Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 September 26
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < September 25 | << Aug | September | Oct >> | September 27 > |
| 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. |
September 26
[edit]07:38:43, 26 September 2017 review of submission by RolandKluge
[edit]- RolandKluge (talk · contribs)
Dear Wikipedia Helpdesk volunteers,
I am writing you because I feel unsure about how to proceed with my work on the above mentioned article.
It has gone through several iterations of reviews now and I always did my best to integrate the comments by the reviewers.
- In the first draft, I obviously did not cite enough references to show notability (rejection on 2016-11-05).
- In the second draft, I answered to the reviewer's comments by adding citations of usages of eMoflon, as documented in peer-reviewed papers and articles as well as on project websites. Apparently, my tone was not neutral in this draft (rejection on 2017-02-19).
- In the third and forth draft, I carefully checked for (and removed) all passages that appear to have a non-neutral tone. I also removed additional references to reduce the citation bloat (rejections on 2017-04-19 and 2017-05-17).
- Alas, the most recent review remarks that the references are of a too low quality.
My question is now: Is it worthwhile to continue working on the article? What would be a sensible next step? Should I elaborate more on the documented usage scenarios of eMoflon?
Especially, the most recent review left me puzzled because, to my mind, the cited sources indicate that eMoflon is used by various research groups and projects. Most of the sources have a DOI an can be accessed online.
RolandKluge (talk) 07:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- @RolandKluge: Hello, Roland. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the delay in response. The best source of information as to why your submission was declined back in May will be the reviewer who declined it. You can find their name and talk page link in the "decline box" at the top of the draft. But for what it's worth, I too would have declined it, and for the same reason. The issue is not that the references are "too low quality" -- it's that they are not independent of the product. Of the ten references currently in the draft, eight are either written or co-written by developers of the software. And the two that are not do not appear to be discussing the software in depth. Instead, they appear to be simply documenting the fact that two real-world entities are using your software. But even if those entities were notable in themselves, it still would not be a persuasive argument for finding your software to be notable.
As for whether it is worthwhile to continue working on the draft, that's a decision that you'll need to make. I can point you to the principles set forth at WP:NSOFTWARE, especially in the section on "Inclusion", and suggest that if you don't meet the criteria set forth there, you probably won't have much success in getting an article here on Wikipedia. But again, that's a decision that you'll need to make. I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
- @NewYorkActuary: Dear NewYourActuary, thank you very much for your explanations. I guess, now I understand the problem. I will refrain from republishing the article because I understand notability issue better now. Thank you, Roland.
- SMITHGuyTy (talk · contribs)
I need help drafting and publishing the article Titled Smith Optics. I have been denied publishing because my article didn't have notability according to the one who reviewed my article. Most of my content came from the website of the subject I have been writing for. The rest that may not have been from the Smith Optics website was referenced and cited. I may have done the citing incorrectly but I followed the format provided in examples of other articles and from the How to page. I would really like this article to be published but I'm sure everyone wants their articles published. What more do I have to do. I looked into the notability and am confused on how that is determined. If almost all the content comes from the site, isn't that notable? Is there too much content? Anything I felt wasn't from the Smith Optics site I referenced separately. What can I do to get this published? Is there a way to speed up the process of submission and review/constructive criticism? I've been at this for weeks, not continuously but the declination of my article has been demoralizing in desire to complete it. The parent company of Smith Optics, Safilo has a page up that is a more vague and references less than what I am submitting. Is there like a rubric or guideline of what is exactly searched for when submitting an article. I just want to have this up and published soon.
Thank you for your time in hearing this out.
SMITHGuyTy (talk) 22:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
On hold pending
- @SMITHGuyTy: Thank you for making the required disclosure. Don't hold your breath waiting for the draft to be accepted. Probably 80% of the drafts that come through here never are, and the few that are suitable topics for an encyclopedia usually require a great deal of work before they are published. I recall one article about a company, whose product I'm sure you've used, that was declined 14 times over a two-and-a-half year period, although admittedly that is not the norm.
- After posting the question above, you took a step in the right direction by identifying some independent sources, such as The Oregonian and ArchDaily. One problem is that not all of the sources are that good. Some suffer from lack of independence. Others appear to be trade journals that have a limited audience and may lack editorial independence if they have a too-cozy relationship with companies in the industry they cover. The reliability of others is unclear. Does Hatch Magazine, for example, have a reputation for accuracy and fact checking? A second problem is that the bulk of any article should be supported by independent reliable sources, but the content of the draft all came from the company.
- An encyclopedia is not especially interested in the current state of a company, and even less interested in their current products. That sort of information is more suitable on the company's website. If you browse Wikipedia's best articles about companies you'll see that they are dominated by company history. To find independent reliable sources about it you'll probably have to spend time doing research in a library. When you have enough sources to craft a complete article, blow up the current draft and start over, using mainly the independent sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)