• Ummeetaa x (talk · contribs)
  • No draft specified!

Ummeetaa x (talk) 05:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ummeetaa x, Your article is currently submitted and awaiting review. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• RightWrite1986 (talk · contribs)
  • No draft specified!

RightWrite1986 (talk) 05:55, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RightWrite1986, You need to read the links provided in the declines on the subject's page. Some of the sources (e.g. facebook) show that you have not yet done so. Sulfurboy (talk) 06:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I could really use help regarding my article. I feel it has been greatly supported. What can I do to edit it so that it is accepted?

• Carl J. Weber (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Etymology of Chicago (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would like to feel confident that I am going along just fine in putting together my article. Carl J. Weber (talk) 06:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC) Carl J. Weber (talk) 06:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My observation is exactly the same as before. This is an essay with unclear sourcing/attribution. Encyclopedic articles have to state facts and precisely attribute them. It is not at all clear in the draft which are sourced facts and which are your added prose. Stuff like "need to also be looked at", "Well documented", "assumed to be historically authentic" etc. is not appropriate writing. This is something you would see in an academic paper/essay where you are allowed to combine sources and explain your reasoning or propose interpretation. Wikipedia allows no original research and no combining of sources in that way. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 13:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An additional problem is that it seems the Illinois Historical Journal is the only source that actually directly discusses the subject, all the other cited sources are used for synthesis and original research by the draft author. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• G antonakakis (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Antonios Karatzis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dears,

I would like you to re-review this draft "Karatzis Antonios" Also we have an other refererence from the "www.times.com" Below you will find the digital magazine. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1H_Ov-ADs3UBWzT0lG5lI38KNDwpkvL-h/view Can you value this reference and add it at draft? Also at references we have some donations to hospitals. I would like to tell me what i have to do and what i have to change to be public this draft. I want your help for this G antonakakis (talk) 08:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has been rejected, I suggest you find another topic to write about, there are many thousands of articles that require improvement. Theroadislong (talk) 09:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Annisd (talk · contribs)
  • User:Annisd/sandbox/SAM Seamless Network (SecuringSAM) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I added reliable source. Let me know if more changes are required. Thanks, Annisd (talk) 12:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is needed is significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources; the sources that you have offered are press release type sources(which are not independent) and routine business announcements(which are also not independent and are only a brief mention). 331dot (talk) 12:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Eddy thoker (talk · contribs)
  • No draft specified!

Eddy thoker (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please help how to get submission approval in wikipedia

• Bsitts09 (talk · contribs)
  • Joe Klanderman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Joe Klanderman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I do not understand why this page was rejected. Almost all coordinators in division one college football have a Wikipedia page. I think the reasoning for the rejection is incorrect.

Bsitts09 (talk) 16:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bsitts09 The notability guidelines (WP:NGRIDIRON) state that they do not apply to assistant coaches(which would include coordinators). That means you would have to show that the person meets the more general notability guidelines for biographies or is also notable for something else. Other coordinators were likely notable for something else besides their coordinating work. In any event, other things exist and each article or draft is judged on its own merits. 331dot (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Wwhitman1819 (talk · contribs)
  • No draft specified!

Wwhitman1819 (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, what can I change to get my article published? Scarlett Sabet is a bonafide published poet. If I just list basic info (where she was born, educated, and the titles of her publications) will this pass?

All the best,

Whitman

Wwhitman1819, I'm deleting my previous comment as I realize I somehow clicked on the wrong article. I'll try taking a look at the article in a bit. Sam-2727 (talk) 14:53, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok after taking a look I have seen that you have provided more "journalistic" sources. Actually, your article might very well qualify for a Wikipedia article at this point. Some points that I would address before resubmitting it. Use your reliable and independent sources more (the two reliable/independent sources I see are [1] and [2], although the second one is an interview, so maybe not completely independent?) and for more contentious claims, and the sources that are generally unreliable for basic factual information (if at all). Delete any Daily Mail sources, as their articles are very unreliable. Also I would remove "overcitation" in some areas. For instance, you do not need four citations to support that "Her partner is Jimmy Page of Led Zeplin." Let me know if you have any further questions! Sam-2727 (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Jbfitzgerald (talk · contribs)

Jbfitzgerald (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jbfitzgerald, What's your question? Sulfurboy (talk) 00:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ednei Campos De Jesus De Brito (talk · contribs)
  • Masha's Tales (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Masha's Tales (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Ednei Campos De Jesus De Brito (talk) 22:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ednei Campos De Jesus De Brito, What do you need help with? Sulfurboy (talk) 00:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I Need Help In The Draft Revision How I Do?!

• Tienasekharan (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:The Big Nine: How the Tech Titans and Their Thinking Machines Could Warp Humanity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Tienasekharan (talk) 23:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article I wrote has been rejected on the following grounds - “This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.”

I have found the book referenced in the following articles/ academic parapets but am not sure how to include them in the content. Should I just mention these at the end with the references despite them not adding to the article?

The medical AI insurgency: what physicians must know about data to practice with intelligent machines, by D. Douglas Millar https://www.nature.com/articles/s41746-019-0138-5 

Why we’re failing to regulate the most powerful tech we’ve ever faced, by Gary Grossman Edelman https://venturebeat.com/2020/02/01/why-were-failing-to-regulate-the-most-powerful-tech-weve-ever-faced/  

What Will Really Determine the Winner of the U.S.-China Rivalry Over A.I.?, by Annie-Marie Slaughter https://slate.com/technology/2019/03/united-states-china-rivalry-artificial-intelligence.html   In this interview with MarTech CCO, he mentions he is reading Big Nine https://martechseries.com/mts-insights/interviews/martech-interview-with-henry-iversen-cco-and-co-founder-at-boost-ai/   Nationalism is not our biggest threat, technology is, by James Poulus https://thefederalist.com/2019/04/29/nationalism-not-biggest-threat-technocracy/  

Dessertation - Ideological Misalignment in the Discourse(s) of Higher Education: Comparing University Mission Statements with Texts from Commercial Learning Analytics Providers https://scholarworks.boisestate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2754&context=td   Open-Sourcing Civil Society, by Vlad Tarko https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-34937-0_10

Essay- Opportunities and Risks for Citizen Science in the Age of Artificial Intelligence Authors: Luigi Ceccaroni , James Bibby, Erin Roger, Paul Flemons, Katina Michael, Laura Fagan, Jessica L. Oliver https://theoryandpractice.citizenscienceassociation.org/articles/10.5334/cstp.241/  

Hi Tienasekharan. Being used as a reference in statements like "This growth in AI publications has prompted researchers to critically explore the potential promises and risks of AI (Webb 2019)" is not the same as being the subject of the work. Such references don't help satisfy criterion #1 of WP:NBOOK, so I don't see a reason to mention the above articles/papers in the draft.

Although the draft is not a summary-only description of the work (it has a brief reception section with a few comments of the flap copy variety), it is almost all synopsis. The draft needs a more extensive summary of published analysis of the book to justify a stand alone article separate from the existing Wikipedia article about the author. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:03, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]