User talk:Foncion

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the [ reviewer's talk page]
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 19:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

My article was noted as ads
Hi! Thank you so much for your review on my article. I am a student now in France and as one of my assignment in school I need to study the business model of French company. I choose to study the website that I would like to write about (see the article) and after study I think the website should be known by other people because its business model is unique and worth to learn. However, I am noticed that this article is more like an ads. Actually I am still writing, based on the example of apple inc., and try to be neutral. But the comment to the article is so brief. Since it's my first time to write articles on wiki, may I ask what kind of words will be noticed as in-neutral or as ads? Thank you in advance for your response. Foncion (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hiyas there Foncion,


 * Perhaps the most major issue with the article, is that the content section of it is overflooded with external links to the companies website, which is virtually always seen as spamming, or at least as an attempt to get traffic to a site. Besides this the only external links in the content section should be the references that are used to support the page content - relevant external links such as the company website are placed in a separate "External Links" section at the buttom of the page. The apple article has the same structure - just have a look here - there is one link to the company website on the bottom of the page.


 * There are two other, perhaps more minor issues with the article. First, it seems to suffer somewhat from overlinking, which means that the article contains a fairly large amount of links to other article's. This isn't a problem on it own, but the linked words are in part plain english words, for example - Website, Internet and quotations. Generally taken only " unclear" links should be linked, and even then you should avoid linking every single instance of a word - this is mostly redundant. As an example, you are linking Shipper four times in a single line.


 * The other issue is that the page suffers from overcoverage, as the article goes into a great amount of detail. In general extra information is a good thing, but the information should remain encyclopedic. This especially exhibits itself in the descriptions of each version of the site - you describe every color change in the logo, the shading, letter spacing, and so on and on which is hardly relevant for an Encyclopedia that intends to summarize a topic. In fact for most part a dotted list would more then suffice for the new versions, with a statement that a new version was released (And even this may be over the top - we dont cover every site change, see, for example, Google.)


 * Hope this helps, and with kind regards, Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 22:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Excirial,


 * Thank you so much for your help! Well actually I'm just thinking to make the linking uniformed. It means once I link the words, I should link it every time I write. Now I am clear this is not expected and gonna remove all the misleading linking.


 * But for the Google example I don't really get you. What do you mean by using dotted list? Do you mean the writing is too detailed and I should prevent this? Instead I will only need to make a list to tell the differences and that's enough?


 * Thanks again and best regards! Foncion (talk) 05:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hiyas there Foncion,


 * Exactly! An encyclopedic article is supposed to provide a summary of a topic for a reader, which means that only the most important aspects should highlighted. Mostly trivial changes can best be left out entirely. You also might want to change the structure somewhat, as the entire article seems to foxus on the graphical design of the website and its changes over time. Most article's start with a short 1-2 line introduction (the lead) which summarizes the entire article for people who just want a definition of a subject. For example, if i go to the Music article, the first line states Music is an art form whose medium is sound and silence. Its common elements are pitch (which governs melody and harmony), rhythm (and its associated concepts tempo, meter, and articulation), dynamics, and the sonic qualities of timbre and texture. The word derives from Greek μουσική (mousike; "art of the Muses").. If i want to know more about music i can read the article, but if i just want to understand the basic concept the first line is sufficient to read.


 * Afterwards most article's dive into the history of a company or website to give the reader some historical context, before starting to describe what the website offers. You can see this structure in the Apple Inc article - it starts with a short introduction, then a historical section, then details about the company and its products, and last it covers important current events. Now, having said that - The apple article might not be the best example for your own article, mostly because apple is a huge subject to cover. Generally taken this means that the article structure is different and more complex then need be for other articles. Personally i like to point to Pearson's Candy Company and Pike Place Fish Market as examples. Both are rated as a good article, while their size is still fairly small. Thus, they might be a good example to compare your own article to.  Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 20:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the [ reviewer's talk page]
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 19:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Request details from an angle as an outsider to improve the article
Hi Excirial,

Since the first submission, I sincerely thank you a lot to help me realize some main problems which make the article not neutral enough. I did the modification and revised almost all the content based on the suggestion you gave in order to make it more be a wiki entry. However, the second submission was declined again although I thought it should be perfect this time. I think maybe you would be so kind to re-exam the article I did and tell me from the point of view as a third person about the content which need to be improved. Actually I reviewed the passage "read more like an advertisement" several times and I find by far the problem may be the description about the SERVICES part because the content may look like sales-oriented. Anyway, I am expecting from you more details of advices.

Here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Transport_Marketplace

Best regards, Foncion (talk) 06:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting that i actually managed to review it twice in a row - normally i try to evade doing so to allow a fresh pair of eyes to check the article. Regardless of that i think i can be rather brief this time, mostly because the article has definitely improved when compared to the previous review.


 * You already correctly spotted my main issue with the article - the services section, which is written in a style that i would except in a sales brochure. The first line "Transport Marketplace closes the gap between supply and demand of shipper and carrier in the field of transport by introducing new tools to connect shipper and carrier via cloud computing." is quite promotional, and the rest of the section is mostly a summation why Transport Marketplace had advantages for its customers. Don't draw conclusions - just describe the services they offer.


 * A second section that could use another look is the "Prospection" section. It starts with the slogan of the company, and then suddenly states: "It means the total business is “international” and “environmental friendly” thanks to the feature of the web". That is what they intend with the slogan of course, but it again sounds promotional (Use Transport Marketplace! Its web based, so its good for the environment!). The best method to include such information is by simply weaving it into the article itself. In this case i would mention that Transport marketplace provides middleman services, and therefor doesn't take part in any form of goods transfer. In fact, there isn't a real need to mention this is environmentally friendly since it is mostly a generic conclusion that runs true for many websites selling goods.


 * Kind regards, Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 18:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the [ reviewer's talk page]
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! SarahStierch (talk) 03:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Transport Marketplace concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Transport Marketplace, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 13:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Your article submission Transport Marketplace


Hello Foncion. It has now been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Transport Marketplace.

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the  or  code. Please note, however, that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code:, paste it in the edit box at this link , click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. — rybec   12:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)