ABOUT the articles style
editAn editors evaluation of a previous review request stated this article reads like an advertisement. As the writer I must disagree with this assessment, it couldn't be more wrong. I have never written anything in an advertising style and personally would never write any advertisement for any product or article, I do not even know HOW to write an advertisement.
[this is edited but is copied] Search engines are used to find sources, each engine has quirks, advantages, and disadvantages, and may not return the results that the editor needs. It typically takes experience and practice to recognize when a search has not been effective; even if an editor finds useful sources, they may have missed other sources that would have been more useful or they may generate pages and pages of less-useful material.[end quote]
The point is -- after three or four validation trips on the web, I'm simply going to use any good information provided by the internet/web around that point. It requires a ton of reading, and more to cross-check and try to validate; when validation can even be done. Then one gets tired. I'm doing this free and have many hours in, the main beneficiary of the work is WIKIPEDIA itself, the articles utility for three-dimensional meat-space readers is realized only after the article is provided to WP, and thus the institute gets the credit.
This is all fine and is perfectly pre-agreed to, I don't come here seeking credit and regarding this article I just want to see it to completion, ie: published, sort of. At this juncture I have done all I can for it, without help this article dies on it's ragged, thorny vine. I bid you adieu. Missbellanash (talk) 20:29, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Couriano/Decode
editI keep receiving notifications that link from here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:J%C3%A9sk%C3%A9_Couriano/Decode I do not know what the editor expects of me with these "CODED" remarks, none of them address anything I have done or want to do. If they can't communicate in a normal fashion, using English, sans a million links to other sources this appears to be a permanent block. Missbellanash (talk) 05:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- I don't see any reason why that should be the case unless you're completely misinterpreting me replying to unrelated sections on the Articles for Creation Help Desk on your watchlist as messages intended for you. I have not done a deep dive into your sources and thus not needed to point you to /Decode (which largely exists because I do a lot of my editor assistance through IRC, which has strict limits on message size). —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 12:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- I also suggest going to your preferences and disabling email notifications (User profile -> uncheck "Email me when a page or a file on my watchlist is changed"). That should cut down on irrelevant email spam. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 12:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
The massive banners!
edit| Submission declined on 27 August 2021 by Bonadea (talk). This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies. This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
Where to get help
How to improve a draft
You can also browse Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples of Wikipedia's best writing on topics similar to your proposed article. Improving your odds of a speedy review To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags. Editor resources
|  |
| Submission declined on 5 August 2021 by GoingBatty (talk). 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 (see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics). 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. Declined by GoingBatty 2 years ago. | |
Comment: There is some indication that Broussard might meet WP:NMUSIC, but the draft needs to be thoroughly rewritten and almost all the current sources should be removed. Of the current 16 sources, the HITC one and the PRO MOTION Music News one might be useful, and the Billboard source is fine to use to confirm the charting claim, but none of the others seems to meet the sourcing requirements (see the links in the decline notice above and the one from 5 August).In addition, as pointed out by Worldbruce, all external links in the body of the text have to be removed. A few of them might be useful as sources, others (such as all links to YouTube and IMDb) should simply be deleted.Also check the comments in this Teahouse thread, which partly address the promotional tone in the draft. At present, almost every single sentence in the draft has a promotional tone. Note also that Wikipedia articles should not contain "meta" comments such as "Her interview is available at the site here and on YouTube." The way to let the reader know where and what a source is, is by placing a reference to that source as explained here and here. bonadea contributions talk 09:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: External links, ones that take the reader away from Wikipedia, are not allowed in the text. All, such as the link on the word "channel" in "She has a popular YouTube channel", must be removed. Opinion, such as "popular" may not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Tunefind, IMDb, and YouTube are generally unreliable sources. The draft may cite only reliable sources. Worldbruce (talk) 13:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: Please read and digest what ColinFine and I have written at here at the "teahouse". Also, Missbellanash, your comments such as "My draft not yours!" show a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia, and your accusation of "vandalizing other peoples work" shows a fundamental misunderstanding of edits, vandalism, or both. -- Hoary (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: Please provide more independent reliable sources, and resolve your issue with the last paragraph before resubmitting GoingBatty (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Reply (to multiple)
editHey, I hope the tagging works, I have replied to most of this on a different page. @GoingBatty @ColinFine @Hoary @Bonadea @Worldbruce
Thank all of you for the review and suggestions, I appreciate the input. I'm not prepared to do much more work on this, at least this soon. I will return to it and try to incorporate these suggestions. Thank you again! Missbellanash (talk) 01:17, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Replies beneath please...
edit
 Archives (Index) |
|
This page is archived by ClueBot III.
|