Help desk
< November 9	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 11 >

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.

November 10

15:49:11, 10 November 2015 review of submission by Keshakoko1

Keshakoko1 (talk · contribs)
- No draft specified!

Chris Coffey 15:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Chris Coffey 15:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)Is there any other editor than Primefac? He apparently didn't understand my question and keeps me going in circles. I started a page in MAY and got rejections from him/her continually. I'm trying to read through ALL these pages just to get ONE simple question. Somewhere I saw where you can request help on having an editor edit your article and post. This is crazy I first submitted in May and still have no idea WHY no one has posted. I've seen many, many similar articles posted and still don't see why this is being rejected. I'll just have to keep asking if someone out there can help because this same person keeps responding and I'm getting no where. I'm beginning to feel it's deliberate for some reason??? I'll keep looking on the internet to see if there is anyone who knows how this works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keshakoko1 (talk • contribs)

Are we talking about Draft:Larry Geller? I shall leave some comments on the draft, and you are welcome to discuss it here, or with me, or with anyone else Fiddle Faddle 18:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

16:13:52, 10 November 2015 review of submission by H Hector Sinclair

H Hector Sinclair (talk · contribs)
- Draft:John Driscoll (art dealer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have weeded out any copy that could be construed as promotional puffery, except as cited in verifiable sources. Would you please help me by being more specific about where neutrality is not observed and which of the sources are not reliable or published? Thank you. H Hector Sinclair (talk) 16:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@H Hector Sinclair: Hi, thanks for inquiring at the Help Desk. You may want to open dialogue with the reviewer themselves. I took a look at the draft and feel it is mostly free of overt promotionalism. I might get rid of the word "venerable" entirely, but that's just my opinion. Thanks, /wia /tlk 00:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

19:42:31, 10 November 2015 review of submission by Dlb19338

Dlb19338 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Simprocess (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My article has been denied on multiple occasions due to the fact that it is not found to be "notable" or contain enough outside sources. However, similar products have their own Wikipedia articles that are not any more "notable" than my article's product or do not have many (or any) outside sources. Why is this the case?

These articles are listed on the "List of computer simulation software" wikipedia page (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/List_of_computer_simulation_software).

I would love any further suggestions about how to improve the article. Thanks for your time!

@Dlb19338: Hi, and thanks for inquiring at the Help Desk. Drafts need to meet Wikipedia's notability standards before they can be accepted into the main article space. However, drafts can't be accepted by comparison to other articles. Sometimes articles that lack good referencing manage to slip through the cracks, and if one compared new drafts to those articles, Wikipedia's standards would lower. Thank you for bringing to my attention those other articles—I will tag them as requiring more high-quality references as applicable.

As for your draft, one problem I see is the nature of the references. Two references are from the company's website, meaning they lack independence from the subject. Another is a PR piece, making it also closely related to the company that produces the tool. This leaves only one source, which is a start, but more will be needed. In general, you'll want to find and add a variety of reliable, independent (third-party) sources that discuss the subject in significant detail.

Let us know if you have any further questions or if you'd like to hear more about anything I've said here. Thank you, /wia /tlk 00:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]