• Charles Nsugbe (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Onyebuchi Chris Ifediora Foundation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

please what do i need to do for my article to be accepted Charles Nsugbe (talk) 01:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Charles Nsugbe: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rasilshrestha (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Ram Krishna Bantawa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am seeking assistance for feedback on my recent submission. I would like to address the concern regarding the subject's notability and the coverage in reliable, secondary sources.

The entire article focuses on the author and provides extensive information. In addition to the online references provided, there are also significant offline sources that I have cited, including reputable newspaper articles. These sources offer in-depth coverage and are crucial in establishing the subject's notability.

Furthermore, I have previously communicated with a reviewer who declined my article for similar reasons. I had ermailed him through the reviewer's talk page email i found and provided attachments of all offline resorces i had in which he advised that the inclusion of offline sources is acceptable and can be used to support the subject's notability.

I hope this clarifies the issue and demonstrates that the subject meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. Please let me know if there are any specific adjustments or additional information required to facilitate the approval of the article.

Thank you for your consideration. Rasilshrestha (talk) 02:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping to @Fade258 who reviewed the draft, and possibly above. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 02:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• CymaSonic (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Natsuyo Nobumoto Lipschutz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello. I do not understand why my article is not approved. I thought I had a good selection of reliable third party reference resources. Is this based on language differences? CymaSonic (talk) 02:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CymaSonic, welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for your contributions too. While Wikipedia isn't based on language differences, it seems you didn't read the reviewer's comment about the draft. Since you're here, look at what is needed. Your draft is about a living person, and per Wikipedia policy, such biographies needs adequate sourcing to almost every credible/noteworthy content. In your draft, there doesn't seem to be any citation in the "Early life and education", and "career". Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 02:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ArtHistorian1014 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Punkmetender (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello! This submission was just rejected because of unreliable sources, and I was hoping for more clarity into which sources were unreliable so I can avoid using similar ones in the future. I'm trying to add prominent contemporary artists to Wikipedia and believe Punkmetender is among them so would love to optimize this page to a place of submission acceptance. Thank you!

ArtHistorian1014 (talk) 14:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @ArtHistorian1014! A point of semantics first - I know this will sound a bit silly, but 'rejected' and 'declined' are different in Wikipedia terms. Rejected means the draft won't be published; declined means you have another chance. Luckily, your draft is only declined!

In terms of sources, you're trying to find sources which meet all three criteria in WP:42, our 'golden rule': significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. More info in that link! As a quick note, 'reliable sources' here also means the source must have editorial oversight (eg not someone's blog) and be a reputable publisher (eg doesn't accept pay-to-publish articles). If sources do not meet all the criteria, then they can't help establish notability.

For bonus difficulty points, because Punkmetender is a living person, your second goal is to comply with the WP:BLP (biography of living people) rules; this means that every statement needs a good source. You can use interviews for basic details (birth date, when he started painting) but they are otherwise worthless to you. I know this is probably very frustrating. Writing new articles is the hardest task on Wikipedia, and BLP articles are the hardest of all.

You may have too many sources for the reviewers to tackle easily at the moment, so cutting the list down a bit should make it more manageable. I'll go over your first 10 and hopefully that will give you enough direction to look at the rest yourself - of course if there's some you're really not sure about, please feel free to come back and ping me if you wish!

1) only has a paragraph on the artist, so it's not significant coverage; it's mostly about an exhibition.

2) is an interview, which is not independent of the subject.

3) is a gallery of work, and it seems to me that they are selling his art, so that's a problem both in terms of significant coverage and independence (the gallery has a financial stake in what they write)

4) is a forum thread, which is user-generated content and thus not a reliable source.

5) is also an interview, see 2)

6) also seems to be a gallery selling his work, see 3)

7) looks like a biography written by the artist, or at least approved by him, so this is also not independent.

8) is not actually about him, but rather about current trends in the art world, so it is not significant coverage. If this were about him, I'd say it's a reliable source since everything else checks out - you're looking for this kind of coverage, except you need it to be focused on the artist in order for it to count.

9) says it's an artist profile, but either there's nothing there or my computer is really upset with the site. Whichever it is, I suspect this would also be written or at least approved by the artist, so see 7)

10) is another gallery of his work, so not significant coverage.

Unfortunately, I don't think any of these sources help to establish notability. That sucks, because he and his art seem very cool!

Despite being a disappointing analysis, I hope that is of at least some help as you decide what to cut and what to look for in new sources. Good luck and happy editing - I hope you find some great sources and this draft can become an article! StartGrammarTime (talk) 16:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for this thoughtful feedback, I really appreciate the time it took you to write all of that. To clarify, when you offered those numbers, were those in reference to that number citation? As an Art History professor, I want to make sure I submit the best and most thorough draft for future review so it's accepted! ArtHistorian1014 (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ArtHistorian1014, you're very welcome! I'd love to see more interesting artists getting articles on Wikipedia, so it's a pleasure to help.

Yes, when I say 1) I meant the first reference in your list at the time (Bakian). Sorry, I should have been clearer about that. And just to reiterate, I'm more than happy to help out with more source analysis if you find something you're not sure about - feel free to come ask on my talk page. Plus of course this page is always here for any questions you might have! I'm not an academic myself but I spent most of my working life being their administrative fixer-upper, so I have a soft spot for those in the field.

One final note - you probably don't need it, but just in case - make sure that whenever you submit the draft for review again, you've done your best to fix up whatever the last reviewer noted as a problem. Reviewers understandably get very frustrated when people resubmit the same thing over and over, and it usually leads to the draft being rejected since the assumption is that no other sources exist so the subject can't be notable. If you make a minor edit to the draft at least once every six months, it won't be deleted, so you can work on it for as long as you need. By minor edit I mean even just adding a space, pressing 'publish', and then editing the space back out again.

So once again best wishes, happy editing, and I look forward to seeing more drafts about fascinating artists! StartGrammarTime (talk) 03:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Electricgirl22 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Ruby Gillman (Character) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My draft is a little bit of some help, could you help me make this draft even better, I couldn’t do this by myself. Electricgirl22 (talk) 16:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Electricgirl22: This seems like it would be more appropriate for Fandom, even disregarding the article's poor sourcing. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but could you at least improve it for me. Electricgirl22 (talk) 17:05, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Electricgirl22: I invite you to read what I just wrote. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, but where can I read it. Electricgirl22 (talk) 17:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the article has already been mostly copied from https://rubygillman.fandom.comview_html.php?sq=Jamal Khashoggi&lang=en&q=Ruby_Gillman. It can technically be licensed from there but it is not going to be accepted with no references and a non-encyclopedic tone. C F A 💬 17:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are references, but I needed you to rewrite it in a non-encyclopedic tone, as you just said. Electricgirl22 (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The onus falls on the editor(s) who want the content, not on random people who read and reply on a noticeboard. If you want this, you need to do the research and put in the work yourself. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I actually done the research and did the work myself. Electricgirl22 (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Electricgirl22, as much as we'd like to assist you, please be reminded again that the responsibility for making the article suitable for publication lies solely with you. We can provide guidance and suggestions and point you to our policies and guidelines, like we have already done. However, if the article requires a more encyclopedic tone and proper referencing, like it clearly does in this case, you are responsible for making these adjustments. Zingarese talk · contribs (please  mention me on reply; thanks!) 17:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Electricgirl22 (talk) 17:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Electricgirl22: Then I'll stop being coy to avoid hurting your feelings and will start actually tearing down your draft. I'll start with the sources as currently there (Refer to my /Decode subpage, linked in my signature as "critiques"):

• https://deadline.com/2023/06/ruby-gillman-teenage-kraken-interviews-dreamworks-animation-1235414795/ is useless for notability (wrong subject). This is pre-release publicity for the film and inasmuch as it mentions the character we cannot use this as anything more than a reference for conception of that character. Even so, it doesn't really discuss Ruby Gillman the character, it discusses Ruby Gillman the film.
• https://www.cartoonbrew.com/feature-film/teenage-kraken-dreamworks-kirk-demicco-226970.html is useless for notability (wrong subject). Again, this is a pre-release article and doesn't discuss Ruby Gillman the character; it discusses Ruby Gillman the film.
• https://keyframemagazine.org/2023/06/12/lets-get-kraken/#:~:text=Ruby%20is%20the%20first%20female,to%20fit%20into%20high%20school. is useless for notability (wrong subject). Pre-release article in an industry publication dedicated to animation; this one is pretty much unambiguously about Ruby Gillman the film.
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/movies/2023/06/27/ruby-gillman-teenage-kraken-movie-review/ is borderline. It's a review that briefly mentions the character, but doesn't go into any real depth on her.
• https://deadline.com/2023/03/dreamworks-movie-ruby-gillman-teenage-kraken-lana-condor-toni-collette-1235301376/ is useless for notability (wrong subject). No discussion of Ruby Gillman the character; article is about Ruby Gillman the film.

The fact that your sources almost all pre-date the film's release is a problem bigger than a kraken's tentacle. In order to have an article about a character, we need to have articles discussing that character and their impact on the cultural zeitgeist, which universally means that sources need to come after the media the character debuted in. We cannot judge a character's impact based on their unreleased debut media (regardless of the notability of that media). If you don't have such sources, then you flat-out don't have an article until sources that discuss the character specifically are released. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Artico13 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Vitale Vidal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It will not publish the article without a reference but we have taken this from The Gazzetino newspaper in Italy which is a reputable newspaper which wrote Mr. Vidals' obituary at the time. How can we reference this newspaper properly so that the article can be published? Artico13 (talk) 18:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Artico13 Is this a verbatim translation? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Artico13: How do you know of Mr. Vidal? C F A 💬 02:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:REFB for how to cite sources.

You need more than one independent reliable source in order to establish that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability.

The text is not written in a neutral way, but is full of peacock words: for example, "influential", and "universally recognized". ColinFine (talk) 15:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok we will remove these peacocks and then we have already added a few references. 151.69.99.82 (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• LuminousPathGlimmer (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Shuying Li (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Need help: This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources. Thanks so much! LuminousPathGlimmer (talk) 21:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LuminousPathGlimmer: Everything that could potentially be challenged by a reasonable person MUST be cited to a strong third-party source with editorial oversight that explicitly corroborates the claim or (failing that) removed. This is not negotiable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 06:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• LuminousPathGlimmer (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Shuying Li (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'd really appreciate some help in identifying which citations are not reliable and should be removed. Thanks so much! LuminousPathGlimmer (talk) 21:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LuminousPathGlimmer: Haven't looked at the references in depth, but the "Early Life and Education" section is completely unsourced. All claims on Wikipedia should be verifiable with a reference. Since your draft is a biography of a living person, inline citations are required after essentially every claim. Happy editing, C F A 💬 02:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Very kind of you to review it for me. I've added more reliable citations - would you mind helping me again? Thanks! LuminousPathGlimmer (talk) 03:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LuminousPathGlimmer: Lots of sources look reliable, though they seem to be mostly primary which might not be very helpful for establihsing notability. The Wind Repertory Project appears to be an open wiki, which would not be reliable on Wikipedia because it is user-generated content. There also appear to be quite a few blogs, like this one, this one, this one, this one, etc. Blogs are self-published sources and not reliable on Wikipedia, especially for verifying claims about living people. I'd recommend replacing those with more reliable sources. If you want to resubmit your draft for review, you can click the blue "Resubmit" button at the bottom of the decline notice. C F A 💬 03:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is so helpful! Thank you :) I've edited more and resubmitted it. Feedback and comments are always much appreciated. Enjoy your weekend! LuminousPathGlimmer (talk) 03:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]