Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 June 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< June 1 << May | June | Jul >> June 3 >
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.


June 2[edit]

Request on 01:21:11, 2 June 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Caryplace7[edit]


Hello I have been trying for a few weeks to publish a bio of Journalist Mike Greenhaus, Editor-in-Chief of Relix Magazine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mike_Greenhaus) This is my first bio, though I have added references and edit over 100 other articles, so I am still learning how to do this properly. I have gone few a few drafts with a few editors after being denied and have been able to successfully clear that there is no conflict of interest and that I have enough independent third-party sources focused on the subject to make this worthy of acceptance. However user Chris just denied by post within minutes of my posting it. Chris' comments suggested that a majority of the references I cited were by the subject I was writing about when in fact NONE of the links are by him, nor from the magazine he edits (expect the masthead as proof of his current position) The four articles I cited as best references had all been cleared as OK by another editor and are focused specifically on the subject of my bio. In addition, the other articles cite him as an expert reference which according to my research is the type of articles that should be included as proof of notability. I understood I have perhaps too many references; I was trying to balance a mix of articles focused solely on Mr. Greenhaus with citations on his work from larger references. Please let me know how I can improve. Thank you so muchCaryplace7 (talk) 01:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Caryplace7 (talk) 01:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


02:58:09, 2 June 2020 review of draft by Acham[edit]


Not sure why the many references "do not establish notability" for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:John_McNamara_(sportswriter)

"During his life, McNamara was a prolific journalist, covering sports and news in Maryland. He had written and edited for the St. John's College High School Sabre newspaper, the University of Maryland College Park Diamondback newspaper,[1] the Washington Post, the Hagerstown Herald-Mail, the Prince George's County (MD) Journal[2] and The Capital[3] in Annapolis, MD. He wrote three books on sports prior to his death,[4] and appeared as a guest commentator on line for the Washington Post,[5] and on radio on the Rick "Doc" Walker" show, and with Johnny Holliday to discuss Baltimore Orioles, and Washington Nationals baseball and on the Maryland Sports Radio Network. McNamara was a voter[6] in the Associated Press Top 25 NCAA basketball poll.[7] He won several awards for his writing from the Maryland - DC - Delaware Press Association. [8]"

I provided info on 4 books, on-line commentary, and multiple radio appearances. Can you provide specifics for what you need to establish notability? Of course, there are references are to his own writing, as would be the case for most journalists. However, 4 books, multiple interviews of him including in the Washington Post, and hundreds of articles that he wrote, would seemingly meet your qualifications. I am sure I have what you need, but I am having trouble imagining what else to include. Thank you.

Acham (talk) 02:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

04:20:41, 2 June 2020 review of submission by Nova9944[edit]

I finished a userspace draft and clicked the "submit your draft for review" button. There was no indication as to whether it was submitted or not. Also I do not know how I will receive your reply so please email me if possible. Nova9944 (talk) 04:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Answered at WP:HD. @Nova9944: please don't ask the same question at two different places. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 05:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 05:54:29, 2 June 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Sachi1307[edit]


I don't understand how to make it into an Article, different reviewers have different suggestion. Firstly, there are no any advertisement, and then it create by others with a draft not a article, why can I not create to be an article. Who can guide me how to do it？

Sachi1307 (talk) 05:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:40:40, 2 June 2020 review of submission by RiHuang[edit]

Could you please review it? I provided all the correct and authentic information! Thank you! RiHuang (talk) 06:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


06:45:13, 2 June 2020 review of submission by RixiangH[edit]

How can I revise it to be able to pass? RixiangH (talk) 06:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


06:46:06, 2 June 2020 review of submission by Armonia3i[edit]


Can someone please point to specific changes to make, so that the draft shifts to a more neutral perspective ?

(Quick background and disclaimer: my first car will probably be a Škoda Citigo iV; as such, I’ve searched Wikipedia for a summary of car and services information, only to find that there is very little available, so I proposed this dedicated wiki article to contain specific information about the features of each of their services/apps; I’m not connected with Škoda Auto in any way, but I have contacted their support email with questions.)

I already attempted to make it strictly factual, by summarising and referencing hour-long presentations, and official press releases (available services, exact features of each app, public statements on the brand’s future plans). Would referencing second-hand articles (that replicate this same information) actually aid give a more neutral perspective? Are there specific statements that seem speculative or advertorial?

The article seems to me to have a similar structure as other brands’ in the same electro-mobility category, like https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_i but yes, arguably more focused on a future owner or interested party than the general public.

Would contacting someone from the Transportation WikiProject help to get another perspective, and better alignment with existing pages for EV families?

Armonia3i (talk) 06:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Armonia3i by basing the draft on hour-long presentations, and official press releases and the like, you are going in exactly the wrong direction. Such presentations and releases are produced by the company, and naturally give the most positive view of the product possible. A Wikipedia article should be based primarily on Independent published reliable sources, sources that have no connection with the company and no interest in whether the product does well or poorly. They should also be professionally published, not fan or personal sites. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:47:34, 2 June 2020 review of submission by RIXIANGHUANG[edit]

Could you help me? I don't know why my wiki page is not approved. RIXIANGHUANG (talk) 06:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RIXIANGHUANG Wikipedia is not social media for people to tell the world about themselves. Wikipedia does not have "wiki pages", it has articles typically written by independent editors. Please review the autobiography policy for more information. 331dot (talk) 08:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:47:38, 2 June 2020 review of draft by Kcsnooker[edit]


I am new to Wikipedia and have a basic question

I would like to create an article about myself. It does meet the notability requirement. I have submitted a draft with article name "Kamal Chawla", but not sure if it will get rejected due to Conflict of Interest. If so, what is the best way to get the article published?

Kcsnooker (talk) 07:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you are notable enough you'll need to have citations from independent websites, newspapers, books or radio. Generally, you can't make articles about yourself, I'm not an expert but I know you'll need lots of citations for the size of your article. Maybe consider copying and pasting it onto your user page? Freyr Brown (talk) 08:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 07:53:54, 2 June 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Freyr Brown[edit]


Hi, My article was recently rejected and now (after looking at some articles about notability and citations) I understand why it was rejected. I've now taken the time to get citations from newspapers, books, online newspapers and independent websites. I have cited lots of those and now I'm curious whether that will be enough. I'm also questioning if the amount of information there is online, makes it notable enough. I've found info from a lot of big newspapers and I think it should hopefully be good enough as a topic but I'm very new to all this and I'm not quite sure. I don't know exactly what my question is but if there's anything anybody could tell me that'd be great, thanks! Freyr Brown (talk) 07:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Freyr Brown (talk) 07:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Freyr Brown As you were informed by the reviewer, lower level schools are not typically notable according to Wikipedia's definition. Articles must do more than tell about the subject(as yours does); they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about the subject, showing how it meets Wikipedia's definition of notability. Your draft just tells that the school exists and some things it offers. Note that even a school where a horrific shooting occurred, Sandy Hook Elementary School, does not merit a Wikipedia article(though the event does). There needs to be a great deal of significant coverage- coverage that goes beyond mere mentions, routine announcements, or just confirmation that the school exists- for a school itself to merit an article. For example, a school that is housed in a historic building that has been written about in that context. 331dot (talk) 08:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:02:37, 2 June 2020 review of draft by Agnieszkasek[edit]


Agnieszkasek (talk) 10:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thank you for your feedback regarding the Tools Up! Wikipedia page draft. I have some questions to ask in order to make sure that the next version of the article will fit the Wikipedia standards better. 1) The feedback mentions that the article "appears to read more like an advertisement" - could you explain which parts of the text read like that? 2) "should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed" - which sources do you deem unreliable? All listed articles are published and available online. Moreover, none of the sources is a material produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. I'm looking forward to your reply. Thank you for your time. Best!

Agnieszkasek The "Gameplay" section in particular reads as if it came from a company promotion, and in any case Wikipedia is not a how-to manual or game guide. The "Reception" section, which lists only positive reviews and reactions, also seems a bit promotional For example, the revieew from Destrutoid (Currently Ref 1) says "To sum it up, there are hints of greatness. But just hints." but no hint of this modified rapture appears in the article, it is merely listed as "positive". No actual quotes from reviews are used. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:52:47, 2 June 2020 review of submission by Clifffyle2014[edit]


Cliff 12:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

14:18:03, 2 June 2020 review of submission by Arebello103[edit]

I have edited the content to be unbiased and added the review page from GreatNonprofits as a reference. Arebello103 (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


14:29:27, 2 June 2020 review of submission by Arebello103[edit]

I would like a re-review because WAA is an authentic organization, and I have edited the article to be unbiased and more informative, with additional sources other than the WAA website. Arebello103 (talk) 14:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Arebello103: If it has not been featured in any notable publications to this point, as your draft states, then it will not be accepted. WP:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. JTP (talk • contribs) 21:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:53:52, 2 June 2020 review of submission by Natalia Prislonova Ordenador ASUS[edit]

I am asking assistance for a question, here is the question: How do you request for an editor?Natalia Prislonova Ordenador ASUS (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC) Natalia Prislonova Ordenador ASUS (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC) 14:53:52, 2 June 2020 review of submission by Natalia Prislonova Ordenador ASUS[reply]

Replied below, at #11:22:39, 3 June 2020 review of submission by Natalia Prislonova Ordenador ASUS. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:01:48, 2 June 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Saalves[edit]

16:01:48, 2 June 2020 review of submission by Saalves 


I have many reliable sources which I cited in the text using <ref> <ref>  I thought this meant that this code would populate the notes section. Not sure what is my next step. I checked how to cite my sources but I must not understand something important. Please help.


Saalves (talk) 16:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Saalves You need to use a pair of <ref>...</ref> tags, not the / character on the closing tag. Withotu this they do not work correctly. Also:
  • Please refer to the subject by last mname only ("Smith" note "Janet Marie Smith") after the initial mention in the lead section, unless another person named smithy is also being referred to, and this would cause confusion.
  • Please read referencing for beginners. Please provide the title of each source you cite, and where that source is part of a larger work (such as a newspaper, magazine, or website), please provide the name of that work as well. Please provide the date if publication when known. Please provide the author when known. Please list the publisher when this would help the reader.
  • Section headers should be surrounded by paired double equals signs (==Header here==) for top level headers, and triple equals for 2nd level headers (===Second level here===). Headers should be in sentence case, not all caps. Only the first word is capped except for proper names or other things that would be capitalized in running prose. See WP:SECTION.
  • Please note that since Smith worked/works for MLB, sites run by MLB are not Independent sources, which are needed to establish notability.
I hope that helps a bit. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:25:28, 2 June 2020 review of submission by The Cat 2020[edit]

Hi, Who gets to decide whether the article is notable or not? I wrote an article about one of the greatest female philosophers of India. I presented citation of the moral sentences which are timeless. I wrote an article and the some reviewer made factually incorrect statements about it which resulted in the rejection of my draft. My article is written in strict accordance to the rules of English and Wikipedia. The citation is properly attributed, all the works used are properly listed. I met with clear bias towards my article from the very beginning when somebody incorrectly called it "an essay". Then somebody decided to make factually incorrect statements about the references and attribution. Now the final person wrote that, "The subject probably is notable, but this draft does not establish notability." If this is the final verdict then the person who wrote this must read a few things about Sir William Jones and his Asiatic Researches who I referenced in my article.He should also read a thing or two about the Asiatic Society and the mythology. Then he should consult Godfrey Higgins and Frederic Shoberl who wrote about Avyar in their works and cited her moral sentences. Are those persons are not notable enough as well? All the references to the works cited and/or used are clearly mentioned, attributed and listed along with the page numbers for your convenience. Finally, the phrase "The subject probably is notable, but this draft does not establish notability." clearly has a double meaning which is unacceptable. It is the polite but an unacceptable way of saying that my material is not welcome on Wikipedia. You should write a bulletin and state what people can or can't add to so-called free encyclopedia. You shouldn't exercise bias toward any material. You shouldn't block an important material from being published. You shouldn't provide false and factually incorrect statements toward the article itself when the facts presented are showing the opposite. I stand by the fact that my article is written in strict accordance to all the rules. The notability of the person has clearly established and the sources with great reputation are listed to prove that. Facts are on my side but the factually incorrect statements were made against me and my material. The latest statement is just a way of saying that my material is great but you are unable to publish it. No real reason for the rejection has been provided so far.

The Cat 2020 (talk) 16:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a comment on your draft, it will need to be completely re-written before it can be re-submitted, it has too much inappropriately written content which I have high lighted for you. Theroadislong (talk) 16:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:55:32, 2 June 2020 review of submission by Naijaactive[edit]


Naijaactive (talk) 18:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


20:01:27, 2 June 2020 review of draft by Mrjava2019[edit]


My draft that i wanted to publish got declined beacause the references was not enough and i was told that i need more footnotes. Could you please specify or mark witch statements that need footnotes so that i can apply them? Mrjava2019 (talk) 20:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


23:26:29, 2 June 2020 review of draft by DonGuess[edit]


I have a problem with a pdf source, it's written in red letters in the "references" section so it's easy to see DonGuess (talk) 23:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done There was, as the error message said, a line feed (newline) in the middle of the title, DonGuess. Now please add citation metadata, such as the name of the publication, the date, the author (if known) and so on. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2020_June_2&oldid=985275521"