Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Tagishsimon was:
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 passing mentions about the subject)
Make sure you add references that meet 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:
It's not clear that anyone thinks this book is notable. Most of the refs are to the author. Where are the review refs?
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.
Hello! This is an academic book that has different standards for notability than other types of books. I followed the guidelines for "Academic and technical books" (see below), and based on these guidelines, this book meets the standards for notability.
I have made edits to include over a dozen additional secondary references from sources that are independent of the book's author. These include references to textbooks, other academic books, and papers from other fields (e.g., neuroscience, education, economics) that use work featured in the book.
This is a highly specialized academic book, so I used those guidelines for notability per the "Academic and technical books" section of this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(books). The book was published in Routledge's Scientific Psychology series, which is a prestigious series that includes books by well-known and respected figures in mathematical psychology, such as Duncan Luce and Louis Narens. Books in this series normally undergo multiple levels of peer review. The audience for this book is relatively narrow, as mathematical psychology is not a large field. As a tenured professor in Experimental Psychology, I believe it to be an important contribution and have used Chapters from the book in my graduate seminar in Cognitive Psychology.
Please also note that while many of the original references are connected to the book's author, they are all from peer-reviewed journals and thus have undergone review by other experts in the field. These references are not independent of the subject, but they are in-depth and reliable, and they are important to demonstrating how the work in the book has been scientifically validated. Cd634011 (talk) 03:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Cd634011!
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! Tagishsimon (talk) 00:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Stuartyeates was:
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 passing mentions about the subject)
Make sure you add references that meet 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:
Not clear that this book is notable. Not widely held (per worldcat). Not widely cited (per google scholar). There are many refs, but most of those that I actually checked didn't cover the book in depth.
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.
Hello! This is now the second time this article has been rejected. This is an academic book that has different standards for notability than other types of books. I followed the guidelines for "Academic and technical books" (see below), and based on these guidelines, this book meets the standards for notability.
I have made edits to include over a dozen additional secondary references from sources that are independent of the book's author. These include references to textbooks, other academic books, and papers from other fields (e.g., neuroscience, education, economics) that use work featured in the book.
This is a highly specialized academic book, so I used those guidelines for notability per the "Academic and technical books" section of this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(books). The book was published in Routledge's Scientific Psychology series, which is a prestigious series that includes books by well-known and respected figures in mathematical psychology, such as Duncan Luce and Louis Narens. Books in this series normally undergo multiple levels of peer review. The audience for this book is relatively narrow, as mathematical psychology is not a large field. As a tenured professor in Experimental Psychology, I believe it to be an important contribution and have used Chapters from the book in my graduate seminar in Cognitive Psychology.
Please also note that while many of the original references are connected to the book's author, they are all from peer-reviewed journals and thus have undergone review by other experts in the field. These references are not independent of the subject, but they are in-depth and reliable, and they are important to demonstrating how the work in the book has been scientifically validated. Cd634011 (talk) 03:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Beland was:
This draft hasn't changed much in terms of sources that establish notability since the last time it was declined. If GIST and GRIT are notable, it might be more worthwhile to write articles about those that use this book (among other publications) as a citation, rather than writing an entire article about this book. -- Beland (talk) 04:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
