 | Review waiting, please be patient.
This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,224 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 9 April 2024 by Velella (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.
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 4 April 2024 by Theroadislong (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 Theroadislong 2 months ago. | |
Comment: Please don't add external links to the body of the draft, we don't use them. Theroadislong (talk) 16:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Content like " Moreover, he learned at an early age that one must work hard to achieve one’s goals and dreams" is absolutely not appropriate for an encyclopaedia, just the dry neutral facts are all that is required, with no embellishment. Theroadislong (talk) 17:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Linkedin.com and blogs are not considered reliable independent sources and we don't us external links in the body of an article. Theroadislong (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: 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. Velella Velella Talk 16:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: ® is not required anywhere. Non neutral tone includes "successful developer" "successfully" "an expert R&D team from scratch and successfully developed" "a prolific inventor" Theroadislong (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: What is repeated mentions of "[brontekst bewerken]" about? Theroadislong (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: looks like it has been copied and pasted from somewhere? Theroadislong (talk) 20:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)