Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Cinder painter was:
promotional, should be aligned with Neutrality guidelines
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:Brenda Moore 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.
Hello, J anaya05!
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! Cinder painter (talk) 05:10, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bunnypranav 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:Brenda Moore 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.
The reason that there were no changes since the last decline was that I had spoken with the previous reviewer and explained to him that the submission was in accordance with Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources. He agreed, and told me to go ahead and resubmit it, which I did. Do you want me to give you the explanation I gave him? J anaya05 (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for that, and thanks for letting me know! I have posted a comment regarding this discussion, and resubmitted with you as the author. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping>12:21, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Cabrils was:
Make sure your draft meets one of the criteria above before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If the subject does not meet any of the criteria, it is not suitable for Wikipedia.
The comment the reviewer left was:
Well done on creating the draft, and it may potentially meet the relevant requirements (including WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:NPROF) but presently it is not clear that it does.
As other reviewers have noted, Wikipedia's basic requirement for entry is that the subject is notable. Essentially subjects are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple publishedsecondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. To properly create such a draft page, please see the articles ‘Your First Article’, ‘Referencing for Beginners’ and ‘Easier Referencing for Beginners’.
The image used likely breaches copyright, which Wikipedia takes seriously, so should be removed unless clear evidence of its legal use is provided. If it is indeed the draft's author's "Own work" then the author clearly knows the subject and has a conflict of interest that must be declared (see details below).
To establish notability the draft requires reliable sources about the subject, rather than by the subject.
Additionally, the draft tends to read too much like a promotional CV, which Wikipedia is not; and contains prose that is not of a standard appropriate for an encyclopaedia (also see WP:PEACOCK).
The draft does not appear to show that the subject has any notability beyond the average coverage for similar academics (see WP:ROTM).
Also, if you have any connection to the subject, and given you claim the photograph is our "own work", you clearly do, including being the subject (see WP:AUTOBIO) or being paid, you have a conflict of interest that you must declare on your Talk page (to see instructions on how to do this please click the link).
Please familiarise yourself with these pages before amending the draft. If you feel you can meet these requirements, then please make the necessary amendments before resubmitting the page. It would help our volunteer reviewers by identifying, on the draft's talk page, the WP:THREE best sources that establish notability of the subject.
It would also be helpful if you could please identify with specificity, exactly which criteria you believe the page meets (eg "I think the page now meets WP:NPROF criteria #3, because XXXXX").
Once you have implemented these suggestions, you may also wish to leave a note for me on my talk page and I would be happy to reassess.
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:Brenda Moore 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.
To your point about Moore's notability, she clearly meets at least two of WP:NPROF's criteria for academics, namely criteria 1 and 2. Source 1 calls her an expert of women in the military, source 4 claims she is prominent in her field, and source 8 calls her a leading military sociologist and elaborates on her expertise. Additionally, sources 2, 3, 6, and 8 document her receiving the Morris Janowitz Career Achievement Award from the Inter-University Seminar on Armed Forces & Society, a prominent international academic organization. Furthermore, none of the sources, except for her CV (source #3), were written by her, but rather about her. Finally, the fact that she has been a appointed to a commission by a U.S. President, testified before Congress and the U.S. Department of Defense, and advised the U.S. Secretary of Defense, clearly shows that she is notable beyond the average coverage for similar academics.
Concerning the image used, I had emailed Moore separately both asking for her permission to write her a page and asking for a picture to use. She sent me that picture with the express permission to use it in this page. Because I'm new to Wikipedia, I was a little confused how to classify it, and it seemed to make the most sense to claim it as my own since she'd given me permission to use it. I do not have any connection to the subject, I am not the subject, and I am not being paid by the subject. How exactly would I classify the image? And to do that, would I have to delete and redownload the image?
I understand your concern with the "prose" of parts of the draft, especially in the career and impact sections. However, most of the more promotional language is simply stating what the cited secondary sources say about the individual. I thought that such language was permissible under WP:BLPSTYLE. What would be the best way to shift the tone or content so it seems less promotional?
Also, I would appreciate it if you would review again after any edits are made, that way I don't run into the same problem again with a different reviewer (which is what has happened with the past two reviewers haha).
