 | Review waiting, please be patient.
This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 1,700 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 SafariScribe (talk). This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources. 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. |  |
| Submission declined on 24 July 2024 by LEvalyn (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 LEvalyn 45 days ago. | |
| Submission declined on 21 April 2024 by ToadetteEdit (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 ToadetteEdit 4 months ago. | |
| Submission rejected on 27 July 2023 by S0091 (talk). This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Rejected by S0091 13 months ago. |  |
| Submission declined on 26 July 2023 by Theroadislong (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 Theroadislong 13 months ago. | |
| Submission declined on 24 July 2023 by The4lines (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 The4lines 13 months ago. | |
| Submission declined on 24 July 2023 by DreamRimmer (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 DreamRimmer 13 months ago. | |
Comment: Likely meets WP:NAUTHOR but I can say now because of the promotional tone of the draft and series of unreliable sources, hence my decline. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 02:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: The notability claim here is his authorship of a series of books, but the books themselves have not been shown to be notable. I'm declining because this shouldn't be sitting in the queue for review when it clearly doesn't meet the criteria to be published to mainspace. I considered rejecting it outright (i.e., with no option to resubmit) because it seems unlikely that appropriate sources exist, given that some effort has been made to locate them. But enough books have one review, that it seems plausible a few of them would have two for WP:NBOOK. Do not re-submit until you're highly confident that you have located 2+ WP:RELIABLE, independent published reviews for multiple of these books. Sources like the Guardian, Publishers Weekly, School Library Journal, etc, are good. Store listings, blogs, Goodreads, YouTube, etc, do not qualify. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: The provided sources about Linnet aren't very high quality, and the various awards aren't clearly notable either. But it's possible that Linnet is notable per WP:NAUTHOR if multiple of his books pass WP:NBOOK. I suggest adding book reviews as citations for each of the listed works; each book with 2+ reviews is an NBOOK pass. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: I have added the template to allow for resubmission, did a little work on it but this still needs more work with the prose and sourcing before it should be resubmitted. It appears some content was copied from Sue Hendra, however most of those sources made no mention on Linnet so I removed it. Please only cite sources to which you have access and be sure the source supports the content. S0091 (talk) 18:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Paul Linnet (born 1968) is an English author and illustrator based in Brighton.[1] Along with British author and illustrator Sue Hendra, Linnet has published over 100 children's books.
Linnet is a regular guest at many prestigious International literary festivals, including Edinburgh International Book Festival[2] and the International Literature Festival Dublin.[3]
- ^ "Paul Linnet". Simon & Schuster. Retrieved 7 January 2024.
- ^ "Sue Hendra and Paul Linnet: Supertato - The Origin". Edinburgh International Book Festival. Archived from the original on 24 July 2023. Retrieved 25 July 2023.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
:1was invoked but never defined (see the help page).