• RAJIVVASUDEV (talk · contribs)
  • Performance fabrics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Performance fabrics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

{{SAFESUBST:Void|::Help desk:Hi This is regarding Performance fabrics Recently improved the article with definition,methods of manufacturing and added gallery.Kindly comment how can i upgrade more.Thanks and regardsRajiv Sharma (talk) 03:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the appropriate venue for your request. I would suggest making note of the arguments raised in the article's AfD discussion and addressing those specific issues. Strikerforce^Talk 16:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Kennyho3721 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:The City University of Hong Kong Students’ Union (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Kennyho3721 (talk) 06:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Anton schmittler (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Counos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Anton schmittler (talk) 08:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft has been rejected. You'll need to start over with a new Draft article. Strikerforce^Talk 16:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Retsuk (talk · contribs)

I wrote an article about library of Estonian Academy of Music and Theatre. Last week I got an answer that says: This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Could anyone help me to clarify, what makes my article advertisment-like? The main part of it is the history of the library - how can it advertise it? Since the library is non-profit and publicly open institution (don't ask any fee, neither offer paid services), there is nothing which can be commercially useful for the library. The only thing I can imagine to be advertisement, are the links to some databases. If I remove these links, is it all right then? Any help would be highly appreciated. Thank you! Retsuk (talk) 09:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Let me point out a couple of issues that jumped out at me - First, the entire "Links" section is inappropriate and should be removed. Second, the various events that you've featured in the timeline tables are, in many cases, little more than trivia, which is discouraged. Next, the list of library locations is not necessary in an encyclopedia entry. Fourth, you are attempting to link the list of directors across to a Wikipedia of a different language (forgive me, but I don't recognize it, off the top of my head), which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but probably isn't needed, either. Finally, with regard to content, the "Donors" section is not appropriate. From a reference point of view, you have a list of references at the end of the article, but have not included any of those references within the body of the article (inline citations). Strikerforce^Talk 15:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Retsuk. The topic has potential. On Wikipedia the word "advertising" is used as shorthand for any kind of advertising, showcasing, advocacy, soapboxing, propagandizing, opinion, promotion, marketing, or public relations. It doesn't matter whether the subject is for-profit. One common cause of this problem is relying too heavily on non-independent sources. That can lead to the draft saying what the library thinks is important about the library—what they want their public face to be—instead of what independent sources say about the library.

As Strikerforce says, the External links section is excessive, which can make the draft look promotional. One external link, to the organization's official website, is okay. Each additional external link becomes harder and harder to justify. Also, external links are not allowed in the text of the article (like this: drama school). Such links must be removed or turned into references. Be choosier about what events to include in the history section. If unsure whether to include something, contrast the draft with some of Wikipedia's best writing about libraries: British Library, Oregon Public Library, The Valley Library, and Widener Library. Do any of these state the year in which their library got photocopy machines?

I disagree with Strikerforce regarding the list of locations. If the article were about a multi-location chain store, it would be inappropriate to list each location, but the locations in the draft are historical, and are encyclopedic content. Indeed, the history section seems to be subdivided by years spent in each location, something that could be made more explicit with section headings like "Suvorovi puiestee years (1944–1971)". I also partly disagree with Strikerforce about the donors section. Donations of significant collections are encyclopedic content, and should be kept. Listing donors of money, however, is likely to be seen as promotional (as the library wanting to thank the donors). If the donation was exceptionally important, like donating the money for a new building, mention in the history section instead of highlighting it in a donors section. What would be useful to an encyclopedia would be some aggregated information about the library's funding, like as of 2018 its annual budget is NNN euros, x% of which is covered by the government, y% comes from corporate donations, z% comes from renting out the space for events, ...

Every modern library provides access to databases. Exactly which ones is always changing, and is best omitted from an encyclopedia article. Readers should go to the library's website for that sort of information. The same is probably true of participation in networks and organizations. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Hkotwicki (talk · contribs)

Hello,

I have submitted an article about ComForCare Health Care Holdings, LLC twice to be reviewed. The first time it read too much like an ad and didn't have enough sources. I fixed those issues by rewriting it and adding more sources but the page was not accepted due to the same reasons. I'm looking to see where exactly in the article I can improve to get it accepted. Thank you. Hkotwicki (talk) 15:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)HKotwicki[reply]

It needs to be rewritten from a neutral point of view. Right now, it reads like a corporate biography or advertisement. Strikerforce^Talk 16:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a good example of a corporate page on Wikipedia that does it right? User:Hkotwicki —Preceding undated comment added 16:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not able to come up with one off the top of my head. Let me spend a few minutes with the existing article and see what I'm able to come up with. Strikerforce^Talk 16:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. User:Hkotwicki

Examples of articles that are not promotional and are about notable companies include Oliver Typewriter Company and Chemical Bank.

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Hkotwicki#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

{{paid|user=Hkotwicki|employer=ComForCare Health Care Holdings, LLC}}

• 72.80.75.70 (talk · contribs)
  • David Brillembourg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:David Brillembourg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

72.80.75.70 (talk) 18:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 173.20.150.80 (talk · contribs)
  • Ja'Ron K. Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Ja'Ron K. Smith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Draft:Ja'Ron K. Smith ought to be a bureau of living people page. I have made a draft to get things started. I hope that someone who knows what he she or it is doing will take a look at the wapo article and so forth to fill things out and properly format Ja'Ron K. Smith's Wikipedia page. The picture came from Commons and needs to be sized and stuck in an infobox. If you're looking at me, I assure you I'm not going to do it.

173.20.150.80 (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Romhilde (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Social media and interpersonal relationships (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, and thank you for reading and reviewing my draft article. I need help understanding what I need to do to substantially improve my article. It was flagged as being written like an essay and not an encyclopedia. It says I need to summarize information from secondary, reliable sources and not contain original research, and lastly that it needs to be written in a neutral tone. I want to explain how I wrote this article and get your feedback about what I should have done differently.

To gather sources for the article I searched JSTOR and EBSCO for quality articles in reputable journals. I read about 20 sources or so and felt that 9 of them were the best ones to summarize. After reading a source for the first time and determining that it was a reliable secondary source, I read it again and summarized key paragraphs with 1 or 2 sentences. In doing so, I wrote about 1-3 paragraphs on each source. After I did this with the 9 sources, I rearranged the summaries so that they flowed together in a logical manner. I copy edited it, added some images, and submitted for review. In all, it took over 60 hours to complete the reading and writing, but I enjoyed it and was excited to contribute my time to put together an article. It would certainly be helpful to know if this is the wrong approach, since it does take a lot of time.

I did not intend to write an article that was like an essay, so I need help understanding how it is one. I take seriously the need for encyclopedic tone and writing and aim to conform to it both in my own writing and in my edits. I reviewed WP:NOTESSAY which states that I should not use primary research, write about personal inventions, state my personal feelings about a topic, or make the article into a discussion forum. Please note that I did not write any of my sources (I am a civil engineer, not a social media researcher). Are journals considered primary sources? I also carefully wrote the article in a manner that summarized my sources, and put aside whatever I thought the "right" answer was. Wherever I could, I used the source's wording and terminology so that I was not introducing my own opinions into the matter. I thought my strategy of reading the sources and summarizing what they say without adding anything else to it was going to be effective, so please point out what I could do differently or better.

WP:NOR states that original research includes facts, allegations, and ideas that have no reliable, published sources. Since each sentence I wrote is a summary of statements in a reliable secondary source, I am unsure how my writing is OR. I did not put a footnote after every sentence, though. If there were three sentences from 1 source, I put the footnote at the end of the third sentence. Is this incorrect? I can certainly add a footnote after every sentence, if that is preferred. That is actually how I originally had it, but I read somewhere that it is not necessary to do so. I also didn't put any footnotes in the lead section, because they are brief summaries of main points that are footnoted elsewhere in the article. Should the lead section have footnotes? I can easily add that, too.

WP:NPOV is really important to me, which is why I read many sources and chose the ones that I believed fairly represented the spread of research that has been published. With regard to the lack of encyclopedic tone, I wrote my article in a professional, dispassionate tone with formal terminology that is appropriate for the subject matter. I organized the article by topic and category so that it had a summary style. I did not want to write in a "pro and con" style or "advantages and disadvantages" style, so I avoided a divisive layout like that.

Ultimately, I am really excited to volunteer my time for the betterment of Wikipedia. I like to write, too, so I was interested in making an article. Before writing it, I read WP: The Missing Manual, the relevant policies and guidelines, and the Manual of Style, because I take this seriously and want my contributions to be helpful. The approach that I took to writing the article was my best attempt to follow the policies and guidelines as I understood them. I want to continue to contribute to WP in the future, so I greatly appreciate your help in understanding where I went wrong and how I can do better. Romhilde (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]