User talk:MoonBeach2025

This is MoonBeach2025'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: David Jarvis (June 17)

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

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please rewrite or remove all content written in a promotional tone and remove the many unnecessary references. I don't think describing each paper or project in detail is due weight; for instance, the "European team that worked on 3D printing of metallic alloys" is only cited to primary sources, and thus should not be included unless mentioned in secondary sources as well.

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:David Jarvis 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.

Toadspike [Talk] 16:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MoonBeach2025! 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! Toadspike [Talk] 16:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

COI disclosure

For transparency and good order, this is a COI disclosure: I am drafting an initial BLP text about David Jarvis (myself) and I have adjusted the text as a neutrally-toned starting point, based on available verifiable public-domain facts, existing research papers, published patents, public news sources (BBC etc) and independent websites (ESA, ESF etc), and avoiding any 'peacock' terminology that might sound biased or promotional. Independent editors are encouraged to review and improve the content for accuracy and neutrality. Thanks. MoonBeach2025 (talk) 12:08, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: David Jarvis (June 18)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Ldm1954 were:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs to

meet any of the eight academic-specific criteria
or cite multiple reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject, which cover the subject in some depth

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.

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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

You need to realize that these pages are often reviewed by notable academics. They are not going to be impressed by a long list of claims. These are WP:Peacock, and this article is full of puffery and WP:REFBOMBING. Cut the research description to 1/4 of what it is, add his Google Scholar profile. Whether he will pass WP:NPROF is unclear.

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:David Jarvis 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.

Ldm1954 (talk) 12:24, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: David Jarvis (June 26)

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:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs to

meet any of the eight academic-specific criteria
or cite multiple reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject, which cover the subject in some depth

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 published secondary 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’. Please note that notability is established by reliable sources about the subject, not by the subject. Please note that many of the references would appear to be from sources that are NOT considered reliable for establishing notability and should be removed (including blogs, company websites, press releases, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, Spotify etc). Please note that many of the references are not formatted correctly (see Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor and Wikipedia’s Manual of Style for help). 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). Also, thank you for declaring your conflict of interest, that you are David Jarvis (see WP:AUTOBIO). 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:David Jarvis 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.

Cabrils (talk) 05:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]