Your recent article submission to
Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:
looks like it has been copied and pasted from somewhere?
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:Jan Poolman 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, Wikicluck44!
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!
Theroadislong (
talk)
20:10, 4 April 2024 (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 Velella was:
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.
The comment the reviewer left was:
I am sure that he probably is notable but just not on the evidence provided here. The firts two sources are supposed to confirm that he is "Head of Bacterial Vaccines at Johnson & Johnson" which they do not. In the leded it is claimed that "is a developer and serial inventor of bacterial vaccines." but I struggle to find sources here which say that. Clearly a prolific and senior scientist who probably deserves a place here but the claims need to be matched by the sources which need to be much wider than links to papers he has co-written. It would also help enormously if the references were formatted per Wikipedia's referencing conventiosn so that they can be read by a clickable link.
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:Jan Poolman 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.
As I noted in a review of your
Draft:Jan Poolman, one of the problem is trying to see what the refs actually say. I have structured three of the references into standard Wikipedia standard referencing format.
It would be very helpful if you could complete that task. However, from what little I have seen in the work that I have done, there is very little point in using academic literature as a source if all it does is demonstrate that the subject is an academic - we know that already. For most notable people 4 or 5 good refs will do with additional ones to support potentially contentious items. Acadamic papers, especially when they have more than one author, very rarely perform that function. Regards VelellaVelella Talk 16:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Dear Velella, first of all thanks for your review. I will work on your comments and make the references according to the standard referencing format. Your first comment was that I should show that Poolman is head of bacterial vaccines... and that the 2 references 1 and 2 were not about his function. That I agree with, the references were on the bacterial pathogens E. coli and S. aureus. And when I add linkedin as a source, I get the remark from theroadislong that linkedin and blogs are not accepted as links... Do I need to prove that Poolman is head of bacterial vaccines?
I am new at this field - If I work on it in the current settings and I save my changes with ctrl-enter, it is not being resubmitted isn't it - Or do I have to take it back to my 'sandbox' and work on it there before adjusting my article here?
I will work on a new version, because to my honest opinion this Dutch scientist Poolman is worth a wikipedia page, mainly because he has contributed with his R&D team to eight bacterial vaccines during his period as head of Bacterial Vaccines of GSK, And those vaccines are implemented in most of the national immunization programs and still in use, saving lives every day.
I will check language and references for other scientists with a wikipage and see what is approved and what not.
Once again, I thank you for your review and will resubmit when I am done adjusting the wikipedia page.
Your recent article submission to
Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Mgp28 was:
While there are many references, some paragraphs and sections have none at all. I have added citation needed tags in a few places where I felt statements needed to be supported by a reference.
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:Jan Poolman 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.