Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2016 August 23
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < August 22 | << Jul | August | Sep >> | August 24 > |
| 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. |
August 23
edit12:57:54, 23 August 2016 review of submission by Janhunter
edit
Janhunter (talk) 12:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
I am wondering why my description of the Public Sector Consortium was declined? I described what it does in very brief, concise terms with no 'accolades' or embellishments. I added two testimonials which I can remove if needed. Please explain, thanks! Jan
- The draft has no references. It does contain 'accolades' or testimonials, which appear to be most of the draft. It also doesn't contain enough background information. The lede sentence should say among other things where the consortium is located (what state, for instance). Robert McClenon (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
13:20:44, 23 August 2016 review of submission by Amitpe
edit
I submitted an article about Sekindo a month ago, and no one reviewed it so far, is there something missing that I should add? are my references OK? I read the notability instructions it looks like they are notable.
I'm considering moving this to the article space myself, but I'm afraid an admin will delete the article, what should I do?
Thanks, Amit
Amitpe (talk) 13:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- I declined it as containing peacock language. Please review the draft for any other promotional language. Tone rather than notability is the issue. (Do you have an association with the vendor?) Robert McClenon (talk) 15:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
22:01:39, 23 August 2016 review of submission by EditSC
edit
Posting this question June 30 question again, in case it was missed:
Can you help me understand the notability concern with this subject? In comparison with published Wikipedia articles about related technologies (e.g., OpenWebGlobe, Marble (software), MapJack, CitySurf Globe, Bing Maps), this article seems to have more sources, including chapters in reputably published books, presentations from top conferences in the field, and news articles from a variety of sources.
This topic is also referenced on a number of other published Wikipedia pages (Virtual globe, OpenLayers, List of WebGL frameworks, Bhuvan, YoubeQ, GPlates, Analytical Graphics, List of geographic information systems software), some of which are about applications that use Cesium as their core technology. I plan to add incoming links from these articles to the Cesium article once it's accepted.
I'm not sure what steps to take next in improving the article. Thanks in advance for your help!
- Hi EditSC. Unfortunately the existence and/or quality of other articles has no bearing on your draft. Sometimes sub-standard articles slip through, so we can only judge each submission on its own merits.
- Your draft has lots of references but few of them are what we consider reliable sources. You should remove all the references to blogs, GitHub, LinkedIn, YouTube, etc. as these are all self-published sources and are not acceptable. You can keep the references to the software's website and publications authored by its developers, but these can only be used to verify information in the article. They don't establish the subject's notability because they were written by people associated with it. To demonstrate notability, we need evidence that the software has been discussed (at some length) in independent and reliable sources like a newspaper or a peer-reviewed academic publication (by somebody else, not the developers). I don't see any of those in your draft. Joe Roe (talk) 14:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Joe Roe! — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditSC (talk • contribs) 04:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)