Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 February 27
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < February 26 | << Jan | February | Mar >> | February 28 > |
| 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. |
February 27[edit]
00:55:24, 27 February 2019 review of draft by 122.57.181.43[edit]
122.57.181.43 (talk) 00:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello--I am confused, when I asked for review of my article someone called Hell in a Bucket told me to make it more neutral, so I did and re-submitted it for review again. He never mentioned anything about the sources I used. But now, somebody called I dream of horses, rejected it saying its : "Not very well-sourced". At this time these are the best sources I have, I hope to find more. The article is very short and it is sourced according to the Wikepedia guidelines. Please advise. With kind regards.
Nebarolini (talk) 02:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- User:Nebarolini I'm sorry you are having trouble. Most reviewers decline a page over the first fatal problem they find. If I find a page reads like an Ad I decline it - even speedy delete it if it is really bad - without evaluating the sources. We have such a big backlog we can't take the time to identify all the problems a new editor may have on a page. This is why I believe editors should get experience with established articles before attempting to create new pages, one of the hardest skills at Wikipedia. The second message means the sources given were judged to be enough to show the topic is Notable (acceptable). The reviewer feels the page would likely be deleted if sent to mainspace. Legacypac (talk) 09:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
07:45:26, 27 February 2019 review of draft by ANTONIOEMOSES[edit]
ANTONIOEMOSES (talk) 07:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- No question but I've given some advice on the draft and fixed the title Legacypac (talk) 09:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
09:44:36, 27 February 2019 review of draft by Sabine retina[edit]
I am not sure if I am supposed to do anything to ensure review for approval and posting of this draft?
The content of this to-be-created page can be veryfied in numerous independent www.-pages and multiple press releases and in all of Botond Roska's peer-reviewed publications which are also available on PubMed. I edited the draft page, as requested by the first reviewer, a person supposed to be called Sam Holt.
I am definetely not trying to 'promote' Botond Roska and/or the IOB (www.iob.ch), beause this is simply not necessary, he is very renowned worldwide as a scientif expert in neurology and particularly for retinal diseases. As many media people and the public have asked why Botond Roska is still not listed on wikipedia, I am now working to try to change this.
Again: no promotion, no commercial or financial interest, whatsoever.
IOB is a Swiss Foundation, and B Roska is also Professor of the Medical Faculty of Basel University, next to his many other academic roles.
Sabine retina (talk) 09:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
10:16:23, 27 February 2019 review of draft by Gidoneli[edit]
I do not understand how coverage in Three large news organizations (CNBC, Ha'aretz, Yediot Aharonot) won't account as sufficient coverage? I am looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syneron_Medical and this submission has the same if not less coverage by the same types of outlets. Can I have an example of "sufficient coverage"? Thanks
Gidoneli (talk) 10:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- Responded on Draft. If User:DGG says it is not shown to be notable it is not. He is one of our most experienced Admims. Legacypac (talk) 11:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- My judgments on notability are not always correct: my estimate is that I make about 2% errors, and for those that are challenged, about 10% of the time the consensus takes a different view. When requested, I will look at something again. In this instance, I looked again, and it confirmed my opinion that the references are mere notices . See WP:NCORP for what constitutes acceptable sources for notability. Two other good reviewers said just the same.
- In years when standards were lower, Wikipedia accepted many articles that were promotional or non-notable, that we would not nowadays accept. It will be many years until we get all of them fixed or removed. In the meantime, the least we can do is not add to them. DGG ( talk ) 19:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
15:16:30, 27 February 2019 review of submission by Arman Aryamehr[edit]
Arman Aryamehr (talk) 15:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Arman Aryamehr: - hi there. This is far off the sufficient notability required - you need reliable, independent (which rules out interviews), in-depth secondary sources. Usually newspapers, books etc are best for this. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
17:29:43, 27 February 2019 review of submission by 707 HBC[edit]
707 HBC (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
because I deserve a second chance at life plz accept mu submission plz it is for the people and for the better of wikipedia
22:26:15, 27 February 2019 review of submission by Wikimocap[edit]
Wikimocap (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I have re-submitted an article for the company Noitom Ltd. Article was declined due to "read more like an advertisement" and "should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed". I disagree with both of these points. All of the sources (article links) are reliable, credible publications of which none have been produced by the company itself. They are all legitimate write-ups from independent sources. Is there a way to get this reviewed again? And if not, what more can I do to get this published? I am at a loss. The company is 100% legitimate as are the facts listed in the page.
On hold- Replied to user's posting on my talk page. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
