User talk:Wmoore888y

This is Wmoore888y's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Robert I. Misbin (November 27)

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

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.

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:Robert I. Misbin 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.

Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 04:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wmoore888y! 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! Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 04:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article Robert I. Misbin

Hello Wmoore888y. I've edited your draft article Draft:Robert I. Misbin to remove the <nowiki> tags that were surrounding the references. That tag renders anything inside it as plaintext, which is not ideal for references -- it was stopping them from rendering as they usually do. That change has also allowed the reference list at the bottom of the article to generate automatically as usual.

I agree with you that the rejection message you got through the "Articles for Creation" process was not very helpful. Nevertheless, there are in my opinion many things that could be improved in your draft. I hope you don't mind if I list some of them here.

There are some statements in the article that have one or more references, none of which actually provide evidence for the statement.
- For example, the claim that "Misbin was born in Brooklyn March 20, 1947" has 3 references, but none of them mention his birth-date or -place.
Some claims in the article are what we would call original research.
- For example the claim that Misbin "is especially interested in terminal care issues" is supported by a reference to the paper "Physicians' Aid in Dying" written by Misbin. We can deduce from this that Misbin is interested in terminal care issues, but Wikipedia is not the place for writing about things we can deduce. The criteria for inclusion in a Wikipedia article is that an independent, secondary source has written about it. So, for example, if a newspaper articie on Misbin stated that he has a particular interest in terminal care issues, then his Wikipedia article could also say it.
- Another example, the statement "Dr. Misbin’s unheeded warning...led to an expose in TIME magazine" -- the referenced Time article does not state that it was written due to Misbin's warning, nor (as far as I can tell) that his warning was unheeded.
Some statements in the article are verging on puffery. This is tempting when you are writing an article on a subject that you admire. But it is against the style guidelines on Wikipedia. Besides, there is no need for it -- facts can speak for themselves.

I hope that is helpful. You might look at the Manual of Style, particularly Words to Watch, for more information. GanzKnusper (talk) 15:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a postscript caveat, there are exceptions to many of the guidelines I have mentioned. For example, not every claim has to be cited -- see this guideline about not citing that the sky is blue. But articles about living people tend to be held quite strictly to the guidelines. GanzKnusper (talk) 15:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]