Submission declined on 23 October 2024 by SafariScribe (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
Once you save your changes using the "Publish changes" button below, you will be able to resubmit your draft for review by pressing the "Resubmit" button that will appear here. |  |
| Submission declined on 4 September 2024 by OhHaiMark (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. Declined by OhHaiMark 2 months ago. | |
| Submission declined on 31 August 2024 by Utopes (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. Declined by Utopes 2 months ago. | |
| Submission declined on 28 September 2023 by Jamiebuba (talk). This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies. Declined by Jamiebuba 13 months ago. | |
Comment: You enquired on SafariScribe's user talk page about their review. I left you some things to check for there. For your convenience I am placing them here, slightly reworded for this location:Before resubmit for further review please double check that:* Each of your 64 references is about the subject of the draft* Each of your 64 references is significant ccoverage of the subject of the draft* Each of your 64 references is independent of the subject of the draft* Each of your 64 references is in a reliable sourceOnce you have done that please simply resubmit. Please do not resubmit prior to making these checks, and please make any edits required prior to resubmission 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: The draft doesn't meet WP:ORG. The sources doesn't meet the criteria especially when they only support the fact they are supporting, eg.
The foundation was formed in the aftermath of the disputed presidential election held on August 9, 2020, in Belarus, where the election results were contested as Alexander Lukashenko remained in power
should be referenced with sources talking about the foundation along the case. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 19:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: It's still written in a promotional tone. Please remove anything even remotely not connected to a source. OhHaiMark (talk) 20:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: I do believe the subject is notable, and I do commend you for the work you've put in thus far. Here is a non-exhaustive snippet of sentences I have NPOV concern with:"The BSSF operates with a primary mission to extend legal... to safeguard the rights of these athletes": The mission statement can be trimmed down, if it gets mentioned at all. See: WP:MISSION (not policy, but WP:NPOV is.)"In April 2022, the Lukashenko regime took the contentious step of designating the BSSF as an extremist organization": The source doesn't work. I am admittedly not familiar with Lukashenko, but in any situation without a source to demonstrate contentiousness, it should not be included. It's probably fine enough to say something like: "The Lukashenko regime labeled the BSSF as an extremist organization. {cite 1}. This action was seen as contentious by [people]. {cite 2}.""In light of gross violations of athletes and civilians' rights": Reuters did not use the word "gross"; this is editorializing. While human rights violations are certainly gross, the readers will be able to ascertain that on their own, without the phrasing."In these deliberations, the BSSF acts as an expert and a representative of the Belarusian sporting community.": No source on this one. How does one "act like an expert"? Why not "the BSSF acts as a representative for Belarusian sports", what exactly is it they do there?"the BSSF pioneered the establishment of a precedent by crafting criteria": "Pioneered" is WP:PEACOCK and "crafted" is also on the side of puffery. This whole bit can be translated as: "the BSSF set criteria." I'm in agreement that the BSSF may have been responsible for the creation of a longterm precedent re: participation of Belarusian and Russian athletes, but each sentence of Wikipedia articles should be derived from exactly what is included in the references. The next sentence talks about how the practice has been widely adopted, which is good.There's a lot more of this in the High Profile Cases section. In addition to the above, and the examples on my talk page, these should be reworded as appropriate, or trimmed to match what the reliable sources say about the BSSF. Let me know if you have any questions, thanks again for your patience, and good luck with the further improvements. Utopes (talk / cont) 13:02, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Per my talkpage comments. Many aspects of the draft are promotionally worded, especially in the Impact and Recognition and High Profile Cases. What are the criteria that makes a case "high profile"?The draft at this time does a significant amount of editorializing. While it's generally a good idea to talk about achievements of an organization, as these often are inextricably tied to a topic's notability, this should be done so neutrally. At this time, to me it feels the article is painting the idea that "BSSF is the hero who saved sports". While this may or may not be the case, the facts should speak for themselves. In the lead for instance, instead of saying why the BSSF is notable (per MOS:LEAD), it talks about BSSF's mission statement. Please ensure this, and the rest of the article, is written according to the neutral point of view policy. Utopes (talk / cont) 12:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Please remove external links from the body of the article. Utopes (talk / cont) 14:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Please remove any unsourced information and also remove the mission and focus section. Jamiebuba (talk) 15:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 | |
| Founded | August 2020 |
|---|---|
| Founder | Aliaksandr Apeikin |
| Type | Non-profit organization |
| Location | |
| Website | https://bssf.eu/en/ |
Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox organization with unknown parameter "facebook"
The Belarusian Sport Solidarity Foundation (BSSF) is a non-profit organization registered in Tallinn, Estonia. It was founded in 2020 by Aliaksandr Apeikin. The organization's primary mission is to protect athletes' rights against discrimination, and to promote human rights, freedom, and democratic values through sport, while providing multilateral support to athletes and sports functionaries.
- in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
- reliable
- secondary
- strictly independent of the subject
Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.