Draft talk:Remittances to Pakistan

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

Economics

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles

Finance & Investment

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles

Wrong Decision to Decline an Article!

Hello @Theroadislong

You declined my article "Remittances to Pakistan" without properly reviewing it and just copied a reason in feedback that so many editors have been using to decline articles. My article is purely crafted in an encyclopaedia style and tone of voice. I have used peer-reviewed, authentic, and published resources in it and properly referenced them as well aligning with Wikipedia's citation guidelines.

It's not the first attempt on this article; several editors already commented on it and I have been constantly refining and improving it. This time, the article fulfils all the major requirements. Declining an article without properly reviewing its history and current status isn't fair as you don't understand a writer's effort, time, and energy consumed in crafting a piece and then refining it after several attempts. Please review it and approve it for publication.

B.MorganUK (talk) 13:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)

@B.MorganUK: personal attacks and accusations are not conducive to collaborative working. Unless you have solid evidence that the draft wasn't properly reviewed, I suggest you withdraw at once this baseless allegation against a highly experienced and knowledgeable reviewer. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my decline, it does read like an essay and content like "The future of remittances to Pakistan looks promising" is entirely inappropriate. Theroadislong (talk) 13:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong Based on the World Bank's data and other resources showing constantly growing remittance volumes yearly, the statement "The future of remittances to Pakistan looks promising" is true. B.MorganUK (talk) 13:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It may well be "true" but it has no place in an encyclopaedia. Theroadislong (talk) 13:20, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong The remittance statistics and authentic reports testify to the fact that remittance volumes keep growing every year for Pakistan. Considering such information, the statement you highlighted is true and factual. However, if you disliked the word "promising", it can be rephrased by writing "future looks bright" or "future looks to be adding to the country's economy substantially". Should I do that so you may review and approve my article? B.MorganUK (talk) 13:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of your alternatives are remotely suitable either, and I will not be reviewing your draft again, I suggest you ask for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk.Theroadislong (talk) 14:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DoubleGrazing This wasn't a personal attack. These editors aren't reviewing my article properly and not tracking the refinements I've been making. @Theroadislong has just remarked what was remarked by another editor at the start of my article after which I completely changed it during refinement process to make it aligned with whatever was guided. B.MorganUK (talk) 13:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@B.MorganUK: widening your accusations from one reviewer to many isn't helping your case. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DoubleGrazing If my words sounded like a personal attack, I assure you that it was purely unintentional. I just meant to highlight my concerns that my article isn't being properly reviewed. It didn't mean to personally attack any editor or question their credibility. I just showed my concerns, which I expect to get resolved now since the editors haven't been tracking the refinements I have made thus far after their comments and I see decline by a new editor every time with the same remarks I saw at the start.

As a senior editor, you may understand that such discouraging decisions continually happening here pushes a writer towards low self-esteem and disappointment. B.MorganUK (talk) 13:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) A word to the wise. Having an article you worked on get deleted is frustrating, but it can happen to anyone, even a veteran editor. This is the way a collaborative website works. If self-esteem begins to suffer over it though, it might mean that you are starting to get too invested in the project. You might need to reassess priorities, take a wikibreak, or find another fulfilling hobby. StonyBrook _babble 15:08, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at your draft. I agree with the recent assessment that led to the decline. Much of the draft is pretty good, but overall it reads like an essay and contains editorial commentary (one example is pointed out above), which is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. The draft has promise but isn't yet in a state that's appropriate for publication in article space. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]