W3005O

Hello! Just to mention on this talk page: I am a student at the University of Oxford, and work with OCJC. I decided to make the page following the release of the report in April 2021.W3005O (talk) 13:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for this disclosure, but can you put it on your main user page as well? I assume you're not paid by the OCJC but in working with them, this gives you a conflict of interest (even if it's as small as "the higher-profile the campaign, the better this looks on my CV"). So read that linked guideline and make sure to follow it. If you have any questions, I'm an Oxonian and my talk page is always open. — Bilorv (talk) 15:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Your submission at Articles for creation: Oxford Climate Justice Campaign (May 6) edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by CommanderWaterford were:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Oxford Climate Justice Campaign and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Oxford Climate Justice Campaign, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello, W3005O! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Your submission at Articles for creation: Oxford Climate Justice Campaign (May 8) edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bilorv was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

The promotional tone is a lot better, but I can't see any sources which help with notability. The student papers (Cherwell, OxStu and especially the very recent Blue) are borderline reliable, but don't count towards notability - we need larger scope like national (rather than regional student) newspapers. The coverage in The Guardian looks to be more about the uni and climate change rather than OCJC specifically. Charities petitions are not independent. It would help if you could add a comment with the three best sources for notability i.e. the biggest-profile in-depth independent coverage of the campaign itself. However, the topic may simple not be notable, and then you might consider brief and on-topic coverage of the campaign in some other article (like about Oxford Uni and its fossil fuel investments).

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Oxford Climate Justice Campaign and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Oxford Climate Justice Campaign, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

— Bilorv (talk) 15:42, 8 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks very much @Bilorv! Appreciate the feedback, and good to know I managed to de-bias it a little bit, think that first criticism was fair. Also, have added declaration to user page. Duly noted re three top articles. So, have had a look through the press and here's the outcome:

Sorry, I realise I didn't mention these national-level stories in the main article, can do that if you think it'll strengthen notability! If of interest, here's my rationale: it's hard to identify motivations for University-level decisions re sustainability, for example (because the motivations are obviously pretty numerous, e.g. financial, internal staff pressure, student pressure, image, etc.), but I felt OCJC was noteworthy because of its large influence, even though that picture might not be apparent in coverage by a national paper, for instance, to whose readership OCJC might mean little. But maybe the fact they're referenced so early, e.g. in the BBC and Daily Mail stories above, might show that somewhat. Anyway, thanks for the comments and for engaging! W3005O (talk) 12:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the reply. I might be a bit harsh with the words that follow but I appreciate the learning curve here and that you're working hard. For notability we want multiple sources that satisfy all of the following: reliable, independent, in-depth. The Daily Mail is not reliable, because it doesn't do proper fact-checking—you can see our "perennial sources" listing for a bit more information. I like the first Independent source, because it's an article wholly about a policy the OCJC first introduced—that's in-depth coverage. The other Independent source and BBC article do not count for much because it's just getting a comment from OCJC people, not writing about them. They're not independent from the article and it's not really in-depth either. The other sources I was seeing in the article (though I can't read them all when doing a review because we're enormously draft backlogged) didn't seem in-depth or sometimes even to mention the OCJC.

I'm definitely not seeing notability from this one Independent source alone. I had a look (don't do this often but I would have been interested in writing the article myself if I thought the topic notable) and found a good BBC source (article entirely about an OCJC report), a source on the same topic by the Oxford Mail (local, so less significant) and a tad of coverage from another Oxford Mail source (The Oxford Climate Justice Campaign has been active and negotiating on divestment and climate-conscious investment since 2015 when it won a partial divestment of coal and tar sands. It is now focused on the university's sponsorships, research and careers-events with fossil fuel companies.). However, I think our community would find these insufficient to show notability. It's one or two good sources away from at least being borderline, so I'll keep it on my radar.

If a topic is not notable then that is a property of the topic, not your writing, so there is nothing you can do to make it notable. You say that you thought the "OCJC was noteworthy because of its large influence, even though that picture might not be apparent in coverage by a national paper". I'm not judging whether I think it's noteworthy to me. But for Wikipedia to work as a project—the one where people write hundreds of thousands of drafts about bands they're in, start-ups they've just founded and one-episode characters from a Star Trek spinoff you've never heard of—we need clear, unambiguous rules to establish when something is noteworthy. If OCJC doesn't pass, that's not supposed to mean that it's not important or doesn't do good. It just means that there's only so many pages I can monitor for daily vandalism (about 1,000) and there's only so many of me on the site, and we maintain things at an at best barely manageable level with these rules.

This is why I suggested that working on a related article that exists, to add small paragraphs of information based on the sources we've established are good, is a better approach. There is also potential notability in a broader subject like Environmental policy of the University of Oxford or Investments of the University of Oxford, but these are much, much harder articles to begin (which means writing neutrally, covering things as broadly as possible, using academic literature where possible) than the draft you've written on the OCJC.

If you would be interested in more broadly improving our coverage of environmental content, there are a million jobs to be done. I mostly do arts and entertainment stuff, most recently Greta Thunberg: A Year to Change the World. — Bilorv (talk) 02:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hey Bilorv, thanks for replying, not harsh at all to be honest! Totally makes sense. Appreciate there's probs a lot of people on here with axes to grind etc, so hope it didn't come across like I was pushing this too much. Star Trek comment cracked me up. Just getting to grips now with the thresholds of reliability etc. (Won't be able to live down presenting the DM as a reliable source, what was I thinking.) No worries at all, I'll maybe add some content to another page, e.g. the student union or something. I've been reviewing some other pages so yeah, will definitely do what you suggest re: contributing to other environmental content! Cheers! W3005O (talk) 11:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

No problem—you can ask me any questions about any area of the site, and the Teahouse is another good place to ask. — Bilorv (talk) 12:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Your draft article, Draft:Oxford Climate Justice Campaign edit

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, W3005O. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Oxford Climate Justice Campaign".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Add topic