Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.
Hello! I was wondering how to get help to allow others to help edit and add to Draft:Lawson_v._Commonwealth_(1942).
Thank you,
MicahLuv (talk) 02:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User talk:331dot I'm sorry I was hoping to get pointed in the direction of a forum or other platform to get others to help contribute to the draft.
As it is a law case, and I have no experience, I was hoping to enlist help. Thanks for your time and help!!
This has been rejected and will not be considered further. All of your sources are worthless - two online storefronts, Spotify (a streaming service), and a clearly-marked press release (connexion to subject). You have nothing to work with source-wise. —A little blue Boriv^_^vJéské Couriano06:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
06:32:05, 24 August 2021 review of submission by Cluxq
Draft:Ventia was declined by Robert McClenon on the premise of it 'being written from the viewpoint of the company, focusing on what the company says about itself' and that the 'draft doesn't establish corporate notability'.
While it can be argued that the latter is subject to interpretation, the former claim is inarguably false. The draft has seven short sentences about the company in total and all of them are based on what reliable, secondary sources have had to say about the company.
Let's break the draft down, sentence by sentence, to establish why first claim made by the reviewer is erroneous.
First sentence: "Ventiais an infrastructure services company" - Pretty self-explanatory lead. The fact that this is an infrastructure services company is supported by an article in the Australian (and quite possibly any other reference provided). Your own policies on reliable sources indicate the Australian to be a generally reliable source. Reference link.
Second sentence: "It is one of the largest essential services providers in Australia and New Zealand." - This claim is supported by Australian Financial Review, a highly reputable financial publication in Australia that reads, word to word, the following "Ventia is one of the largest essential services providers in Australia and New Zealand, operating and maintaining transport, telecommunications and utility infrastructure...". The article was written by the publication's in-house writers Sarah Thompson, Anthony Macdonald and Tim Boyd. It has nothing to do with what the company has said about itself, and the publication has a strong editorial oversight to fact-check even if it did. Reference link.
Third sentence: "Ventia was formed in 2015 from the merger of CIMIC Group subsidiaries Leighton Contractors Services, Thiess Services and Visionstream". This is the first sentence of the History section. This is a statement of a fact, supported by two individual reliable sources, one of them being the previous Australian Financial Review reference. Reference link.
Fourth sentence: "In 2020, Ventia concluded a buy out of maintenance services company Broadspectrum from Spanish infrastructure company Ferrovial for $335 million." - This is a statement of fact of a highly notable historical milestone in the company's history, which has been covered by multiple reliable secondary sources, such as the Australian Financial Review and the Reuters. Your own policies on reliable sources indicate these to be generally reliable sources, and these reputable publications have chosen to cover the acquisition. Reference link - 1 and 2.
Fifth sentence: "The company secured a contract from American multinational energy company Chevron in 2021 for construction works in the Pilbara region". This is yet another statement of fact of a highly notable historical milestone, which has been covered by multiple reliable secondary sources, including The West Australian. Reference link.
Sixth sentence: "In 2021, the company secured a contract with the government of South Australia to manage schools, hospitals, police stations and other facilities." - This is yet another statement of fact of a highly notable historical milestone, which has been covered by multiple reliable secondary sources, including the Australian. Reference link.
Last sentence: "Ventia is an independent partnership between funds managed by affiliates of Apollo Global Management and the CIMIC Group." - It is certainly encyclopedic to know the ownership of the company, so the last sentence is a simple fact corroborated by multiple reliable sources, including the Australian and Australian Financial Review. Reference link 1 and link 2.
The analysis above should be sufficient to establish that all sentences provided in the draft are supported by reliable sources and, contrary to the reviewer's claims, are not a regurgitation of what the company has said about itself.
As for the second claim that the draft doesn't establish corporate notability', it is clear from the analysis above that the company has received significant coverage (addressing the topic in detail) in multiple, reliable sources (according to your own policies),' such as the Australian, Australian Financial Review,Reuters and The West Australian. The company has also received extensive coverage in the Bloomberg, which has not been referenced in the draft. The link to the reference can be found here. By this count alone, the company has received significant coverage in at least five reputable publications (according to your own policies). A simple google search will show many more, especially local- and regional-based publications.
These points being said, I'd appreciate a re-review.
Okay, okay, okay. I will be glad if another reviewer will re-review the draft. I agree that I did not give the draft as thorough a review as I sometimes do. I do not plan to review it again, because I am personally annoyed at the length of the re-review request, and I realize that that makes me involved so that I am no longer neutral. I will note that User:Hubliscope is editing within the scope of his employment by Ventia, and has a right to go on at length about his company, and that volunteer editors have a right and a duty to decide whether we can neutrally assess the corporate notability of the company. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon, that is not fair. I've been nothing but cordial and polite, yet I am the one being berated after your own admission of neglecting proper review of the draft. From where I stand, I took your advice to familiarize myself with the notability requirements and offered very specific arguments as to why your initial review was moot. I am sorry that my response was too long for your taste - I was not aware you had the discretion to disregard feedback based on the length of the re-review request. It's actually quite disheartening that this is the second time you're openly flaunting at not giving proper review. You had first superficially reviewed the draft and then berated the author for calling you out on it. I don't know you and this might have been a momentary lapse in judgement, but I must be frank that I don't find that attitude very professional and tact. Hubliscope (talk) 18:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Hubliscope - Paid editors sometimes forget that volunteer editors don't work for them. You are talking to me in a way that would be appropriate to talk to a fellow employee. "I don't work for you. You can't fire me." More seriously, I have no obligation to give your draft any review. I gave it a review, and we agreed that that might not have been an appropriate review. I have no obligation to you to do anything for you. I also have no obligation to review drafts by paid editors or employees, and many Wikipedia volunteer editors begin with a wariness about dealing with drafts by paid editors or employees. I do have a moral obligation to the Wikipedia community to be neutral, and to recuse myself if I am not neutral. You have much to learn about working with volunteer editors, who have a different code of ethics than employees. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:04, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is the third time in a row you've either willingly or unwillingly misinterpreted what I've said, and twisting it into an unrelated conversation about paid editing. I'm not sure why you would do that, other than to deflect from the actual issue at hand. I've never asked you to do the re-review - you know that to be true, and I invite you to point exactly where I made such a request. I've only pointed to your mistakes so that another reviewer might make easier sense of what was challenged and why it had no merit. Hubliscope (talk) 19:26, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hubliscope Wikipedia is not a place for companies to tell the world about themselves and what they do- a Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sourceswith significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. "Significant coverage" goes in depth about the subject, beyond merely reporting what it does or specific facts about it. Announcements of routine business activities, staff interviews, brief mentions, the company website, press releases or any other materials put out by the company are not acceptable for establishing notability. Only independent reliable sources that have chosen on their own to write about the company are acceptable for that. 331dot (talk) 19:50, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 331dot, thank you for chipping in. I am well aware. Could you kindly refer to my initial post, where I have in much detail shown that all sourcing has come from reliable sources, including those from your own perennial sources database? It demonstrates to very intricate detail no references are from anything even remotely affiliated with the company. Thank you. Hubliscope (talk) 19:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then allow me to drag you down to earth.
Your reference link for the Australian points to a subscription page and is thus useless. Based on the other links to the paper, I would not be able to assess anything from this outlet (walled).
Hello!
Thank you for reviewing my submission Draft: Padma Rao Sundarji. I need help in understanding the reason why all those print media sources provided that covered the subject and her work in detail were not considered to support the notability of the subject, although the cited newspapers articles mention otherwise. I have now included the Award section & provided references for the same as well. I hope the subject of the article will now be considered as notable? Would appreciate it if you could take a look at the draft once again and guide further please. Thanks in advance!
Can you let me know why this particular library is not approved please?
Thanks in advance.
Note that the whole URL is unnecessary; simply place the article title you wish to link to within double brackets. Please read other stuff exists. That other similar articles exist does not necessarily mean yours can too. It could be that these other articles are also inappropriate(I haven't examined them). We can only address what we know about. Not every subject in a field merits an article, it depends on the sources. If you want to use other articles as a model, make sure that they are classified as at least "good" articles(this is usually written on the article talk page). Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about something; a Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. Please see Your First Article; although your draft was rejected, and as such it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 19:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
19:38:26, 24 August 2021 review of submission by Wool Bridge
You seem to be promoting a theory, that is not what Wikipedia is for. The reviewer stated "Appears to be an attempt to use Wikipedia to propagate a fringe theory; the topic is covered in Negative air ionization therapy and to some extent in Air ioniser." If you think that there is content missing from those existing articles, I would suggest starting a discussion on the article talk page to propose changes. 331dot (talk) 19:47, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
19:58:40, 24 August 2021 review of submission by Yesveer Singh
This is my first job on the English-language Wikipedia. I did what I could as best I could. Please help insert a photo, I saved it to Wiki Commons. Photography is my own work. Below the photo I saw in other articles there is a short biographical information. I do not know how to do that. This is what I think needs to be corrected, and you can tell me what else needs to be corrected. Thank you very much for your help.
Ecostore is a notable brand in New Zealand and worthy of being included in the Wikipedia. Ecostore meets the general notability guideline (GNG). It has significant coverage by reliable sources. Those sources are independent news websites.
_%D0%A4%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B7%D0%B0_%D0%A0%D0%B0%D1%85%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0.jpg)