Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 June 26

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation‎ | Help desk‎ | Archives
Help desk
< June 25 << May | June | Jul >> June 27 >
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 26

edit

02:41, 26 June 2024 review of submission by Noprita

edit

Halo, may I know why this declined? and what can I do to make that page better as Wikipedia standard page? Noprita (talk) 02:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Noprita: No sources, no article, no debate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 02:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Halo Jeske,
I put the references link that JCPR indexed already
== JCPR's References ==
  1. ISSN Portal
  2. Garuda Kemendikbud RI
  3. Scilit
  4. Dimensions
  5. Academia
  6. LinkedIn
and I write the short about JCPR:
The Journal of Communication & Public Relations (JCPR) is a peer-review international academic journal published by LSPR Institute of Communication & Business. Issued twice a year, JCPR focuses on both theoretical development and practical research in communication studies and public relations studies. The journal's first edition was published in 2021 by LSPR Publishing, covering various areas including organizational communication, development communication, reputation management, government public relations, media relations, corporate communication, marketing communication, and public affairs communication.
How many words does Wikipedia require to create one page? Noprita (talk) 02:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Noprita: Anything that merely indexes the journal is useless for notability (too sparse) and LinkedIn is worthless as a source full stop (connexion to subject). The heading of that section also implies something very different than what you think it does (specifically, that JCPR themselves use those as its sources, instead of the article citing them). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 03:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano Do you mean that to create a page on Wikipedia, it must have coverage in the mass media? Noprita (talk) 03:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to have sources - which are more likely to be in the realm of academia/more specialised sources than the mass media - that show that it meets one of the three criteria listed at WP:Notability (academic journals):
  1. That it is considered influential in its subject area;
  2. That it is widely cited by other reliable sources;
  3. That it has some historical importance in its subject area.
Sources that only index it do not help meet any of these criteria. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 03:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:03, 26 June 2024 review of submission by Sdsbran

edit

Would like further explanation of why my article was denied because it is contrary to Wikipedia's purpose. I want to learn more, not debate. Thank you very much. Sdsbran (talk) 03:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdsbran: The lists of services and notable clients should be removed wholesale. Aside from that, the draft overall reads like it was intended for potential investors, not Mitty from Kansas City. What is your connexion to Walz Tetrick Advertizing? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 03:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the fast response. I do not work for the company - I am retired, and a writer - the CEO hired me to write this for his company. Sdsbran (talk) 03:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The CEO hired me to write this for his company" is tantamount to working for the company. You are also obligated to disclose this on your Wikipedia userpage per our Terms of Use. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 03:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Related to WP:When your boss tells you to edit Wikipedia. (User has been blocked as a promo account.) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 20:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:11, 26 June 2024 review of submission by Kim alice film

edit

Hello, I have made some new edits today (26 June 2024) to my submission Draft:Wash My Soul In The River's Flow. This is my first wiki submission so I just want to check the latest revision has been submitted correctly. I can't work out where it tells me that the latest submission is in and awaiting review. All help that I've been given so far is greatly appreciated. 

Kim alice film (talk) 04:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Kim alice film: you have made one edit to this draft today, but haven't submitted it yet; you need to click on the blue 'resubmit' button (when you're ready). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @DoubleGrazing for your help with this. Much appreciated. Kim alice film (talk) 11:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:30, 26 June 2024 review of submission by Sivaanandgr

edit

How to improve my articles Sivaanandgr (talk) 06:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sivaanandgr: this draft has been rejected and is awaiting speedy deletion. I don't believe that you have any articles. For advice on article creation, see WP:YFA. For general advice on editing Wikipedia, try the Teahouse. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:37, 26 June 2024 review of submission by Kingofstyle

edit

more what should be improved in article 

Kingofstyle (talk) 06:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingofstyle: this draft has been rejected and is awaiting speedy deletion. Please don't write about yourself, see WP:AUTOBIO, which explains why. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:50, 26 June 2024 review of submission by KingMaker69

edit

need help and suggestion for pulbiation of the article KingMaker69 (talk) 08:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@KingMaker69: Try again, this time without writing an investors' brochure. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 08:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KingMaker69: Your second attempt is still promotional, but not unsalvageably so. The problem it has now is that it's been written backwards, citing no sources. Everything beyond the "History and background" section needs to go as promotional/irrelevant. (The "Concluding Notes" section wouldn't fit here even if it were neutrally written; we're an encyclopaedia, not a college essay.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KingMaker69: We don't cite Wikipedia (circular reference). If you're trying to link to another page, use [[double square braces]]. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
noted.. KingMaker69 (talk) 18:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KingMaker69 I've requested speedy deletion, again, it's still written like an advertisement brochure - totally inappropriate for Wikipedia. Qcne (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:52, 26 June 2024 review of submission by ParulP0206

edit

Hi Marcus, I recently submitted an article on Petrolink services, which was rejected with feedback indicating that it was not adequately supported by reliable sources and that it seemed to be a test edit rather than an article worthy of an encyclopedia.

1. I took all the sources available to support this topic. Should I wait for more sources to become available, or are there specific types of sources I should focus on? 2. Could the formatting or length of the article have contributed to the rejection? I intentionally did not include detailed descriptions of their products and services to avoid appearing promotional.

I would greatly appreciate your guidance on how I can improve the submission to meet Wikipedia's standards. ParulP0206 (talk) 10:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ParulP0206: I'm not Marcus, but I'll reply while waiting. Your draft Draft:Petrolink has been deleted as promotional. You have also been issued a warning against trying to use Wikipedia for promotion, please heed it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:18, 26 June 2024 review of submission by PaulDRamkissoon

edit

I had added my company page and it was rejected without anyway of resubmitting, I would like to know what needs to be done to get approval? PaulDRamkissoon (talk) 11:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know what needs to be edited in my article so that it can be approved. PaulDRamkissoon (talk) 11:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PaulDRamkissoon: please don't start multiple threads.
Your draft was rejected as promotional, and speedily deleted for the same reason. Wikipedia is not to be used for promotion of any kind. Also, you clearly have a conflict of interest, which you must disclose if you intend to attempt this again (which I would strongly advise against, in any case). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:33, 26 June 2024 review of submission by Arahi991

edit

Dear moderator, please look at the article 1. American company 2. Staged the story 3. Unique You can approve, if you need information I will add it Arahi991 (talk) 11:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Courtesy link: Draft:Del Mar Energy Company
@Arahi991: I've no idea what "1. American company 2. Staged the story 3. Unique" means, let alone has to do with anything, but this draft was rejected and will therefore not be considered further.
Incidentally, do you have a connection with Solyankich, who recently created Draft:Del Mar Energy? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:07, 26 June 2024 review of submission by Al Right

edit

We try to make a english version of the austrian-kurdisch musician and artist Scharmien Zandi. can you help us to verify the draft. thank you Al Right (talk) 12:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Dutch page of Sharmien Zandi. You can translate it. For the English Wikipedia, you need to understand and establish notability of Sharmien Zandi with reliable references about the subject person with minimal criterion to meet three mandatory nobility criterion. For further interest please check about reliability criterion. Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:33, 26 June 2024 review of submission by Mistymoon222

edit

Hi there,

I've recently submitted my first article and I am questioning whether my English is correct.

Does anyone know if there are guidelines as to what English region needs to be used?

For example, I wrote the article in English (UK) so words will be spelt like 'recognise' as opposed to 'recognize'. Do you think this will be an issue?

Thank you very much! Hope you're having an awesome day. Mistymoon222 (talk) 12:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mistymoon222: if she's Australian, then Australian English would seem appropriate. That said, if you naturally write in British English, I don't think it would be reasonable to expect you to 'fake' Aussie English. In any case, none of this has any bearing on the draft's chances of being accepted, so don't worry about it too much. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh ok that makes sense - thank you again for your time (and answering so quickly)! Mistymoon222 (talk) 12:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mistymoon222: All that really matters with regards to the dialect of English used is that it is consistent throughout the article. While it is standard practice to use the dialect most associated with a given subject this is not a hard rule, and it's something that could very well be handled when/if the draft is accepted. The reviewers aren't going to ding a draft for ENGVAR unless it's bouncing between dialects like a drunken polyglot. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes perfect sense, thank you!
If you (or anyone) else is available for a few more questions, I would be very grateful.
I‘ve recently had my first article reviewed (for this page, Draft:Michaela Cook) and it’s been unaccepted due to unreliable sources. I am still learning (I read hundreds of similar Wiki’s to study their constructs so I could best create this and others I’m drafting within the guidelines) so would it please be possible for you to tell me which sources are deemed unreliable on this page?
Also, are articles behind a newspaper paywall not accepted either? The articles were included in the print copy of the newspaper, so would it be best to include the hard copy sourcing (incl. page numbers etc)?
Thank you again for your time! Mistymoon222 (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mistymoon222, as an Aussie myself, our spellings are basically British anyway - colour, recognise, etc - so no need to worry about that bit.
Paywalls are fine but can be hard for reviewers to properly assess - so if you have non-paywalled sources as well that makes things easier.
Some short notes on sources to start you off: you are trying to establish that Cook is WP:NOTABLE in the very specific Wikipedia meaning of the term. Your sources must fit WP:42, our 'golden rule' - more info at those two links.
In general: LinkedIn can't be used. Interviews can only be used for really basic facts, like her birthdate or birthplace. Anything that only mentions her as part of a list of performers is also not going to help for notability. What you really want to find is articles that people have written about her, without any input from her, and for no reason other that they're interested in her (ie not by a company who she works with, or an employee of hers, and so on). I'll be happy to come back and review your current sources later if no one else has done so, but I'm out of time for Wiki right now - so good luck, happy editing, and perhaps we'll talk again! StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, thank you so much for your time and linking further information!! Secondly, your explanation was really helpful and I’m about to pour over those links! If you by any chance can review a few of the sources and give me an example of what ones are reliable out of the ones there, I would be extremely thankful! I went through and added the ISSN numbers of publications and as much sourcing info as I could find as well. I didn’t realise you could tick extra boxes if you had extra information lol. Ps our spellings are the best! Thank you again and no stress if you’re unable to review any sources! Mistymoon222 (talk) 12:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again @Mistymoon222! Okay, let's have a look at your current sources. I'm going to start off by saying that biographies of living people (WP:BLP) are the hardest kind of article to write, so please don't be discouraged if you have trouble with this draft - there's a lot to keep in mind and a lot of work to do if you want to get one through. You have all the time you need and plenty of other people to answer questions. Plus you can get some experience editing other articles of interest to you while you wait for draft reviews or just for more sources - sometimes it's just too soon for an article on someone, and you have to wait until they get more notable. I'm more than happy for you to leave a note on my talk page whenever you run into something new or weird that needs explaining, so keep that in mind!
The goal here is to establish notability, which means you need a good source (by Wikipedia standards) for every statement you make. A good source needs to have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic (this is good old WP:42 again). If a source fails any of those criteria, it can't be used for notability. I know this can be incredibly frustrating, which is why BLPs are so difficult!
1) is an interview, which means it can't contribute to notability (not independent). You can use it for some basic info - the name of her husband, the year of their marriage - but not for your main goal of establishing notability.
2) is paywalled, and archive.org can't get me in, so I can't assess it. The title makes me think it might be an interview, so my instinct is you probably can't use it for notability (not independent).
3) is a promo biography, so again no use for notability (not independent).
4) is from LinkedIn, which isn't accepted at all (not reliable, not independent) - I'd completely ditch this reference if I were you because I think it will be deleted on sight if the draft is published!
5) is, alas, another interview (not independent).
6) is another interview, you know where I'm going with this.
7) is a government document, which we don't use, and definitely doesn't have significant coverage. I'd remove this one as well, personally - you already have a better reference for the statement you're supporting, even if it's an interview, because at least there's a bit of context in the interview. That being said, if you could find an independent+significant source that would be much better.
8) is another interview, darn it.
9) is a podcast, which is an interview.
10) is made by Micks, and thus sadly not independent.
11) is paywalled, but the title doesn't sound like it's going to be independent or have significant coverage - maybe I'm wrong?
12) is an interview.
13) and 14) are paywalled and archive.org has decided it doesn't like me any more so I have to guess what these are; if they're lists with a couple of paragraphs about each woman, unfortunately that won't count as significant coverage.
15) is an interview.
and lucky number 16) is also an interview!
So in summary - and I realise this is probably going to be a depressing summary, I'm sorry - you might have one reliable source, the paywalled #11. My instinct is that it's too soon for an article on Micks, and you might need to wait until she's got some more notability out there. That being said, as long as you edit the draft at least once every six months, it will be preserved and you can keep working on it until there's reliable sources coming out of your ears!
I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but it would suck to let you keep trying to fix it and wasting your time (and the reviewers' time) when the outcome isn't going to change until more good sources are written. In the meantime, you could have a look through some Featured Articles on musicians (the best on Wikipedia) to get an idea of what you're trying to find. And again, feel free to come to my talk page whenever! Good luck and happy editing :) StartGrammarTime (talk) 01:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Omg you are incredible! Thank you for taking the time to review my sources and provide the feedback. It has also saved me so much time with other drafts I am creating so genuinely thank you so much haha. I used the sources link you provided me a few days ago and attempted to find better sources (and re-write) within those guidelines and I think 'Micks' is definitely more inline with those now (lol I removed LinkedIn & Instagram - I saw another Australian's wiki use them as sources but I guess those changes aren't reviewed yet)! Thank you also for the offer of your talk page!! It's really cool to be part of this community (and a lot better use of my brain power as opposed to doom scrolling)! Mistymoon222 (talk) 23:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:08, 26 June 2024 review of submission by MuseumOfSilence

edit

Could someone please review this entry which has been waiting review for over 3 months?

The article submission has not been reviewed after correcting it completely.

Thanks for your help,

Museum Of Silence MuseumOfSilence (talk) 17:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MuseumOfSilence: This reads more like a curriculum vitae. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:37, 26 June 2024 review of submission by 2407:D000:B:32C1:5854:24A:AF52:88E8

edit

where do i write the text 2407:D000:B:32C1:5854:24A:AF52:88E8 (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You write the text in the draft, and pick "publish" (which means "save", but was changed for legal reasons, to remind editors that everything in Wikipedia is public).
Make sure you don't write your draft BACKWARDS, because that will waste your time and other people's.
Also consider whether you are duplicating information in Flora of Pakistan, or adding information which does not justify a separate article but should be added to that article. ColinFine (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:44, 26 June 2024 review of submission by Rainbowdoor

edit

I tried carefully to avoid promotional language and I don't see this article as substantially different in regards to promotional language to similar articles for actuarial organisations such as Society of Actuaries and Institute and Faculty of Actuaries which have been accepted, but clearly I don't understand. So, I would appreciate your advice on specific words/phrases/sentences or the overall approach that are considered promotional and what changes I might make. Actuaries Institute is a major professional organisation in Australia and, in my opinion, deserves a Wikipedia entry. Your assistance to create an entry which meets Wikipedia guidelines would be greatly appreciated. Rainbowdoor (talk) 18:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rainbowdoor: Society of Actuaries (first edit Oct 08, 2003) and Institute and Faculty of Actuaries (first edit Aug 02, 2010) both predate the drafting process entirely and were never formally reviewed or accepted. We don't cite government sources (gov't document) and cites to the subject themselves are useless for notability (connexion to subject). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Rainbowdoor. Your draft reads as what the Institue wants people to know about itself. (And this impression is backed up by most of the references being either closely associated with the institute, or barely mentioning it).
Baldly, Wikipedia isn't interested - at all - in what the Institute wants people to know. What Wikipedia is interested in (almost exclusively) is what people who have no connection with the Institute have chosen to write about it and been published in reliable sources. Almost the whole article should be based on such sources - and if little independent material has been written about the Institute, then it simply won't meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and no article is possible. ColinFine (talk) 19:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I have reason to believe that you have a conflict of interest in writing about the Institute (I am aware that you changed your username, and I suggest you remove the welcome messages from your User Talk page that addressed you by your original username - you are allowed to remove messages from your user talk page, see User talk pages - but the rename is recorded and public).
The COI does not forbid you from working on this draft, but you ought to declare it. ColinFine (talk) 21:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you ColinFine. That's very helpful. You are correct that I changed my username some years ago but only because Wikipedia gave advice that usernames should be anonymous. Otherwise, I wouldn't have. I'm happy to declare that I am a Fellow of Institute of Actuaries of Australia but would also like to note that I am a volunteer and have no financial interest in seeing the article published. How do I do that? Rainbowdoor (talk) 22:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rainbowdoor: See WP:PAID. (Whether you or paid or volunteering is immaterial; you still stand to gain from writing an article about the organisation, and so must disclose all the same.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I disagree with Jeske here - I think being a Fellow of the institute means you certainly have a COI, but, I would not regard you as coming within WP:PAID, unless you were actively working as part of the institute's admin or governance. But I would still advise disclosure on your user page. ColinFine (talk) 09:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ColinFine @Jéské Couriano Thank you both for your advice. @Jéské Couriano I read your article "A brief history of AfC" with interest. It gave me an appreciation of how much the editing process has changed over time, and that my first article created in 2014 would most likely not be accepted today. On balance, I have decided not to continue with the article, although I would like to be clear, that I would not benefit, personally, professionally or financially from it, other than having contributed an article about an important Australian Institution. Thank you once again. Rainbowdoor (talk) 07:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:26, 26 June 2024 review of submission by Grizly1960

edit

Hello! How can improve this article? Grizly1960 (talk) 22:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can improve it by starting again, basing it on independent published sources. Almost nothing published by the centre or by the Ukrainian government is of any relevance for this article.
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 09:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, supplemented the article with independent sources, and information from such. Grizly1960 (talk) 15:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The section Highlighting of activities seems to be pushing an agenda. Qcne (talk) 15:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_June_26&oldid=1232288281"