Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2018 August 6

= August 6 =

Request on 00:27:57, 6 August 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Schiszm
Newslinger rejected my Draft: Paraconsisten Mathematics because it violates Wiki's Manual of Style only moments after I submitted it, certainly not enough time to evaluate its content. It was a snap-decision. Is Wiki really _that_ ruled by amateurism? I am a Cambridge University Press scholar who recoils at that kind of treatment of my work.

I am perfectly willing to accept rejection of my pending article because the content is underdeveloped but not because of violations of style without examples of the violation.

Schiszm (talk) 00:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, I did read through your draft. Here are a few things that need to be addressed before the draft can be published as an article:
 * The article is not written in an encyclopedic tone. Sentences like "The roots and use of these terms will be elaborated in later sections, in league with their corresponding Wikipedia articles." are phrased in the style of an academic paper, and not an encyclopedia. Please take a moment to visit WikiProject Mathematics's articles, and read through a couple from the featured or good article categories to see some examples of encyclopedic tone.
 * Please don't quote from other Wikipedia articles (because Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source). Instead, summarize or copy the content you want to include into this draft and incorporate the references from the source article as needed.
 * Since no original research is permitted, please support claims in each of your paragraphs with inline citations, especially when you use direct quotes from other sources. The citations should be placed after the phrase, sentence, or paragraph the source supports, not in the section headings.
 * There is no deadline and no limit to the number of times you can submit a draft for review. Please reply here if you need further assistance. —  Newslinger  talk   00:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

01:05:58, 6 August 2018 review of submission by Schiszm
I am not requesting a re-review at this time. I merely need the reviewer to explain how he could make such a quick decision that my work didn't meet Wiki standards since he made the rejection so soon after I submitted the request and further didn't provide examples of my violations. As a Cambridge University Press scholar I recoil at this kind of amateurish treatment of my work.

Schiszm (talk) 01:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, please see above. —  Newslinger  talk   01:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, I think you might find the advice for expert editors useful. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

08:15:42, 6 August 2018 review of submission by Miss Sarita
Hello there! My submitted draft was declined with the reason, "...the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Theory of a Deadman discography instead." It's my understanding that a discography is different from a compiled list of all recorded material. In addition, there are dozens of music artists that have articles for both discographies and a list of recorded songs. May I either receive a re-review and/or a more detailed explanation as to why this was declined? I appreciate your help. Thank you!

— Miss Sarita 08:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, we have List of songs recorded by Led Zeppelin and Led Zeppelin discography, both featured lists. So this is an acceptable article, I'll go and pass it now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  08:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

13:03:34, 6 August 2018 review of draft by Hjpass
Hjpass (talk) 13:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

How can I tell if my draft has been submitted properly. I'm not sure, could someone please let me know if its been submitted or not?


 * Greetings to you. Your Draft:Brandon Tabassi had been submitted and I have reviewed it. Please note that the draft has been declined. Please read the comment I left on the draft page and rework accordingly prior re-submission.Thank you.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 01:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

13:57:05, 6 August 2018 review of submission by Laora8888
Hello everyone! My latest entry about French artist Olivier Vadrot was declined for the second time for the same reasons as before despite I did update the text significantly by adding many certified articles as references. All the sources quoted are from "independent, reliable, published (mostly printed) sources" and I feel the text is very neutral (I can't understand where these so-called "peacock terms" are in the text)... Can anyone help me? Laora_ 13:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Greetings. Peacock terms means texts/phrase which aiming at promoting the subject of yet to be proven importance/attributes  by appealing to reader's emotions. Phrases such as legendary, great, acclaimed, iconic, visionary, outstanding and etc. Content in the article should be written in neutral point of view in a plain and factual manner. Thank you.  CASSIOPEIA(talk)
 * ✅ after some cleanup, and tagged for modest further cleanup. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello :: Thank you very much for your feedback. I know what "peacock term" means. Someone already sent me the link to that definition! :) However, I do not see such words as "great" or other hyperbolic terms in the text I wrote... I would very much appreciate if someone could be more specific? Thank you very much!


 * Thank you so much! I will try my best to improve the page and ask a native English speaker to double check it again.

Request on 15:09:45, 6 August 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Ddkeclipse
Hi Can you give me any pointers on how to improve my article (David Krain) so that it passes approval? Thanks for your help

Ddkeclipse (talk) 15:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * For starters, you could provide independent references. If a draft is declined, it is usually a good idea to pay attention to the comments of the declining reviewer, and I said that the draft had no independent references.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

17:14:58, 6 August 2018 review of submission by 108.204.65.73
. THE SOURCES ARE RELIABLE!!!!!!

108.204.65.73 (talk) 17:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * See film notability guidelines. Unreleased films are only notable if the production of the film is itself notable, but there is no indication of anything notable about the production.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * For examples of reliable sources for writing about anime and manga topics, see WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources. There are unlikely to be enough reliable sources about the movie until after it releases in Spring 2019. If you wish to write about it before then, try an alternative outlet with different requirements, such as The Doraemon Wiki. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)