Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Line 1:
{{/header}}
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
[[Category:Non-talk pages that are automatically signed|{{PAGENAME}}]]
{{skip to top and bottom}}
[[Category:Pages that should not be manually archived]]
[[Category:WikiProject Articles for creation]]
[[Category:Wikipedia help forums|Articles for creation: Help Desk]]
<!-- LEAVE YOUR MESSAGE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE -->
__TOC__ {{Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/
=
== 03:12, 28 August 2025 review of submission by IanResearch ==
{{Lafc|username=IanResearch|ts=03:12, 28 August 2025|draft=Draft:ZigZagZurich}}
Hi editors, just wanted to ask what I can do to improve my draft and write it in a way that is aligned with Wikipedia's guide and tone. Thank you! [[User:IanResearch|IanResearch]] ([[User talk:IanResearch|talk]]) 03:12, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
:The draft just tells of the offerings and activities of the company; a Wikipedia article must do more, it must summarize what independent [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the [[WP:ORG|special Wikipedia definition of a notable company]].
:The awards are meaningless towards establishing notability; for an award to contribute to notability, it must itself merit an article(like [[Nobel Peace Prize]] or [[Academy Award]]). [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 06:59, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
== 05:28, 28 August 2025 review of submission by AndeHuang ==
{{Lafc|username=AndeHuang|ts=05:28, 28 August 2025|draft=Draft:Winmate Inc.}}
The draft has been declined multiple times. I have already revised the wording to make the tone more neutral, but it was still labeled as containing false information. Could you please review the draft and provide guidance on how to correct the issues and bring it in line with Wikipedia’s requirements? [[User:AndeHuang|AndeHuang]] ([[User talk:AndeHuang|talk]]) 05:28, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
:I don't see where anyone has said it contains false information, but it does say that it appears to have been written by an AI/LLM.
:Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about a company and what it does, a Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of [[WP:ORG|a notable company]]. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 06:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
== 06:40, 28 August 2025 review of submission by 109.252.122.222 ==
{{Lafc|username=109.252.122.222|ts=06:40, 28 August 2025|draft=Draft:Maxim_Lazarev}}
Good day!
Thank you for your work!
Help, as a professional, to correct this page, to work on it, so that it is acceptable for Wikipedia.
This is a famous Russian entomologist who studies the world fauna of longhorn beetles. For Wikipedia, such personalities are important, as for the world encyclopedia.
Help improve this page.
Maybe it should be shortened, and leave some small extract? Until new sources.
With respect. [[Special:Contributions/109.252.122.222|109.252.122.222]] ([[User talk:109.252.122.222|talk]]) 06:40, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
:The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. If something changes in the future, you are welcome to edit the draft and then appeal to the rejecting reviewer. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 06:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
== 08:37, 28 August 2025 review of submission by Casa Coto ==
{{Lafc|username=Casa Coto|ts=08:37, 28 August 2025|draft=Draft:Otto Bihler Maschinenfabrik}}
Hello Wikipedians, I'm kindly asking for advice. Many months ago, I created a draft on the Bihler company ([[Draft:Otto Bihler Maschinenfabrik]]). It has since been declined multiple times, but I don't quite understand why. It is said that [[WP:NCORP]] is not met. However, in that draft, I have demonstrated, using a source assessment table, why I believe that the Bihler company has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. I know that not every source that I have cited falls within the [[WP:SIRS]] criteria, but still, I feel that, the number of sources that do, is sufficient. It would be very helpful to have a second thought on this. Any advice is very much appreciated. Thank you! @ [[User:Novem Linguae]]. -- [[User:Casa Coto|Casa Coto]] ([[User talk:Casa Coto|talk]]) 08:37, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
:I haven't done a detailed analysis yet, but if other reviewers are still declining it, maybe your source assessment table is being too generous. Do all your sources have 3 meaty paragraphs of detail about the company? Are they independent (i.e. no press releases disguised as articles, no articles that are mostly quotations, no [[advertorials]], etc)? Is at least one of the sources regional, national, or international? These are all things needed to pass [[WP:NCORP]] and [[WP:GNG]]. See also [[User:Novem Linguae/Essays/Nuances of GNG]] and [[User:Novem Linguae/Essays/Novem's words of wisdom]] #6. It's been 2 months since you submitted this... if you think it passes, maybe submit it again and add a comment asking for detailed source feedback in the event of a decline. Hope this helps. Good luck. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:blue">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 13:52, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
:cc {{u|Casa Coto}}. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:blue">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 13:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
:Comments on your assessment table:
:* You list the Hesse source as secondary, but describe it as an encyclopedia. That means it's a tertiary source.
:* You assess four sources in total to meet the criteria of reliable, independent, and significant coverage. Those would be good sources, but...
:* it isn't clear that they provide significant coverage of the company, its products, the punch-bending process, or Otto Bihler himself. Those are four different topics, and this draft is about ''one'' topic. For example, the Kolbe source discusses the technology and how the machine works, but what about the company, which is the topic of this draft?
:The assessment table is a great start, but reading it only brings up more questions. ~[[User:Anachronist|Anachronist]] <small>([[User talk:Anachronist|talk]])</small> 15:16, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
::<small>Quick note that in my experience, tertiary sources are usually accepted as counting towards GNG. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:blue">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 15:24, 28 August 2025 (UTC)</small>
:::<small>I wasn't saying that they aren't acceptable, although our policies recommend using them more to assess due weight. I was just pointing out an error in the table. ~[[User:Anachronist|Anachronist]] <small>([[User talk:Anachronist|talk]])</small> 16:24, 28 August 2025 (UTC)</small>
== 12:11, 28 August 2025 review of submission by 78.150.201.201 ==
{{Lafc|username=78.150.201.201|ts=12:11, 28 August 2025|draft=Draft:Fusion_candle}}
Because I cannot find any more references to fusion candles [[Special:Contributions/78.150.201.201|78.150.201.201]] ([[User talk:78.150.201.201|talk]]) 12:11, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
:Then this topic doesn't merit an article at this time. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 12:20, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
== 14:57, 28 August 2025 review of submission by Aras2025 ==
{{Lafc|username=Aras2025|ts=14:57, 28 August 2025|draft=Draft:Radio_Duhok}}
Hello,
My draft, "Draft:Radio Duhok," has been declined multiple times due to a lack of "in-depth coverage" from reliable, independent sources, according to the last reviewer.
I have tried my best to find good sources and have included:
1. Two official announcements from the Duhok Governorate's website congratulating the radio on its anniversary.
2. A feature article about the radio in the well-known regional "Gulan Magazine" (Issue 829, 2010), which refers to it as the "authentic voice of the governorate."
Could an experienced editor please take a look at these sources and provide some feedback? I am struggling to understand why these are considered insufficient for notability. Specifically, I would like to know if the Gulan Magazine article is just a "brief mention" and what an example of an "in-depth" source would look like for a subject like this.
Any guidance would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. [[User:
:An in depth source will, on its own, go into detail about the topic and discuss what they see as important/significant/influential about it- what makes it [[WP:N|notable]]. Mere congratulations and a mention do not qualify. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 15:01, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
:The English Wikipedia tends to be stricter than other language versions; I don't know if this content would be acceptable on the Arabic Wikipedia, which has its own policies. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 15:03, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
== 16:50, 28 August 2025 review of submission by Saysky2 ==
{{Lafc|username=Saysky2|ts=16:50, 28 August 2025|draft=Draft:Ajay_Taneja}}
may i know the reason why the article has been stoped
[[User:Saysky2|Saysky2]] ([[User talk:Saysky2|talk]]) 16:50, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
== 17:10, 28 August 2025 review of submission by Saysky2 ==
{{Lafc|username=Saysky2|ts=17:10, 28 August 2025|draft=Draft:Ajay Taneja}}
May i know the exact reason of rejecting the article. Even i had asked weather i can use newspapers cuts as reliable sources or not as in 2000s no digital media was there no any answered to my question. This i really disgusting no supports [[User:Saysky2|Saysky2]] ([[User talk:Saysky2|talk]]) 17:10, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
:'''This draft has been rejected [[WP:IDHT|for failing to heed previous criticism]] and will not be considered further.''' The reviewers explained a fair bit in their comments, and the draft was rejected once it became clear you were blowing them off. —[[User:Jéské Couriano|<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|<span style="color: #228B22">v^_^v</span>]] <sup><small>[[User:Jéské Couriano/AG|threads]] [[User:Jéské Couriano/Decode|critiques]]</small></sup> 17:13, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
::{{ping|Saysky2}} <small>re-signing to fix ping</small> —[[User:Jéské Couriano|<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|<span style="color: #228B22">v^_^v</span>]] <sup><small>[[User:Jéské Couriano/AG|threads]] [[User:Jéské Couriano/Decode|critiques]]</small></sup> 17:14, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
:You have three non-independent sources, and one which might be independent, but gives a 404 when I look at it. (Even if it is both independent and gives substantial coverage, one source is not enough).
:{{HD/WINI}} [[User:ColinFine|ColinFine]] ([[User talk:ColinFine|talk]]) 15:58, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
== 18:10, 28 August 2025 review of submission by 80.41.119.0 ==
{{Lafc|username=80.41.119.0|ts=18:10, 28 August 2025|draft=Draft:Fusion_candle}}
please dont remove my draft when i send it to you even if its rubbish [[Special:Contributions/80.41.119.0|80.41.119.0]] ([[User talk:80.41.119.0|talk]]) 18:10, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
:Don't waste reviewer time with rubbish. We don't accept AI-generated articles, period. It has been deleted. If you want to submit an article on that topic, you must write it in your own words and cite actual reliable sources. ~[[User:Anachronist|Anachronist]] <small>([[User talk:Anachronist|talk]])</small> 18:19, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
== 18:26, 28 August 2025 review of submission by SindhuG2025 ==
{{Lafc|username=SindhuG2025|ts=18:26, 28 August 2025|draft=Draft:Aligireddy_Kasi_Vishwanath_Reddy}}
Hello team,
I have submitted an article on an Indian agriculturist AligiReddy Vishwanath Reddy but the article has been declined. Could you please assist me in improving the article. [[User:SindhuG2025|SindhuG2025]] ([[User talk:SindhuG2025|talk]]) 18:26, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
:[[User:SindhuG2025|SindhuG2025]] it seems like no one has declined the article. When you created the page you included a 'decline' banner in the page. I've fixed it for you.
:In its current state, the article would not be accepted. In addition to a lack of inline citations to support the claims made in the article, the article seems like it was written for the express purpose of promoting the subject rather than to be encyclopedic.
:Also, it's best to avoid external links in the body of an article, unless necessary. See the page [[WP:External links]]. [[User:Sungodtemple|Sungodtemple]] ([[User talk:Sungodtemple|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Sungodtemple|contribs]]) 04:24, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
:Those blank decline templates are made up by ChatGPT and the like. [[User:Sarsenet|Sarsenet]]•<small>he/they</small>•([[User talk:Sarsenet|talk]]) 04:33, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
== 19:01, 28 August 2025 review of submission by RavenFireblade ==
{{Lafc|username=RavenFireblade|ts=19:01, 28 August 2025|draft=Draft:Jack_Logan}}
We have edited the article along with new, reliable, independent sources. Please help us improve it. Thank you! [[User:RavenFireblade|RavenFireblade]] ([[User talk:RavenFireblade|talk]]) 19:01, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
:Hi @[[User:RavenFireblade|RavenFireblade]]. Who is "we" and "us"? <span style="background-color: RoyalBlue; border-radius: 1em; padding: 3px 3px 3px 3px;">'''[[User:Qcne|<span style="color: GhostWhite">qcne</span>]]''' <small>[[User talk:Qcne|<span style="color: GhostWhite">(talk)</span>]]</small></span> 20:01, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
::{{reply to|RavenFireblade|Qcne|Kalaboomsky|Athaenara|SoWhy|Bearcat|MWFwiki}} back in August 2018 at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CJ Santos]], {{User5|User=Kalaboomsky}} wrote "Just tell '''us''' what needs to be removed or questionable areas on the article that needs removing" [[Special:Diff/855337532|here]]. It would appear to me that [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Jack Logan Show]] back in 2018 may possibly also be relevant here. All that said, [[:Jack Logan (filmmaker)]] is now a mainspace article: any windmills I chose to joust here in 2025 may [[:2018|seven years too late]], I guess. [[User:Shirt58|Shirt58]] ([[User talk:Shirt58|talk]]) 🦘 11:03, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
:::I was the approver. For what it is worth, this was a borderline pass. I felt the subject ''just'' meets notability, especially when considering [[WP:NOTLEVEL]] (I realize this is not a policy). However, even keeping the COI in-mind (and I have a feeling the disclosed COI may be a "sacrificial lamb" disclosure, and the actual COI may be deeper... But, AGF and all that) I feel that the article was ready for mainspace. Particularly with the additional COI labelling. Anyways, I am of the opinion that we have enough notability to push us over the edge, and that any further discussion regarding the article should take place via AfD. I would abstain from such a discussion. '''[[User:MWFwiki|MWFwiki]]''' ([[User talk:MWFwiki|talk]]) 20:42, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
= August 29 =
== 01:29, 29 August 2025 review of submission by Hyperbolick ==
{{Lafc|username=Hyperbolick|ts=01:29, 29 August 2025|draft=Draft:Jimmy "Ninja" Chaikong}}
I am confessedly not entirely objective on this because Jimmy was a longtime acquaintance.
He drowned in a boating accident this weekend. Had one of those quirky lives where he did many different things, MMA fighting, recording music, winning [[American Gladiator]], publishing philosophy, managing the Texas Songwriting Championship. He was a guest menace in a few episodes of [[Burn Notice]] (no media source for that, but he posted it on his socials and if you watch the episodes you can see him plain as day). His death was reported more than anything else in his life, but it was quite a life. [[User:Hyperbolick|Hyperbolick]] ([[User talk:Hyperbolick|talk]]) 01:29, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
:Do you have a specific question about the draft? [[user:Notcharizard|<span style="color:#70A67A">-- NotC</span><span style="color:#396340">hariza</span><span style="color:#0D2311">rd</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Notcharizard|<span style="color:#0D2311">🗨</span>]]</sup> 06:38, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
:: Yes, does Jimmy's eclectic set of points of notability add up to actual notability? Could probably find a few more sources touching on a few more points (he was a high school gymnastics champ and an FAU cheerleader before going to Oklahoma), but this is close to being what there is. [[User:Hyperbolick|Hyperbolick]] ([[User talk:Hyperbolick|talk]]) 06:47, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
:Hello, @[[User:Hyperbolick|Hyperbolick]]. [[WP:Notability|Notability]], as Wikipedia uses the word, is not about what the subject is, or does, or has done, but about whether enought independent material has been reliably published ''about'' the subject to base an article on. [[User:ColinFine|ColinFine]] ([[User talk:ColinFine|talk]]) 10:11, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
== How to add extra references which helps draft will go for mainspace. ==
hello ! Help on article [[Draft:Tanka Timilsina]] ! Please improve and take this article to mainspace.i will be very thankful for your kindness. [[User:MountainWriter42|MountainWriter42]] ([[User talk:MountainWriter42|talk]]) 10:48, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
:Hello, @[[User:MountainWriter42|MountainWriter42]]. Wikipedia is a volunteer project, where people work on what they choose. It is unlikely - not impossible, but unlikely - that anybody will decide to work on your draft just because you ask.
:It is possible (no more than that) that if you asked at [[WP:WikiProject Music|WikiProject Music]] or [[WP:WikiProject Nepal|WikiProject Nepal]] you might find somebody interested enough to work on it. But don't set your hopes too high. [[User:ColinFine|ColinFine]] ([[User talk:ColinFine|talk]]) 16:05, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
:YouTube, press releases and interviews are not reliable independent sources. [[User:Theroadislong|Theroadislong]] ([[User talk:Theroadislong|talk]]) 17:56, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
== 11:32, 29 August 2025 review of submission by Newacctowork ==
{{Lafc|username=Newacctowork|ts=11:32, 29 August 2025|draft=Draft:Trinity_Private_School}}
I am requesting assistance with my draft article Draft:Trinity_Private_School. Each word of the text was written manually without the use of AI tools. However, three times I received feedback that the draft was written by AI. I respectfully emphasize that I wrote the article myself, and therefore I ask you to indicate exactly which sentences or parts appear to you as AI-generated.
In addition, I was told that my sources are “not relevant.” Could you please clarify how relevance is determined? For example, [[The Heritage Private School]] article was accepted with only one source, while my draft contains 17 independent sources, yet it has not passed review.
Finally, the article cannot be considered promotional, because it contains no evaluative or laudatory language. I removed all subjective judgments and left only verifiable, encyclopedic content supported by citations.
I would greatly appreciate clear feedback on what exactly prevents the draft from being accepted and what specific improvements are required. [[User:Newacctowork|Newacctowork]] ([[User talk:Newacctowork|talk]]) 11:32, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
:@[[User:Newacctowork|Newacctowork]]: you will note that the most recent decline, by me, was not for AI but for promotionality and lack of any evidence of [[WP:notability|notability]].
:You then resubmitted the draft without any attempt at addressing those reasons. Why did you do that? Are you disputing my review, or did you think if you keep submitting it will eventually go through by brute force? You only have finite number of chances, so I would suggest you make the most of them.
:And yes, [[The Heritage Private School]] is even weaker in terms of sourcing (in that, it has none), and I have tagged it accordingly. That doesn't mean we should create more insufficiently sourced articles, though. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 12:04, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
::@[[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] No, I submitted it by accident. Could you please clarify what exactly needs to be fixed? I have already removed most of the adjectives that could make the text appear promotional. What further steps should I take? How can I rewrite it so that it reads as neutral, rather than advertising? [[User:Newacctowork|Newacctowork]] ([[User talk:Newacctowork|talk]]) 12:26, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Newacctowork|Newacctowork]]: you're normally meant to summarise what the sources say. But on this occasion, those sources are just churnalism etc., therefore summarising them will only ever result in a promotional draft. So you should go back to square one and look for sources that are entirely independent of the subject (meaning no interviews, press releases, advertorials, sponsored content, etc.) and base your draft on them. Personally, I doubt you will find such sources, but nothing to stop you trying. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 12:40, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
::::@[[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] There is a category, [[:Category:International schools in Cyprus]]. Could you provide an example? From my perspective, I do not see any pages there that match what you are describing. At the moment, all the pages appear to be in the main space. [[User:Newacctowork|Newacctowork]] ([[User talk:Newacctowork|talk]]) 12:51, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:Newacctowork|Newacctowork]]: don't concern yourself with any other articles that may exist, we're talking about whether ''your'' draft can be accepted; [[WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS]] is invariably a red herring.
:::::The long and short of it is that the vast majority of schools are not notable enough to justify an article. At two years old, this school is basically a startup, and the vast majority of startups are likewise not notable. Any media coverage that may exist is therefore almost by definition likely to originate in the school's marketing team, as is clearly the case with the sources cited in this draft. If the school was a major new initiative or an attempt at educational reform by the gov't of Cyprus, there might be independent mainstream media coverage of it, but here we're talking about a niche private school for a particular group of expats. As I said, you're welcome to search for better sources, but I wouldn't hold my breath. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 13:01, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] "No, we are just talking about other articles. When I take another article as a reference, I see that it has far fewer sources than mine, yet it passed. Can this be considered a biased approach? What does the marketing team have to do with it, if there is no link to any commercial offer and not a single word about cost? This is exactly what concerns me: does it comply with Wikipedia rules that a school without media coverage is published, while a school with coverage is not? For Cyprus, these media are public and authoritative. For comparison, my house has also stood since 1987. There are no publications about it — can I publish an article about it without coverage, as others did? [[User:Newacctowork|Newacctowork]] ([[User talk:Newacctowork|talk]]) 13:16, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::@[[User:Newacctowork|Newacctowork]]: no, you cannot {{tq|"publish an article about it without coverage"}}. Your draft's subject must meet our notability requirements, which it has not yet demonstrated.
:::::::If you've found existing articles which also fall short of the standards required, you're very welcome to improve them, or to commence deletion proceedings ([[WP:AFD]] is that-a-way) if that's not possible. But just because such articles exist, is no reason to create more such problems. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 13:26, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::@[[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] L’Officiel Cyprus, Cyprus Times, and Boussias News (in Greek) - are these not considered reliable sources? Could you please explain the definition and criteria of reliability in this case? These outlets are public and widely recognized in Cyprus. There is no 'churnalism' here, as you described earlier, and no interviews with the school itself. What exactly is wrong with these sources? [[User:Newacctowork|Newacctowork]] ([[User talk:Newacctowork|talk]]) 13:37, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::I will note that just because another article exists does not necessarily mean it was "approved" by anyone. There are many reasons this could be, and that cannot justify adding more inappropriate articles. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 13:56, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Are you connected to this school in some way? [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 13:57, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::@[[User:331dot|331dot]] Absolutely not. I just saw an article on the Internet and decided to create an entry about them, since I am from Ukraine myself. [[User:Newacctowork|Newacctowork]] ([[User talk:Newacctowork|talk]]) 14:09, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
== 12:00, 29 August 2025 review of submission by GeorgeHav ==
{{Lafc|username=GeorgeHav|ts=12:00, 29 August 2025|draft=Draft:FlightSimExpo}}
Article was denied for npov, but I'm not sure i can personally see specifically where/why that's the case? Any thoughts on how I could improve that? [[User:GeorgeHav|GeorgeHav]] ([[User talk:GeorgeHav|talk]]) 12:00, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
:All the draft does is document occurrences of this event- in essence, promoting them. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 13:57, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
::Interesting, what would you recommend then in this case? Adding a section on "Reception"? [[User:GeorgeHav|GeorgeHav]] ([[User talk:GeorgeHav|talk]]) 23:11, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
:::I would talk much less about occurrences of the event and much more about what independent [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] say about it. You meed to show that it is [[WP:NEVENT|a notable event]]. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 23:18, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
::::Awesome, thanks for the advice. [[User:GeorgeHav|GeorgeHav]] ([[User talk:GeorgeHav|talk]]) 23:19, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
== 13:02, 29 August 2025 review of submission by Vaibhav9786 ==
{{Lafc|username=Vaibhav9786|ts=13:02, 29 August 2025|draft=Reason for Article Rejection}}
Could you please let me know why my article was rejected. Just wanted to get an understanding so I do not make the same mistakes again [[User:Vaibhav9786|Vaibhav9786]] ([[User talk:Vaibhav9786|talk]]) 13:02, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
:{{courtesy link|Draft:Virtual CFO Services in India}}
:@[[User:Vaibhav9786|Vaibhav9786]]: your draft was purely promotional, and written not like an encyclopaedia article but a sales brochure.
:Presumably you work for YourCFO, which is what the spam link at the end of the draft was pointing to? In which case, you need to disclose your paid-editing-status (this has already been queried on your talk page), and I would also advise against continuing down this promotional road, lest you get blocked. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 13:12, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
== 17:25, 29 August 2025 review of submission by FurretSuperFan ==
{{Lafc|username=FurretSuperFan|ts=17:25, 29 August 2025|draft=Draft:Greatest_Idol}}
Hi my article got denied for the reason that it does not qualify for a Wikipedia article due to not having reliable sources. I'm trying to aim for the notability that the album charted in a national music chart, specifically in the Oricon and Billboards charts. I just wanted to make sure that these links count towards reliability and notability under secondary or independent sources
https://www.oricon.co.jp/prof/552646/products/1042567/1/
https://www.billboard-japan.com/charts/detail?a=top_albums&year=2013&month=11&day=18 [[User:FurretSuperFan|FurretSuperFan]] ([[User talk:FurretSuperFan|talk]]) 17:25, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
:Hello, @[[User:FurretSuperFan|FurretSuperFan]]. A sales site is almost never acceptable as a source: it is not independent.
:The Billboard might be reliable, but does not contain [[WP:significant coverage|significant coverage]], as it is just a listing, and I don't think it would count as a [[WP:secondary source|secondary source]] either. We really need independent, in-depth reviews. [[User:ColinFine|ColinFine]] ([[User talk:ColinFine|talk]]) 19:26, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
::Would this link work for Oricon instead?
::https://www.oricon.co.jp/prof/552646/rank/album/ [[User:FurretSuperFan|FurretSuperFan]] ([[User talk:FurretSuperFan|talk]]) 20:01, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
::Would this link cunt for a secondary source?
::https://otakumode.com/otapedia/vocaloid/hatsune_miku/mitchie_m [[User:FurretSuperFan|FurretSuperFan]] ([[User talk:FurretSuperFan|talk]]) 20:19, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Count* [[User:FurretSuperFan|FurretSuperFan]] ([[User talk:FurretSuperFan|talk]]) 20:19, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
::::It doesn't matter which link you use for Oricon - sales sites are almost never acceptable, period.
::::The Otakemode bit appears to be a wiki, with no byline. It therefore fails to be a [[WP:reliable source|reliable source]], and it is very likely not an [[WP:independent source|independent source]] either - we can't tell who submitted it, but it is likely to be the subject or their agents. [[User:ColinFine|ColinFine]] ([[User talk:ColinFine|talk]]) 10:16, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
== 18:02, 29 August 2025 review of submission by Jetsonesque ==
{{Lafc|username=Jetsonesque|ts=18:02, 29 August 2025|draft=Draft:Sam_Bregman}}
Can anyone provide any guidance or input on the latest draft?
Regarding comments on 29 April by editor Paul W, a public media search likely supports relevance/notoriety for Sam Bregman, but that was not established with proper sources and citations.
Earlier entries for Sam Bregman were rejected for relevance, formatting, peacocking and lack of supporting citations. The latest edits attempt to remove problematic text, clean up formatting and citations, comply with tone and informational intentions of Wikipedia entries for public figures, and establish relevance.
It may be helpful to compare with the entry for former Las Cruces Mayor, Ken Miyagishima. Intention of latest edition is to create a similar entry for Bregman, with similar tone and proper support material.
[[User:Jetsonesque|Jetsonesque]] ([[User talk:Jetsonesque|talk]]) 18:02, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
:Hello, @[[User:Jetsonesque|Jetsonesque]]. It is almost ''never'' relevant to compare articles with existing article. Unless the article you are comparing with is either a [[WP:good article|good article]] or a [[WP:featured article|featured article]], its quality is unclear, and may be terrrible. See [[WP:other stuff exists|other stuff exists]]. [[User:ColinFine|ColinFine]] ([[User talk:ColinFine|talk]]) 19:29, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
= August 30 =
== Feedback on revised draft: Gerald P. Curatola ==
Hello, I’m seeking feedback on [[Draft:Gerald P. Curatola]], which was previously declined for formatting and sourcing issues. I have now:
* Rewritten in neutral prose.
* Replaced weak/self-published links with strong independent sources (Forbes, Miami Herald, Vogue, New York Post, Purist, Yahoo).
* Corrected citations (ISBN for book, Vogue link, NYU Nexus PDFs confirming Acton Medal and Curatola Wing).
* Removed Markdown formatting that triggered the last decline.
Could someone review and let me know if the draft now appears ready for resubmission?
Thanks very much.
[[User:GCNYdentist|GCNYdentist]] ([[User talk:GCNYdentist|talk]]) 05:41, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
:Your autobiography is totally unsourced please don't use AI here it is notoriously bad at creating articles. [[User:Theroadislong|Theroadislong]] ([[User talk:Theroadislong|talk]]) 08:16, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
== 09:17, 30 August 2025 review of submission by Rsakib188 ==
{{Lafc|username=Rsakib188|ts=09:17, 30 August 2025|draft=Draft:2025_CUCSU_election}}
My submission was rejected and the reason that was given is "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.". Although there are similar articles on wikipedia. Such as [[2025 DUCSU election]] and [[2019 DUCSU election]]. Want to know how can I improve this arcticle to that it get published. [[User:Rsakib188|Rsakib188]] ([[User talk:Rsakib188|talk]]) 09:17, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
:Please see [[WP:OSE|other stuff exists]], each article or draft is judged on its own merits and not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inapproprate and just not yet addressed. Perhaps those two articles should be removed. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 09:22, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
::I'm really struggling to understand why we should have any information on some students' union elections (!) in a global encyclopaedia. (I'm even doubtful about the viability of [[Draft:Chittagong University Central Students' Union]].) -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 09:27, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
:::There are four autonomous public universities (out of 41 public universities) in Bangladesh that has student parliament (simply called student union) and those are of big deal, as these parliment shape national issues and the elected leaders of these student parliament gets to play role in national politics and even become future national leaders and ministers. These parliment also has say on appointment of Vice-chancellors and teachers of these university. [[User:Rsakib188|Rsakib188]] ([[User talk:Rsakib188|talk]]) 09:54, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
::::Then provide some reliable independent sources that talk about the union in depth, @[[User:Rsakib188|Rsakib188]]. Without several sources that each meet all the criteria of [[WP:42]], a draft (or an article) is like a house without foundations, and not acceptable to Wikipedia. [[User:ColinFine|ColinFine]] ([[User talk:ColinFine|talk]]) 10:23, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
::::Are you saying that by law these student bodies have formal input into the operation of the public universities they are associated with? I ask because that's unusual- in the US, at least- where most student bodies are advisory or only have privileges at the pleasure of the university, not in law. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 12:33, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::Yes, by law student leaders have 5 seat in university senate. And these four universities were established and govern by the act of Bangladeshi parliament as autonomous body. [[User:Rsakib188|Rsakib188]] ([[User talk:Rsakib188|talk]]) 17:27, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
== 13:24, 30 August 2025 review of submission by Devolver789 ==
{{Lafc|username=Devolver789|ts=13:24, 30 August 2025|draft=Draft:Steal_a_Brainrot}}
:Sorry, was that a question? -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 13:25, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
:{{ping|Devolver789}} There is a very distinct possibility that ''Steal a Brainrot'' is a notable subject. The problem is that [[WP:UNDUE|pretty much all of your sources]] [[WP:RSCONTEXT|waste time on the feud between]] its and ''[[Grow a Garden]]'''s lead developers. Only GameRant discusses ''Steal a Brainrot'' in the context of a review. I have no trouble finding sources that are actually ''about'' the game and not the tangential beef. —[[User:Jéské Couriano|<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|<span style="color: #228B22">v^_^v</span>]] <sup><small>[[User:Jéské Couriano/AG|threads]] [[User:Jéské Couriano/Decode|critiques]]</small></sup> 14:35, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
::I would like to note I attempted to help out with the draft, locating reviews from Polygon, Kotaku, and GameRant. Problem is, two of the sources fall under purview of [[WP:VALNET]], and [https://www.nme.com/news/gaming-news/steal-a-brainrot-is-robloxs-latest-viral-hit-grow-a-garden-3888650 an additional NME source] I've discovered doesn't qualify as [[WP:SIGCOV]]. As such, I had to regrettably abandon my efforts pending the publication of more reliable reviews. — [[User:VolatileAnomaly|<b style="background-color:black;border:3px solid gray;padding:3px;color:lime;">🪫Volatile</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:VolatileAnomaly|''' 📲T''']] | [[Special:Contributions/VolatileAnomaly|'''⌨️C''']]</sup> 04:32, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
:::One option would've been to post at [[WP:VG]] to seek the input of editors more familiar with reliable videogame sourcing, but then I discovered the Kotaku source was listed under the opinions section, which was the nail in the coffin for me. If any other editors feel [[Special:Diff/1308406121|this version]] is salvageable feel free to do so. — [[User:VolatileAnomaly|<b style="background-color:black;border:3px solid gray;padding:3px;color:lime;">🪫Volatile</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:VolatileAnomaly|''' 📲T''']] | [[Special:Contributions/VolatileAnomaly|'''⌨️C''']]</sup> 04:52, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
== 18:01, 30 August 2025 review of submission by VasyaPetrovna ==
{{Lafc|username=VasyaPetrovna|ts=18:01, 30 August 2025|draft=Draft:Sak-Bahlán}}
Hi - this is the first time I've created a new page. The documentation is a little overwhelming? 😅 I tried submitting the draft for review but the "Draft article not currently submitted for review" box came up, and I don't know what to do next. [[User:VasyaPetrovna|VasyaPetrovna]] ([[User talk:VasyaPetrovna|talk]]) 18:01, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
:{{u|VasyaPetrovna}} I fixed your header so it links to your draft as intended; you need the "Draft:" portion of the title.
:You just need to click the blue "Submit your draft for review!" button in the bottom right corner of the notice that you speak of. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 18:27, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
::When I click it, it brings up another window, "Template - Generated from: AfC submission." I don't know what if anything I should be changing in that window? [[User:VasyaPetrovna|VasyaPetrovna]] ([[User talk:VasyaPetrovna|talk]]) 19:06, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Never mind, I got it - thank you! [[User:VasyaPetrovna|VasyaPetrovna]] ([[User talk:VasyaPetrovna|talk]]) 19:45, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
== 18:27, 30 August 2025 review of submission by Tanja0615 ==
{{Lafc|username=Tanja0615|ts=18:27, 30 August 2025|draft=Draft:Mehmed_Begić}}
Hi, thanks for your review. The draft was not written with ChatGPT. One citation I formatted accidentally contained a tracking parameter (utm_source=chatgpt.com) in the URL, which I have now removed. I spent considerable time collecting and checking references from reliable published sources. Could you please point me to any specific passages where you think the language may not be neutral or where style should be adjusted? I’ll gladly revise those. [[User:Tanja0615|Tanja0615]] ([[User talk:Tanja0615|talk]]) 18:27, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
:@[[User:Tanja0615|Tanja0615]] I declined without prejudice, you have now re-submitted which was the correct thing to do. <span style="background-color: RoyalBlue; border-radius: 1em; padding: 3px 3px 3px 3px;">'''[[User:Qcne|<span style="color: GhostWhite">qcne</span>]]''' <small>[[User talk:Qcne|<span style="color: GhostWhite">(talk)</span>]]</small></span> 11:57, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
== 21:31, 30 August 2025 review of submission by Matthewbyver ==
{{Lafc|username=Matthewbyver|ts=21:31, 30 August 2025|draft=Draft:Matthew_Byver}}
My page is not for promotion, is to help a small music artist to build his career by offering additional informations [[User:Matthewbyver|Matthewbyver]] ([[User talk:Matthewbyver|talk]]) 21:31, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
:What you describe is the [[WP:YESPROMO|exact definition of promotion]]. Wikipedia is the last place to write about something, not the first. A subject must have already arrived and be noticed in order to draw the necessary coverage in independent [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] that can be summarized in an article. It needs to show that you are a [[WP:BAND|a notable musician]] already, you cannot use Wikipedia to generate notability. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves, please read the [[WP:AUTO|autobiography policy]] and also how [[WP:PROUD|an article is not necessarily desirable]]. I wish you luck with your career, I suggest thar you focus on that and allow an article to develop the usual way, when an independent editor takes note of coverage of you and chooses to write about you. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 00:24, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
:In other words, you're trying to use Wikipedia as a publicity platform, and [[WP:NOTPUBLICITY|that is not allowed]] under any circumstances. To merit a Wikipedia article, you can't be up-and-coming. You must have already arrived. ~[[User:Anachronist|Anachronist]] <small>([[User talk:Anachronist|talk]])</small> 02:07, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
== 21:40, 30 August 2025 review of submission by 69.255.14.163 ==
{{Lafc|username=69.255.14.163|ts=21:40, 30 August 2025|draft=User:Wiseman2025/sandbox}}
has my artilce been rejected ? [[Special:Contributions/69.255.14.163|69.255.14.163]] ([[User talk:69.255.14.163|talk]]) 21:40, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
:Be sure to log in before you write anything here.
:That draft has been ''declined'', not rejected. If it's declined, it means you can improve it and submit it again once you have addressed the reviewer concerns. If it's rejected, then you give up and move on to something else. ~[[User:Anachronist|Anachronist]] <small>([[User talk:Anachronist|talk]])</small> 01:12, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
= August 31 =
== 09:18, 31 August 2025 review of submission by Txcraig75 ==
{{Lafc|username=Txcraig75|ts=09:18, 31 August 2025|draft=Draft:Dirty_Thirty_(Texas_politics)}}
I'm a bit gobsmacked that this has been rejected for lack of "reliable sources." Three New York Times articles, an article from the state historical association, a retrospective by the local ABC news affiliate, an article published in an Abilene newspaper, and a published memoir by one of the group's members are not "reliable?" [[User:Txcraig75|Txcraig75]] ([[User talk:Txcraig75|talk]]) 09:18, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
:
== 19:53, 31 August 2025 review of submission by Thilio ==
{{Lafc|username=Thilio|ts=19:53, 31 August 2025|draft=Draft:AY_Poyoo}}
This [[Draft:AY_Poyoo]] got declined by [[User:TheBirdsShedTears|TheBirdsShedTears]], Reasons {{tq|"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 music-related topics)."}} Okay wait a minute, let me list the independent sources (BBC Newss, Vanguard News, Savanna News, The Guardian Nigeria, Modern Ghana, Pluse Ghana, News Hunter, Daily Guide Network including the Secondary sources et cetera. {{tq|"they do not show significant coverage"}} really?? can other editor please search this subject "AY Poyoo" on Microsoft Bling, Google search or any other search engine, because I did that and I found +50 pages and on and on, I also add new references. I'm just curious, PLEASE can experience Editor go and take a look at it. @[[User:TheBirdsShedTears|TheBirdsShedTears]] thank you though, you can also check and leave afc comment if there is issues that need to be corrected. Thanks [[User:Thilio|Thilio]]<sup>[[User talk:Thilio|<span class="robot-signature"><span class="robot-text" style="color:green;">R O B O T</span></span><span class="robot-emoji">🤖</span> <span style="color:#00008B;">talk</span>]]</sup> 19:53, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
:Hello, @[[User:Thilio|Thilio]]. You're misunderstanding [[WP:IS|independent]]. If an article is based on an interview or a press release, then it is not independent, irresepctive of who publishes it. Some of your sources certainly have that problem: some may be independent, I haven't looked.
:You need several sources which each meet all the criteria in [[WP:42]]. [[User:ColinFine|ColinFine]] ([[User talk:ColinFine|talk]]) 09:43, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
::@[[User:ColinFine|ColinFine]] Thanks, got it [[User:Thilio|Thilio]]<sup>[[User talk:Thilio|<span class="robot-signature"><span class="robot-text" style="color:green;">R O B O T</span></span><span class="robot-emoji">🤖</span> <span style="color:#00008B;">talk</span>]]</sup> 09:46, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
== 21:03, 31 August 2025 review of submission by ProfZacchaeus ==
{{Lafc|username=ProfZacchaeus|ts=21:03, 31 August 2025|draft=GUIDELINES FOR SUBMITTING ARTICLES }}
Hello,
I will like to be educated on the vital websites that one can use to cite in line in an article i am writing. infact i need credible sites i can be using. Becuase i have beautiful aricles but i dont have citations for them and when i tried submitting a draft to be considered. It was declined and one of the reasons was that i didnt use credible citations.
and that i was using model language like chatgpt to write my articles.
So in summary, i need guidelines that can help me avoid declines when i post or publish my article through my sandbox.
I am a newbie but a passionate one at that. Thank you [[User:ProfZacchaeus|ProfZacchaeus]] ([[User talk:ProfZacchaeus|talk]]) 21:03, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
:Don't write articles [[WP:BACKWARD]], which is what you are doing. You should find sources ''first'', before you write a single word. Your sources should meet the three criteria in [[WP:Golden Rule]]. And write in your own words. Don't use an AI. ChatGPT is horrible at writing articles, and tends to hallucinate things and write in a non-neutral way, even though it may insist it's neutral.
:That's how you avoid your drafts being declined. ~[[User:Anachronist|Anachronist]] <small>([[User talk:Anachronist|talk]])</small> 21:15, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
= September 1 =
== 05:22, 1 September 2025 review of submission by 濵島 ==
{{Lafc|username=濵島|ts=05:22, 1 September 2025|draft=Draft:YOHO_BREWING}}
Hello, I'm the author of this draft. My article submission was declined, but I'm having trouble understanding some of the reasons. Could you please provide some more specific feedback on how to improve the draft and get it approved? Is it okay to cite sources from Japanese sites?Thank you for your help. [[User:濵島|濵島]] ([[User talk:濵島|talk]]) 05:22, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
:{{ping|濵島}} We accept non-English citations. (We also accept cites to print media and cites to non-English print media.) I would note, however, that most reviewers are going to be using automated translation for non-English sources, and automated translation tends to fare poorly on context-heavy East Asian languages. —[[User:Jéské Couriano|<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|<span style="color: #228B22">v^_^v</span>]] <sup><small>[[User:Jéské Couriano/AG|threads]] [[User:Jéské Couriano/Decode|critiques]]</small></sup> 06:51, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
== 11:14, 1 September 2025 review of submission by Amir Gull1 ==
{{Lafc|username=Amir Gull1|ts=11:14, 1 September 2025|draft=Draft:Amir_Gull_Timuri}}
Hello, I have created a draft article titled "Amir Gull Timuri".
I need assistance to understand what changes or improvements are required so that my draft can be accepted as a Wikipedia article.
Please review it and let me know if there are issues with notability, references, or formatting.
Thank you for your help! [[User:Amir Gull1|Amir Gull1]] ([[User talk:Amir Gull1|talk]]) 11:14, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
:It has been rejected, there is zero evidence of any [[WP:GNG|notability]]. [[User:Theroadislong|Theroadislong]] ([[User talk:Theroadislong|talk]]) 11:17, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
:Writing about yourself on Wikipedia is very strongly discouraged, because almost nobody has ever managed to do it successfully: see [[WP:autobiography|autobiography]]
:{{User:ColinFine/PractiseFirst}} [[User:ColinFine|ColinFine]] ([[User talk:ColinFine|talk]]) 12:48, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
== 13:48, 1 September 2025 review of submission by Rahoman ==
{{Lafc|username=Rahoman|ts=13:48, 1 September 2025|draft=Draft:Cosentino_Group}}
Hi, I asked for help reviewing this article. Several moderators helped me, you can see it here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archive_70#h-Requesting_a_submission,_how_to_procede?-20250731130700). But I haven’t gotten any more replies. Where can I request another review now that I’ve fixed everything that was pointed out? Thanks! [[User:Rahoman|Rahoman]] ([[User talk:Rahoman|talk]]) 13:48, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
:First of all, good job adding more sources to the article. Based on the current references, I would say the subject is definitely notable. '''''However''''', the article still [[WP:NOTPROMO|reads like an advertisement]], and not a neutral encyclopedia article. Your edit after my last rejection did nothing to make the article's text less promotional. Furthermore, you still have not responded to repeated questions about whether you have a [[WP:PSCOI|conflict of interest]] regarding the subject. Deal with that first please. <span class="nowrap">—[[User:pythoncoder|<span style="color:#004080">python</span><span style="color:olive">coder</span>]] ([[User talk:pythoncoder|talk]] | [[Special:Contribs/pythoncoder|contribs]])</span> 21:58, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
== [[User:GeorgeM2011/EYstreem]] ==
{{u|GeorgeM2011}} has asked for assistance on their draft [[User:GeorgeM2011/EYstreem]] at {{slink|User_talk:GeorgeM2011#How_to_Improve}}. Any and all assistance would be appreciated. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 14:25, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
:Answered <span style="background-color: RoyalBlue; border-radius: 1em; padding: 3px 3px 3px 3px;">'''[[User:Qcne|<span style="color: GhostWhite">qcne</span>]]''' <small>[[User talk:Qcne|<span style="color: GhostWhite">(talk)</span>]]</small></span> 15:38, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
== 15:54, 1 September 2025 review of submission by 89.101.68.143 ==
{{Lafc|username=89.101.68.143|ts=15:54, 1 September 2025|draft=User:Michael_miron123/sandbox}}
just a famous lad who wants a Wikipedia account and dose not have any fane [[
:Thanks for flagging this up, I will go and delete it. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 15:56, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
== 16:31, 1 September 2025 review of submission by Mguenego.usparis ==
{{Lafc|username=Mguenego.usparis|ts=16:31, 1 September 2025|draft=Draft:Ström_Paris}}
Hello! I'd like to know if my draft is okay and can be published ? Or if I still need to do some modifications ? Thanks a lot. [[User:Mguenego.usparis|Mguenego.usparis]] ([[User talk:Mguenego.usparis|talk]]) 16:31, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
:You have submitted the draft and it is pending. The reviewer will leave you feedback if they do not accept the draft. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 16:40, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
== 18:22, 1 September 2025 review of submission by Changingwormhole ==
{{Lafc|username=Changingwormhole|ts=18:22, 1 September 2025|draft=Draft:V-DOC}}
Hello, I would like some help understanding why my draft was declined. The reviewer noted that the references do not demonstrate notability and that I need more reliable, independent secondary sources.
In my draft, I cited three independent news articles (Kuwait Times, Madhyamam, and Manorama Online) that directly cover the project. I also cited the official company website for technical details (such as the robot’s specifications and ecosystem), since I couldn’t find those details in news reports.
Could the inclusion of the company website as a supporting source have been the problem? If so, am I allowed to use the website only for factual details (like names of components, patent numbers, etc.) while keeping the news articles as the independent coverage that demonstrates notability?
Any guidance would be much appreciated.
Page link for reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:V-DOC [[User:Changingwormhole|Changingwormhole]] ([[User talk:Changingwormhole|talk]]) 18:22, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
*I fixed your header so that your draft is linked to as intended; you need the full title including the "Draft:" portion. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 18:24, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
== 19:11, 1 September 2025 review of submission by Don Wanyama Off ==
{{Lafc|username=Don Wanyama Off|ts=19:11, 1 September 2025|draft=Draft:List_Of_Media_Tycoons_In_Africa}}
Request for re review on the draft List of Media Tycoons In Africa [[User:Don Wanyama Off|Don Wanyama Off]] ([[User talk:Don Wanyama Off|talk]]) 19:11, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
:If you have addressed the concern of the first reviewer, you may click the Resubmit button. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 19:28, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
:Note that list articles must collect members of the list that merit articles themselves. You're just listing names, none of them have articles, never mind sources. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 19:29, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
:* [[WP:QUACK]] - SPI filed [[User:KylieTastic|KylieTastic]] ([[User talk:KylieTastic|talk]]) 19:50, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
= September 2 =
== 01:00, 2 September 2025 review of submission by Asf132 ==
{{Lafc|username=Asf132|ts=01:00, 2 September 2025|draft=Draft:Rao Mulpuri}}
Hi! I am awaiting submission of this biographical article, and despite fixing the initial request from my evaluator, because the article title was "moved" I'm not sure he/she was able to look at the right one. Could someone please ensure everything is ok? I believe it is ready for publishing [[User:Asf132|Asf132]] ([[User talk:Asf132|talk]]) 01:00, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:I also would like to add that I do not believe that my previous evaluator speaks/understands English proficiently, as evidenced by the language used on their "talk" page and does not grasp the magnitude of the content covered by the professionally written secondary-sourced articles (Bloomberg, Business Insider, Fortune, etc.), which was in this case is covering a once multi-billion-dollar company's CEO.. [[User:Asf132|Asf132]] ([[User talk:Asf132|talk]]) 03:31, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
::@[[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] could you please take a look? [[User:Asf132|Asf132]] ([[User talk:Asf132|talk]]) 05:18, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Asf132|Asf132]]: sorry, can you please clarify your question – are you just wanting to fast track your draft's review? -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 05:21, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
::::The issue in question when I spoke to the reviewer "Như Gây Mê" was a lack of notability, but it seems even by the most pessimistic metric of evaluation the subject would qualify under Wikipedia's standards. The reviewer replied to me in broken English without sufficiently providing an explanation for their evaluation: "Hi, I think this is not the right time for me to publish your article, the information is still too little to show the notability of the subject." So I'm asking for another staff member to evaluate the notability requirements of the individual/the article and if they do indeed suffice then I believe that yes, the article should be published based on that being the "issue" of the article. If that "asks" for a faster review, then I guess that's the answer? But it was more of a prior concern with how this requirement was being evaluated.
::::Thank you! [[User:Asf132|Asf132]] ([[User talk:Asf132|talk]]) 05:26, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::You have resubmitted the draft, and will therefore get a 'second opinion' in due course once a reviewer gets around to assessing it. We don't provide on-demand reviews here at the help desk.
:::::I have no comment to make regarding another reviewer's command of English; nor should you, in my opinion. Any reviewer working on the English Wikipedia will almost certainly have sufficient skills to be able to review a draft and its associated English-language sources. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 05:36, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
::::::Ok, got it. I also just received your message about managing a conflict of interest, and I would like to let you know that there is no personal or professional connection to my subject. I have studied the subject independently through my own research in the last half-decade as his company was rising and falling. This should be clearly evidenced by my neutrality throughout my draft, which highlights both his professional accomplishments as well as evidence that he played a significant role in the eventual bankruptcy of his company. [[User:Asf132|Asf132]] ([[User talk:Asf132|talk]]) 05:48, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Unusually (for me), I reviewed the draft you refer to, and also had to decline it for lack of evidence of notability. Most of the sources are either primary, or cover the View company with only passing mentions of Mulpuri. I believe the only one that provides significant coverage directly about him is [https://www.businessinsider.com/view-rao-mulpuri-softbank-bankruptcy-cantor-rxr-2024-8 this] ''BI'' piece (also cited for the second time via AOL, for some reason). -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 05:56, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::::PS: I did not decline this because of the unreferenced DOB, I declined it because of insufficient evidence of notability. Resubmitting without any attempt at addressing that issue is disruptive. Don't do that again, please, or your draft may be rejected outright. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 05:58, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Thank you, I appreciate your time and feedback. I have found sources that are secondary that cover the subject in depth and added/replaced them now (if applicable to the content). [[User:Asf132|Asf132]] ([[User talk:Asf132|talk]]) 06:14, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::You have replaced one source, and resubmitted. Even if that new source were solid, which it isn't, that would still not be sufficient to satisfy [[WP:GNG]].
:::::::::You do you, I suppose, but just be aware that you do not have unlimited attempts at this. If I were you, I would try to make the most of your chances. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 06:20, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Actually, there were an additional two sources added (one of which was to provide a source for the year, which I will concede is not secondary)) and the other was the Forbes article that was added in with new content (which would count as secondary). Only the second mention of the Business Insider article source was swapped for an equivalent one that aimed to resolve your issue earlier about how it was cited twice (which is what you were referring to, unless you did not see my latest edits). So that was not the one in question that I was referring to. But I understand your general point and will add more that would fit the requirement. [[User:Asf132|Asf132]] ([[User talk:Asf132|talk]]) 06:28, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Indeed, you did add more than one new source... after my comment here. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 06:42, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
== 02:01, 2 September 2025 review of submission by Elesha1188 ==
{{Lafc|username=Elesha1188|ts=02:01, 2 September 2025|draft=Draft:Cyrus_Tang_Foundation}}
Hi, the content that I posted have been declined twice by two peers. And I would like to seek assistance specifically on which part I have to make correction so that I content can edit again and make it live. Thank you ! [[User:Elesha1188|Elesha1188]] ([[User talk:Elesha1188|talk]]) 02:01, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:@[[User:Elesha1188|Elesha1188]]: now declined for the third time. As I said in my comments two declines ago, primary sources do not establish notability per [[WP:ORG]], and that's all your draft cites. We need to see significant coverage of this organisation in multiple ''secondary'' sources. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 05:17, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:Hello, @[[User:Elesha1188|Elesha1188]].
:{{HD/WINI}}
:{{User:ColinFine/PractiseFirst}} [[User:ColinFine|ColinFine]] ([[User talk:ColinFine|talk]]) 09:59, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
== 04:04, 2 September 2025 review of submission by Goldface2009 ==
{{Lafc|username=Goldface2009|ts=04:04, 2 September 2025|draft=User:Goldface2009/sandbox}}
please review my article and let us know which source is still missing or violate the policy [[User:Goldface2009|Goldface2009]] ([[User talk:Goldface2009|talk]]) 04:04, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:@[[User:Goldface2009|Goldface2009]]: we don't provide pre-reviews here at the help desk, you'll get a proper review once you submit your draft. I've added a template to it which has a blue 'submit' button for that. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 05:13, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
== 04:33, 2 September 2025 review of submission by Samyfit556b ==
{{Lafc|username=Samyfit556b|ts=04:33, 2 September 2025|draft=User:Samyfit556b/sandbox}}
tell me how do i create the sandbox i wnat to create please sir help [[User:Samyfit556b|Samyfit556b]] ([[User talk:Samyfit556b|talk]]) 04:33, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:@[[User:Samyfit556b|Samyfit556b]]: it's right there, in the above link. That's where your rejected draft on BBKaPitara is. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 05:11, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
== Requesting Review for Draft:Dhiman (Caste) ==
Hello! I have created and submitted a draft article titled '''[[Draft:Dhiman (Caste)]]'''. I have done my best to follow Wikipedia's guidelines regarding notability, neutrality, and sourcing.
I would appreciate it if an editor could take a look and provide feedback or review it for publication. Thank you for your time and help!
[[User:Indiauser1971|Indiauser1971]] ([[User talk:Indiauser1971|talk]]) 08:55, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:You have submitted it for review and it is pending. Please be aware of the rules when editing about social groups in India- I will post them to your user talk page- probably you shouldn't have created this draft at all- but if it is accepted, you cannot edit it again until your account is extended-confirmed(30 days old with 500 edits) [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 09:07, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:Hello, @[[User:Indiauser1971|Indiauser1971]].
:Separately from the point 331dot made about Indian social groups, {{User:ColinFine/PractiseFirst}} [[User:ColinFine|ColinFine]] ([[User talk:ColinFine|talk]]) 10:00, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
== 10:12, 2 September 2025 review of submission by 103.182.14.46 ==
{{Lafc|username=103.182.14.46|ts=10:12, 2 September 2025|draft=Draft:Ehtasham_Malik}}
Can you guide me on which words are promotional [[Special:Contributions/103.182.14.46|103.182.14.46]] ([[User talk:103.182.14.46|talk]]) 10:12, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
== 10:16, 2 September 2025 review of submission by 102.22.207.86 ==
{{Lafc|username=102.22.207.86|ts=10:16, 2 September 2025|draft=Unite180}}
Article was declined. Any assistance possible with getting it approved and guidance on writing it better or removing references that seem problematic. [[Special:Contributions/102.22.207.86|102.22.207.86]] ([[User talk:102.22.207.86|talk]]) 10:16, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
== 10:55, 2 September 2025 review of submission by NeutralMMMUser ==
{{Lafc|username=NeutralMMMUser|ts=10:55, 2 September 2025|draft=Draft:Objective_Platform}}
I tried to adjust this article multiples times to the feedback I got but apparently it's still not good enough – can someone help or tell me what exactly is not working? I just quoted external sources and took out everything that I think sounds like "advertisement". [[User:NeutralMMMUser|NeutralMMMUser]] ([[User talk:NeutralMMMUser|talk]]) 10:55, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:You are making a common, but fundamental, mistake in that you are telling us what you want the world to know about your company. That is the wrong approach. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of [[WP:ORG|a notable company]]. Interviews, press releases, brief mentions, or the reporting of routine business activities does not establish notability. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 12:39, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
== 11:59, 2 September 2025 review of submission by 103.182.14.46 ==
{{Lafc|username=103.182.14.46|ts=11:59, 2 September 2025|draft=Draft:Ehtasham_Malik}}
Can tell why reject the article [[Special:Contributions/103.182.14.46|103.182.14.46]] ([[User talk:103.182.14.46|talk]]) 11:59, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:The subject is not [[WP:GNG|notable]] press releases are not reliable independent sources. [[User:Theroadislong|Theroadislong]] ([[User talk:Theroadislong|talk]]) 12:10, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
== 12:24, 2 September 2025 review of submission by Talha Sti ==
{{Lafc|username=Talha Sti|ts=12:24, 2 September 2025|draft=User:Talha_Sti/sandbox}}
Why my article is not publishing what is wrong in it [[User:Talha Sti|Sti]] ([[User talk:Talha Sti|talk]]) 12:24, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:Your draft lacked the coding needed to submit it- this is provided if you use the [[WP:WIZARD|Article Wizard]] to create and submit a draft.
:However, your draft was throughly promotional and has been deleted. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about a company. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of [[WP:ORG|a notable company]]. Interviews, press releases, brief mentions, or the reporting of routine business activities does not establish notability.
:If you work for this company/website, you are required by the Terms of Use to disclose that, see [[WP:PAID]]. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 12:36, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
== 13:45, 2 September 2025 review of submission by Kay3233 ==
{{Lafc|username=Kay3233|ts=13:45, 2 September 2025|draft=Draft:APAC_Tower}}
Hello, I noticed the article on APAC Tower was rejected for notability. I would like guidance on whether the coverage I have from independent sources is sufficient, or what additional sources would be needed.
I have few questions.
1. Do the awards (Fitwel 3-Star 2025, Thailand Property Award) count as notable recognition for the building?
2. Do independent news reports from Bangkok Biz News, RE Talk Asia, and AustCham Thailand establish enough secondary coverage?
3. Would mentioning prominent multinational tenants (Asia Pulp & Paper, Mazda Sales, TOA Electronics) help demonstrate significance?
Thank you, [[User:Kay3233|Kay3233]] ([[User talk:Kay3233|talk]]) 13:45, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:Awards only contribute to notability if the award itself merits an article, like [[Nobel Peace Prize]] or [[Academy Award]]. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 15:37, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
== 14:13, 2 September 2025 review of submission by TurnipShadow ==
{{Lafc|username=TurnipShadow|ts=14:13, 2 September 2025|draft=User:TurnipShadow/sandbox}}
I've drafted something but cant see how I move it to be considered for publish [[User:TurnipShadow|TurnipShadow]] ([[User talk:TurnipShadow|talk]]) 14:13, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:@[[User:TurnipShadow|TurnipShadow]]: I've added the submission template, it has a blue 'submit' button with which you can send it for review when you're ready. I've also moved it into the draft name space, at [[Draft:Jools’ Law]]. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 14:28, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
::Thank you very much [[User:TurnipShadow|TurnipShadow]] ([[User talk:TurnipShadow|talk]]) 14:43, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
== 15:55:24, 2 September 2025 review of submission by Psymba ==
{{Lafc|username=Psymba|ts=15:55:24, 2 September 2025|link=Mike_Abrams_(psychologist)
<!-- [[Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Your submission name here]] OR [[Draft:Mike_Abrams_(psychologist)]] -->
}}
This entry was moved to draft space by OwenX who acknowledged its improvement after several weeks of edits and added citations, writing "I see you've made significant improvements to the draft, both in content and in sourcing" [[User talk: OwenX#Review for Dr. Mike Abrams (psychologist)]]. I invite anyone to suggest or make improvements or who may feel it is ready to return as an entry where it previously was for several years. [[User:Psymba|Psymba]] ([[User talk:Psymba|talk]]) 15:55, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:You have submitted it for review and it is pending. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 17:01, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
== 17:56, 2 September 2025 review of submission by Mamaazhi'iwe ==
{{Lafc|username=Mamaazhi'iwe|ts=17:56, 2 September 2025|draft=Draft:Mishiiken Tribe of Mackinac Island}}
I am trying to create a page for the Mishiiken Tribe of Mackinac Island. The first time I submitted it was tagged as appearing to be original research. The second time it was tagged as being written by AI. I did try to use ChatGPT to put things in order and properly format everything, as I find it difficult. Can you tell me what exactly is wrong with it now or how I can fix it? [[User:Mamaazhi'iwe|Mamaazhi'iwe]] ([[User talk:Mamaazhi'iwe|talk]]) 17:56, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:Hi @[[User:Mamaazhi'iwe|Mamaazhi'iwe]]. Have you checked the output to make sure that ChatGPT has not made up any content, or stated anything that is not verified by the sources? A Wikipedia article is <u>only</u> a summary of what existing reliable published sources state: nothing more. When you use an AI chatbot to help with drafts they have a habit of adding what we call "[[Wikipedia:No original research|original research" or "synthesis]]": information which is ''not'' supported by existing reliable published sources.
:I would recommend going through the draft and carefully check every line for any evidence that ChatGPT has added any original research or synthesis. Likewise, if you have included any original research or synthesis, please remove this and focus on only summarising what the existing reliable published sources have stated. <span style="background-color: RoyalBlue; border-radius: 1em; padding: 3px 3px 3px 3px;">'''[[User:Qcne|<span style="color: GhostWhite">qcne</span>]]''' <small>[[User talk:Qcne|<span style="color: GhostWhite">(talk)</span>]]</small></span> 19:18, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
::To add to what qcne says, AIs will [[Hallucination (artificial intelligence)|quite blatantly fabricate sources that don't exist]] in order to satisfy a prompt. (As an example, see [https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/27/business/chat-gpt-avianca-mata-lawyers this CNN article] about a couple of lawyers who used AI to write a legal brief which cited fictitious legal cases.) —[[User:Jéské Couriano|<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|<span style="color: #228B22">v^_^v</span>]] <sup><small>[[User:Jéské Couriano/AG|threads]] [[User:Jéské Couriano/Decode|critiques]]</small></sup> 23:26, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
== 18:51, 2 September 2025 review of submission by Jrpartlowiv ==
{{Lafc|username=Jrpartlowiv|ts=18:51, 2 September 2025|draft=Draft:William "Bill" Kirk}}
Thanks for your recent review of my Article Page! So that I can meet the mark this next time, can you please tell me what I should add or edit before resubmitting. Any flags and recommendations are welcome as well. Thanks in advance. [[User:Jrpartlowiv|Jrpartlowiv]] ([[User talk:Jrpartlowiv|talk]]) 18:51, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:@[[User:Jrpartlowiv|Jrpartlowiv]] Fundamentally you have not proven how this person meets [[Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion (people)]]. All your sources are primary and as such they do not "count" towards proving how this person meets that criteria. We're looking for significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that cover this person. <span style="background-color: RoyalBlue; border-radius: 1em; padding: 3px 3px 3px 3px;">'''[[User:Qcne|<span style="color: GhostWhite">qcne</span>]]''' <small>[[User talk:Qcne|<span style="color: GhostWhite">(talk)</span>]]</small></span> 19:15, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
== 19:08, 2 September 2025 review of submission by Jcgaylor ==
{{Lafc|username=Jcgaylor|ts=19:08, 2 September 2025|draft=Draft:South Carolina Human Affairs Commission}}
Hi all! My first article draft ([[Draft:South Carolina Human Affairs Commission]]) is under review. I'd love to get some feedback or critiques on what I did right/wrong, and how I can make it better!
[[User:Jcgaylor|Jcgaylor]] ([[User talk:Jcgaylor|talk]]) 19:08, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:Hi @[[User:Jcgaylor|Jcgaylor]]. You've submitted the draft for review - but you will note that the top of the draft states ''This may take 7 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,139 pending submissions waiting for review.'' <span style="background-color: RoyalBlue; border-radius: 1em; padding: 3px 3px 3px 3px;">'''[[User:Qcne|<span style="color: GhostWhite">qcne</span>]]''' <small>[[User talk:Qcne|<span style="color: GhostWhite">(talk)</span>]]</small></span> 19:14, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
::Right... which is why I said it is under review and am seeking feedback on how to improve it in the meantime... [[User:Jcgaylor|Jcgaylor]] ([[User talk:Jcgaylor|talk]]) 19:15, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:::But, that's what a review is for: to give feedback on how to improve it. You're asking for a ''pre''review, which we don't really do. However, what might make it easier for reviewers to review the draft is for you to highlight on the Draft Talk Page the three (and only three) best sources that each meet: independent of the commission (not based off their website, or a press release, or an interview with staff, or any kind of primary source); devote significant transformational coverage to the commission (some kind of critical analysis, debate, discussion, commentary etc). <span style="background-color: RoyalBlue; border-radius: 1em; padding: 3px 3px 3px 3px;">'''[[User:Qcne|<span style="color: GhostWhite">qcne</span>]]''' <small>[[User talk:Qcne|<span style="color: GhostWhite">(talk)</span>]]</small></span> 19:22, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
::::I know as a matter of fact that I am not the first person to ask for casual feedback on the state of a draft, but point taken, I reckon! [[User:Jcgaylor|Jcgaylor]] ([[User talk:Jcgaylor|talk]]) 21:10, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::As I said, doing a [[User:RoySmith/Three best sources]] would be useful. <span style="background-color: RoyalBlue; border-radius: 1em; padding: 3px 3px 3px 3px;">'''[[User:Qcne|<span style="color: GhostWhite">qcne</span>]]''' <small>[[User talk:Qcne|<span style="color: GhostWhite">(talk)</span>]]</small></span> 21:11, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
== 20:04, 2 September 2025 review of submission by 102.88.52.199 ==
{{Lafc|username=102.88.52.199|ts=20:04, 2 September 2025|draft=Draft:Oluwaseun_Medayedupin}}
haha, make your research on medayedupin.org [[Special:Contributions/102.88.52.199|102.88.52.199]] ([[User talk:102.88.52.199|talk]]) 20:04, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:Hello IP editor, that isn't a question. <span style="background-color: RoyalBlue; border-radius: 1em; padding: 3px 3px 3px 3px;">'''[[User:Qcne|<span style="color: GhostWhite">qcne</span>]]''' <small>[[User talk:Qcne|<span style="color: GhostWhite">(talk)</span>]]</small></span> 20:07, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
== 21:07, 2 September 2025 review of submission by Cueterna ==
{{Lafc|username=Cueterna|ts=21:07, 2 September 2025|draft=Draft:ITTF_Foundation}}
Hello - I am working on behalf of ITTF Foundation (a sports foundation) - already clarified on my page my affiliation - and have been running into the same issues with a few submissions, especially this one. Can you please help me understand how I can improve this page in order to be accepted? I guess it needs to be in a more formal tone, with a more neutral point of view? [[User:Cueterna|Cueterna]] ([[User talk:Cueterna|talk]]) 21:07, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:The trouble you are having (which is common for others like you) is that you are telling us what you want the world to know about your organization. That's the wrong approach; instead you need to limit yourself to summarizing what independent [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about your organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of [[WP:ORG|a notable organization]]. Interviews, press releases, brief mentions, and the reporting of routine activities does not establish notability. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 21:12, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:I would suggest that you read [[WP:BOSS]], and show it to your superiors/colleagues. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 21:14, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
== 21:37, 2 September 2025 review of submission by Wikimonday2 ==
{{Lafc|username=Wikimonday2|ts=21:37, 2 September 2025|draft=Draft:TBPN}}
I’d like to clarify that I’m not socking and I’m not involved in undisclosed paid editing. I’m a new editor who went through drafts, and submitted this page because TBPN has received significant coverage in reliable sources (added NYT and Bloomberg newsletter/podcast, to go along with Business Insider, The Information, Bloomberg Businessweek, and The Washington Post)
If there are concerns with tone, structure, or how I’ve presented the sources, I’d really appreciate advice on how best to bring this draft in line with Wikipedia’s expectations. I want to make sure I’m following policy and improving the draft the right way. [[User:Wikimonday2|Wikimonday2]] ([[User talk:Wikimonday2|talk]]) 21:37, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
| |||