User talk:Fedeflute

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Tamingimpala was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject

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.

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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ingrid Carbone and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Ingrid Carbone, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Tame (talk) 08:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fedeflute! Having an article 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! Tame (talk) 08:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Tamingimpala:, I’m glad that you have been very fast about reviewing my draft for Ingrid Carbone’s page. As you suggested, I will also ask some help in the Teahouse. Anyway, such as you have been the one that already read the page, I would like to ask you some questions.

For the notability of the page, I followed the guidelines for musicians and I thought that there were enough reasons to create it. In fact, as I underlined, she and her work have received independent international reviews, such as Pizzicato magazine and Belgian magazine Klassiek Centraal.

Speaking about the point no. 12 of notability guidelines, she has been interviewed or has been the subject of radio program of the Swiss national radio in Italian RSI Rete Due (ReteDueCinque program) and the Italian national radio Rai Radio 3 (Primo Movimento and Piazza Verdi programs)

At the same time, she has been awarded in the 2015, 2016 and 2017 editions of the IBLA International Competition with the Scarlatti Special Mention and the Piano Special Mention.

In 2021 her last cd has been nominated by the International Classical Music Awards, the music awards sustained by many important music magazines and public institutions, such as the MDR Kultur (Germany). In the same nomination we could find Beatrice Rana, Maurizio Pollini and the Berliner Philarmoniker Orchestra. In fact, this is the main reason for my submission.

Please, could you tell me constructive feedback to improve the page and, hopefully, to make it published? Thank you very much in advance! --Fedeflute (talk) 13:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fedeflute, Hi. Hope you're doing well. Looking back at your draft again, I noticed even bigger problems than the notability established. The draft needs to rewritten to comply with Wikipedia's encyclopedic tone. Please see: Wikipedia:Writing better articles. The lead is a single line. There are poor grammatical use, lot of original research. Unsourced materials. For example, the entire early life and education section is unsourced. At wikipedia, we do not accept statements without proper sourcing. And also it has NPOV issues. Some lines are not suitable for a neutral encyclopedic entry. The draft currently reads like an essay. There are use of puffery sentencing and wording to promote the subject. For example, in the Critics section: "Among the most prestigious, we find the Belgian magazine Klassiek Centraal which awards her five stars and where Ludwig van Mechelen says about her in 2020." That doesn't by any means read like an encyclopedic statement. There are problems in the discography section (unconventionally written). There are problems with punctuations, for example you used ":" a lot, which were unnecessary. I thank you for your efforts to contribute on the wiki and making it better, but unfortunately, I or no other reviewer can accept the draft at its current form. You need to make substantial amount of changes before re-submitting it again. I recommend requesting editors from teahouse to help you out. Have a great day! -- Tame (talk) 13:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.