 | Review waiting, please be patient.
This may take 4 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,202 pending submissions waiting for review.
Where to get help
How to improve a draft
You can also browse Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples of Wikipedia's best writing on topics similar to your proposed article. Improving your odds of a speedy review To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags. Editor resources
Reviewer tools
|
Submission declined on 16 November 2023 by Cabrils (talk).
Where to get help
How to improve a draft
You can also browse Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples of Wikipedia's best writing on topics similar to your proposed article. Improving your odds of a speedy review To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags. Editor resources
This draft has been resubmitted and is currently awaiting re-review. |  |
| Submission declined on 15 November 2023 by Significa liberdade (talk). This submission appears to be taken from https://researchprofiles.canberra.edu.au/en/persons/michael-de-percy. Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere, unless it explicitly and verifiably has been released to the world under a suitably free and compatible copyright license or into the public domain and is written in an acceptable tone—this includes material that you own the copyright to. You should attribute the content of a draft to outside sources, using citations, but copying and pasting or closely paraphrasing sources is not acceptable. The entire draft should be written using your own words and structure. Declined by Significa liberdade 7 months ago.
| |
| Submission declined on 14 November 2023 by Hoary (talk). This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia. Declined by Hoary 7 months ago. | |
| Submission declined on 13 November 2023 by Vanderwaalforces (talk). This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia. This submission appears to be taken from https://www.politicalscience.com.au/p/my-publications.html. Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere, unless it explicitly and verifiably has been released to the world under a suitably free and compatible copyright license or into the public domain and is written in an acceptable tone—this includes material that you own the copyright to. You should attribute the content of a draft to outside sources, using citations, but copying and pasting or closely paraphrasing sources is not acceptable. The entire draft should be written using your own words and structure. Declined by Vanderwaalforces 7 months ago.
| |
Comment: 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 many of the references are not to reliable sources. References (and content generally) should be about quality not quantity. Additionally, the draft tends to read too much like a CV, which Wikipedia is not. Also, if you have any connection to the subject, including 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. You may also wish to leave a note for me on my talk page and I would be happy to reassess. Cabrils (talk) 03:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: We read that "His research focuses on transport, telecommunications, and energy policy, leadership, and institutional stasis and change." Well then, what have other scholars in these areas -- scholars independent of him, not having done their doctoral dissertations under him, and working in other universities -- said (in formal reviews, etc, not mere blurbs) about his research, and about the fruits of this research? What have journalists for serious newspapers written about him or his work? Hoary (talk) 01:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: The entire Publications section is triggering copyvio from https://www.politicalscience.com.au/p/my-publications.html. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Michael de Percy (b. 1970)[1] is a political scientist and a conservative political commentator. He writes for The Spectator Australia and appears on Spectator Australia TV. He is a political scientist by profession and completed his PhD at the Australian National University.[2] Dr de Percy is a supporter of nuclear energy in Australia[3] and has been a critic of light rail[4] and high density housing in Canberra.[5] In his academic work, de Percy is noted for developing a theoretical model of path dependent, punctuated equilibrium used for process tracing in political science research.[6][7][8][9] He is currently Senior Lecturer in Political Science in the School of Politics, Economics and Society at the University of Canberra.[10] He is recognised as a public policy expert,[11][12] particularly in the fields of transport,[13] telecommunications,[14][15][16] and energy policy.[17][18] He was recognised as an expert of international standing by his appointment to the Australian Research Council's College of Experts in 2022.[19][20][21]
- 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.