User talk:Maraviva

Disclosure

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.

Maraviva (talk · contribs) has been paid by NextFab on their behalf. User:Maraviva Sandbox

Be our guest at the Teahouse

Hi Maraviva! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like RhinosF1 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Resources for your draft

Hi there Maraviva! I've compiled some pages that hopefully will guide you on the right path toward getting your draft into the mainspace.

WP:WikiProject Companies — Probably the most comprehensive resource on creating a company page. I suggest exploring its subpages, in particular:
- WP:WikiProject_Companies/Guidelines
- WP:FAQ/Organizations

You may also want to look at Featured Business Articles (see Portal:Companies for a list of them) to see what a good article has. Personally, I do this with certain topics to get some inspiration. You don't have to follow the Featured Articles to the dot, however.

As to your draft, I think you should omit the "Locations" section as that seems rather promotional.

Happy editing! — BladeRikWr 21:51, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BladeRikWr: Thank you so much! -- Maraviva (talk) 22:14, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Maraviva! You created a thread called Am I on the right track? at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: NextFab (August 20)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Praxidicae 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 appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:NextFab and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:NextFab, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, 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.

Praxidicae (talk) 20:55, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable or not?

Seeking advice around which articles I've used in my draft are reliable or not.

Here are the ones that seem the most in-depth, reliable, independent and secondary to me:

I appreciate your help!

Maraviva (talk) 13:41, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'll run down the sources in order:

The NPR source doesn't cover NextFab itself in detail after the quote from its CEO is removed (as that section isn't independent)
Keystone obviously has plenty of detail. It is also reliable. What could be disputed is independence - it's backed by a bunch of organisations that want local companies and organisations to be pushed. I've had a check at WP:RSN, nothing there, and am just unsure how i feel. Classifying this as a maybe for now.
Reliable and independent, it's a shame it didn't really talk about the company itself - it more just covers what is ultimately moving to a bigger building. However, Philly Voice's variation of the article does have some additional content. It could also be classified as a maybe.
Excellent source, even with various direct and indirect quotes removed, it's got plenty of content to satisfy Sig Cov.
Grid philly gets to be another one that is in the maybe camp on independence - they're a free newspaper and they specifically state they'll consider submitted stories by companies. That said, they're clearly aware of it and take steps to mitigate the issue. It's all very annoying - 1 more more clear source and I'd happily review it.
Wait, hold your horses, there's Delaware Business Times, yet again it's a maybe on the independence. However, this maybe is much closer to a good than the others.

All in all, I think it's marginal, but probably other the marker - if companies only had to meet general notability it'd be fine, but corporate notability is taken seriously. I'll have a look at the other facets of a review in the next day or two.

One aspect I've not considered is that of the advertorial rejection. While it's not flat out blatant, there's a few markers. Firstly, giving a couple of client examples in the prose text is probably ok, giving more than that, and in a list at that, is way too much. Don't put any external links (the ones that cause arrows) in the body of the article - if they don't have wiki articles just leave them black.

I'd advise trimming the expansion section - content should be proportioned to importance to the reader and source basis, and most readers won't view a company getting larger as their primary reason for reading about it. It needs to be there (not least because it anchors some of your key sources) but advise reducing.

Any negatives or even just conventional issues faced should also be included. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: NextFab has been accepted

NextFab, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Nosebagbear (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]