Draft talk:Goodfellow Bros.

Defined multiple times

Hi there, I don't understand why the citations in this article were flagged for being defined multiple times with different content. Then it linked to the help page to define as "foo". But "foo" only works if you have that with one piece of content. I followed the instructions for how to do this when multiple citations have this. So, I don't understand why it was flagged. SCAFP213 (talk) 19:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've fixed the issue. It looks like you misunderstood the instructions on how to do later uses of the same reference. The documentation for named references suggests using something other than numerical names - something based on the name of the author or publication or perhaps a keyword from the title - but I haven't tried to do anything about that. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! SCAFP213 (talk) 00:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this topic was rejected as not being Wikipedia worthy.

This topic is absolutely Wikipedia worthy and uses lots of secondary sources. It's a 100+ year construction company that worked on major infrastructure in the Pacific Northwest and is comparable to a similar company entry such as Kiewit Corporation. SCAFP213 (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SCAFP213: Following up on our IRC #wikipedia-en-help chat, your draft has not been rejected, simply declined with comments on how it might be improved before submitting it again.

Notability for companies has quite detailed criteria for what kinds of sources are needed to establish notability. It also described a number of types of news coverage that might be used, but are discounted as too routine (or not independent enough) to help with notability. There's also a discounting of hyper-local or inside-the-industry articles. The reviewer who looked at your draft did not see that you had enough independent, in-depth, non-routine and non-local sources to meet this burden.

At the stage of trying to get a draft accepted, less is often more. Completeness is not a goal for drafts. A clear demonstration of notability is. Cutting out all of the references (and the content based on them) that don't directly support notability is one way of speeding the review process along.

After you have an accepted article, it will be possible to expand it using sources that themselves are reliable secondary sources but not able to support notability.

Finally, I note that this draft seems to be the sole object of your Wikipedia editing over quite a long time. Do you have a connection with Goodfellow Brothers? If so, that's something you should disclose on your user page. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. I really appreciate the more comprehensive reply. I'll follow up on these suggestions before resubmitting. SCAFP213 (talk) 00:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]