Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2025 July 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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]

02:02, 20 July 2025 review of submission by Matthewstarfox

[edit]

My draft for this article has been declined for a second time. What other sources or information can I add to get this accepted? Matthewstarfox (talk) 02:02, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Matthewstarfox: you need to find multiple sources which discuss this at significant length and depth. It isn't enough that this operetta exists, it must be somehow worthy of note. If it has been reviewed or critiqued (unlikely, perhaps, given that it was never performed), or its importance analysed in the context of the composer's output or contemporaneous culture etc., that's the sort of sources we would want to see. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:21, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:25, 20 July 2025 review of submission by AlexHuang8FG

[edit]

Hi everyone, I'm reaching out to ask for some advice on how to improve my Wiki page so that it has a better chance of being approved. This is my first time helping a friend create a professional Wikipedia profile. I've tried multiple times, but the page keeps getting rejected. I’d really appreciate any tips or suggestions from those with experience. Thank you so much!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Tony_Tolovae AlexHuang8FG (talk) 04:25, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not meant for creating "professional Wikipedia profiles". As a rule people with a close connection to the article subject aren't suppose to even edit those articles because of the potential for bias though they can make suggestions on the talk pages. Creating articles about them is one step further over the line.
Wikipedia is meant for creating articles about a subject that meets a certain standard of significance. Even if you didn't have a close connection to the subject, nothing in your article draft shows significance. It mentions teams he has been on but there are no links to articles about those teams which raises concerns about whether the teams are significant. Without the teams being significant, how can a player be significant for playing on those teams?
In the addition the references are ill-formed (all those red warnings); even if everything else is fine those have to be fixed before an article can get out of draft space. Then there is your use of Wikipedia:Large language models (follow the link for why dependence on them can lead to problems).
It is not usually a good idea for a new editor to dive straight into creating new articles. Start with fixing up already existing articles you are interested in (make sure they are up-to-date, add necessary references, fix the grammar, learn to work with other editors, learn the rules and guidelines, get a feel for what a good article looks like). Erp (talk) 05:21, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See further discussion at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Tony Tolovae. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:09, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:42, 20 July 2025 review of submission by Mightyheart

[edit]

Could I get a second opinion on what aspects of the article need further improvement to make it ready for publication? Mightyheart (talk) 05:42, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mightyheart: the second opinion is the same as the first opinion, namely that you need to support the contents better with citations. In articles on living people, pretty much every statement you make must be clearly supported with a citation to a reliable published source. Now there are large chunks of unsupported material. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:13, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please help by pointing out the unsupported material? Mightyheart (talk) 16:23, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mightyheart: a citation should come after the content it supports. Therefore, any paragraph which ends without a citation, by definition ends unsupported. That is the case with most of the body text paragraphs in this draft. Also, which source gives this person's date of birth, shown in the infobox? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:34, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your insights, @DoubleGrazing. I truly appreciate your thoughtful feedback. I have taken your notes into consideration, added a source to confirm the birthdate, and made the changes you suggested earlier. When you have a moment, I would be grateful if you could take another look at the draft and share any further thoughts or suggestions. Mightyheart (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:04, 20 July 2025 review of submission by Nikhilan007

[edit]

Why my page was declined, it would be a great help If I knew how I can improve this Nikhilan007 (talk) 06:04, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikhilan007: it was declined for a complete lack of any evidence of notability, on account of the draft being unreferenced. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:10, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:59, 20 July 2025 review of submission by Gvrpkumar

[edit]

Request your review and approval for publishing. Phanindra Kumar.GVR (talk) 08:59, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You will first need to edit the draft amd fundamentally change it to address the concerns of reviewers. Note that, while not absolutely forbidden, writing about yourself is highly discouraged, please see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 09:13, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:REF
WP:RS
https://elcinema.com/en/person/2199666/
https://nettv4u.com/celebrity/telugu/actor/phanindra-gollapalli
https://www.filmaffinity.com/us/name.php?name-id=925683625 Phanindra Kumar.GVR (talk) 13:00, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Gvrpkumar. The first and third have essentially no information about him. The second has a little more, but given that there is no author credited, it seems likely that it comes from Gollapolli or his team.
A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and very little else.
Unless your draft cites at least three sources which each meet WP:42, and contains almost nothing which cannot be found in one of those sources, you have little chance of the draft being accepted. ColinFine (talk) 22:26, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:00, 20 July 2025 review of submission by Erythros Leykos

[edit]

i am reguesting to review my article for submission after my last edit Erythros Leykos (talk) 16:00, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should first ask the rejecting reviewer directly to reconsider. 331dot (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
you dont know his whereabouts, and his condition right now
the person you talk IS semi RETIRED, taking wikiBREAK coz is facing health issues. Is on vacation
i dont want to do this, i am concern about his health. i am going to talk to him even i don't want to disturb him Erythros Leykos (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Given that the last review was in January I will enable resubmission. 331dot (talk) 19:18, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:54, 20 July 2025 review of submission by Olena girshman

[edit]

Article submission On June 13, I submitted the English version of the article already existing in the Russian and Ukrainian languages. The article is devoted to the scientific and artistic work of Elina Sventsytski (Еліна Свенцицька, Элина Свенцицкая)

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F,_%D0%AD%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%9C%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0

https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%86%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%95%D0%BB%D1%96%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%9C%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB%D1%96%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0

Please help me understand why the article was not accepted. I believe it contains the necessary sources and this person is known internationally and has works published in different languages. Olena girshman (talk) 18:54, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Olena girshman You inadvertently linked to a nonexistent page titled "article submission"; I fixed this so it links to your draft as intended.
Please know that the Russian and Ukrainian Wikipedias are separate projects, with their own editors and policies. What is acceptable there is not necessarily acceptable here. It's up to the translator to determine if the topic meets the notability criteria of the Wikipedia for which they are translating. The English Wikipedia tends to be stricter than others. 331dot (talk) 19:15, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have essentially written her resume; a Wikipedia article here must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about Ms. Svetsytska, showing how she is either broadly a notable person or more narrowly a notable creative professional. 331dot (talk) 19:16, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:26, 20 July 2025 review of submission by Fearless Lion

[edit]

Hello, I created a draft article for Judithe Niyonizera, a Rwandan-Canadian actress, but it was declined without clear feedback on the Talk page. I would appreciate guidance on how to revise it to meet Wikipedia’s standards, especially concerning reliable sources and maintaining a neutral point of view. Thank you very much for your assistance and time! Fearless Lion Fearless Lion (talk) 19:26, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Fearless Lion.
A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of several cited sources, each of which meets all the criteria of WP:42: being reliable, independent of the subject, and containin significant coverage of the subject.
Your first source in Draft:Judithe Niyonizera is mostly an interview, and so is not independent. The second is mostly an interview with an associate of Niyonizera, and so is not independent.
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 22:32, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fearless Lion: I've fixed the link to your draft. Colin has given you the reasons that this draft would be declined by a reviewer. However, what actually happened is you "declined" the draft yourself by pasting the decline notice at the top instead of submitting it through the Article Wizard. Did you use a chatbot to write or submit this draft? There are many reasons not to use chatbots to contribute to Wikipedia, and improper draft submissions is one of these. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 22:40, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:29, 20 July 2025 review of submission by MP191

[edit]

change draft name to Will Burns (comedian) MP191 (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The specific title of a draft is not particularly relevant. The draft will be placed at the proper title when accepted. 331dot (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Help regarding Sanjib Bhattacharjee's draft page

[edit]

Hello, the article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sanjib_Bhattacharjee) has been rejected, however I wanted to reiterate that I have taken great care to ensure that it meets the notability guidelines.

Following changes, there are at least five independent, reliable sources that offer substantial coverage of Mr Bhattacharjee’s road safety work and recognition. I have also included other non-English sources not listed below.

- Assam Tribune — one of India’s most respected papers, with in-depth biographical detail

- Intelligent Instructor — an industry-leading UK publication in the road safety sector

- Road Safety GB — a national body advising on government policy

- Waltham Forest Guardian — showing long-standing political and public activity

- The Pioneer — a global newspaper established in 1865, featuring the subject on its World News page

The Pioneer I have only just added, and demonstrates Mr Bhattacharjee's international relevance.

If you think there are still specific areas that would benefit from stronger sourcing, I would be grateful for any examples or suggestions — and I remain fully committed to improving the draft with further reviewer input.

Thank you. Flyhigh223! (talk) 20:15, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Flyhigh223!. What do you hope to achieve by telling us that the Pioneer was established in 1865? That has absolutely no relevance to anything. The Daily Mail was founded in 1896, but the consensus in Wikipedia is that it is not reliable.
Furthermore the articles in The Pioneer and the Assam Tribune are very clearly paraphrases of each other (whether they are paraphrases of another article, or even a Press Release, I don't know), so at the very least it is misleading to cite them as two different sources. Like them, the first-cited Intelligent Instructor article doesn't have a writer listed (though you cite it to Paul Caddick, for no obvious reason) and quotes Bhattacharjee, so it can't be taken as independent.
I haven't looked further, but this all suggests that you either don't understand or don't care about the criteria for sources in WP:42. I wonder if you wrote the draft backwards? ColinFine (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @ColinFine. Thank you once again for your time and feedback.
This is my first experience writing a Wikipedia article, and I’ve approached the process with a commitment to learning from other reviewers. I appreciate the scrutiny of the draft and the clarity you’ve provided on sourcing expectations.
In earlier versions of the draft, I included citations from Metro (which featured Mr Bhattacharjee’s motoring advice) and NHS volunteer pages on LinkedIn referencing his community service. These were added in good faith because they reflected real-world impact and verifiable roles. However, based on helpful guidance from another reviewer, I removed them — understanding that Wikipedia prioritises sources with strong editorial control, independence, and reputational reliability.
I’ve since focused on including sources that meet those expectations more closely. For example:
  • The Pioneer — established in 1865, and widely regarded in Indian journalism, it published coverage of Mr Bhattacharjee on its World News page, noting his recognition and advocacy work. I referenced its founding year not to imply automatic reliability, but to offer context about its editorial legacy. I understand that age alone doesn't define reliability — and my aim was to spotlight the relevance and reputation of the source. The information in the article seems to be different and the date published is recent (17 July), whereas the others are in January. This implies a change and that he continues to contribute, and it is not from a press release, there are also different images.
  • Assam Tribune, Road Safety GB, Intelligent Instructor, DIA, and The AA — each independently highlight Mr Bhattacharjee’s role in road safety and confirm his status as the first person from London to receive a British Empire Medal (BEM) for driving instructor training. His presence at the King’s New Year Honours press conference was also noted by multiple outlets, underscoring both his national recognition and uniqueness in the field. In terms of the quotes, I didn't realise that small quotes from Bhattacharjee implies non-independence, as the rest of the information is not from him.
Regarding Gati Dainik, a Bengali-language newspaper, I want to clarify that while its coverage included Mr Bhattacharjee’s place of birth, student election victories, and early college leadership, I deliberately chose not to include those details in the draft. My reason was that I could not find corroborating independent sources, and I wanted to avoid synthesis or reliance on non-English sources without appropriate translation. If such non-English material can be included with proper citation and context, I'm happy to revisit it with care.
Please find the auto-translated article below to see the information given:
Headline: Shreebhumi’s Sanjib Bhattacharjee to Receive British Honour
Sanjib Bhattacharjee, originally from Shreebhumi in Karimganj district, has been selected to receive the British Empire Medal (BEM) in recognition of his long-standing contributions to public service and road safety in the United Kingdom. His name was announced in the King’s New Year Honours list, and he becomes the first person from London working in the field of driving instructor training and mentoring to receive this honour.
Born and raised in Shreebhumi, Sanjib was active in student leadership during his education. At Karimganj College, he was elected General Secretary and later Vice President of the student union. He continued his involvement in civic life at Gauhati University, demonstrating early commitment to social engagement.
Since 1989, Sanjib has been involved in volunteer and community service activities in both India and the UK. His work has focused on road safety awareness, mentoring driving instructors, and emergency volunteering, including responses to natural disasters and public health campaigns. His recognition has brought pride to the people of Karimganj and Assam.
In the UK, Mr Bhattacharjee serves as a Trainer and Mentor for driving instructors with two of Britain’s leading motoring organisations: the British School of Motoring (BSM) and the AA. He has held positions within the Labour Party, including President of the party’s local division.
He switched to the Conservative party thereafter, receiving personal recognition from then Prime Minister David Cameron.
As for the Intelligent Instructor article, Paul Caddick’s name appeared on the page when the source was first automatically uploaded (rather than manually), which is why I attributed it to him. If that’s unclear or misleading, I’ll revise it immediately — my intent has always been to ensure transparency and accuracy.
I truly want to get this right and am fully open to further constructive advice. If there are remaining areas that need stronger sourcing or improved context, I would be grateful for any examples or direction. I remain committed to learning through collaboration and improving the article in line with Wikipedia’s standards. Flyhigh223! (talk) 21:50, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @ColinFine, did you get a chance to look at the above message? I really appreciate your time. Thanks and I look forward to hearing back from you soon. Flyhigh223! (talk) 12:03, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, @Flyhigh223!, I'm not interested in following this up. ColinFine (talk) 22:19, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, can anybody else help me then? Flyhigh223! (talk) 16:12, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:30, 20 July 2025 review of submission by Yenaled-dsull

[edit]

Looking for advice on how I can make one of the top journals in the field be accepted as a wikipedia article. I've cited secondary sources (Clavirate, JRank, NIH/NLM) and primary sources both within and outside the publisher.

Other journals, such as Nature Communications and Cell Reports, are similar in how they're presented on wikipedia. Not sure what I need to do...

Thanks! Yenaled-dsull (talk) 21:30, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per discussion with the reviewer, I've added three new secondary references (now references 4, 5, 6) that mention JCP as a leading journal in key dermpath areas of research such as skin cancer. Hope this warrants reconsideration :) Yenaled-dsull (talk) 23:00, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Yenaled-dsull: you've asked also on my talk page, but I'll respond here, so others can join in if they wish.
When I reviewed this, there were three sources cited, one of which didn't actually point to an external source, the others were to the journal's own pages on Wiley's website. There was a claim of notability, namely inclusion in Science Citation Index, but this was only verified by Wiley, whereas it would be better to get independent verification.
Since then more sources have been added, still primary ones, but at least some are independent of Wiley. That said, I've not analysed them in any detail. I'm pinging the reviewer who rejected this, Caleb Stanford, who can hopefully tell you more. (FWIW, I think this journal probably is notable, but in cases of rejected drafts, the primary recourse is normally the rejecting reviewer.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:32, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, re-pinging Caleb here, @Caleb Stanford: 4.4.133.77 (talk) 23:26, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
^sorry, that was me; forgot to login. Yenaled-dsull (talk) 23:28, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Yenaled-dsull:
I am not sure realistically how much I can help you with this.
I may have made a mistake in my previous review as I judged this relative to WP:GNG, however, WP:NJOURNALS is the more specific criteria that would apply here. Specifically, it looks like we should be looking for:
Criterion 1: The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area.
Criterion 2: The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources.
Criterion 3: The journal is historically important in its subject area.
Basically, we need reliable sources demonstrating the above three statements. If you can find papers or other sources which discuss the reliability or historical significance of this journal, then that's great.
For what "reliable" means: it's not just a subjective thing, but based on consensus. JRank is not considered reliable according to the table at WP:Perennial sources, so should be removed. For reliable sources, always prefer sources listed in green on that table if you can find any.
It sometimes happens that even a topic that is notable (in general terms) does not have significant coverage in enough independent articles and so is not considered notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. It may sound backwards, if this is the top journal in your field, but then again it depends on the size of your field and how obscure it is. Reliable coverage in independent sources is the gold standard for how this is judged.
I am not an expert in academic medicine so not sure I can really help more! Please leave this for others if you have further questions or ask at WP:Teahouse. You can always edit and re-submit. You would want to be very clear about how the above criteria are met, both in the article and in the comments.
If I were you, I would find some sources that are reliable, independent, and clearly demonstrate 1-3 above. If such sources exist, post them in a comment, and resubmit for AfC.
I hope that helps!
So sorry that I cannot help any further with this. Kind regards, Caleb Stanford (talk) 03:05, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Caleb Stanford: - As I said above, I had already updated the page since your most recent review. Also as mentioned above: I've added three new secondary references (now references 4, 5, 6) that mention JCP as a leading journal in key dermpath areas of research such as skin cancer.
Those references are reliable -- all three of them are peer-reviewed journal articles with PUBMED IDs. (In fact, they all cite the journal I'm trying to create a page for AND mention how it's the #1 or #2 journal in research in key skin conditions).
I can't resubmit because you put it as "rejected" rather than "declined". Yenaled-dsull (talk) 04:57, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
^Just now, I copied and pasted that message into the comments of the page I'm trying to create by the way. Yenaled-dsull (talk) 05:01, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, did not realize that issue. I can resubmit on your behalf when I get back to a computer. Caleb Stanford (talk) 05:19, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Will be sometime tomorrow Caleb Stanford (talk) 05:21, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:56, 20 July 2025 review of submission by Mr. Tabodi!

[edit]

I don't know, why? Mr. Tabodi! (talk) 23:56, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. Tabodi!: I don't know why you would submit a sandbox saying "this is my sandbox", over and over, wasting reviewers' time? If you've no interest in helping us build an encyclopaedia, there are things we can do about that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:59, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2025_July_20&oldid=1302532053"