Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 January 18

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


January 18

edit

00:46:03, 18 January 2023 review of submission by Curtmarsalis

edit


Kandiid is a valid social networking app that has credible and growing organic references. Kandiid just placed silver at the Academy of International and Digital Arts (AIVA) out of 2,302 entries. In addition, Kandiid has been featured in Forbes, Yahoo, and Market Watch. As noted, International Superstar Soulja Boy is minority holder and has announced it publicly. The App is on the Apple and Google Play store and available for download. Kandiid main competitors Fanbase, Instagram and Clubhouse refer to Kandiid frequently. The Founder Antoine McLaughlin has Miami Dolphins safety Justin Behtel and New York Jets players as investors. The app is valid and significant in today's society. Curtmarsalis (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

01:07:43, 18 January 2023 review of draft by Dimpizzy

edit


I see that the reason for Draft:Miraheze being declined was "Needs secondary sources independent of the subject". I was hoping you could clarify why the secondary sources provided are not adequate. References 6, 8, 10, 14, and 15 are the main secondary sources provided for the article. Dimpizzy (talk) 01:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

02:19:04, 18 January 2023 review of submission by Vibhu51

edit


Vibhu51 (talk) 02:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

03:31:55, 18 January 2023 review of submission by Kaunitzj

edit

03:31:55, 18 January 2023 review of draft by Kaunitzj

edit


John Kaunitz (talk) 03:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]



03:49:00, 18 January 2023 review of draft by Mazenmira

edit


Hi,

Thanks for reading my email. I was developing the content of an article on Wikipedia for my business by the name of The Arab Collector, Unfortunately, it has got rejected for three-time consecutive submissions. Since one of the rejection reasons is to support the article with reliable sources (which I completely understand should be verified).

However, I wanted to bring your attention to that considering it is servicing a limited demography (Arab World), and the scope of the business is very niche (Coin and Stamp collecting).

Thus, it leaves me with limited source options simply because they are not available, and I'm struggling to find better sources from what I have listed. Kindly advise if you can assist in finding better sources or better strategies for my article to aid with the publication.

I look forward to your feedback

Mazenmira (talk) 03:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

03:52:17, 18 January 2023 review of submission by Kaunitzj

edit

==


FIRST TELL US WHY YOU ARE REQUESTING HELP ON THE LINE BELOW THIS LINE. Take as many lines as you need. -->}}

John Kaunitz (talk) 03:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC) Hi The Chunky. You recently rejected my draft on Adaptive Noise Cancelling. Thank you for your time in reviewing Wikipedia contributions. I did my best to provide in-line citations and additional references as requested but in light of your references to reliable sources and notability as your reason for rejection, may I further note the following after reviewing Wikipedia policies and guidelines: 1. The 1975 IEEE paper by Widrow et al. which is one of my main sources is the almost universally cited reference in this topic as evidenced by the number of citations (2875) and patents (382) which reference this paper https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1451965 2. Another source is the PhD dissertation which led the work in this field. Dissertations are accepted as reliable source according to Wikipedia policy provided certain conditions are met which this dissertation does. It has been reviewed and endorsed by 3 distinguished Stanford professors and is subject to the basic criterion of Stanford PhD dissertations that it represent an original contribution to scholarship or scientific knowledge. https://gap.stanford.edu/handbooks/gap-handbook/chapter-4/subchapter-8/page-4-8-1 The dissertation was published as a book (a Stanford Electronics Lab report) by Stanford University . https://books.google.com.au/books/about/Adaptive_Filtering_of_Broadband_Signals.html?id=q-oiYAAACAAJ&redir_esc=y 3. I added further examples of applications that indicate the wide relevance of this topic and its notability. 4. The topic is also of public interest as Adaptive Noise Cancelling is used in some noise cancelling headphones. There are numerous questions on the web from the public, which are currently inadequately answered by suppliers of these headphones. I thought the lack of a Wikipedia entry on Adaptive Noise Cancelling was worth attention and an entry would be a valuable addition. The draft is based entirely on reliable sources. If there is a suggestion that all part of an article must be supported by multiple reliable sources, I could not find this as an essential requirement in Wikipedia policy. This requirement would not make sense as multiple sources may not exist. If there is only one source then either it is reliable, in which case it should be sufficient, or it is not. I hope that the changes I made to the draft and the above will alleviate any concern regarding notability and reliable sources as there is not much more that I can do.[reply]

04:12:24, 18 January 2023 review of submission by Rocksonbruce

edit

Editing source with registry Rocksonbruce (talk) 04:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This submission is the antithesis of a viable article and has rightfully been rejected. --Kinu t/c 01:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 05:46:54, 18 January 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Tarulliah

edit


I need help finding reliable citations on this. There aren't many to begin with. ~Tallulah (talk) 05:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tallulah: welcome to Wikipedia! I get a bit confused when I look at your draft, because I can't quite tell what the topic is. Part of the problem is the fact that it is written like a personal essay, in the first person, with a lot of evaluative language and exclamations, but you also seem to be writing about several different things, and you have got some of the facts a bit wrong. Sognefjord is a fjord, not a locality, to begin with, and if you are writing a draft about the history of Norwegian cheeses, why only talk about that particular area? "Undredalsost" is not a word used about cheeses in general – it's (apparently) a brand name for cheese produced by a particular cheese maker in Undredal, and it looks like you created the draft by essentially copying their own description of their cheeses, rephrasing it minimally. (I see now that that's where the odd claim that Sognefjord was only accessible by boat until the 1980s comes from. The source says that Undredal was only accessible by boat until -82.) Unfortunately, this means that the draft is a copyright violation and will need to be deleted for that reason.
If you want to create an article about Norwegian cheeses, start by looking at Norwegian cuisine#Cheese, List of Norwegian cheeses, and the various articles about different cheeses (Brunost, Gamalost, Jarlsberg cheese, etc) and see if you have sourced information you could add to either of those articles, or if you think there is scope for a separate article about Norwegian cheeses in general. For sources, I'd normally suggest that you check the Norwegian-language Wikipedias (no.wikipedia.org and nn.wikipedia.org) to see which sources they use, but neither of them has a similar article. But regardless of how you go about it, it is crucial that you do not copy text from a source, but that you write your own text, with information that is verified in the source. Best, --bonadea contributions talk 15:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:05:24, 18 January 2023 review of draft by Brachy0008

edit


I need help as I can’t find any good sources about the station. Can you suggest some sites where I can find reliable and secondary sources for the information? Thank you.

Brachy0008 (talk) 09:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about specific sites, but are there any news reports that discuss the opening of the station or the line it's on? Transit stations are an interesting case because I believe the main purpose in giving them separate articles from the line they are on is for organization purposes and less so for individual notability(so that the article about the entire line or transit system isn't too long). 331dot (talk) 09:32, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Brachy0008 As a note, references do *not* need to be in English. Yes, I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but some of the stations that are on lines that connect to this one have a single (appropriate) reference in Chinese. If you know Chinese, feel free to add those. Keep me up to date on this, I'm probably a little more open on the subject of these sorts of stations.Naraht (talk) 14:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also the article title is mispelled, but oddly that's pretty minor, it can easily be taken care of as part of publishing to mainspace.Naraht (talk) 14:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:37:33, 18 January 2023 review of draft by Bulwark Alpha

edit


Hi!

My article about WR: Frontiers is getting declined for the second time and I don't really understand why. I got all the citations to back up the facts in the article. The sources are the news articles from various gaming sites so it's obvious that they will sometimes sound like a press release (because that's where journalists get the info). But in my article there's no personal opinions or any other questionable info, just facts: there is a game; it was announced on a certain date; it's now in Closed Beta, etc.). All this proves that the game indeed exists. What else can I add? There are reviews from youtubers and Steam users. Are they considered trusted sources of information?

Thanks for your time!

Bulwark Alpha (talk) 09:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bulwark Alpha Three of the sources you offer are just announcements of the development of the game. The fourth is kind of a review and might be okay, if there were a couple more reviews of the gameplay that may help. Wikipedia is not just for summarizing facts- it is for summarizing what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about a topic. 331dot (talk) 10:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:47:15, 18 January 2023 review of submission by 114.75.148.198

edit

I had fixed and added new info in the draft and was all like "Yeah, Let's request a re-review after being Rejected two months ago." 114.75.148.198 (talk) 09:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Typically the first step in attempting to get a rejected draft reviewed again is to first ask the rejecting reviewer directly to reconsider with the new information. 331dot (talk) 10:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:40:21, 18 January 2023 review of submission by Vmsportsbranding

edit


Vmsportsbranding (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:54:45, 18 January 2023 review of submission by Arthurblack.social

edit


Arthurblack.social (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Callum Moyle is an icon to many around the world and I think that such an immediate denial is unjust. I would much appreciate a re-read, I put much research into this and I would love for the world to see my work. This could be the start of a career of Wikipedia editing for me, and it crushes my heart to see it rejected.

Arthurblack.social Your draft was rejected because it has no independent reliable sources with significant coverage whatsoever. Twitter is a primary source and YouTube is generally not a reliable source unless it is from a reputable news organization or similar from their verified channel. A Wikipedia article is not for merely telling about the topic- with regards to a person, an article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia, and diving right in without experience and knowledge often leads to frustration and anger as things happen to your work that you don't understand. Please use the new user tutorial and read Your First Article. It's also a good idea to gain experience by editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for things here. 331dot (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2023_January_18&oldid=1135343010"