Help desk
< June 12	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 14 >

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.

June 13

05:51:52, 13 June 2019 review of draft by 117.240.248.50

117.240.248.50 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:CV Radhakrishnan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

117.240.248.50 (talk) 05:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

My wiki article got rejected with the reason 'do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject'.

But the 4 references I have listed are all independent sources and carry necessary information about the subject.

The first reference is from an article in Tugboat which is a journal published by TeX users group (https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/TUGboat).

The second is another article that has been published in https://www.linuxtoday.com/.

The third reference is a detailed interview of the subject that has been featured in January 2008 issue of TUG India by the TeX users group. (TeX users group is a community that is mentioned in https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/TeX).

The fourth is again an article from tug.org that has been retrieved from the internet archive.

Based on these references, the article that has been submitted is true to the facts.

So, I need some clarification on whether it is the way the references has been included that has resulted in the rejection.

Considering the case, I request you to kindly look into the matter and provide your recommendations so that I can get my article published at the earliest.

12:28:06, 13 June 2019 review of draft by Sophiaforgiz

Sophiaforgiz (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Transformative Urban Mobility Initiative (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

as the revision of this article takes much longer than expected, I would like to ask if it is possible to do changes to this article while it is being reviewed? I dont want to do changes and then need to wait longer. Or is it easier to do improvements after the article is approved?

Thank you for your help!

Kind Regards

Sophiaforgiz (talk) 12:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sophiaforgiz. Yes, you may continue to improve the draft while you wait for it to be reviewed. It doesn't cite any arms length sources, only the initiative and one of its partners. Wikipedia isn't much interested in what the initiative and its partners BMZ, GIZ, etc. say about the initiative. The bulk of any draft should be based on independent sources (think Süddeutsche Zeitung, academics writing in books and journals, and so on). It will not be accepted unless that is corrected. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:30:45, 13 June 2019 review of submission by Zhilianghu60

Zhilianghu60 (talk · contribs)

ZHu 15:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC) We have a number of peer-reviewed publications on this work (Animal QTLdb) on well-known scientific journals like Nucleic Acids Research by Oxford Academic publisher. Its developments has lasted over 17 years with federal funding (thus our works are in public domain). Would this be counted as "reliable" source? __Zhiliang — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhilianghu60 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zhilianghu60. Reliable, yes. Independent, no. Secondary, probably not. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:03:19, 13 June 2019 review of draft by AustinRedd007

AustinRedd007 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Sulphur Clover (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How many references do i need to prove that a species exists and what are the best references for this?

AustinRedd007 (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AustinRedd007. Novice editors are commonly advised to cite at least three independent, reliable, secondary sources containing significant coverage of the topic. Scholarly sources (books from academic publishers, and peer reviewed journals) would be best, see WP:SOURCETYPES. Good examples of these types of sources can be found in the references for Cowpea and Tephrosia apollinea. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your swift response — Preceding unsigned comment added by AustinRedd007 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:04:07, 13 June 2019 review of submission by Impast m

Impast m (talk · contribs)
- User:Impast m/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I'm asking you to please re-review the article I submitted for Nadia Masri. Can you please provide more insight into what needs to be changed or revised? Here are more additional press articles about the subject.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/perksy-app-forbes-30-under-ceo-1.4958254 https://www.forbes.com/video/5887541797001/#5fbe13c53115 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNiJnQ1hqqo Impast m (talk) 20:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]