Help desk
< April 16	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 18 >

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.

April 17

12:17:09, 17 April 2022 review of draft by Maymooncuk

Maymooncuk (talk · contribs)
- Draft:M. Levent Kurnaz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The reviewer's comment was "unsourced", but I can not understand what else should be added or what was false. I would be happy if you could specify the mistake. Thanks!

Maymooncuk (talk) 12:17, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maymooncuk You have essentially posted a resume, not an encyclopedia article. Any article about this person must not merely summarize their accomplishments, it must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about them, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. 331dot (talk) 12:20, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia article must summarise what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about the topic, that is what we base articles on your draft has none. Theroadislong (talk) 12:22, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:54:32, 17 April 2022 review of draft by Midnightseven

Midnightseven (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Ioanna Gika (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am trying to get an article reviewed, but it has been rejected on the basis of its sources. I included several interviews with the musician. I already read the "reliable sources" page and fail to see how these are unreliable or under-reliable sources. If these do not live up to Wikipedia's standards, what are the reviewers looking for instead?

Midnightseven (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Midnightseven Interviews do not establish that she meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician. An article must summarize what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about her- and not based on materials directly from her like interviews). Wikipedia wants to know what others say about her, not what she says about herself. 331dot (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:50:33, 17 April 2022 review of submission by Holoboss

Holoboss (talk · contribs)

Hello and thank you for reading this. I am sure i am not alone in this situation - but i can't figure out what is seen in my draft as "reading as advertisement", to be rejected. I went through real pain to make sure I avoid advertising hype, stick to fact and factual language. i tweaked it many times to make it that way, also adding links validating the info. Well, it is my first Wiki contribution, so it is prone to mistakes, I guess. But I am a 65 y.o. professional who wrote many articles over the years. I can't see what sounds like advertising in this draft. I compared with several published, similar posts, and tried to be in line with these. I tried to avoid all advertising hype and stick to facts only. Well, clearly there is something I don't see - and if you can point to that - I would be happy to change things as needed. But please - give me the light! Please point to mistakes in style, give me an example or two - and i will do my best. Thank you for your help! All the best. Derek.

Holoboss (talk) 15:50, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Holoboss: It's because of your connexion to the school that you're having a hard time seeing the biases in what you wrote. This isn't to denigrate your skill as a writer, but your sense of what is "neutral" is, as is so often the case with users in your situation, skewed heavily by your affiliation to the subject. But, if you want to get the sense of what the reviewers are taking umbrage to, refer to the bottom table at User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:

"St. Nicolas University: School of Veterinary Medicine was established by a Canadian physician on December 08, 2020." - Source? (This is a biographical claim and thus is subject to WP:Biographies of living persons.)
"University motto is Affordable Quality Education." - Irrelevant. Organisation mottos, mission statements, and slogans are considered to be highly promotional and minimally informative.
"It offers veterinary education to local students and students from abroad - from the Caribbean and other nations." The latter half of this statement is, strictly speaking, redundant.
"It is chartered by the Ministry of Blue and Green Economy, Agriculture and National Food Security, as well as the Ministry of Education in the Commonwealth of Dominica." - Irrelevant. Being an accredited school is rarely relevant to the article of a school; more often it's noted if the school is not accredited or is some sort of diploma mill. 86 this.
"School is also listed by the American Veterinary Medical Association, and its graduates qualify for entrance into the Educational Commission for Foreign Veterinary Graduates (ECFVG) or the Program for the Assessment of Veterinary Education Equivalence (PAVE) certification programs." Once again, irrelevant for the same reasons as above. This also counts as promotional as this is only relevant to those seeking to enrol there, not a layperson who's just seeking background information on the school. Your audience isn't someone looking for a school - there are far better websites for that than a crowdsourced general encyclopaedia. Rather, your audience should be the layperson who's merely looking for background information in broad strokes. 86 this.
"St. Nicholas University: School of Veterinary Medicine graduates are eligible to practice veterinary medicine in the United States and Canada without restrictions, once they pass the above requisite licensing examinations." Irrelevant and borderline-insulting to the reader's intelligence. Once again, this is something that should be self-evident. 86 this.
"ECFVG certification allows graduates to be licensed in the United States, Canada, the Caribbean and other countries accepting ECFVG certification." - Utterly irrelevant to the subject and seems to only be here to try and promote the school to prospective students. 86 this.
"Detailed licensing procedure is described on ECFVG website." - Utterly irrelevant. 86 this.
"St. Nicholas University School of Veterinary Medicine is also recognized and listed by the World Veterinary Association under universities, institutions, colleges and schools awarding Doctor of Veterinary Medicine degree in the world." - Irrelevant. Once again, this is written for prospective students, not Joe Blow Public. 86 this.
"St. Nicolas University: School of Veterinary Medicine sponsors Animal Rescue and Shelter, and also operates on its campus University Veterinary Clinic, with students participating and gaining hands-on experience." - The first half of this sentence needs 86'd; the second half needs reworded to not be so promotional/student-fishing.
"University offers regularly scholarship options for students in need." - More student-fishing promotional junk. 86 this.

So in summary, your draft is written for an audience that is unlikely to be using Wikipedia in the first place for the objectives you're envisioning, and as a result it comes across as promotional by way of trying to recruit students. This draft needs overhauled from the lede to the footer. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 05:03, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. You spent considerable time showing me all problems. really appreciated. I see what you mean about not being totally objective.

Some things you say to be removed are a required wording by AVMA/ECFVG who want to make sure people know additional procedure is required after receiving a diploma to be able to work in USA or Canada. So, the whole thing would need to be removed, however - as not all veterinary schools are listed or accredited by AVMA (which is one of most respected organizations in this field) and it is one of most often asked questions we get - removing this information seems incorrect to me. So, not sure about this.

As to other accreditation - as said earlier - I looked at other vet universities to be found on Wikipedia, and they do have these chartered/accredited notes. Therefore I thought they actually are needed to show credibility of an institution. If they should be removed here - i have no problem with it - but why they are existing in other articles?

I don't point to these to be difficult, but to make sure this will keep all important elements after shortening/rewriting. I see most of your points as valid, and i plan to shorten/change this quite drastically. I just don't want to remove what may be important after all. I see accreditations listed everywhere. so, now I blindly opened just anything related https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Matthew%27s_University

and there is a whole separate section on accreditations. So, why is it there if it shouldn't? And if there is a whole section of it (and most universities mention their accreditation) - why is it irrelevant in our case? I am puzzled a bit by this.

All other points are much clearer to me that this accreditation issue, so i can work ion these.

Thank you again for all your efforts to help. Cheers!

Derek Holoboss (talk) 13:24, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would rebut that those other articles need to be edited to correct the tone issues. Here's the thing about using other articles as examples of what is acceptable and what is not on Wikipedia - they aren't vetted outside of the Good and Featured review processes, and there is a lot of crap that predates the modern drafting process that we're still working on trying to get cleaned up; this task is, as you might imagine, Herculean and slow. Pomona College (Featured-class) and Geisel School of Medicine (Good-class) would be far better to use as examples. (And in case you're wondering, we don't have any Good, let alone Featured, articles on veterinary schools.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 19:05, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]