Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 March 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< March 9 << Feb | March | Apr >> March 11 >
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.


March 10[edit]

01:15:43, 10 March 2022 review of draft by GK1975[edit]


Please help me to improve my draft article, I like understand that what is missing as it already has a couple of secondary references with coverage about the article. Please suggest as per your best knowledge. GK1975 (talk) 01:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is crammed with buzzwords, and all the sources are of unknown provenance. OP has since been blocked. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 01:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano: FYI, this has been submitted by at least four accounts and one IP under at least two different draft titles (Draft:PERICENT, Draft:Pericent), four of which were here: GK1975 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), the apparent sockmaster Pericentjaipur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Dravis williams (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on the 7th. From the archive I also found Sanskriti88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 122.160.153.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

03:37:53, 10 March 2022 review of submission by Zarwara[edit]


Zarwara (talk) 03:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zarwara: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Most of the sources are of unknown provenance, and the two that aren't are a (walled) interview (connexion to subject) and a Google search (too sparse). None of the proffered external links are any good as sources, either. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 03:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

04:15:49, 10 March 2022 review of submission by Loljack1[edit]

My article about the band, Tinman Jones was denied and I was asked to come here for the reason why. Loljack1 (talk) 04:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Loljack1 The reason for the decline was given by the reviewer at the top of your draft. You offer only the band website as a source, that is not acceptable as it is a primary source. A Wikipedia article about a band must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own(not based on materials put out by the band like interviews, press releases, announcements) to say about the band, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable band. Please read Your First Article. If there are no independent reliable sources with significant coverage that discuss the band, it would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. Not every band does. 331dot (talk) 11:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Loljack1 (talk) 13:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:08:51, 10 March 2022 review of submission by Meiwuzhang[edit]

Hi, this is the editor Meiwuzhang and I would like to ask why is my draft declined for the article 'Open: A Boy's Wayang Adventure'. This is my second article I have created. I joined a few months ago. Could you tell me what I am missing or how can I improve? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meiwuzhang (talk • contribs) 14:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:52:57, 10 March 2022 review of draft by Rillington[edit]


Rillington (talk) 14:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see that yet again my article about West Wolds Radio has been rejected and no matter what I do it continues to be rejected.

First i was told that my references were not acceptable so i find additional independent references, this time from articles about the station in the local printed media. However I am still being told that the references do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Given that my references are about the subject and published in reliable independent sources I do not understand why they are deemed unacceptable.

I also do not understand why talking about the opening and closure of the station makes it not notable. Writing about the history of the station is surely an important part of any article? Plus most other articles about radio stations do not go into detail about programming but these articles aren't coming up against this level of opposition.

Please can I receive genuine help with this article and not have it rejected on what seems to be opinion, and for ever more petty and spurious reasons, rather than a breach of rules as frankly I am starting to feel that an example is being made out of me and this article given that no matter what I do it keeps getting rejected. Rillington (talk) 14:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rillington I would correct you in that your draft was only declined, not rejected. Rejection would mean it could not be resubmitted. The problem with your sources is not the sources themselves, but their content. They only discuss routine business activities, which does not establish that the radio station meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Wikipedia is looking for significant coverage in independent reliable sources; coverage that goes beyond merely documenting the existence of the topic or its routine activities. What makes this radio station important?(rhetorical question) Mere existence is not enough. If it had a notable impact on its community, then the draft should primarily summarize and cite sources that discuss that community impact(did it influence government policies? Cause more businesses to open in town? things like that). If no independent reliable sources discuss that impact, the station would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. If you just want to document the existence of the station and tell the world about it, you should use social media, your own website, or other forum with less stringent requirements.
Please read other stuff exists. The existence of or content of other articles has no bearing on your draft. Each is considered on their own merits. It is probably true that other articles on radio stations have inappropriate content or are entirely inappropriate. This is a volunteer effort with people doing what they can, when they can, and as such 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 in managing the over six million articles there are, feel free to identify other articles that do not meet guidelines for possible action. We could use the help, and it would be appreciated.
You are not being singled out here. There are numerous draft submissions every day from thousands of people, and thousands of drafts awaiting review, many of which will be treated the same. 331dot (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for a most helpful reply. I appreciate that it's a tough job for 1,000 administrators to patrol a project with over six millions articles but i do feel as though this, and two other articles - Morning Edition and Five Aside - have fallen foul of frankly rather tight rules despite providing good, reliable sources and when this keeps happening it becomes upsetting as it makes people like me feel as though my efforts aren't appreciated and that no matter how hard i try to obey these rules, I keep having articles effectively rejected. Rillington (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note that all editors manage articles, not just admins. Those two drafts you mention are each sourced to nothing but BBC websites, which are not independent sources. Some topic areas (like radio or news programs) are difficult to write about, as news/broadcasting organizations do not often write about each other. 331dot (talk) 17:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again for your reply. I am still puzzled however as to why the sources that I have used for my West Wolds Radio are not showing significant coverage when both sources are articles about the station and are not passing references, and both are independent of the subject. I can see why this might be an issue for the two Radio 5 programme articles but not for West Wolds Radio. Rillington (talk) 15:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:08:33, 10 March 2022 review of submission by Liptapp[edit]

Can you help me solve the issue about publishing my article it says it appears to read more like an advertisement. But it is not an advertisement. Liptapp (talk) 17:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is absolutely an advertisement! “The mattresses are sold with a 101-night sleep trial, lifetime warranty, and mattress financing options.”

“The Puffy Lux Hybrid Mattress has six layers, including a patented stain-resistant cloud cover and contour-adapt coil technology.” “The original Puffy Mattress has five layers of memory foam, including the Cooling Cloud Foam.” “All products are sold online.” etc etc This is all just advertising and has no place on Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Liptapp: I would agree it looks like an advertisement. Please keep in mind that advertisement wording in Wikipedia does not necessarily mean you are trying to sell something. It can mean that the wording used in the page is of a tone used to tout the subject of the page, specifically by using language typical of advertising. As an example, "The Puffy Lux is also ranked first as the best-rated mattress by online mattress review company Best Mattress Online," is the type of language that the company would care about but isn't something that the reader of an encyclopedia cares about. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41 I really appreciate your findings this is the first time I created an article, I will fix those content. Also I have a question the logo I use is from Puffy itself and it is flag as copyright, can you help me to fix the copyright issue with the logo I upload. Thanks Liptapp (talk) 04:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Theroadislong Thank you for your review I will fix the content, I really appreciate your findings this is the first time I created an article. Also I have a question the logo I use is from Puffy itself and it is flag as copyright how can I solve that issue as well can you help me. Thanks Liptapp (talk) 04:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Liptapp:, first things first. Let's address the issue that is flagged on the page. Please review WP:COI and WP:PAID and make the appropriate disclosure. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41 I'm not getting paid for this article and I'm not related or any of my family to Puffy. Liptapp (talk) 04:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41 so what will be the best option. Liptapp (talk) 04:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41What if they will approach me and ask me for editing and there will be compensation? Liptapp (talk) 05:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why would they? Theroadislong (talk) 13:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late reply. I'm not sure this is my first time writing an article, and I'm not sure what will I do if they approach me in case they reach out to me. I know Wikipedia should be free it's for general public. Liptapp (talk) 05:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I know I am not WP:AGF here, but I simply don't believe that someone would come to Wikipedia simply to write a promotional article about a pillow company without having some connection to it. I normally offer a lot of help to people who have a WP:COI but at this point I will say you will need to gain the WP:CIR on your own to clean up the draft. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late reply, I think you misunderstood me, this is the first time I write an article and I'm not sure I will benefit for it, to be honest for sure if they approach me or reach out to them for the article I might think about compensation that's why I don't know what is the best thing to do. I need expert guidance. I hope you understand me. I'm learning and appreciate all the feedback. Thanks Liptapp (talk) 05:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:30:56, 10 March 2022 review of submission by Macquigg[edit]

I got a message: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." with no further explanation. I can only guess that the sources were not acceptable, because they are documents published by the company producing the reactor. This will be true for all the articles on different reactors I would like to submit. There is no other reliable source of information on these reactors. Can we make these articles less about a specific design? I don't think so. To provide definitive answers to questions raised by the anti-nuclear community, we really need to see the details of each design. Then if there is still controversy, the issue can be settled with a quick point-counterpoint on the discussion page. A good example is the question about vulnerability of MSRs (Molten Salt Reactors) to diversion of nuclear material. The Union of Concerned Scientists has stated that ALL MSRs are vulnerable, due to on-site fuel processing. See the Talk page on this article for the response from the designer of this reactor. Can we get someone from the Engineering group to weigh in on this? David MacQuigg 17:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Macquigg:, thanks for the question. The comment left by Nirmaljoshi is that the sources need to be WP:I. In order to show notability, the sources must be independent. Using a self-published source to explain or show certain items within the draft is acceptable (depending), but the independent sources are needed to show why the topic qualifies for a Wikipedia page. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41 Thanks for your prompt reply. I am still confused, however. The comment by Nirmaljoshi was that the article didn't have reliable sources. Where can we find more reliable information on the details of each reactor design? There is no better source than the spec sheets and other documents on the websites of these companies. I understand that there may be some claim that this information is not reliable, but I know of no better source. Perhaps we should say this in the article - "The company claims that their reactor can follow changes in loading at a rate of 5% per minute." and then link to their spec sheet.
I don't know what you mean by a "self-published source". I have no connection with ThorCon Inc, or any of the companies producing the new generation of reactors that claim to solve all the problems with safety, waste management, weapons proliferation, and cost. I have no self-promotion motive in writing these articles. I just want to provide a shorter path for others who are where I was a few months ago, just waking up to the possibility that nuclear fission could be the solution to our global warming problem.
There are plenty of general sources on nuclear reactor design, but they don't provide the details needed to answer the questions coming up in discussions on FaceBook and other social media. I've given two examples - diversion of material from an MSR, and load following. Another that came up on FaceBook this morning - the difficulty of reprocessing spent fuel. I responded with a link to a video on another MSR design (not ThorCon). These discussions can go unresolved forever, if we don't have specific designs to look at. That is the purpose of these articles - one for every new design, showing the details (as stated by the companies producing these reactors), and collecting the critical information in a consistent format, so we can compare one design to another.
Please find someone with an interest in nuclear engineering to review this submission and give specific feedback, not just a template response. David MacQuigg 02:06, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not our job to "find someone with an interest in nuclear engineering" to review the submission. In fact, that is an argument from authority and it wouldn't make any difference since such person who have to evaluate the draft based on Wikipedia guidelines, not their knowledge of the topic. What is comes down to is FIRST showing that the topic is notable. In order to do so, you must show they have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. You will find the answers to most of your questions at those links. If such sources don't exist, then it would not meet the notability guidelines for Wikipedia and a page cannot be created. Only AFTER notability is established should we discuss what claims can be made to secondary or primary sources and whether it would be okay to say the "company claims...", etc. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I want to point out that the reviewer left the notificaiton of it needing more reliable sources, but the comment states specifically "Comment: Please add independent sources."--CNMall41 (talk) 03:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41 Thank you for the clarification on requirements for independent sources on these new designs. I will check with the companies producing these reactors and see if any such sources exist. My guess is that there are only videos and discussions in forums like FaceBook that may be challenged as unreliable. This puts new reactor designs at a disadvantage in the misinformation war, but that is perhaps a better topic to discuss in another forum. Thank you and @Nirmaljoshi for all your help. I will withdraw the submission. David MacQuigg 12:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a forum for clarifying misinformation. Wikipedia is here to summarize what is said in reliable sources. Withdrawing the submission is likely the best option if there are no independent reliable source to who its notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41 I contacted ThorCon, and they suggested I use as sources the documents they filed with the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency). These provide a tremendous amount of detail on reactor designs, and are thoroughly reviewed before publication. They are also more tedious reading than the documents on the company websites. So there is a choice, and I will go with your recommendation. On statements where there might be a challenge, I can cite the IAEA docs. On statements that really shouldn't be challenged, and the reader just wants a little more detail, I can cite the more readable sources. I can also put both citations on each statement, as I have done in references [16][17]. Please look at these two, and let me know if I am on the right track. I will then make all the changes before re-submitting the article and contacting other companies for similar official documents.
I appreciate your efforts in this initial screening process, and I apologize if I seemed impatient or unclear as to my motive in requesting review by someone with an interest in nuclear engineering. I am definitely NOT intending to make an "argument from authority". I am not familiar with Wikipedia's process, and I mistakenly assumed that this was an automated rejection of a high-quality article on an important topic. I will be more patient with the initial screening and welcome later reviews by people with more expertise in this topic. David MacQuigg 00:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:52:27, 10 March 2022 review of submission by SourceRight[edit]

i made the edits as i was advised to. but im really confused about the notability factor as the subject is quite notable and has been covered widely in al the sources required by wikipedia primary , secondary etc. i had attached new citations and references. ill leave it at it.--SourceRight (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC) SourceRight (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:56:28, 10 March 2022 review of submission by 9072Billy-Joel8719[edit]


You see this is for my school comedy class and I decided for extra credit I will make a deep rooted 21 century humor related joke via use of Wikipedia. It would the world to me if this article gets published so I can exceed expectations on my comedy assignment for class.

Sincerely, 9072Billy-Joel8719 9072Billy-Joel8719 (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not your personal joke book - drafts without any encyclopedic content or value will not be accepted or published, no exceptions. -Liancetalk/contribs 18:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:55:44, 10 March 2022 review of draft by Flurrious[edit]


Tanya X. Short is featured in at least 3 different reviews:
https://venturebeat.com/2020/03/02/20-women-in-gaming-you-should-know/
https://www.pcgamer.com/8-people-shaping-pc-gaming-at-the-start-of-the-decade/
https://www.insightssuccess.com/seven-notable-women-in-the-online-gaming-industry/

Would the above sources be enough for notability? If so, I'll base another draft on them without primary sources.


Flurrious (talk) 22:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Flurrious: Only the PC Gamer article would unambiguously help; the other two are perfunctory listicles. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:46, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2022_March_10&oldid=1077380657"