Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2016 May 12
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < May 11 | << Apr | May | Jun >> | May 13 > |
| 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. |
May 12
[edit]02:03:07, 12 May 2016 review of submission by Nicole Kristen Simon
[edit]
I am requesting a re-review because my original submission was declined, as well as my second. I originally submitted the subject as an "Artist". I believe that's what's causing you folks to not accept my subject. Fred Archambault is a highly acclaimed producer/engineer, as one can see through the references I've attached to the article. Can you change my submission to be just a regular person, seeing how producer/engineer isn't quite what the general public would associate with the term "Artist"? Would that make a difference? I feel my article subject is notable enough to have his own Wikipedia page. There are other persons/subjects that are far less notable that have one. Any guidance would be appreciated! Thank you! -NicoleNicole Kristen Simon (talk) 02:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe I don't understand your question about what you submit your article "as". You don't submit an article "as an artist" or "as an engineer"; you submit an article. The lede sentence should describe what the subject is notable for, and in this case it lists multiple roles. I would suggest either that you ask the reviewer why they declined your draft, or that you ask for advice at the Teahouse; this board is not very well watched. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
03:58:16, 12 May 2016 review of submission by Chaustria16
[edit]- Chaustria16 (talk · contribs)
- No draft specified!
Editing the page of Eat Bulaga, upload file of Wowowin, and Kapuso Mo Jessica Soho
Chaustria16 (talk) 03:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
10:38:28, 12 May 2016 review of submission by Monicavarga
[edit]- Monicavarga (talk · contribs)
Hello. My draft was declined - not enough inline citations and I should use footnotes. As this is my first article, I wonder if I could get some assistance , some help in doing it. Thank you!
Monicavarga (talk) 10:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- In my experience, new editors are more likely to get helpful advice of the sort you request at the Teahouse than here. I would suggest that you read referencing for beginners and footnotes, and then ask for further advice at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
15:37:04, 12 May 2016 review of submission by Lauramcintosh2905
[edit]Hi, I have disclosed that I am a paid advocate and I would like to know if I can do anything further to get my article submitted? Lauramcintosh2905 (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- The references to your draft are duplicated. Please fix them. That won't get your article accepted, but articles do get declined for formatting issues such as duplicate references, as well as for notability issues. I will also give you advice that is sometimes also given to non-paid editors, which is that sometimes there is nothing that an editor can do to make a non-notable topic notable. From your standpoint, it is likely that any article that you paid to develop will be about a non-notable topic, because customers who want a non-notable topic published in Wikipedia are more likely to be willing to try to hire a paid editor for the purpose. So not every article that you are paid to have accepted will ever be accepted. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
18:06:52, 12 May 2016 review of submission by 162.245.21.61
[edit]
Reviewer declines to provide specifics on why this article was rejected.
Wikipedia editors are instructed that "a differentiation should be made between spam articles and legitimate articles about commercial entities." [1]
This is a legitimate article about a commercial entity, written in a neutral tone. There are no opinions expressed in this article, and it is written in a tone that "neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject." [2]
The article does in fact "refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources" including Tech Crunch, Forbes, The Washington Post, U.S. News & World Report, CNBC, and Fortune.[3]
Many similar entries have been accepted by Wikipedia editors, including articles about companies in the same vertical as the company that is featured in this entry. [4][5][6]
References
- ^ https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles
- ^ https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
- ^ https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:Credible#References
- ^ https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/CommonBond
- ^ https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/SoFi
- ^ https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Earnest_(company)
162.245.21.61 (talk) 18:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- First, you start off with what comes across to another reviewer as a confrontational attitude toward a reviewer. You wrote: "Reviewer declines to provide specifics on why this article was rejected." That isn't fair. You have only waited 24 hours after asking the reviewer, User:Onel5969. Give the reviewer a little time to reply. Second, you state that Wikipedia editors are instructed that a differentiation should be made between spam articles and legitimate articles about commercial entities. That is true, and the reviewer did make that distinction. Your submission was declined for tone reasons, that it was promotional in tone, not for notability reasons. The references are needed to establish notability, which is not in doubt. The problem is one of tone. Third, although authors are advised to ask for guidance here, that isn't really good advice, because this board isn't well watched. I would suggest asking at the Teahouse instead, and also reviewing the tone of your draft to eliminate all peacock and other promotional or non-neutral language. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Robert McClenon - was just beginning to do my daily responses on the talk page when I got alerted to this ping, so I'll respond here. Never questioned the notability. Never judged it based on that. I can tell you that quite a few of the references (at least a third at quick glance) are either from non-reliable sources, from non-independent sources, or are press releases. Others appear to be simple listings (which are fine for documenting the facts of the article, but don't do much for notability - e.g. BBB). However I declined it because it is highly promotional. Onel5969 TT me 20:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- IP: Onel5969 may appear to be addressing me, but their comments are addressed to you, because we are saying the same thing. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Robert McClenon - was just beginning to do my daily responses on the talk page when I got alerted to this ping, so I'll respond here. Never questioned the notability. Never judged it based on that. I can tell you that quite a few of the references (at least a third at quick glance) are either from non-reliable sources, from non-independent sources, or are press releases. Others appear to be simple listings (which are fine for documenting the facts of the article, but don't do much for notability - e.g. BBB). However I declined it because it is highly promotional. Onel5969 TT me 20:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hillwalking (talk · contribs)
Hillwalking (talk) 20:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Your submission contained copyrighted material and has been deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)