Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 February 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< February 2 << Jan | February | Mar >> February 4 >
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.


February 3[edit]

05:37, 3 February 2024 review of submission by Nzkaioshin[edit]

Hi,

I have had this page rejected for submission a few times and I would like some feedback/assistance on how to improve it. In particular, I want to know how I might improve the structure, tone and the range of sources to meet notability criteria for an academic.

I believe that the page meets at least one of the eight academic-specific criteria, if it doesn't I'd like to know what would need to be changed. I received some feedback from a user in Teahouse that it is perhaps too soon for this person to have a notable career as he is a Senior Lecturer as opposed to Associate/full Professor. I do notice that most staff at this university (Massey University) that have pages are in higher academic standing.

Any assistance would be greatly appreciated - thanks! Nzkaioshin (talk) 05:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nzkaioshin: it's not that one has to be a full tenured professor, let alone holding a named chair or similar, to be a notable academic, but there is a certain correlation between those things, given that one's notability prospects obviously grow along with one's academic career.
There's nothing in this draft that would suggest any obvious WP:NACADEMIC notability (and the sources cited fall short of general WP:GNG notability also), but you said you believe this person does meet at least one criterion of NACADEMIC – which one would that be, and on what basis do you assert it? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense, thanks. I suppose it just means it's much more difficult to prove notability for academics below a certain standing, even if they are notable in their own way.
The only criteria that I think realistically applies is the first, but can I ask what would amount to a "significant impact" in this case, and what number of independent, reliable sources would help quantify this? I only ask because it can be quite subjective to determine. According to the specific criteria notes, it mentions the academic having authored highly cited work - in this person's case, he's had 40 citations across 14 documents according to Scopus. Is that a relatively low number? Nzkaioshin (talk) 06:48, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nzkaioshin: academics "below a certain standing", as you put it, usually need to rely on the WP:GNG general notability guideline (which applies to most subjects on Wikipedia; the NACADEMIC one is among a few exceptions to this) to establish their notability; in other words, they need to show significant coverage in independent and reliable secondary sources. Whether this is easier or more difficult, I'm not sure – arguably easier, if such sources exist, but impossible if they don't.
The "significant impact" is explained in the criteria notes, as you will have discovered already. Whichever of the points a–i you wish to rely on, we need evidence to back that up. Point a, level of citations, is often (rightly or wrongly) equated to the h-index metric alone, but that's quite a simplistic view, and in any case can be misleading as citability depends on many factors – one person's h-index of 15 may actually be high for their domain, another's 30 may be low. Anyway, this person's h-index of (per Scopus) does seem very low to me, and I wouldn't think that would suffice as evidence of satisfying point 1.a of the guideline. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:09, 3 February 2024 review of submission by 2603:7000:E300:271D:CE7:6397:C2F7:2DC8[edit]

This should be published. 2603:7000:E300:271D:CE7:6397:C2F7:2DC8 (talk) 07:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, not. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:22, 3 February 2024 review of submission by 195.137.183.2[edit]

Hi I am not sure, if this draft has been forgotten, of if I just should be more patient? :)

Regards, Anna 195.137.183.2 (talk) 07:22, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This draft was reviewed and declined on 25 November, and has not been resubmitted since, so nothing is happening with it at the moment. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! Thank you. 195.137.183.2 (talk) 07:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: If you're AnnaStoneG, please remember to log into your account when editing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you. I just did that. I also saw that I must have submitted the article, perhaps another draft (?), on the 7'th of December. Perhaps I have just submitted the same changes for the second time.
Is that bad to do? AnnaStoneG (talk) 08:21, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AnnaStoneG: I can only see the one draft. You did edit it on Dec 7, in quite a major way.
And to answer your question, yes it would be 'bad' to create multiple drafts on the same subject, as that causes all sorts of problems. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I think I am might be understanding it now. I was confused of the "publish" versus "resubmit". Now I have submitted it again. And hopefully I have only been submitting the same draft. I think that is the case. Thank you so much for your heltp. It is really appreciated :) AnnaStoneG (talk) 12:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know when it is better to use citations and when is is better to use direct links? I have just edited so that direct links are only Wiki articles, and citations are all external links. Is that a good idea? AnnaStoneG (talk) 12:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AnnaStoneG: that's correct. There should be no inline external links in the body text. In fact, with the exception of one (optional) external link in the (optional) infobox, there should be no links pointing to external (non-Wikipedia) sources anywhere before the footnotes in the 'References' section. Only internal links (aka. 'wikilinks') pointing to other Wikipedia articles are allowed in the body text. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:03, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thank you. Then I still have some work to do 😅 I need to remove all external links ALSO from the lower sections and make a references sections where I have them all. Really informative - thank you. AnnaStoneG (talk) 05:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or no actually. It is probably good as it is now. AnnaStoneG (talk) 05:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AnnaStoneG: the problem now is that most of the content is unreferenced, with all the referencing coming only in the 'Exhibitions' and later sections. In articles on living people, every material statement, anything potentially contentious, and all private personal details must be clearly supported by inline citations to reliable published sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I have been mixing citations and links: Citations MUST be there, links can NOT be in the body of the text. Still learning… AnnaStoneG (talk) 14:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank agaaaaain. AnnaStoneG (talk) 14:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's right – inline citations required (or at least very much preferred), inline external links not allowed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aand the citations are back in! Is it bad that citations are repeated in the lower sections? Should I just delete those or is it better that evere statement is supported every time mentioned? AnnaStoneG (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AnnaStoneG: not sure what you mean by 'lower sections'?
If you mean multiple (ie. 'repeated') citations of the same source in the 'References' section, then ideally you would avoid these by using named references (see WP:NAMEDREFS), but it's not a cardinal sin if you don't.
If you mean repeating sources, which are already used for referencing, by also listing them in the various appendices ('External links', 'Further reading', etc. sections), then no, you strictly speaking shouldn't do that, although it is quite common to see it done. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you :) By “lower sections” I mean the sections from “Exhibitions” and down. For instance especially in the sections “Exhibitions” and “Awards” I have a lot (of the same citations as in “Biography”. I think my issue is the first you described, so I will look in to “named references”. Thanks again again. AnnaStoneG (talk) 18:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have to skip the Named References. It is really hard to understand what to do at my humble level. As soon as code pops up I am having a hard time... Thanks for the tip anyway. Then I just have to hope that usind the same ref twice without naming is "not a cardinal sin" ;) AnnaStoneG (talk) 07:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:17, 3 February 2024 review of submission by Lizzy0213[edit]

About resources If the draft I create does not have reliable information on the Internet, but the content is recognized in daily life. Which method can I use to create this related article? Thank you so much. Lizzy0213 (talk) 13:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lizzy0213: before I categorically say that you do need reliable sources to back up any article, can you be a bit more specific, please – what do you mean by "recognized in daily life"? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the answers. 'recognized in daily life' I mean this fact may be well known, but lacks professional verification yet. I want to submit the articular about a kind of cat(this kind named 'Linqing lion cat', I did not find reliable recourses in English. Lizzy0213 (talk) 14:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lizzy0213: I certainly wouldn't know what a Linqing lion cat is, but then I'm no expert on lions or (other) cats. Then again, most readers probably won't be, either.
There's an essay that you may find helpful in this context: You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Forgot to say that sources don't need to be online, or in English. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK,thanks so much, it's very useful. Lizzy0213 (talk) 14:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:26, 3 February 2024 review of submission by יאַנקל[edit]

Hello! I have two reliable secondary source citations in my article, and wonder if there is a minimum needed in order to consider the artist "notable."

Please note that this entry is part of a larger endeavor to create knowledge about Polish-Jewish artists and cultural workers who have not received sufficient recognition. יאַנקל (talk) 16:26, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a specific minimum number, but to pass this process most reviewers look for at least three sources to establish notability. 331dot (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:33, 3 February 2024 review of submission by RîzgarîKurdîstan[edit]

Hello! My question is why was my draft cancelled? The references are from government website. RîzgarîKurdîstan (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@rîzgarîkurdîstan: government websites count as primary sources and don't count to notability. ltbdl (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is an entirely correct statement. However, this draft was not declined for lack of notability, but for lack of reliable sources. So it could be a case of correct decline, but for an incorrect reason. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn’t understand? Isn’t government websites reliable source? RîzgarîKurdîstan (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And if I resubmit will they accept the draft or it will be taken down again? RîzgarîKurdîstan (talk) 16:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RîzgarîKurdîstan: the point ltbdl was making, and I was concurring with, is that for notability, which is a core requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia, we need to see coverage in secondary sources (newspapers, magazines, TV and radio programmes, books, etc.). Primary sources, no matter how reliable, are not enough. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So the only problems are the citations and references and if I add news or TV sources will it be accepted? And is Facebook source reliable? RîzgarîKurdîstan (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if you add news sources that should be okay. No, Facebook isn't reliable. PhilKnight (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright thanks RîzgarîKurdîstan (talk) 17:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey PhilKnight! I did what you said but it got canceled again and someone by the name of ‘’Pbirtti’’ cancelled it with a stop sign and he reverted my edits by calling it (pre-socket puppetry) can I know what’s going on? RîzgarîKurdîstan (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:17, 3 February 2024 review of submission by Paola-D99[edit]

i cannot understand the problem with this submission. i used as main source Gisella Marengo IMDb profile. this website is the most reliable for entertainment workers where all info and projects are indicated. my info came from a reliable source but the draft has not been approved. coudl you please explain me better the problem? thanks Paola-D99 (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is not considered a reliable source in Wikipedia Terms because it is user-editable. 331dot (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You will need independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this actress to summarize. 331dot (talk) 19:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:20, 3 February 2024 review of submission by MaxDevlin[edit]

Hi there! I wrote an article on a newly-published unfinished novel by the American author Flannery O'Connor. It was denied. I added more examples of "coverage" in the Reception section. The guidelines on the notability of books states that the book's "author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable." This is certainly true for Flannery O'Connor, the first post-war female writer enshrined in the Library of America, the winner of the National Book Award in 1972, and the subject of many books, scholarly articles, and films. This is my first ever article, so I want to learn what I've done wrong. I'm a great fan of Wikipedia--thanks! MaxDevlin (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed your link- we don't need the whole url, just the actual title. 331dot (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The connections section is completely unsourced. 331dot (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that notability is not inherited: it's possible to have a notable book by a non-notable author and vice versa. (I'm not saying that is the case here: I haven't looked. I'm just warning against making that assumption) ColinFine (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:37, 3 February 2024 review of submission by Westbrook1980[edit]

I am not fully understanding what is wrong? any idea of what else is needed? Westbrook1980 (talk) 22:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Westbrook1980: two things:
1. The sources do not prove that the subject is notable enough to warrant an article. The standard they would need to satisfy is the WP:GNG general notability one.
2. As this is an article on a living person, you must cite your sources inline, against the information they support; now you've piled all your citations to the end, so it's not clear which source supports what statement, and how much of it remains unsupported. See WP:REFB / WP:ILC for advice.
-- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_February_3&oldid=1206039073"