Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2025 February 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< February 20 << Jan | February | Mar >> February 22 >
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.


February 21

[edit]

01:38, 21 February 2025 review of submission by MangeshSahoo

[edit]

Accept MangeshSahoo (talk) 01:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You skipped AfC and made a cut-paste move. I don't know what you need here given you only typed a single word and left. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:39, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:10, 21 February 2025 review of submission by DeepFriedUranium

[edit]

There are "reliable sources" on the Tucson Scorch. I took references from both their official website and the Arizona Daily Star. If you could tell me how they aren't reliable I would appreciate it. DeepFriedUranium (talk) 06:10, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DeepFriedUranium: this draft was declined for lack of evidence of notability, which requires sources to be not only reliable but also independent of the subject, secondary, and to provide significant coverage directly of the subject. The team's own website obviously is neither independent nor secondary, leaving you with only one (potentially) qualifying source, and notability requires multiple such sources (usually interpreted as meaning 3+). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also might I ask if there is a limit for how many times an article can be declined before it gets deleted? DeepFriedUranium (talk) 07:10, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DeepFriedUranium: there is no hard limit as such. Sometimes a draft is rejected at the first review, if it's obvious it has no chance of being accepted. At the other end of the scale, there have probably been drafts with 10+ declines, although I can't immediately recall having seen one. Usually, as long as you're constructively responding to reviewer comments and making progress, you're given quite a lot of latitude. But don't interpret that as "no limit", because in a finite world everything has a limit. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:18, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DeepFriedUranium, at first glance, your "best" reference appears to be the Timothy Gassen article in the Arizona Daily Star. However, when I read the whole article, I discovered that Gassen wrote I created TV commercials for the team in the summer of 2000 and was slated to add color commentary for the radio game broadcasts that fall. In other words, Gassen was briefly employed by this team that never got on the ice. Providing references to significant coverage in fully independent reliable sources is a requirement to create a Wikipedia article. Gassen is not independent. Please do not resubmit without fully independent reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 09:05, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would fun while it lasted count as an independent source? That's where I got the information that they were founded in 1999.
https://funwhileitlasted.net/western-professional-hockey-league/ DeepFriedUranium (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DeepFriedUranium, that website is independent, I suppose, but a database entry with negligible content is not significant coverage, and they buy and sell memorabilia, which means it is not appropriate as a reference in a Wikipedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 10:14, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So can you tell me how this got approved? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tucson_Gila_Monsters DeepFriedUranium (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
wait never mind i misread one of the references. DeepFriedUranium (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:17, 21 February 2025 review of submission by Abdelrahmanbarghout

[edit]

I have made the required changes, please review the articles again. Abdelrahmanbarghout (talk) 14:17, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Abdelrahmanbarghout: you need to resubmit it, by clicking that big blue 'resubmit' button. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:50, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did this
But do I have to wait another two months for review?
Please try to review it quickly Abdelrahmanbarghout (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abdelrahmanbarghout, that's not how this works, it will be reviewed when it gets reviewed. There is no priority there is no method of expeditated reviews. Volunteers will get to it at their own pace, WP:NODEADLINES. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 15:41, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just meant that I waited two months before I hoped or thought that it would be reviewed quickly Abdelrahmanbarghout (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It might do. And it might not. Nobody in the entire universe knows how long it will take. ColinFine (talk) 21:41, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:32, 21 February 2025 review of submission by Referent999

[edit]

Can anybody explain about this article/draft what is good and what is bad? The last decline is so round-worded that hard to understand what to improve. For example are there some good/OK paragraph or ar all bad? Where is the opinion (there is complain that too much own opinions)? Referent999 (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Referent999: much of the information is unreferenced, which could be because it is based on your knowledge of this subject, or original research which is not allowed. Wikipedia articles should simply summarise what reliable sources have previously published, with each source cited against the information it has provided.
Personal opinions and commentary, such as "it is interesting to see how best brake-specific fuel consumption figure has improved during the years" is not appropriate. You should merely present the facts, and whatever reliable and independent sources may have said about the impact, importance and/or other noteworthiness of the subject, and leave it for the reader to draw their own conclusions and determine what is "interesting" etc. Also, do not 'narrate' the content, as in "In this article we take a closer look..." -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:45, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FYI we had an unproductive conversation with this user on #wikipedia-en-help. qcne (talk) 16:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To expand on what qcne says, despite what he and I repeatedly told him about Wikipedia's intended and actual audience, he refused to listen and interpreted it as "Wikipedia discriminates against engineers and the hard sciences". I think it's more he's writing for a different, more proficient audience than what we're written for. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:10, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1) OK, I see:
"Also it is interesting to see how best brake-specific fuel consumption figure has improved during the years"
"is interesting" - maybe yes, not totally neutral
"has improved" - maybe yes, not totally neutral
OK, with "has improved" it is possible to change it to "has changed" - should be neutral now, everybody can decide themself is better engine efficency an improvement or not.
But, "is interesting" - how to you say it in neutral, nothing telling way - maybe "it is possible to see" ?
2)
In this article we take a closer look...
What would be replacement for this - maybe just to throw it out/away?
was:
MAN D2676 (also known as D 2676 or D26 or D 26) is diesel engine from MAN Truck & Bus (formerly MAN AG), who has developed diesel engines since 1893 and produced these since the 1890s. In this article we take a closer look for MAN D2676 diesel engine and it sub-models. They all have same displacement, but different power output, different features and accessories. This engine is used in trucks, busses, light marine applications and agricultural machines, like combines and tractors. Also it is interesting to see how best brake-specific fuel consumption figure has improved during the years.
now:
MAN D2676 (also known as D 2676 or D26 or D 26) is diesel engine from MAN Truck & Bus (formerly MAN AG), who has developed diesel engines since 1893 and produced these since the 1890s. MAN D2676 diesel engine and it sub-models - these all have same displacement, but different power output, different features and accessories. This engine is used in trucks, busses, light marine applications and agricultural machines, like combines and tractors. Also it is possible to see how best brake-specific fuel consumption figure has changed during the years/sub-models.
Is this first paragraph now OK or something more?
What about rest of the article? Referent999 (talk) 10:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Referent999: The rest of the article is still a spec sheet, which will still lead to declines. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:52, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:40, 21 February 2025 review of submission by Userpy4567

[edit]

Ya esta listo para subirse? Userpy4567 (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the English Wikipedia, please communicate in English. 331dot (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:38, 21 February 2025 review of submission by Gabrielzang

[edit]

Hi ! I tried to give a more neutral tone and to give the proper license for the picture. I am eager to learn how I can improve it. Could you please provide specific feedback on areas where it fell short or where further revisions are needed? I’m committed to making the necessary adjustments to meet Wikipedia’s standards and would really appreciate your guidance. Thank you in advance for your time and assistance! Gabrielzang (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gabrielzang, you've been warned and reminded about our conflict of interest policy several times already. Please disclose any connection you have with the subject. If you are writing about yourself, I'll remind you again that this is highly unrecommended. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 05:16, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2025_February_21&oldid=1277844719"