User talk:Yannickjan

Your submission at Articles for creation: Monument Lab (February 15)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SamHolt6 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 Draft:Monument Lab and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Monument Lab, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "db-self" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Monument_Lab Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SamHolt6&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Monument_Lab reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SamHolt6 (talk) 16:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Monument Lab: Draft and live article
Hello Yannickjan, I have merged the page histories of your draft and the article about Monument Lab created by. You can see the full history here. I have left the content of the page at the version by SamHolt6 because yours has issues that would require an extensive amount of editing to fix. It relied on primary sources for arguably promotional content, used too many quotes by related personnel, used some unreliable sources, and had a generally promotional tone (particularly in the "current projects" section). There were also some layout issues that would have needed to be fixed, but those were not the reason why I didn't use your content. Huon (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Follow Up Inquiry
Hello Huon. Thank you very much for completing the merging of the page histories. I understand the need for independent review, though I will have to continue to work on Wikipedia to better understand which primary sources are appropriate for making "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary)

If possible, could you identify which sources were deemed unreliable? The current article contains far less information, and even a rather glaring error for which I have proposed an edit (erroneous claim that the Rodin Museum was a partner of Monument Lab, unsupported by provided article).

If appropriate, I would like to help expand the article from its present stub status, but I want to be sure I understand which sources you deemed inappropriate before doing so.

Thank you again,

Yannickjan (talk) 02:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Maybe I should have been a little more specific regarding the primary sources. One problem with your version of the page is that often the primary sources aren't independent, either. For example, the entire awards section was solely based on the writings of the organizations bestowing the awards. Are those significant awards? I could bestow the "Huon's Choice Award" on Monument Lab and say so on my website - that would be just another primary source, and how can we tell that the awards currently listed are any more significant than the one I just made up? We can't, based on those sources. That's what we need a secondary source for, such as a newspaper reporting on the award. The relevant part of the policy you mention is: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them."


 * One source that's clearly not reliable is Medium; anybody can write a post there, about anything. I'm not familiar with all the sources used, but there were several others which I rather don't think are subject to meaningful editorial oversight. See WP:Identifying reliable sources for more on this topic. Huon (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)