Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 April 13
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < April 12 | << Mar | April | May >> | April 14 > |
| Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages. |
April 13
edit14:53:44, 13 April 2019 review of submission by Krutika Samnani
edit
This time my draft was good enough with the article supporting content, then why did it got rejected?
Krutika Samnani (talk) 14:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- Krutika Samnani, To meet our criteria you need
- significant coverage (paragraphs or a whole article)
- from multiple,
- independent (not paid, press release, company site, etc)
- reliable sources. (big newspaper or similar publisher with good editors)
- Right now, the only one that qualifies is the newspaper article. You'd usually want at least three. Alpha3031 (t • c) 17:13, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
My AfC submission was rejected because it did not meet the notability guideline for organizations. I claim that the news articles in The Atlantic and The Ringer establish notability because they provide significant coverage of the organization, are secondary sources, are independent of the organization, and are reliable. In particular, even though the Ringer article doesn't only discuss CS+Social Good, it "is more than a trivial mention." What gives?
Qzekrom 💬 theythem 22:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Qzekrom. Your question "What gives?" is best directed to the individual reviewer. My own observation is that the bulk of any article should be based on arms-length sources. The Atlantic and The Ringer are indepenent, and you make a good argument for them satisfying the notability criteria for organizations, but not much of the article's content comes from them. Most of it comes from the organization, the university, and the student newspaper (which some reviewers will discount because it's written by people still learning the trade of journalism).
- Try to squeeze more out of The Atlantic and The Ringer, rather than placing them in a "Futher reading" section and leaving the effort to the reader. That section is intended for publications that were not used to build the article content, but which editors still recommend. This may seem like a cheap trick, but link The Ringer in the citation. It's a new source that many reviewers will never have encountered before. Make it easy for them to see that it's legit.
- Try to replace non-independent sources with more-independent sources, the organization with the student newspaper, for example, notwithstanding its own weaknesses. You might be able to use this article. It's another student newspaper, doesn't say much about CS + Social Good, and may get what it says a bit wrong, but it shows that the organization has had an effect on the course offerings of another university. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)