Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 May 18

= May 18 =

00:01:30, 18 May 2017 review of submission by Backwardsman14
Backwardsman14 (talk) 00:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, Backwardsman. Did you have a specific question?  NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Request on 05:02:45, 18 May 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Toomuchfranking
I submitted an article for review (here) and it's been rejected with the following comment:

Literally an advertisement only advertising what they would advertise about themselves, and that's completely not what Wikipedia is about; such materials are unacceptable and this is a non-negotiable policy. SwisterTwister

I based the article on a company in exactly the same industry (Asprey), and was keen to keep it descriptive, historical and not sales focused. I want to make any changes I can to improve the article - the company has a deep and wide history as a key part of this UK craft and recently received the Royal Warrant from HRH the Prince of Wales.

Is there any guidance you can give me to specifically improve as I tried previously. Thanks so much guys!

Toomuchfranking (talk) 05:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, TooMuch. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.  Our apologies for the delay in response.  Before posting here, I took a look at the submission and I can see what the earlier reviewer had in mind.  You really haven't demonstrated that the company has received substantial coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the company.  But maybe you have -- your referencing style is very unclear.  There are two sections titled "References" -- one that automatically lists the in-line citations and another that just shows a bunch of other sources.  Are these other sources intended to back up the very large amount of material that currently appears to be unsourced?  If so, they should be converted into in-line sources (i.e., the kind that appear between the " " tags and that go directly after the statements that they are sourcing).  You also have two sections of links to websites outside of Wikipedia (what we call "external links").  One section is labeled "Further reading".  Are these, too, being used to source particular statements in the draft?  If so, then they also need to be converted into in-line citations.  I encourage you to read our WP:Referencing for beginners, which will provide more detail on all of this. If I had to decide right now, I would decline your submission as being largely unsourced and for its failure to demonstrate substantial coverage from third-party sources.  If you can address those concerns, I'll be happy to take another look at the draft.  Feel free to leave a note on my Talk page.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

07:55:57, 18 May 2017 review of submission by 68.96.92.199
68.96.92.199 (talk) 07:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC) I am the creator and founder of the content I am providing, if you can't do it then I will simply ask Google to help me with this simple task!
 * This is your only edit from this IP address. To what task/draft are you referring to?  JTP (talk • contribs) 20:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

10:06:04, 18 May 2017 review of submission by Anastasiia09
Hi Theroadislong, Nice to meet you and thanks for reviewing my Wikipedia article so quickly. Can you please advise what exactly do I need to correct in my article, so it will be accepted? What wasn't good enough? Thanks and waiting for your response. - Anastasiia09 (talk) 10:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC) -->}}

Anastasiia09 (talk) 12:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * NOTE: Response has already been given on the draft itself. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

21:27:06, 18 May 2017 review of submission by EricPfromTustin
Hi! I could use any help copy editing so that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Shot_Tower_Capital does not read like an advertisement. So far I have removed any flowery language and just stated the facts of what has been reported about the corporation. (I have added lots of citations and recent published information about this company to meet notability) Thank you for any help! EricPfromTustin (talk) 21:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, Eric. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.  Our apologies for the delay in response.  I didn't take a look at the earlier versions of your draft, but I agree that the current version does not contain the flowery language that so often causes us to label a draft as "advertising".  But there is still a problem with the issue of encyclopedic notability.  Your draft reads like a corporate resumé.  Most of the 19 references are not really about your company, but about the cases that they've been involved in.  I see only three references that are really about the company itself -- and those three all date from May 2012, are all brief, and all essentially repeat the same type of "press release" information that normally accompanies the announcement of a new firm.  Looking at the draft in a very broad "outline" form, you are essentially telling the reader "The company exists -- it has clients -- you've heard of some of them".  And that is not going to be enough to satisfy the guidelines for corporate notability.  I recognize that this is not the response that you were hoping to get.  But if I've missed something, or if you have any questions, feel free to let us know.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)