Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 November 29
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < November 28 | << Oct | November | Dec >> | November 30 > |
| 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. |
November 29
[edit]00:43:54, 29 November 2017 review of submission by Webern1348
[edit]- Webern1348 (talk · contribs)
- No draft specified!
When I am rejected they keep questioning whether the information is notable. If they were to examine the subject matter they could see why it is notable. There is a large number of people with pages who are not remotely close to the quality of the subject in question here. Is popularity the only issue in such matters?
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Webern1348 (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Webern1348: Hello, Webern. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Calling the basic issue one of "popularity" isn't quite correct -- but it's not entirely wrong. Whether or not the subject is "worthy", in some intrinsic sense, of having an article doesn't enter into the determination. Instead, what we are looking for is evidence that the subject has received substantial notice from authoritative sources in the subject's field. And all you've given us is two articles from 2012 -- one a local-coverage piece in the Salt Lake Tribune and the other an interview with a California-based website. To us, this doesn't appear to make the subject a "notable" composer. In order to make that demonstration, you'll need to show that the composer has been the subject of sustained in-depth coverage by reliable sources. Without making that showing, it is unlikely that your submission will be accepted for publication here.
On a less urgent matter, did you really intend to write an article about the composer? Virtually everything in your submission addresses that one composition, so much so that the submission might be more-accurately titled "Centrifugal Satz Clock". But that wouldn't change the need to show sustained in-depth discussion from authoritative sources. I mention it only because it struck me as odd to see a biography that didn't say much about the person.
I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
05:11:55, 29 November 2017 review of submission by Alysiamazzella
[edit]My draft has been rejected twice because it "sounds promotional." I am requesting help to fix the issue specifically. What do I need to omit or include for my article to be approved. I've researched and read many how to articles but still, I am confused of exactly why my article is being declined.
Alysiamazzella (talk) 05:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- Alysiamazzella Thanks for your contribution here and sorry about the rejections. This is a tricky one. I have started a discussion with other reviewers. You may wish to follow it. ~Kvng (talk) 17:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- Timea Orban (talk · contribs)
Hi, my article got declined for the second time already, so I'm wondering what the problem might be. I'm open to any and all suggestions on how to improve this piece. It's quite disappointing, because I thought I corrected everything that the review suggested. Please help me fix this, Thanks
Timea Orban (talk) 13:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Timea Orban: Due to a lot of recent efforts to use Wikipedia for WP:PROMOTIONAL purposes, we are requiring very strong evidence of notability for submissions such as yours. Please see WP:CORPDEPTH for a detailed description of these requirements. Additionally reviewers are requiring that the writing in these submission have a strict neutral point of view. This can best be achieved by stripping the article down to the bare essentials. Once accepted as an article, it can then be improved collaboratively to restore the removed information. ~Kvng (talk) 17:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
19:01:07, 29 November 2017 review of submission by Nayirim
[edit]
I have removed all external links from the draft entry I'm working on, but I'm wondering -- is there an appropriate way to use external links? For example, I have a footnote after "Galaxy Project" but it seems that it might be helpful to also share a link to https://galaxyproject.org/. I'm also wondering what could be done if there's no footnote but there's an external link available. On the draft I've created, I refer to the International Workshop on Science Gateways. I don't have a footnote for the workshop, but there's a link I could connect to http://iwsg-life.org/site/iwsglife/.
Is there ever an instance where this is acceptable on Wikipedia and, if so, what's the best way to go about doing so? Would an external link be added as a footnote, too? I noticed on this page that there are some external links below the footnotes in an "external links" section at the very bottom: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TeraGrid
Thanks!
Nayirim (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Nayirim: I can help you with your questions but it looks like the larger issue is that there is already an article on this topic, Web portal, on Wikipedia. The reviewer suggested back in July that you consider incorporating this material into that existing article. Let me know if you have any questions about how to do that. ~Kvng (talk) 20:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I would like to have this decision reconsidered which is why I need the help. I submitted a question to the Help Desk a few weeks ago about it. This is the question I submitted:
"I am revisiting this entry as I'd like to get something posted about science gateways soon. As I have been considering adding it to the web portal page, I'm a bit concerned as to how to appropriately integrate it. Science gateways, which are an international topic of interest have enough information about them that would cause an imbalance if I tried to integrate with the web portal section since there are a number of lists and subsections within the "science gateway" entry draft. Moreover, I considered adding it to the Virtual Research Environments page but I realized that VREs are a subset of science gateways, not the other way around. Finally, I considered the entry of "gateway (webpage)" but the "science gateway" content does not fit with this either.
Can you please advise if it would be appropriate to add all the content I've created in the "science gateway" draft in the web portal entry and, if so, how I would then create (per your suggestion) a redirect. If this is not appropriate, then I am hoping my request to make this a new entry can be reconsidered. The person who originally reviewed this entry has been blocked."
It was suggested that I work with Talk:Web portal to figure out how to integrate all this information on that page, to which I replied:
"Ok, I will try that route. Before I do so, though, can you please let me know if there's any way my request to make this a new entry will be reconsidered? I think it would be challenging and not fit very well with the suggestions made to incorporate in the web portal page. As you can see, I have created a significant amount of content."
And heard back:
@Nayirim: Yes, you can request a reconsideration simply by re-submitting the draft for review. It will take a few weeks before someone gets around to looking at it, but you'll get the opinion of a third editor and perhaps that person will view the draft more favorably. I do think it fair, however, to point out that a lot of your content is unsourced and will probably generate a decline even from a reviewer who might otherwise have accepted the notability of the topic. There's also quite a few in-article external links (i.e., links inside the main text that take the reader outside of Wikipedia). These are almost never acceptable. So, if you do choose to re-submit, you might want to address those matters first. Whatever your choice, I wish you good luck. If we can be of any further assistance, please let us know. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Nayirim: Thanks for the context. Please be aware that at the moment, different reviewers are operating to different standards. Our basic requirements for acceptance of new articles are notability lack of copyright violation issues and a reasonably neutral point of view. As NewYorkActuary points out here, we have some reviewers who will decline for other less significant concerns as well. As I read it, the advice given to you was to resubmit immediately and while you are waiting for another review, go ahead and make some of these further improvements to address the less significant concerns. We don't actually expect a new editor such as yourself to figure out the preferred way to present external links. If your draft gets rejected for something like this, please contact me and I will try to help. ~Kvng (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
This is really useful, thank you! I will get the draft resubmitted.