Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 July 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< July 26 << Jun | July | Aug >> July 28 >
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.


July 27

[edit]

03:32:19, 27 July 2022 review of submission by MCV2022

[edit]

 Courtesy link: User:MCV2022/sandbox

I have received the comment NOTCV for my draft which has not been accepted for publishing. I wanted to reconfirm that I must write it as an article and not as a chronologically numbered list of biographical body of work, and then resubmit. Thank you for the kind assistance. Regards, Mamathi MCV2022 (talk) 03:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. Biographies must be written in prose, and all articles require citations from reliable and independent sources. Additionally, I would highly recommend reading WP:Autobiography before continuing, as autobiographies are strongly discouraged. Curbon7 (talk) 14:36, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

05:03:16, 27 July 2022 review of draft by Patachonica

[edit]


Hi, is my draft ready for mainspace? Patachonica (talk) 05:03, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Patachonica: please wait for your draft to be reviewed; the review will assess precisely that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:43, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:37:33, 27 July 2022 review of submission by ಜಸ್ಟ್ ಇನಿಟ್

[edit]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Kabzaa


need to add movie name

ಜಸ್ಟ್ ಇನಿಟ್ (talk) 06:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a question. Can you elaborate, @ಜಸ್ಟ್ ಇನಿಟ್? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

07:51:28, 27 July 2022 review of submission by Wahab98

[edit]


I have provided all the necessary things and cited authentic news websites and all as well, kindly do let me know what do I need to update more.

Wahab98 (talk) 07:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wahab98: you needn't do anything, as this has been rejected (twice), and won't be considered further. Moreover, you mustn't create any more copies of the same. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Forget About the copies I a new to this platform won't create more now I know hot it works. but I have worked on this draft and make it sure to provided reliable independent and authentic sources as well, I am just asking reason to eject this draft so I can improve. Happy Writing
Thanks Wahab98 (talk) 04:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DRAFT:KURU_Footwear

[edit]

Re: Draft:KURU_Footwear: My article got declined, but I am not sure why. It has many good sources. Please check my source analysis in the Talk page and let me know if you think these are good or not. Please let me know how I can improve. These company's shoes have been rated as one of the best walking shoes by several publications, as you will see by the sources provided. Downinit9 (talk) 08:03, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Downinit9 Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about a company and what it does. An article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Press releases, the company website, staff interviews, brief mentions, and annoucements of routine business activities do not establish notability. Your sources do not have significant coverage of this company itself, most of them seem to briefly describe its products. 331dot (talk) 09:36, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you 331dot for your clarification. What I struggle to understand, is how several of these sources are not considered significant. Some of these are not mentions and they have several paragraphs of info. Have you checked these?
Lassonde Entrepreneur Institute
Healthline
Wired
The Salt Lake Tribune
Ad Exchanger
Also, the article is only using content from what the sources say. I am familiar with this requirement. If you can find any single sentence in this article that is not supported by a citation, please point it out.
My only other question is that which parts sound like an aadvertising, so I can modify them. Can someone provide specifics?
I am guessing this sentence may be an issue "Several publications such as Good Housekeeping, Men's Health, LiveStrong, Footwear News, Well+Good and The Teal Mango have ranked it as one of the best walking shoes." Would you say I should remove this? Although, I didn't try to pump up the company. This is what the articles have said. Downinit9 (talk) 17:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Downinit9 Interviews with the founder of the company(two of the sources) or other staff(another source) cannot be used to establish notability, as the founder speaking about the company he founded is a primary source. The Wired source is a review of one of the company's products, and says little about the company itself.
It's promotional(not "advertising"), as I said, because it just tells about the company and what it does. It doesn't discuss the influence or significance of the company in its field as seen by others(not the founder/other staff). 331dot (talk) 19:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
331dot - I get your point that the Wired article and possibly some of the other articles are about the shoes and not the company. In this case, can I submit a new page for "Kuru" shoes, vs. Kuru the company?
I have seen that many companies have both company pages and product pages. Example Nike (company), Nike Air Max, Nike Air Jordan, or McAfee Company, Mcafee VirusScan, etc. Downinit9 (talk) 20:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Downinit9 It is possible for there to be an article about a model of shoe produced by the company but not the company, or as you point out, articles about both. If there were more sources like the Wired one, with unsolicited reviews describing the significance of the product and not based on interviews with company staff or materials from the company, that might work. Depends on what is out there for sources. 331dot (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:57:41, 27 July 2022 review of draft by Jchiacchiaro

[edit]


Hello,

I am writing because my submission was rejected for having too many primary sources. How many primary sources are too many? Our history is mainly captured through our parent company, but I have tried to find some third party sources to corroborate the details I've listed. I added a few additional sources today to supplement the sources. Please review and advise. Thanks!


scienceisreal (talk) 13:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jchiacchiaro: it's not so much a problem of having too many primary sources, but rather one of not having enough secondary ones. Close primary sources don't contribute to notability, and when that's all you're citing, by definition notability isn't established. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:28:24, 27 July 2022 review of draft by Bucha121

[edit]


I recently tried submitting a draft for the company Triple Crown Sports, located in Fort Collins, Colorado. It was denied for lack of "reliable sources" and I'm trying to understand what I need to change. I used Triple Crown's own website as well as four different news articles about the company and its events in my short two-paragraph submission, so I'm trying to understand why these aren't considered reliable.

Thanks so much.

Bucha121 (talk) 14:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources are sources that are from both a reputable source and indepedent of the subject. Of course, the latter disqualifies the use of the subject's own website as a source (see WP:PRIMARY for more on that). In order to demonstrate notability, these reliable sources must also provide significant coverage of the subject, which none of the 4 other sources seem to do. Additionally, though some subjects may receive significant coverage in local sources, just because something is locally famous doesn't necessarily mean it is notable enough for inclusion on a global encyclopedia. Curbon7 (talk) 14:46, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:04:15, 27 July 2022 review of submission by Zamboni54

[edit]


I seem to have accidentally submitted two versions of a page for this museum. I received this notice "This appears to be a duplicate of another submission, Jim's Journey: The Huck Finn Freedom Center, which is also waiting to be reviewed. To save time we will consider the other submission and not this one." I have yet to hear back about the other submission of "Jim's Journey". The message came in about ten days ago so I'm just checking all is going forward. Thank you so much Zamboni54 (talk) 15:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC) Zamboni54 (talk) 15:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zamboni54: yes, I can see that the draft in your sandbox User:Zamboni54/sandbox was declined on the basis that another draft already exists occupying the correct name, at Draft:Jim's Journey: The Huck Finn Freedom Center. The latter hasn't been submitted for review, hence why you haven't heard back on it (not that you necessarily would after only ten days, anyway). You can submit it by clicking that blue 'submit' button. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you DoubleGrazing! Although I've used WikiEdu in a couple of my classes my skill set seems to have disappeared. . . I've edited and updated a number of articles but have only contributed one brief one before this. Will keep my eyes open. Very best, Zamboni54 (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:02:53, 27 July 2022 review of draft by 76.120.194.4

[edit]


This article includes many citations to a book that is not available online. The reviewer rejected it saying that online sources are not available, and pointing to a citations guideline.

However, the citations guideline says no such thing, merely that : "If your source is not available online, it should be available in reputable libraries, archives, or collections. If a citation without an external link is challenged as unavailable, any of the following is sufficient to show the material to be reasonably available (though not necessarily reliable): providing an ISBN or OCLC number; linking to an established Wikipedia article about the source (the work, its author, or its publisher); or directly quoting the material on the talk page, briefly and in context."

An ISBN was included for the book used most extensively.

Why does that not meet the criteria for a reliable source?


76.120.194.4 (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see that none of the regular Teahouse hosts have answered you yet. As far as I know, sources do not need to be available online. I hope one of the regular hosts chimes in here. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 06:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:11:00, 27 July 2022 review of submission by BassyOnDaBeat

[edit]

18:11:00, 27 July 2022 review of submission by BassyOnDaBeat BassyOnDaBeat (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BassyOnDaBeat: what is your question? Your draft has been deleted twice; my advice, whether you want to hear it or not, would be to drop this now. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:26:50, 27 July 2022 review of submission by Aayush nakhawa

[edit]


Aayush nakhawa (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected and will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. Please read WP:AUTO. 331dot (talk) 20:45, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2022_July_27&oldid=1101833184"