User talk:Envmanager

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (December 27)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

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 User:Envmanager/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the or on the.
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister  talk  22:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess
Thanks for letting me know that my first effort at contributing an article to Wikipedia was such a "blatant" failure. Although it's difficult to find much constructive in the terse comments that I could use to repair the article for resubmission, I definitely received the repeated takeaways that Wikipedia sees the article as "advertising" "advertisement" and "PR" (twice) for a company that lacks "notability", and is not "notable" enough for Wikipedia. If the subject company is just not worthy of a Wikipedia article, I can't fix that.

There is no constructive comment, like criteria or guidelines or examples to distinguish a notable-enough company from a not-notable-enough company, provided. There also appears to be no place to submit article topics for evaluation before an author would invest the time and effort to research a topic that Wikipedia will eventually deem inherently not-notable-enough. That really discourages trying to find a second topic.

Please accept the correction to the obvious insinuation from the repeated comments on advertising and PR that I have some affiliation with the subject company. I have no affiliation whatsoever with this company; in fact I hadn't heard of it until the day I decided to choose it as a subject for my first attempt to write an article. I'd been thinking about how to answer all those invitations to write for Wikipedia, and had even tried my hand at making a few corrections and updates, but was watching for an article subject to come along that was small enough to make a first attempt to write about. I was reading about ALCOA Power Generating Inc. having sold four power plants here in North Carolina to a company I hadn't heard of, and looked for it on Wikipedia. While there was a mention of it in ALCOA Power Generating Inc.'s article, the CEO Kristina M. Johnson's article, the article on the private equity firm I Squared Capital, an article on York Haven Dam (one of the 19 hydro power plants it owns), and an article on the List of dams and reservoirs in Pennsylvania including some it owned, there was no article on the company itself. Wikipedia specifically, expressly invited me to write an article on this not-notable-enough company by name. In red. Just a thought, but maybe Wikipedia shouldn't beg people to waste their time researching and writing articles on subjects that they name, but deem too not-notable from which to even be able to salvage a draft article.

As to the assertion that this first draft article did not cite a "range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed," I would note that this very first draft article contained 20 listed footnoted external-to-Wikipedia references. It contained an additional 6 internal to Wikipedia references. Of those 26 references, 8 were to the company website, but 5 of those 8 were to pages with pictures of their power plants which I did not find elsewhere, and which I didn't want to simply upload for copyright concerns. So there were 3 references of the 26 to the company website outside of photos. As to the "range of independent, reliable, published sources," I included references to articles from the Charlotte Observer, Montgomery Herald, Salisbury Post, Businesswire, Hydroworld, WBTV, and Enduring Hydro.

If 3 of 26 was too high a percentage, or too high a number, of "materials produced by the creator of the subject" that would have been a constructive comment capable of being acted upon. Instead the comment stated that the 1st draft article failed because it contained "List of employees, company financials and specifics, clients and services" as advertising. This could have been really constructive, except that the draft article actually didn't contain anything at all like company financials, clients, or services listings. The closest thing to a so-called "List of employees" is a section called "Key Personnel." I admit that I tried to model my article after other articles on Wikipedia, and at least one of those had a section called Key Personnel. In fact a search of Wikipedia shows 1,559 articles contain "key personnel." So I can't improve the article by removing "company financials" that aren't there, or removing "clients" that aren't listed, or removing "services" that aren't mentioned. The only "list of employees" I can remove is the "key personnel" section that is acceptable in hundreds of other company articles, but not this one.

Overall, this experience has been a waste of my time. I certainly won't respond to any more invitations to do all the work to write articles to have them dismissed on either arbitrary unexplained not-notable-enough criteria, or fabricated lists of data to remove that were never present, or due the absence of a "range of independent, reliable, published sources" that were actually 12, and made up the majority references, by any manner of proportioning.

Envmanager (talk) 16:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)