Draft:Tachash
An obscure biblical animal or type of leather processing or color / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Tachash or Tahash (in Hebrew תחש) is a type of leather that was used in the Tabernacle. There are different opinions about the meaning and identity of 'tachash', from ancient times to the present day. Some said it is the name of the animal from whose skin the leather was made, and many opinions exist about which animal it was. Some said it is a type of leather processing or dye for the skin of any animal.
Submission declined on 21 April 2024 by ToadetteEdit (talk). 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.
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
| ![]() |
Submission declined on 27 February 2024 by Utopes (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:
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. Declined by Utopes 5 months ago. | ![]() |
Submission declined on 25 February 2024 by MicrobiologyMarcus (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:
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. Declined by MicrobiologyMarcus 5 months ago. | ![]() |
Submission declined on 25 February 2024 by Theroadislong (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 Theroadislong 5 months ago.
| ![]() |
- Comment: @ToadetteEdit:, I was looking at the draft and read your comments. You haven't tagged the article at all, so it is not possible to tell what you believe is WP:OR and where you think WP:NPOV is an issue and which headings you think do not meet MOS:SECTIONTITLE. Can you tag the article, and include the reasoning in the appropriate tag field, so other editors can see what you are referring to? If you can ping me or the author when done, I'll take a look to see if I can fix the article.
- Also @Vegan416: asked you this question 16 days ago, in response to your AfC message,, but I cannot see where you have replied. If you are going to review articles, you need to reply to author's requests for clarification; you have been reviewing other articles since then, please review articles you have reviewed and reply to any questions from authors. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation#How to get involved, "a willingness and ability to respond in a timely manner to questions." I know I have missed author's questions before, so I understand they can be missed. If you have replied somewhere (again I know these discussions can get spread out into many pages and sections) and I missed it, please let me know where. // Timothy :: talk 22:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Comment: Also there are some potential original research out there, and the sections may need to be renamed. Toadette (Let's talk together!) 13:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Comment: Reviewer Note: The redirect has been downgraded to ECP-protected, so that a reviewer can accept the draft if in their judgment it should be accepted. There is a long history of an article that has since been cut down to a redirect, primarily because the article was mostly the work of sockpuppets. Reviewers are requested to use careful judgment, and to take into account the history of sockpuppetry. Also, an accepting reviewer should not tag the redirect for {{db-afc-move}}. A reviewer who does not have the Page Mover privilege should not attempt to accept. A reviewer who has the Page Mover privilege should move the redirect so that its history is preserved. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Comment: This draft is for a title that was previously an article, but was then cut down to a redirect. If this draft is accepted, the history should be preserved. Do not tag the redirect for G6. Reviewers should check the history and verify whether there was a consensus to cut the article down to a redirect, or whether the action was taken boldly without discussion. If there was a consensus for the cutdown, do not accept this draft without verifying that the draft improves the article or that consensus has changed. If in doubt, please discuss.Note to reviewers: There is a locked redirect at Tachash.
If a reviewer judges that this draft (or any draft with this title) should be accepted, they will need either to request the locking administrator to unlock the redirect, or to request Deletion Review.It will also be necessary, in accepting the draft, to preserve the history by moving the redirect into the draft position. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Comment: This appears to contain original research? Theroadislong (talk) 10:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Comment: Not written in accordance with the WP:Manual of Style, particularly the use of "we". See MOS:WE, don't use first person pronouns; Wikipedia is not an instructional/proselytization tool. microbiologyMarcus (petri dish·growths) 17:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC)