User talk:Supreeth Nagella

October 2024

Hello, I'm Charliehdb. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Ulajh, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Sacnilk is not a reliable source, see WP:ICTFSOURCES. Charliehdb (talk) 13:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Thank you for your help. Supreeth Nagella (talk) 02:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit at Nardoqan

The added citations were to an internet forum, which is user-generated content and not a reliable source. Reliable sources are generally published. I've reverted the edit. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask here. The teahouse is also a good place for questions (since I'm not always online). Thanks, FifthFive (talk) 02:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dollar Dialogue (October 8)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Bonadea were:

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.

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of websites). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

The podcast itself can't be used as a source except possibly to verify a few uncontroversial details such as the date when it was first broadcast. It is neither independent nor secondary.

Comment on sources in the current version of the draft:

Source 1 is a press release. Not independent, not secondary.
Sources 2 - 10 are episodes of the podcast itself. See comment above. (Sources 3 and 4, sources 7 and 8, and sources 9 and 10 are duplicates, by the way. One source published in two places = one source, not two.)
Source 11 is a press release.
Sources 12 - 14 are not related to the podcast. They are other publications by one of the hosts.
Source 15 is a list of Medium articles by one of the hosts. Not independent, not secondary, not relevant to the podcast.
Source 16 is the same as source 12.
Source 17 is the same as source 13.
Sources 18 - 20 are links to Ted talks by one of the hosts. Not independent, not secondary, not relevant to the podcast.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Dollar Dialogue and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

bonadea contributions talk 11:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Supreeth Nagella! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! bonadea contributions talk 11:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was reviewing the feedback you provided and noticed that some of my sources were flagged as press releases. However, I believe these sources to be independent and not necessarily press releases.

Could you clarify the distinction between an independent source and a press release? Additionally, could you provide some tips and indicators that would help us identify the differences?

For instance, what led you to conclude that this article, https://bangladeshpost.net/posts/the-curious-case-of-the-bangladeshi-taka-devaluation-146850 , is a press release rather than an independent piece?

What differentiates between these 2 classifications. Understanding the key differences between these classifications would be helpful.

Thank you very much for your time and service. Supreeth Nagella (talk) 14:34, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]