This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ca. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
November Articles for creation backlog drive
Hello Ca:
WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.
Thanks for reviewing and approving this article. Re. the remaining comment about close-paraphrasing, I'm guessing this refers to the History section - can you be more specific? I worked at rewording this section after the article was rejected first time around. There's only so many ways of rewording facts! Ceperman (talk) 12:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I tagged the article for close-paraphrasing because of some copied sentences like this one: [1]. In this case, you made some attempts at paraphrasing, but much of the sentence structure remains the same. Mistakes like this is perfectly normal for a new editor–I struggled with it in my articles too. I recommend reading WP:FIXCLOSEPARA and following the instructions there. Thanks, Catalk to me!12:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi Ca, I don't fully agree with this. Some of the similarities highlighted by Copyvio are standard phrases (definition of PAWS acronym and its description) and are to be found in many places on the Internet. The existence of an external ditch is there for all to see, and mentioned in detail in a recent survey of the wood (by me), and the other two flagged phrases are surely of coincident similarity to the chosen text. There certainly isn't any similarity in structure. Even without these mitigations Copyvio only finds 12% similarity and concluded violations unlikely. I've removed the word "Bordesley" as unnecessary. Is this enough? Thanks. Ceperman (talk) 12:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Looking back at the sources now, I agree with you–I made a mistake. The issues are so minor as to not need a tag placed. There is one part that is too close for my liking (below), but everything else is fine. Thanks for pointing this out to me.
Article: The substantial woodbank that surrounds the wood has an external ditch typical of a coppice wood, as opposed to an internal ditch more typical of a deer park.
Source: The great bank which surround the wood has an external ditch, rather than an internal ditch characteristic of a medieval deer park; this suggests that the wood had already been enclosed as a coppice wood. Catalk to me!13:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Yohn seems to me to be a pretty exceptional case, for the brutality and depravity of his crime, and also for the complete lack of remorse he showed. There was a good deal of coverage of the trial. The prosecution was originally for carjacking and assault, but the victim died while the trial was pending (https://www.wgem.com/2021/12/14/trial-bradley-yohn-delayed-after-alleged-victim-dies/). He conducted his defense pro se, and that led to some grotesque moments as he questioned the victim's widower. It's a highly unusual case: a pro-se defense in a trial for assault that caused thedeath of the victim, but not actually murder, and the maximum sentence handed down (typically the sentence is in the middle of the band, as you will have seen with Jan 6 defendants, who usually get about half what the prosecution requests).
It was a very hot topic with law twitter and the law and crime podcast world, but I don't cite those things, as they are self-published. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I see that the case has more nuance than I originally thought when I declined the draft. I have no gripes with you just submitting it again. Good luck! Catalk to me!11:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Regarding my draft
Please do not feel accused by my following statements; I am merely trying to understand something. So, my draft cites recipes, however, all of the information in the article is indeed covered by the sources. The article has already extracted what is nearly all available valid information from valid sources; however I could see a case for lack of something else in the article. I would appreciate if you looked through the sources again: if you agree, please inform me and I will set it up for review again. Best regards, UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 00:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi USI, my problem with the draft is not of verifiability, but of WP:NOT. Currently, the cited sources in the draft provide very little info outside the recipe. Since Wikipedia is not a recipe book, we need sources that delve deeper than just how to make the donut. Catalk to me!00:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
I have reworded that section to not read as a recipe, but rather as an informative guide on the composition of the dessert. Is this state of the article satisfactory? UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 00:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Following a comment you left on the draft on when you declined it, I have added more sources for it and its now got 10 references and I think its ready to be accepted.
Good job on adding references—there is a backlog drive to get the pending review count to zero so your draft will be reviewed in no time! Catalk to me!03:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
thanks Ca. I will give that a try too. I have started editing other pages too and I have seen several of the pages i have edited with even less content and source material than this creation attempt! Virgobeach Virgobeach (talk) 11:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thank you for taking my feedback into account. The several pages you mentioned may have problems of their own and may even should have been deleted. With that said, I hope your next attempt will be more successful! Catalk to me!11:58, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Draft:Luke Cissell
Hi @Ca and thanks for taking a look at this draft and for your encouragement and specificity in your comments which is quite helpful.
Was wondering if you could clarify about NewMusicBox source which you mentioned didn't seem to be news org and mentioned no editor -- when I click on the link in the left hand column it provides this info: "Frank J. Oteri is an ASCAP-award winning composer and music journalist [...] has been the Editor of its web magazine, NewMusicBox.org, since its founding in 1999." Out of curiosity I also checked to see what editors here have had to say about NewMusicBox. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NewMusicBox "In 1999, NewMusicBox was awarded ASCAP's Deems Taylor Award. This was the first time an Internet site was awarded the prize. Since inception, founding editor Frank J. Oteri and contributing writers, have received several awards for their articles on NewMusicBox. In March 2000, San Francisco Chronicle's Joshua Kosman hailed NewMusicBox as, "The Web's smartest and snazziest resource for news, features, reviews and interviews on contemporary classical music.""
I see that WP:AllMusic seems to exist in a sort of gray area - it says that "Listings without accompanying prose do not count toward notability" so I have left it in since it does have the accompanying prose / bio. AllMusic seems to be one of the few non-review music RS for biographical info in the music world - can you say a little more about what type of source could potentially support in this instance? Very much appreciated! 24.44.45.156 (talk) 22:08, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
I believe I was mistaken on the NewMusicBox source. I thought they were just an advocacy organization who happened to have articles, but I was wrong. NewMusicBox is perfectly reliable judging by the info provided. Thank you for correcting me! Preferably, I would like one more strong source to flesh out the draft, but I am fine with you just re-submitting it, linking this conversation in the draft for other reviewers' reference. Catalk to me!11:04, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello Ca, thank you kindly for the very fast response. Unfortunately, I cannot follow the given reason, that there wouldn’t be enough reporting on the subject apart from interviews. Because of the 5 sources given, only one was an interview.
Furthermore, nowhere do the guidelines on notability state that interviews would not count as a proof of notability. On the contrary, when a major media organization takes their time to interview a person instead of just copying from a press release, then that itself proves that a subject is noteworthy.
Either way, the four other sources weren’t interviews. They are normal news coverage about the subject. These references aren’t trivial mentions of the subject. Wirtschaftswoche, Auto Motor und Sport, Automobilwoche and Stuttgarter Nachrichten are all reliable sources. They have an editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. They are independent of the subject, written by third parties. They aren’t small and unknown newspapers either – they are major, well known German outlets. Since all three criteria for notability (significant coverage, reliable and independent sources) are met I disagree with the rejection.
I have now added three more references to the article to prove even further the notability and significance of the subject. The two new sources Handelsblatt and Frankfurter Allgemeine are also major, well know German newspapers with a pristine reputation for their journalistic standards. I will resubmit the updated article once I have double checked the latest changes. V72 (talk) 07:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
@V72 Hi, I reviewed the revised draft. It important to remember that notability does not necessarily mean importance. The reason why interviews are generally considered non-independent is that their purpose is to show different viewpoints coming from people. There are minimal editing to the content and information presented, and it is the subject doing the talking. Independence is important since we want to represent more than just the subject's POV. The other four news coverage are indeed (mostly )independent coverage, however some are just interviews with some paraphrasing, and the others give very little biographical details about the subject. This means that the news articles all repeat the same few key details, and nothing else, making it difficult to write a full-fleshed article about the subject. I hope this helps! Catalk to me!14:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
I can understand the reasons for the non-release so far.
I'll include additional references, which is a bit more difficult with labels - unlike bands, records - as it's usually written about the products and not the label.
This means I will delete discogs as a reference and add two more sources.
In this context, the following question: Do you recommend referring to a PDF for references that are behind a paywall? If so, how should this be done and where is the file stored?
I look forward to your feedback regarding references and PDFs.
Preferably, links that aren't paywalled are better, but if that is the only link you have, it's perfectly find to link it. You can link to website URL the PDF in the URL parameter of the citation. If you are talking about copying the PDF from the paywalled source and uploading it yourself—don't. We cannot link to copyright violations. Thank you for fixing the sourcing issues, and I wish you luck on next submission. Catalk to me!12:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi Ca
Thank you for your answer, which is helpful for us! In the interests of efficient further processing, what do we need to consider in the submission so that the review is carried out by you again after the adjustments? HAL 7C0 (talk) 09:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi, if you re-submit the draft for review, another reviewer can come around to review it.
The reason why Wikipedia has a inclusion criteria based around sources is that the subject need to have plenty of reliable information available to make a neutral and comprehensive overview of a topic. Otherwise, the resulting article is going to have neutraily/reliability concerns. SO find reliable, independent sources that gives a lot of info about the company. Catalk to me!09:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
This doesn't address the question of whether the content is appropriate for Wikipedia, but the copyright isn't a problem. DS (talk) 17:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
I did check for licensing, since a lot of open access journals are Creative Commons, but I thought that a journal which did so would advertise it on their profile page. I should have scrolled and dug a little bit more. Thank you for catching it. Catalk to me!11:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
The contributor came on live help chat to ask why his draft had been rejected as copyvio even though (as he pointed out) it was properly licensed.
We then discussed the nature of his draft. Essentially, he has an entirely new approach to... something I don't understand (it's been years since I took thermo), and he wanted to use Wikipedia to convey to the world that the approach currently used by everyone else is wrong. I explained to him that this is not what Wikipedia is for, and he seemed to accept that. DS (talk) 03:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
I haven't checked the draft yet, but is any of the sources give in-depth coverage about the clan? Last time I reviewed it, the sources just mention its existence and some religion statistics and nothing else. I declined the draft back then because there weren't enough information in the sources to justify an entire article.
I want to know the reason behind declining my page.
I know the person who I am writing about personally. I spoke with him and I wrote about it. I took the references from major newspaper websites of India which are respected by all the Indians. What's the reason of declining the post. Aaseeshpreetam6 (talk) 13:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
As I said, none of the newspaper websites give in-depth coverage of the filmmaker. They just mention that he is the director and nothing else. A article made from those sources would be very deficient in terms of coverage. The draft, in its current state, talks more about specific movies than the filmmaker, and has a lot of personal analysis/opinions in it, which we do not want. Catalk to me!13:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
For the first source, it's possible that the website copied from your draft. However, the other two links I listed show significant copying. Catalk to me!13:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Question from Africaboy EO (04:04, 24 November 2023)
@Africaboy EO Hello, Wikipedia is not the place to promote yourself. If there are enough sources to do research on, an article about you will be made by someone other than you. Thanks. Catalk to me!04:21, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi, you just declined my draft of Sharks by Imagine Dragons (Draft:Sharks (Imagine Dragons song)) and I am confused when you said the sources should be about the song itself and the album. The sources that are not charts or certifications are about the song or the video itself and just gloss over the new album. And you also said that the sources you found were only about the song release, the album, and nothing else, when I can find multiple articles about it with meaning behind the song and release information apart from its release and its album. Do you want me to add more sources? This could also be the same problem with the other Imagine Dragons draft I have (Draft:Birds (Imagine Dragons song)). Thank you. Rockboy1009 (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi! I may have missed something when I was reviewing your draft. Can you send me links to articles about it with meaning behind the song so I can take a look? Thanks for contacting me, Catalk to me!00:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
here are just three that I found without looking too hard
@Rockboy1009 I just took at the sources, and I don't think any of them is really independent from the band. The Genius and UDiscover sources are interviews of the band's vocalist. We want independent sources because we want to hear abut more perspectives than just the band's. I also don't think themusicuniverse is very reliable. It's quite obscure, and the author seems to have little credentials. Catalk to me!09:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Ok, now I will admit that finding a good source is somewhat difficult but I found one that works. Its independent and the author has credentials.
Unfortunately yes—most publications tend to talk about an album as a whole rather than individual musics themselves, so there aren't much quality reviews/coverage about each singles unless it is super popular. Catalk to me!13:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
hello, how do I get to make my own wikipedia article
my own post about something. because I want to make something urgently
its not mainstream but its definitely something that's gona grab eyes in the near future in Africa and Uganda to be specific --Merhawimichael (talk) 13:46, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello, @Merhawimichael. Articles need reliable and independent sources to back up its claims. If the thing you want to write about is not covered by unaffiliated people, you shouldn't make an article about it. Many people start head-first into article making and come back disappointed when they discover that they cannot make an article about a topic. To save effort, if you can provide me with some sources to base an article on, I'll tell you if you can make an article on that topic. Thanks! Catalk to me!14:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
_by_Ron.jpg)
