Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 May 21

= May 21 =

06:00:27, 21 May 2017 review of submission by Merlyn89
I would like your help in understanding how can i make it sound more neutral than what I have already drafted? Can you pin point which lines exactly as it is a short article. Thank you for your help!

Merlyn89 (talk) 06:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, Merlyn. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.  Right now, we have a very large number of unreviewed articles, most of which are in the queue ahead of yours.  I estimate that it will be two or three weeks before someone gets to take a closer look at your submission.  But I did take a quick look and found that it is more likely to be declined for "lack of notability" than for any non-neutral language (and for what it's worth, I didn't see much of the latter in it).  As for demonstrating that the company is notable (in the sense that Wikipedia uses that word), you are going to need to demonstrate that the subject satisfies the criteria set forth in our corporate notability guidelines.  I also note that you are hurting your case by providing all of the references in the form of "bare URLs".  Doing so runs afoul of WP:CITE, which requires that you provide essential bibliographic detail.  Right now, if any reader (including a reviewer) wants to know who wrote the article being used as a source, or when/where it was published, they have to leave Wikipedia and find out for themselves.  You can avoid this problem by using the cite web template.  Later today, I'll go back to the draft and re-format one or two of the sources, which you can then use as examples for doing the rest.  I hope this response has been helpful.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

17:07:18, 21 May 2017 review of submission by 108.204.65.73
Is it real 108.204.65.73 (talk) 17:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, IP address. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.  Your question is unclear and I'm unable to give a response.  However, the draft that you specified contains no sourcing whatsoever and has been declined for that reason.  See the draft's page and its "decline" box for more detail.  If you have any other questions, feel free to ask.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

23:58:54, 21 May 2017 review of submission by Janweh64
I had previously submitted this draft as a paid editor. Since, then the article has been tagged with tag. I have returned the article back to draft in order to work on it again for resubmission. Can you please review the article and tell me what I can do to improve it in order to remove the tag? &mdash;አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 23:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe I am missing something, but I think that you are asking an impossible question. You can improve the article, but that won't change the fact that you worked on it as a paid editor, which is the conflict of interest.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's the one thing that you cannot fix, only a completely disinterested editor can clear that tag after being fully satisfied of the neutrality of the article. The more you edit it, the more you delay that possibility. My advice to you is to walk away, never edit the article again, let other editors do what they wish to improve it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That seems to be in disagreement with Template:COI/doc. But fine please move the article back to mainspace and I will never edit it again. I am prohibited from moving a paid contribution to mainspace. &mdash;አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Janweh64 - I agree that the documentation of the template is confusing. However, it is clear that only a neutral editor can remove the template, and only after discussion.  One could infer that the paid editor should engage in the discussion.  However, it doesn't say that, and the involvement of the paid editor in the discussion about removing the template is neither required nor desired.  As Roger says, a paid editor cannot remove the conflict of interest from an article.  So I don't think that what Roger and I said is in disagreement with the documentation.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, the article has been declined. I am likely to CSD it and move on. I will wait for one more review. Admittedly, my motivation is driven by more than simply contributing to Wikipedia. However, I doubt any of us have no other external motivations. This is just highly discouraging for someone like me who is trying to contribute constructively. &mdash;አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 23:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Janweh64 - When you say that you doubt any of us have no other external motivations, do you mean that you think that we are all paid editors? If not, what do you mean?  It is true that some of us actually intend to be civil but discouraging to paid editors.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)