Help desk
< December 27	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 29 >

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.

December 28

07:31:40, 28 December 2022 review of submission by FelixJordanX

FelixJordanX (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Felix Asubonteng Dwomoh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm asking for a review because this article is a natural criticism of this person and not of a praise. I have made necessary changes and have also deleted many part of the article that poise a praise to the subject. I have also added some critic topics that expose his errors.

Best regards.

FJAD (talk) 07:31, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FelixJordanX: I can't tell whether this is a hoax, joke, or what, but it is almost entirely unreferenced. More to the point, it has been rejected, meaning it won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:15, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:35:49, 28 December 2022 review of submission by ArtisticGuru

ArtisticGuru (talk · contribs)

I don't understand why the reviewer has said that my submission is not supported by reliable sources. I have been plentiful in citing numerour peer reviewed papers for each assertion made in my submission ArtisticGuru (talk) 12:35, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArtisticGuru You seem to be sourcing the papers you are using to draw the conclusions you wrote about, not summarizing what sources say. 331dot (talk) 13:30, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is not correct. The state of Immersion is the product of many years of research. I make a set of statements that together lead to the explanation of what immersion is. Each statement is supported by the research papers I have cited. It is exactly the opposite of what you are stating. There is no conclusion that I have drawn in what I have written. It is simply an articulation of facts that have been researched over years and this research and finds are summarized in what I have cited. ArtisticGuru (talk) 13:48, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You say "I make a set of statements that together lead to the explanation of what immersion is" and "this research and finds are summarized in what I have cited"; this is exactly what we do not want. 331dot (talk) 15:20, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ArtisticGuru: your draft appears to address two different topics, 'Immersion' and 'Emotionalism'. Even if both sections were fully referenced, which they aren't (the latter doesn't cite a single source, thereby raising the possibility of original research), combining two topics to reach conclusions is pretty much the definition of synthesis, as I suggested in my decline.

On a separate but related point, an article should have a lead section which introduces the topic, sets the context, and summarises the salient point(s), so that the reader can quickly and easily grasp what the article is about. Your draft has no lead, making it that much more difficult to understand how the two topics relate to each other, and what the ultimate subject and purpose of the draft is. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:20, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this explanation. This is the first time I am trying to post to Wikipedia and I am clearly not as well versed as is needed to make a contribution that complies with the structure and guidelines required. I will rework the submission after reading up more thoroughly how to structure one and then resubmit it, taking into consideration the valuable comments you have provided. Thanks. ArtisticGuru (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:49:00, 28 December 2022 review of submission by Anmolpearl

Anmolpearl (talk · contribs)

Anmolpearl (talk) 17:49, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anmolpearl I assume this is about Draft:Anmol Al Karimi Al Hussain, but you don't ask a question so it is difficult to help you. 331dot (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but there is nothing in your draft to suggest that you are notable in Wikipedia terms. Theroadislong (talk) 18:15, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:04:20, 28 December 2022 review of draft by Laurenmunro810

Laurenmunro810 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Jim Newton (journalist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi! I am working on an article about journalist Jim Newton. My first attempt was denied because I need to include more independent sources. Could you give me examples of these sources, or tell me what was wrong with the ones I originally used?

Laurenmunro810 (talk) 19:04, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Laurenmunro810: the sources cited in your draft are almost all primary, and mostly close to the subject ie. not independent. Instead we need to see what independent and reliable secondary sources (newspapers etc. media that he didn't work for, books, TV programmes, etc.) have said about him of their own volition.

And although the draft wasn't declined for this reason, I for one would have also declined it for insufficient referencing: there are several paragraphs entirely without a single citation, raising the question where is all this information coming from, and how do we know it is true? Articles on living people are subject to especially strict referencing requirements; please see WP:BLP for more information. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:22, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:17:10, 28 December 2022 review of submission by LabourTO

LabourTO (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Pür & Simple (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello. I have further organized the article into sections for easier organization, and included more detail about how Pür & Simple is a notable business. The restaurant has achieved rapid expansion and growth as a result of an interesting business structure shift (franchising) in 2017. This is certainly notable. The founders of the company are also notable (having previously founded other notable companies), and the company's socially responsible business practices are very interesting and unique. I have reviewed many other restaurant's Wikipedia articles and they are certainly no more notable than this article - many of which are even less notable. I kindly ask that you please review and reconsider. Thank you!

LabourTO (talk) 19:17, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LabourTO: this draft has been rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:23, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I don't understand why it has been rejected. I understand the previous reasons why the draft had not been accepted, and have since updated the article to address feedback about references. The basis for the rejection is that the subject is not sufficiently notable, but I don't understand why. The subject is, indeed, notable. (And indeed more-so than many other articles.) What options are possible as a next step to have the article published? LabourTO (talk) 19:27, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:23:09, 28 December 2022 review of submission by Km4water

Km4water (talk · contribs)

Need to understand reason for rejection

Km4water (talk) 19:23, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Km4water: did you read the decline notice? It has been declined (not rejected, which would mean it couldn't be resubmitted) for a promotional tone/POV. Work on that, and you can resubmit. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:04, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you -- am just puzzling over the promotional tone issue 71.17.29.195 (talk) 20:08, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Km4water: it's expressions like "service-oriented", but even more it's (IMO) the overall style and tone, which sounds very corporate-blurby (yeah, that's a word) as if it came straight out of the agency's marketing/comms department — which, for all I know, it did. (And on that point, please respond to the paid-editing-query on your talk page — thanks!) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:34:20, 28 December 2022 review of draft by Jlrosenbloom

Jlrosenbloom (talk · contribs)
- Draft:HarlBio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am resubmitting a draft biography of Neal Harl. It was rejected and the reason given was a lack of reliable sources. I believe that in fact the statements included in the biography are appropriately sourced. I am trying to understand what needs to be sourced that is not, or what is wrong with the use of newspaper obituaries and reliable internet sources.

Jlrosenbloom (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jlrosenbloom Your draft was "declined", not "rejected"; rejected would mean resubmission is not possible. Obituaries are usually written by family members or friends, and sometimes the deceased person themselves in advance, and usually written in a favorable manner. Some obituaries are written by a newspaper reporter in an independent manner, and those would be okay as sources. Most of the other sources you offer don't seem to have significant coverage of Dr. Harl. 331dot (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying and correcting. You are right that it was declined. The Obituary used appeared in the Washington Post. It may well have been written by family members, but without a major research project to track down birth certificates, etc. I don't know how one would document the dates and other details. I believe family members are in this case reliable sources for this factual information. There are other biographies in Wikipedia e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_C._Mancall which have far fewer sources.

If this is truly insufficient to merit an entry than so be it, but I thought this would be helpful. Jlrosenbloom (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jlrosenbloom Please read other stuff exists. It could be that these other articles you have seen are also inappropriate, and simply not addressed yet. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us. We can only address what we know about. If you would like to help us out, you are welcome to identify other inappropriate articles you have seen for possible action. We could use the help. 331dot (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've marked Peter C. Mancall as needing additional sources. 331dot (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jlrosenbloom, Wikipedia requires that a person already be well-known before having an article, usually shown by having several references about them that are in-depth, and published by reliable sources completely independent of the person. People who have made an impact in their field often have obituaries written and published by newspapers rather than the family as Harl does here and here. A Google search can be your friend. For a professor like Harl, he may also meet some of the requirements at WP:NPROF. All material in the article must be available in published form, not personal knowledge. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:08, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]