Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 August 11
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < August 10 | << Jul | August | Sep >> | August 12 > |
| 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. |
August 11
[edit]07:51:54, 11 August 2021 review of draft by 193.116.196.59
[edit]
My submitted article keeps getting rejected and I don't know why.
193.116.196.59 (talk) 07:51, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- We don't accept essays. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 04:15, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
08:15:11, 11 August 2021 review of draft by RuthIrl
[edit]
Can I please ask for help identifying the main areas of issue with Women in Computing Europe? I tried hard to follow the format of an existing Wikipedia page which is not mine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_computing_in_Canada
Points are backed up referenced material so I don't see where my personal opinion came in. I had thought that I did not include any opinion. I am not arguing, I just would appreciate help in identifying the issues so that I can correct them. I would like to get the page up in the best form it can take.
Thank you for reviewing the work.
RuthIrl (talk) 08:15, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I am trying to create this new article here, but it got refused now for the third time because of "not adequately supported by reliable sources":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kamo_River_(Russia)
The article has in fact two linked references to Russian web pages where the information can be verified. There are also Wikipedia articles in six other languages already about the exact same Kamo river with pretty much the same basic information, see: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1174185
There is even a map (used in another article before) showing the exact location of the river. What other "reliable sources" should be added so that the article can be accepted? I am starting to get tired of this process.
83.248.133.222 (talk) 08:36, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- I have reviewed and accepted the article. For named geographic features such as rivers, mountains, lakes, etc. proof of existence is enough. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:08, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
14:02:48, 11 August 2021 review of draft by Hearvox
[edit]
Mystified by the Wikipedia new-article submission review process. Submitted an extensively sourced draft on Headwaters Economics, a U.S., nonprofit, nonpartisan research firm, which has done pioneering work in wildfire/WUI and the value of public lands.
First, I was inaccurately accused of being paid or having a financial connection with the article's subject, then that the article lacked independently verifiable sources, even tho each sentence was a statement of fact and most were footnoted with links to major national news and academic outlets that use HE research.
Now, even tho the article is mostly unchanged, the financial connection and lack of sourcing objections have been dropped. But the problem is now that HE is not of enough consequence to justify a Wikipedia entry. This cannot be true when nearly every major news outlet has relied on HE research for their articles: NY Times, WaPo, NPR, etc. If the major media publications which use HE research are notable, then the research itself and the organization which produces it must also be notable. I'm done pursuing this project/draft. Just wanted to inform the Wiki community you may have a reviewing issue.
Other than that, thanks so much for all your work.
Hearvox (talk) 14:02, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
15:55:41, 11 August 2021 review of draft by Walking Weird Studios
[edit]
Can I get help finding good sources for my page?
Walking Weird Studios (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Walking Weird Studios: A good way to find reliable sources is to ask a librarian. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:45, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Walking Weird Studios: A quick search of Google for YouTuber “Shnobbs” turns up zero reliable independent sources, I fear you are wasting your time trying to create an article on them. Theroadislong (talk) 16:03, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
20:34:01, 11 August 2021 review of draft by Bollinmoor
[edit]- Bollinmoor (talk · contribs)
Hello. I created a draft of an article about a Ukrainian scientist. But there are not enough sources.
I found encyclopedias in the library. Can these articles be used?
Link to file hosting
https://fex.net/ru/s/m1t79za
I also found Nazarenko's books and newspaper articles. Do I need to add them as proof of his work?
thank you for your help and advice
Bollinmoor (talk) 20:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- Jms19961996 (talk · contribs)
Hello. I am having trouble with the article on William Rothman that I wrote, which recently received its third rejection. My issue is that the feedback in the most recent review seems to directly contradict some of the opinions of a previous reviewer, which leaves me stuck as to how to proceed with resubmitting it. I also found the general tone and conduct of the most recent reviewer to be quite unprofessional and inappropriate; not to mention the lack of detail or specificity in their overall review. It seems as if they just did not like or care for the article at all, despite the efforts I put into rectifying the issues raised by the previous reviewer(s), none of whom raised the question of notability. I was under the impression the article was pretty close to being published until the most recent review, which has left me wondering what to do next. Please advise. Thanks. Jms19961996 (talk) 20:36, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Jms19961996: You need more reliable sources about him or his books. See WP:RS. TechnoTalk (talk) 23:45, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
20:45:06, 11 August 2021 review of submission by Ashokreddy
[edit]- Ashokreddy (talk · contribs)
Hi - this is a genuine edition, am trying for a long time. This movie is significant in Krishna (Telugu actor) career, and I posted all the links I could find. Telugu movies dont have too many supporting links to add. I have even added Amazon links for this movie's music. Not sure what else I can do to reconsider this page. Please advise. Ashokreddy (talk) 20:45, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Ashokreddy: Sorry, but there are not enough independent sources to show that the film is notable. Without more sources, the draft will not be approved. Amazon and IMDB are not considered suitable to show notability. TechnoTalk (talk) 23:42, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
23:45:07, 11 August 2021 review of draft by HalfMoonWiki
[edit]- HalfMoonWiki (talk · contribs)
New article: Draft:StormForge I noticed this new article was declined, even before I had finished editing 8-)
This article is about the software company http://www.stormforge.io
The reason given for rejection is that the references were not sufficiently independent, could you comment on that before I continue editing?
More:
- Most of the references were from well-known publications such as Forbes, CRN, TechRepublic and similar.
- I discovered that four references were re-used, was that a primary reason? I can remove duplicates if preferred
- I also plan to add an Infobox with company logo and founders, would that assist in approval?
HalfMoonWiki (talk) 23:45, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- Hi HalfMoonWiki. BizJournals is an independent, reliable, secondary source containing significant coverage. The rest, not so much. Forbes.com/sites by contributors rather than staff are not the same as Forbes magazine. They are blogs, so not reliable sources for facts. Indeed, in my experience they're strong contra-indicators of notability. Perhaps only hopelessly non-notable companies pay to be blogged about there. TechCrunch appears to be a regurgitated press release, so not independent. Container Journal, CRN, and TechRepublic are trade rags, a type of publication specifically excluded by WP:NCORP from those that help demonstrate notability. Two of them, moreover, are "best of", "top 100" or similar lists, also excluded by WP:NCORP, making them doubly unsuitable. The presence or absence of an infobox will have zero influence on the fate of the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:53, 12 August 2021 (UTC)