Your submission at Articles for creation: Pyramid over Moscow (April 14)

edit
 
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Heliosxeros 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 when they have been resolved.
EROS message 13:03, 14 April 2018 (UTC)Reply


 
Hello, Aleksandr Reznichenko! Having an article 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! EROS message 13:03, 14 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

edit
 
Hello, Aleksandr Reznichenko. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).Reply

Re: Your AFC draft

edit

Greetings. Your sources are at fault here. Sources are very important as they will determine the notability of your submission. For reliable sourcing, you should go for: major newspaper, a factual, widely-published book, high-quality generally trusted mainstream publications. Not blogs, MySpace, Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, fansites, Twitter, wikis, or other sites with user-generated content. It is best for references to have significant coverage about the subject. Not passing mentions, not directory listings, not just any old thing that happens to have the name in it. Secondly, nothing written by the subject, paid for by the subject, or affiliated with the subject are considered reliable sources. Not their website, and not a press release. The sources must be independent. Plus: you will have to get much newer and recent sources. Per notability of events, sources mustn't be too old or else it will not suffice for notability. Another thing is, for your UFO theory, some sentences are not inclined with citation. As the section is controversial in nature, these inclined citation will help to defend your points when factual conflict arrises. EROS message 07:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)Reply