Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 April 21

= April 21 =

02:16:22, 21 April 2020 review of submission by Articlegooroo
I'm sort of a standstill now. I initially created the Beyond Better Foods article because it seems a clear candidate for something that should be included in Wikipidia. I cam across it in another article - Lisa Lillien, a known influencer. I figured that as the org is a large, national company with products that have been reviewed by impartial parties (dieticians and nutritionists), as well as large national health and fitness mediums that review all kinds of products on a regular basis, this seemed to make sense. The company's notoriety seems to be clear - it has massive distribution, multiple products and flavors, and has been discussed online, in print, on news channels, and more. It is regularly mentioned as one of the defining organizations that recreated the frozen food aisle, alongside Halo Top, Arctic Zero, and others.

When I initially created the article, I received feedback that there weren't enough sources for it, and that some of the links provided were press releases. I've since removed those, and have provided a number of new links and articles, summarizing their content in the process in the article.

The feedback that I am now getting is it reads too much like a press release or an advertisement, yet I don't see how. The facts are this is a positively reviewed product that changed the industry here. I've also received feedback from the people that rejected it which is referencing content that is no longer in there (some of the press releases). They have since been removed - how do I let them know that?

I tried to also be as impartial as possible, putting negative press that I found as well (they currently have a lawsuit). Other than that, I didn't find much in that area.

Lastly, I based this model on other articles I found that have already been published (like Ben & Jerry's, Dippin Dots, Halo Top, Häagen-Dazs, etc). I don't understand what else I need to do here...can someone please help? Clearly my edits aren't working, so could really have someone else illustrate, on this article, what needs to be done to correct it. Almost everything can easily be found online and is readily available so, yeah.

Please help. It would be most appreciate for article and company that seems to merit this. I'm a bit tired of continuing this :/

Thanks,

Articlegooroo (talk) 02:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , The article has been rejected which means it unfortunately will not be considered further. Please note that creating new pages is one of the most difficult tasks one can undertake on Wikipedia. Further, WP:NCORP is one of the toughest standards for notability. So you had two major things working against you. Many experienced editors go months or years without creating their first page. I would recommend editing existing pages of topics that interest you so you can get a better feel for what we look for in pages. Sulfurboy (talk) 02:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi ,

I appreciate you responding to this, however, it doesn't really address any of the points and the questions I've raised here. A constructive response to this is rather than just saying, "No, this is working against you and that's a tough situation", it would be more constructive to say, "I (either) agree (or disagree) with the merits and claims your making." Then, if you agree, the next step would be to support a fellow contributor of wiki with constructive criticism on how to improve the article, and not just say, "it's rejected". If there's one thing I learned in life, its to always keep trying and not give up! To me as a writer and contributor that is working on improving, the best way to learn is not just to abandon this, but rather find what needs to be improved and to actually improve it! This way I'd be both adding to what Wiki is about, AND improving as a contributor. Do you see? I imagine its taking as much time to go back and forth and respond here rather than just helping me understand, maybe by example, of what needs to be shifted for this to fit the standards that you're stating aren't being met. Because I'm honestly completely befuddled here.

I understand that you seem very committed to rejecting this and illustrating where I need improvement. GREAT! You've done it 4 or 5 times. That's very helpful, and for each round I've shifted and changed the article. I hope that demonstrates that I am actively working and putting time into this, and trying to learn what actually NEEDS to happen for this to be approved. So in the interest of helping a fellow contributor from an experienced contributor, are you able to let me know or advise a bit clearer on what I can do to shape up this article? Maybe through some examples, or by actually shifting the language so I can understand this? This will REALLY help as I move forward to continue to add, contribute, and tweak articles all around wiki (which I've already been doing too).Articlegooroo (talk) 18:00, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , Again, the article has been rejected which means it will not be considered further at this time. Multiple times you tried to push a press release through as a wiki article, as such it got rejected. The rest of your comments are pretty laughable. You were shown support and constructive criticism multiple times and you chose to ignore it or not put in the time to read our policies. You also were given a myriad of outlets for help, you chose not to follow up on that. I sure don't need a UPE telling me how I can be more constructive. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Request on 03:08:41, 21 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Itzbasid
I want to request on guide of how to fix my article love to make more article but this is my starting point, and I have issue with citation and reference please I need your guide on it. Thanks

Itzbasid (talk) 03:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , As already suggested to you, the first step would be a read of WP:REFB and H:FOOT. If you still are having issues with properly formatting your sources, you may want to pay a visit to the WP:TEAHOUSE Sulfurboy (talk) 03:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Request on 04:12:58, 21 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by PHansen.Research
Hi, I need help making the History, Aim & Scope section of my draft article for Democratic Theory read more encyclopaedically. I don't have heaps of experience writing encyclopaedia articles so if someone could help me (or even do it for me) that'd be great. PHansen.Research (talk) 04:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , Did you need help with something specific? Asking people to write your article for you is a bit untoward. Please see WP:BUILDER. If you just wish to suggest someone should write an article about a subject, you can propose it at WP:SUGGEST Sulfurboy (talk) 05:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Here are some simple instructions (almost like a recipe) for how to write an article that won't be rejected. Right now, you're focusing too much on material that is not going to get it approved and so doesn't belong.  Just find at least three professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are specifically and primarily about the journal Democratic Theory (not just people who work for it or with it), but are not affiliated with, connected to, or dependent upon Berghahn Books or the staff of Democratic Theory in any way.  Summarize those sources, then paraphrase the whole thing.  That's literally all you have to do.  The "History, Aim & Scope" section is dead weight at this point.  Ian.thomson (talk) 07:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Request on 07:24:15, 21 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Fact Initiative
I need assistance because my account is about to be deleted and also my article was rejected and I am being directed as using it for promotional. This is a Non-governmental organization and we focus on preventing the spread of fake or misleading news, gossips and stories across the continent.

We will request you approve our article and not regard the account as being promotional.

Thank you.

Fact Initiative (talk) 07:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I've deleted the page since it was a WP:COPYVIO of your about page, and blocked your account because accounts are for individuals, not groups. When you rename your account or get a new one made, you can find instructions on how to create an article that won't be rejected or deleted in this link. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

09:34:41, 21 April 2020 review of submission by No sense of humour
Sorry, the title of the page you created is not correct. The page I created was specifically for "Hyper Rayleigh Scattering Optical Activity". This is a physical effect for chiral scatterers of light.

The editor has renamed the page to "Hyper Rayleigh Scattering", perhaps to shorten it. But this is actually incorrect because "Hyper Rayleigh Scattering" is also a physical effect, one that does not require the scatterers to be chiral.

I can create another page for "Hyper Rayleigh Scattering"... but the one I already created should be properly renamed to "Hyper Rayleigh Scattering Optical Activity" not just "Hyper Rayleigh Scattering".

Thank you! :-)

No sense of humour (talk) 09:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


 * This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. After a draft is accepted and published as an article, it is outside our scope. It was published as Hyper Rayleigh Scattering Optical Activity, but subsequently moved several times by different editors. Being edited mercilessly comes with the territory. The most effective place to discuss the optimal title for the article is it's talk page, currently Talk:Hyper–Rayleigh scattering, where some discussion of the matter has already taken place. I recommend that you post there, pinging the participants in the previous discussion (see Help:Notifications for how to do so). --Worldbruce (talk) 13:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

11:38:28, 21 April 2020 review of submission by Doodiepoodie
Hello- I got help from the IRC - and have made the changes Doodiepoodie (talk) 11:38, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello- I got help from the IRC - and have made the changes

Hi there,

At first I did not agree with the conclusion of the reviewer!

Then I went to the IRC channel and spoke to a user named Majavah who walked me through the issues.

I have fixed these which were (a) putting the main point in the start (b) removing copyright issues (c) removing blogs and other opinion pieces

Please have a look?

Doodiepoodie (talk) 12:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi . I have reviewed the updated draft, and concur with the first reviewer. No amount of editing can fix the problem that he is not notable (not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). Most professors and entrepreneurs aren't. Pick a different topic to write about, we have over 6 million existing ones to choose from, nearly all of which need improvement. See Community portal if you're unsure where to start. --Worldbruce (talk) 12:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Dear Worldbruce - thank you, I will explore the others!

12:26:13, 21 April 2020 review of draft by Magiseif
The article was declined because citations were not put in footnote. However, I believe the only references that are not in footnote are the paper awards. Is that what is meant? I want to make sure I address the comment and not get this article rejected again so any help would be great! Thank you. Magiseif (talk) 12:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi . You are correct about which statements do not cite a source. In addition, external links, ones that take the reader away from Wikipedia - like Magy Seif El-Nasr, are not allowed in the text. They must be removed, converted into citations of references if that is what they are, or collected at the end in an "External links" section (where there shouldn't be many links). Most importantly, Wikipedia is mainly interested in what other people have written about her, not so much in what she says about herself. At present the draft cites only sources written by Magy Seif El-Nasr. Only independent sources demonstrate notability, and the bulk of any article should be based on such arms-length sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

12:39:46, 21 April 2020 review of draft by Babbglin
Hi I wanted to fix a link in the article regardng extensible metadata platform (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensible_Metadata_Platform) There is a list of software and one of the entires is called "Diffractor", this incorrectly redirects to the article "Diffraction grating" (please note that the term "diffractor" is not being used in this article at all) which has nothing to do with the software called "Diffractor". So I created a new article about the software but it got declied due to page "Diffractor" already existing and redirecting to Diffraction grating. In order to pubish the article for review again I have to cite sources. Which I can't really see how to do. The software has a website (https://diffractor.com/) wich I included in the article. There isn't much more that I can do.

I'm new so I have no idea how to fix this issue :) Thanks!

Babbglin (talk) 12:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi . I've fixed the original problem on Extensible Metadata Platform for you. You can read about the underlying issue at Disambiguation. The Diffractor tool may not be notable (may not be suitable for a stand-alone encyclopedia article). Even if it is notable, I recommend against pursing a draft about it because creating a new article is one of the most difficult, time consuming, and frustrating tasks a novice editor can attempt. There are many easier and more rewarding ways to improve the encyclopedia. See Community portal for ways to help. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Request on 13:40:07, 21 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Boston4you
Boston4you (talk) 13:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

14:17:05, 21 April 2020 review of submission by Noeljg20
Hello, I am trying to create a page similar to the already approved Renesas Microcontroller families RL78, R8C for example. Could you please let me know what would need to be modified in order to create the "RZ microprocessor" page? Thank you,

Noeljg20 (talk) 14:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

14:20:30, 21 April 2020 review of submission by Deldel1010
Could you please advise on how to get a business page on wiki without sounding I guess salesy Deldel1010 (talk) 14:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

16:02:46, 21 April 2020 review of draft by 51moont
51moont (talk) 16:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC) I just submitted full text but it is showing blank page. Could you check?

16:36:22, 21 April 2020 review of draft by Alexajacome
Alexajacome (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I do not know how else to change my article. I reviewed some sentences yesterday that appeared bias but my paper is a summary of a documentary on Amazon prime that accurately depicts what the documentary entails. I do not know how to change it or how to avoid it being deleted.

17:46:01, 21 April 2020 review of draft by SeònaidVilmar
Hi! Curious how I can improve "verifiability?" Sources include Cosmopolitan, the Associated Press, as well as Publishers Weekly and Kirkus (these being the world's two foremost book review trade publications) -- as well as newspapers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Pablo_Starr

Also, not 100% sure where the "non-neutral" point of view is?

Thanks for the help!

SeònaidVilmar (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)