Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 November 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< November 4 << Oct | November | Dec >> November 6 >
Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded 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 5[edit]

03:45:51, 5 November 2021 review of submission by Glam101eyeshadow[edit]


Glam101eyeshadow (talk) 03:45, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:07:08, 5 November 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Mtzau[edit]


Hi. I have received a rejection notice for the above page with the reason being "blatant advertising". This surprised me greatly as I based my submission on the Wikipedia pages for BHP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BHP) and General Electric (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric). My submission simply contained facts about the company, trying to follow a similar layout to the previous 2 mentioned pages. So if my submission is "blatant advertising" I am at a loss as to why the pages for BHP and General Electric would be rejected for the same reason.

Looking forward to your response.

Mtzau (talk) 09:07, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mtzau. Your draft contains obviously promotional statements such as "pioneering intelligent control solutions in power electronics to help solve the most challenging problems in electrification" and "seeks to accelerate the global transition to clean energy by putting the intelligence into energy management" and "Sue had nine years of accomplishments at General Electric, acting as CCO and the CEO of GE’s Small Industrial Motors Division, overseeing the division’s North American and International markets" and "the most intelligent motor controller, optimizing electric motor performance and efficiency" and "to service the top automakers in the region that are pursuing aggressive electric vehicle goals". And so it goes on. None of these statements is sourced. In fact the draft lacks any reliable independent sources whatever. I suggest you read WP:YFA to get more of an idea of what is acceptable.--Shantavira|feed me 13:07, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:48:23, 5 November 2021 review of submission by Mtzau[edit]


My Employer is Cirrus Technologies in Sydney Australia which develops software for Financial Services. I a not paid directly or indirectly by Exro Technologies, based in Canada, which is the subject of my page. Exro Technologies has developed unique technology that could revolutionise electric vehicles, and I created this page when I was surprised that there was not existing page displaying information about this.

I cannot help that Wikipedia editors have formed the impression that this is advertising. But I am fairly certain Exro Technologies has no knowledge of my attempt to publish this page tolet Wikipedia users know that the technology Exro uses exists and is being developed as a product that has the potential to revolutionise electric vehicle engine performance.

I cannot declare this is a paid contribution because it is not. I seem to be in catch-22 situation here.

Mtzau (talk) 09:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mtzau If you are not paid, then you are not paid. Your draft, however, is clear advertising because it just tells about the company and its products, and is also sourced almost exclusively to the company itself. This is not a place to merely tell about something. Wikipedia articles do more, an article about out 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. Wikipedia has no interest in what a company says about itself, only in what others completely unconnected with the company choose to say about it. The company website, staff interviews, press releases, announcements of routine business activities, and brief mentions do not establish notability. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 11:32, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:25:41, 5 November 2021 review of submission by Sponhour[edit]


I am a new contributor. I do not really understand the basis for the rejection considering that my article cites numerous primary sources and draws upon a photo album taken by a worker at the plant in question that is being used as the basis for a museum exhibit in 2022. Thank you, Sponhour

Sponhour (talk) 12:25, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sponhour As noted by the reviewer, it was declined(not rejected, which would mean it could not be resubmitted) due to concerns about the tone of the draft. It is more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. I might suggest that you look at some existing articles about companies to get an idea of their structure and tone, especially articles classified as good articles. You may then rewrite and resubmit. 331dot (talk) 12:50, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:15:42, 5 November 2021 review of submission by TroyKFD[edit]

Draft:Ghost Drops


just wondering why my page Ghost Drops was denied because of references, when I used the exact same websites for references as Tokyo Smoke page on wiki.

TroyKFD (talk) 13:15, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:28:58, 5 November 2021 review of submission by Tokmakoglu deniz[edit]

Hello, I am ready to submit for review but I am getting the following error. Can you help? Thanks.

"An error occurred (unexpected-result). Please try again or refer to the help desk."

Tokmakoglu deniz (talk) 17:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Tokmakoglu deniz: I'm not sure what the error is in the page but I can tell you right now the way the page was it would never be accepted. It was a long list of accomplishments with no real meaning or sourcing. This is not a CV site. Please read through WP:YFA to help understand what an encyclopedia article is and what we expect. This is one of the most difficult tasks to undertake. I have taken liberty of removing the list so you can start again after the lede. The criteria you need to be aware of is WP:PROF. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 17:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:51:25, 5 November 2021 review of draft by Robert J Nagle[edit]

I'm trying to figure out what to do after my submitted Clay Reynolds article on a living author has been rejected twice. After the first time, I made major corrections and resubmitted. After the second time, it was rejected for mostly superficial reasons. I made a few minor changes to address the specific examples, but from my perspective, I've done all I can do. I believe that the submission is certainly good enough to be approved (though I understand that a lot of articles undergo editing after being approved, and I'm fine with that). What should I do -- engage with the second rejector directly on his personal page and hope that he reconsiders the rejection? Or keep submitting and then hope another random editor will eventually approve it?

I've been editing and contributing for 14 years. I regularly come across articles that are nowhere near the quality of what I submitted. Even though the article probably has a legitimate issue about primary vs. secondary sources and reliable sources, I think my draft adequately addresses this. I've read the policy and compared against other similar kinds of articles which have already been approved. I think my article complies with the policy and have already written several paragraphs explaining why. I'd be happy to paste these reasons on the draft article's TALK section (or even here). But is there anything I can do to make sure the future approver will read it? For example, is it appropriate for the submitter to include a short note at the top of the article that says something like "See my notes in TALK section"? Update: I really feel that I should write a short note at the top explaining how I addressed each editor's concerns and refer them to a longer explanation on the TALK page. Unless someone here advises me NOT to do this, I shall be doing that.

I've made as many changes to make the article Wiki-ready. After my second round, I really don't think I am capable of making more changes. Perhaps I am too close to the subject -- but for heaven's sake, I expected to work 2-3 hours on this article. Then it turned into a 20 hour job. I'm afraid I'm running out of patience with this slow-moving approval machine. I know the queue is very long and I see that other submissions have issues. But I have already addressed most of the major issues, and all that is left are minor issues. From my perspective, it would be much easier for editors (i.e., not me!) to deal with these issues AFTER approval rather than BEFORE as a condition of approval. Thanks for your help. Robert J Nagle (talk) 19:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was declined not rejected. Content like “Although considered a "city boy," by Quanah's residents” “Reynolds did a fair amount of farm and ranch work during the hot summers and "lived in the public library” “Looking back, Reynolds came to appreciate growing up in Quanah” “Rey.nolds was eager to leave town to go to the university” etc etc etc is very chatty and informal, articles need to be written in a dry neutral tone. Theroadislong (talk) 20:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. By the way, differentiating between "decline" and "rejected" is not meaningful here. In both cases, these words mean 1)not approved and 2)not currently being considered for approval unless the submitter takes additional action. I'll re-examine the wording you highlighted, but keep in mind that this language was a careful paraphrase of a quote in an interview. Normally the NPOV policy should not include anything about intent or motivation, but if it's paraphrasing a statement, it could still be acceptable. (But I'll try to come up with something better).Robert J Nagle (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert J Nagle: Actually, there is a difference between the two as far as drafts go. "Declined" means "Tighten your sourcing/wording and try again", "Rejected" means "This is unlikely to be an acceptable article no matter how much effort is expended on it." As a rule, a rejection implies, among other things, that the sources that would support the topic don't exist and won't exist within a reasonable time-scale or that the article is basically an attempt at native advertizing. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 23:29, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:56:47, 5 November 2021 review of submission by 2405:204:9712:ADBC:0:0:B45:D8A1[edit]


2405:204:9712:ADBC:0:0:B45:D8A1 (talk) 19:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:01:40, 5 November 2021 review of submission by Noahpdoty[edit]

Hi, I'm hoping to have my draft reviewed. It was denied a couple months ago, and I believe I made all the requested changes, but I haven't been able to get someone to look at it since. I just made some updates to the page and added some more sources, so I'm hoping someone can help me out and let me know if I need to make more changes or what I should do to get it reviewed/accepted. Thank you!Noahpdoty (talk) 20:01, 5 November 2021 (UTC) Noahpdoty (talk) 20:01, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2021_November_5&oldid=1054618970"