Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 July 10

= July 10 =

Review of the submission - The Quint
Hi All,

I submitted an entry for creating the page, The Quint. This submission was declined. The reason given was, 'This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia.' I have tried to conform to all Wikipedia guidelines I am aware of and did rework the content multiple times to ensure that the content I write does not come off as something that could be perceived as something not within the framework of Wikipedia. I would like some assistance in knowing what more I can possibly do in this case. Would appreciate your help! Thanks! VP101 (talk) 04:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Essentially, the article reads like an extract from a company website. What you need to do is to analyse a variety of reliable sources and then write up the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, which the NPOV tutorial might help with. What might also help is reading some other good company articles on Wikipedia, but also some ones similar to the size of your article which have been accepted onto Wikipedia. For example, describing your logo in such depth is disproportionate and perhaps a part of why the reviewer rejected your article- it is not encyclopedic. The sourcing should also be improved. A lot of the sources you have provided are primary sources which to not help show notability- all articles have to be fundamentally notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. To show notability, you need to show that the digital content platform has been covered in depth by secondary sources e.g. newspapers. Sources in other languages as well as offline sources are fine. jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. I have tried to adhere to all possible guidelines. As you say, I could edit out some of the bits you have highlighted and this would make the content seem more suitable for WIkipedia. I do however feel that the sources which I have cited are indeed notable enough to warrant a presence here. I agree that some of the source are indeed 'Primary Sources,' but that is because certain specific information about an entity is present on the aforementioned sources. Regardless of my thoughts on the issue of sourcing, I shall look for better sources to cite. What else would you say is something I need to work on with regards to this draft? Thank you for your comment and suggestions, I really appreciate it! VP101 (talk) 05:32, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

16:27:58, 10 July 2017 review of submission by Cinemasianx
This is my first attempt an an article ever, so thanks for taking the time to review. I didn't see much mark up, so I'll go back and try to read thru the WP pages you highlighted. This is very learn as I go so I hope I can edit and resubmit. I'll try to find more supportive information and I'll get this formatting thing down. Am I far off on getting this approved? I can omit the musician aspect since they are harder to verify. Thanks again.
 * who reviewed your draft. jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:21, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Cinemasianx - You say that you can omit the musician aspect since they are harder to verify. I am not sure that I understand.  I interpreted the draft as a draft about a musician, who is notable if he or she meets musical notability.  Otherwise, he has to meet general notability, which is, in my view, more amorphous and so usually harder.  If he meets any of the specific criteria as a musician, please emphasize it.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As to markup, I often tell new editors to see WP:Markup on how to mark up sections. I mean in particular please indicate the levels of subheadings of the article with equal signs as explained in the Markup page.  You had bolded the headings, but if you use equal signs in the way that is described, the wiki software will provide the proper degree of emphasis.  You can look at the source of any article that has standard formatting if that helps.  That is what I meant about markup.  Do you have any further specific questions?  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

19:43:48, 10 July 2017 review of submission by ComPol
Hi! Hope this message finds you well. I am kind of new here and would like to get some someone to lend a helping hand on improving and getting published this article. Would you kindly take another look at the article? I will appreciate any help I get in this regard. Thanks!ComPol (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You've received feedback from a number of different reviewers, including whose feedback I regard especially helpful as he's very well versed in ascertaining notability. I would definitely follow his advice and slant the article towards his role as the interim Director of the Dominican civil service, and reduce the coverage of the rest of his roles and condense them down to maybe just a couple of lines. All articles have to be fundamentally notable to be included on Wikipedia. I will have a look at the draft myself when I get some time, perhaps tomorrow, and run things through on your user talk page. jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)