Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 June 17
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < June 16 | << May | June | Jul >> | June 18 > |
| Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages. |
June 17
[edit]05:29:12, 17 June 2019 review of draft by Rishikesan T
[edit]- Rishikesan T (talk · contribs)
Rishikesan T (talk) 05:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC) Hi,
My wiki article got rejected with the reason 'do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject'. But the 4 references I have listed are all independent sources and carry necessary information about the subject. The first reference is from an article in Tugboat which is a journal published by TeX users group (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/TUGboat). The second is another article that has been published in https://www.linuxtoday.com/. The third reference is a detailed interview of the subject that has been featured in January 2008 issue of TUG India by the TeX users group. (TeX users group is a community that is mentioned in http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/TeX). The fourth is again an article from tug.org that has been retrieved from the internet archive. Based on these references, the article that has been submitted is true to the facts. So, I need some clarification on whether it is the way the references has been included that has resulted in the rejection. Considering the case, I request you to kindly look into the matter and provide your recommendations so that I can get my article published at the earliest.Rishikesan T (talk) 05:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Rishikesan T. The third source (TUGindia) lacks independence and is not secondary. It is a primary source interview in which Radhakrishnan talks about Radhakrishnan, with almost no independent analysis by the interviewer. It could be used as a source, but cannot be used to establish notability.
- The other three are short on significant coverage. The first establishes only that Radhakrishnan is the founding secretary of TUGIndia, the second that he is the founder of FreeDevelopers-India, and the third that he is of River Valley Technologies. These are the sort of passing mentions that exist for innumerable people. They do not demonstrate that he is remarkable, significant, interesting, or unusual enough to be an encyclopedia subject. Wikipedia aims to include biographies of people closer in noteworthiness to the likes of Jagadish Chandra Bose, Narendra Modi, R. K. Narayan, or Sam Manekshaw. You may wish to consider alternative outlets, with different inclusion criteria, for what you've written about CV Radhakrishnan. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:53, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
07:24:30, 17 June 2019 review of submission by Swampcygnet
[edit]- Swampcygnet (talk · contribs)
Keeps getting rejected due to lack of secondary sources, but how many do you need? The The Youth are published in a few sources that I have already listed. How many more do I need to list?
Swampcygnet (talk) 07:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Swampcygnet. Novice editors are commonly advised to cite at least three sources, but each one has to tick all the boxes across - significant coverage, independent, reliable, and secondary - or it doesn't count.
Source Significant? Independent? Reliable? Secondary? Pass/Fail Notes Sounds of the Universe 
An EP listing on a music sales site Dummy Mostly a primary source interview where a participant talks about themselves, although there is one paragraph by the interviewer covering TTY PRS for Music Foundation A capsule history written by TTY Clash Doesn't mention TTY NTS 
Possibly some deep link contains significant coverage about TTY, but it appears to be just music by TTY Worldwide FM Primary source interview in which TTY members talk about TTY Total qualifying sources 0 There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements
- With only one album released on a notable label, it is likely WP:TOOSOON for TTY to satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria for musicians. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
08:06:30, 17 June 2019 review of submission by Elysium.Nguyen.aus
[edit]
Hi I was wondering why my article got declined?
Elysium.Nguyen.aus (talk) 08:06, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Elysium.Nguyen.aus#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
08:31:11, 17 June 2019 review of submission by Gdams1
[edit]
Hi there, Draft:AdoptOpenJDK was recently rejected for not being notable enough. I've spoken to @K.e.coffman who has suggested that I get a second opinion.
The project is backed by several notable companies including; IBM, Microsoft, GoDaddy and Pivotal (See https://adoptopenjdk.net/sponsors.html for the full list). AdoptOpenJDK is also referenced in several other Wikipedia articles (http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?search=adoptopenjdk&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go&ns0=1). Thanks for taking the time to read this and please do let me know if there is any improvements I can make to the article to rectify the problem.
Gdams1 (talk) 08:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Gdams1. Wikipedia articles cover notable topics, ones that have gained significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, as demonstrated by significant coverage in independent reliable sources. A topic is more likely to be suitable if it "became" something rather than is "rapidly becoming" something. Notability is not inherited from the backers of the initiative. Nor does notability derive from being mentioned anywhere in Wikipedia.
- The way to convince reviewers that the initiative is notable is to cite three independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage of it. A common mistake novice editors make is to rely on sources that lack independence, such as primary sources where people involved in the initiative talk about it, or sponsors of the initiative, or trade publications (which have a limited audience and an often too-cozy relationship with entities in the industry they cover).
- Books written by people not connected to the initiative would make good sources if they contained at least a page or two about it, especially if published by an academic press. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources discusses the reliability of some other sources you may be familiar with, and may help you understand what factors into whether a source is reliable for a particular purpose or not. It contains links to relevant policies and guidelines, and the reliable sources noticeboard, where discussions of many more sources are archived. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
09:30:52, 17 June 2019 review of draft by Helloajnabi
[edit]- Helloajnabi (talk · contribs)
Helloajnabi (talk) 09:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Helloajnabi: Your draft has been accepted in the meantime. It is now located in article space and will probably get indexed by search engines very soon, if it hasn't been already. Congratulations to your first article! Jannik Schwaß (talk) 19:00, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
11:39:47, 17 June 2019 review of submission by Gindog
[edit]
Gindog (talk) 11:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
11:49:18, 17 June 2019 review of submission by Party1967
[edit]
Chinnatty 11:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
12:51:12, 17 June 2019 review of draft by Britaylor77
[edit]- Britaylor77 (talk · contribs)
How can I add the blue columns that say "films" and "television series" to my filmography table?
Britaylor77 (talk) 12:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Britaylor77. I'm not sure what you mean, but may be able to steer you in the right direction. Help:Table provides general instructions on how to create tables. If you see good tables in an article, such as the tables of film and television roles in Steve McQueen filmography, the best way to see how they are constructed is to edit them in the source editor. You can copy all or part of the table to your sandbox to experiment with it, just be sure to cancel your editing of the original page without making any changes there. Hope that helps. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I understand that Wikipedia does not consider Allmusic.com and Discogs.com to be reliable sources. I'd love to be directed to sources that Wikipedia does consider reliable regarding people who work in the field of audio engineering. I'll note, in the meanwhile, that discogs.com enumerates 96 production credits for Mr. Walker and allmusic.com notes 29 credits. Also, the article begins with a citation from the New York Times. Many thanks Illbadler (talk) 12:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Illbadler (talk) 12:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Illbadler. Discogs, being user-generated, is an unreliable source and should not be used as a reference at all. AllMusic is unreliable for some things, but reliable for others. For details, and a list of sources that Wikipedians have found useful when writing about music, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Manishsinghon (talk) 13:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
15:00:57, 17 June 2019 review of draft by Falconite007
[edit]- Falconite007 (talk · contribs)
Hello, I just created a draft. Wikipedia is suggesting that I move the draft to 'Draft Space'. Can you please tell me how to do it, and what does it mean? Falconite007 (talk) 15:00, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Done. @Falconite007: I've moved it for you. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
15:26:31, 17 June 2019 review of submission by Tripledigitmail
[edit]
Removed what I thought to be seen as "basically an ad" section (removed "partnerships"). The content of the article uses the same neutral language as the citations.
Tripledigitmail (talk) 15:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- MaryGaulke (talk · contribs)
Hi! This draft was rejected on grounds of insufficient notability. The subject has been the focus of extensive coverage in The Boston Globe, The Chronicle of Philanthropy, and Boston Business Journal. He is also credited in independent sources with having significant influence on modern fundraising models. In my opinion, Mr. Starr clears the bar set by WP:BIO.
Additionally, the reviewer described the draft as a "fluff piece". I did not omit any negative information available in reliable sources, and I believe my wording is neutral. I also sought out input from editors who have worked on related topics, and Wikiuser100 made some updates to the draft prior to its review.
Would someone be up for taking a look and clarifying where there is room for improvement?
Please note, I have a conflict of interest: I work for a communications agency for which the Pan-Mass Challenge (of which Mr. Starr is founder) is a client. However, I never draft and submit an article on behalf of a client if I don't believe that the subject has encyclopedic value. If nothing else, I would really appreciate any feedback that can help me realign my expectations for my work in the future.
Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- Hi MaryGaulke. One key is the phrase "independently notable" in the reviewer's comment. Examining half of the cited sources at random, only one, The Wellesley Townsman, contains significant coverage of Starr. The other five (Boston Globe 2018, The Eagle-Tribune, Boston Business Journal, STAT, and CapeCode.com) are about PMC, not Starr, and mention him only briefly, usually as the source of a quote about PMC. They do not address Starr directly and in detail, so do not help establish that he is notable. Throw them away, and any others like them, they torpedo your effort.
- The second issue is that the draft reads like something put out by the marketing department rather than a biography in an encyclopedia. On this I concur with the reviewer. Judging from this, the fact that it isn't obvious to you how promotional it is, and because of your conflict of interest, you are not the right person to write about Starr. A better approach would be:
- Go to Wikipedia:Requested articles and find the best category under which to list your request.
- Describe the very basics of how Starr is notable, no more than a couple of lines. Be up-front about your conflict of interest by mentioning it in the request.
- Choose the best 3-6 independent reliable sources that contain substantial information about Starr. Don't restrict yourself to Google, major newspaper coverage exists going back to 1981. Provide links in the request for those available online.
- You were unable to drum up interest in the topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Massachusetts. There is a more focused Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boston, but it is less active. There is an active community of editors at Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Boston. Optionally, post a link there to your request, being sure to mention your conflict of interest so that people reading your post understand where the request is coming from.
- Wikipedians are always looking for things to write about, so someone may start an article based on your sources. It often takes a year or two, and won't be the same as the text you produced, but what you produced isn't suitable for an encyclopedia. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
20:21:23, 17 June 2019 review of submission by Danielbush
[edit]- Danielbush (talk · contribs)
I have added a reference
Danielbush (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Danielbush, please note that Wikipedia is not intended to be a directory or the yellow pages, and so companies must be demonstrated to be notable through the use of multiple independent, reliable source that discuss the business in significant detail. At present, none of your sources meet this standard--they either are not independent, or else do not actually discuss the company itself or give reasons why it is notable. Hope this helps. Nolelover (talk) 20:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)