Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 August 25

= August 25 =

Request on 12:11:23, 25 August 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Thomas22238
Hello. I am requesting assistance because the draft has been rejected twice. Multiple outside sources have been listed, along with links to many other Wikipedia articles. Each subsidiary of this parent company has its own Wikipedia page, such as the local market stations. I do not understand why the parent company is not "noteworthy" enough to have a Wikipedia page. It had one before. I temporarily took it down to improve it and expand on the information, and now it will not be approved to come back. Thank you for your help. Thomas22238 (talk) 12:11, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Reply - Hi there Thomas. It appears the confusion here is over what an independent third-party source is defined as here on Wikipedia. The sources you are using may not be associated with the company you are writing about, but they are mostly the sites of other companies, such as DirectTV. Instead, you need to use academic or news sources to support your content. You can read more about proper sourcing at this link here: Reliable sources. Until the draft is crafted using these kinds of sources, there is no way for a reviewer to tell if the company is notable or not. Hope this helps! Isingness (talk) 15:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

17:46:01, 25 August 2017 review of submission by Political Fill
Struggling to format the top information, which typically appears on the right-hand side (age, name, office, etc)
 * The formatting is done by a template called an infobox, which I have added to the draft for you. See Template:Infobox officeholder/doc for how to use it. Please also familiarize yourself with Conflict of interest. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:45, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

18:24:35, 25 August 2017 review of submission by RLowery
Hello, I would like to get some feedback on an article that I recently got feedback on by one of the editors saying that it should be more encyclopedic in nature, should come from an unbiased perspective and should not peacock language. I revised it to make it sound less technical and easier to understand for the layperson, made sure that it had more of a "global" tone (tried to make it sound less U.S.-centric) but could you please point out the peacock language to me? The Article is Nelson M. Oyesiku and it is under my wiki user name Rlowery the link to my article is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nelson_M._Oyesiku
 * NOTE: Response has been left on the Draft's talk page. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)