Help desk
< January 24	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 26 >

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.

January 25

00:09:07, 25 January 2020 review of draft by Sociable Song

Sociable Song (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Oil pipeline (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The article I'm attempting to create already exists in many languages on Wikipedia. A similar English article can be created by splitting from the more general article Pipeline transport. But the edit activity on that article is quite low, even for a topic of that importance. Thus I have been waiting on the talk page for many months. I think my splitting is following the Wikipedia guidelines on notability and topic separation. In fact, that's why there are already articles for "Oil pipelines" in other languages. (Also I have no idea what this code is doing and what I'm supposed to copy-paste in the question/request help desk. Sorry.) Sociable Song (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sociable Song (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting oil pipeline from the general pipeline transport article requires a discussion on the pipeline transport talk page. If there is consensus to split, then the article can be boldly created and not require a draft. However, if there is no consensus to split then it should remain a redirect to its current section in that article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:00, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sociable Song: I've weighed in at Talk:Pipeline transport#Giving the oil and gas pipeline their own articles. If you're interested in improving the article, there are many more useful things to do than split it:

A natural question is, "What is the most common type of pipeline?" My guess is hydrocarbons pipelines, but our article is silent on the matter. See if you can find an estimate of the number of kilometres of pipeline by type, or maybe the volume transported by type.
The lede concludes with the sentence "Pipelines are one of the safest way of transporting materials as compared to road or rail and hence in war, pipelines are often the target of military attacks." That's ridiculous. They may be one of the safest ways of transporting materials, and in war time they may often be targeted, but they aren't targeted because they're safest. Sure enough, that isn't a summary of anything in the body. Instead, the body says "In war, pipelines are often the target of military attacks, as destruction of pipelines can seriously disrupt enemy logistics." That's more plausible, but it cites no source.
The "as targets" section reads, "Pipelines can be the target of vandalism, sabotage, or even [why even?] terrorist attacks. For example, ... In 2019, a fuel pipeline north of Mexico City exploded after fuel thieves tapped into the line. At least sixty-six people were reported to have been killed." The reader expects Mexico City to be a second example of "vandalism, sabotage, or terrorist attacks", but it's a fourth type, targeting by thieves. And why use that example? It isn't the first time it has happened in Mexico, and it happens with some regularity elsewhere in the world, such as in Nigeria and India. Rather than using a news source for a recent event, it would be better to cite a scholarly source about the risks of pipelines being targeted.
A Forbes blog is cited several times, but according to WP:RS/PS, such contributor blogs by non-experts are not reliable for facts.

--Worldbruce (talk) 04:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:57:23, 25 January 2020 review of submission by ClocksRule

ClocksRule (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Chillhead J (musician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

ClocksRule (talk) 14:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ClocksRule, This person does not seem to be notable. We only cover folks who have multiple reliable and independent sources that give them significant coverage, which this individual seems to lack. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:15:24, 25 January 2020 review of draft by Grimefan1998

Grimefan1998 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Mr. Mitch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi,

I have created this draft: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Draft:Mr._Mitch

The first version was declined due to "Submission is improperly sourced"

I have attempted to improve the quality/reliability of the sources in further edits since that review.

However, is there any steer on what is needed to get the sources up to scratch? It says it might take 3 months for the next review. I feel I am flying blind a little right now and don't want to see 3 months pass only for another article rejection for similar reasons.

Thanks.

Grimefan1998 (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Grimefan1998. Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources is a list of sources Wikipedians have found useful for writing about albums and musicians. If your sources are from the reliable section of that list, that's a good start. Then concentrate on how independent they are. Are the sources based on journalism or press releases, or are they primary source interviews where the musician talks about themself without critical analysis by the interviewer? Finally, consider whether they contain significant coverage of the musician, at least several paragraphs instead of brief mentions.

I've left a welcome basket of links on your talk page that may make you feel less at sea. While you wait for the next review of the draft, edit existing articles. You'll learn more and more quickly that way than through reviews of the draft. If you aren't sure where to start, seek out a WikiProject in your area of interest, or see Wikipedia:Community portal for how to help. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:28, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:22:15, 25 January 2020 review of draft by TK421bsod

TK421bsod (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Raymond Renefer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I found a draft article about a pseudonym that a person used. The person that used the pseudonym doesn't have an article. How would I say that the article might need to be moved? TK421bsod (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TK421bsod. If you wish to communicate with the author(s) and/or potential future reviewers, use the draft's talk page. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]