Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 July 20
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < July 19 | << Jun | July | Aug >> | July 21 > |
| 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. |
July 20[edit]
04:10:41, 20 July 2020 review of submission by WRChinChin[edit]
- WRChinChin (talk · contribs)
WRChinChin (talk) 04:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- WRChinChin You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further, as we already have an article about extraterrestrial lift. If you have well sourced proposed changes to that article you would like to make, you are welcome to do so. 331dot (talk) 07:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
07:48:28, 20 July 2020 review of draft by SEOexpertRajarajan[edit]
Hi, Myself Rajarajan! am new to Wikipedia, I just want to help my friend to create his Wikipedia page,
He presuming his career in Tamil film industries, He acted several minor roles in top Tamil films. Recently he acted as charlie chaplain in Tamil Film Penguin.
I have created his Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Muthazhagan), but it get rejected.
I need someone help to get approved.
Looking for help!!!!
SEOexpertRajarajan (talk) 07:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- Firstly you have a conflict of interest which you need to declare and secondly your draft has zero independent sources and no evidence whatsoever that he passes WP:NACTOR. Theroadislong (talk) 07:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi wikis, I have created wiki page for my friend, He presuming his career in Tamil film industry. My article get disapproved, Now i have added IMDB Cast and Crew page of Film Penguin. In that page it mentioned his role and name, is that enough to get approved? Article Draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muthazhagan kindly help me!!!
SEOexpertRajarajan (talk) 08:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- SEOexpertRajarajan IMDB is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia as it is user-editable. In order for this person to merit a Wikipedia article, they must be shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources to meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable actor. Not every actor merits an article here.
- I note that you state you are a "SEO expert"; if your friend is compensating you in any way for your edits, you must review and formally comply with the paid editing policy, you should also review conflict of interest whether you are paid or not. 331dot (talk) 08:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, am an SEO Consultant, But this draft is completely non compensated, i already mentioned with one user, he asked me add conflict of interest.
Apart from editing, I have following 2 doubts, 1. How could i declare Conflict of interest?(what exactly i need to do from my side, i have read some documents but i don't understand those). 2. What source should i use, There are some blogs which has news about his movies. Can i add it in reference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SEOexpertRajarajan (talk • contribs) 08:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- You may post a simple statement on your userpage declaring your conflict of interest. Blogs are also not usually considered reliable sources. Reliable sources are those with a reputation of fact checking and editorial control, like a newspaper or other media outlet. 331dot (talk) 08:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
14:36:45, 20 July 2020 review of submission by Anthony Todd 27[edit]
Removed Anthony Todd 27 (talk) 14:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
15:23:17, 20 July 2020 review of submission by Bibliojo[edit]
Canadian freelance conductor and musician for more than 30 years. Wikipedia needs more Canadiana! There are other folks in there that I would consider similar, David Hoyt, Rosemary Thomspons, etc. the many "passing mentions" are reviews of the hundreds of performances that he has conducted. He is a "red name" in several other Wikipedia articles including Calgary Opera, Opera Lyra Ottawa, and the Calgary Boys choir, and more, for example. His career notability matches many of those in the Canadian_conductor category.
These are articles fro newspapers and journals that focus on Mr. Paterson and his career:
Dawson, Eric. ‘Conductor Looking Overseas: [Final Edition]’. Calgary Herald; Calgary, Alta. 25 March 1989, sec. ENTERTAINMENT. Articles in Opera Canada
Kennedy, Janice. ‘Calgary Conductor New Director of Cash-Strapped Opera Lyra: [Final Edition]’. The Ottawa Citizen; Ottawa, Ont. 10 November 1998, sec. Arts. ———. ‘The New Maestro at Opera Lyra: Tyrone Paterson Says Things Are Looking up, Writes Steven Mazey.: [Final Edition]’. The Ottawa Citizen; Ottawa, Ont. 14 January 1999, sec. Arts.
Citron, Paul. ‘Create & Command’. Opera Canada; Toronto, Spring 2003.Six conductors (Mario Bernardi, Timothy Vernon, Richard Bradshaw, Yves Abel, Tyrone Paterson, and Bernard Labadie) comment on preparing for an opera production. The men express sometimes similar, sometimes differing opinions on memorizing the score, interpreting the composer's intentions and style, working with the orchestra and singers, and the process of rehearsals. This article is part one in a series of two.
Citron, Paula. ‘Pit Principles’. Opera Canada; Toronto, Winter 2002. Six conductors (Mario Bernardi, Timothy Vernon, Richard Bradshaw, Yves Abel, Tyrone Paterson, and Bernard Labadie) comment on preparing for an opera production. The men express sometimes similar, sometimes differing opinions on memorizing the score, interpreting the composer's intentions and style, working with the orchestra and singers, and the process of rehearsals. This article is part one in a series of two.
Jennings, Sarah. ‘A Capital Proposition’. Opera Canada; Toronto, Summer 2000.
article - "Tyrone Paterson has signed on for another five years as Artistic Director and Chief Conductor" Opera Canada, 2007-03-01, Vol.48 (2), p.6
Mazey, Steven. ‘Capital Ambitions: as Opera Lyra Ottawa celebrates its quarter century, Artistic Director Tyrone Paterson reflects on the company's progress’. Opera Canada; Toronto, Spring 2010.
Robb, Peter. ‘Director Tyrone Paterson to Leave Opera Lyra at End of 2013-14 Season’. The Ottawa Citizen; Ottawa, Ont. 14 September 2013, sec. Arts.
thanks Bibliojo (talk) 15:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Bibliojo (talk) 15:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
16:08:24, 20 July 2020 review of draft by Drazan Jarak[edit]
- Drazan Jarak (talk · contribs)
Hi,
Please notice I regularly read your articles about rules and ways of writing an article, especially of writing "your first article." And I have applied the draft second time 16 days ago. Of course, I know that the review waiting time is 7 weeks or more. If I may ask is there anything that can be done so this process lasts shorter than the predicted waiting time? Actually, the only reason for this inquiry is I would like to know what else I can do to improve the article, so the next time the draft could be approved.
Thank you.
Best regards,
Drazan Jarak (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
16:20:16, 20 July 2020 review of submission by Anthony Todd 27[edit]
Redirect request: Erie cat My redirect submission of "Erie cat" to "Eastern cougar" was rejected because the reviewer thought it was a "stretch" that the phrase is one that refers to the eastern cougar. I gave a single citation, which the reviewer found unconvincing. I've mined all of the following as support:
"Erie is a short form of the Iroquoian word “Erielhonan” meaning "long tail" and refers to the Eastern Cougar." Michigan Department of Environment, great Lakes and Energy https://www.michigan.gov/egle/0,9429,7-135-3313_3677_95226-507495--,00.html#:~:text=Erie%20is%20a%20short%20form,refers%20to%20the%20Eastern%20Cougar.
https://www.eriehistoricalsociety.org/erie-history/whats-name-erie-colorado/
http://dickshovel.com/erie.html#:~:text=Erie%20is%20a%20short%20form,(cougar%20or%20mountain%20lion).
http://avonhistory.org/hist/erind.htm
https://tunearch.org/wiki/Annotation:Erie_Hornpipe
BAE anthropologist John R. Swanton on the Erie, 1952
- * * * *
Erie. Meaning in Iroquois, “long tail,” and referring to the panther, from which circumstance they are often referred to as the Cat Nation. Also called: Gaquagaono, by L. H. Morgau (1851). https://www.academia.edu/38459469/The_Lost_Nation_of_the_Erie_-_not_so_lost_after_all https://www.funtrivia.com/askft/Question98840.html
Do you think the redirect is worth submitting with this information or am I missing something? Anthony Todd 27 (talk) 16:20, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Notability of Prof. Sanjukta Deb[edit]
16:43:44, 20 July 2020 review of submission by Earthianyogi[edit]
- Earthianyogi (talk · contribs)
- No draft specified!
Hello, I have written a short biography for a professor. Her name is Draft:Sanjukta Deb. I have had a discussion about it on the Teahouse Wiki page and with a few other editors/reviewer ( :Eternal Shadow; :Maproom; :Bonadea ; :Ganbaruby ; :Spicy ; :David Biddulph ), and there seems to be some confusion if this article successfully checks the notability condition. I would be thankful for the feedback.
"Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable." How does the following fails this criteria?
1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. ---She has 7 patents, published more than 162 scientific documents with 2487 citations, and an h-index of 26
2. The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers). ---Fellow of Academy of Dental Materials (FADM). ---Chair: Royal Society of Chemistry: Biomaterials Chemistry interest group.
3. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. ---She has published more than 162 scientific documents with 2487 citations, and an h-index of 26
4. The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon. ---She is a Professor at King's College London.
5. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society. ---Ex-president: UK Society of Biomaterials. --Secretary: UK Society for Biomaterials.
6. The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area. ---She is an editor to various scientific national and international journals, for example, Journal of Biomaterials Application (Associate editor), Journal of Tissue Science & Engineering (Associate editor), and Journal of the American Ceramic Society (Guest editor).
Earthianyogi (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not a reviewer. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Earthianyogi For the purposes of notability:
- 1. Patents are irrelevant. Listing them likely will be viewed as promotional, so remove them. Number of publications is irrelevant. Wikipedia tends to list all of an academic's books, but not their journal articles. If you believe it's essential to list selected works, be explicit about what the selection criteria are. H-index is a measure of citations. It may help you weigh the number of citations, but I doubt you'll find any featured articles about academics that mention their h-index in the text. Number of citations of her work may help demonstrate notability. There are a number of caveats in Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Specific criteria notes, study them carefully.
- 2. The Academy of Dental Materials is not a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association. I would argue that The Royal Society of Chemistry is such a body. You write that she is the chair of one of their interest groups. That is irrelevant to notability. The key question is whether she is simply a member of the society, or is an elected Fellow of the society. The former is irrelevant, the latter would demonstrate notability. Wikipedia doesn't list academic credentials ("BSc, MSc, PhD,") after a person's name, see MOS:CREDENTIALS.
- 3. Number of publications, number of citations, and h-index are all irrelevant here. "Impact in the area of higher education" would be something like writing a textbook used by a substantial number of universities and hundreds of thousands of students.
- 4. Being a professor is irrelevant. King's College London has endowed chairs. Unless she holds or has held one of those chairs, she will not qualify under this criteria.
- 5. The UK Society of Biomaterials is not a major academic society.
- 6. An associate editor or guest editor is not the head of chief editor.
- Concentrate on the first two (WP:PROF criteria 1 and 3) as the most likely path to notability. Cite sources that prove your case and state in the lead why she is notable. As much as possible you should be looking for independent sources, not things written by her or her employers. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi Worldbruce, Thank you for taking the time to explain this. It is very helpful, but I have a few further questions and slightly different opinions on some of these points.
- 1a. According to Wikipedia, "Patents, commercial and financial applications are generally not indicative of satisfying Criterion 7." However, I assumed that it could be associated with other points for notability.
- 1b. Why is publication numbers irrelevant? "The h-index is defined as the maximum value of [h] such that the given author/journal has published [h] papers that have each been cited at least [h] times.", which implied that it is not entirely independent of the number of publications.
- 1c. Why does Wikipedia tends to list all of an academic's books, but not their journal articles? Technical/medical books are nothing more than a collection of journal papers. So these the books in question cannot exist without the existence of scientific journal papers. These books have a section at the end, written in small font-size which people almost never care about; it is called bibliography, which has a list of journal papers from were the text within the book is taken or supported from.
- 1d. Wikipedia reads, "The only reasonably accurate way of finding citations to journal articles in most subjects is to use one of the two major citation indexes, Web of Knowledge and Scopus." and "Citation measures such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied. They should be approached with caution because their validity is not, at present, completely accepted, and they may depend substantially on the citation database used." [WP:PROF]. I use number of publications, citations, and H-index reported by Socpus, so it should not be a problem.
- 1e. H-index is not a simple measure of citations. "The h-index is defined as the maximum value of [h] such that the given author/journal has published [h] papers that have each been cited at least [h] times.", which implied that it is not entirely independent of the number of publications.
- 1f. How may citations be enough, 3 or 30 or 300 citations? Should let's say 300 are enough, should it be for each article or for all articles in total? Is there a Wikipedia criterion that defines how many citations are considered enough to be notable? I guess it is not described in [WP:PROF].
- 2a. Does Wikipedia define a list of highly selective and prestigious scholarly societies or associations that can be used? They do provide examples, but not an exhaustive list.
- 3a. Technical/medical books nothing more than a collection of journal papers. It is very odd to say that textbooks have an impact, but h-index do not, which is based on the number of publications and number of citations.
- 4a. Why do you say being a professor is irrelevant? "...or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research..." This point clearly states that being a professor is enough. The explanation in [WP:PROF] is provided under an incorrect point number, i.e. 5. (see the next point). Wikipedia is not perfect; some benefit of the doubt should be given to authors in good faith who spend their time to volunteer and contribute to Wikipedia.
- 5a. Is there a list of "major academic society" recommended by Wikipedia that I can use as a reference before I choose to add these? "Most newly formed societies fall into that category" are considered not major by Wikipedia [WP:PROF]. “Newly formed” is not defined. How new is new, 10 years old, 100 years old, or 1 year old?
- 5b. Please note that for all my Wiki articles criteria-5 is ENOUGH to be notable. "Criterion 5 can be applied reliably only for persons who are tenured at the full professor level, and not for junior faculty members with endowed appointments." [WP:PROF] I never wrote about anyone who is not a full professor.
- 6a. "As much as possible, you should be looking for independent sources, not things written by her or her employers." - I think we need to understand that peer-review publications should be considered independent sources, despite the author's name or employer. Please note that Wikipedia's peer-review process is different from the scientific peer-review. A scientific journal aims to publish novel research that is not published elsewhere, peer-reviewed by more than one independent scientist who are experts in their field. On the contrary, Wikipedia only accepts articles which are only previously published elsewhere, and the reviewers are not expert in the area in which they review articles. They follow guidelines provided by Wikipedia, which are very much subject to the individual’s interpretation.
- 6b. She is not head/chief editor, but "service on editorial boards of scholarly publications;" support criteria 1 but "usually not sufficient individually". [WP:PROF]
I have only mentioned WP:PROF on a few points; if you re-read it, you may find some points conflicting your points/other-points. Again, Wikipedia is not perfect, but all of us are trying to contribute to the greater good of society. Perhaps, this should be taught to the new reviewers, who keep rejecting articles without adding positive value to these rejected articles. New reviewers should keep their ego aside and try to make positive contribution and provide precise reasons to improve the articles when they reject these articles.
Thank you once again, it was nice exchanging ideas with you. Earthianyogi (talk) 18:31, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- 1a. No. Modern patents underwhelm Wikipedians. Over half a million are issued each year in the US alone. Tech professionals are overrepresented among Wikipedians, and many of us have a few patents or have colleagues who do. Familiarity breeds contempt. Being patented doesn't mean that a thing has had a significant impact. It would be different if reliable secondary sources discussed the effect of a patent on a field (some books trace the history of photography from one invention to the next, for example), but you cite only primary sources, which should be minimized or avoided altogether.
- 1b. Publication numbers are irrelevant for the purposes of notability because being a prolific writer doesn't prove that what they've written has had a significant impact. As the specific criteria notes for WP:PROF criterion 1 says, "Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1." You are correct that h-index is not entirely independent of the number of publications, but as I said above, high quality Wikipedia biographies don't mention the subject's h-index.
- 1c. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. In technical/medical fields it's common for academics to publish hundreds of papers. A list of them doesn't provide encyclopedic value. It isn't feasible to put so many in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. Few individual papers are important enough to have been written about at length in secondary sources (there are exceptions, such as Watson and Crick's paper in Nature about the structure of DNA). The number of books an academic writes is more manageable, they represent a larger investment of their time, and they are more likely to be reviewed in academic sources. Although some books are collections of journal articles, that is not my general experience. If journal articles are more important in a field than books, some editors will list the author's five most cited works (of any kind). When one takes such an approach, it's important to explicitly explain why these articles have been selected, why the reader should care about them.
- 1d. Using Scopus is good.
- 1e. This has been covered in 1b, I don't think there's anything more to say.
- 1f. The guidelines don't set a specific number. It varies by field. You have to know the field well enough to understand whether an academic stands out as highly cited, or is just one of the pack.
- 2a. Wikipedia does not maintain a list of highly selective and prestigious scholarly societies or associations. Editors are expected to apply "I know it when I see it", and seek consensus if there is any question.
- 3a. In technical/medical courses, particularly at the graduate level, the assigned reading may include an ad hoc collection of journal reprints bound together for convenience, but I wouldn't call such a thing a textbook. I've never seen a textbook that was nothing more than a collection of journal papers. The point of WP:PROF criterion 4 is that an academic's impact is not limited to their research. They can have a significant impact in how their subject is taught. For example, Woodburne's Essentials of Human Anatomy has fewer than 100 citations on Google scholar, but if reliable sources showed that for several generations a quarter of doctors learned their anatomy from it, that would be strong evidence that Woodburne is notable for his significant impact in the area of higher education (although even then one might receive pushback, since the guideline's notes call for "several books" used as textbooks).
- 4a. You misunderstand WP:PROF criterion 5. If you don't know what a distinguished professor is, follow the link. The word "distinguished" is not an idle adjective. It isn't just a professor, or even a full professor, but an extraordinary title or rank above full professor. King's College London does not use it.
- 5a. As with 2a, editors are expected to apply common sense and follow consensus.
- 5b. It's good to focus on academics that are at least full professors, since more junior academics are much less likely to have yet had the significant impact necessary to demonstrate notability. Only a fraction of full professors are notable, however. As explained in 4a, being a full professor does not satisfy criterion 5. If you thought it did, you've been misreading the guideline.
- 6a. You need to understand that something written by Deb is not independent of Deb. Being academically peer-reviewed doesn't magically make it independent of her.
- --Worldbruce (talk) 19:09, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Worldbruce:, thanks, I get most of your points, except two of them,
- 4a. Indeed, I am not sure about distinguished professor, which may be a term used in the US? I have never encountered it in the UK. There are plenty of differences in the system between the UK and the US. Should this be taken into account? I had a look at this link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_ranks_in_the_United_States. In brief, can it be concluded the being a FULL-PROFESSOR is not a criterion by itself to prove notability on Wikipedia? Yes/No answer, please. Also, when the guidelines for Wiki were written, was it taken into consideration what % of the world's population end up doing a PhD, and what % of those PhD's get a post-doc position, and what % of those post-docs ever get a faculty position, and what % of those faculty members ever become a full-professor? Isn't it quite odd that a full-professor is not considered notable by Wikipedia. Again there may be some differences in getting a faculty position in the US and the UK.
- 6a. I fully understand that something written by Deb is not independent of Deb. However, it is still a peer-reviewed material forming new knowledge. It takes many years or decades for scientific research to be done and to make an impact in the real-world. So it should be treated not like a piece of art/novel, I feel. Deb's work is not just her work; but work of a large team; some may be research staff, others support staff, etc. Professors help shape our society, so thet should be considered notable, is my point.
- - One more thing, I feel that H-index>45, or >100 citations to an article, or publishing a paper in a journal with impact factor>25, should be considered as a good indicator of notability. Having some quantitative metric an help simplify the process, and save everyone's time.
- -Also, there are some major differences in filling patents in the UK vs the US system. One can file a patent for an idea in the US, but not in the UK.
- -Also, when I say collection of papera as a book, I do not mean those that conference organisers issue but any techincal book is based on the results of the scientific papers, written is easy to read format.
- - "I know it when I see it" is perhaps the biggest issue here. This should be simplified by having quantitative metrics in place.
- - Also, what does it mean by "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals. In addition, WP:AUTHOR also applies if the professor has written even a single book.
Earthianyogi (talk) 19:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
18:58:06, 20 July 2020 review of submission by Booklover1990[edit]
- Booklover1990 (talk · contribs)
- No draft specified!
A page published regarding review about novel published by self-publishing company has rejected — Preceding unsigned comment added by Booklover1990 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
19:35:34, 20 July 2020 review of submission by 73.50.196.164[edit]
I want the page to be edited. 73.50.196.164 (talk) 19:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- OP has been blocked for disruptive editing. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)