User talk:Millermk

Hello, and welcome to my talk page! Feel free to leave me a note about whatever's on your mind, especially if you think I may have made a mistake, because I definitely want to do my best to fix it up! I really appreciate it when people add a new heading, sign their comments, link to relevent diffs, and generally follow good talk page ettiquette, so please do so. millermk

07:20:01, 17 April 2015 review of submission by 125.213.191.72

• 125.213.191.72 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:MyNetFone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Millermk,

Thanks very much for reviewing the page and providing feedback. I was disheartened to hear it hasn't made it through based on the history section as I had just changed this from a timeline format (which I had to remove potential of an advertisement tone). As the previous reviewer said it needed to be in a paragraphed format as opposed to timeline, as it appeared more like a fact sheet and needed to be more readable/flow. Now it has been pinged for being too closely aligned to a essay - I feel I am at a lost here.

Is there a chance that only one reviewer (ie you) goes over it going forward, just to stop contradictory information. As you can see I have submitted a few attempts and each rejection, especially when you feel contradictory direction was given, starts to really deflate you.

Thanks,

Lauren

125.213.191.72 (talk) 07:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@125.213.191.72: Hi Lauren, I understand your frustration with getting declined a number of times. Unfortunately, the AFC process is often abused by businesses who try to create articles about themselves, and invariably end up doing so in a way that makes the article unsuitable for Wikipedia. Sometimes reviewers are quick to flag something as advertising and not really provide a lot of help because it can be frustration to deal with the amounts of blatant advertising that comes through AFC. That being said, I can see that you have put a lot of effort into your article, and have a lot of sources which is great. I have just gone through and edited the company history section for tone, which essentially addressed the comment I left. What I meant by my comment basically was that encyclopedia articles shouldn't sound like a story. Now as I see it there are two small issues remaining with the article. The first is one sentence about the NBN which I think could use a citation. I'm sure you could check the article on NBN to find a source for that. It's not a highly contentious fact, but I feel a citation is in order. The second issue I see is the Research & Development section. The items in it seem loosely correlated, and some of them a bit advertorial. I have considered how we could approach this and I essentially see two possible solutions. The first would be to cut down the section only to major industry firsts which have had a large impact. The second would be to remove the section altogether. Let me know what you think about this, and we can see how to proceed. If you put the article up for submission again without consulting me, I cannot guarantee that I will be the reviewer (it's unlikely in fact) as that's not how AFC works. However, if we address these last two issues that I pointed out here together, I will be happy to publish the article to the main space for you. Millermk (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@Millermk, thank you so much for all your feedback and help to get this article through. I have cited the NBN line, and tried to reduce the R&D section. Can you please let me know your thoughts. Thanks, Lauren — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.213.191.72 (talk) 05:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@125.213.191.72: For me the R&D section is still not quite right. Points 3 and 5 (regarding number porting and specialised platform) seem more like products/features rather than real R&D efforts. It's not clear how either of those required significant R&D. I don't want to make you feel like I'm trying to make you get rid of your content but I think those either have to be reworded to show why they were the result of significant R&D, or removed. Once that is done, feel free to resubmit. Let me know when you resubmit. I will need to do one last pass to fix up a few formatting things and then I can approve the submission. Millermk (talk) 06:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay thanks Millermk! I have decided to delete it all together. If I resubmit it now, will you be all set to review it?

SATMAP Inc.

Hi, you have reviewed my article on SATMAP Inc. a few days ago. We have corrected the points that you have pointed out, and have shifted out to the main space due to a nearing deadline for our assignment, as we have observed that many others have been doing so without any issues. However, another reviewer has claimed that the whole article is an advertisement, and I would like to seek your comments as he has not given any constructive comments on his talk page despite me asking how the article can be further improved. Thank you. ABonheur (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@ABonheur: Unfortunately, I do not believe the issues have been addressed. The article still largely read like an advertisement. Typically with AFC, a reviewer moves the article to main space. While I understand you have an assignment deadline, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to facilitate course work, and this cannot be allowed to dictate the time at which the article is published. In it's current form, I agree with the tag for speedy deletion as an advertisement, and more specifically I agree that rather than deletion, moving it back to the draft namespace until it is appropriate for publishing. I would like to provide more specific advice, but since the bulk of the article is advertorial in tone, it's hard to point out one specific thing. Try looking at other articles about companies on Wikipedia to see example if you're not sure what it should look like. Millermk (talk) 18:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@Millermk: Hello, however, I thought that the main issue with the system features was it being too technical initially..? ABonheur (talk) 01:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

@ABonheur: Ultimately I think that much of the information in the details section probably just didn't belong in an encyclopedia at all. Its hard to write such a section without being technical or sounding like an advertisement. Its hard for me to be specific as the articles appears to have been deleted. Millermk (talk) 01:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

@Millermk: Thank you for your comments. My group will continue to work on ways to improve as we contact the administrator. ABonheur (talk) 01:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

13:46:33, 19 April 2015 review of submission by Afroflare

• Afroflare (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:EMM (Exclusive Men's Magazine) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello there, please I would like to know how many citations are needed before my article can be published and what kind of citations are seen as notable. Thank You in advance Afroflare (talk) 13:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

@Afroflare: As another editor pointed out on your article, Wikipedia requires reliable independent sources. See the comment on your article for links to the explanations of what those mean. As for a number, you article is quite short. The general rule is perhaps about three sources, but more as the article grows because sources are generally needed for most of the information in an article. So at the size of your article, three would probably be enough, but only if they are good sources, ie reliable, independant, and significantly focused on the topic of your article. Millermk (talk) 16:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)