Help desk
< October 9	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 11 >

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 10

03:24:50, 10 October 2022 review of draft by William Seeds

William Seeds (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Bienvenido Bones Banez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Here's the citations references from City University New York - And Bienvenido Bones Banez Jr listed on the notable art world with HR Giger, Ernst Fuchs, and other important Visionary art is a journey, an inner journey of interconnectedness, into a world of extraordinary imagination, encompassing and exploring the qualities of light and dark with a universal and personal focus. Utilizing images that run the spectrum of the human condition, elation to desperation. From the heart rises fantastic and astonishing works of art!

A new art world has emerged; we are witness to a burgeoning of creation. A new and exciting culture, not just an art movement; whose life stems from a central point of inner growth, development and experience into the deep and intimate exploration of spirit with visual expression as key to its understanding.

An organic process of transformation occurs within the sacred and fertile inner world. It shifts from a meditative experience into a culture expressly manifested for the now and the future. It is the visionary who can create in this ‘place’ in a most compelling and extraordinary way!

     https://artgallery.qcc.cuny.edu/exhibits/visionaries/?fbclid=IwAR3lHa2v0qkpRbtbRHqfqt1TfcEOJKioSUKkBoOj3OhLscV2p4WSUvPd5fQ

William Seeds (talk) 03:24, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@William Seeds: do you have a question you wish to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:08, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

William Seeds, your draft contains vast swathes of unreferenced, non-neutral content laden down with impenetrable jargon. That's completely inappropriate for a neutral, well-referenced encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 05:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to ask for a Checkuser; this may be Concernsavant (talk · contribs) just going off of what they write above, which is very similar to the repeatedly shot down arguments he made. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 06:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And CU comes back confirmed. I guess we can call this request moot. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 09:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:19:29, 10 October 2022 review of submission by Ernu dasha

Ernu dasha (talk · contribs)

I am a researcher in Australia. I noticed my colleagues published some new results In Nature on a few new fossil fish species, so I created a few wiki draft pages to ensure they are captured as the findings/discoveries are extraordinary and very important for the evolutionary biology field and the public to know about. I am amazed my submission got rejected. I would like to know why, as the reviewer didn't put any proper comments. The findings are just published. As such, it will only be 1 reference/citation linked to the discovery. I would question if the reviewer is qualified to assess my drafts. I would like to find out how could I get them published.

Ernu dasha (talk) 10:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ernu dasha: your draft wasn't rejected, it was only declined, meaning you are welcome to resubmit it once you have addressed the reason for declining. That reason being, the draft only lists a single source, and doesn't cite it correctly — please see WP:REFB for advice on referencing.

As for the reviewer's expertise or otherwise in the subject matter, please do not make assumptions, especially as this has no bearing on the draft review process. The review mainly looks at whether the draft meets Wikipedia's core policies for inclusion, not whether the information provided is factually correct or not; for that, we rely on verifiable published sources. Which takes us back to my previous point: with only one source cited, we need to see something else to corroborate the information. If this means having to wait until more publications appear, so be it — Wikipedia is not published to a deadline. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:32, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This is helpful. I will see what can I do. 121.45.173.114 (talk) 10:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:48:35, 10 October 2022 review of submission by Gardenkur

Gardenkur (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Indian Ports Association (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Editors. The subject of this article is a Government undertaking managing the operation of Indian ports. There is no advertisement and promotional portions in the article. It highlights as information the functions of the institution. The institution facilitates trade through waters internationally. Request your opinion on the same. Thanks. Gardenkur (talk) 11:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC) Gardenkur (talk) 11:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gardenkur Wikipedia is not a place to merely document the existence of an organization and what it does- it is a place to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about an organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. The reviewer rejected your draft, meaning that it will not be considered further, because they think that the prospect of that occurring is low to nonexistent. If you have independent sources that give this organization significant coverage as to its importance or influence(and not just tell what it does), please first appeal to the reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 12:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 331dot. Thanks for your reply. I understand as you have suggested here and followed content and references accordingly. However previous reviewer Hatchens is currently blocked. How to proceed. Gardenkur (talk) 11:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gardenkur Didn't realize they were blocked. Okay. The edits you have made in recent days are just more of the same, we don't want a mere summary of what the organization does. If that's all you have, I think the rejection was correct. What we need are sources that on their own describe the importance or significance of the organization, not just tell us what they do. That they operate ports is not particularly significant in and of itself- there must be something else about them. Please see Port Authority of New York and New Jersey for an example of this. They are notable for not only managing ports, but other transportation infrastructue in two US states, and one port that they operate is the largest cargo handler in the Eastern US. That article does not just tell us what they do, but summarizes its history. That the IPA manages 12 ports could be significant- but we need to know how. Is that something you can do? What sources do you have that might do that? 331dot (talk) 11:56, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 331dot. Thanks for your prompt and detailed response. In addition to content added a few references showing their notability. However will follow your guidance highlighting its significance. Gardenkur (talk) 12:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 331dot. Hope you are keeping well. After reading the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey article, I added more references to summarise the importance of Indian Ports Association in the management of 12 ports under it. Kindly review it and guide me on moving it to main space. Thanking you in advance. Gardenkur (talk) 10:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion of the draft remains unchanged. You just added some citations and reworded some. Are there any sources that discuss the economic impact of this organization to India? Like so much trade value passing through their ports? Perhaps others who see this will disagree with me, but I think unless something changes this topic has reached its end. 331dot (talk) 10:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:07:33, 10 October 2022 review of submission by Jnean777

Jnean777 (talk · contribs)

Hi There,

I was directed to come back here and ask a question about my draft being denied. It says the references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. Will you please let me know why? The references are from verifiable sources.

Thanks so much!

Jnean777 (talk) 15:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jnean777 I've placed a link to your draft in the proper place so we know what you are discussing. It's not the sources themselves that are necessarily the issue, but their content. Most of them do not seem to be significant coverage of him personally. 331dot (talk) 15:11, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:15:53, 10 October 2022 review of draft by Wikibaker

Wikibaker (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Ania Malinowska (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wiki Team - thank you in advance for your support and for sharing your expertise.

This is my first Wikipedia article and I have made several additions and revisions subsequent to the recommendations from Asilvering . As such, I have two questions:

1) What further revisions / additions would be recommended prior to me resubmitting the article for review and approval?

2) On the Talk page of my article, there are several suggestions for Wikiprojects for which the article would be a fit. I presume that I should not take action on pursuing those Wikiprojects until the article has been approved, correct?

I would welcome any input to help get this article published, so thanks again for your help.

Wikibaker (talk) 19:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikibaker: I've had a look at this draft and its sources, and, as the earlier reviewer has also suggested, my gut feel is that the subject is probably notable, but I cannot find quite enough proof of that by the general WP:GNG or the special WP:NPROF route. So my advice would be to decide which types of notability you wish to assert, and then strengthen the evidence for that. (Having said which, you are of course free to resubmit the draft as it stands, and it's possible that another reviewer will be happy to accept it.)

As for the Wikiproject tags listed on the talk page, they're just there to flag up the draft to those projects as an upcoming article of possible interest to them. You can ignore them. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for sharing your advise and expertise, User:DoubleGrazing I will follow your counsel accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibaker (talk • contribs) 03:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]