• Lynxx8 (talk · contribs)
  • User:Lynxx8/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It is not necessarily that I am looking for a re-review, it is more of a clarification on the sources I provided in my sandbox not being adequate. This is the 2nd or 3rd time I have made a sandbox and it has been denied because of my sources. It seems to be a running problem and need some clarification on specific examples in the document so I can understand better. I thought I was on the right path with this one but it was apparently not correct. Could I please get some info on why the current sources (have not changed since being denied) are not adequate? That info being: the link being analyzed, what made it not qualify, and how I can change said source/other sources to be adequate enough so the page can be added?

Thanks, this would be a huge help to understanding how to use appropriate sources. Lynxx8 (talk) 19:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lynxx8. The draft doesn't cite any sources. It contains three external links, which are not allowed within the text. If they were intended to be references, they are incorrectly formatted. They are, moreover, poor sources because they are not independent (the company and it's parent are not independent of the company) and/or because they don't verify the content (the statement "SGC's first project was funding a new jetty on Bum Bum island in Semporna, Sabah" is not supported by a source that says Semporna exists). Study Wikipedia:Citing sources to better understand the purpose and practice of citing sources.

If two or three new topics you've tried to start have been declined, I suggest you concentrate on improving existing articles for a while (we have 5.5 million to choose from, almost all of which could be better) or change the sort of topic you write about (extant companies are generally poor topics, most businesses don't belong in an encyclopedia.) --Worldbruce (talk) 13:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]