Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Chaotic Enby was:
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:Elestor 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, Lstr1!
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! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Lstr1. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being employed (or being compensated in any way) by a person, group, company or organization to promote their interests. Paid advocacy on Wikipedia must be disclosed even if you have not specifically been asked to edit Wikipedia. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.
Paid advocates are strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.
Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Lstr1. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Lstr1|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. AntiDionysius (talk) 14:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I am not directly or indirectly compensated for my edits. I totally understand your policy and I am trying to follow it. All the information in the article is based on external sources and it can be easily checked. If you have any suggestions and see any mistakes in my work, please inform me and I will try my best to improve them.
Hi! On Wikimedia Commons, you marked the Elestor logo you uploaded as "own work", is that accurate? Have you contributed to the logo, and do you know what license it is under? Right now, as it is used as the company's logo, it appears to be a copyright violation here, although an argument can be made that it is under the threshold of originality. Either way, you should accurately disclose the authorship and licensing information if you know them. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chaotic Enby,
I apologize for marking the Elestor logo as "own work" earlier, which was an error on my part. I did not contribute to the creation of the logo. The logo was created by the company's design team, and I am currently in the process of securing formal permission from Elestor to use the logo on this Wikipedia page.
The company will send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, granting explicit permission to use the logo on Wikipedia under the appropriate terms. Once that permission is granted, I will ensure that the logo is correctly attributed and marked with the appropriate licensing information.
In the meantime, if there's anything else I should do, please let me know. If you have any suggestion on the content of the article which I can improve I am open to hear them. Thanks again for bringing this to my attention.
Thanks a lot! Are you part of the company or connected to it to any extent?Just so they know, getting permission to host it on Commons would mean releasing the logo under a Creative Commons license allowing for reuse (including for commercial purposes) with attribution. Depending on the company's goals, an alternative would be to host it locally (on English Wikipedia) as "fair use", which doesn't require it to be released it under any specific license, although that can only be done once the draft is accepted. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying.
I am not directly connected to the company. Regarding the use of the logo, I understand that releasing it under a Creative Commons license would permit reuse, including for commercial purposes, with proper attribution. I will pass on this information to the company so they can make an informed decision.
I hope that soon we both will receive information from them. In the mean time could you check the article and give me your feedback what I can improve (if needed) to be approved on the next Wikipedia check?
The second paragraph is not completely sourced, and the third is only sourced to the company itself – something you would want to avoid for everything but the most basic facts (like when it was created or who its president is). Regarding the awards, if they're not themselves notable and there is no coverage of Elestor getting the award in non-specialist sources, they shouldn't be included (a good rule of thumb is to keep them if they have a page either here or in another Wikipedia edition). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again,
Thank you for the feedback!
I have uploaded my changes, and I would appreciate it if you could review them. Regarding the sources in the first part of the article, I believe they provide sufficient coverage of the needed information. If I have to be extremely precise, I would need to include multiple links after each sentence and duplicate them, as the details are mixed by more than one source, I placed them at the end of the paragraph. Regarding the awards, I have added references for each, and they can be easily verified. I would prefer to keep all the awards listed, if possible, and if it does not conflict with your policies.
Regarding the logo issue, I have received an update from the company, and they have indicated that they do not agree to release the logo under a Creative Commons license. Given this, my only option would be to use the "fair use" approach, correct? Could you please guide me on how to proceed with this? I understand that I need to re-upload the logo again, this time under the "fair use" license, but what are the steps that follow? Additionally, could you confirm what exactly happens with the image when it is uploaded under a "fair use" license?
Thank you in advance for your assistance. I look forward to your feedback and your answers to my questions.
Hi,Regarding the awards, a relevant explanatory essay on our policies is Wikipedia:Independent sources. Something is usually not included in the article just because it can be verified to exist (except for trivial things like a date of birth), but independent secondary coverage is needed.For the logo, "fair use" is indeed the best way to go. Note that the logo should be uploaded to the English Wikipedia and not to Wikimedia Commons. I can help with this (there is some information on how to do it at Wikipedia:Non-free content#Implementation), but that can only be done if the article is already published, as fair use does not apply to drafts. It shouldn't be a worry while waiting for the draft to be reviewed, as not having a logo is not in any way a hurdle for the draft's acceptance.If it is uploaded under a "fair use" license (which technically isn't a different license compared to a regular full copyright), the owner retains all rights to the image, but it is argued that its use in this one specific article fits the legal concept of fair use and is thus allowed. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I am sorry for the late response but now I saw your message. If I understand everything correctly, now everything is fixed and I just have to wait for approval, is that right? When the draft is approved you will help me in uploading the logo.
Sadly, most of your changes were just superficial wording changes that didn't fix the underlying tone issue. The issue isn't which specific words you use, but that a lot of your article reads like it argues for the company rather than just describing it neutrally. For instance, one of your changes did:
−
'''Elestor''' has attractedprominentinvestors,including [[Equinor]], [[Vopak]], and Koolen Industries, alongwith climate-focused [[Investment fund|investment funds]] and government bodies thatsupportsustainabletechnologicaladvancements. These [[Partnership|partnerships]] arehelpingElestorexpanditsoperations and contribute to the energy transition.
+
'''Elestor''' has secured investment from notable entities such as [[Equinor]], [[Vopak]], and Koolen Industries, as well as climate-focused [[Investment fund|investment funds]] and government bodies committed to advancing sustainable technology. These [[Partnership|partnerships]] have facilitated the company's growth and contribution to the global energy transition.
The problem isn't about specific word changes, but that these kinds of descriptions are not encyclopedic to begin with, and appear to still promote the company. The second sentence is vague and not needed, while the first could be shortened to:
−
'''Elestor''' has attractedprominentinvestors,including [[Equinor]], [[Vopak]], andKoolenIndustries,alongwith climate-focused [[Investment fund|investment funds]] and government bodiesthatsupportsustainabletechnologicaladvancements. These[[Partnership|partnerships]]arehelpingElestorexpanditsoperationsandcontributetotheenergytransition.
+
'''Elestor''' has secured investment from [[Equinor]], [[Vopak]], as well as climate-focused [[Investment fund|investment funds]] and government bodies.
Non-notable investors usually don't need to be mentioned, and it would be good to be more precise on which investment funds and government bodies (again, if notable). The best tip is to see whether independent secondary sources report on these investments (currently, none are cited), otherwise it might not be due for the article at all, and the most encyclopedic change would then be:
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:
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.
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:Elestor 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.
I made changes in the tone. Could you please check now? If you still see some mistakes and sentences that have to be adjusted please let me know which exactly and I will do it.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Theroadislong were:
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.
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
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.
The comment the reviewer left was:
You are just telling us what the company wants us to know about the business.
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:Elestor 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.
I made some changes - added new paragraph and many new sources. Could you please check now and let me know more specifically what to improve (if it is still needed), because I am trying to follow the Wikipedia policy but if I don't know what you consider as "promotional" or "not reliable" is really hard to edit my article.
Hi!Usually, sources from the company itself are discouraged, with the exception of very basic facts (who is the CEO, when was the company founded, where are the headquarters located). For everything else, it is better to rely on sources known to not publish paid promotion/advertisements. If you want the gold standard for reliability, well-discussed sources like those highlighted in green at WP:RSP are the way to go, although lesser-known sources might have been discussed in the WP:RSN archives.The best advice is to stick with only what reliable secondary sources with no interest in promoting the company have mentioned, and only use those that directly discuss Elestor (so, no need for tangents about the technologies that are being used, if the sources for that don't talk about Elestor directly). Your draft will likely be way shorter, but of higher quality and with a much, much higher chance of passing AfC.Good luck! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I made some changes. I removed part of the information which is not sourced by independent third party source, I also checked again for promoting words and tried to eliminate/change all words that can be accepted as promoting. I believe that this time the article will be approved!
Please let me know when you review it and give me detailed feedback if any adjustments are needed!
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:
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.
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:Elestor 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.
Could you please let me know what I have to change or delete? I understand and respect your policy, but I don't see what/which part is accepted as advertisement.
I made the changes changes you recommended me. I removed the information which is not sourced by independent third party source. I believe that this time the article will be finally approved!
Please let me know when you review it and give me feedback if any adjustments are still needed!
