User talk:Chapel16

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by CSMention269 were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

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:Memory wheels 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.
• 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.

☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(😐 ● 🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 13:17, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I’m a little confused on how my article doesn’t have “reliable” sources. I’ve cited numerous times Frances Yates to substantiate what’s summarised as well as other scholars. I have also explicated multiple times inside the article “according to x”. On the question of “is an essay”, I find it unproductive to label it as so, I consider to have written about this topic from a neutral POV. I would like clarification on this subject and to be directed to which sections you believe to not be neutral as I’ve had this comment 3 times now without any further elaboration on the part of the reviewer except for “the tone is too descriptive” whicu is criticising the article for... describing things? I believe that’s the point of an encyclopaedic article. I did not elucidate any opinions of my own on “memory wheels” as all written traces were substantiated by an academic source. I would appreciate clarification on the subject to in consequence produce an acceptable article. Chapel16 (talk) 13:35, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi, for the decline part - please note that it is difficult to verify the content if most of the reference do not have links to read for. The readers will have to manually search the references which will be problem to understand. Read WP:REFBEGIN and you can use Google Books to find the book or journal for reference. For the essay part - the way you have written was not according to Wikipedia standards (read WP:NOTESSAY and WP:NPOV). And the references you put causes the reviewers think it looks like essay. For more questions kindly refer to WP:TEAHOUSE. Thanks. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(😐 ● 🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 13:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I have cited the sources in which you can verify what I claim, I will add links with what you’ve proposed “Google Books” to said sources to make it easier to verify but I don’t believe that justifies the negligence of that responsibility. You say “ the way you have written was not according to Wikipedia standards” This is still vague to me, I have read the article once that you’re referring to me and I don’t see where I’m

writing in an unacceptable manner. The references I’ve put makes it look like an essay? Are you referring to the formatting of “According to x”, I believe that’s just substantiation. Chapel16 (talk) 13:51, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

@CoconutOctopus, what do you think the draft was declined on the basis that it looks like an essay? Can you give your opinion on this? ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(😐 ● 🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 14:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi, you added a citation with this edit to Draft:Memory wheels.

• Henry M. Richter, “The Art of Memory and the Growth of the Scientific Method,” arXiv preprint, p. 4.

Would you please provide the full citation or a correction.

I am wondering if you meant:

• Sarma, Gopal (2015). "The Art of Memory and the Growth of the Scientific Method". Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems. 13 (3): 373–396. doi:10.7906/indecs.13.3.4. ISSN 1334-4676. OCLC 8597828288.

That citation can also be referenced at arXiv:1307.0254v3. Peaceray (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

You are correct. It seems I’ve messed up on the author and page numbers of the citation, whilst the title is exact. The correct page numbers are 21/27 the latter where Bruno is placed as a unifier of memory traditions and his specific mnemonic innovations are explicated, positioned as a preparatory figure in the development of the scientific method. I’m surprised to see this correction, I wasn’t aware anyone would be so attentive to such matters, I say this in an approbative manner. I wasn’t going to continue writing the article as I find it impossible to get accepted and the reasons for it’s rejection upon further investigation lacklustre, thank you for bringing this to my attention. Chapel16 (talk) 22:24, 7 October 2025 (UTC)