Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 October 29

= October 29 =

11:27:01, 29 October 2020 review of draft by CanadianBill2010
Hello,

I'm slightly confused by the rejection I received in regards to the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Integrated_automation_platform, this was rejected due to:

"This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject."

Could you please help me understand what seems to be 'puffery'/'peacock' terms so I can correct this? Obviously I am trying to write from a neutral point of view so want this to be re-submittable. I am not readily seeing which words are interpreted as peacock terms, does it help to quote sources to say, so-and-so said ... etc.? Your help is appreciated.

In terms of independent, reliable, published sources, I read here of examples Reliable_sources which states scholarship, of which I have listed 5 sources of scholarship under External links. Should these instead be listed as footnotes? How many are required? In terms of news articles, are the only acceptable ones Reuters, AFP, etc. as listed on the page or are other sources acceptable? Should I be quoting information from scholarly articles to assist with how the terms of defined? I need some guidance here.

Are there other elements of this that can help the article being approved? Any advice is recommended. I realise you are all very busy with over 3k submissions on any given day, but I am trying to learn how to submit something appropriate and acceptable to the Wikipedia editors worldwide.

Thank you for your help!

CanadianBill2010 (talk) 11:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The article as written reads more like an investor's brochure. It's not a matter of "specific parts", the whole thing reads like it's promoting the concept. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Takes a strong man to deny... 14:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

11:54:04, 29 October 2020 review of submission by 2A01:4B00:8710:9E00:2129:41D2:477E:A2F1
2A01:4B00:8710:9E00:2129:41D2:477E:A2F1 (talk) 11:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

A skater is eligible for a Wikipedia entry if they have qualified for a free skate at a world event, which she has.
 * That claim does not appear to be cited to a reliable source; if it is, please contact the reviewer that rejected the draft to reverse the decision. 331dot (talk) 11:58, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

15:00:43, 29 October 2020 review of submission by Orionizer
Orionizer (talk) 15:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. We're not a fan of inadequately-sourced biographies which are nothing more than a list of awards. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Takes a strong man to deny... 15:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

16:00:20, 29 October 2020 review of submission by 103.40.199.224
103.40.199.224 (talk) 16:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Crunchbase and wikis (Everybodypedia, Gyaanipedia) are not acceptable sources under any circumstance. See WP:Reliable sources for an explanation of what we are looking for in a source. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Takes a strong man to deny... 16:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Request on 18:02:27, 29 October 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Oaugusztin
Dear Wikipedia HelpDesk,

I have submitted a new article for Water Skyball (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Water_Skyball&action=submit). It was rejected due to "submitting it without improvement", although I have improved the references part that was insufficient.

Could you please help me what should be improved to be able to publish the article?

Regards, Olga

Oaugusztin (talk) 18:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Hi Olga. Thanks for reaching out. If you look here, you only added links to references . Even though this was done incorrectly, I'd also remind you to include inline citations. Feel free to review a different article to see how citations are created or ask further questions here if you are still confused. Cheers, Snowycats (talk) 23:19, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Request on 18:45:18, 29 October 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Thomasthedarkenguine
I just feel like I need to have help when making an article, with specifically spellchecking, grammar, Etc.

Thomasthedarkenguine (talk) 18:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Try following these steps:

Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. Victor Schmidt (talk) 20:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * First, review our guideline on notability, our policy on Verifiability, and our general notability guideline (GNG). Consider whether your  subject  clearly meets the standards listed there. Also, check  if the topic is already covered, perhaps under a different spelling or in a section of an article about a wider topic. You will waste a lot of time, if you create a new article, and then find that the encyclopedia already has an article about that.
 * Second, read how to create Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
 * Third,  This is absolutely required; omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing. 
 * Fourth, gather sources. You want independent, professionally published, reliable sources with each discussing the subject in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop; an article will not be created! Sources do NOT need to be online, or in English, although it is helpful if at least some are. The "independent" part is vital. Wikipedia does not consider as independent sources such as press releases, or news stories based on press releases, or anything published by the subject itself or an affiliate of the subject. Strictly local coverage is also not preferred. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. So are online equivalents of these. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the subject in detail. But those significant detailed sources are needed first.)
 * Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in the case of an editor with a conflict of interest it is essential.
 * Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed. Submit the draft when you think it is ready for review. Be prepared to wait a while for a review (several weeks or more).
 * Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is declined, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. During this whole process, if you face any unresolvable editing hurdles, or cannot comprehend any editing issue, feel free to post a request and ask the regulars. Repeat this until the draft passes review.

19:09:24, 29 October 2020 review of draft by Diana at SutroLibrary
Diana at SutroLibrary (talk) 19:09, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Make sure to disclose your WP:COI. Also - after you make edits, you can resubmit by following the directions on your draft. Snowycats (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I am a librarian with the Sutro Library. I am happy to take out any promotional tone, but is it the case that I can't submit the article?

20:31:43, 29 October 2020 review of submission by Squeliebird
Hi - just trying to find ways of making this page acceptable to you, and it would therefore be useful if I could understand what it is that the following published page has that my draft does not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebel_Inc.

I ask this not out of any fit of pique but because the publication in question is very similar to the one that I have written an entry for (Two Sevens), and I genuinely can't see what the Rebel Inc entry has that my one doesn't - unless it's just reference 1, which appears to me to be self-referential. If I could find a page online that was something like that in reference 1 (ie with photos of covers and some commentary) would that do the trick? Any pointers or ideas would be gratefully received.

Squeliebird (talk) 20:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:OSE. WP:PRIMARY and WP:SELFPUB are probbably involved here. If you want to get this accepted, you realy need more sources that are independent of the subject. Victor Schmidt (talk) 20:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)