Content deleted Content added
Dale Chock (talk | contribs) →Response to peer review request: new section |
→Response to peer review request: agreed |
||
Line 15:
Hi. Sorry not to have logged in for so long. I am responding to your review request posted almost one month ago. I did not read your article, only skimmed it. I am sorry to say that it being written as a scientific research report, it is totally improper for Wikipedia. It goes against Wikipedia's mission and policies, specifically [[WP:OR]]. One other editor, "Wilhelmina Will", said tersely "reviewed", yet I find nowhere, not on your user talk page, not at your article, where Wilhelmina wrote a single word about it. [[User:Dale Chock|Dale Chock]] ([[User talk:Dale Chock|talk]]) 07:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
:I have to agree. The article seems to have some good information and be a good idea, but it's main purpose unfortunately is to make a point or propose a new idea. It's more of an essay or research paper than an encyclopedia article. It needs to be thoroughly rewritten to comply with the [[WP:NPOV|Neutral point of view]] and [[WP:NOR|No original research]] policies. Thank you for your efforts, but it will take some more to remain part of Wikipedia. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Taxman|Talk]]</small></sup> 04:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
| |||