Wikipedia

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

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< May 19 << Apr | May | Jun >> May 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.


May 20

edit

02:01, 20 May 2025 review of submission by Marzana.safat

edit

I submitted a draft for the article titled NeelChokro: Blue Circle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:NeelChokro:_Blue_Circle) over three weeks ago, and I was hoping to get it published soon. The article is about a Bangladeshi film, and I believe it meets Wikipedia's content guidelines, including neutrality and verifiability.

I would greatly appreciate it if someone could review the draft and assist in moving it toward publication. If further information or sources are needed, I am more than happy to provide them.

Thank you for your time and assistance. Marzana.safat (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Marzana.safat: The draft will be reviewed at some point. Repeatedly asking for preferential treatment ([1], [2], [3], [4]) is disruptive – please do not do that. What is your connection to the film? --bonadea contributions talk 05:12, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Bonadea,
Thank you for your response. I apologise if my previous inquiries seemed disruptive; that was never my intention. As a new contributor to Wikipedia, I have been actively seeking guidance from the relevant people to understand what I might have been doing wrong. I was eager to learn and improve my approach in submitting content. This is my first film entry submission, and having it published would be an invaluable learning experience for me. I would be able to apply the knowledge gained from this to other topics on my bucket list in the future.
Thank you for your understanding. Marzana.safat (talk) 13:19, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:41, 20 May 2025 review of submission by Phnnws

edit

Hello, I recently submitted this wiki article, but it was rejected despite including multiple reliable sources as references. I would appreciate some clarity on the specific reasons for the rejection so I can better understand what needs to be improved. Could you please provide guidance on whether the issue was with the content, notability, source formatting or something else? Thank you in advance for your help. Phnnws (talk) 05:41, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Phnnws: Your draft was declined, not rejected, which means you have an opportunity to improve the draft and submit it again. The majority of the sources are the website itself talking about it self. Such sources are not helpful and do not convey that the subject is notable. The draft needed to be sourced by reliable sources that are actually about the subject, not just mentioning it in an article about something unrelated. Also, based on your username, do you have a conflict-of-interest? If you do, it has to be disclosed per Wikipedia policy. cyberdog958Talk 06:00, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:04, 20 May 2025 review of submission by Ameer khan 1995

edit

All telugu poets need to be recognized Ameer khan 1995 (talk) 07:04, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ameer khan 1995: there's no page titled Telugu language authors (or Draft:Telugu language authors).
And that's not a question. Did you have one in mind you wanted to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have published a article about an author how much time it will take to approve it Ameer khan 1995 (talk) 07:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Courtesy link: Draft:Paravastu Chinnayya Soori
@Ameer khan 1995: Your draft was declined because there is already an existing article about the subject at Paravastu Chinnayasuri. Also, your draft is written with an essay-like prose and not written with an encyclopedic tone. cyberdog958Talk 07:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ameer khan 1995: In addition, the draft you submitted had been copied from an external source, violating the copyright of that source. Wikipedia cannot host copyrighted material, for legal reasons, so the draft has unfortunately been tagged for deletion. --bonadea contributions talk 07:57, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:09, 20 May 2025 review of submission by FehrScaper

edit

This page was recently rejected, citing the reason that Offiah's own publications are not independent reliable sources. But the publications cited that are Offiah's own are all from peer reviewed journals - so I don't understand why these are not independent reliable sources? The other references are webpages about her - but she didn't write the content of these - so I'm assuming these aren't what are being defined as her "own publications"? FehrScaper (talk) 11:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add - I've just noticed that the draft text I submitted for review isn't the same as is now there. The text has been edited and more references added since I last worked on it. Is there a way to find out who made these edits? They must have been made after I submitted it for review, and before it was reviewed. FehrScaper (talk) 12:20, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @FehrScaper, when we say independent we mean 'unconnected to the subject' - as in the information should not come directly fro, the subject, their family or friends, their employees or employers, etc. You can find more information at WP:42, which tells you about the three criteria your sources should meet.
If you select 'view history' on the top right of your screen when viewing your draft, you can see who else has edited it and what changes they have made. Happy editing! Meadowlark (talk) 13:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That makes more sense - I have used some webpages from the employer. I'll try and sort that out. Although someone else has made over 250 edits since I submitted the draft, so my corrections could get undone again... FehrScaper (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @FehrScaper. 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) 17:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FehrScaper, it might also be a good idea to go talk to the other editor - you can look in the 'history' link next to your draft title up above, or on the draft page like I mentioned, and there will be a 'talk' page for the other editor that you could try saying hello on. Usually working on an article that's in mainspace you will have many other editors working with you, and any mistakes are swiftly corrected, but draftspace is more of an intimate realm and people often work alone. If you have concerns about how they're editing the draft, having a talk to them is your best course of action! They are most likely trying to help you get it accepted, but they are also a new editor and writing new articles is an extremely difficult task for newer editors. Meadowlark (talk) 00:26, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:31, 20 May 2025 review of submission by Deadeater.42

edit

I have checked and added references for the wikipedia article. I don't understand what else is needed. The article is important for its relation with axion dark matter experiments that already have a wikipedia page. And it's similar in length and quality to the 'helioscope' page. Deadeater.42 (talk) 13:31, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the experiments have an article(not a "page"), my suggestion would be to expand that article first, then discuss on its talk page making a separate article if need be. 331dot (talk) 14:35, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:35, 20 May 2025 review of submission by Adn0009

edit

all of the information in my article is legit with reliable sources attached with it still my articles gets rejected by the reviewers whats their problem Adn0009 (talk) 13:35, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Adn0009, their problem is that your draft has no inline citations and your sources are not reliable by Wikipedia's standards. This means your draft is effectively unreferenced and cannot possibly be accepted. Before resubmitting, please read through WP:42 and referencing for beginners and follow the advice you'll find there. Keep in mind that if you keep resubmitting without making some big improvements, the next reviewer may decide that the draft cannot be improved and simply reject it - which means the end of the road, no more resubmissions. Meadowlark (talk) 13:57, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Adn0009. A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and very little else. ColinFine (talk) 17:33, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:22, 20 May 2025 review of submission by Tony.Molica

edit

I received a review of my Draft, and the Conflict of Interest policy was flagged. Before submitting, I did put a Conflict of Interest disclosure on the page's "Talk" section. Is there somewhere else that this disclosure should be located?

This article was written in neutral, informational tone - only facts about Bond and not trying to sell or push products. Bond is a global presence in the world of Friction Stir Welding technology. Comparing this to other company wiki pages believed this to be on track. Any insights to get this closer to approval would be very much appreciated. Thank you. 

Tony.Molica (talk) 16:22, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tony.Molica: What you see as "neutral" reads to us as "skewed in favour of the company". This is because your conflict of interest affects your perception of what is neutral. This page still reads like an investors' brochure. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:35, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From the very first sentence with it's spam link, this draft is just blatant advertising, it tells us everything the company would like us to know and reads nothing like an encyclopaedia article. Theroadislong (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Working on updating the neutrality, and adding additional 3rd party sources. Tony.Molica (talk) 17:45, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Working on updating the neutrality, and adding additional 3rd party sources. Tony.Molica (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Tony.Molica. 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) 17:34, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Working on updating. Tony.Molica (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would would suggest putting a disclosure on your user page(User:Tony.Molica). If you are employed by Bond, the Terms of Use require you to disclose your employment, see WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tony.Molica Your status is not a simple COI. You have presented yourself as a paid editor in your opening question. I have left a formal question on your user talk page. Please use your pay to learn with precision about what is required, and implement it. That includes making the correct declaration.
If your manager has suggested that you write this article please read WP:BOSS and show it to them. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:56, 20 May 2025 review of submission by Ashoksravn

edit

why my page was not published i need a help an d please help to published my page Ashoksravn (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://example.com/ekka-shooting-complete is a fake source have you used AI here by any chance? Theroadislong (talk) 17:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ashoksravn: I've blocked a few users as sock puppets of Ekka Movie who've been trying to get this published in the last week or so under different titles. Can you give me one good reason why I shouldn't block you, too, given that you're clearly all in it together? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, they hopped onto #wikipedia-en-help earlier and tried to vomit the draft into it; they got killed off the network. Turns out posting a line-by-line draft into IRC causes the network's bots to view it as spam and kick-ban the offender, who knew? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:15, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano Bonus level achieved! 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:13, 20 May 2025 review of submission by Mr. Benz86

edit
Deleted as a blatant hoax 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am requesting for my Wiki page, which had just been published on May 20, 2025, to be removed. Thank you! Mr. Benz86 (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. Benz86 It has been deleted as a blatant hoax. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

21:49, 20 May 2025 review of submission by Changerequestchicago

edit

I am looking for assistance on how to get this article published. What do I need to do here? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Changerequestchicago (talk) 21:49, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please disclose your connection with this person, see conflict of interest and paid editing.
Rejection is typically the end of the line for a draft, but if you can fundamentally change the draft to address the concerns of reviewers, you should first appeal to the last reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 21:57, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:52, 20 May 2025 review of submission by Brandonlindo

edit

I would like to request assistance with the edits needed to resubmit this article draft. Am I being asked to include additional sources, and could someone clarify the issue with the “Affiliations” section? Should that section be removed entirely or revised? Additionally, could you explain the concern regarding Prof. Stuart Conway’s role as an advisory board member? I would greatly appreciate more detailed guidance on the edits required for publication.

I would also like to add a image of Professor Stuart Conway to this infobox, but I'm unsure on how to add the image. If someone could walk me through it, I would greatly appreciate it!

Thank you. Brandonlindo (talk) 22:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Brandonlindo Please engage in conversation with the editor who declined the draft. We are unable to offer a better opinion than they have already.
Pictures are problematic. If you "found it" somewhere then someone else owns the copyright. If you took it then you own the copyright. To upload it you either have to be the copyright owner or be licenced by them to upload it here,. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:34, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for neutral editor review: Connie Willis draft

edit

Hello editors,

I’m Connie Willis, and I’ve drafted a biography about myself in my sandbox:

🔗 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ConnieWillis/sandbox

I understand Wikipedia discourages autobiographies, so I am kindly asking a neutral editor to review it and, if appropriate, submit it through the proper process.

The draft is fully formatted, neutral in tone, and backed by third-party sources including Coast to Coast AM, interviews, and podcasts. If it needs improvement, I’m happy to revise.

Thank you so much for your time and guidance.

—ConnieWillis ConnieWillis (talk) 23:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ConnieWillis Your draft was declined because it did not contain significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources to demonstrate that you meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. By "independent" we mean that the source should be completely unconnected to the subject, so interviews and organizations that you are part of are not independent sources. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:54, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Though it is not absolutely forbidden, it is inadvisable for you to write about yourself here, see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 08:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @ConnieWillis. One of the things that makes autobiography so hard in Wikipedia is that 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.
The job of the writer of an article is to find those independent sources, and then forget everything they may know about the subject, and write a neutral summary of what those sources say. ColinFine (talk) 14:48, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ConnieWillis: Another aspect of autobiographies that 331dot and ColinFine didn't mention is that our standards for biographical content when it comes to living people are stricter. Every claim that could potentially be challenged by a reasonable person MUST be sourced to a strong third-party published source that explicitly corroborates the claim or (failing that) removed wholesale. This is not negotiable. Neither of your sources are third-party either (one is her employer, the other is an interview with her on a podcast). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:45, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2025_May_20&oldid=1292256533"