regards, --Cyan2021 (talk) 13:41, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Though I am no expert, I think I know enough German to help with subjects like this, as I'm familiar with the deWP style for articles like this, and their referencing methods, and it's possible to distinguish between promotional and informative text by format in any language. (For an interview, some of the ways of judging is the specificity of the answers, and the extent of duplication.) I shall take a look.
ICyan, I and other AfC reviewers have unfortunately been necessarily focussed primarily on removing the utter junk and the worst promotionalism , and I recognize this may not do justice to situations requiring more careful consideration. DGG ( talk ) 00:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I have previously mentioned, I'd happily convert all the citations to a uniform CS1 using the citation templates, if that'd be of help. Best regards, --Cyan2021 (talk) 12:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:33:04, 21 June 2022 review of submission by 707paneone

edit

Requesting examples of info to add/void to pass approval 707paneone (talk) 09:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and won't be considered further.
You should also declare any conflict of interest you have regarding this subject or that of Draft:1Notch. I've posted a message on your user talk page with instructions on how to do this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 10:08:42, 21 June 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Erumkhan07

edit


The reviewer labelled the citations I submitted as "PR puff". With all due respect, how else can someone talk about an entrepreneur and his company, who have had 10 million plus downloads of their apps on the app stores? Media houses across the world like to spice up their news reports, as and when they cover such stories, to attend to their audience's tastes. Guidance in this matter will be surely appreciated. Thank you! Erumkhan07 (talk) 10:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Erumkhan07 If you work for or are associated with Mr. Khan, please read about conflict of interest and paid editing. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about the existence of a person and what they do. Any article about Mr. Khan must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about him, showing how he meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. His company's products having a large number of downloads might merit the company an article if there were sufficient coverage of the company, but not him. "Significant coverage" goes beyond merely telling us about him and goes into detail as to why he is significant or influential in his field. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 10:16, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @331dot for the explanation! I understand why you think there is a conflict. I am not personally associated with Mr. Khan in any way. Just happen to have the same surname. Our only connection is that he is a graduate from the same college as I (10 years before I graduated). I hope this helps. I will try and create an article for the company instead? Erumkhan07 (talk) 12:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey @331dot do independent app review articles like these work as citations?
    https://www.apppicker.com/applists/28073/The-best-slots-apps-for-the-iPhone
    Erumkhan07 (talk) 14:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know how independent or reliable these app reviews are (it describes itself as a blogging site), but as already mentioned we need to see significant coverage of the draft subject, ie. the person in question, and I would be surprised if an app review provided that. Therefore I'm pretty sure the answer is no, this is not an appropriate source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:05:52, 21 June 2022 review of draft by 81.109.141.186

edit


81.109.141.186 (talk) 11:05, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've been editing a draft article and I have a couple of questions. Firstly, it is worth declaring a conflict of interest as I am currently interning for the organisation in question. Other interns have produced Wiki articles in the past, but these have been written in a biographical style and have used insufficient references. I have adapted the language to better reflect that which is usually seen on Wikipedia, and have included a wider range of independent sources. Could you tell me what improvements need to be made before I submit it please? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Next_Century_Foundation81.109.141.186 (talk) 11:05, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you very much must declare your COI and probably also paid editing. I see that 331dot has already left a comment in the draft, signposting you to the relevant guidance. And if your employer is in the habit of getting interns to edit Wikipedia for them, you may wish to make them aware of this policy for future reference. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Worth noting that this is *not* paid editing as I am in a voluntary position, though. Could you direct me to a means of declaring a COI? 81.109.141.186 (talk) 12:59, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:PAID (s.2), interns are expressly included under the paid-editing disclosure requirements.
You will find instructions on how to disclose both your COI and paid status at WP:COI. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:34:33, 21 June 2022 review of draft by BethanyGraceAB

edit


Hi, how do I ask for someone to review my draft? I added a COI declaration to the talk page for my article, so does someone review that separately or when I resubmit? Thanks

BethanyGraceAB (talk) 15:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BethanyGraceAB: when you feel the draft is ready, you request a review by (re-)submitting it; just click that blue button. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing thank you for explaining, I appreciate it! BethanyGraceAB (talk) 15:55, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:40:23, 21 June 2022 review of submission by Avi4zara

edit


Avi4zara (talk) 15:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi , im Avi4zara and im a fornite content creator and my page is Avi4zara . im not lying in any such way i do have an article and it there under references why did my page got got decline im not destory or faking a page

15:47:39, 21 June 2022 review of submission by Avi4zara

edit


Avi4zara (talk) 15:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:47:39, 21 June 2022 review of submission by Avi4zara {{Lafc|username=Avi4zara|ts=15:47:39, 21 June 2022|link= Avi4zara Hi how are you , im Ashvir and the the creator of Avi4zara page i didnt not lie or damage anything i do have an article and it under references so i dodnt say anything why does other streamer have a wiki page Avi4zara (talk) 15:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Avi4zara: your draft was speedily deleted, and the v.2 has been rejected, for being nowhere near notable enough to warrant an article. In any case, you shouldn't be writing about yourself; this is an encyclopaedia, not a social media site or some other self-publicity platform. My advice is to drop it now. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:17:45, 21 June 2022 review of submission by OrdinaryEngineer

edit


OrdinaryEngineer (talk) 17:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@OrdinaryEngineer: do you seriously have a question as to why this was rejected? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:26, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:56:21, 21 June 2022 review of draft by MaryharreldSLP

edit


MaryharreldSLP (talk) 17:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC) Hello, I am having trouble submitting our wikipedia page for David Greenbaum. Our other president at Searchlight Pictures Matthew Greenbaum has a page, so we are trying to get both of them one.[reply]

@MaryharreldSLP:
Firstly, when you say "our wikipedia page", there is no "our", since you don't own the page in any sense of the word. Also, saying "we" and "our" suggests there may be more than one of you editing: please note that Wikipedia user accounts are for one individual's use only.
Secondly, you haven't declared your conflict of interest (COI) and possible paid editing, that I can see at least. Please do so now, before editing any further. I can see that on your talk page you say you are "not being paid for this", but based on what you say here it does sound like you are being at least indirectly benefiting from your edits. See WP:COI and WP:PAID for more info.
Thirdly, just because an article exists on your "other president", is no reason why there should be one on Greenbaum. Maybe there will be, maybe there won't — either way, this depends on whether he is notable in Wikipedia terms, and whether an article can be put together that complies with all the relevant policies and guidelines, not on whether his colleague has one. And the draft, as it currently stands, is insufficiently referenced, for one thing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MaryharreldSLP also read other poor quality articles exist the Matthew Greenfield article like your draft was very poorly sourced and promotional, I have reduced it to a stub. Theroadislong (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2022_June_21&oldid=1095196974"