Excavatorr

Your submission at Articles for creation: Crawler Excavator (July 14)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Qcne 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:Crawler Excavator 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.

Qcne (talk) 11:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Excavatorr! 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! Qcne (talk) 11:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Qcne! I really appreciate the quick response. I've tried to edit the draft as per your comments but I can assure you that I'm not trying to advertise but educate and then add a relevant type of excavator to the list which I was surprised it isn't already there, that's all. Excavatorr (talk) 21:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Excavatorr. Unfortunately the draft has gotten worse since I last reviewed. Let me explain my problems with the draft as it stands is as follows:

- An encyclopaedic article on Wikipedia shouldn't include sections like "Advantages of Crawler Excavators" - that is suitable for a review website but not Wikipedia. Wikipedia should just be a summary of independent reliable sources.

- Likewise, Wikipedia articles don't have a "Conclusion" section and the text in this section is wholly inappropriate for Wikipedia. Did you write this with ChatGPT by any chance? It reads like the sort of nonsense an AI outputs. It breaks our very strict neutrality guidelines.

- All of the "Sea Also" links are just to random excavator sales websites- again, not appropriate for an encyclopaedia.

I would start from scratch on this draft and focus on the History of excavators. Imagine the sort of stuff you would see if you looked up "Crawler Excavator" in a paper encyclopaedia: you'd have a definition, a history, maybe a little bit about features and use cases. You certainly wouldn't have any sales language, advantages/disadvantages, etc.

Finally, I am a little concerned that your username "Excavatorr" is the same as excavatorr.net which you have used as a source. Are you affiliated with that website? Qcne (talk) 08:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Qcne, I see now what you mean. I will make a note of this.

- An encyclopaedic article on Wikipedia shouldn't include sections like "Advantages of Crawler Excavators" - that is suitable for a review website but not Wikipedia. Wikipedia should just be a summary of independent reliable sources. - I will remove these sections.

- Likewise, Wikipedia articles don't have a "Conclusion" section and the text in this section is wholly inappropriate for Wikipedia. Did you write this with ChatGPT by any chance? It reads like the sort of nonsense an AI outputs. It breaks our very strict neutrality guidelines. - I only added conclusion to wrap up the information but will remove it. I haven't used ChatGPT as I have cited all the information where I have taken from.

- All of the "Sea Also" links are just to random excavator sales websites- again, not appropriate for an encyclopaedia. - But no other neutral reliable resources are covering the subject of crawler excavator... As in I would find the news articles on particular models but I thought that will be salesy hence I didn't market any of those. Yes, I'm affiliated with the website. Is that a concern? We're not selling excavators or crawler excavators but are building a reliable information repository for excavators which is clearly lagging.

My goal is to only educate people about excavators. And it's my first time on Wikipedia. But I'm learning and will try to get better with time and future edits. :) Excavatorr (talk) 13:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, @Excavatorr. So, since you have a conflict of interest (as you are part of the website and are linking the website onto an article) it is mandatory you make a disclosure, by following the instructions at WP:COI.

Thanks for removing the problematic bits. Do remove the Sea Also section too. I am sure you'll be able to find some neutral sources (they can be offline books) that discuss the history/development of the excavator. Qcne (talk) 13:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@Qcne I have edited the article again! Thank you for being so patient with me and since it's my first time, I'm learning a lot fro your direct feedbacks. I had disclosed that I have a conflict of interest right before I wrote my first draft. You can see it on my user page I guess but it is there: User:Excavatorr

I've removed all the sections you pointed out including See Also. I tried to find some other resources and include more informative fun facts. I hope you like them! Excavatorr (talk) 14:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Excavatorr, much better.

However, quite a bit is unsourced. To help you, I've added citation needed tags to the bits you should find sources for, plus some original research? tags for where you should find a source if possible. Qcne (talk) 17:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Qcne, thanks for helping me out with specific citations requirements. I've tried to add as many as I could find from more credible sources according to my own understanding.

However, I couldn't understand the original research tags.... can you help me understand those too or can we make the page live for now and then keep working on it in the future? Excavatorr (talk) 09:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Excavatorr. That's getting better.

With the original research tags, its similar to the citation needed tag; those three sections are presented as various facts about excavators, but there's no sources attributed to them. So, like, the components of the excavator: you've said they contain a boom and dipper but we'd need some sort of proof of that. Because we're dealing with non-contentious facts you can use primary sources. Qcne (talk) 19:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Qcne, I've added some sources for the needed citation tags! I hope this suffices and helps make the article little better. :) Excavatorr (talk) 08:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Crawler Excavator (July 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Qcne 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:Crawler Excavator 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.

Qcne (talk) 08:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)