Hi Annh07, I'm quite new here so I need to check how to undo it. The cluster itself is also cited in the German Wikipedia and on the German Page of the KIT. On google scholar you can already find about 300 publications related to the cluster and there is also a webpage of it showing that it is associated to KIT. 3DmicroPrintExpert (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi 3DmicroPrintExpert. Looks like you restored the content and added sources to it. Citing sources is very important, it helps verify the information you have provided. Learn more about WP:VERIFY and WP:RELIABLE, it will help you understand how to contribute content to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Annh07 (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for your contributions to Nanoscribe. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it is promotional and reads like an advertisement and you may have a possible Conflict of Interest.
I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.
Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Broc (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi Broc,
thank you for your comment and concerns. As I stated on my profile, I am a chemist working in the 3D printing field in academia. I wrote this article because I have prior experience with Nanoscribe's technology and am impressed by its capabilities. I believe one needs to be an expert in this field to properly assess the significance of such technology. Despite my familiarity with Nanoscribe's technology, I strive to maintain a neutral viewpoint, having also worked with other devices in the past. As a German, I utilize both the German and English Wikipedia platforms. I noticed the absence of an English Nanoscribe Wikipedia page, prompting me to seize the opportunity to create one. Given the effort I invested in this article, I would appreciate your assistance in adhering to the guidelines more effectively:
Could you please clarify your statement regarding copyright concerns? I have made efforts to cite sources thoroughly, often utilizing multiple sources for reference. I have consulted the guidelines regarding sourcing and have endeavored to include external sources wherever possible. Additionally, I have only referenced a handful of sources from Nanoscribe's website, opting for approximately 40 sources from other reputable pages. Clarification on this matter would not only assist me in editing this article but would also benefit my future contributions, as I plan to continue contributing to articles related to technology in the 3D printing field.
Thanks for the reply! From the way the page is written, it reads like an advertisement and that's the reason why I moved it to the draft space; I do not have any copyright concerns. For instance, statements such as "is the global market and technology leader in microscale 3D printing", supported by two press releases from the company itself, is a merely promotional statement. Please make sure to support your statements with reliable sources (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources). Press releases are not reliable sources independent of the subject; they can be used on a Wikipedia page but claims such as "being market leader" should be recognized by a third party.
This was just one example, the whole article has similar problems. The page is now in the draft space, you can work on it and submit it for review once you think it is written from a neutral point of view and uses reliable, independent sources. If you want me to review the page once it's submitted, just ping me (using {{ping}}) on your talk page and I will have a look. Otherwise you can wait for another editor to review it. Broc (talk) 08:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Broc I have revised the introduction to maintain a neutral tone. Additionally, I sought alternative sources beyond the press releases mentioned, discovering an ebook discussing various companies in the 3D printing field, which I believe provides valuable insights. Furthermore, I came across an interview featuring a project leader from another company discussing their prominence, although I have refrained from using the term 'market leader.' Additionally, I have rewritten the 'Industrial mastering' section to maintain neutrality. Even after reading the article again I think the rest of it was already from a neutral point of view. Thanks for checking again for me! 3DmicroPrintExpert (talk) 14:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
If you want an official review, you'll have to press the button "Submit the draft for review!" on the page.
I added a few tags in the lead section so you can better understand the issues I see. You should generally avoid puffery, i.e. avoid terms like "significant", "notable", "prestigious" and so on.
If you claim that there are "more than 4,000 users", the statement should be supported by an independent source. If you don't have an independent source, you could rewrite the sentence, for axample, as "the company states it has more than 4,000 users". In this case using the company website as source would be perfectly acceptable. I hope this helps. Broc (talk) 10:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Broc Thank you for your advice! I understood if I got sources that indicate they are the market leader, I could write something like "a significant role." So do I understand it correctly that there shouldn't be positive connotations even when there are sources for it? I removed it anyway and submitted the draft again. 3DmicroPrintExpert (talk) 15:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
If a reliable, independent source states the company is market leader, you can add it to the page. The source you quote is a press release from a company that signed a distribution agreement with Nanoscribe, not exactly an independent source :) Hope it's clear now. Broc (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi @Broc, I was wondering if you could review the article for me, even though you said you wanted to give me the opportunity to get another opinion. Or if you know anyone in the Wikipedia community in my field who could volunteer for the task? With the number of drafts growing, I'm a little worried that no one will review it. 3DmicroPrintExpert (talk) 06:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments1 person in discussion
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:
The article still reads like an advertisement for the company. It was apparently translated from de:Nanoscribe, which was created by a user called "Nanoscribe", presumably an employee of the company. It seems suspicious that I've been asked on my talk page to push this article through AFC by the submitter, and the article does not sound like it was written by someone who just documenting the company rather than promoting it. Comparing against Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), notability seems borderline. Most of the citations are to trivial references or material produced by the company. -- Beland (talk) 14:14, 7 June 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.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Nanoscribe 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.