Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2015 February 22
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < February 21 | << Jan | February | Mar >> | February 23 > |
| Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages. |
February 22
edit01:02:22, 22 February 2015 review of submission by Munozpinedo
edit- Munozpinedo (talk · contribs)
Hello,
my page draft was rejected for these reasons:
"This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms, that are designed to promote or show-off the subject."
This page is about one exceptional scientist (and I have included links to prove it) and written by another scientist (me). I have tried to include many citations but of course not the 500+ articles and books that Professor Green has published. Could anybody please help me figure out which parts are not written appropriately or they are not properly referenced? Thanks! Cristina Muñoz-Pinedo
Munozpinedo (talk) 01:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)munozpinedo Munozpinedo (talk) 01:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- I think the decline may have been an error, sorry about that. I have now accepted this Draft and it is at Douglas R. Green.
- @Onel5969: just to let them know. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Munozpinedo (and thanks for the "ping" Arthur goes shopping) - No, it wasn't in error, although it was definitely a hard decision. One of the phrases which contributed to the tone was removed after I declined it. There are still others, which in my opinion, give it an informal tone, although they are minor, but it is also the use of the honorofic and his full name throughout the article which put it over the edge for me. But that's what makes Wikipedia unique, different editors have different standards. That's one of the reasons that, unless asked by the article's author, I try to avoid re-reviewing an article I've declined. 13:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
17:07:03, 22 February 2015 review of submission by Chowe9
edit
Hi, I submitted a wikipedia page but it was rejected. I am wondering what changes I need to make in order to make it acceptable. Thanks.
Chowe9 (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
20:52:32, 22 February 2015 review of submission by JenniferAnneBaker
edit
JenniferAnneBaker (talk) 20:52, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
KITTY BLACK PERKINS
Hi- I need help because my biographical topic is a creative person (the main creator of Barbie designs for Mattel) and I have two news stories that include interviews with her along with a biographical page. I am hoping that African American history gets more attention on wikipedia. That black women do not get the recognition of others seems to be an obstacle to there being additional sources on Kitty Black Perkins. But wouldn't I have met the criteria already?
- Hi JenniferAnneBaker. I think that prior to your addition of the 2 new cites, the article was borderline in the notability department. One editor might decline it, while another editor might have passed it. I think the addition of the Spartanburg article nudges it clearly on the side of notability. Article still needs work. References need cleanup (e.g. the Spartanburg article, and the one you have listed for AP, is really from a Toledo newspaper, and the author is the AP). Also, instead of simply just mentioning Ebony, Essence, LA Magazine, Woman's Day, and Sister to Sister magazines, get those citations and put them in the article. I've moved the article into the mainspace, hope you continue to make improvements on it. Onel5969 (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)