User talk:Epi3557

This is Epi3557's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Michel Corriveau (October 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bearcat was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please note that a person's notability cannot be supported by directly affiliated sources, such as his own self-published résumé or the self-published websites of his collaborators, or by directory entries. It has to be supported by reliable source coverage about him in real media: newspaper articles about him and his work, books which discuss him and his work, and on and so forth.
There are legitimate notability claims here (Genie, Gemini, Prix Jutra/Iris), so trust me that this isn't insurmountable -- but just because a person has a legitimate notability claim doesn't mean that the article is allowed to rest on poor-quality sourcing, so the references still have to be improved before this can move forward.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Michel Corriveau and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Bearcat (talk) 02:10, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Bearcat for the directives. I will search for more reliable sources. It is complicated to find trustworthy sources online on french-canadian persons. There must be old newspapers or such, but that would not work for referencing in wikipedia if I'm not mistaken. Epi3557 (talk) 15:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, newspapers are perfectly fine. A citation should obviously link to a web copy of the content if one is available, but there's no rule that a citation has to be web-published to be usable — as long as you provide all of the citation details (i.e. the author, the article title, the name of the newspaper and the date on which they published it) so that a person who does need to look for it knows where to find it, you are allowed to cite newspaper or magazine articles without linking to a web copy. Bearcat (talk) 18:31, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the article is ready to be re-submited. I've added many reliable sources(journal articles and non-related-to-subject web articles) and replaced those that weren't. Feel free to underline any other change that would be needed to get the article approved. Thank you! Epi3557 (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you didn't see the comment I left this morning, I made a few further formatting adjustments (such as making sure that the article was listing all of his award wins and nominations instead of just highlighting a couple of them) — since you did take my advice about finding some improved sourcing, there was no point in rejecting it again for picky little formatting stuff, so I just made those changes myself and approved it about ten minutes ago. Thanks for your willingness to be collaborative, sometimes editors on here take the initial rejection as an insult (which it isn't intended to be, because a lot of the time drafts can be improved enough to get approved on a followup review) so thank you for being willing to hear what I was saying and working on it a bit more. Bearcat (talk) 20:27, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Epi3557! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Bearcat (talk) 02:10, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Michel Corriveau has been accepted

Michel Corriveau, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bearcat (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]