Help desk
< June 30	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 2 >

Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an 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 1

00:14:26, 1 July 2017 review of submission by Emilywlk

Emilywlk (talk · contribs)
- No draft specified!

What more do need or what factors am I missing to get this article approved for Draft:Lamont Sincere? I gladly appreciate your help. Thank You

Emilywlk (talk) 00:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Emilywlk. I can't tell from reading the lead what, if anything, he's notable for. Does he satisfy one of the criteria of WP:MUSICBIO? If so, which one, and how? --Worldbruce (talk) 02:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

15:23:38, 1 July 2017 review of submission by Oddjob84

Oddjob84 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Wakayama Marina City (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How do I appeal a "submission declined"? Oddjob84 (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC) Oddjob84 (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Oddjob. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. I see you've already taken the first step -- that of contacting the person who declined your submission. After receiving some detailed feedback from them, you might be better able to address their concerns. And you can always re-submit the draft to find out what another reviewer thinks (but I suggest you first engage in discussion with the first reviewer). And for what it's worth, I note that you didn't help your case by providing most of your sources in the form of "bare URLs". This practice runs afoul of our WP:CITE, because it fails to provide basic bibliographic information such as who wrote a piece and where/when it was published. In effect, you are telling readers (including reviewers) that if they want to learn this essential information, they have to leave Wikipedia and find out for themselves. And this, in turn, makes it difficult for reviewers to assess the usefulness of your sources. This problem can be avoided by using citation templates such as {{cite web}}, which makes it easier to assemble the essential information and automatically displays it with proper formatting. Later today, I'll convert one or two of your sources using the citation template, which you can then use as examples for doing the others. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:47, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NewYorkActuary: Thanks for the information on WP:CITE and the revision of footnotes 1 & 2 in the article. I have also been there and changed over the Book & Journal citations. While I am fine with improving the citations, and will do so, that is not why the article was declined, and quite honestly, I doubt re-doing the citations will change anything. Further, I am disinclined to wait another five weeks to discuss the matter. So, to my original question... how do I file an appeal? If you wish to see my reasoning, you may look here: User:Oddjob84/sandbox. Oddjob84 (talk) 17:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Oddjob84: we use gender-neutral pronouns until you decide whether or not you want to tell us your gender. From now on, we shall refer to you as "he". I think you misunderstand the process of Articles for Creation: you submit your draft to us and we check it against policies. We then advise you as to how you can improve it. You can either take that advice or leave it but doing the latter will adversely affect your chances of successfully creating an article. There isn't an appeals process, you just resubmit it. I can ask another reviewer to review it as soon as possible so it gives the same effect as an appeal. The sandbox piece is as jcc says, a bit of a diatribe but that's beside the point. I've resubmitted it and I'll ask another reviewer to take a look at it. DrStrauss talk 20:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: jcc, I've just resubmitted the draft so Oddjob84 has a de facto appeal. If you've got time, could you review it and see if you come to the same conclusion as myself? Thanks, DrStrauss talk 20:22, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are we a bit touchy here at AfC? "di·a·tribeˈdīəˌtrīb/ noun. a forceful and bitter verbal attack against someone or something". I have pretty scrupulously avoided any attacks at all, personal or otherwise. And I don't think you could characterize it as bitter in any case. I have pointed out that there are potential problems with the "decline", and am looking for an explanation at this point. I would rather that we had engaged in a discussion before a re-submit (I could have resubmitted it myself), but since you have jumped ahead, I would ask that the points I have raised, as well as those implicit in my objections, be considered, and a much better explanation be provided. Oddjob84 (talk) 20:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jcc's re-review/explanation

References check

Ref #1 is self published, however the writer has published articles before in other newspapers/magazines so I believe that whilst this source might not help notability (we have no idea how locations are selected for inclusion on this website) it is reliable enough to back claims sourced back to it.

Ref #2 is similar to ref #1 but it has been published by a tour company, again it doesn't prove notability.

I can't get ref #3 to load.

Ref #4 is better for notability showing that the location has been part of a study.

I am unsure if ref 5 helps demonstrate notability because their "about us" menu link doesn't work. It could be a regional website to encourage tourism or another tour website.

Ref #6 does not prove notability.

Ref #7 is a press release and does not prove notability.

Ref #8 is a local created website to encourage tourism (so presumably ref 5 is a tour company website) and that is therefore a primary source.

Ref #9 is another study which goes reasonably in depth.

Ref #14 is primary

Ref #15 is a study based on the effects of the breakwater at Wakayama Marina City. I must admit that I am unsure as to why this has been included, there is no mention of the claim it is supposed to support in the document?

Ref #16 is a blog by someone who has been and is certainly not helpful to show notability.

Ref #17, a page by the architects does not help show notability.

Ref #19 is a tour company again.

Ref #20 may help to show notability, it appears to be independent.

Refs #21 and #22 are duplicates.

From the above, I don't think DrStrauss's decline is unreasonable.

Sandbox

Since the sandbox comments have become pertinent to this discussion, and since I periodically clear my sandbox, I have pasted the item below for clarity and archival purposes.

Wakayama Marina City

The article was rejected on the grounds of insufficient "notability of organizations and companies". Wakayama Marina City is not an organization or company it is a place. Although it is partially owned by the Wakayama Marina City Company, Ltd., it is also co-owned by Wakayama Prefecture, as made clear in the supplied references. WP:NGEO is the proper application of notability, and Marina City passes. An obvious analog is Kansai International Airport which is held by a private corporation and a public entity. Rokkō Island is much the same as Marina City, in that it is a recreation hub and largely in private hands. Port Island is also much the same, and also opened with an expo. Kobe Airport rounds out the four artificial islands in Osaka Bay which apparently have already passed notability standards.

The reviewer left the following comment: "Please add more major media reviews". This is a fair illustration of WP:Systemic bias as outlined in WP:WORLDVIEW. Of course it is difficult to cite major media reviews in English. The Draft Talk:Wakayama Marina City page, which the reviewer apparently missed, said so. There are more references, but they are in Japanese, and will have to wait for a Japanese-speaking editor to add them. This will never happen if the article is not in mainspace. Furthermore, I have little doubt Marina City was covered in the New York Times, Washington Post and/or the Los Angeles Times but this information is all behind paywalls, and I am not inclined to buy a subscription to prove it.

The article is also notable because it was Universal Studios' first overseas project. It must be noted that Universal's second overseas project is notable enough for inclusion: Universal Studios Japan. However, that had the advantage of NBC/Universal's publicity machine in English. The 23 in-line citations provided in the references in the draft article are by any measure adequate, particularly for a Start-class or Stub-class article. As to the "major media reviews", the supplied references are perfectly acceptable sources within their respective spheres of coverage, and meet the tests of "reliable secondary sources".

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions state:

If this article were nominated for deletion at WP:AFD, would it be likely to survive?
Yes, it will probably be kept.	Then ACCEPT it now. (You can tag non-deletion-worthy problems.)

I appreciate the fact that the AfC process is badly backlogged, and it is probably more convenient to reject new articles at a glance. However, this does a disservice both to Wikipedia and new contributors, particularly given the five-week turnaround. Oddjob84 (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response to points in sandbox

Now, in response to your points in your sandbox:

I'd agree that WP:NGEO is the applicable standard here, but also note that WP:GNG is a valid alternative standard.

I would disagree however that Wakayama Marina City is comparable to Kansai Airport. Kansai Airport falls under WP:NAIRPORT whereas Marina City falls under WP:NGEO. However, there are multiple subdivisions under NGEO, and I believe that it would fall under "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments". This tells us that the criteria for inclusion is "significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability". From the above, I am reluctant that the above sources explicitly show notability (in contrast to your claim that the supplied references...meet the tests of "reliable secondary sources" as not all them do as outlined above).

It is important to note however, that I am unable to examine offline sources. I also agree with the conclusion that more sources may arise in mainspace, and therefore I believe that we should assume good faith and assume that the offline sources do show significant coverage when combined with the existing sources. In line with this I have passed the article and left a copy of my comments on the talk page, and would advise that they are used to improve the references. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have started repairing the references per WP:CITE and your remarks. I will also drop in the images tomorrow, which may help as well. Oddjob84 (talk) 23:08, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]