Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 October 20

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation‎ | Help desk‎ | Archives
Help desk
< October 19 << Sep | October | Nov >> October 21 >
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.


October 20

edit

01:43:08, 20 October 2022 review of submission by Gardenkur

edit

Dear Team. This article meeting Wikipedia guidelines on new article is in queue for long time. Request your feedback to move it to main space. Thanks. Gardenkur (talk) 01:43, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gardenkur: just to clarify, there is no queue; there is something more akin to a pool. And in any case this draft isn't in it, as it hasn't been submitted — you have to click that blue 'submit' button to request a review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:36, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DoubleGrazing. Sorry for not publishing it for notice. Hope now its ok for review. Gardenkur (talk) 05:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Below is a copy of the source evaluation I just added to the draft. --bonadea contributions talk 09:29, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source evaluation in the current version of the draft. Source 3 supports the claim that the programme is used in some schools, but it is not fully independent (and it is relevant to note that it was added here as soon as it had been published).
1 thenewsstrike; press release reporting on source 4. Previously removed, see [1], because source 5 was already in the draft
2 maximumpune; press release
3 Shinde et al.; journal article, the journal is peer reviewed but this study was commissioned by the Heartfulness Institute and the authors are practitioners. The article verifies the claim that the programme is used in some schools.
4 Khandelwal; journal article, author is affiliated with heartfulness
5 PNI; same press release as source 1, see that comment
6 HT School; advert for the programme. Previously removed, see [2]
7 ngobox; press release / advert, previously removed, see [3]
8 globalindianschool; press release
9 happyhealthysociety; a copy of source 4, previously removed, see edit summary.
10 boldoutline; same press release as source 1, previously removed, see [4].
11 businessnewsthisweek; same press release as source 1, previously removed, see [5].

06:00:56, 20 October 2022 review of submission by EricFishers11

edit

This draft needs some feedback on if the citation issues have been addressed. Most have been updated to secondary sources. Could you point out any other issues? EricFishers11 (talk) 06:00, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@EricFishers11:, the draft needs sources that meet WP:ORGCRIT which was told to you in the decline reason. It is not about quantity, but quality. As a paid editor, you will need to review that guideline and provide sources that meet such as Wikipedians are not likely to assist in finding them for you. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:23, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41 The guidelines were reviewed in depth and discussed in the IRL Chat, the major confusion was Primary vs Secondary which was clarified. Most the citations have been revised and those not meeting requirements have been removed. The goal is to see if good progress has been made to be resubmitted. EricFishers11 (talk) 18:04, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@EricFishers11: The draft has been resubmitted, so you will get an assessment of the sources and any other issues when it is reviewed. --bonadea contributions talk 18:32, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a better way of getting a pre-review instead of re-submitting? EricFishers11 (talk) 20:49, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
EricFishers11 We don't really do pre-review reviews, as we volunteers have limited time. I see you declared a COI; if you work for EWL, you must make the stricter paid editing disclosure, a Terms of Use requirement. 331dot (talk) 21:25, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Will do! Thanks EricFishers11 (talk) 21:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

07:50:47, 20 October 2022 review of draft by Gobiwankenobi

edit


Greetings fellow Wikipedians,

Please help out this young wikifledgling here. Based on helpful suggestions, I have made the following edits to Draft:Mario_Herrera:

1. Sieved content for instances that may appear to have UPE/COI issues. I am fully aware of Wiki's WP:NPOV, WP:UPE, and WP:COI guidelines and have no COI with the subject, whatsoever. This page has been a learning experience on many levels and I am grateful for all the help.

2. Have also added relevant Wikipedia:Wikiproject tags so that this page finds its way home.

Please take a moment to review this page for any scope of further improvement.

Listening and learning,

Gobiwankenobi (talk) 07:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gobiwankenobi If you would like a review, please submit it for one- asking for a pre-review review duplicates effort. If the reviewer has concerns with your draft, they will tell you in a message declining the draft. 331dot (talk) 08:24, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Submitted for review. Thanks a lot! Gobiwankenobi (talk) 15:58, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:13:19, 20 October 2022 review of draft by Louisent31

edit


Hello, I was citing a Youtube Interview known as Interview With Fairouz Ai | JoJo's Bizarre Adventure STONE OCEAN | Netflix Anime but there are vertical bars in the title and they are what is needed in order for citations to work and so, because of this, an error occurs. Can you guys help me what to do to fix this? Louisent31 (talk) 09:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Louisent31 Youtube is deprecated as a reference. You need a very strong justification to seek to deploy it as one. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:19, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was an actual Netflix interview with the official Japanese voice actress explaining her love of the character and her thoughts of how different Jolyne is compared to everyone else and I thought that I should put it there for the Creation and Development section. Louisent31 (talk) 09:26, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, is it alright to use an Anime News Network Article to also add to the Creation and Development section? I wanted to use the part where Araki explained why he wanted to create Jolyne as shown in JOJOVELLER, three sets of books that has Araki explained the process of creating the series and showcasing his artwork. but the thing is, it's never released in Japan and I never own it. One of the fan wikis translate the interview about why Araki made her a woman, but it didn't tell me what the page number is, so I thought using a news article on an anime news website is the best thing to use as a source. Louisent31 (talk) 10:07, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Louisent31 Your sources, references, must comply with WP:42, which is a digestible précis of the requirements. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:51:22, 20 October 2022 review of submission by TomisinAraoye

edit

Made some edits based on the initial review but that was denied as well. Would love to get a clear direction on what bit is salesy and which of the references aren't of good quality. Would love to get some feedback so I can update accordingly

  Courtesy link: Draft:Moniepoint

TomisinAraoye (talk) 09:51, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TomisinAraoye: on a quick read, it's marketing blurb, buzzword salad and general puffery pretty much throughout, and sounds like something out of the bank's marketing department. Expressions like "leveraging technology", "payment solutions", "transition", "pivot", etc. have no place in an encyclopaedia, and need to be rewritten in a neutral, formal and concise tone. Which could be borderline impossible for you to do, if you have any sort of relationship with the organisation in question — on which point, I've posted a message on your talk page about conflicts-of-interest (COI), what they mean and how to manage them; please read and action as applicable. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:08:40, 20 October 2022 review of submission by Jepwashere

edit

Hi MaxnaCarta,

It's true that previous version of this draft was rejected before due to lack of notability and that reference articles only mentioned the subject in passing. However, this is not the case this time. Can you give me some pointers as to what notability means from your point of view?

Jepwashere (talk) 10:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jepwashere For any topic, except living operons, where the requirements are tougher still, we require excellence of referencing. Notability per se is complex to define. You may find it useful to read WP:GNG
We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:25, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:58:12, 20 October 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Aydesmond

edit


Because after reading and following all Wiki's policy on writing article, my article submission was still declined.

Aydesmond (talk) 12:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aydesmond: that's not a question. But just to clarify, your draft was not only declined, it was speedily deleted. To avoid this in the future, you may wish to revise the guidelines on WP:PROMO and WP:ADS. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:19, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:07:06, 20 October 2022 review of submission by Mattnbenson

edit


Hello- thank you for reviewing the article, I appreciate the feedback. However, I believe the topic is sufficiently notable, as it has been covered extensively for over a year. There is a currently published article for Republic, the company that Everyrealm spun out from. Everyrealm has a fair amount of objective news coverage by reputable sources and I believe this warrant notability. Republic (fintech) I don't see any major difference in notability between Everyrealm and Republic, so I'm confused why one is eligible for publishing but the other isn't.

I have read through the documentation and respectfully disagree that it is not a notable topic. Furthermore, the initial rejection in September specifically cited a lack of objective sources, and I have added many citations to 3rd party journalism about the company. I also pruned any potentially promotional sounding language and made it 100% factual as verified by cited sources.

I would love to hear in more detail why specifically this topic isn't up to your standards of notability so I can learn how to be a better article writer and editor.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Mattnbenson (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mattnbenson Please read other stuff exists. It could be that other articles you have seen are also inappropriate, but simply not addressed yet. If you want to use other articles as an example or model, use those classified as good articles, which have been vetted by the community. I see some of the same problems in the article you reference, and will mark it as such. 331dot (talk) 16:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response! However, it's still not clear why the Everyrealm article doesn't qualify as "notable" Mattnbenson (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mattnbenson The draft just documents the existence of the company and tells of its routine business activities. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. It shouldn't just tell what the company does; "significant coverage" goes beyond that, going into detail about what the source sees as significant or influential about the company(not what the company sees its significance or influence as). Your draft doesn't have that, and the last reviewer must have thought the prospect of that happening is low, so they rejected it. As I said, there are certainly other articles about companies that are likely inappropriate, and we can address them when people point them out to us.
If you work for this company, the Wikipedia Terms of Use require you to make a formal paid editing disclosure. 331dot (talk) 19:18, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand where you're coming from, however the company broke a record for highest metaverse asset sale ever in 2021 via the metaflower yacht. This is something that was written and talked about objectively across many publications (which I've provided in the article). I just added that and cited. Everyrealm is a unique company that sits at the forefront of an innovative industry. Not just another company doing the same as many others. (I didn't include that kind of language since it would obviously be promotional). What I've written is simply a record of all the mentions that many prominent publications have deemed newsworthy in an objective way, and a significant organization making strides in the field of digital assets, ownership, and the metaverse, which as far as I can tell is exactly what merits its own article. Can you help me understand what I'm not seeing here? Mattnbenson (talk) 21:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mattnbenson Do you work for this company? I only ask because you seem very invested in this topic. You have documented the existence of the sale, but other than saying its large you provide no other information about it. The sources you offer(that I can examine) do not give in depth coverage of the sale or this company. Every company thinks what it does is groundbreaking- what we need is others to say that what the company does is groundbreaking or significant, and why. 331dot (talk) 21:51, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I do, sorry for not disclosing that before, I should have read the guidelines more thoroughly. I'll go ahead and make that disclosure and stop direct edits. Mattnbenson (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:03:12, 20 October 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Jadenwilla48291

edit 


Hello, I recently just completed an article, and after citing my sources, it was still rejected. I find the information correct and well sited. May I please get some clarifaction?


Jadenwilla48291 (talk) 17:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jadenwilla48291: if you check the pink "declined" box on the draft, you'll see a bit of info about the kind of sources that are needed. Click the blue-linked words, to get a longer explanation of the terms "in-depth", "reliable", "secondary", and "strictly independent of the subject". None of the sources in the draft meet those requirements. --bonadea contributions talk 17:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am unable to use sources provided by the company even though they are reliable? I have specifically chosen to leave out any marketing or bias towards the company in response to the new article rules. I do not find the company sources to be biased and opinionated and that should be up to the reader to decide bias and other factors that contribute to this. I am still confused, I apologize for the troubles as I am new. Jadenwilla48291 (talk) 17:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jadenwilla48291: the sources you cited are the company's own website (multiple times), and a PDF brochure of theirs, neither of which contributes towards notability. Primary sources like that can be used to verify simple facts which are not contentious (say, the company's current senior management, or the location of their HQ), but nothing beyond that, and as I said they don't help to establish notability per WP:GNG.
And yes, the company's own marketing materials are by definition "biased and opinionated", very much so.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:27, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jadenwilla48291: Wikipedia primarily wants to know what others say about the company, not what it says about itself. Please read Your First Article. Be advised that writing a new article is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia, and it's good to first gain experience by editing existing articles and using the new user tutorial. If you are associated with this company, that needs to be declared, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20 October 2022 review of Draft:ArcadeDB

edit

I am wondering why my article submission is declined.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.78.67.4 (talk • contribs)

The draft was declined for the reasons enumerated in the decline notice (see that grey box inside the large pink box) and the reviewer's comments below it. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You were told twice to make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Instead, your only citation is to a blogpost of the company that runs the project, which is less than totally useless for the creation of an article. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:36, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.78.67.4 (talk) 17:39, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2022_October_20&oldid=1118376626"