Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2025 March 27

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< March 26 << Feb | March | Apr >> March 28 >
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 27

[edit]

03:43, 27 March 2025 review of submission by Eliza Fullquartz

[edit]

how to bold and separate paragraph topics? Eliza Fullquartz (talk) 03:43, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Eliza Fullquartz: by "bold and separate" do you mean section headings (like the 'References' one already there)? See MOS:HEADINGS. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:21, 27 March 2025 review of submission by Songha Mao

[edit]

Here is Tiger Reth new update article for him. Thank You... Songha Mao (talk) 07:21, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Songha Mao: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:25, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:53, 27 March 2025 review of submission by Vicky Krish(Magic)

[edit]

my submission was showing rejected can you tell why

Vicky Krish(Magic) (talk) 08:53, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have zero independent reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 09:07, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:04, 27 March 2025 review of submission by FateHum

[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Christina_Wendall

Evidence of notability, consisting of multiple reliable sources including, but not limited to University of Wales Press, which discusses the character beyond a fleeting mention, by exploring its "real life" social applications, has been added, but it seems to have been missed by the editor. Those are to be taken into account. I spoke to an editor in the live help chat, who confirmed the sources would work, i also ensured they are not merely fleeting mentions of the character, but discuss it's application from a "real life" social perspective. FateHum (talk) 10:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FateHum: if you're hoping to rely on some of inline external links for evidence of notability, then this won't work; you need to convert those links to inline citations. Only citations are considered, whereas inline external links aren't even allowed in body text. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:09, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should i add quotes from the sources, or simply use the sources in line to evident what the lines are already stating? FateHum (talk) 10:12, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FateHum: online sources are routinely accessed for verification, so there is no need to add quotations; for offline sources, quotations would be very useful indeed as it saves us having to trek it to the nearest library. :) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:18, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am a little confused about what i am required to do. Must i simply take the citations, as they are, from the all caps warning at the top of the page, and include them amongst the lines they are sourcing? If so, i have already done so a long time ago, mostly in the category of personality, but also in the first category. The first category however has them after the text all at once, while the personality has them as links to the articles, so should i basically add citations after the links instead of relying on the links themselves? FateHum (talk) 10:23, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is the difference between external links and citations? Are the ones appearing as: "[1]" not citations? FateHum (talk) 10:18, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is an inline external link, as is this: [1]. Neither is allowed.
Whereas this is a statement supported by an inline citation: Trump announces 25% tariffs on car imports to US.[1] The citation takes the form of superscript link to a footnote, which appears automatically in the 'References' section (see below).

References

  1. ^ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly341xr45vo. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:26, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:37, 27 March 2025 review of submission by Gingermytrip

[edit]

can you hep me dear Gingermytrip (talk) 10:37, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gingermytrip: well, I've deleted this for you, if that helps. My next move will be to block you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:43, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, i have transformed the links to proper inline citations, i hope that helps FateHum (talk) 11:07, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:09, 27 March 2025 review of submission by Hashtagemerald

[edit]

Hi,

I received that the article i submitted got declined can i get help on how do i make it acceptable and eventually published. what things i lack in my article how can i fix it any help is appreciated.

Thanks. Hashtagemerald (talk) 11:09, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hashtagemerald: per WP:BLP, articles on living people (which includes recently-deceased) must be comprehensively supported by inline citations to reliable published sources. This draft has no citations, and at least one of the sources is user-generated and therefore not considered reliable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:14, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazingThank you so much for your response. I am new and still trying to figure out things, i appreciate your response. Can you please help if there is a page that tells me more about inline citation to reliable published sources like what are the acceptable citation so i that i can find more for my article. once again thank you very much. Hashtagemerald (talk) 11:22, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hashtagemerald: you'll find basic instructions for referencing/citing at WP:REFB, and if you need more in-depth advice on inline citations specifically, that's at WP:ILC.
You also need to be able to demonstrate that this person was notable. There are two ways to do that, either by citing sources that meet the general notability guideline WP:GNG, or by providing reliable evidence that the person satisfies the special guideline for academics, WP:NACADEMIC. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:28, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated @DoubleGrazing. I will check all that you share, thank you! Hashtagemerald (talk) 11:39, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:02, 27 March 2025 review of submission by 95.194.193.133

[edit]

Editor Flat Out rejected my article with no comment, except to review the MUSICBIO requirements. However, this was my second draft, and Mansfield does meet all the MUSICRIO requirements, and I updated all the citations to improve the article. I have replied back to Flat Out for clarification, but have not heard back. If there are specific citations that need to be deleted or additional citations necessary, I would really like to know, so that I can improve the article. Thank you! 95.194.193.133 (talk) 13:02, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MUSICBIO has twelve criteria, surely you're not saying this person meets "all" of them? So which one(s) are you claiming they meet, and what evidence is there to support that?
Please remember to log in when editing (I'm assuming you're Kschuber02?). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:12, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I carefully read the MUSICBIO and made efforts to comply with MUSICBIO, specifically:
1- Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.
Answer: I have listed 16 citations, all of which are reliable, independent of the artist and not self-published. Some of these sources include recognized major general publications (La Suisse, Chicago Tribune) as well as recognized music trade publications (Cash Box, Guitar Player Magazine). Other publications, while lesser-known, nevertheless are recognized as major within their geographical region (Chicago Reader, East Bay Express, LA Jazz Scene, etc.) If Wikipedia considers any of these citations unreliable, then please tell me which ones?
3- Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country.
Answer: Mansfield was a session musician on at least one Gold (in fact Platinum) Album in the US. I didn’t include that in the article.
4- Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.
Answer: Mansfield, while in the Mormos, toured France/Belgium/Switzerland for two years, and many newspapers covered this. Additionally, under his own name, Mansfield was included in the California Arts Council touring roster for several years.
5- Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).
Answer: Ernie Mansfield’s band, Mormos, was on CBS. They released 2 albums and 2 singles. They also appeared on a third album on CBS where their name was featured with another artist. He was also a solo artist on Catero Records. Fred Catero (and Catero Records) has a seperate Wikipedia page. He was also a session musician for other independent labels, one of which is Off Centaur, which has a Wikipedia page.
7- Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.
Answer: Mansfield was a staff session player for Off Centaur/Firebird Arts, originator of the “Filk” music style, which also has a Wikipedia page. Also, Mansfield was credited by Steinberg Music (on their website) for creating a music notation style for Sher Music Real Books.
9- Has won first, second, or third place in a major music competition.
Answer: Mansfield received the National Endowment for the Arts jazz artist award for 1986 and 1988. (Links provided in the citations for this.)
Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Kschuber98 (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kschuber98: Then let's look at your sources. Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
Most of what I can assess just glosses over him. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:02, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also doubtful that being a session musician on someone else's album that charted counts. 331dot (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:17, 27 March 2025 review of submission by 173.235.106.178

[edit]

I do not know which references are not reliable. Please help 173.235.106.178 (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me as if it's mostly not a question of reliability, but of independence. 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) 18:20, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:07, 27 March 2025 review of submission by Stephen Ochieng Nyandiare

[edit]

please help me so my article can be approved Stephen Ochieng Nyandiare (talk) 17:07, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see your user talk page for important information. 331dot (talk) 17:09, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Stephen Ochieng Nyandiare. Writing about yourself in Wikipedia is so difficult, that you are strongly advised not to try it.
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.
This implies that, once you have found the independent reliable sources - places where people wholly unconnected with you have chosen to write about you - you then need to forget everything that you know about yourself, and write a summary of what those sources say - even if they leave out things that you think are important, and even if you think they are wrong. Do you see why this is difficult? ColinFine (talk) 19:46, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:36, 27 March 2025 review of submission by Swensonia

[edit]

Hi. My submission on the page for Regina Joseph was rejected because it apparently reads too much like an advertisement. I worked very hard to include. a plethora of citations to reliable sources, etc., but there aren't any specific call-outs to me to, for example, add extra citations, fix citations, etc. If there is any specific concerning language or other deficiencies, would you please call them out so I can address all/any issues? I'm eager to receive and act on constructive criticism. Very willing to learn and process criticism. Thank you. Swensonia (talk) 21:36, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Swensonia: The draft was declined (not rejected, which would mean that you could not resubmit it) because it is promotionally written. That is not really a citation problem (although there are some issues with the sources as well – more about that below) but a problem with the writing style, vocabulary, and undue focus on minor promotional details. I am a little concerned that you do not see that, e.g., a sentence like In 2012, her skill in anticipating pivotal outcomes was validated and quantified by her identification as a top superforecaster in cutting-edge US-government-funded experiments is completely promotional rather than informational (and to me, almost unintelligible). That is just one example – sometimes, giving a specific example results in a resubmission with only that one sentence changed, so I want to be very clear that removing that won't solve the problems with the draft. A recurring issue is the way you collocate pretty much everything she has ever touched with glowingly positive expressions: notable New York City galleries, one of Brazil’s most famous composers, New York’s top competitive math and science high school, cutting-edge interface design, etc etc. --bonadea contributions talk 11:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As for the sourcing and citations, there are a few separate issues there. One is the fact that there are external links in the text, but that's a minor problem as it is easy to remove them. More importantly, I have checked some of the citations and found several that do not verify the claims in the draft. This press release, linked from the phrase "first international broadband", makes no claim of the sort; the same PR is used as a source for other claims that are either not verified in the source (In 1998, Joseph joined the first international broadband network Chello Broadband, a division of United Pan-Europe Communications, now Liberty Global, as VP in charge of building its content portal strategy and offerings) or appear in the source but are unconnected to Joseph (a long sentence in the same para as the previous example, about chello; the source only says Joseph was a "Vice-President, Corporate Development/Content"). And thirdly, there is a severe WP:CITEKILL with multiple sources saying essentially the same thing, or sources that aren't actually relevant since they don't verify the content, or don't discuss Joseph. --bonadea contributions talk 11:46, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Belated thank you. I will be making some edits today/tonight and will do my best to keep your feedback in mind. I especially appreciate your attention to detail and the detailed examples. I will review everything you called out and more. More anon... Swensonia (talk) 17:34, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:58, 27 March 2025 review of submission by Jibin George Areekal

[edit]

I need to add my profile on Wiki Jibin George Areekal (talk) 21:58, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, and welcome. We don't have "profiles" on Wikipedia--we have articles on notable subjects. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia--you seem to be mistaking it for LinkedIn or a social networking site. Your draft has rejected for inclusion and tagged for speedy deletion. It will soon be deleted, as it is wholly unsuitable as an encyclopedia article. If you wish to make constructive edits to existing articles, you are welcome to do so, but please read up on our policies and procedures first. Thanks. --Finngall talk 22:16, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:04, 27 March 2025 review of submission by Fastmole

[edit]

I am having trouble getting the map I'm trying to link working. I've read the manual but think I misunderstand something. Fastmole (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]