Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Hhbowie (talk | contribs)
58 edits
No edit summary
Line 368: Line 368:
Hello, thank you for your message. Why the article does not comply with the requirements? What I sould do to correct it?
Hello, thank you for your message. Why the article does not comply with the requirements? What I sould do to correct it?
[[User:Mastercup|Mastercup]] ([[User talk:Mastercup|talk]]) 22:05, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
[[User:Mastercup|Mastercup]] ([[User talk:Mastercup|talk]]) 22:05, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

== 23:57:07, 31 January 2023 review of submission by Hhbowie ==
{{Lafc|username=Hhbowie|ts=23:57:07, 31 January 2023|page=

Draft:Notenik

}}

It is not clear to me why this submission is being rejected. Reviewer is saying it is a notability question, and added a comment that "Articles need to be based on secondary sources."

The draft article currently cites 15 sources, and most of them are indeed secondary sources. Previous submissions were rejected because of a lack of in-depth sources, but I recently added a citation to a full-page review appearing in MacFormat/MacLive magazines. Since this is one of the few (if not only) print magazines left covering applications written for macOS, I'm not sure what else can be reasonably expected.

[[User:Hhbowie|Hhbowie]] ([[User talk:Hhbowie|talk]]) 23:57, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:57, 31 January 2023

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category — List (sorting)		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply — By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

  • This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
  • Do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page.
  • Watch out for scammers! If someone contacts you saying that they can get your draft published for payment, they are trying to scam you. Report such attempts here.
Ask a new question
Please check back often for answers.
Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions


January 25

00:04:49, 25 January 2023 review of draft by Rlaird


The reviewer stated "Entire sections are unsourced, on Wikipedia all stated facts should be backed up by a citation. External links should be removed from body of article." So, I have questions about both of these stipulations:

1) The IUCRR is and has always been a virtual organization, it's only "existence" is proved by the website that is operated by the org, and by call-outs made via email lists. All discussions between Board of Directors are via private email lists. The same is true for the members, with their own private email list. So, I'm a little bewildered by the problem of sourcing all of the statements in the article. Most of the content of the article comes directly from the IUCRR website, and for the good reason stated above. The organization has a "bible" that contains information, rules and procedures that everyone needs to follow to be a member in good standing, the RRSOM manual. That manual is available to members only (on a password protection section of the website). The other other citations/sources are articles in a large variety of magazines, newspapers, etc. which talk about members of the IUCRR doing body recoveries (and the occasional rescue). I did include a number of those to "prove" that I'm not making any of this up. So, I'm very concerned that this lack of sourcing will prevent the IUCRR article from being published/accepted. I'd appreciate anything you can offer to help me make this not happen.

2) I have no idea what "External links should be removed from the body of the article." means. I've seen a section called "External Links" on many other articles, and I thought I was using them appropriately.


Rlaird (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rlaird Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about(in this case) the organization,.showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable organization. If no independent sources give this organization significant coverage, then it would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 00:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

01:09:47, 25 January 2023 review of draft by Kalapala0


Kalapala0 (talk) 01:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

01:20:27, 25 January 2023 review of submission by Fidzdiaz-iniego₩== 01:20:27, 25 January 2023 review of draft by Fidzdiaz-iniego ==


Fidzdiaz-iniego (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Fidzdiaz-iniego do you have question? The draft was declined so I suggest reading through all the material linked in the decline message. S0091 (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

01:45:34, 25 January 2023 review of submission by Kye Harris 20063


Kye Harris 20063 (talk) 01:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Kye Harris (CHECK$) and I would like to upload my wiki about my self because I make a strong impact into the uk music scene and I have a positive message to spread to other younger people, I have done many impressive things to help and I would love to have my page so I can reach out to my fans and have everything in one place. My manager said he would recommend I crate one so all the information is in one place, ive been making a impact on the global radio scene and I've gotten some good impressions.

Thanks, kye.

Kye Harris 20063 People do not have a "wiki" here, a wiki is a type of entire website of which Wikipedia is one example; Wikipedia has articles about topics. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves; please read the autobiography policy. Wanting to spread messages or communicate with your fans is a promotional purpose and not permitted on Wikipedia, even for a good cause. If you ever meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician, someone will eventually take note of coverage of you in independent reliable sources and choose to write about you on their own. Any article about you would not be yours to control; you could not lock it to the text you prefer or prevent others from editing it. Any information, good or bad, about you can be in an article about you as long as it appears in an independent source and is not defamatory. Please read about an article about you is not necessarily a good thing. If you want to communicate with your fans, you should use social media or a personal website. 331dot (talk) 10:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

03:30:50, 25 January 2023 review of submission by Aartibhardwaj12


Aartibhardwaj12 (talk) 03:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Aartibhardwaj12 you do not ask a question but the the article was deleted after a review by several editors and draft did not overcome the concerns noted in the deletion so is rejected, meaning it will not longer be considered. S0091 (talk) 22:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:17:53, 25 January 2023 review of submission by Maplestrip

I have foolishly agreed to write a Wikipedia article for the company I work for, but it has been denied due to sourcing issues. I have a hard time telling which sources are or aren't WP:RS in this subject matter, and my draft includes a variety of sources. Could I get a second opinion on which sources are good and how close this subject is to meeting GNG? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Maplestrip if you want a second opinion, you can resubmit the draft but you need to give WP:NCORP a thorough read first. Many of the sources appear to be trade publications which are at best weak sources and without digging into them also likely fail WP:ORGCRIT. S0091 (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:20:37, 25 January 2023 review of submission by Hooton Writer

Because my page was deleted and I don't understand what went wrong because I had cited all information and included all relevant links. Pasting it again so please review. Hooton Writer (talk) 10:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

{Removed Pasted article contents} Speak with the deleting admin on their talkpage, don't paste the content here, especially copyrighted material.McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 14:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 10:29:01, 25 January 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Två Granit


Hello.

Draft:Oskar Källner was not accepted and I need help to understand why. This is a writer who got a ten book deal with the biggest publisher of childrens literature in Sweden and where the translation rights were sold to other languages before it was even published. This is not the norm. The only information is that it needs sources which are "in-depth", "reliable", "secondary" and "independent". All the articles are about him. They are not "just passing mentions about the subject". The sources are a big regional newspaper, the Swedish public tv corporation and the Swedish public radio corpopration ("the Swedish BBC"). They are reliable, secondary and independent. What is missing?


Två Granit (talk) 10:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Två Granit The sources seem to be basic announcements about his work; not significant coverage of him. One source is an interview with him, which is not an independent source. You must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about him, showing how he meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable author or more broadly a notable person. Book deals and selling translation rights are routine activities, unless you have sources that go in depth discussing how these things are significant. 331dot (talk) 10:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:50:04, 25 January 2023 review of draft by Dmg37


I resubmitted the draft after initial rejection as the sources were judged not independent and/or from reputed sources. I have added a long list of sources, so the article is now extensively referenced with reference to major newspapers and academic journals as requested, so am puzzled as to why it has been rejected a second time. Any help would be appreciated!

Dmg37 (talk) 10:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dmg37 You are what we call ref bombing. Fewer high quality sources are preferable to a large number of low quality sources. You have documented the work of the company, but that is not what we are looking for. Any article about this company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Merely documenting the work of the company is not significant coverage- we are looking for sources that go into detail about what is important, significant, or influentual about the company as the source sees it. Please read Your First Article.
If you are associated with this company, please read conflict of interest and paid editing(which includes employment). 331dot (talk) 11:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. I am not very experienced with wikipedia editing so advice is appreciated. Is it possible for you to tell me which particularly sources have been deemed to be not reliable and significant and which are? What are the criteria for notability for poetry presses and work with a smaller audience? Dmg37 (talk) 11:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dmg37 There is not a specific criteria for poetry presses, this would fall under the criteria for a notable organization at WP:ORG. It's not your sources themselves that are the issue, but their content- it isn't enough to just document the work of the press. We need independent reliable sources that on their own(not prompted by the press or based on materials from them like press releases) write about the press and what is significant about it. Has the press create a new publishing innovation that other presses emulated? Does it influence how authors write? Something beyond "they are a press and here's what they've published". What are your three best sources? 331dot (talk) 11:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a list of sources which I hope answer these criteria. These are listed with citations on the page, but I include the full quotations here.
As examples of the press putting back into print/circulation, preserving and documenting historical documents of significance to the history of New Narrative writing, African American poetry, etc.
--"The 'open letter' found publication in full some twenty years later, in a British magazine with a strong interest in New Narrative, Materials no.4: Economic Ophelia (2014), edited by David Grundy and Lisa Jeschke." [Writers who love too much : new narrative writing 1977-1997. Dodie Bellamy, Kevin Killian. New York. 2017. ISBN 978-1-937658-65-6. OCLC 992469341., p.501]
--'"We can't end 2020 without a note about a November publication by the under-recognized New Narrative writer Gabrielle Daniels, whose work "spans essays, fiction, poetry and novels," as publisher David Grundy notes, and appeared in the groundbreaking anthology, This Bridge Called My Back." ['Materials Brings Out Long-Awaited First Collection From New Narrative Writer Gabrielle Daniels', The Poetry Foundation,https://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet-books/2020/12/materials-brings-out-long-awaited-first-collection-from-new-narrative-writer-gabrielle-daniels]
[Note the significance of publications--This Bridge Called My Back is a major anthology and this was the first collection o Daniels' work.]
--In addition, the press is listed at the National Poetry Library, Southbank Centre, London, and titles are held there and in the British Library, University of Buffalo Special Collections, University College London, etc: https://www.nationalpoetrylibrary.org.uk/write-publish/publishers/materials-materialien [E.g. of catalogue records for UCL and Buffalo: https://worldcat.org/title/1166797897, https://worldcat.org/title/1240805921?oclcNum=1240805921, and https://worldcat.org/title/1237709319]
--The press is include as an important presence in a survey of contemporary UK poetry in Danny Hayward's book Wound Building, both as magazine publisher and publisher of books and chapbooks. "The various groups of authors now published by Commune Editions in the US, or by Materials, Shit Valley, Barque Press, 87 Press, and Veer in the UK, or by a multitude of radical poetry journals such as Tripwire, Materials (again), Splinter, Lana Turner Journal, Armed Cell, or Datableed." [ Hayward, Danny (2021-09-29). Wound Building: Dispatches from the Latest Disasters in UK Poetry. Punctum Books. pp. 20–21. ISBN 978-1-68571-000-2.]
--An in-depth (German-language) article (Jul 20, 2016 ) by journalist Philip Boverman for Süddeutsche Zeitung, one of the largest daily newspapers in Germany, focuses on the press's 'Brexit // Borders Kill' magazine as an example of " how political poetry has become again". "In Germany in particular, mockery of political poetry is still firmly in the saddle. This overlooks the fact that contemporary poetry has unnoticed, via the postmodern back door, so to speak, become political again [...] [the] publication [ ...] is symptomatic of the free English poetry scene, which tends to revolve around the universities, because that's where it still receives some form of encouragement.The magazine compiles reactions to an email circulating at British universities. For these poets, being far away from the well-established cultural industry offers the decisive advantage of being able to react to political developments without advance notice, in a quasi-journalistic manner. but quickly. At readings and poetry festivals they find their audience for a few pounds."https://www.sueddeutsche.de/kultur/brexit-anthologie-ohnmaechtig-1.3086616]
The volume Sundial Compleat, edited by poet, publisher and critic Richard Owens (who has his own Wikipedia page), also reprints the entirety of the issue mentioned by Killian and Bellamy in the above quotation:
--"Additional instances of radical poetic thought contained herein but not first published by Punch Press include facsimile reproductions of Justin Katko’s Basic Middle Finger (Shit Valley 2015) and Economic Ophelia, a themed 2014 issue of the Cambridge-based journal Materials devoted to feminisms and edited by David Grundy and Lisa Jeschke." [Acknowledgments page] Owens goes on to include Materials/Materialien in an "ecumenical bibliography" of US/UK small presses. (pp.414-16) Here is a long quotation from his preface which suggests the importance that presses such as these be documented in sources such as Wikipedia, paying attention to modes of cultural production that may be relatively ephemeral compared to large, funded publishing houses, but perform an important (sub)cultural function nonethelss, making it all the more important that their activity be documented when it is not afforded a place in many standard accounts. "Against the threat of its expiration and potential irrelevance, this bibliography struggles to offer a moderately representative screen capture of what can convincingly be considered a cultural renaissance in politically radical Anglophone poetries, particularly radical lyric poetries [...] as the history of repressive backlashes against leftist political tendencies across the twentieth-century so aptly demonstrates, the term “radical” has long been identified with anti-capitalist and anti-statist cultural practices. And it is precisely these foundationally distinct anti- capitalist cultural tendencies that this bibliography aims to cast in relief [...] More than this, the term “radical” might function as a descriptor of the variegated flood of poetries produced from 911 forward, and even more specifically from the onset of the global economic crisis inaugurated by the US sub-prime mortgage scandal of 2007, and thence onward through global economic collapse of 2008, the Arab Spring of 2011, the UK riots [p. 361] following the police murder of Mark Duggan in 2011, the Occupy Wall Street movement of 2011-12, the 2014 scandals surrounding sexual violence in US literary communities, and the absolutely decisive emergence of the Black Lives Matter movement following from the routine and seemingly state-sponsored murder of innocent, unarmed African Americans. These developments in their totality have compelled poetic critiques and commentaries which supersede, on the terrain of the aesthetic, the difficulties introduced by partisan and activist poetries in the past [...] The center of such an architecture cannot but fail to hold, and in the most strikingly salient instances—i.e., the work of, say, Amiri Baraka, Gwendolyn Brooks, Charles Olson, J.H. Prynne, and Denise Riley, through to contemporary poets such as Keston Sutherland, Frances Kruk, Sean Bonney, Lisa Robertson, Rob Halpern and innumerable others—what we see is an organic synthesis of the aesthetic and the political predicated on a rigorous and intellectually responsible familiarity with the historicity of Western aesthetic practices across centuries and, in most cases, millennia. As such, these Anglophone poetries mark a decisive turn away from arguments and appraisals grounded in an imagined divide [p. 363] between the political and the aesthetic. But if this is the case, then many if not most of the poets acknowledged in the bibliography below also refuse to approach the poem as a crass political vehicle for punditry, sloganeering and casual opinion. Rather, the poetries here registered offer themselves as active sites of inquiry and investigation unlike any other—as sites that aspire to engage, trouble and further develop the deeper music of our collective being. Many of the poets included below are unashamedly Marxist, communist, socialist, and anarchist, but despite this their work in most instances does not surrender its formal rigor or aesthetic complexity. Actually the case is exactly the inverse; the political commitments of many of the poets here included render their work even more aesthetically difficult and complex than poetries which typically refuse such commitments. In other words, historical developments following from the turn of the last century appear to have triggered a significant reversal of sorts in which those lyric and non-lyric poetries that are most politically committed are also the poetries which are perhaps the most aesthetically innovative and formally rigorous. The organizing unit—or the unit of measure—for this bibliography is the small press; not the commercial press, fine press, vanity press, large independent press or university press but the small press. In almost every case each press is run by one or more poets, most of whom have been published by other presses included here—and the use of the press as an organizing unit convincingly underscores the extent to which the literary communities represented by these presses cross-pollinate one another, each bleeding into each and richly cross-fertilizing many of the others. Situated nearly beyond the cusp of the transition from a predominantly print culture to an almost exclusively digital culture, this bibliography aims to call attention to those presses which have or are most likely to fall into obscurity."
--Perhaps the listed events and appearances at reputed institutions such as Cambridge University, involving major writers who have their own wikipedia pages, also serves as an indication of notability? Dmg37 (talk) 12:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A large swath of the previous comment is likely copyrighted material, since it's a long, quoted excerpt from a published work -- does that matter here? David10244 (talk) 07:27, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This was a comment rather than a published page. I can cut down and repost if better however. Dmg37 (talk) 11:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is likely to read the giant wall of text above, I suggest you cut it down to a short paragraph. Theroadislong (talk) 11:25, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a list of sources which I hope answer these criteria. These are listed with citations on the page, but I include the full quotations here.
As examples of the press putting back into print/circulation, preserving and documenting historical documents of significance to the history of New Narrative writing, African American poetry, etc.
--"The 'open letter' found publication in full some twenty years later, in a British magazine with a strong interest in New Narrative, Materials no.4: Economic Ophelia (2014), edited by David Grundy and Lisa Jeschke." [Writers who love too much : new narrative writing 1977-1997. Dodie Bellamy, Kevin Killian. New York. 2017. ISBN 978-1-937658-65-6. OCLC 992469341., p.501]
--'"We can't end 2020 without a note about a November publication by the under-recognized New Narrative writer Gabrielle Daniels, whose work "spans essays, fiction, poetry and novels," as publisher David Grundy notes, and appeared in the groundbreaking anthology, This Bridge Called My Back." ['Materials Brings Out Long-Awaited First Collection From New Narrative Writer Gabrielle Daniels', The Poetry Foundation,https://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet-books/2020/12/materials-brings-out-long-awaited-first-collection-from-new-narrative-writer-gabrielle-daniels]
[Note the significance of publications--This Bridge Called My Back is a major anthology and this was the first collection o Daniels' work.]
--In addition, the press is listed at the National Poetry Library, Southbank Centre, London, and titles are held there and in the British Library, University of Buffalo Special Collections, University College London, etc: https://www.nationalpoetrylibrary.org.uk/write-publish/publishers/materials-materialien [E.g. of catalogue records for UCL and Buffalo: https://worldcat.org/title/1166797897, https://worldcat.org/title/1240805921?oclcNum=1240805921, and https://worldcat.org/title/1237709319]
--The press is include as an important presence in a survey of contemporary UK poetry in Danny Hayward's book Wound Building, both as magazine publisher and publisher of books and chapbooks. "The various groups of authors now published by Commune Editions in the US, or by Materials, Shit Valley, Barque Press, 87 Press, and Veer in the UK, or by a multitude of radical poetry journals such as Tripwire, Materials (again), Splinter, Lana Turner Journal, Armed Cell, or Datableed." [ Hayward, Danny (2021-09-29). Wound Building: Dispatches from the Latest Disasters in UK Poetry. Punctum Books. pp. 20–21. ISBN 978-1-68571-000-2.]
--An in-depth (German-language) article (Jul 20, 2016 ) by journalist Philip Boverman for Süddeutsche Zeitung, one of the largest daily newspapers in Germany, focuses on the press's 'Brexit // Borders Kill' magazine as an example of " how political poetry has become again". "In Germany in particular, mockery of political poetry is still firmly in the saddle. This overlooks the fact that contemporary poetry has unnoticed, via the postmodern back door, so to speak, become political again [...] [the] publication [ ...] is symptomatic of the free English poetry scene, which tends to revolve around the universities, because that's where it still receives some form of encouragement.The magazine compiles reactions to an email circulating at British universities. For these poets, being far away from the well-established cultural industry offers the decisive advantage of being able to react to political developments without advance notice, in a quasi-journalistic manner. but quickly. At readings and poetry festivals they find their audience for a few pounds."https://www.sueddeutsche.de/kultur/brexit-anthologie-ohnmaechtig-1.3086616]
The volume Sundial Compleat, edited by poet, publisher and critic Richard Owens (who has his own Wikipedia page), also reprints the entirety of the issue mentioned by Killian and Bellamy in the above quotation:
--"Additional instances of radical poetic thought contained herein but not first published by Punch Press include facsimile reproductions of Justin Katko’s Basic Middle Finger (Shit Valley 2015) and Economic Ophelia, a themed 2014 issue of the Cambridge-based journal Materials devoted to feminisms and edited by David Grundy and Lisa Jeschke." [Acknowledgments page] Owens goes on to include Materials/Materialien in an "ecumenical bibliography" of US/UK small presses. (pp.414-16)
Dmg37 (talk) 12:49, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of these establish the notability of the press itself. The work they publish may be notable, but for the press itself to merit an article there must be coverage about what is important or influential about the press itself. Mere listings are not significant coverage. 331dot (talk) 13:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:54:47, 25 January 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by 86.24.168.231


Reviewer says, "Sources used are not reliable and/or not in-depth.".

The sources include;

  • Perry, C. (2016). The Kaleidoscope British Christmas Television Guide 1937-2013. (n.p.): Kaleidoscope Publishing.
  • Billboard, 7 Apr 1956. Vol. 68, No. 14, ISSN 0006-2510. Published by Nielsen Business Media, Inc.
  • Tatarsky, D. (2016). The Splendid Book of the Bicycle. United Kingdom: Portico.

86.24.168.231 (talk) 11:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Television Guide is just that – a programme guide. Not in-depth. The Billboard source is her name in an advert. Not in-depth. The Splendid Book of the Bicycle was added to the draft after the reviewer comment above. The two subsequent declines were not specifically about the sourcing; the draft is not a viable one, it can not become an article until some actual content is added to it. It has only one single sentence with almost no information, but cited to 8 separate sources. Resubmitting immediately after a decline without any attempt to edit the draft is not constructive. --bonadea contributions talk 15:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:25:46, 25 January 2023 review of draft by JuneKatunge


Hello, I need to know why my request is been declined I have corrected my issues based on the comments given earlier for example: 1. This reads like a resume and needs to be completely rewritten by AngusW🐶🐶F 2. I don't see his name as Principal Secretary State Department for Industry, Principal Secretary State Department for Trade, Cabinet Secretary, or Industrialization Secretary JuneKatunge (talk) 12:25, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JuneKatunge Basically you have posted his resume. That's not what we are looking for. Any article about this person must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about him, showing how he meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. If you are associated with this person, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 12:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 26

10:02:49, 26 January 2023 review of submission by Asad Ali Jutt


Asad Ali Jutt (talk) 10:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the contents of the draft, as there is a link present just above. 331dot (talk) 10:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Asad Ali Jutt You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a form of social media where people tell the world about themselves. Please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 10:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:49:35, 26 January 2023 review of submission by Serro03


This version of the article looks to address the previous comments while taking a minimalist (to-the-point) approach.

It would be highly appreciated to receive your feedback for this new version addressing all the previous issues.

Serro03 (talk) 14:49, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Serro03 The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Please see your user talk page for important information. 331dot (talk) 14:53, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:47:19, 26 January 2023 review of submission by Youplanetec


I have some questions about the review.

First, I don't understand about the added sources being unreliable. Which ones are not reliable? Because most of them are from well known newspapers in Spain, do you mean the ones that are not about Iker Unzu specifically?

Second, the article I have written has not been copied from absolutely no web, on the contrary: Some time ago I wrote the first draft about Unzu and an unidentified user copied and pasted my information in another Wiki (External to Wikipedia: YouTube Wiki) thus stealing my article. I've the article code saved, his copy is badly done and contains errors because he did not copy and paste the article well when creating it in YouTube Wiki.

How can I improve the article/biography and what references should I delete to make it work?

Iker Unzu is a notable figure in Spain and I think he has the necessary articles/sources to be in Wikipedia, so I'll make the necessary changes to improve the article.

If necessary, I'll report the user who created the copied article on YouTube Wiki for copying.

I'd really appreciate your advice on how to improve it.

Youplanetec (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Youplanetec I think the issue is most of the sources are primary and YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, etc. are generally considered unreliable. The number of subscribers/followers is meaningless for notability. What is needed is coverage about Iker Unzu (not interviews, his videos or his comments, etc.) written by reputable sources unaffiliated with him or not PR fluff pieces from marketing/SEO sites. S0091 (talk) 23:04, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:34:04, 26 January 2023 review of submission by SeriousLemur


Hello Why my article draft was declined? Could someone do smth with this?

SeriousLemur (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SeriousLemur I assume this is about Draft:Lyubov Chernikova. It lacked the submission information; looking at the history, the only time it was declined was when it was blank. You may resubmit it, but it's likely to be declined, because it is highly promotional in nature. The draft needs to be written with a neutral point of view, summarizing what independent reliable sources say about her, not merely documeting her work. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 21:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 27

Request on 08:08:38, 27 January 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by DPRK Strategic Research Center


My recent draft page "DPRK Strategic Research Center" has been rejected by its assessor. This is of course disappointing, but may nevertheless be considered appropriate by other Wikipedia volunteers. First of all, there seemed to be no information available beyond the topic being "not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia". While I am aware of the page explaining what qualifies as notable or not, it would be useful to no what aspect of notability is lacking. Secondly, as there are various Wikipedia pages which cover individual research centers, showing that the category to which the page could belong is legitimate, I wonder whether the content of the page would be appropriate to be placed on another, larger page; perhaps the North Korean Studies page, for example. Thank you very much for your help, DPRK Strategic Research Center

DPRK Strategic Research Center (talk) 08:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place for an organization to tell the world about itself and what it does. A Wikipedia article about an organization must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. We don't want to know what the organization says about itself, only what others completely unconnected with the organization choose to say about it and its importance or influence. Your draft doesn't do that, which is why it was rejected and won't be considered further. 331dot (talk) 08:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copy and paste facility is not available.

Facility not available. Kashi Narain Mishra (talk) 13:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kashi Narain Mishra I'm not sure what you are asking about. Are you attempting to place your draft in the encyclopedia? You have submitted it for review, which is what you should do. 331dot (talk) 13:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My AFC, namely "Advent of Aryans in India" is rejected. There are many views on the topic which are mostly baseless. If there is anything irrelevant in my article, I want to know that. Kashi Narain Mishra (talk) 14:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@kashi narain mishra: this is not appropriate for wikipedia. you wrote it to push your point of view. wikipedia requires all articles to be neutral. lettherebedarklight晚安 10:36, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:12:21, 27 January 2023 review of submission by Naija Today

Hello! Could you please help me understand what exactly the mistakes are? I understand that there is a lack of reliable sources but what resources would be considered reliable then? The links I attached are leading to reliable media. Also, are there any other issues aside from links? Thank you. Naija Today (talk) 14:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:02:15, 27 January 2023 review of submission by Iotraffordsubaqua


Iotraffordsubaqua (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:02:15, 27 January 2023 review of submission by Iotraffordsubaqua

If I remove the dive training links will this remove the problem you see?

15:08:17, 27 January 2023 review of submission by JMShore

Following the decline of my draft, I'm looking for some help making sure that I understand the decline reasons so that any future submission addresses all the concerns. The first reason given is that it reads like advertising content; it would be good to have some specific pointers on this. I tried to keep the information very straightforward and non-promotional, and all of the references are independent sources; there are no references that are press releases or Shore Capital materials. Can editors point me to any details in the text that I should rewrite or remove?

The second reason was around the sourcing itself, and stated that it wasn't sufficient. I'd included multiple Wall Street Journal, Crain's, PE Hub and Business Journal articles that discussed the firm's milestones, as well PitchBook sources showing that Shore is the most active PE firm by deal volume. These are independent sources, so is the concern that they are not in-depth enough?

Thanks for your time!

JMShore (talk) 15:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JMShore Awards are generally not mentioned and do not contribute to notability unless the award itself merits an article(like Academy Award or Nobel Peace Prize). I'm not seeing sources indicating that PitchBook is recognized as an authority on PE firms or their activities. The article about them actually has similar issues as your draft.
Wikipedia is not a place for businesses to tell the world about themselves and what they do. An article about a business must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. "Significant coverage" goes beyond just telling what the company does, and goes into detail about its importance or influence as the source sees it. 331dot (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, User:331dot. I can remove the PitchBook and Inc. awards. My goal by including them was to highlight that Shore has been recognized for the number of its deals, but I understand you're saying that PitchBook can't be considered a notable source for that information.
For the sourcing, I appreciate the extra color on this issue. Are you saying that the sources themselves don't provide significant coverage? The reason I ask is that the draft does aim to summarize the main information from the sources.
Thanks again. JMShore (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
JMShore Yes, that's what I'm saying. The sources just document the activities of the company. 331dot (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:42:45, 27 January 2023 review of submission by Kjharcombe

20:42:45, 27 January 2023 review of draft by Kjharcombe


I've requested assistance as I am not sure if this article meets the various standards for publishing. Some guidance would be much appreciated.

Kjharcombe (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not, with zero references? Theroadislong (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:46:24, 27 January 2023 review of draft by ClareNoI


I am updating and replacing references so that my article will be accepted and I noticed one of the references said "Cite warning <ref> Firefox Flicks cannot be previewed because it is defined outside of the current selection or not defined at all" What does this mean and how can I fix it? Thank you.

ClareNoI (talk) 23:46, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@clarenoi: i don't see this error. lettherebedarklight晚安 10:36, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ClareNoI: Were you editing the Awards and nominations section? There is a reference there called "Firefox Flicks Competition Winners 2013", which is defined in a different section – what the warning means is that the preview can't check if the reference exists. Since it does exist and is correctly formatted higher up in the article, it's nothing to be concerned about. --bonadea contributions talk 11:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you so much. I appreciate the feedback. ClareNoI (talk) 06:59, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 28

18:35:09, 28 January 2023 review of draft by JvDuijn


JvDuijn (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to get an English article published about one key European player in semiconductor history called Arthur del Prado. This is in particular importance regarding ongoing debates about export controles to China on semiconductor technology by companies this person has founded.

Yet time and time again it is seen as being too much of an advertisement article. Yet no positively flavoring words are used, it is factual and consistently I refer to public peer reviewed articles. Even more, it is written in line with the articles of his (industry) peers like Robert Noyce, Gordon Moore, etc. If my draft is problematic, so should be those. Moreover, my draft relies for a major part upon a PhD dissertation (how much very peer-reviewed, would you like to have it!). Very frustrating. Now I removed the parts stating his public recognition (Dutch and international honorary titles, etc.), as otherwise I really don't see where else the 'advertisement' feeling comes from. Even though, these titles are facts as well. Hope somebody can help me in improving the article to the Wiki-standards, because I am lost here.

20:13:11, 28 January 2023 review of submission by Herosaal


Herosaal (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC)there was someone before me editing this article with no permission and it got denied every time I'm back with notabe sources.[reply]

20:25:12, 28 January 2023 review of submission by SOLIDSTATEBATTERIES

I was just looking at the submission and saw this tag was added

{{Undisclosed paid|date=January

I think you are saying that I'm being paid to create this article but I am not.

SOLIDSTATEBATTERIES (talk) 20:25, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@solidstatebatteries: are you connected with the company? if not, remove the tag and say in the edit sumamry why. if you are, then disclose it, following the instructions here. lettherebedarklight晚安 08:45, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SOLIDSTATEBATTERIES I remember seeing a discussion about this a while back. Maybe a couple of months ago. IIRC, the OP is related to the subject of the draft--even if not being specifically "paid to write the article". I could be remembering wrong, though. I'll do a search after while, unless I go to bed first... David10244 (talk) 05:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 29

03:06:45, 29 January 2023 review of submission by Dcdan4

Hi, I could use some help with how to establish the Notability for the subject band. I recognize that it may be a challenge in this case meeting the high bar Wikipedia has. Nevertheless I'd like to get advice on how best to incorporate the necessary citations and article content to reach the bar.

First: can anyone point me to an accepted music band/artist article that only just (barely?) met notability criteria? I'd like to see how the article author incorporated the needed references into the body of the article.

Second: If the band garnered a feature profile by a reporter and was published in the regional newspaper (such as The Everett Herald), would that be legitimate to use as a secondary reference supporting notability?

Third: Arguably the *most* notable accomplishment of the band that has national/international ramifications is the single "Cheeks" which has over 6 million listens on Spotify. Such a level of airplay would be highly desirable by any artist, aspiring or otherwise. So my question: Is it even possible to add a reference or citation to a major streaming service play count as supporting the notoriety of a band?

Dcdan4 (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@dcdan4: these are the notability criteria for bands. if their most notable accomplishment really is a single with over 6 million listens on spotify, this band is simply not notable for wikipedia to include. lettherebedarklight晚安 08:50, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you kindly for the response. But I hope someone else will actually take the time to provide answers to the questions in the OP. Dcdan4 (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dcdan4, you have no sources. We can't even begin to evaluate without some reliable sources discussing the subject.
To your questions, any reliable source is going to validate some or all of the facts in the article. Incorporation itself should not be difficult. Notability is about independent reliable sources verifying the subject meets Wikipedia's definition of notability, in this case WP:NBAND. For specific examples of what has and hasn't made the cut, you can dive down the rabbit hole of AfD music discussions. If the Everett Hearald is independent, in-depth coverage (ie not an interview), it would contribute to notability. Though two more sources would be best to go with it. As to mention of streaming, if reliable sources discuss a fact it's more likely to be due.Slywriter (talk) 03:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dcdan4 What published source did all that information come from? Such as the date the band formed -- that needs a published reference.
What music reviewer published a review that says the band has a "seasoned ambient sound and elegant music storytelling"? That info can't be included if it's someone's unpublished opinion -- it can't be stated in "Wikipedia's voice" as if this were a known fact.
What published source can verify that the "four members would meet for jam sessions at a house on the shore of Lake Shoecraft..."?
And so on through all parts of the draft. (One published source can be used to verify several assertions.) All information in an article must be verifiable (click here) so that any reader could consult the references to verify what the article says.
Sorry if this sounds harsh, but trying to mimic another article on a barely-notable band is not really the right idea. Wikipedia documents what published sources say, rather than "telling the world" about someone or something David10244 (talk) 06:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:07:40, 29 January 2023 review of submission by ClareNoI


I added another source, which is a website created by Wordpress (but is independent from my subject) and I got a warning about using sources that are "self-published" or something along those lines. Many businesses' websites are created by Wordpress.com, so should I be worried about getting a rejection because of that? Thanks.

ClareNoI (talk) 07:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:23:37, 29 January 2023 review of submission by AkashLakhotia

Greetings,

Based on your description, it is not clear what needs to be done next. I have added 3 articles on them as refrence. Please provide additional context and information so that I may be able to write this article appropriately.

Thank you Akash Lakhotia

It would also be helpful if you could clarify the desired tone and format for your response. Thank you. AkashLakhotia (talk) 07:23, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AkashLakhotia There is nothing that you can do; rejection means that the draft will not be considered further. No amount of editing can confer notability on a topic. 331dot (talk) 07:29, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

creating artiste biography?

21:16:08, 29 January 2023 review of draft by Stnts256


I need the artiste biography to be updated early so as to enhance visibility and credibility of his online presenceStnts256 (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stnts256 (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stnts256 Wikipedia has no interest in his online presence. Our only interest is in if he meets the definition of a notable musician, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Please read the message left by the reviewer.
If you work for or represent this person, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID for information on required formal disclosures. Declaring paid editing is a Terms of Use requirement. 331dot (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 30

00:43:56, 30 January 2023 review of draft by Rix-wikipedar


I do not understand what sources I have to put to make this draft suitable to stay published. I have added many sources and details.

Rix-wikipedar (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rix-wikipedar, directory listings are not reliable sources for establishing notability. Existence is not enough for an encyclopedia entry. Need independent sources discussing the subject. Check out this this guide for more assistance. Slywriter (talk) 02:45, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:39:02, 30 January 2023 review of submission by Suicasmo


I have added trustworthy sources (NHK, the public broadcasting of Japan) for this draft.Suicasmo (talk) 11:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:40:35, 30 January 2023 review of submission by Perumalism

Annamalai is Tamil nadu state head of BJP the ruling party of India. Since July 2021 Annamalai is featured in 100+ news articles.[1] and I believe the article meets WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.Thank you

Perumalism (talk) 15:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perumalism He is the regional head of a political party, but he does not hold public office. NPOL requires that a person hold public office or have won election to public office(in the one election mentioned he came in second). 331dot (talk) 16:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So he is "featured" in 100+ articles, or just mentioned? 331dot (talk) 16:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
331dot He was featured in 15+ articles. Significantly covered in 100+ articles.Perumalism (talk) 13:08, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perumalism Please tell what your three best sources are(only three, please). 331dot (talk) 13:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
331dot [2],[3],[4].Perumalism (talk) 13:44, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perumalism So these three in order are; an announcement of his appointment as the regional party head, an interview with him, and another interview with him discussing his joining of the party. None of these establish notability. Interviews are by definition the person speaking about themselves, and as such not independent; we want to know what others say about him, not what he says about himself. Routine announcements also do not establish notability. We need sources that discuss his significance or influence. If the sources out there are like this, he would not merit an article. This is why a prior article about him was deleted. 331dot (talk) 13:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
331dot I agree with you. can you please check these source for one last time[5],[6],[7] Thank you Perumalism (talk) 14:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These sources suggest to me that he could be important or significant down the road, but not that he is already. Wikipedia does not lead, it follows. He must already be significant or influential. 331dot (talk) 14:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
331dot Ok thanks for your patience Perumalism (talk) 14:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 31

07:51:20, 31 January 2023 review of draft by Prof. Sugarcube


In writing about this trial, the notability of the trial is secondary to my main goal of writing about the history of the Fordney Rifle, a variant of the Kentucky Rifle developed by the victim of this case. Unfortunately, the trial is not as covered by secondary sources as much as I hoped, but I have found passing mentions about this murder whenever a Fordney Rifle is sold at an auction house, or mentioned in gunsmithing websites/books/circles in regards to how the gunsmith died.

Mainly I ask for help on figuring out whether this article should be reformatted to talk about the gunsmith himself, rather than the murderer. I was originally intending on *both* articles to be made, so if it's possible to have two articles based on both Melchoir Fordney, the victim gunsmith (and thus talking about his manufacturer of Fordney Rifles) and John Haggerty the perpetrator (and thus relation to American legal history), that would be preferred. However, I'm unsure whether to guage the adequacy of a source in its relation to wikipedia, or additionally, where to find mentions of the trial in media that wasn't immediately archived on the net.

I did recently, however, find that the murder and trial was mentioned in the book Centennial, and featured (with wrong information) on the back of a collectible card in a set from Atlas Publications. It has also appeared in several then-contemporary newspapers but mainly as single paragraph mentions. I do wish to find out how to immortalize the context of the Fordney Rifle to Melchoir Fordney and the circumstances of his death, especially considering several high profile figures were part of the case (including Ellis Lewis who presided over the court). It seems as if there IS a story here of SOME notability but as I currently lack sources that mention in secondary nature about the trial, I am unable to apss Wikipedia's guidelines. So i ask, what would be the best method to find secondary sources of this trial? I don't particularly live in the US (where this murder occured) so there's an additional geographical barrier to overcome. Prof. Sugarcube (talk) 07:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prof. Sugarcube (talk) 07:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:56:23, 31 January 2023 review of draft by Joyce wachira


I have allowed editors to assist in editing this article where i have not done as required especially on notability. Is it possible for the editors to edit my draft article to be fit for submission?

Joyce wachira (talk) 11:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joyce wachira You cannot grant or deny permission to others to edit any article or draft; anyone is welcome to edit. Your draft as is now is wholly unsuitable for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a place to post a resume or merely document someone's professional accomplishments. A Wikipedia article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person.
I see that you declared a conflict of interest; what is the nature of it? 331dot (talk) 12:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:52:38, 31 January 2023 review of draft by Katiet838


Editors, I am trying to figure out what I can do to get this page published. The feedback I have gotten is that it needs more reliable sources. I have posted links to tweets by journalists, and to the nonprofit's independent listing on GuideStar, an accrediting body for nonprofits. Zenger House is an active nonprofit serving journalists, but there's not a lot out there on it, so I'm trying to figure out what I can do. Thanks!

Katiet838 (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Katiet838 Any article about this organization must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Tweets by journalists are not significant coverage of the topic, and have not been subjected to editorial control and fact checking. If as you say, there "is not a lot out there" on it, it likely does not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell the world about an organization like a nonprofit. 331dot (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:01:57, 31 January 2023 review of submission by Gochyafx


Gochyafx (talk) 18:01, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've just made a couple of edits hoping that the AJA page will pass. Third time lucky I hope!

Draft:AJA Video Systems

This company sells similar products so I formatted the above page like theirs.

Blackmagic Design

Please let me know what I need to do to make this better. Thanks!

Gochyafx I see you declared a COI, but I think you need to make the stricter paid editing disclosure, a Terms of Use requirement.
Please see other stuff exists. Beware in using other articles as a model, as those too could be problematic and you wouldn't know this. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles together by us. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those classified as good articles, which have been evaluated by the community.
Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about a company and what it does. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 18:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:03:42, 31 January 2023 review of submission by 5.210.253.48


5.210.253.48 (talk) 19:03, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected and will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:09:13, 31 January 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Hekiti


I recently submitted an article for review but it was denied due to copyright problems.The information I used in the article was from my own dissertation. How can I allow myself to use my own intellectual propert in the article? Hekiti (talk) 19:09, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hekiti I assume this is about Draft:Agatha Cobourg Hodgins. Leaving aside the copyright issue, Wikipedia doesn't host original research. 331dot (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:29:29, 31 January 2023 review of submission by Jamesjones2234


Jamesjones2234 (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:43:05, 31 January 2023 review of draft by Cammur


Hi there. Two images were removed from my draft page for copyright violation. However, I have written permission from the owner of the images to use them on Wikipedia. How can I get them inserted back into my draft and make note that using these images are not in violation of copyrights?

Cammur (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cammur Non-free images cannot be in drafts. Images are not relevant to the draft approval process, which only considers the sources and text. Don't worry about images until the draft is accepted. 331dot (talk) 21:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:51:08, 31 January 2023 review of draft by 71.11.29.254


Hello, I am working on revising a draft that was declined; is there a time limit as to how long I can take to do that? And is there a certain number of times you can submit a draft for a particular page, as long as I keep trying to improve it? Thank you!

71.11.29.254 (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The only time limit is that inactive drafts are deleted after six months of inactivity(but even then can be restored). There is no hard limit on the number of times a draft may be submitted, but if you repeatedly resubmit without showing progress or hope of notability, it will eventually be rejected and ineligible for resubmission. 331dot (talk) 21:54, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:05:25, 31 January 2023 review of submission by Mastercup

Hello, thank you for your message. Why the article does not comply with the requirements? What I sould do to correct it? Mastercup (talk) 22:05, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:57:07, 31 January 2023 review of submission by Hhbowie


It is not clear to me why this submission is being rejected. Reviewer is saying it is a notability question, and added a comment that "Articles need to be based on secondary sources."

The draft article currently cites 15 sources, and most of them are indeed secondary sources. Previous submissions were rejected because of a lack of in-depth sources, but I recently added a citation to a full-page review appearing in MacFormat/MacLive magazines. Since this is one of the few (if not only) print magazines left covering applications written for macOS, I'm not sure what else can be reasonably expected.

Hhbowie (talk) 23:57, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1136757392"