Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by SafariScribe were:
The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Architecture + Women NZ. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.
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, Architectureicecream!
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! Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!05:34, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Hoary were:
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.
"Architectural practitioner" is somewhat opaque, but I take it to mean "architect". If she is, or has been, an architect, then call her an architect, and say more about the buildings or interiors or whatever that she has designed, summarized from what has been published about her work in reliable sources that are independent of her. But the impression I get from this draft is that she's primarily a teacher. If so, make this clear.
Being "involved" or "instrumental" in such and such is (deliberately?) uninformative. What did she do for or during these events?
Being on a jury, being included in an article: please cut such trivia.
Please write to inform, not to impress. Example of the latter: "interdisciplinary entity for creative research and design endeavours with aligned collaborators". Are "research and design endeavours" failed attempts to research and design. If it has actually researched and designed, cut the "endeavours"? If "entity" means something other than "firm" or "company", say so. "Aligned" with what? (Merely with each other? If they weren't, they couldn't collaborate.)
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.
