User talk:Limejuice007

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 if 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 [ Articles for creation help desk], or on the [ . Please remember to link to the submission!
 * You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Dark Rye, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! SL93 (talk) 00:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Dark Rye
Hey Limejuice!

So, first: thanks for adding the citations to Dark Rye. They're very helpful - the more content that is cited, the better - and it's rare to see them so consistently and properly formatted. The weasel and peacock tags, however, were not added due to a lack of citations.

Wikipedia maintains a neutral point of view as a tertiary encyclopaedia: part of that is that we don't speak as if we have an opinion. So, we say "Edward Coke was described as one of the pre-eminent jurists in English legal history" rather than "Edward Coke was one of the pre-eminent jurists..." and so on statements of opinion are only as reliable and useful as the individuals making them. In the case of Wikipedia, we maintain we're fundamentally unreliable (and, according to some, pretty non-useful, too ;p).

With Dark Rye the problem comes with statements like "It highlights interesting people from across the globe who are doing inspiring things". That makes it sound like we think the people are interesting, or that their work is inspiring, whereas the actual nature of Wikipedia is that we don't have an opinion about how interesting they are (and don't care, to boot). That sort of statement is the issue here, rather than a lack of citations. I hope that this helps, and that you keep editing Wikipedia - on the Dark Rye article and on others :). Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 05:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)