Misplaced Pages

:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 December 19 - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Scsbot (talk | contribs) at 08:07, 25 December 2024 (edited by robot: archiving December 19). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

Revision as of 08:07, 25 December 2024 by Scsbot (talk | contribs) (edited by robot: archiving December 19)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Help desk
< December 18 << Nov | December | Jan >> Current help desk >
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.


December 19

01:26, 19 December 2024 review of submission by Uryder23

I’m not sure if this comment belongs on the draft page or the help desk, so I’m starting with the latter.

In trying to understand the rejection of my article on Fanny Breeze, I read the Misplaced Pages article on reliable sources. Based on my understanding, References 1 and 5 should pass the test, with the sources being the Orange County Register of Deeds, the NC State Park Division, both of these understood to be reliable government agencies. Reference 6 comes from the Eno River Association, a local but trusted conservation organization.

Beverly Scarlett’s role here is as a descendant of the subject, but she has also served as a District Attorney and District Court Judge in Orange County, so I would expect that would move the needle closer to being a reliable source, so that perhaps we can add References 2 and 3 to the list of reliable sources. If it helps, I can try to vet the credentials of local educators Dave Cook and Joe Liles, the narrators from Reference 4.

My desire here is to provide some visibility about an individual who made a difference to thousands of people. It’s not easy to find high quality sources for a person who was born almost 200 years ago, so I’ve offered those that I can find.

Please let me know if there is some way to modify the article so that it might be accepted.

Thanks, Tom 

Uryder23 (talk) 01:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
@Uryder23: the first thing that strikes me is that half the paragraphs (some very short, admittedly, but still) are unreferenced. So even if your sources were all undeniably reliable, the draft would fail the test of not adequately supported by reliable sources.
Source 1 may well be reliable, but it isn't a published source (by the looks of it, at least). Source 5 appears to be just a photo; it is probably "reliable", but only serves to support a tiny factoid in the draft.
The bigger problem (than sources being reliable or not) is that they are all primary, apart from #2 possibly, and as such unable to establish notability. That's what I would have declined this draft for myself. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
@DoubleGrazing @ColinFine For both of you - thanks for the clarification. I'm understanding more about why don't have what we need for this page. I'm disappointed, but your explanations will help me explain to the other folks on the team why we can't meet the standards. Uryder23 (talk) 12:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Hello, @Uryder23. To enlarge on DoubleGrazing's reply: the decline notice focuses on reliable sources. This is the most important criteria, but there are two others which are nearly as important: independence from the subject - very little which is written, published, commission, or based on the words of, the subject or their associates, can be cited; and significant coverage - a source which only mentions the subject in passing is of little use, and one which does not mention the subject is almost always irrelevant. Please see WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 16:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

04:32, 19 December 2024 review of submission by Sunuraju

i add citation sources Sunuraju (talk) 04:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@Sunuraju: you don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

04:43, 19 December 2024 review of submission by 2601:201:8300:1E90:818:6429:A45D:9699

what was wrong with the article? any suggestions? 

2601:201:8300:1E90:818:6429:A45D:9699 (talk) 04:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
It's not written in an encyclopedic fashion, it's full of MOS:PUFFERY, basically every fact is unsourced, and there's nothing presented that suggests the subject is notable. Even if this were a notable basketball player, the article would need to be completely rewritten; it has very little actually about the subject. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

11:11, 19 December 2024 review of submission by Tapiro Maccu

Hi, The page I wrote about Radio Dublino (https://en.wikipedia.org/Draft:Radio_Dublino) was rejected for lack of sources. I removed the weak sources and added many more reliable sources. I have been waiting for another review since June. Do you know what I can do? Would it make sense to add more sources? I already have 11 references for a very short page. Tapiro Maccu (talk) 11:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@Tapiro Maccu: just for the record, this draft was declined in June, but only resubmitted on Nov 19th, so you've been only waiting for another review for exactly one month. And no, there is no way to expedite this process, as we have 1,800+ pending drafts to review, and they are not reviewed in any particular order. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
thanks for the reply and the clarification. My question was about the sources. Should i add more sources or maybe is better reduce them and leave just the 4 / 5 more independent reliable sources? Tapiro Maccu (talk) 16:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
The purpose of citing a source is to give the reader a means to verify some information in the article. If a source performs that function on its own, leave the citation in. If it verifies information verified by another source, consider removing one of them. If it does not verify a piece of information in the article, remove it. And if it is a non-independent source whose only function in the article is to verify the existence of something (eg an artistic work) consider whether that work ought to be mentioned in the article at all. ColinFine (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

13:11, 19 December 2024 review of submission by AUZOKA12

I am seeking support for the publication of a school project in the Sandbox. I think my references are not linked to the articles as I pasted them from my original 'WORD' file. I have attempted uploading for comments but have not been successful. I need help with properly citing my references. AUZOKA12 (talk) 13:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Please see Referencing for beginners, but it appears you are writing an essay, not an encyclopedia article. If your teacher has asked you to do this, they are incorrect to do so for several reasons and have put you in a difficult position. Your teacher should refer to the Misplaced Pages Education Program materials to learn how they can design lessons that don't involve requiring students to create a Misplaced Pages article or get a draft approved. 331dot (talk) 13:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

13:25, 19 December 2024 review of submission by Blahblahahaha

I'm not able to find the yellow box saying "Review waiting, please be patient. Kindly help! Blahblahahaha (talk) 13:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Blahblahahaha Don't use the whole url in the headers on this page, just the full title(the whole url isn't really needed anywhere). Try submitting it now; the template used doesn't exist(I think). I put the correct one. 331dot (talk) 13:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

13:53, 19 December 2024 review of submission by Olipre

Hello, I've translated an article on Romain Tranchart that I wrote for the French wikipedia. However, I can't integrate the authority notices and I understand that this is why my English article is rejected. Can you help me solve this problem? Olipre (talk) 13:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that you have not shown that this man meets the special definition of notability that we have here on the English Misplaced Pages(a notable musician, a notable creative professional, or more generally a notable person). The French Misplaced Pages is a separate project with its own policies; what is acceptable there is not necessarily acceptable here. 331dot (talk) 14:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
@Olipre: As a translation, you need to declare this for proper attribution. I've left a notice on your talk page. Thanks, Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

16:29, 19 December 2024 review of submission by 82.222.127.225

why it is draft?? 82.222.127.225 (talk) 16:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what you are asking, but the draft was rejected, and will not be considered further. It is completely unsourced and does not show how this young man is a notable musician as Misplaced Pages defines one. 331dot (talk) 16:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

18:46, 19 December 2024 review of submission by Alexeyperlov

If the article is denied again, can I remove the old denial message? Alexeyperlov (Complain) 18:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

That is, the previous message for the denial on 7 December. Alexeyperlov (Complain) 18:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Declines must remain as long as the draft remains a draft. 331dot (talk) 18:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

20:01, 19 December 2024 review of submission by 2601:541:0:7A0:3DF5:4D12:134A:48F4

Please approve this listing. You can check that Gloria Sabra is a musician, as her music is available in multiple platforms streaming songs. Thank you! 2601:541:0:7A0:3DF5:4D12:134A:48F4 (talk) 20:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

You have not shown that this person meets the special Misplaced Pages definition of a notable musician. That's why the draft was rejected. 331dot (talk) 20:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

20:40, 19 December 2024 review of submission by Sapr1930

Hi there, I was just wondering why the sources I provided were not considered independent, reliable, or published. Also, what information should be removed in order for this not to read like an advertisement? I am unaffiliated with the organization, but think this page would be useful to those interested in conservation. Please advise, I believe this information to include only straightforward facts that I found about the company in published sources online and nothing that is promotional. Sapr1930 (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@Sapr1930 The main issue and the first point of the declination reasoning on the draft specifies rather that the issue is the submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. The reason for including an article on Misplaced Pages is irrelevant to its creation. We are instead focused only on things that are WP:Notable. Bobby Cohn (talk) 21:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
hELLO, @Sapr1930. The trouble is that none of the sources you cite are independent of OneCanopy. (It is possible that the BizWest one is - it's behind a paywall, so I can't see it) but I doubt it. Misplaced Pages has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Misplaced Pages is almost entirely 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. An article that says what the subject wants to say is very likely to sound promotional.
I suggest checking your sources against the triple criteria in WP:42: they need to be all three in order to contribute to establishing notability. ColinFine (talk) 22:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you so much for this info. The Coloradoan, BizWest, and Sky-HiNews are all newspapers. They have nothing to do with OneCanopy, they simply reported on the company. The Wild Things & Wild Places podcast is also independent of OneCanopy but interviewed a member of OneCanopy for an episode. The other two sources are national organizations completely independent of OneCanopy and I only shared them to support the statement that OneCanopy held memberships in those notable organizations. Please advise further as I'm not understanding how newspapers which are independent and reliable sources are not considered independent of the company, OneCanopy, which is a reforestation nursery with no affiliation to news media. Sapr1930 (talk) 22:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm not saying that the organs are not indpendent, but that those articles are not independent. For example, The Coloradan have very clearly interviewed Brinkman, and based their article on what he said (even though only couple of paragraphs are explicitly quoted). That is not independent, it is echoing what the company says. ColinFine (talk) 23:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
So you will only accept articles in which they did not interview people that are associated with the company? Sapr1930 (talk) 23:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

23:04, 19 December 2024 review of submission by Sportsguyaus

Hi, I drafted the article about the NQSF earlier this year after becoming aware of them through some community events - and reached out to find more details. Since I drafted the article, I have subsequently been employed by them. The article did not make it past the Draft phase, feedback being it needed more resources to reach threshold for coverage.

How should I proceed? It would no longer be suitable of me to continue a draft based on my position? Does anyone think this page should meet the notable criteria

I'm newish to etiquette etc. so I apologise for any well-intended mistakes in advance. Sportsguyaus (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Sportsguyaus. You may continue to work on the draft, provided you first make the mandatory declaration (normally on your user page) of your status as a paid editor.
You will need to make sure that your sources meet all three of the criteria in 42. If you cannot find at least three sources that meet these criteria, the Foundation does not meet Misplaced Pages's criteria for notability, and you should give up.
If you can find three or more, you should forget absolutely everything you know about the Foundation, and write a neutral summary of what those sources say. Even if you know something that directly invalidates what one of the sources says, you may not put your knowledge in unless it is published - and depending on what the information is, you probably shouldn't even if it is published but only by the Foundation. This is because Misplaced Pages works on verifiability, not truth - and it is also one of the reasons why editing with a conflict of interest can be difficult. ColinFine (talk) 23:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks @ColinFine, this is very helpful. I'll conduct a review for notability prior to continuing, and be sure to work through verifiable works and not truth as you pointed out. Sportsguyaus (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)