User:Calliopejen1/AFC reviewing

The following thoughts may be helpful when reviewing, and may be placed, modified if necessary, combined if desired, in reviews

We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.

Let me try to explain. If they manufactured vacuum cleaners, the cleaners would be their work. A vacuum cleaner could not be a reference for them, simply because it is the product they make. So it is with research. However, a review of their work by others tends to be a review of them and their methods, so is a reference, as is a peer reviewed paper a reference for their work. You may find WP:ACADEME of some use in seeing how Wikipedia and Academe differ hugely

All inline links must be removed, please, and turned into references if appropriate, Wikilinks, or external links in a section so named. See External links

We require references from significant coverage about the entity, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. Schools do get special treatment on Wikipedia but we do need something in terms of referencing. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.

For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.

Ideally please add links to online versions of the references. This is not compulsory, but we write for ordinary readers who like the instant gratification of being able to see what is written in the reference with ease. Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles. Many of the references are regurgitated press releases and PR material. These must be replaced or removed, please. They provide an aura of faux notability which is not required and adds no value. Indeed it diminishes Wikipedia's value.

This is a well disguised advert. Many of the references are regurgitated press releases and PR material. This is WP:BOMBARD If it can be rescued, so be it, but adverts have no place on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is not a place for you to post your resumé

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Not notable.

No precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into idiocracy

If you believe that Wikipedia will enhance your corporate reputation please think again. Wikipedia adds no value to you. You must add value to Wikipedia. Passing WP:CORP does that.

Interviews with the subject of an article or the principal or staff of a corporation or organisation may be used to verify simple facts which are not susceptible to challenge, but they have no value in asserting nor in verifying notability in a Wikipedia sense. They should be regarded as primary sources, which have their place, though WP:PRIMARY shows that their deployment should be limited

This is a prime example of WP:CITEKILL. Instead we need one excellent reference per fact asserted. If you are sure it is beneficial, two, and at an absolute maximum, three. A fact you assert once verified in a reliable source, is verified. More is gilding the lily. Please choose the very best in each case of multiple referencing for a single point and either drop or repurpose the remainder.

This article is from the point of view of the subject. Instead we want an article built by what secondary sources say about the subject.

I see a lot of sources BY the subject, but not a lot of sources ABOUT the subject. The article needs to be built off of what reliable secondary sources say ABOUT the subject.