Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2025 May 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< May 12 << Apr | May | Jun >> May 14 >
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.


May 13

[edit]

Follow-up on Karen Leigh Hopkins request

[edit]

Hello! I submitted a request for a new article on Karen Leigh Hopkins under the "Directors" section at [Requested Articles – Arts and Entertainment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Arts_and_entertainment#Directors). She's a notable film director, screenwriter, and producer with coverage in major outlets like The New York Times, Variety, and The Hollywood Reporter. Just following up to see if an editor might be able to take a look. Thanks so much!

Just for reference, the request for Karen Leigh Hopkins is under the "Directors" section of this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Arts_and_entertainment/Film,_radio_and_television#Directors

Appreciate any attention editors can give it. Helloitsmeif1212 (talk) Helloitsmeif1212 (talk) 02:43, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Helloitsmeif1212: I looked at your past contributions, and I don't see a draft about this individual and you only added it to the requested articles list. The requested articles list is notoriously backlogged and there are very few, if any, editors that actually write articles just from its listing there. If you are interested in this article being written, it is probably something that you will have to write yourself. cyberdog958Talk 02:52, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again for the guidance. I took your advice and created a sandbox draft with proper sourcing and a neutral tone. I also disclosed my COI. If you're willing, I'd really appreciate any feedback or a quick look: User:Helloitsmeif1212/KarenLeighHopkins. Thanks again! Helloitsmeif1212 (talk) 01:33, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

02:54, 13 May 2025 review of submission by 2601:8C:4182:9AB0:6891:986E:89A:E2AE

[edit]

Can you request to publish an article? 2601:8C:4182:9AB0:6891:986E:89A:E2AE (talk) 02:54, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP editor. Your draft was declined because there is only a singular source with a dead URL. The majority of the draft is completely unsourced. On top of that, there is already an existing article at Way Too Early about the same show. I recommend you merge your sourced content over into that article. cyberdog958Talk 03:00, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]


02:54, 13 May 2025 review of submission by 2601:8C:4182:9AB0:6891:986E:89A:E2AE

[edit]

(Note: combined sections that appear to be two drafts on the same subject)StartGrammarTime (talk) 03:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you request to publish an article? 2601:8C:4182:9AB0:6891:986E:89A:E2AE (talk) 02:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you request to publish an article? 2601:8C:4182:9AB0:6891:986E:89A:E2AE (talk) 02:57, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to both your questions, I can request it, but I choose not to. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 06:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

03:51, 13 May 2025 review of submission by Raiderz.R.DaBest

[edit]

Greetings, Editors

Although I value your input, I would like to make a few clarifications about your choice.

First of all, I can appreciate the worry regarding trustworthy sources. Nonetheless, the game's creators are acknowledged explicitly in the game itself (the logo appears right away), and I think that's a trustworthy source. I'm willing to find more reviews or interviews to support the references, even though I am aware that there might not be a lot of secondary literature on a Flash game like this.

Regarding the tone, I recognise that the writing may have seemed casual. But I think a big part of the game's identity is its narrative style, which is reflected in a lot of the language used in the submission. Nevertheless, I will be content. i'll Adapt the tone to Wikipedia's neutral and formal requirements. However, in order to help me with my revisions, I would appreciate more detailed input on which sections you thought were overly casual or promotional.

If you haven't already, I also advise you to play the game itself. The atmosphere and story of the game provide a lot of the context and tone, and I believe that playing it will help you better understand the strategy I used to write the piece.

I'm determined to make the required adjustments and submit an article that satisfies Wikipedia's requirements. I appreciate your time and advice, and I'm eager to make this submission better.

-Raider Raiderz.R.DaBest (talk) 03:51, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your link (it was missing the "Draft" prefix). Have a look at some of our Good Articles about video games to see the kind of coverage and tone that we're aiming for. And did you use a large language model ("AI") to write your request? ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 05:34, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ClaudineChionh Not only the request, but also the draft. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 06:24, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Raiderz.R.DaBest We wish to hear from you, yourself, in your own voice. We do not wish to converse with an AI Chatbot. If you have a question for us please use your own words, unvarnished by a Large Language Model 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 06:22, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are some serious fundamental issues with this article. We're primarily interested in what secondary sources say about the game. This is an article written entirely using WP:PRIMARY sources. Some uncontroversial details from such sources can be introduced once notability has been established.
By "tone" I don't believe anyone's talking about the narrative tone of the plot sections, but that this article does not read at all like something you would expect to find in an encyclopedia. In fact, I know shockingly little about the game after reading the article since 90% of it seems to be plot and gameplay tips. For all I know, this game could be like a Twisted Metal game or an open world-ish game like the Grand Theft Auto series or a vertical scroller like the old Spy Hunter game or something else entirely. I know nothing about the development, the release, or the reception of the game. In sum, I don't know what makes this Flash game series notable compared to any other series of Flash games, since it's never told to us. I only discovered this was even a 2D sidescroller by searching for a video of the game just now.
I definitely concur that LLMs were at least used to assist in places, but that's not as big a problem since this article would have to be fundamentally rewritten anyway. If you want to make a case for this game, start with only independent, neutral, coverage of the game, and write an article using only information from those sources. Only then, once that article can stand up on its own on the strength of the secondary sources, would it be appropriate to include those uncontroversial WP:PRIMARY details. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:07, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"We wish to hear from you, yourself, in your own voice. We do not wish to converse with an AI Chatbot. If you have a question for us please use your own words, unvarnished by a Large Language Model"
when i didn’t use AI, i was told my tone wasn’t formal enough. When I did use it, I was told AI isn’t allowed. now what?
"We're primarily interested in what secondary sources say about the game." it's a niche flash game, do you expect a news article about it?
also smokoko's website (the developers) is in the references list, i dont see how you could possibly miss that
"this article does not read at all like something you would expect to find in an encyclopedia. In fact, I know shockingly little about the game after reading the article since 90% of it seems to be plot and gameplay tips."
It’s a Flash game, not a physics sim. Most people playing it aren’t digging into hitboxes or damage values. they just want to know how it plays.
"For all I know, this game could be like a Twisted Metal game or an open world-ish game like the Grand Theft Auto series or a vertical scroller like the old Spy Hunter game or something else entirely. I know nothing about the development, the release, or the reception of the game. In sum, I don't know what makes this Flash game series notable compared to any other series of Flash games, since it's never told to us. I only discovered this was even a 2D sidescroller by searching for a video of the game just now."
yeah, it’s a 2D game. Smokoko mostly made 2D games until a few years ago. that shouldn't be surprising.
and this one part specifically: "I don't know what makes this Flash game series notable compared to any other series of Flash games, since it's never told to us."
If you’re saying small games with minimal coverage don’t belong on Wikipedia at all, then just say that.
"I definitely concur that LLMs were at least used to assist in places, but that's not as big a problem since this article would have to be fundamentally rewritten anyway. If you want to make a case for this game, start with only independent, neutral, coverage of the game, and write an article using only information from those sources. Only then, once that article can stand up on its own on the strength of the secondary sources, would it be appropriate to include those uncontroversial WP:PRIMARY details."
now that i’m speaking in my own voice instead of through a machine, will this be rejected for being "too informal" again? Raider (talk) 00:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't address this game specifically but I'll try to answer your general questions.
  • Yes, we always want articles and discussions to be written by humans, not machines. For discussions like this one, write in your own voice, as you are doing now. For articles, writing in the formal tone of an encyclopaedia is a learned skill, and if you're not familiar with it yet, I'd encourage you to take the time to read the guide on writing better articles. You can look at the Good Articles I mentioned as models of what we want to see in encyclopaedia articles about games. Here's the same list in a format that might be easier to navigate.
  • If you’re saying small games with minimal coverage don’t belong on Wikipedia at all, then just say that. OK, I'm sorry, I'll say it: a small game that doesn't have significant coverage in reliable secondary sources doesn't belong in Wikipedia at this time. This is not a value judgment. You clearly enjoy this game and I'm sure there are others who do, but it doesn't meet the minimum requirements for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 04:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
so be it then, i'll stop. Raider (talk) 04:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Smokoko's website, again, is a WP:PRIMARY source. As I said above, we're interested in what secondary sources say about the game far, far more than what Smokoko says about their own game. If there's no independent coverage of a game, then no, it is not suitable for Wikipedia. This is an an encyclopedia, not a social network or a promotional platform. No independent sources = no article.
"It’s a Flash game, not a physics sim."
"yeah, it’s a 2D game. Smokoko mostly made 2D games until a few years ago. that shouldn't be surprising."
What would the purpose of a Wikipedia article that expects readers to somehow already be intimately familiar with the subject? The fact is, even if the game were notable, the article did a poor job conveying key information about the game. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:26, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:55, 13 May 2025 review of submission by Thewisebaghera

[edit]

Request for Help Improving Claudia Carpentier Draft per Reviewer Feedback.

Hi everyone,

Any suggestions or edits to bring it closer to Wikipedia’s standards for neutrality and tone would be very welcome.

Thank you in advance! — Thewisebaghera Thewisebaghera (talk) 04:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewisebaghera Instead of writing what references say about Carpentier you have provided lists of stuff they have done. This draft needs a 100% rewrite. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 06:27, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:22, 13 May 2025 review of submission by 2601:8C:4182:9AB0:6891:986E:89A:E2AE

[edit]

Can you request to publish an article? 2601:8C:4182:9AB0:6891:986E:89A:E2AE (talk) 05:22, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2601:8C:4182:9AB0:6891:986E:89A:E2AE, this isn't an article, it's a single sentence. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 05:39, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:23, 13 May 2025 review of submission by 2601:8C:4182:9AB0:6891:986E:89A:E2AE

[edit]

Can you request to publish an article? 2601:8C:4182:9AB0:6891:986E:89A:E2AE (talk) 05:23, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2601:8C:4182:9AB0:6891:986E:89A:E2AE, as with your previous question, this isn't an article, it's a single sentence. You have been advised to read Your first article which you should do before submitting any more drafts. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 05:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can. I choose not to. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 06:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:18, 13 May 2025 review of submission by Vanessaaaaalong

[edit]

Would it help me to publish this article if I changed the title to the following two?

Canadian Ginseng (Panax Quinquefolius/North American Ginseng) or Canadian Ginseng/North American Ginseng (Panax Quinquefolius)

Thank you in advance for your kind help Vanessaaaaalong (talk) 06:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanessaaaaalong the draft title doesn't matter. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 06:30, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:19, 13 May 2025 review of submission by TheSettlor

[edit]

need advice getting this article up, a biblical flag TheSettlor (talk) 06:19, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 06:31, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TheSettlor Both drafts have been rejected. Neither will proceed further. Neither is appropriate for Wikipedia. A third submission of this material is likely to be seen as tendentious. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 06:43, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:36, 13 May 2025 review of submission by 114.143.187.10

[edit]

Hello,

I hope you’re well. I recently submitted a draft article for Calsoft, and it was declined with feedback indicating that the references currently included do not adequately establish notability as per Wikipedia’s guidelines.

I’ve reviewed the feedback carefully, revised the draft to maintain a neutral point of view, removed promotional content, and retained only information supported by independent, reliable, and verifiable sources. However, the draft continues to be declined for the same reasons.

I would sincerely appreciate if you could kindly clarify the following:

Based on the references I currently have (including coverage from The Times of India, StorageNewsletter, and MarTech Edge, among others), does this subject meet the eligibility for a standalone Wikipedia article?

If not, could you please advise specifically what kind of additional coverage or sources would be considered sufficient to establish notability for this company?

Would it be more appropriate at this stage to consider merging notable facts into a broader topic article (e.g., "List of IT companies in India") or continue refining this as a standalone entry?

I want to ensure I’m aligning with Wikipedia’s content policies and would greatly appreciate clear guidance on the next actionable steps to improve this submission in line with community standards.

Thank you in advance for your time and assistance.

Best regards, Shweta 114.143.187.10 (talk) 11:36, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you're the account that created the draft, remember to log in when posting. If you're associated with the company, that needs to be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. You have not yet established that this company is a notable company as Wikipedia defines one, through summarizing what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about the company.
List articles are not for members of the list that lack standalone articles. 331dot (talk) 11:49, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:28, 13 May 2025 review of submission by Typing Fox

[edit]

Hello,

recently I created an article for the European University Alliance ENGAGE.EU which was declined. The argument for this was, that it needs "multiple published sources" ... After some research I wonder, why this article with 20 references was declined, although other European University Alliances were not - although they have nearly no references, for example: Aurora (university network) Utrecht Network EUCOR

Especially since there are already many mentions and dead links to ENGAGE.EU I think that there is an actual need for this article.

It would be great if you could reconsider to accept this article.

Best regards, TypingFox Typing Fox (talk) 14:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The whole url is not needed when linking to another Wikipedia article, I fixed this.
Please see other stuff exists. It could be that these other articles are also inappropriate and just not yet addressed by a volunteer. This cannot justify adding more inappropriate articles. Each article or draft is judged on its own merits.
Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about something and its offerings. A Wikipedia article about an organization must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. This may be different from other language Wikipedias, which have their own policies. 331dot (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:43, 13 May 2025 review of submission by Jmartin2001

[edit]

why did this page get declined 

Jmartin2001 (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmartin2001: It was not declined – when you created it, it was with a "declined" template already in place. Did you use ChatGPT? That can cause that to happen (and it is also a reason for human reviewers to decline a draft, since LLM creations are not acceptable). --bonadea contributions talk 19:48, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmartin2001: you had submitted the draft on your user page. I've moved it into the draft space, it is now at Draft:RespirTek.
I've also posted a paid-editing query on your talk page, please read and respond to it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:24, 13 May 2025 review of submission by Elijohnson123

[edit]

This person is a state-wide elected official, what makes them not popular enough? Elijohnson123 (talk) 20:24, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Elijohnson123 Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN, fails WP:BIO. Popularity is not an acceptance criterion 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
and linkedin.com and Twitter are not reliable, independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They are not a statewide elected official, they hold no public office.
Please disclose your connection with him, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:30, 13 May 2025 review of submission by MaynardClark

[edit]

Subject: Help refining Draft:Maloney Properties — part of a broader effort to cover major Greater Boston housing/property firms

Hello helpful editors!

I am seeking constructive help to improve my Draft:Maloney Properties, which I submitted in the spirit of beginning a broader effort to ensure that major property management companies in the Greater Boston area are properly covered on Wikipedia.

I believe that Maloney Properties is a notable company based on its long history, role in affordable housing, and scale of management (11,000+ units). My intention is to either (a) refine the article to stand on its own, or (b) explore how it might be appropriately included or compared within a broader article on major New England or Boston-area property management firms.

I have explained more on my user talk page, but would really appreciate advice:

What are the best next steps for making this article or a version of it publishable?

Is a “comparative context” article (e.g., major Boston property management companies) advisable or welcome?

What kinds of reliable sources might strengthen the article or its framing?

I am eager to follow Wikipedia’s standards for notability, neutrality, and verifiability. I welcome collaboration or mentoring.

Thank you for your time and insights! MaynardClark (talk) 23:30, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2025_May_13&oldid=1291261456"