Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 July 6: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Scsbot (talk | contribs)
Bots
239,174 edits
edited by robot: archiving July 6
 
(No difference)

Latest revision as of 02:39, 12 July 2024

Help desk
< July 5 << Jun | July | Aug >> July 7 >
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.


July 6

[edit]

01:03, 6 July 2024 review of submission by Shahidi Islam

[edit]

An article of mine was recently deleted. I just wanted to know if it would be possible for me to edit it and re-submit it? To edit it I will need to have it returned to my account, and I can try to remove whatever offending sections there were.

Thank you,


Shahidi Shahidi Islam (talk) 01:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shahidi Islam your sandbox was deleted for being promotional. If you'd like to recreate it, go ahead, but if its contents are promotional again, it will certainly be deleted again. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:41, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. It was not intentional. Shahidi Islam (talk) 01:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It usually is not intentional, Shahidi Islam. But if you write about something you are familiar with, especially if it is something you have a connection with, it is hard for you to judge what will come over as promotional (that is why dwe discourage people from editing with a conflict of interest.
As a rule-of-thumb: once you have found your independent sources, you need to forget everything you know about the subject, and write a summary of what the sources say. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them, or what you know about them. It is only interested in what the independent sources say about them. ColinFine (talk) 20:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:07, 6 July 2024 review of submission by ENZorina

[edit]

I need help to improve the article i'm submitting.

Currently I'm working on an article about a special coins in Sri Lanka. As I'm on the island, owe this collection of real coins in use. The reason is that I've been digging information on this subject for a long time now, as there is almost nothing online. Ish. I love collecting coins and would be really happy to shine the light on the subject, the thing is that my submission is declines as it's lucking some info and references. How can i make it work? Ie i would be happy to send a request to the central bank of sri lanka, if needed to prove the relevance of my words, or please tell me what would be helpful?

many thanks, Evgeniia Zorina ENZorina (talk) 08:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ENZorina: it sounds like you may be engaging in original research and/or synthesis, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles should be primarily composed by summarising what reliable published sources have said about a subject, and then citing those sources as references so that the information can be verified by readers.
Bear in mind also that just because something exists, doesn't mean that it is automatically notable in the Wikipedia context. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ENZorina: I guess you decided to ignore all that, then, and just go ahead and resubmit your draft regardless. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ENZorina, are there offline sources instead? You say you've been collecting information for a long time, which makes me think you might have a lot of sources that could be very valuable if they are suitable for Wikipedia. Sources can be online or offline, and can be in any language; the main thing is they need to fit WP:42, the "golden rule", which requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. I don't think the Central Bank would be suitable, but if you have books or articles written by coin historians or similar then they might be. Could you tell us where you got your information from - or at least a couple of places, if you have too many to go through at once? StartGrammarTime (talk) 10:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just made an official request to Central Bank of Sri Lanka in regards to 25 District Coins series of 10 rupees, hopefully they will respond with something that will suffice for wikipedia. The main source is CBLK, i will attach a link to this. https://www.cbsl.gov.lk/sites/default/files/cbslweb_documents/press/notices/notice_20141117e.pdf
not the best one tho. ENZorina (talk) 10:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will be in Colombo on Monday, will pop in Currency Museum of Sri Lanka, would it be better to attach pictures of everything related to this series?
https://www.cbsl.gov.lk/en/about/bank-premises/economic-history-museum
I will also add this link.
https://www.cbsl.gov.lk/en/node/1778 ENZorina (talk) 10:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing
and if the offline proof is ok, what's the best way to send it all to you? ENZorina (talk) 10:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ENZorina: there should be no need to send anything to anyone. The sources can be offline (and for advice on citing them, see WP:OFFLINE), but they must be published. You going around a museum photographing things sounds again like original research to me. And photographing offline publications may well violate copyright. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing: Considering we won't cite newspaper clippings due to copyright, it isn't "may well" violate copyright but "does" violate it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the book "Our People - Our Potential - Our Pride", published by Central bank of sri lanka to mark the launch of the special mint of Rs 10 coin series on the 25 Administrative Districts of Sri lanka
+ article in Sunday Times https://www.sundaytimes.lk/141123/sunday-times-2/one-head-and-25-tails-129013.html
this book is also on the list in here https://www.cbsl.gov.lk/en/publications/other-publications/other-publications
ENZorina (talk) 15:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ENZorina, please listen to what DoubleGrazing is telling you. What you need to find is something written by a scholar or historian, an expert in these coins, perhaps a book or a newspaper article published by a reputable publisher. You could look to see if the Currency Museum has any books on the topic - sometimes museums sell books with information about their collections, and maybe that could be used. You could also see if the Museum has cited any references on the information cards for their collection. Do not upload any photographs you take, though! Just look to see whether they are saying things like 'this information was found in Interesting Old Currency Book by Mr Coin Guy' - then you can try to find that book to see if it would be a good reference.
Maybe you already own books or other sources, since you wrote a draft about the coins. We need to know where all of the information in your draft came from, and you can show us by citing sources for each coin and bit of information. DoubleGrazing has given you the link to do that. If you are still not sure how to cite your sources after reading that, we can try to help - but we need to know where the information comes from first, so that we can be sure it's a source that follows Wikipedia's rules. StartGrammarTime (talk) 22:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the book "Our People - Our Potential - Our Pride", published by Central bank of sri lanka to mark the launch of the special mint of Rs 10 coin series on the 25 Administrative Districts of Sri lanka
+ article in Sunday Times https://www.sundaytimes.lk/141123/sunday-times-2/one-head-and-25-tails-129013.html ENZorina (talk) 09:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this book is also on the list in here https://www.cbsl.gov.lk/en/publications/other-publications/other-publications ENZorina (talk) 10:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:16, 6 July 2024 review of submission by Arahi991

[edit]
Updated the article

added official networks and information

removed unnecessary web pages

Help me add to wikipedia I have all the official data in the registry of the United States, Texas. Arahi991 (talk) 08:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Arahi991: I have to say, this is getting rather tiresome, by my count it's the fourth time you're here saying this same thing, and completely ignoring the fact that this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Furthermore, you still haven't responded to the paid-editing query on your talk page, or answered the question about your connection, if any, with Solyankich. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:41, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Arahi991: Everything I said in re the sources still holds true - the lot of them are worthless. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:08, 6 July 2024 review of submission by Randomanon37

[edit]

My submission was originally declined based on the lack of notability, the original article only had AnimeNewsNetwork as a source, I added 4 more after the initial decline (Natalie, PR Times, Oricon, Weekly Shonen Jump official site) which are the sources typically referenced for this type of article but still got declined, the reviewer incorrectly mentions I only added 1 more source. I should mention that the subject of my article already have a Japanese language page if that helps clear the confusion around the notability https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%87%91%E6%9C%AA%E6%9D%A5%E6%9D%AF Randomanon37 (talk) 10:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was declined because it uses references from the creators themselves, you can remove them and resubmit. TheNuggeteer (talk) 11:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for responding. I removed the references from the creators and resubmitted. Hopefully, no new issues arise. Randomanon37 (talk) 02:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:04, 6 July 2024 review of submission by Rajesh Kumar Noida

[edit]

Hi, I want to create a page but my page decline. Plz suggest me why my page decline Rajesh Kumar Noida (talk) 11:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rajesh Kumar Noida your draft was declined because 5 of the 6 sources sited are published by the university itself, and that the topic is not notable enough for inclusion at its current state. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:50, 6 July 2024 review of submission by Maximos2017

[edit]

Hello. I have written an article on a notable person living in Cyprus. She is an actress but also a politician. I got a response within about a couple of hours of submitting the article. I have gone through the guidelines. The reason left by the person assessing my contribution was this: This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia. My question is how could a person review it in such a short time when the references that I have links to this person are mostly in Greek and Turkish as she lives in Cyprus???? 

Maximos2017 (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Maximos2017: that's something you will have to ask the reviewer. But in general terms, I can tell you it doesn't take two hours to review a draft, at least not in most cases. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am assuming it would take longer if that person had gone through all the 63 citations I had? And whats more they deleted the citations!!! 46.199.207.225 (talk) 15:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know how long it takes to review a draft? Genuine question. Do you know what tools this reviewer uses, how fast they work, what they look for in a draft, whether they comprehend Greek and/or Turkish?
BTW, please log into your account when editing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know how long it takes I was asking in good faith actually…. The IMDB citation was not removed all the rest which were a mix of wikipedia links, newspaper and online citations from online media in Cyprus are what I cannot see anymore. So I guessed they were all removed Maximos2017 (talk) 15:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Maximos2017: a number of inline external links, which are not allowed, were removed, along with the IMDb citation, in a series of edits starting with this one by a different reviewer (as in, not the one who subsequently declined the draft). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. This is actually very helpful Maximos2017 (talk) 15:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith. The removal of the IMDb citation was perfectly reasonable, as it is almost never considered to be reliable. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 15:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Maximos2017: Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
The overwhelming majority of your sources - which took me about an hour and a half to get thru - are not good. For a topic like this where sourcing requirements are stricter this is not good for the draft. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:25, 6 July 2024 review of submission by Technology research

[edit]

Why my submitting project cancelled by team Wikipedia ? please solve this problem and may notify me. Project URL --https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft%3ASadik_Laskar&diff=1232958301&oldid=1232950817&variant=en Technology research (talk) 15:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Technology research: We don't accept promotional content. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:28, 6 July 2024 review of submission by Tradelady2

[edit]

Suzane Reatig is one of the most prominent women architects in the eastern United States and she has already been mentioned in a Wikipedia article about one of her most well known buildings. I cannot understand why Wikipedia editors keep saying a biographical article about her is not appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. Is it because she's a woman? Because she is Jewish and was educated in Israel? I'm starting to get concerned about motives here. Please advise me on how to improve this article so that it can be posted in final. Tradelady2 (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tradelady2: please don't start making assumptions, let alone hurling around slurs and accusations, of discriminatory or biased reviewing, unless you have pretty solid evidence to back that up.
Being "one of the most prominent women architects in the eastern United States" is not a notability criterion, nor is being mentioned in a Wikipedia article. The relevant notability guidelines are WP:ARCHITECT and WP:GNG, at least one of which must be satisfied, as evidenced by reliable sources. As this wasn't done, the draft was eventually rejected (over six months ago). If evidence is now available which wasn't considered at the time, you may appeal the rejection, by contacting the rejecting reviewer directly. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My request for help was delayed by six months because I have been ill with a serious heart problem that halted my work on Wikipedia biographies of women.
In my view Ms Reatig more than meets the notability guidelines for an architect having received many awards for her work and having been recognized by name by prominent architectural critics from the Washington Post and the New York Times. This was all shown in the latest posted draft and I don't see why it is not sufficient. Perhaps you could find an editor who specializes in architects who could help me understand what more needs to be written. Tradelady2 (talk) 16:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tradelady2: a reviewer doesn't need to specialise in architects or architecture in order to review a draft on those topics. We assess the draft by reference to the relevant guidelines, pure and simple.
If by "the latest posted draft" you mean as it currently stands following your 2 April edit, then please note that that edit was several months after the draft was rejected on 12 December, and it is quite likely that no one has even looked at the draft since the rejection, other than you of course (and now me). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tradelady2: Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
All of your offline sources are missing their page numbers; this is required info in order to look up the source in an offline archive. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all these comments sent so quickly. Before I attend a revision, I would like to respond to each one (using the footnote numbers) and ask for advice on how to proceed further in some situations:
  1. For footnote 1 I can only access this article in the Washington Post's Digital Archive which does not contain a page number (perhaps because the article was published 33 years ago?). It's available to subscribers and through libraries. Does that mean the source needs to be deleted?
  2. Footnote 2 referencing the Wikipedia article on the Metropolitan Church of D.C. was not intended to indicate a supportive source but simply to point to the relevant section of that long article. The same is true for Footnote 5. If this is not allowed, these two footnotes will be removed and only the "internal link" will be shown.
  3. For footnote 3 the page # is 2-37. I have no trouble accessing the article but I am a subscriber to New York Times and also have access through a public library. If the NYT archive is walled off for some people, does that mean I can no longer cite it?
  4. The Washington Business Journal article in footnote 4 is online only now and has no page number. It is available through public libraries. Does it need to be deleted?
  5. See comment for footnote 2
  6. Footnotes 6,7 & 9: Reatig is "running a one person architectural firm." Until recently she was the only licensed architect in the firm and I guess that's why it's called Suzane Reatig Architecture. Any awards given to that firm were really given to her.
  7. The link in footnote 8 is now bouncing to the home page instead of the list of awards. I'll try to figure out the problem and get it fixed.
  8. Footnote 10 is another NYT article available to me online with no page number. Does it need to be deleted?
  9. I agree that access to this WP article in footnote 11seems OK
  10. Footnote 12: See comment to footnote 4 above.
  11. I also can no longer access the Ebony Magazine article in footnote 13. So I will delete this source.
  12. In footnote 14, Reatig's contribution to making boring Washington D.C. more colorful is mentioned about 2/3 way through the article. I can delete this source if it doesn't seem sufficient.
  13. In footnote 15, Reatig's name on this list confirms her election to "fellow" of the American Institute of Architects, the highest honor her profession confers. If this doesn't indicate she and her work are recognized as "notable" I don't know what would and perhaps I should just stop this project now (which I will if you tell me this is a waste of time)!!
Tradelady2 (talk) 21:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tradelady2: In order:
  1. If it was published and someone has access to a hardcopy or scan of the source, one could get the page number from that. But the page number is hard-required for offline cites to periodicals and books.
  2. That is indeed not allowed. We do not consider ourselves a reliable source, and circular referencing is generally a bad idea in encyclopaedia articles anyway.
  3. All that matters is that someone can access the source. It doesn't matter that not everyone can. Add the page number.
  4. That source then needs to be redone using {{cite web}}, which doesn't require a page number parametre.
  5. (refer to reply 2)
  6. If she is indeed her firm in its entirety, then these sources should be good.
  7. You have two options here - try to find the source on the website as it currently is, or cite an archived version of the source via the Wayback Machine or similar. Either is acceptable (and the archived source is preferred since that's more resistant to link rot).
  8. (refer to reply 1)
  9. (moot)
  10. (refer to reply 4)
  11. Again, you could try and see if it got moved or archived, then cite it at its new/archived location.
  12. It isn't; the paragraph is basically just quoting/attributing claims to her. Anything she says, including attributable claims, isn't discussion of her.
  13. The issue is that fellowship isn't as major of a notability concern here compared to academics, so you may be better off ditching this source, since with the three awards in and the offline cites properly done I'd argue you have a good case for notability.
Does this help? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 05:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your very helpful advice. Whether I can can implement it all is another question!
I did have a followup question on #13. Being elected a Fellow of the American Institute of Architects is a national professional recognition for senior American architects which is not at all the same as an academic fellowship which is generally for junior architects. In fact, for an architect, I think this would be the most important award or recognition by fellow professionals. Do you or other Wikipedia editors disagree? If so, again I don't think I should continue with this biography. Tradelady2 (talk) 20:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_July_6&oldid=1234006814"