Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 October 2
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < October 1 | << Sep | October | Nov >> | October 3 > |
| 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. |
October 2
[edit]04:02:07, 2 October 2019 review of draft by Sumeetworld
[edit]- Sumeetworld (talk · contribs)
I need help regarding this article. I have made the changes as best as I can. Can this be kindly reviewed and let me know what needs to be corrected so this can be published if possible ?
I can remove the last section other recommended readings and videos if needed.
Sumeetworld (talk) 04:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Sumeetworld. The draft has been in the pool to be reviewed since the end of July. The current backlog is four and a half months, so you can anticipate a review around mid-December.
- Six external links is a high number. One is normal. Each additional one beyond that becomes harder and harder to justify, so you may indeed wish to review the guidelines on external links and trim that section. "Other Recommended Readings and Videos" is an unusual name for a section. Are they just more external links, or do you intend some of them to be further reading? You may wish to review the standard layout, naming, and content of final sections and continue improving the draft while you wait for a review. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
09:08:13, 2 October 2019 review of draft by UEL Giles
[edit]
On the Wikipedia page that lists vice-chancellors of British universities I successfully updated the previous holder of the post with the new holder. I then created a stub for the present holder - Amanda Broderick. This replicated exactly the stub of the previous holder and mirrored the stubs of other vice-chancellors (stating, with reference from a newspaper simply that they held the post). It is not clear to me why this stub has been removed for the reasons given when other stubs that offered exactly the same amount of information and exactly the same referencing have been accepted. My understanding was that stubs were specifically created to grow a subject from a small start. And yet it has been excluded for providing not enough coverage. More referencing and background could be provided but does that not challenge the idea of the stub? I do not understand the balance. I would be grateful for any guidance on this.
UEL Giles (talk) 09:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- Hi UEL Giles. Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality articles and poor quality articles. The existence of an article does not mean it meets Wikipedia's requirements or has been "accepted". It may only mean that no one has gotten around to deleting it yet. So generally it isn't productive to compare a draft to other pages. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why. When discussing whether a draft is acceptable for publication, it's safer to argue from policies and guidelines
- The relevant guideline is WP:PROF. The draft says only that she is vice-chancellor of the University of East London, so presumably you are making the case that she is notable under criterion #6: "The person has held a highest-level ... administrative post at a major academic institution". You would have to ask the reviewer, Liance, why they didn't pass it on those grounds. Their decision might hinge on how "major academic institution" is interpreted. If it were Imperial College or the London School of Economics, we probably wouldn't be discussing this, but UEL? They regularly rank in the bottom third of British universities. Is any university, or any British university automatically a "major academic institution"? Perhaps, or perhaps not.
- You can debate "major" if you want, but your choice of username suggests that you have a conflict of interest (although you haven't declared one), so your view may not be entirely objective. Broderick probably satisfies other criteria of WP:PROF, so it may be easier to expand the draft slightly so that it doesn't rely solely on criterion #6 and a university press release printed in a local paper. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
17:02:56, 2 October 2019 review of submission by JachPek
[edit]
I would like to ask for a new check of this article draft. I wrote a completely new version which was firstly published on cs.wiki half year ago and is based on many different sources. I also found one case study aboud this NGO published in a historical book about modern history of Jáchymov and will add it to the article soon. Thank you. JachPek (talk) 17:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- Hi JachPek. To request a new review, add the code
{{subst:submit}}to the top of the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
18:24:52, 2 October 2019 review of draft by Sandrow studio
[edit]
I don't understand the instructions for how I can add correct content to the stub page for artist Hope Sandrow...please help.
Sandrow studio (talk) 18:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Hope Sandrow. Because of your conflict of interest, you should not edit the article Hope Sandrow directly. The guideline Wikipedia:Autobiography contains more information. If you are unblocked, you may propose changes to the article by writing on its talk page, Talk:Hope Sandrow. The most effective method is to use the {{request edit}} template. See Template:Request edit/doc for an explanation of how to use it. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
19:07:59, 2 October 2019 review of submission by 2605:E000:4EA2:DA00:1CEA:A64F:ABEE:411B
[edit]Hello, I am requesting a re-review for the page for David Amber. I believe that David Amber is sufficiently notable to have a page on Wikipedia. Through his music production in the last couple years, David Amber has received international attention. Especially for his production of "Heart Shaker" and "Yes or Yes" by Twice, a major KPOP group in South Korea. I have made some edits to the wording of the paragraphs to remove any potentially promotional language. Please review. If this is still not enough, please provide feedback on how I can improve this page to be qualified for the Wikipedia page. 2605:E000:4EA2:DA00:1CEA:A64F:ABEE:411B (talk) 19:07, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- The relevant notability guideline for producers is WP:GNG. The draft cites two primary source interviews with little or no independent analysis, and many charts, none of which demonstrate notability. Novice editors are commonly advised to cite at least three independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage of their topic. What you're looking for is three profiles of him (or pieces containing at least a few paragraphs about him) that aren't written by him, and aren't interviews in which he's promoting himself. Such sources are uncommon for producers and other behind the scenes contributors. The reviewer concluded that no such sources exist for Amber, so volunteers do not intend to review the draft again. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
19:26:27, 2 October 2019 review of submission by Pholcomb9
[edit]
This is not an autobiography. This is an up and coming basketball player playing in New Jersey. Please let me know if this changes anything.
Pholcomb9 (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- No it changes nothing I'm afraid, the basketball player is not yet notable in Wikipedia terms. Theroadislong (talk) 19:59, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
20:40:57, 2 October 2019 review of draft by Professorjacobs
[edit]I've been a long time reader at Wikipedia and I wanted to help out by making a page for the host of a Netflix show I like. I made a draft of the page and submitted it almost 8 weeks ago? It was reviewed once. No one's looked at it since then? What's going on? I'm trying to help out here and it feels like no one's interested in adding more pages. The name of the page is Nick Uhas. I wonder what's going on here!
Professorjacobs (talk) 20:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- Professorjacobs It could take up to 8 weeks before someone reviews your draft due to the number of drafts waiting to be reviewed. Whispering(t) 01:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Professorjacobs. To clarify, the best guess is that it will taken another 8 weeks, perhaps 9, before the draft is reviewed. It was submitted on 29 July. Reviewers are still working on drafts submitted on 22 May. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:48, 3 October 2019 (UTC)