Help desk
< March 9	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 11 >

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.

March 10

06:24:13, 10 March 2017 review of submission by KK1996

KK1996 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Tua Mun Duey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

@KK1996: Hello, KK. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the delay in response. You didn't actually ask a question, so I'm not sure what to say here. But I did take a look at your submission and found that I too would have declined it, and for the same reasons as noted by the prior reviewers. You haven't demonstrated that this topic is "notable" in the sense that Wikipedia uses the word. The submission is also written in a very informal, non-encyclopedic tone and this would have been another reason for declining the submission. And on top of all that, there is the very promotional aspect of telling us exactly what hours the two shops will be open and selling the dessert. In all, I think it unlikely that this draft will ever be accepted for publication in its current form. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

13:48:32, 10 March 2017 review of submission by Maria Grimana

Maria Grimana (talk · contribs)

Hello, my page has been declined again, I cannot understand why. I cited a lot of articles from relevant press and shows in important museums and galleries, and I showed the evidence of it. Maurizio Pellegrin has a long carrier; it's all documented (I eliminated a lot of shows and articles because I was afraid it would have been too long).

Will you help me to understand why this article is not acceptable and how I can fix the problem? I thought I did a good job this time.

Thank you!

Maria Grimana

Maria Grimana (talk) 13:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Maria Grimana: Hello, Maria. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the delay in response. As noted by the reviewers, your submission contains a large amount of indiscriminate information. Even after removing some of it, you still have entire sections devoted to lengthy listings of exhibits and writings, none of which provides any essential information to the reader. The impression I get (and please correct me if I am mistaken) is that you went to the subject's web site, extracted all of the detailed information there, and simply threw it all onto the Wikipedia page. The result is a draft that looks like an overly-long resumé, and not like an article that people would actually want to read. Even the prose portions of your submission read like a resumé, with their listings of job positions and exhibitions, all provided to reader without much in the way of context for any of it.

A second problem that I see is the poor formatting of the references. You really might want to become conversant with the {{cite web}} and {{cite book}} templates. Not only will they help you present essential bibliographic information in a standard format, they will also provide a convenient way to link the reader to on-line information via the "url" and "isbn" parameters. Although you are not required to use on-line sources, the fact remains that many of your sources are available on-line and your failure to use the citation templates just makes it difficult for reviewers to see much of the information that you would like them to see.

I suspect that Pellegrin does meet our notability guidelines. But you've done a poor job of demonstrating that. I encourage you to make further improvements to your work, by removing the unnecessary detail, by improving the formatting of the references and, just as importantly, by trying to make the prose more readable. I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

16:06:38, 10 March 2017 review of submission by Gordonap

Gordonap (talk · contribs)

I am writing as my article about the first interracial kiss in film was not accepted for submission because of lack of notability. However, I am a professor of history and director of the Asian Pacific American Studies Program at Michigan State University. As such, I feel that I am reasonably well-qualified to disagree with the editor's position regarding notability: "This submissions references don't show that this subject is notable enough to warrant an article of it's own. Also, the topic seems to be relatively subjective." There is an extensive entry on the first interracial kiss in television. This entry is no more or less subjective than mine. I agree that the references are limited. However, there is not as much scholarly attention to this issue in film, I think it part because the individuals involved were not exclusively black-white couples at the time of the Civil Rights Movement, but involved Asian Americans during an earlier time period. I did not submit original research, but I recognize that there is not as much secondary research on this topic as on the subject of interracial kisses on television (which has received extensive scholarly attention.) I think that the reviewer did not fully understand these issues and I would appreciate it if someone with a background in ethnic studies or Asian American history had the opportunity to review my article submission. Unfortunately, I think this choice not to publish is part of the lack of attention to such issues (as Asian Americans) on Wikipedia and in general in the United States.

Gordonap (talk) 16:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gordonap. The word notable, in the context of Wikipedia, means a topic that has received significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, as gauged by coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources. The draft cites three such sources: the BBC, filmreference.com, and The New York Times (IMDb is user-generated, so it is not a reliable source and should not be cited by the draft). The three sources are a good start, but the reviewer felt they were insufficient to prove notability.

Last October, when you questioned the review, another reviewer advised, "Feel free to resubmit your submission for review after improving it." That is still excellent advice. You write "there is not as much scholarly attention to this issue in film". If you mean that no other reliable sources have written about it, then you're saying the subject is not notable and should not have an article in Wikipedia. Otherwise, find and cite another reliable secondary source or two. Surely some academic or film critic has written a few paragraphs about it.

The other problems raised with regard to the draft were "subjectivity" and the lack of a "neutral point of view". The draft cites no sources for What Happened in the Tunnel being the first interracial kiss, and no sources for the interpretation ("man is expressing shock", "result of a practical joke", "hinges on the idea that the black woman is undesirable"). The draft cites no sources for the section The Crimson Kimono. The draft should take a worldwide view of the subject rather than limiting itself to Hollywood. Finally, the lead is a train wreck. It should summarize the article, but instead is mostly material not in the article, all unsourced.

Make an effort to improve the draft in response to reviewers' concerns, then resubmit it. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

18:56:01, 10 March 2017 review of submission by Wirewool

wirewoolWirewool (talk · contribs)
- Draft:William Pittman Lett (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I have read the wikipedia guide on quoting sources and still have a challenge. The vast majority of my sources are original papers and letters from the 19th century, housed in the Ottawa City Archives and in the National Archives of Canada. I am the only global authority on William Pittman Lett and I wrote his biography and transcribed his poetry based on this archived material. I can support every statement, quotation or opinion given in my draft page on him with detailed references to these archives. I have not done so yet as I do not want to waste my time if these are unacceptable...... I have seen other Wikipedia pages which state that there is too nuch reliance on primary sources, which these archived items are and I do not want to have this warning on my page as I have no alternatives.  I do not want to reference my book on Lett and its poetry anthology unless it is to demonstrate, for example, the extent and coverage of his poetry. I am currently finishing the basic wording of the page, then I will do "links" and then I will do sources and references in a mannner dependent on your advice. Thanks very much for helping me with this conundrum. p.s. I have not yet got the hang of coding a question to you properly so my user name and wikipage are given correctly! -->}}

Wirewool (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)wirewool[reply]

Hi Wirewool. Thank you for your interest in improving the encyclopedia. Writing for Wikipedia is very different from writing for academia. Academia expects one to cite primary sources, whereas Wikipedia's policies on original research and verifiability require that articles be based mainly on secondary sources. Wikipedia's guideline on reliable sources also stipulates that sources be published. So don't directly cite Lett's unpublished personal papers and letters. Ordinarily one would cite the biography for all facts and opinions. Direct quotes could be cited to the original source (if published, like a newspaper article) or to the original source "as quoted in" the biography. Complicating matters is that you wrote the biography. Citing yourself is allowed, but there are limits. You are not supposed to cite yourself excessively, or place undue emphasis on your work.

The notability guidelines generally expect multiple secondary sources. You wrote "I am the only global authority on William Pittman Lett". If you're the only person to have written about Lett, then you may encounter pushback both on the question of notability, and on self-citation, which in that case may be construed as promoting your book or yourself. That doesn't mean you should give up, but recognize the possibility and be prepared to make changes, perhaps by trimming back the use of interpretations made or conclusions drawn in your book. Things will go more smoothly if you can cite a couple other reliable secondary sources who've written about Lett independently of your work. They need not be authorities on him, and need not have produced an entire book about him, but perhaps they wrote a couple pages about him in a work about poetry, the city, or one of its mayors. In addition to the review process here, it may be profitable to solicit advice from Wikipedia:WikiProject poetry and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Ottawa. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

19:39:24, 10 March 2017 review of submission by Shian pryce

Username missing!
- No draft specified!

I am trying to submit an article of an artist that I want to write about and my article keeps getting denied. Am I doing something wrong?Shian pryce (talk) 19:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is about Nicole Jolicoeur, you have cited no sources at all. In particular, you have provided no evidence that she is notable. Maproom (talk) 20:43, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

19:43:25, 10 March 2017 review of submission by Nicole jolicoeur

Username missing!

{{ Nicole jolicoeur Please enter the pagename for the draft in question on the line above.

THEN TELL US WHY YOU ARE REQUESTING ASSISTANCE BELOW THIS LINE. Take as many lines as you need. -->}} I am wondering why I keep getting denied my article. Am not sure, maybe I am not doing it correctly.

Shian pryce (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Shian pryce. A fundamental problem with User:Shian pryce/sandbox and with Nicolejolicoeur is that they cite no independent reliable sources. Such sources are required in order to show that Jolicoeur is notable, in other words worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Furthermore, the bulk of the article should be based on such sources. You've compounded the problem by copying text, with minimal reworking, and without attribution, from the work of Adriane Little: [1] and [2].

Try to find books or journal articles written by academics, or magazine and newspaper articles written by professional art critics, about Jolicoeur. You may use Adriane Little's pages as a source of information, but need more viewpoints than just hers, and must put the material into your own words. --Worldbruce (talk) 21:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]