Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2018 May 11
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < May 10 | << Apr | May | Jun >> | May 12 > |
| 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. |
May 11
[edit]Is unofficial feedback possible?
[edit]Don't want to waste anybody's time, but is it possible to get unofficial feedback from one or more Afc editors on a draft that various editors are contributing to? Don't really need or want to go through Afc formally, because we've got tons of experience among us, and probably everybody is autopatrolled, but additional eyeballs/opinions about if and where to improve the draft before moving to article space would be welcome. If that's not something you do, np; but if so, I'll link the draft if you ping me. Basically the question would be, Is this draft ready for prime-time, and if not, what areas do you see as needing improvement? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:56, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Mathglot: it'd be easier to tell if you just link us the article here so all of us can see it, and see if it's in our area of expertise/interest. MatthewVanitas (talk) 08:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- Matthew, Thanks for your reply. I was poking around your project, and I can see you have a huge backlog, so don't want to burden you too much with this. OTOH, I'll link your WP:AFCR section on our Talk page, and we'll go through the list as much as we can. When we're done with that, I'll post a link here and if you or anybody wants to have a quick look, that'd be fine, otherwise we'll be good to go. Thanks again, Mathglot (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
04:35:48, 11 May 2018 review of submission by Ajs singh
[edit]Why my article is declined and not accepted? Ajs singh (talk) 04:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- Ajs singh - I declined the draft as it has not got any sources. Reliable sources are essential on Wikipedia as they show Notability and allow readers to Verify the content. Without sources, you can't really have an article. KJP1 (talk) 04:52, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- KJP1 First-timer lurking here, but if your assessment instructions don't already say to check for duplicate articles, maybe you could change them so that they do. This goes double for article titles involving transliteration. There is already a complete article about this topic, it is Kulcha. This draft should be deleted. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 22:33, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- Mathglot - a helpful reminder. Checking for duplicates/copyvio are down as checks but it's easy to forget them. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 05:10, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- KJP1 First-timer lurking here, but if your assessment instructions don't already say to check for duplicate articles, maybe you could change them so that they do. This goes double for article titles involving transliteration. There is already a complete article about this topic, it is Kulcha. This draft should be deleted. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 22:33, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- Ajs singh - I declined the draft as it has not got any sources. Reliable sources are essential on Wikipedia as they show Notability and allow readers to Verify the content. Without sources, you can't really have an article. KJP1 (talk) 04:52, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
07:55:22, 11 May 2018 review of submission by Adidoodle
[edit]Would like to understand why the two reference links provided in the article are not notable enough. According to Wikipedia: Notability(organizations and companies), an article is not notable if it's a single sentence mention but the reference links provided are dedicated articles. Do throw light on the same. Adidoodle (talk) 07:55, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- Adidoodle - it’s the quality of the sourcing as much as the quantity. Both are interviews, probably PR-driven. The second is the better of the two, but it’s a blog. Neither amounts to significant coverage in reliable sources. Also, do you have a conflict of interest and, if so, have you declared it? KJP1 (talk) 08:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
11:03:42, 11 May 2018 review of submission by Personale
[edit]- @Personale: This article will be most likely declined. The following sources are unreliable : 1 (WP:DAILYMAIL), 3 (Twitch, social network) and 4 (wiki). -- » Shadowowl | talk 14:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
14:47:30, 11 May 2018 review of submission by Tembleking
[edit]- Tembleking (talk · contribs)
Would like to understand why the submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. All links provided seems to be reliable and are independent secondary sources and I believe the subject is worth a page in Wikipedia given it's repo commits and community. If you could ellaborate a little bit more and explain me how to improve this page, I will be grateful. Tembleking (talk) 14:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Tembleking: Your sources are primarily blogs and GitHub. Independent, secondary sources that focus on the subject (not just a passing mention) are required. JTP (talk • contribs) 15:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
So... blogs and Github pages are not valid references? Are this links valid sources? Tecmint Techcrunch Crunchbase Cloud.gov — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tembleking (talk • contribs) 17:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- Nope, blogs (such as Tecmint) are not reliable sources; and the cloud.gov link, for example, just shows that they use sysdig, which does not make it notable. We need substantial coverage, not namechecks. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:28, 11 May 2018 (UTC)