Talk:ISO/IEC 21838

Comments left by AfC reviewers

• Comment: These are good sources for Basic Formal Ontology, but not for the ISO/IEC standard outlining it. You'd be better off creating subsections in top-level ontology and Basic Formal Ontology for the ISO/IEC standard. These articles are underdeveloped.
  We don't need a separate article on the standard itself if the standard is just defining a topic we have an article on already, and said standard hasn't had coverage independent of the topic. Office Open XML is an example of how this might be done. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 13:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Thank you for including references in your submission. Please help our volunteer reviewers by identifying, on the draft's talk page, the WP:THREE best sources that establish notability of the subject. ~Kvng (talk) 03:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: (a) The lead needs a one-sentence, plain-English explanation of what this is (b) many / most of the sources are not independent. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:51, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
  Done Stuartyeates

• Comment: (a) The lead needs a one-sentence, plain-English explanation of what this is (b) many / most of the sources are not independent. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:51, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
  Done Stuartyeates — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timtrent (talk • contribs) 16:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)