Content deleted Content added
→top: Cleaning up after a manual review decline |
Cleaning up submission (AFCH 0.9) |
||
Line 1:
{{AFC submission|d|reason|The referencing style is inconsistent - either use academic style "Pishavee et al (2012)" or the cite templates - but don't mix them.
You also cannot use a reference as a substitute for actual content, as you've done in the "Applications" section:
"Supply chain management such as Pishvaee et al. (2012)" means nothing. You are forcing the article readers to go find the source and read that before they can understand this article. You need to summarize what Pishavee et al actually said about supply chain management. Unlike academic writing, a Wikipedia article must be complete within itself. You cannot require readers to consult external sources just to understand the article.|u=Adam Rooney|ns=118|reviewer=Dodger67|reviewts=20160108160200|decliner=Dodger67|declinets=20160108163625|ts=20160108150401}} <!-- Do not remove this line! -->
{{AFC submission|d|reason|All bar one of the references all refer to papers by Pishvaee, these count as primary sources. There are not enough independent secondary sources to show this is a method which has gained wider acceptance, necessary to meet [[WP:N]].|u=Adam Rooney|ns=118|reviewer=Salix alba|decliner=Salix alba|declinets=20160205190000|small=yes|ts=20160107185025}} <!-- Do not remove this line! -->▼
{{AFC comment|1=I have requested assistance from [[WP:WikiProject Mathematics|WikiProject Mathematics]] to review this draft. [[User:Dodger67|Roger (Dodger67)]] ([[User talk:Dodger67|talk]]) 10:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)}}
▲{{AFC submission|d|reason|All bar one of the references all refer to papers by Pishvaee, these count as primary sources. There are not enough independent secondary sources to show this is a method which has gained wider acceptance, necessary to meet [[WP:N]].
----
| |||