 | Review waiting, please be patient.
This may take a week or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 165 pending submissions waiting for review.
Where to get help
How to improve a draft
You can also browse Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples of Wikipedia's best writing on topics similar to your proposed article. Improving your odds of a speedy review To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags. Editor resources
Reviewer tools
|
| Submission declined on 10 March 2025 by DoubleGrazing (talk). This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.
Where to get help
How to improve a draft
You can also browse Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples of Wikipedia's best writing on topics similar to your proposed article. Improving your odds of a speedy review To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags. Editor resources
This draft has been resubmitted and is currently awaiting re-review. |  |
| Submission declined on 9 January 2025 by SafariScribe (talk). 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: Declined by SafariScribe 5 months ago.
| |
Comment: This is close to acceptable, but in my opinion not quite there yet.Decline reasons:1. NOTABILITYSource analysis:1 This seems a solid source.2-10 Close primary sources11 I've no idea what this is, some sort of content repository?12 Again, not sure what this is, or who's authored it?13 Not fully independent, one of the authors is from SRC14 (See comment below)15-17 Close primary sources (at least in part)18-19 Don't mention the subject at all20-22 Primary sources23 No mention of the subject?24 Difficult to evaluate, as this is a portal to a number of articlesRE #14, it's not entirely clear to me what the relationship of Earth4All is to Earth for All, and whether this source is about one or the other, and if so which one, or both. At least part of the resolution to this ambiguity is making sure that the draft clearly focuses on one, and only one, subject, be it E4A or EfA.In conclusion, #1 is good, but alone not enough; #14 may or may not be relevant; and there could be something in #24 but in that case specific content providing significant coverage of the subject must be clearly cited, it isn't enough to say that la Repubblica "dedicated" its event to E4A.2. LANGUAGEThis reads like it came from the initiative's marketing/comms team, as indeed it evidently did, and by many of the sources being very close to the subject. Wikipedia articles should be composed by summarising what independent and reliable sources have previously published the subject, not made up of what the subject wants to tell the world about itself, as that makes the content (and tone) inherently promotional.The text would also benefit from a rewrite to reduce jargon and buzzspeak, to make it more accessible to a non-expert reader.-- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:04, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: Note to reviewers: I believe this is notable enough for acceptance. Recusing myself from accepting as I helped the user in #wikipedia-en-help and there is a (now declared) COI, so a second set of eyes would be useful. qcne (talk) 11:00, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
Earth4All is an initiative launched in 2022 that promotes economic systems change to achieve sustainable development and social equity within planetary boundaries.[1][2][3] The project builds upon the legacy of The Limits to Growth report from 1972 and is convened by the Club of Rome, the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, the Stockholm Resilience Centre and the BI Norwegian Business School. Earth4All is also the name of the computer model used in the initiative's research, while the initiative's primary publication is titled Earth for All: A Survival Guide for Humanity.
- ^ Jessop, Simon (September 5, 2022). "Tackling inequality key to climate fight - study". Reuters. Retrieved 9 January 2025.
- ^ "Report says rich must pay bill to avert social collapse". AP News. 2022-08-31. Retrieved 2025-03-12.
- ^ "Studie: Reiche sollten Steuern für das Klima zahlen – DW – 30.08.2022". dw.com (in German). Retrieved 2025-03-12.
© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search
- in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
- reliable
- secondary
- independent of 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.