Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 May 1
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < April 30 | << Apr | May | Jun >> | May 2 > |
| 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. |
May 1
edit
- Sebastienb06 (talk · contribs)
I would like to get a second oppinion on the article I wrote. The person that declined the article said that I needed a second opinion.Sebastienb06 (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Sebastienb06 (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- Reply - The reviewer stated you needed secondary sources, not a second opinion. The link they provided is the same I would for advice: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. Isingness (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I seem to be having an issue with sources, citation and notability of the article. But they were all i could gather.
Efe akpomuetata (talk) 08:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- Reply - If you do not have enough sources to support the notability of the individual you are writing about, I would recommend selecting a different topic to write on that has a higher chance of getting accepted. When subjects do not have enough sources, unfortunately they do not get accepted as entries on Wikipedia. Isingness (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
11:39:56, 1 May 2017 review of submission by Mistermchugh
edit- Mistermchugh (talk · contribs)
Having worked and reworked my article several times, I find myself again in the position of being rejected, but with out any clear direction. Seriously, just rejecting something without any attempt at indicating why is at worst rude, at best lazy. I've worked long and hard on this, rather than a vague dismissal, can someone please give me some specific feedback as to what is wrong with my article?
- Reply - It appears that the advice of prior reviewers has yet to be followed to the extent required, so I would revisit the comments they provided. More specifically, I would try for something much shorter, not as narrative, and stick only to the best third-party sources when developing your content. That will provide a page that is easier to review, and one that may merit further commentary by the volunteers taking time to review your work. More information on writing content that better meets the expectations of the encyclopedia can be found here: Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style. Isingness (talk) 22:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- One problem with the article is that it doesn't start by saying what it's about. Ok, it's about "Digital Literacy Coach" – but what's that? A software package? a person? a training program? I think, from later sections. that it's a person, or a job title; but the article needs to say so, in the first sentence. Maproom (talk) 14:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
13:51:28, 1 May 2017 review of submission by 204.84.163.12
edit
I have been working on a page "Mighty Oaks Warrior Programs" and hoping that it will be accepted. It has been in "Re-Review" since Thursday (April 27, 2017). This purpose of the page is not to be an advertisement at all but merely a factual representation of a group that has been working to help combat veterans and other military service members. Can you help me?
204.84.163.12 (talk) 13:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- Hello, IP address. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. I don't know whether or not your subject meets Wikipedia's definition of "notable" (for which see WP:NCORP). But I do know that you've done a poor job of making your case. For one thing, you use a referencing style that omits most of the essential bibliographic detail, forcing reviewers to click through each and every link if they want to learn basic information such as who wrote an article and when/where it was published. You can avoid this problem by using citation templates such as {{cite web}}. A little later today, I'll head over to the draft and re-format one or two of the references, which you can then use as examples for doing the rest. On a more basic note, however, most of your sourcing appears to be to the organization's own web site. Drafts that rely so heavily on such "primary sourcing" rarely get accepted for publication. You really need to demonstrate that the organization has receive in-depth coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the organization. Right now, your claim seems to be based entirely on an article in The Christian Post and another on the Rhino Den web site. I'm not sure that these will be enough to demonstrate satisfaction of WP:NCORP and it will be very helpful if you can find additional sources. I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
This is incredibly helpful. I went back and added other sources from independent resources. If while you are looking at it later today you see anything, please let me know! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.84.163.12 (talk) 18:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
18:36:28, 1 May 2017 review of submission by 24.52.36.5
edit- 24.52.36.5 (talk · contribs)
Hello! I am attempting to create a page for A Perfect 10 Nail and Beauty Bar. I'm not sure what more I need to add.
- Please read the comment and policies left by the reviewer at the top of your draft. Alternatively, the same comment can be seen on your talk page. Please remember to stay logged in; you are editing from your IP right now! JTP (talk • contribs) 20:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)