Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2016 November 1
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < October 31 | << Oct | November | Dec >> | November 2 > |
| Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages. |
November 1
[edit]09:08:51, 1 November 2016 review of submission by Shall22
[edit]
Hi. Had article rejected because of notability, but main reference was Financial Times which I'd assumed was sufficiently authoritative and independent; and the material covered in the Financial Times is what I was seeking to relate on Wikipedia. Can cut other info if that helps?
Shall22 (talk) 09:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, Shall22. The Financial Times is an excellent source - independent, reliable, and in-depth. It's the only source the draft cites, so at this point there shouldn't be any information in the draft that can't be traced to the FT, unless it's common knowledge, like "London is the capital of the UK".
- Wikipedia requires multiple sources to help ensure that we're not just echoing one person's viewpoint. New editors are often advised to cite at least three arms-length, reliable, secondary sources. So find at least two more high quality sources, work them into the draft, and then it should have no trouble clearing the bar of notability. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
12:45:59, 1 November 2016 review of submission by Fernpendler
[edit]- Fernpendler (talk · contribs)
This version has been waiting for revision for more than one month. It's a short and non-technical contribution. I am positive that, being it the 4th revision, I have addressed all issues raised by the reviewers. Why does it take so long to be reviewed? Fernpendler (talk) 12:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- It seems to be a definition of a phrase, rather than an article about a topic. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Maproom (talk) 13:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Well, not really! I had to cut because the first two reviewers asked for it. Nonetheless, it still contains references to economic impact, societal and personal implications. Anyways, I still wonder why it takes that long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fernpendler (talk • contribs) 14:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- It takes that long because the process is heavily backlogged. There are few volunteers for the unenviable task of reviewing all the drafts that people submit, most of them clearly unacceptable. Maproom (talk) 14:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- I see! Thanks a lot for your reply. Fernpendler (talk) 14:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- It takes that long because the process is heavily backlogged. There are few volunteers for the unenviable task of reviewing all the drafts that people submit, most of them clearly unacceptable. Maproom (talk) 14:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)