Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2016 March 21

= March 21 =

03:35:36, 21 March 2016 review of submission by Willclarkeinoz
Hi there, not really sure why this entry was knocked back. The company has won numerous awards in Australia and was the original disruptor in the Australian classifieds market. Can you please suggest edits or offer advice on how I go about altering for inclusion? Many thanks Will Willclarkeinoz (talk) 03:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * As the reviewer indicated, the draft comes across like something a PR flack would write. Wikipedia is not for advertising, marketing, or public relations, so the draft is not usable. Writing an encyclopaedia article is one of the most difficult, time consuming, and frustrating things for a new editor to attempt. There are many easier and more rewarding ways to contribute.


 * Before attempting to write an encyclopedia article I suggest you study some of the best examples of web and company articles on Wikipedia, such as: The Million Dollar Homepage, Scene7, Oliver Typewriter Company, and BAE Systems. Familiarising yourself with the Wikipedia policies and guidelines relevant to what you want to do will also pay off. Many are reachable via links that have been left on your talk page, such as Article development.


 * Remove the awards section from the draft. None of the awards listed is worth mentioning in an encyclopaedia. Remove the whole fast-growing bit. Any company beyond mom and pop goes through a phase of high year-over-year growth. It's just because the baseline is so low. It signifies nothing about the company's importance or quality. Remove weasel and peacock language like "leading" (sourced to a press release!) and "it is speculated" (a misinterpretation of the source). Rework the lead following "Writing better articles" and MOS:LEAD. Remove the list of websites, Wikipedia is not a web directory. The stock exchange listing should be in the lead. Ensure the lead and body are fulfilling their respective roles. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

13:49:33, 21 March 2016 review of submission by Cincotta1
I have created a draft article, draft:Lunar Polar Hydrogen Mapper, and was looking to submit it through the articles for creation process, but am not sure how to do this. Who would I need to talk to for a walkthrough in this process?Cincotta1 (talk) 13:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC) Cincotta1 (talk) 13:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi . You will now find a big grey box at the top of the draft. Click on the large blue button in it when you're ready to submit the draft for review. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks a bunch, don't know how I missed that Cincotta1 (talk) 16:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

15:55:21, 21 March 2016 review of submission by Mattyh10
Dear Robert McClenon. I added the inline citations. Is that OK? Regards, Matthew

Mattyh10 (talk) 15:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

16:02:45, 21 March 2016 review of submission by 217.36.122.109
I need someone to re-review, has been some time since the proposed article was submitted. I'm not even sure I've done this correctly. Draft:DJ_JY

217.36.122.109 (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The draft is in the queue and will be reviewed in due course, probably in the next couple of weeks. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Request on 22:55:16, 21 March 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Erynwecker
Hello, My draft was rejected on the grounds that it "appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia." The draft includes objective information such as date of founding, notable historical dates, service areas, and product offerings. I'm wondering what specifically about the article seems promotional, or like an advertisement, so that we can adjust it to better meet Wikipedia's guidelines. Thank you, Eryn

Erynwecker (talk) 22:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Would you clarify what you mean by we? Are multiple people using your account? Do you mean you are an employee of the company, or the company is a client of yours? Or something else? --Worldbruce (talk) 14:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response."We" refers to me and the other person who is working on this entry. Is there anything specifically that we can change to make the entry read less "like an advertisement"? Thank you. --Erynwecker (talk)


 * The only edits to the draft have been by account Erynwecker and the AfC reviewer, which makes your reference to "the other person who is working on this entry" troubling. The policy on Wikipedia is "one user—one account". Usernames should not be shared by multiple individuals. It's also quite unusual for two people unconnected with a company to get together to write an encyclopedia article about it, so I've left a note on your user page explaining Wikipedia's policies and guidelines related to managing a conflict of interest, if you have one. As for your request for elaboration on the reason the draft was declined, that's going to take considerably more time to explain, but it won't be ignored. Worldbruce (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've commented at length on the draft regarding what makes it promotional, the limited range of its sources, and its other problems. Worldbruce (talk) 07:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your thoughtful response to my draft. I appreciate your help. Erynwecker (talk)

23:18:14, 21 March 2016 review of submission by Carolina.visnadi
I would like to understand how i can improve the notability of my page. Carolina.visnadi (talk) 23:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi . To be included in Wikipedia, an RTO must satisfy the notability criteria for schools. This requires arms length, reliable, secondary sources. There must be multiple sources, and they must contain a significant depth of information. Directory listings like training.gov.au, myskills.gov.au, studygoldcoast.org.au, and hotcoursesabroad.com don't count because they do not provide deep coverage. Envirotech.edu.au does not count towards notability because it is not independent of the subject. Training.qld.gov.au does not count because it supports background information but does not say anything about Envirotech specifically.


 * In the big pink box on the draft is a line that starts with Find sources:. Look for sources using the search links there. Another place to search is Trove . You might also try searching national and regional media sites (newspapers, magazines, radio stations, and TV networks) directly. If at least two independent, reliable, secondary sources containing a significant depth of coverage cannot be found, Wikipedia will not accept a stand along article on the subject. If you're unsure what the right kind of coverage would look like, consider these examples of suitable sources for another educational institution:, , . --Worldbruce (talk) 02:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)