User talk:MeComp2025

This is MeComp2025's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: NOSA-ITACA (September 5)

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

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:

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.

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:NOSA-ITACA 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.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:02, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have resubmitted the NOSA-ITACA page, revised according to your suggestions.The references I included consist of peer-reviewed scientific papers that describe the code in depth. Moreover, as articles published in scientific journals, they are reliable, independent, and secondary sources. I also included references in which the code is compared with similar softwares available in the literature, both commercial and open-access. MeComp2025 (talk) 13:16, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MeComp2025! Having an article draft 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! DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:02, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: NOSA-ITACA (September 10)

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

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

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:NOSA-ITACA 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.

RangersRus (talk) 17:33, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I created the page NOSA-ITACA a free software for finite element structural analysis that is freely downloadable at its website. It seems to me that the page is written in neutral form with external references. In particular, the references I included consist of peer-reviewed scientific papers that describe the code in depth. Moreover, as articles published in scientific journals, they are reliable, independent, and secondary sources. Some of the cited papers are written by the Authors of the code and others are written by Authors not involved in the software development. I also included references in which the code is compared with similar software available in the literature, both commercial and open-access. Please help me to understand why the page does not satisfy the Wikipedia requirements. In the creation of my page I was inspired by other pages of Wikipedia describing similar packages, as Opensees, FreeFem++, Z88 FEM and so on. I submit to your attention a new version of the page with some improvements. Please let me know your opinion, and suggestions are welcome. MeComp2025 (talk) 08:08, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: NOSA-ITACA (November 4)

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

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

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:NOSA-ITACA 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.

Aesurias (talk) 06:16, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I created the page NOSA-ITACA a free software for finite element structural analysis that is freely downloadable at its website. It seems to me that the page is written in neutral form with external references. In particular, the references I included consist of peer-reviewed scientific papers that describe the code in depth. Moreover, as articles published in scientific journals, they are reliable, independent, and secondary sources. Some of the cited papers are written by the Authors of the code and others are written by Authors not involved in the software development. I also included references in which the code is compared with similar software available in the literature, both commercial and open-access. Information reported in the page draft is verifiable and relies on published sources. Please help me to understand why the page does not satisfy the Wikipedia requirements. In the creation of my page I was inspired by other pages of Wikipedia describing similar packages, as Opensees, FreeFem++, Z88 FEM and so on. I submit to your attention a new version of the page with some improvements. Please let me know your opinion, and suggestions are welcome MeComp2025 (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]