Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 November 28

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.

November 28

00:03:08, 28 November 2022 review of submission by Owainchristianpowell

• Owainchristianpowell (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Burger & Lobster (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Owainchristianpowell (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@Owainchristianpowell: you don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected (after several earlier declines, I might add) and therefore won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

what you're saying doesn't make much sense. There's no reason why a national burger chain would be declined in future; based on the information provided; or with further supporting references. There's absolutely no need to shoot the article down in such a manner. Owainchristianpowell (talk) 09:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@Owainchristianpowell: you may have misunderstood; forgive me if I didn't make myself clear. I wasn't saying we will never have an article on this business, I was saying that this particular draft won't be reviewed again, because it has been rejected, and that means the end of the road for it. If you wish to take the matter further, you need to discuss this directly with the reviewer who rejected the draft. Before doing that, though, please read and action the COI query I've posted on your talk page. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

01:01:06, 28 November 2022 review of submission by Flibbertigibbets

• Flibbertigibbets (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Russian Strategic Targeting of the Ukraine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The article was declined, by a single individual, without discussion on the basis that it was "pure Russian Propaganda" which could not be further from the truth of the matter. I would ask, as a courtesy that more than one person, look at the article line by line;

I wrote the article knowing it might be controversial - because there is an analog in history - which is covered in links to other Wikipedia pages; this speaks to the idea that this article has a place in Wikipedia (because it already does in terms of prior wars). Personally, it does not matter if the article finds a place on Wikipedia; this is a topic being widely documented and I viewed the lack of coverage here as an omission.

Breaking the lines into stand alone units;

1) Russia has employed Strategic Targeting of the Ukrainian civilian infrastructure as part of its methodology of waging war. (Fact)

2) The strategy being employed has analogs and differences to the strategic bombing campaigns during World War II. (Fact)

3) The use of ballistic missiles, cruise missile, flying bombs imported from Iran, and to a lesser extent artillery has been focused on disrupting the ability of the Ukrainian civilian society to function as a modern society. (Fact)

4) Perceptions regarding accepted war strategies and methodologies differ based on perspective and interpretation.[1][2] (Provides Balance with sources)

5) Western perspectives have described Strategic Targeting in the Ukraine as war crimes (FACT - this is why the article cannot be reasonably construed as Russian Propaganda)

6) while Russian policy and statements describe Ukrainian energy and civilian infrastructure as "military targets." (Russia claims this is acceptable - FACT)

7) In any case, Strategic Targeting of the Ukraine represents a reality in an ongoing war.

8) The strategic attacks on civilian power, heating, and water may have a profound effect on civilians during winter. (Fact - this is why it is a war crime)

As opposed to strategic bombing as part of total war the leveling of entire cities has so far been avoided with the exception being the indiscriminate destruction of Port of Mariupol using artillery.[3] (compare to WWII Koln or Hiroshima, statement could be removed or refined - it has not reached the level as total war which is described on Wikipedia)

Whether or not the Strategic Targeting of Ukraine will affect the outcome of the war in favor or Russia, lead to negotiations, or harden or weaken Ukrainian and international commitments remains uncertain. (This kind of war solidified Great Britain's resolved, The firebombing of Japan proved to be ineffective, and in Syria it was somewhat effective - We don't know what if any effect this reality will have.)

Dismissing this article as Russian propaganda translates into "not liking what the reality the article describes (can be supported by many secondary sources)."

Thanks

Flibbertigibbets (talk) 01:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@Flibbertigibbets: this draft wasn't declined, it was rejected, meaning it won't be considered further.

And yes, reviews are always carried out by a "single individual"; we do not work in committees.

Wikipedia is not a place to post opinion pieces, polemic, soapboxing, or anything else "controversial"; there are many blogging and social media sites and the like, possibly even mainstream media, where you can air your views. Wikipedia summarises what other, reliable and independent secondary sources have said about a topic. If you wish to rewrite this, I suggest you stick to such content, clearly referenced, as well as a neutral and dispassionate point of view. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:15, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

12:47:56, 28 November 2022 review of submission by Seven3531

• Seven3531 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Lewis A. Novack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

what is needed to get this published under the journalist category?

Seven3531 (talk) 12:47, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@Seven3531: this particular draft has been rejected and won't therefore be considered further.

More generally, in order to be included in Wikipedia, you need to demonstrate that the subject is notable, by satisfying either the general WP:GNG notability criteria, or one of the special ones, in this case presumably WP:NACADEMIC. (The sources cited in this draft don't come even close to meeting GNG, and there is nothing in the career details which would obviously meet NACADEMIC either.)

You also need to ensure that all material statements and anything potentially contentious, as well as any private personal details, are fully supported by reliable referencing (which isn't the case here). Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC)