Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 September 1
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < August 31 | << Aug | September | Oct >> | September 2 > |
| 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. |
September 1
[edit]08:33:38, 1 September 2022 review of draft by Rob torreglia
[edit]
Good morning,
I tried to publish a new entry on wikipedia but It was refused as it does not rely on "reliable sources". I cannot understand why, as I have included 31 sources and among these appear the BBC, the Italian State Police and articles from Italian newspapers including two of the most renowned, il Sole24ore and Corriere della Sera. What should I put in to be reliable? A testimony from the Pope?
If so, can you please help me fix it so it gets published?
Best regards
Rob torreglia (talk) 08:33, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- Rob torreglia It may sound odd to hear, but you actually have too many sources. It is preferable to have fewer high quality sources rather than a large number of low quality sources. Most of the sources seem to just document the events he participated in and specific information about his life. To merit an article, there must be independent reliable sources with significant coverage of him summarized in this article. 331dot (talk) 08:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Rob torreglia: that decline reason can mean two different things, either a) that the sources are not reliable, or b) that the draft is not adequately supported by sources. I think the latter (at least) applies here: there is quite a lot of content which is unsupported; several paragraphs are without a single citation, and eg. the 'Career' section has only one citation, which comes in fairly late, and doesn't seem to provide much of the information that precedes it. This raises two related questions: 1) how do we know that the information is true, and 2) where did that information come from? (And no, a testimony from the Pope wouldn't be of any use here, as it would be an unpublished primary source.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:48, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- Rushistoriia (talk · contribs)
I am not sure why this article was deemed to not "sufficiently notable." Previous editors offered advice of how to show notability, but the most recent edit does not explain the reasons it was declined. Any advice on how to be more clear about the notability would be welcome.
Rushistoriia (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Rushistoriia:: Your offline sources are missing critical bibliographical content needed to locate the source, and should be cited with a relevant cite template (I presume
{{cite journal}}). In addition, the quoting here verges on excessive. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)- Are these different reasons not to accept it or that it needs revision, or are these considered things under "sufficiently notable"? Also, is there a different guide about "quoting verging on excessive" I am a bit confused since link goes to a discussion of copyrights. Rushistoriia (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Rushistoriia: That's considered under "sufficiently notable", since without enough bibliographical information to look the source up in an archive or library you're essentially telling someone looking for the source to use a magnet to look for a bone needle in a barn crammed with hay. And that link is very much deliberate. Excessive quotes are considered to be copyright violations. If you're lifting huge swathes of text from quotes, you're better off paraphasing what is being said. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:56, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- Are there other pieces of bibliographic evidence that needs to be included aside from: author, journal name, journal volume and issue number, year and month of publication and page numbers? Rushistoriia (talk) 15:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- The paper's
titleDOI. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:51, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- The paper's
- Are there other pieces of bibliographic evidence that needs to be included aside from: author, journal name, journal volume and issue number, year and month of publication and page numbers? Rushistoriia (talk) 15:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Rushistoriia: That's considered under "sufficiently notable", since without enough bibliographical information to look the source up in an archive or library you're essentially telling someone looking for the source to use a magnet to look for a bone needle in a barn crammed with hay. And that link is very much deliberate. Excessive quotes are considered to be copyright violations. If you're lifting huge swathes of text from quotes, you're better off paraphasing what is being said. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:56, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- Are these different reasons not to accept it or that it needs revision, or are these considered things under "sufficiently notable"? Also, is there a different guide about "quoting verging on excessive" I am a bit confused since link goes to a discussion of copyrights. Rushistoriia (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
22:06:47, 1 September 2022 review of submission by Baloo1047
[edit]
Baloo1047 (talk) 22:06, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Baloo1047: This page is both badly-sourced and blatantly promotional. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 22:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC)