 | Review waiting, please be patient.
This may take 6 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 1,157 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 29 August 2024 by DoubleGrazing (talk). 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.
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. |  |
Comment: I have declined this for the informal tone ("We pick up the story of Alfred Tucker in early 1881, when he was 25 years old."
, etc.), but there are a number of other issues that also need addressing.The structure is monolithic, and largely chronological. For clarity and accessibility reasons it would be better to instead divide the content into sections, such as 'Early life', 'Career', 'Legacy', etc. After all, you are trying to write an encyclopaedia article, not a biographical narrative. The first, or 'lead', section should briefly introduce the subject, set the context, and explain why the subject is notable.Speaking of notability, it isn't clear what makes this person worthy of inclusion in a global encyclopaedia. Merely having existed is not enough, we need to see something in terms of impact or legacy, as well as significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources, either modern or contemporaneous.I would also recommend condensing this by concentrating on the most significant facts only, especially those that make him notable, rather than providing a comprehensive log of everything he ever did; the 'less is more' approach, if you will.Hope this helps, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
