Help desk | ||
---|---|---|
< June 30 | << Jun | July | Aug >> | July 2 > |
Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives |
---|
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages. |
What more do need or what factors am I missing to get this article approved for Draft:Lamont Sincere? I gladly appreciate your help. Thank You
Emilywlk ( talk) 00:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
How do I appeal a "submission declined"? Oddjob84 ( talk) 15:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC) Oddjob84 ( talk) 15:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
@ NewYorkActuary: Thanks for the information on WP:CITE and the revision of footnotes 1 & 2 in the article. I have also been there and changed over the Book & Journal citations. While I am fine with improving the citations, and will do so, that is not why the article was declined, and quite honestly, I doubt re-doing the citations will change anything. Further, I am disinclined to wait another five weeks to discuss the matter. So, to my original question... how do I file an appeal? If you wish to see my reasoning, you may look here: User:Oddjob84/sandbox. Oddjob84 ( talk) 17:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Are we a bit touchy here at AfC? "di·a·tribeˈdīəˌtrīb/ noun. a forceful and bitter verbal attack against someone or something". I have pretty scrupulously avoided any attacks at all, personal or otherwise. And I don't think you could characterize it as bitter in any case. I have pointed out that there are potential problems with the "decline", and am looking for an explanation at this point. I would rather that we had engaged in a discussion before a re-submit (I could have resubmitted it myself), but since you have jumped ahead, I would ask that the points I have raised, as well as those implicit in my objections, be considered, and a much better explanation be provided. Oddjob84 ( talk) 20:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Since the sandbox comments have become pertinent to this discussion, and since I periodically clear my sandbox, I have pasted the item below for clarity and archival purposes.
The article was rejected on the grounds of insufficient "notability of organizations and companies". Wakayama Marina City is not an organization or company it is a place. Although it is partially owned by the Wakayama Marina City Company, Ltd., it is also co-owned by Wakayama Prefecture, as made clear in the supplied references. WP:NGEO is the proper application of notability, and Marina City passes. An obvious analog is Kansai International Airport which is held by a private corporation and a public entity. Rokkō Island is much the same as Marina City, in that it is a recreation hub and largely in private hands. Port Island is also much the same, and also opened with an expo. Kobe Airport rounds out the four artificial islands in Osaka Bay which apparently have already passed notability standards.
The reviewer left the following comment: "Please add more major media reviews". This is a fair illustration of WP:Systemic bias as outlined in WP:WORLDVIEW. Of course it is difficult to cite major media reviews in English. The Draft Talk:Wakayama Marina City page, which the reviewer apparently missed, said so. There are more references, but they are in Japanese, and will have to wait for a Japanese-speaking editor to add them. This will never happen if the article is not in mainspace. Furthermore, I have little doubt Marina City was covered in the New York Times, Washington Post and/or the Los Angeles Times but this information is all behind paywalls, and I am not inclined to buy a subscription to prove it.
The article is also notable because it was Universal Studios' first overseas project. It must be noted that Universal's second overseas project is notable enough for inclusion: Universal Studios Japan. However, that had the advantage of NBC/Universal's publicity machine in English. The 23 in-line citations provided in the references in the draft article are by any measure adequate, particularly for a Start-class or Stub-class article. As to the "major media reviews", the supplied references are perfectly acceptable sources within their respective spheres of coverage, and meet the tests of "reliable secondary sources".
Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions state:
Yes, it will probably be kept. | Then ACCEPT it now. (You can tag non-deletion-worthy problems.) |
I appreciate the fact that the AfC process is badly backlogged, and it is probably more convenient to reject new articles at a glance. However, this does a disservice both to Wikipedia and new contributors, particularly given the five-week turnaround. Oddjob84 ( talk) 14:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
"Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments". This tells us that the criteria for inclusion is
"significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability". From the above, I am reluctant that the above sources explicitly show notability (in contrast to your claim that
the supplied references...meet the tests of "reliable secondary sources"as not all them do as outlined above).
Thanks. I have started repairing the references per WP:CITE and your remarks. I will also drop in the images tomorrow, which may help as well. Oddjob84 ( talk) 23:08, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Help desk | ||
---|---|---|
< June 30 | << Jun | July | Aug >> | July 2 > |
Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives |
---|
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages. |
What more do need or what factors am I missing to get this article approved for Draft:Lamont Sincere? I gladly appreciate your help. Thank You
Emilywlk ( talk) 00:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
How do I appeal a "submission declined"? Oddjob84 ( talk) 15:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC) Oddjob84 ( talk) 15:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
@ NewYorkActuary: Thanks for the information on WP:CITE and the revision of footnotes 1 & 2 in the article. I have also been there and changed over the Book & Journal citations. While I am fine with improving the citations, and will do so, that is not why the article was declined, and quite honestly, I doubt re-doing the citations will change anything. Further, I am disinclined to wait another five weeks to discuss the matter. So, to my original question... how do I file an appeal? If you wish to see my reasoning, you may look here: User:Oddjob84/sandbox. Oddjob84 ( talk) 17:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Are we a bit touchy here at AfC? "di·a·tribeˈdīəˌtrīb/ noun. a forceful and bitter verbal attack against someone or something". I have pretty scrupulously avoided any attacks at all, personal or otherwise. And I don't think you could characterize it as bitter in any case. I have pointed out that there are potential problems with the "decline", and am looking for an explanation at this point. I would rather that we had engaged in a discussion before a re-submit (I could have resubmitted it myself), but since you have jumped ahead, I would ask that the points I have raised, as well as those implicit in my objections, be considered, and a much better explanation be provided. Oddjob84 ( talk) 20:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Since the sandbox comments have become pertinent to this discussion, and since I periodically clear my sandbox, I have pasted the item below for clarity and archival purposes.
The article was rejected on the grounds of insufficient "notability of organizations and companies". Wakayama Marina City is not an organization or company it is a place. Although it is partially owned by the Wakayama Marina City Company, Ltd., it is also co-owned by Wakayama Prefecture, as made clear in the supplied references. WP:NGEO is the proper application of notability, and Marina City passes. An obvious analog is Kansai International Airport which is held by a private corporation and a public entity. Rokkō Island is much the same as Marina City, in that it is a recreation hub and largely in private hands. Port Island is also much the same, and also opened with an expo. Kobe Airport rounds out the four artificial islands in Osaka Bay which apparently have already passed notability standards.
The reviewer left the following comment: "Please add more major media reviews". This is a fair illustration of WP:Systemic bias as outlined in WP:WORLDVIEW. Of course it is difficult to cite major media reviews in English. The Draft Talk:Wakayama Marina City page, which the reviewer apparently missed, said so. There are more references, but they are in Japanese, and will have to wait for a Japanese-speaking editor to add them. This will never happen if the article is not in mainspace. Furthermore, I have little doubt Marina City was covered in the New York Times, Washington Post and/or the Los Angeles Times but this information is all behind paywalls, and I am not inclined to buy a subscription to prove it.
The article is also notable because it was Universal Studios' first overseas project. It must be noted that Universal's second overseas project is notable enough for inclusion: Universal Studios Japan. However, that had the advantage of NBC/Universal's publicity machine in English. The 23 in-line citations provided in the references in the draft article are by any measure adequate, particularly for a Start-class or Stub-class article. As to the "major media reviews", the supplied references are perfectly acceptable sources within their respective spheres of coverage, and meet the tests of "reliable secondary sources".
Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions state:
Yes, it will probably be kept. | Then ACCEPT it now. (You can tag non-deletion-worthy problems.) |
I appreciate the fact that the AfC process is badly backlogged, and it is probably more convenient to reject new articles at a glance. However, this does a disservice both to Wikipedia and new contributors, particularly given the five-week turnaround. Oddjob84 ( talk) 14:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
"Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments". This tells us that the criteria for inclusion is
"significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability". From the above, I am reluctant that the above sources explicitly show notability (in contrast to your claim that
the supplied references...meet the tests of "reliable secondary sources"as not all them do as outlined above).
Thanks. I have started repairing the references per WP:CITE and your remarks. I will also drop in the images tomorrow, which may help as well. Oddjob84 ( talk) 23:08, 1 July 2017 (UTC)