User talk:Prietom
Your submission at Articles for creation
[edit]
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Paul Davis + Partners.
- To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the
- Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 19:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Paul Davis + Partners page
[edit]Dear Excirial,
I wonder if you could expand on why my page on Paul Davis + Partners was declined submission. You said that it was written like an advertisement, and I am assuming because you believe I do not had a neutral point of view. Could you please let me know what I should do in order to get this submitted, as I am writing about the company for a friend, and thought that it seemed to be quite similar to other architectural practice wikipedia pages? I looked at the other pages first in order to get an idea of the style of writing.
I appreciate any advice you can give me.
Thanks, Prietom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prietom (talk • contribs) 15:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hiyas there Prietom,
- The problem is that the article itself contains a lot of non-neutral wording, also called peacock terms. Also the entirely itself is promotional, since it mainly seems to sum up how great the company is. For example:
- is a strong international London based architectural practice known for skillful integration (Subjective wording and conclusions)
- Paul Davis + Partners' approach to sustainability encompasses high quality design and sound environmental principles for the mutual benefit of clients, society and the environment as a whole (More subjective wording, and the line on its own reads like a marketing brochure).
- Besides this the article needs more reliable sources to verify the content that has been written. In that case, the more reliable sources, the better. For example, have a look at the sourcing of Kelihos botnet, an article i wrote some time ago. Note that this article might actually have an extreme amount of sourcing for its length, but literally everything line can be verified in a reliable source. If you need an example to model your article after, i would always suggest to use an article which is marked as a good article. Good article's are checked before being promoted, thus you can be certain that you are using a decent example. Also, unlike features article's which are the best of the best, Good article's tend to be somewhat smaller and easier to read and dissect.
- Hope this helps, and with kind regards, Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 17:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation
[edit]- If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Paul Davis + Partners.
- To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the
- Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 12:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hello! Prietom,
you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us!
|
I, and the rest of the hosts, would be more than happy to answer any questions you have! SarahStierch (talk) 18:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation
[edit]- If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Paul Davis + Partners.
- To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the
- Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! GregJackP Boomer! 03:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)