Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2025 June 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< June 13 << May | June | Jul >> June 15 >
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 14

[edit]

06:51, 14 June 2025 review of submission by ClarkeMSmith

[edit]

Dear Reviewers, I would like to request specific advice/assistance with this page which has been rejected a number of times. I have removed an entire section that I felt may have been the problem, but it was rejected. So in the interest in seemingly never ending editing and submissions, I would greatly appreciate some advice as to each specific instance as it pertains to: 'continued resubmission without improving sourcing'.

It would help me a great deal to know if the error(s) are in the PRODUCTION, RELEASE, or RECEPTION sections in question (or anywhere they occur). And then, which sentence contains the error. I think this may significantly reduce the amount of time being spent by the volunteer reviewers. Very appreciative. ClarkeMSmith (talk) 06:51, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft about your film has been rejected, so no more time will be spent by reviewers on this, you have not addressed your conflict of interest either. Theroadislong (talk) 07:11, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feel I'm so close to solving the sourcing errors. That has been the only problem on this article for over a month, so I'm not understanding why at this point, there is now a conflict of interest issue. Each quote has been referenced, so I'm at a loss as to which one(s) are incorrect. I think we are really close at this point, and I'd appreciate it a great deal if you could tell me specifically which one is incorrect. I sincerely apologize for not asking these questions up front. I did not know this Help Desk was available until recently. I have spent countless hours studying the help links provided, when I should have come here instead of submitting over and over. ClarkeMSmith (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have significantly reduced the Production section, and simplified the narrative. I feel this section was the primary issue with both sourcing and conflict of interest. If you advise it, I will remove the Production section entirely. Every other section is factual and fully sourced. ClarkeMSmith (talk) 17:08, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel that you have fundamentally changed the draft to address the concerns of reviewers, the first thing you should do is appeal to the rejecting reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 17:10, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You still need to speak to your conflict of interest- it should be formally disclosed on your user page(click your username in red above). 331dot (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have disclosed the COI on my page (red link). I will appeal the draft to the rejecting reviewer. ClarkeMSmith (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, can you let me know if the disclosure you mentioned was done correctly by me. ClarkeMSmith (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:39, 14 June 2025 review of submission by Gandes Setiawan

[edit]

Dear Wikipedia editors,

I hope this message finds you well. I would like to kindly request your assistance in understanding why the draft article for Ant International was declined again despite my efforts to meet Wikipedia’s standards for neutrality and reliable sourcing.

The draft has been revised multiple times to ensure that:

-The language is neutral and avoids promotional tone;

-All statements are verifiable and sourced from independent and reliable media;

-No content is copied or based on primary sources like press releases from the company itself;

-It follows the structure and tone of other similar company articles.

I truly appreciate the volunteers’ time and effort, and I am eager to improve this draft to meet Wikipedia's standards. Any suggestions or pointers would be immensely helpful.

Thank you so much for your support and guidance.

Warm regards, Gandes Setiawan (talk) 09:39, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gandes Setiawan: Chatbot-written requests will not be entertained. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:53, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for using my language combined with AI, because I am not sure about my language. Back to the related topic, how to edit the page again, until finally the page can be approved and is no longer on the draft page. Thank you. Gandes Setiawan (talk) 04:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gandes Setiawan: You can't - this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. You've had far more than enough chances to provide sources that aren't just rote business coverage. If you can't find those sorts of sources, then we can't entertain an article. We are not a business directory. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 05:43, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:49, 14 June 2025 review of submission by Edouglasww

[edit]

I first started working on a page for the Brooklyn band Late Cambrian, who have six albums and have won significant awards and have had significant achievements in many aspects of the arts with main singer/songwriter John Wlaysewski being a producer and composer and his partner Olive Hui being an artist and model, the two of them having created a scene around their work. My page was first denied over a year ago, and I proceeded to make changes and add citations but then Wikipedia changed the formatting. Recently, SafariScribe who had last turned down my submission since "Bandcamp was not a reliable source" -- I removed all of those references accordingly -- has now turned down the submission stating that it can no longer be submitted with no reasons or help on how the page can be approved to the point where it can be accepted. Wikipedia also changed the way how citations/references can be listed, and I haven't been able to figure that out either. I really feel as if my hard work to create a page for this band, something I'm doing on my own, because I'm constantly being asked for more info on the band when I invite friends to see them, is being unfairly maligned. No one at Wikipedia has been helpful at getting this page up to par for it to be accepted, so I do work, I resubmit with the same results. If you read the page, it's obvious that this band is just as notable for a presence on Wikipedia as any other indie band, and I would like a separate independent review not by this "SafariScribe" character, please. Edouglasww (talk) 09:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was meant to say "How the page can be IMPROVED to the point where it can be accepted." I feel like the very first time the page was turned down in April 2024 offered the feedback I needed to make improvements, but nothing since then has been helpful. I understand what Wikipedia has been trying to do, but not even someone from the site taking even the simplest of information on the page I created and including that on the site is ridiculous. How can this site even be trusted as any sort of reliable source of information where the mods are clearly biased against anyone trying to contribute RELIABLE information that can't be found anywhere on the site? Edouglasww (talk) 09:54, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not claim to be a reliable source, see the general disclaimer. Readers should examine the sources provided. Also see Wikipedia is not a reliable source. We don't have "mods" here. There are administrators like me, but any editor may review a draft.
Awards do not contribute to notability unless the award itself merits an article, like Grammy Award. You have not shown that the band meets at least one aspect of WP:BAND. You have just described the activities of the band, not what independent reliable sources choose to say about it. 331dot (talk) 11:04, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:19, 14 June 2025 review of submission by Cv822

[edit]

I have an article I've created, and I've been trying to get published for over two years now. It is an article about my local public high school and contains facts about academics, extracurriculars, the history of the school, quick facts, and even the plans regarding the new football field.

Currently, the article has been rejected for appearing "to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia." I do agree with this, and I’m open to fixing it. But even after multiple revisions, the submission is still dismissed for the same reason. I would greatly appreciate any help rewording parts of the article to meet Wikipedia’s standards. I truly just want this page to be published now, because I think it’s quite unfair that every single high school near me has a page (I checked), and mine doesn’t.

I kindly request any extra guidance regarding my article, and I’m flexible about changing any parts of it. And I would rather help than be told my article isn’t important like before.

Thank you, Cv822 (talk) 10:19, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are telling about the school and its offerings. Instead you should be summarizing what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the school, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization.
Most schools actually don't merit standalone articles, unless there is something unusual about the school like it being a historic structure, or independent sources extensively write about its academic/state test results. Even a school shooting doesn't merit a standalone article about the school itself(Sandy Hook Elementary School redirects to the school district while the shooting itself has an article). At one point in the past the mere existence of a school merited it an article, but that is no longer the case, they are treated just as any other organization. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. For this reason you may see other articles on schools that probably shouldn't exist, but just haven't been removed yet. 331dot (talk) 10:46, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cv822 I see that you are claiming that you personally created and personally own the copyright of the logo of the school- typically the school would own the copyright. If you didn't personally create the logo, you must immediately without delay request deletion of the logo from Commons.
Images are not relevant to the draft process, which only considers the text and sources. Images can wait until the draft is accepted. Once it is, there may be ways to have the logo in the article, but you don't need to worry about that right now. 331dot (talk) 10:52, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This might be off-topic, but I'm not sure about the copyright of the logo, and it's a bit of a story how I got it. The thing is, the school logo is openly available on sites like their Facebook. But of course, I will definitely talk to somebody at my school, like the principal or superintendent, about the situation with the copyright, but as of now, I'm unsure.
And I kind of did create the image of the logo because I took an image of the school logo on a wall and messed with it on Photoshop for a long time until it was perfect. So I am the owner of this specific variant of the logo, unless I'm misunderstanding.
Also, the part about Sandy Hook was extremely helpful and I was surprised to see such a famous school link to the school district's page. Thank you for that! Cv822 (talk) 11:15, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't know the copyright, you must get it deleted. It doesn't matter that you made a copy of it yourself(a derivative work); this is akin to you handwriting a copy of The Hunger Games novel and saying it's your own work. As I said, images aren't relevant right now. 331dot (talk) 11:29, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the image from Commons, but what now? Am I still able to contact school officials about the image and re-upload it if I get the OK? Cv822 (talk) 11:37, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My advice is to focus on the draft itself right now; once it is accepted and placed in the encyclopedia, you can then worry about enhancing the article with images. Images are considered to be an enhancement, not a necessity. A school official can probably release the logo or at least provide you with the appropriate documentation so that you can upload it yourself, but again, that's not important right now. 331dot (talk) 11:41, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does my article seriously have any chance of getting accepted? The requirement about the nobility seems like it completely ruined any plans of having the article published. One notable thing I can think about is one of the alumni from a long time ago, Rachel Carson, is known by many throughout the world. Does this help? Cv822 (talk) 11:50, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say definitively that the school does not merit an article, because I don't know what sources exist that might support an article about the school. But I can say that what you have now will not be accepted, and you would probably need to radically change your approach, essentially starting fresh(though you can do that by removing the current content and starting over, though the previous reviews need to remain).
Notability is not inherited by association, so the fact that Rachel Carson went to the school in and of itself would not be a claim to notability- unless you have sources that significantly discuss how the school profoundly impacted Rachel Carson and her life. 331dot (talk) 11:56, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cv822 the school is already pretty well covered at Allegheny Valley School District. What could be done though is a redirect to that article so anyone search for Springdale Jr-Sr High School will be directed to that article. S0091 (talk) 17:18, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So I've currently shifted my focus to the school logo because I've lost most of my hope with the school article. I would like for the logo to at least be on the internet to be seen for now. Recently, I did research on uploading fair use logos and I did come across the fact I'm NOT able to post a fair use logo on Commons but instead I must upload it to Wikipedia itself. I just need some help checking if I filled out all the parameters correctly.
Here's the newly uploaded image as a non-free school logo under fair use:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Springdale_Jr-Sr_High_School_PA_Logo_Transparent.PNG Cv822 (talk) 05:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cv822 ask at the Teahouse. S0091 (talk) 13:52, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:41, 14 June 2025 review of submission by Mrintervalofficial

[edit]

For reference I don't have anyone how can I do this Mrintervalofficial (talk) 10:41, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My advice would be to abandon this effort. Please see the autobiography policy. Writing about yourself is highly discouraged, because it is very difficult for people to set aside what they know about themselves and summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about them. You have no such sources. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves. 331dot (talk) 10:55, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:34, 14 June 2025 review of submission by 161.12.51.18

[edit]

Additional eyes on my draft (requesting addition and second review) Hello, My Wikipedia keeps getting rejected without any thorough or scientific assessment & feedback of notability and credibility: Draft:Zied Tayeb I want the review to be objective and to properly assess and diligence the quality of the submission, which unfortunately does not seem to be the case can you assist please? 161.12.51.18 (talk) 11:34, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are Swajaan, remember to log in when posting. I fixed your header to contain the title of your draft as intended. I also removed the url from your link, the whole url is unnecessary.
The good news is that the draft was only declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted. That you did not get the result you want does not mean that the review was not properly done. I understand that being declined can be frustrating, but more experienced people than you are looking at it.
As noted by reviewers, you have not shown that Tayib meets WP:NPROF. 331dot (talk) 11:40, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:46, 14 June 2025 review of submission by Under Sea World

[edit]

My draft is unaccepted. Under Sea World (talk) 11:46, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 11:57, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2025_June_14&oldid=1296437444"