Draft:Woo (psuedoscience)

Submission declined on 2 February 2024 by 64andtim (talk).

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you have not resolved the issues listed above, your draft will be declined again and potentially deleted.
If you need extra help, please ask us a question at the AfC Help Desk or get live help from experienced editors.
Please do not remove reviewer comments or this notice until the submission is accepted.

Where to get help

If you need help editing or submitting your draft, please ask us a question at the AfC Help Desk or get live help from experienced editors. These venues are only for help with editing and the submission process, not to get reviews.
If you need feedback on your draft, or if the review is taking a lot of time, you can try asking for help on the talk page of a relevant WikiProject. Some WikiProjects are more active than others so a speedy reply is not guaranteed.

How to improve a draft

Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia – a basic overview on how to edit Wikipedia.
Help:Wikitext – how to use the markup
Help:Referencing for beginners – how to include references
Wikipedia:Article development – how to develop your article
Wikipedia:Writing better articles – how to improve your article
Wikipedia:Verifiability – make sure your article includes reliable third-party sources

You can also browse Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples of Wikipedia's best writing on topics similar to your proposed article.

Improving your odds of a speedy review

To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags.

Add tags to your draft

Editor resources

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Easy tools: Citation bot (help) | Advanced: Fix bare URLs

Declined by 64andtim 3 months ago. Last edited by Codename Noreste 3 months ago. Reviewer: Inform author.

Resubmit

Please note that if the issues are not fixed, the draft will be declined again.

Comment: About this page describing the term "woo", the only reference leads to a dictionary definition. Some more citations that can support the term are required. – 64andtim ^(talk) 17:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Woo (also called woo-woo) is a term used to describe ideas based on little or unreliable evidence or scientific basis, often appealing to supernatural phenomena.^[1] Often, woo relies on Appeal to Authority.^{[citation needed]}

Examples edit

"Alkaline water has been shown to increase happiness" (even though there is no empirical evidence for this claim), is woo.

Tactics edit

Woo may use:

Appeal to Authority. A usage of this includes quoting out of context, espescially if said person being quoted is someone of authority.
The lack of empirical evidence, and any evidence uses testimony instead. (ex; the sight of spirits)
Misusage of scientific jargon.
As such woo is being rejected, one may conclude it is correct. Note that this applies not only to woo.

References edit

^ "woo or woo-woo - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com". skepdic.com. Retrieved 2023-12-01.

[1] "woo or woo-woo - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com". skepdic.com. Retrieved 2023-12-01.

[1]

Draft:Woo (psuedoscience)

Contents

Examples edit

Tactics edit

See also edit

References edit