|
If you have a general question it may be quicker to ask at the Wikipedia:Teahouse or Click this to start a New Question here |
|
AfC Drafts NOTE: To be fair to all submitters I do not review/re-review on request, I just pick new and old submissions at random... Current Backlog: 1,705 pending submissions |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Hello KylieTastic,
Thank you for reviewing my draft, [Draft:SearchUnify], and for your helpful feedback regarding the need for more reliable, independent, and in-depth sources. I appreciate your guidance and want to ensure the draft meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria.
To improve the article, I’d like to ask for your advice on the following:
- Are there any specific issues with the existing references that I should address (e.g., reliability, depth, or independence)?
- What types of sources or examples would best establish the subject’s notability in this case?
Your insights would be incredibly helpful as I work on revising the draft. Thank you for your time and assistance!
Best regards, NitulSharma10 (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi NitulSharma10, all new articles on Wikipedia have to show the subject is notable (See WP:N) which in most cases requires significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) in multiple independent (WP:INDY) reliable sources (WP:RS). Your fist source does not appear to mention the subject, the second and third are basic listing for awards that are also just one in many. The stevie awards look more like PR and I note Stevie Awards was deleted last year as not notable. Further to showing notability the rest of the content also needs to be sourced, most isn't. The content needs to match the sources not editorialise: for instance your article says "SearchUnifyGPT received a silver Stevie® award for technology excellence in the 2024 Stevie® Awards" but the source says Accela won a Gold award for "Best Use of Technology in Customer Service" using SearchUnify, and the source has no other hits for SearchUnify or "technology excellence". Lastly it does not read like an encyclopedic article but company marketing (brief history, product list and look we got some awards), which is not surprising as you have declared a COI. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- @KylieTastic, Thank you for your detailed feedback on the draft. I now better understand the issues regarding notability, sourcing, and tone. I will work on replacing weak sources with independent, in-depth, and reliable references and revising the content to align with Wikipedia’s neutrality and encyclopedic standards.
- If I have further questions while revising, I hope it’s okay to reach out again. Your guidance has been very helpful!
- Best regards,
- NitulSharma10 (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- NitulSharma10 happy to help point you in the right direction.... do note the link on your talk page to the Wikipedia:Teahouse as there you can get help from lots of experienced editors and admins. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)