Cannabis Ruderalis

Prior decline due to references

[edit]

This has been re-submitted with further references, however comparing it to similar Wiki pages for similar aged distilleries around the world, this article has more than enough independent references. There are quite a few references to the Overeem page itself, however these are just related to product range, not subjective opinion.

There are references to established industry media (magainzes, blogs, awards, books) as well as non-industry media - all indepedent. Abbaskip (talk) 08:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a poor idea to use other articles as a model or example, as those too could be inappropriate and just not addressed yet by a volunteer. There are many ways to get inappropriate articles past us, we can only address what we know about. If you want to help us, you can identify these other articles you have seen so action can be taken. We need the help. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles, which have received community vetting. 331dot (talk) 08:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be great to get further feedback on what aspects this article hasn't passed. Whilst there are references to the company's own page, and also references to articles/award pages simply mentioning Overeem (both of which I understand mean the page subject doesn't meet the criteria), there are also indepedent references to industry articles and blogs that certainly do meet the critiera (independent, focused entirely on the subject etc). Abbaskip (talk) 08:30, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can count at least five references that are in depth (primarily about Overeem Whisky), Independent, Reliable and Secondary. There are several others that meet 3 of the 4 criteria (where the subject isn't entirely Overeem). I feel like this is being denied due to the editors not being aware of the brand themselves, and the plethora of references provided (including many which aren't indepedent, for objective matters such as range) Abbaskip (talk) 08:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs are generally not acceptable sources, unless they have fact checking and other editorial controls(like an editor reviewing content before it is posted). 331dot (talk) 08:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments left by AfC reviewers

[edit]
  • Comment: In all the editing you are doing , please do not lose sight of the answer to the key question "Why is this topic notable in a Wikipedia sense?"
    When you answer that question, make it stand out in the article, with citation. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leave a Reply