Aidantonebase

Your submission at Articles for creation: Tonebase (May 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Grabup were:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Tonebase and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

GrabUp - Talk 04:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Aidantonebase! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! GrabUp - Talk 04:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Disclosure

If you are employed by Tonebase, then your existing {{UserboxCOI}} disclosure is not sufficient. You are considered to be a paid editor by Wikipedia, and therefore subject to the higher standard of disclosure outlined in the mandatory paid editing disclosure policy. Please review this and make the necessary adjustments.

While you're at it, you should also review Wikipedia:Search engine optimization, as it would pertain to you. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 05:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment

Thank you for declaring your conflict of interest. That doesn't mean you can write what you like, you must follow the guidance below:

• you must provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the organisation or company, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, logs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the company or organisation claims or interviewing its management. Note that references should be in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls
• The notability guidelines for organisations and companies have been updated. The primary criteria has five components that must be evaluated separately and independently to determine if it is met:

1. significant coverage in
2. independent,
3. multiple,
4. reliable,
5. secondary sources.

Note that an individual source must meet all four criteria to be counted towards notability.

• You must write in a non-promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic, with verifiable facts, not opinions or reviews.
• There shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections.
• You must not copy text from elsewhere. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. We require that text posted here can be used, modified and distributed for any purpose, including commercial; text is considered to be copyright unless explicitly stated otherwise. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient.

Before attempting to write an article again, please make sure that the topic meets the notability criteria linked above, and check that you can find independent third party sources. Also read Your first article. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

More

The above are general guidelines, I'm not accusing you of copyright violation because I didn't check, and there were no ext links in the text. However, much is problematic.

Your draft had already been declined as "not adequately supported by reliable sources" with another comment "It requires multiple in-depth coverage from independent reliable secondary sources to establish notability, Blogs, Interviews can’t establish notability. Read WP:GNG and WP:NCORP."

We need reputable independent third-party sources, but your references, including many you left as bare urls, included your own website, interviews with your founders, press releases, your partners' websites and reviews. Much of your text was unreferenced completely, including all your instructors.

Your text is entirely "this is what we sell". To show notability you need hard verifiable facts such as the number of employees, management structure, turnover or profits.

Promotional, non-factual text included Their mission is to democratize access to high-level music education... elite instructors... esteemed professors at music schools including Juilliard, Peabody, Curtis, and more Sourced to your own website, so we don't know if the last bit is verifiably true. a way for people everywhere to learn from the very best musicians around the world... tonebase has over 1,000 tutorials taught by 120 instructors and is used by more than 25,000 students. tonebase’s social media following has also rapidly grown, amassing over 512,000 subscribers on YouTube and 185,000 followers on Instagram Unreferenced and not a criterion for notability even if true. achieved widespread popularity after a series of viral features with pianists.

Even the urls you posted on my talk included a blog/interview with one of your instructors and an obvious promo on Clicktrack

If you hadn't declared your COI, I would have blocked you immediately, but you must now make sure you get it right Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for this insight, I'll get the mission-centric text taken out and replaced with more factual information. I completely understand everything you're saying, although if I may I would just appreciate a clarification on the practices of these 2 Wikipedia pages:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MasterClass
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spotify

I based my page on the citation and formatting structure I found on these 2 pages, which evidently satisfied Wikipedia's requirements since they are published. Spotify may be a little more self explanatory since they are a public company, but many of the things you had mentioned aren't suitable for a Wikipedia page, such as citing the company's own website, not including citations for every bullet point, etc, happen on one or both of these pages.

I've seen this kind of citation on several other Wikipedia company pages as well. Is there something I'm missing here? If you look at specifically the artist list for Masterclass, only a handful are cited. On the Spotify page, most of the text is left unreferenced, and more often than not the citation for the company information is the Spotify newsroom website (which is a part of Spotify). My effort with the tonebase page was to include enough genuine, reliable and secondary sources to fulfill a page requirement, but to also fill in the extra necessary info with other references just as both of these companies had done.

And yes a few of the citations I included are from our partners, but several of them were from genuine secondary sources that did not cover us for any paid agreement or partnership (and to be clear, in the classical music space, often the most established "publications" and "magazines" host their content on blogs, so they still fulfill the notability requirement).

So my main question at this point before I submit a revision to the article is what is the required frequency of text-to-citation, am I allowed to cite the company website if there are adequate official secondary sources as you outlined, and what exactly constitutes a "reliable" secondary source? Sorry if this is pedantic, I appreciate you taking the time to clarify this all for me. Aidantonebase (talk) 21:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)