Talk:Santam

References, acceptance
I am about to accept this version of the draft as an article. However, I am accepting it based upon the fact that, while it is most definitely notable, the notability is barely asserted in the draft, thus needs both better assertion and far better referencing. Main article space is better to achieve this for this article than the draft namespace.

Some of the references are regurgitated press releases. They need to be replaced, as does the reference that is simply a passing mention. We need far better quality of referencing. We require references from significant coverage about the entity, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42.

In addition, the references are all dumped at the end. Since I appreciate this is written initially by a novice author I recommend the reading of WP:REFB and WP:CITE. While citations are not mandatory they are highly desirable and make life far more interesting for our readership. Fiddle  Faddle  11:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)