Help desk
< March 17	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 19 >

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.

March 18

06:03:13, 18 March 2022 review of draft by Equyl

Equyl (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Diploma mills in Switzerland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My draft was declined. I am asking for help to point me out what lines are problematic so i can properly form them. Equyl (talk) 06:03, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Equyl: "It reads like an essay" is not an indictment of certain lines, but of the entire text. You have no inline references, and the text indeed reads more like a research essay; the article at the very least would need a wholesale rewrite. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 19:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to check the reason my draft is declined Vaibhav.maitreya (talk) 12:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:58:04, 18 March 2022 review of draft by Damien74~enwiki

Damien74~enwiki (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Nucleus Wealth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It seems this post has been rejected for two reasons.

The first is that it was deemed to be promotional. I basically took the format of an approved page for a similar company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raiz_(company) and then removed/changed the information to match Nucleus Wealth. There are no adjectives in the post, and so I'm struggling to find which words to remove to make it more neutral. I'm guessing maybe that the reviewer is objecting to the inclusion of awards? I included the awards because other approved pages have them, and also the awards show recognition from independent industry bodies. If the reviewer is objecting to the awards, are they objecting to any award being shown, or is it that Wikipedia does not recognise these two industry bodies?

Second, it has been rejected for the references not showing "significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". I used an article that is solely about Nucleus, published in Australia's largest financial newspaper (https://www.afr.com/wealth/superannuation/nucleus-wealth-the-latest-kid-in-the-super-block-20180109-h0fh28), and awards from two different leading financial planning industry bodies. Can you comment on why these are inappropriate - i.e. are you suggesting these are not reputable sources, or is it that we haven't included enough links?

We do have plenty more links where Nucleus Wealth was used as an expert by a news organisation. For example The Australian newspaper (https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/markets/picking-the-right-time-to-reenter-the-market/news-story/c9bd304a0ab0a2957802db4672ffb529), the Guardian newspaper (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jun/10/its-not-capitalism-why-are-global-financial-markets-zooming-up), The Motley Fool (https://www.fool.com.au/2021/03/05/how-to-invest-in-inflation/), Canstar (https://www.canstar.com.au/superannuation/super-strategies-40s/), Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-csl-analysis-idUSKBN27D0ES) and many others. It seemed more relevant to use Australia's largest financial newspaper writing only about Nucleus as a source.

Thanks

Damien74~enwiki (talk) 08:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Damien74~enwiki I see you declared a COI; if you work for the company, you must make the stricter paid editing declaration, a Terms of Use requirement.

Please see other stuff exists The existence of other articles has no bearing on yours; each is judged individually. It could be that these other articles are also inappropriate. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us. We can only address what we know about. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those classified as good articles.

Awards should only be mentioned if the award itself merits an article, like Academy Award or Grammy Award. Any article about your company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. Such sources do not include press releases, announcements of routine business activities, or interviews. 331dot (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Damien74~enwiki: Raiz (company) was never drafted and thus never "approved" as such. Please refer to the top table here:

We can't use https://australianfintech.com.au/company/nucleus-wealth/ (connexion to subject). From their About Us page: For Australian Fintech companies and existing technologies, the site is designed so that each company has its own page to showcase their products and/or services; the obvious implication is that the pages are written at the direction of or on behalf of the companies.
I can't tell if https://www.afr.com/wealth/superannuation/nucleus-wealth-the-latest-kid-in-the-super-block-20180109-h0fh28 is usable or routine.
https://www.imap.asn.au/component/content/article/107-perspectives/perspectives-winter-2021/1031-innovation-imapawards-2021 is useless for notability (Unknown provenance). I share 331dot's reservations with this source, as I have no idea just how prestigious this award is. As a rule of thumb, I consider awards with at the very least regional thrust to help for notability; the problem here is that we don't even have an article on the issuing entity (Institute of Managed Account Professionals), and so I can't really get a sense of how important it is in the world of finances. The other two IMAP sources have the same issue but worse - one just lists finalists, and the other just shows Nucleus as a finalist in a category they did not win.
Both IFA sources are non-sequiturs. Nucleus doesn't show up at all on either page. (I only looked at the "winners" section; being a finalist generally does not contribute to notability.)
I can't assess https://www.theaustralian.com.au/subscribe/news/1/?sourceCode=TAWEB_WRE170_a&dest=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theaustralian.com.au%2Fbusiness%2Fmarkets%2Fpicking-the-right-time-to-reenter-the-market%2Fnews-story%2Fc9bd304a0ab0a2957802db4672ffb529&memtype=anonymous&mode=premium&v21=dynamic-cold-test-noscore&V21spcbehaviour=append&nk=5f9f62d4e5849d683e37a057889be1d9-1647718180 (walled).
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jun/10/its-not-capitalism-why-are-global-financial-markets-zooming-up is useless for notability (too sparse). Quote from company principal, no actual coverage of the company itself.
https://www.fool.com.au/2021/03/05/how-to-invest-in-inflation/ is useless for notability (too sparse/connexion to subject). The bulk of the article is one of Nucleus' principals bloviating at length; there's no discussion of Nucleus proper at all.
https://www.canstar.com.au/superannuation/super-strategies-40s/ is useless for notability (too sparse). Quote from company principal, no actual coverage of the company itself.
https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-csl-analysis-idUSKBN27D0ES " " " " (" "). " " " ", " " " " " " ".

None of the sources on the draft or proffered here help much. Nothing here that I am able to assess is unambiguously usable (no comment on The Australian). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 19:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

23:17:53, 18 March 2022 review of submission by Gryllida

Gryllida (talk · contribs)

Could you please check notability, this sporting group has achieved recognition on international level. If it looks okay then I will submit for review. Otherwise I will implement suggestions as per your feedback. Draft initially authored by ShayanXtreme but it had issues with plagiarism and needed to be re-written from scratch. Thank you for your time.

Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 23:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

23:37:07, 18 March 2022 review of submission by Andylanterman

Andylanterman (talk · contribs)

I am requesting a review of my submission for the mobile game Street Kart Racing. I'm not sure why it was denied/rejected. Please advise.

Andylanterman (talk) 23:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andylanterman, find three reliable sources(reviews usually count), then take a look at this handy guide to your first article, finally take a look at some other games that have articles for what the structure of an article should look like. From there you can take another shot at submitting the article. It was declined, not rejected so the reviewer saw potential.Slywriter (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]