Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Line 501: Line 501:
Ok, well thanks, and sorry if I have a critical tone in my questions here. I am just a bit upset and wanting article published. Ignore my possibly over critical tone in my longer question posted ahead, before I read your reply. Well sorry it has just been about three weeks since I first submitted article and I am anxious to get things moving. Please if another editor can publish it to main space I would be very thankfull.
Ok, well thanks, and sorry if I have a critical tone in my questions here. I am just a bit upset and wanting article published. Ignore my possibly over critical tone in my longer question posted ahead, before I read your reply. Well sorry it has just been about three weeks since I first submitted article and I am anxious to get things moving. Please if another editor can publish it to main space I would be very thankfull.
Thank you, fitwrite <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Fitwrite|Fitwrite]] ([[User talk:Fitwrite#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Fitwrite|contribs]]) 02:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Thank you, fitwrite <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Fitwrite|Fitwrite]] ([[User talk:Fitwrite#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Fitwrite|contribs]]) 02:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:{{u|Fitwrite}}, we have editors here waiting for months to get their draft reviewed since we have over 4,000 articles waiting for review so please be patient. But in general please take a moment and review your draft regarding the comments which were made, especially the [[WP:OR]] Part seems significant. [[User:CommanderWaterford|CommanderWaterford]] ([[User talk:CommanderWaterford|talk]]) 07:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


== 22:15:50, 25 February 2021 review of submission by SecretName1234 ==
== 22:15:50, 25 February 2021 review of submission by SecretName1234 ==

Revision as of 07:34, 26 February 2021

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, List, Sorting, Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

  • This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
  • Do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page.
  • Watch out for scammers! If someone contacts you saying that they can get your draft published for payment, they are trying to scam you. Report such attempts here.
Ask a new question
Please check back often for answers.
Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions


February 20

00:36:42, 20 February 2021 review of submission by Atayibabs


Atayibabs (talk) 00:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Atayibabs You don't ask a question, but your draft is a completely unsourced essay, not an encyclopedia article with citations to independent reliable sources. Please learn more about Wikipedia by using the new user tutorial and reading Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

01:53:59, 20 February 2021 review of draft by 45Boomer


I am trying to figure out what needs to be changed on my draft. It is not clear what the issue is I have the correct format with all the references. 45Boomer (talk) 01:53, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your references are bare URLs and should be formatted properly to display full bibliographic details. Please read WP:REFBEGIN. Most of your sources are primary sources or unreliable sources. Far better to have five solid references than dozens of poor quality references that are worthless for establishing notability. If you are claiming that this person is notable as an athlete, then you need to show that he meets the notability guideline that you can find at WP:NGRIDIRON. It does not appear that he does. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:22:56, 20 February 2021 review of draft by 174.1.62.129


I need help to edit my article THanks for your hep https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Bahram_Rad

174.1.62.129 (talk) 06:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noone of the sources currently cited are reliable. The "Biography" and "Music Career" sections desperately need better sources, because Wikipedia is not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:00:07, 20 February 2021 review of submission by Zacharyb366


Zacharyb366 (talk) 08:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am trying to figure out why my submission was declined. Thank you!

Draft:Zach Broom (Pastor)

Zacharyb366 The reason for the decline is given at the top of your draft, in short, you have not demonstrated that (I assume) you merit a Wikipedia article. None of the sources you offer are significant coverage of you in independent reliable sources, showing how you meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Please see Your First Article for more information.
Please also be advised of the autobiography policy; while not forbidden, autobiographies are highly discouraged, in part because people naturally write favorably about themselves. In order to succeed at an autobiography(which is rare, but technically possible), you in essence need to forget everything you know about yourself, and only write based on what independent reliable sources say about you. Most people have great difficulty doing that. 331dot (talk) 09:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


12:48:40, 20 February 2021 review of draft by Deppman


The Draft Thermofractal we rejected because an older version is still active. I would like to delete the older version, but I don't know how to do it.

Deppman (talk) 12:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deppman, done. I removed the older copy. CommanderWaterford (talk) 13:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:38:20, 20 February 2021 review of submission by Mathematicalinstitutes


Mathematicalinstitutes (talk) 16:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 16:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It has zero reliable independent sources and Google searches are not sources.Theroadislong (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 21

00:58:54, 21 February 2021 review of submission by MirachBeta


Hello,

I'm a new editor who recently had the page Carl A. Rouse accepted. However, it seems as though it was originally rejected for not having sources from when the subject was living, among other issues. While I appreciate the fact my article was accepted, could someone clarify to me why it was accepted?

Best,

MirachBeta

MirachBeta (talk) 00:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MirachBeta Would you rather it not have been accepted? ;) You may wish to ask the reviewer directly. but reviewers accept drafts as long as it seems that the draft would survive an Articles for Deletion discussion. Usually that means there are adequate sources to establish notability and sustain the article's content(usually a minimum of three sources). 331dot (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
331dot Oh no, I'm glad it was accepted! Just wanted clarification for future reference. Thank you for your help!— Preceding unsigned comment added by MirachBeta (talk • contribs)

04:11:38, 21 February 2021 review of submission by 125.161.183.180


125.161.183.180 (talk) 04:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only edit from this IP, could you please link to the draft? Also, it would be nice for the respondees here if you would specify what speficially is your question/problem, or what you need help with. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:14:09, 21 February 2021 review of submission by Akarniel

Hello,

I understand the reason for the decline of my Draft "Draft:Shlomo Laufer" - the existence of Hebrew in the text. I will translate the titles into the publication list. Also, I will add links to some of the texts that were already translated. I have two questions:

1. Is it ok to discuss a book that is being translated, but was not published yet?

2. When I add a reference to a Hebrew source (unfortunately most of my references, not all of them though), the text in the reference section is automatically adding Hebrew descriptions, which I can't change/translate. Is this approved? or should I remove all of the Hebrew sites references? I am afraid that without them the references will not be sufficient to allow you to verify it. Note that most of these references have been verified by the Wikipedia Hebrew team and are part of the Hebrew article about Shlomo Laufer.

Awaiting your response, Best regards, Amihai Karniel.


Akarniel (talk) 08:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:43:59, 21 February 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Mondayudowong


My draft was declined by a reviewer and the reason left by the author was, "Undefined". They was no reason for the decline. They believe I created a new account in order to recreate articles which were once deleted in the past. This is not true. Can someone please look into this? Before submitting my draft, I reviewed other similar topics and I made sure mine followed the same pattern. Thanks in advance.

Mondayudowong (talk) 08:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "undefined" simply means that the reviewer did not input the reason into the template. Pinging the reviewer, Celestina007. 331dot (talk) 08:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot:, the issue seem to be far more grave, looks like the reviewer is suspecting a Sockpuppet, have a look over here [1]. CommanderWaterford (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot, thanks for pinging me, I probably should have left a reason for the decline so as to avoid scenario's such as this. Celestina007 (talk) 16:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Celestina007. My account is not a Sock Puppet account. Is there a way I can prove this in order to get my draft approved?

Mondayudowong (talk) 17:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:01:57, 21 February 2021 review of submission by 2A00:23C7:5A9C:3F01:8184:CA53:61E1:2C38


Paper.io doesn't have that much notability. That explains why there isn't a lot of references. However it is relatively popular. Note I play this game so these are in my words. This reads like an advertisement, though I wanted to seperate everything so it would be easy to understand more.

2A00:23C7:5A9C:3F01:8184:CA53:61E1:2C38 (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:53:14, 21 February 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Fahdaltaf


Hi, i want to add Al Haaj Bundoo Khan Restaurant in wikipedia, because its very old and famous Restaurant in pakistan. Al Haaj bundoo khan started his journey from a cart in 1948 and now its the Pakistan best BBQ Restaurant. Al Haaj Bundoo Khan is the one who inteoduce the dish Chicken Tikka and now famous in Al our the world, also he introduced the concept of roll paratha in terms of his famous kabab partha (behari kabab and paratha). I have no clear idea how to present the information which is according to wiki guideline, if some one helps me to publish this article i will be thankful. Secondly i tried ro add the external links of blogger reviews, local news blogs which are famous in local countries pakistan and united arab emirates. And i also added the Gulf News article about Al Haaj bundoo khan. National geographic Abu dhabi also cover Alhaaj bundoo khan in one of his documentry but i didn't find the video link, i have one image from that documentary.


If some one is setup all these things in proper manner so the article will approved on wiki pedia i will be very thankfull to him. Whatever helping material is required i will provide him

Fahdaltaf (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article supported with reliable references including zaman newspaper and many others

21:52:02, 21 February 2021 review of submission by Ameermarkolmaza


Ameermarkolmaza (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ameermarkolmaza, what is your question? CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:01:57, 21 February 2021 review of submission by Daunicornengineer

As a part of a project with the African American History Museum, we are working to ensure that notable African Americans in STEM are included in Wikipedia. Numerous sources have been provided in order for this article to be a verifiable source. Daunicornengineer (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daunicornengineer The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 23:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


February 22

Request on 00:12:12, 22 February 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by 38.132.215.49


The film Operation Odessa is currently playing on Netflix. I tried to look it up and got redirected to some Manga site - not cool.

I made a start on fixing it. Wouldn't take much more to get a basic page up. Maybe someone could fix it? I've done my bit to try and set it right and am done.

38.132.215.49 (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While it is always possible, I doubt any other editor will pick your draft up. It's a positive start but requires referencing. If you wish to go back to it please ask for the help you need Fiddle Faddle 16:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:44:15, 22 February 2021 review of submission by Lkcitycliff


Lkcitycliff (talk) 06:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I want to create an article from wikipedia editors? I will give the title of the business and want to create a page. I need the help of editors to complete the article. Please write an article for me.

@Lkcitycliff: Hello Lkcitycliff, I think you are looking for WP:Requested articles. It has a large backlog Though... If this refers to a specific draft, please provide a link. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:46:35, 22 February 2021 review of submission by Finna fly

because this is for a friend and im ready for review Finna fly (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Finna fly, first, please do not write articles "for a friend". Please see WP:COI. Second, this draft has been rejected and thus will not be considered further Fiddle Faddle 16:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:59:42, 22 February 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by 76.240.112.154


I added footnotes and don't understand why this is being declined. All proper footnotes were added

76.240.112.154 (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined I have conducted a further review and left what I hope are helpful comments on your draft Fiddle Faddle 16:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:21:14, 22 February 2021 review of draft by Bbarmadillo


Please give your opinion on the page. It is a properly stated WP:COI contribution, that I fully reworked after the initial decline. Do you see any issues with the page that need to be fixed? Is the existing redirect a problem? --Bbarmadillo (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bbarmadillo (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bbarmadillo, Thank you for submitting it for review. It will now take its place in the pool of drafts for review. A redirect will not present a problem Fiddle Faddle 16:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While awaiting review do, please, continue to enhance the draft. Submission does not freeze the draft Fiddle Faddle 16:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent: thank you. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:06:36, 22 February 2021 review of draft by Engblu


Hi, firstly excuse my lack of experience in the procedure for asking for help. I am trying to edit a page that has been reviewed. It states in the review that the "Comment: There are a lot of unsourced statements". I have used links from mainly two sites having seen many other pages on persons who are Music producers or have similar roles. I am confused as to why these link sources are not applicable or not valid. The information the sites has been indeed verified by the sites and cross checked with the releases mentioned. This may seem obvious to editors but to myself if i could ask for an explanation and some help then on securing exactly what is required. Not everyone is mentioned in published books as to me that seems to be what is required. If a much simpler page / entry would be acceptable then please let me know. Also I do not know where a replay to this inquiry might "appear" ? maybe on my "talk" page ? Many thanks Engblu.

Engblu (talk) 17:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Engblu, The answer appears here. Are you associated professionally or personally with Mr Lyon? if so you must declare it. Please see WP:COI and/or WP:PAID. Even if closely associated with, or even being Mr Lyon you are entitled to create and edit the draft on the gentleman.
To understand more about references you may find that reading WP:42 and WP:THREE help.
Your objective is to assert and verify that the gentleman is notable in a Wikipedia sense.
This means that he must not just be a decent chap doing his job well, but that there must be an almost indefinable extra element to him.
There's a lot to read here, so please ask again after you've read and digested the advice and started to put it into practice Fiddle Faddle 22:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For reasons I am not entirely sure I understand, this conversation has been replicated on my talk page by an IP editor, with further comment. I've answered it there, and I invite others who may be able to assist to join in there Fiddle Faddle 17:56, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:30:49, 22 February 2021 review of submission by Monir1975

 Fixed Hi, This article was declined due to not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. I have added further references, are those enough to resubmit for futther review?

Monir1975, it was not only declined, it was also rejected and thus will not be considered further. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Monir1975 (talk) 18:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC) == 18:30:49, 22 February 2021 review of draft by Monir1975 ==}}[reply]

18:34:26, 22 February 2021 review of submission by Sohil Mandal


Sohil Mandal (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sohil Mandal, what is your question? CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:34:15, 22 February 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Nynewsguy


I'm requesting assistance with understanding the citations I have which were deemed "unreliable." I've cited CBS News, IMDB and AdWeek among others.

I've now noticed that the page in question - Len Tepper - has now been scraped and copied to wikitia too, presumably "verified" by their "editors."

I'm happy to revise as needed. But I need more to go on as to why these sources - that exist as citations on countless other wikipedia pages - are not considered reliable now.

Thank you for any help you can provide. Thom Craver

Nynewsguy (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is not considered a reliable source because it is user-editable. The "NBC News" section needs a few sources, compare WP:BLP. Victor Schmidt (talk) 21:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 21:38:42, 22 February 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Antiquatuss


Dear Wikipeadia Master Minds, please have a look at the "Fiber Patch Placement" draft and corresponding discussions. I understood, regulatories differ, but i tried my best to redesign the article as I understood your rules and I perfectly cannot understand, why this is completely ignored. I really believe, a new additive manufacturing technology should be mentioned. Thank you in advance for your help! Antiquatuss (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Antiquatuss (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Antiquatuss, I have added a source from the European Space Agency that includes a definition of fiber patch placement and passed the review so it is now in mainspace under Fiber Patch Placement. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:39:00, 22 February 2021 review of submission by AshleyDBuck


Removed marketing jargon Removed KGP Films Provided additional adequate resources And note there is no financial or connection with the subject. A big fan of her work and Narcoleap.

AshleyDBuck (talk) 23:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


23:46:29, 22 February 2021 review of submission by AshleyDBuck


Revised the page by removing marketing jargon and a second subject. Please note there is no financial or other connection with the author and subject. Fan of subjects work.

AshleyDBuck (talk) 23:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AshleyDBuck, I have tidied up the article a little bit and accepted the submission, though further work is required and a search for sources has been made difficult by the more famous British shadow cabinet minister with the same name. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 23

08:24:34, 23 February 2021 review of submission by Derekt0729

You don't ask a question. 331dot (talk) 08:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why this article was declined. Could you please advise the specific problems that I should make improvement? Derekt0729 (talk) 08:24, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment was posted by an IP address, if you are Derekt0729, remember to log in before posting. 331dot (talk) 09:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The draft just tells about the company and appears to be sourced to press releases or announcements of routine business transactions. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Press releases, routine announcements of business transactions, staff interviews, or other primary sources do not establish notability.
If you work for this company, please review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures you must make. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:08:54, 23 February 2021 review of submission by Boli12345


Boli12345 (talk) 11:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Boli12345: Please do not copy text from elsewhere onto Wikipedia. In my experience, 99% of the texts not written speficially for WIkipedia are also unsiutable for Wikipedia. When writing Wikipedia articles, please make sure that you write in your own words, based on what reliable sources unconnected with the subject have choosen to write about a particuler topic, without interpreting or connecting sources. Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:15:32, 23 February 2021 review of submission by Moli1234


Moli1234 (talk) 13:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moli1234, what is your question? CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:03:45, 23 February 2021 review of submission by Benarizon

i published an article about someone who had no prior details on Wikipedia. however my article was declined and the page im referred to, as already existing is not accurate! Benarizon (talk) 16:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Benarizon: When you created the draft, the other article did not exist. It was created 11 days later and exists at Samuel Nuamah Donkor. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:29:01, 23 February 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Waleayanda


I hereby request assistance in creating the page as having edited it several times without getting it. I believe my request is been granted I will learn from that, as learning is a continuous process.Waleayanda (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Waleayanda (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Waleayanda, after main having a quick look at your article I would suggest searching for by far your sources especially for the awards you have listed. Please have a look at WP:YFA and of help might also Help:Referencing for beginners. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:38:33, 23 February 2021 review of draft by Jim Barfly


Hi, I rewrote my article that was previously declined. But I'm not sure if I submitted it correctly. Can I have a little help submitting this article and getting it reviewed?

Thank you.

Jim Barfly (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Barfly, sure, looks you still need to resubmit it - there is a Button "Resubmit" on the page, you just need to click it. If you need further help let us know. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jim Barfly: You also need to delete the puffery in the article. Looking at some of the grandiose claims, like that the subject is "successful", family members were "preeminent", the "prestigious" school the subject attended, what he "excelled" at, the irrelevance of "30 plus Grammy winning" in re: his concert production, it would almost seem that the subject is writing this article about himself. If that is the case, that would constitute a conflict of interest, and people with conflicts of interest shouldn't edit articles they are entwined with. As it turns out when people write about themselves or their loved ones, they often find it difficult to be objective, and often get upset when the content they are adding receives criticism or winds up declined. If you have such a conflict, you are strongly discouraged from editing this article. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


February 24

00:23:50, 24 February 2021 review of submission by Gfisk86

How do I declare my connection with the subject I'm writing about? Gfisk86 (talk) 00:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gfisk86 Please review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on how to disclose. 331dot (talk) 00:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:11:33, 24 February 2021 review of submission by 2407:C00:D003:BB8D:1:1:8C88:E584


2407:C00:D003:BB8D:1:1:8C88:E584 (talk) 07:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


08:09:26, 24 February 2021 review of draft by Apos gk


Hi, can someone review my submission? Thanks a lot!!

Apos gk (talk) 08:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apos gk You have submitted your draft and it is pending review. Reviews are conducted by volunteers on their own time, in no particular order. As noted in your submission notice, "This may take 4 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 4,710 pending submissions waiting for review." You will need to be patient. 331dot (talk) 10:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apos gk, no Declined with full reasons stated on the draft Fiddle Faddle 19:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:33:45, 24 February 2021 review of submission by Zenith Banker

Hi my Name Is Zenith Banker. and i am well known photographer and cinematographer in Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India. i just want share my information on Wikipdia. my Work Profie, about project which i have done and all thats all and the given information is 100% authentic. Thank you.Zenith Banker (talk) 09:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC) Zenith Banker (talk) 09:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zenith Banker Wikipedia does not have "profiles". Wikipedia has articles written by independent editors. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves or their work. Please use social media or other forums where that is permitted. Please review the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 10:06, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:39:11, 24 February 2021 review of submission by Nigel-harps1954


Question regarding the suitability, or rather notability, of the League of Ireland as a 'fully professional league'? Wondering why this submission has been rejected on these grounds, when in fact, the League of Ireland is a fully professional league.

Why a player who has represented his country internationally, and has played as a full time professional footballer, has this submission been rejected?

Just speaking as someone involved with the club Kosovar Sadiki plays with, he is, in fact, a full time professional footballer, in a professional football team, in a professional football league, that only in the winter past, had a club playing in the Europa League group stages.

What makes this lacking notability, specifcially, in terms of a non-full time professional environment?

Answers would be appreciated. Nigel-harps1954 (talk) 12:39, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel-harps1954 If the league is fully professional, you will need to explain that to the reviewer. 331dot (talk) 13:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:20:39, 24 February 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by BlackholeWA // Inappropriate merge destination


Hi,

I created an article draft last month for the Death of Nóra Quoirin, a pretty major missing persons/unexplained death case in the UK and Malaysia that has seen a lot of diverse coverage over the past few years, especially given the ongoing controversy as to whether her death was the result of foul play. This (and the inclusion of an article on the matter in the Malay wikipedia) seemed grounds to sustain a standalone article here to me, but that's a little besides the point.

The AfC draft I made was declined because the reviewer didn't think there was enough lasting notability, but recommended I merge the content into List of solved missing person cases. I did this, and also populated several redirects about the matter to point to an anchor on that entry. Following this... all the content was promptly deleted by an editor on that list, because it turns out it is in fact a list for cases that already have a corresponding standalone Wikipedia article.

Given the longevity and breadth of coverage of this case, I'm fairly sure at least a paragraph or two of information about it should have a home on the English wikipedia, and it already has coverage on at least one foreign language edition of the site. Personally, I think that a standalone page may be warranted, but, barring that, I would like to merge the content elsewhere. Given that the instructions given by the submission closer recommended merging into an article where the content was inappropriate (and immediately deleted), and that there are now several hanging redirects pointing to a page that doesn't mention their subject, it'd be good to know how to proceed, whether that's a different merge location, or the re-opening of the original draft.

Edit: Tagging in reviewer @Aseleste: . BlackholeWA (talk) 17:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC) BlackholeWA (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will wait for another opinion before commenting. ~ Ase1estecharge-paritytime 06:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:23:05, 24 February 2021 review of draft by 24.228.70.170


Hi, I'm semi-new to wikipedia. I'd like to write about North New Jersey Record Labels and so far I've been working on Command Records which already existed and Mint 400 Records which is a draft, and eventually I'd like to move onto smaller ones. But Mint 400 it looks like the article can't be approved even after I showed some very significant people like Fountains of Wayne, Frank Iero, Victoria Williams and others connected to them. I've looked at other labels pages and they too are only mentioned in passing in their references. I'm not quite understanding what kind of press validates them if not mentions in major publications like Alternative Press and North NJ newspapers? This label has over 370 releases and I wanted to actually focus on some smaller labels than this one but I'm not sure how that is possible but I see in other states all of their small record labels have pages and they aren't under intense scrutiny and I'm wondering why?

24.228.70.170 (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You need substantial independent references. WP:42 will guide you well Fiddle Faddle 18:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:39:49, 24 February 2021 review of submission by 2A00:23C5:B600:7D01:EC4C:5ABD:CE36:8145


2A00:23C5:B600:7D01:EC4C:5ABD:CE36:8145 (talk) 17:39, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This draft by self declared paid editor MisterTech has been rejected. It will not be considered further. If you are that user please denote edit while logged out, which is seen as gaming the system Fiddle Faddle 18:19, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to do with me. I have requested draft deletion. MisterTech (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:39:56, 24 February 2021 review of submission by Sanjaysharma2021


Sanjaysharma2021 (talk) 18:39, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjaysharma2021, your draft has been rejected which means it will not be considered further Fiddle Faddle 19:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:29:22, 24 February 2021 review of submission by DJPoobs

Hi, I have added a lot more information now so its line with other actress and actors at the same level, however I can not find the button to send it for review after the last comment that was added, is that due to the comment

DJPoobs (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have added a lot more content, but zero reliable sources, the draft was rejected meaning it won't be considered further. Theroadislong (talk) 08:22, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 25

Request on 09:20:20, 25 February 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by SriAmaraneni


I need help to edit my article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:SreedharRaoChennamaneni

Thank You!

Sreedhar Rao (talk) 09:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SriAmaraneni, your article has been rejected, it cannot be resubmitted. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:19:39, 25 February 2021 review of submission by Stefan Gigliotti

Could anyone please give me a feedback on this either let me know what to do next? That would be much appreciated. Thanks a lot in advance Stefan Gigliotti (talk) 10:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Gigliotti, there is nothing to do next, please be patient, there are more than 4,000 articles waiting for a review, it can take months. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:12:07, 25 February 2021 review of submission by Theman465

The subject has become very notable over the past months gaining many articles and references of him. He also has gained 30 Thousand social media followers. He is very notable now and definitely qualifies for the article on Wikipedia. Theman465 (talk) 13:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The number of social media followers has no bearing whatsoever on notability. Theroadislong (talk) 15:51, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:46:11, 25 February 2021 review of submission by Rajeev Kumar Pillai


It is said that its about myself.. my submission is its not about me and its about a different person

Rajeev Kumar Pillai (talk) 15:46, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It also has zero reliable sources so cannot be accepted. Theroadislong (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:33:35, 25 February 2021 review of draft by KempeIAGeng


Guess, we need help with the entry on Pyroducts. Please explain why the entry has been rejected and what could be made better. If you need more publications cited, that can be mended. Please mark the paragraphs that are found to be faulty and explain why. Before submitting the current text has been reviewed by US volcanologists Dr. J. Lookwood and Dr. R. Hazlett, the authors of the most recent and encompassing textbook on volcanology (Wiley, 2010, 2nd ed. in review). Therefore there should not be any scientific faults. Thank you, S. Kempe

KempeIAGeng (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KempeIAGeng, the problem with your draft is that you will need to give citations for the statements you made. Please read the Reviewers Comments and especially follow the links given by them, of help might also Help:Referencing for beginners . CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:17:54, 25 February 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by SecretName1234


Robert McClenon sited two 6-year-old "Articles for Deletion" pages for rejecting a recently submitted article about Black Gryph0n (Gabriel Christian Brown; Gabriel Brown (actor)). Black Gryph0n is much more noteworthy than he was 6 years ago. He is mentioned on many current wiki pages,[note 1] and there are hundreds of hits on that name on the internet in general. 

 As I mentioned in the article, Black Gryph0n has over 4 million subscribers on Youtube,[1] has 11 Filmography credits on IMDb, [2] and many albums and singles on Amazon, and is a verified artist on Spotify,[3] with 137k monthly listeners.

[4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]

References

  1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvzWGXYFDiiJ338KIJPhbhQ
  2. ^ https://www.imdb.com/name/nm6437354/
  3. ^ https://open.spotify.com/artist/4ET82ZtSfAK4utfjDauImD
  4. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beep_Beep_I%27m_a_Sheep
  5. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Creber
  6. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube_Rewind_2019:_For_the_Record
  7. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Stars
  8. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toss_a_Coin_to_Your_Witcher
  9. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabitha_St._Germain
  10. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joakim_Lundell
  11. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_Dance_2018
  12. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_songs_in_Equestria_Girls
  13. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12th_Shorty_Awards
  14. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_Dance_Now

SecretName1234 (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SecretName1234 (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SecretName1234, Spotify, Imdb and even Wikipedia are not reliable Sources, you will need to provide others like AviationFreak already said. CommanderWaterford (talk) 23:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

References

  1. ^ see references below
@SecretName1234: The draft you submitted does not provide any secondary reliable sources. See WP:PSTS and WP:RS for more information. AviationFreak💬 20:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:53:53, 25 February 2021 review of draft by Fitwrite


Help in getting my article published.

Fitwrite (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:56:51, 25 February 2021 review of draft by Fitwrite


Help in getting my article published, sorry did not fill our full question a few mins ago:

Hi, I just read the decline to my draft being published, by a reviewer, and I am mystified at why. The reviewer says I have not made significant documentation of secondary sources; my article Anonymous Personal Sex Blogging (at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Anonymous_Personal_Sex_Blogging , username: fitwrite) has 70 references, cited over 100 times in APA style citations. They say it reads more like an essay; well I simply documented all the research. I have a few statements about global anthropological universalities that are my own, and more just natural comments on classifying and paraphrasing the research, but apart from that just about every sentence is a non-plagurized paraphrasing from secondary sources. I noticed the reviewer declined my submission in one day, I submitted it on Sunday and it was declined that same day; that is fast, and I thank the reviewer for the fast work, they must have university professor level skills to assess my complex article in such a short time. I am not trying to question the reviewers the decision, I am just trying to understand it and understand how I can get the article published on wiki. I see many other articles on wiki that have few citations and are even poorly written, looking like they are machine translated from another language, but these articles are allowed on wiki; my article with over 100 citations and written in well structure sentences by me, (a university educated person, whose first language is English), and fully proofread down to most, if not all, commas being used correctly; my article is not allowed on wiki. This makes little sense to me. I can not even see how I would re-write it to make it more "encyclopedic" rather than “essay like"; I read entries in Encyclopedia Britannica that are written in a similar format to my article, for example, Douglas, K. M. (2019, January 4). Deindividuation. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/deindividuation ; this article writes about the psychological research about deindividualisation theory reporting on academic research studies in a similar way to my style of article writing. Can you please help me to try and get this article that I have laboured over for over a month, on to wiki? Maybe if you need to send this long question to help wiki help desk, please do so. Thank you, fitwrite. Fitwrite (talk) 21:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fitwrite, too see that your draft is written almost like an Essay a Reviewer does not need more than a couple of minutes. Why the (experienced) Reviewer was thinking that it needs more secondary sources would be best to ask himself so I allow myself to ping him here @Bkissin:. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok well I will let you all sort things out, please also see my third question here about my suggestion to just let wiki users edit it further, thanks f.w. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fitwrite (talk • contribs) 23:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommanderWaterford, I declined this for the Essay issues and for notability. Perhaps it should have been a decline for WP:NOT or WP:OR. I'm currently on a break/hiatus from AfC for precisely these kinds of issues. If another editor believes the article is ready for mainspace, then by all means accept it. Bkissin (talk) 02:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well thanks, and sorry if I have a critical tone in my questions here. I am just a bit upset and wanting article published. Ignore my possibly over critical tone in my longer question posted ahead, before I read your reply. Well sorry it has just been about three weeks since I first submitted article and I am anxious to get things moving. Please if another editor can publish it to main space I would be very thankfull. Thank you, fitwrite — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fitwrite (talk • contribs) 02:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fitwrite, we have editors here waiting for months to get their draft reviewed since we have over 4,000 articles waiting for review so please be patient. But in general please take a moment and review your draft regarding the comments which were made, especially the WP:OR Part seems significant. CommanderWaterford (talk) 07:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:15:50, 25 February 2021 review of submission by SecretName1234


Theroadislong commented that there are zero independent, reliable sources for Black Gryph0n, so I followed the Wiki advice and looked for internet news sources. There are many [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] 

  I don't know if these are reliable sources, if they aren't, please tell me how to find reliable sources.  The  Wiki help pages say to search "news" sources on the internet, which I did.

  I look at Black Gryph0n's contemporaries, and they don't have as big a presence as Black Gryph0n (for example, Michelle Creber), yet they have Wiki pages.

  Is over 4-million Youtube subscribers noteworthy?  Eleven Filmography references on IMDb?  Large Spotify following?  Please tell me why these are not noteworthy reliable sources.

  Thanks!


SecretName1234 (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SecretName1234, as far as I see your draft had indeed only primary sources like YouTube and Spotify so of course it was declined by @Theroadislong:. And it was rejected just because this article has been deleted several times before as far as I see. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:21:08, 25 February 2021 review of draft by Fitwrite


Another question about completing my article: My second question is much simplier: how do I get the table at the top of my article into a nice table form with cell lines and a grey or light blue background. I followed wiki-markup guides to try to do this but it would not take the code and only allowed the table in the current less attractive format.

Fitwrite (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:02:01, 25 February 2021 review of draft by Fitwrite


The page cut off before I could finish question so I will ask again: I spent over a month labouring away to write not only an acceptable article for wiki but even a good or featured one. I tried to emulate Theory of Literature ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Literature ) as an example. Is the reason my article is not on wiki more just an academic ego struggle where people are saying my article is not a great one etc.? If the debate is over greatness and not simple acceptability then may I suggest my article, which seemed to be, being legible and referencing sources, may I then suggest to deem my article acceptable, publish it and allow wiki users to edit and improve it, to make it more "encyclopedic". This would seem more like what I understood wiki to be about; my understanding of wiki was that it was a place where users were free to add their own edits and articles, the writing would appear published instantly and then other users would be able to improve upon the articles. The need to get an article perfect before publishing is new to me and makes wiki more like a book such as Encyclopedia Britannica, where publishers have to accept a manuscript and it is edited to perfection before going to print, which is not, I thought the original manifesto of wikipedia. Thank you for your consideration, Fitwrite

Fitwrite (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:10:09, 25 February 2021 review of submission by Johnadams11

Hello: my draft article on Richard "Bigo" Barnett was rejected by CommanderWaterford with the comment that I consult Wikipedia:Notability (people) One Event.

I've been thinking about this for most of a week, and would request some guidance based on the logic I've layed out below:

The linked WP article states:

"In considering whether to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified."


So far, so good.

"If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. "




Clear that the Capitol Right was highly significant. Plain that Barnett's role was not large. Clear that he fails under this concept. We move on:

"When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate. For example, George Holliday, who videotaped the Rodney King beating, redirects to Rodney King. On the other hand, if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles, for example, Howard Brennan, a witness to the JFK assassination."



Clear that this is the standard which must be used. What was the magnitude of Barnett's involvement in this major event? Let's start with an easy measurement using the example given. A Google search of Howard Leslie Brennan yields 7.4M organic search results. A search of Richard Barnett Yields 31.6M. This may not in itself be dispositive, but it does signal that an immediate finding of non-notability appears at odds with a very obvious and objective point of measurement.

Now let's go a bit deeper. The single most notable person in the January 6th attack was one Jake Angeli, for whom there is now a Wikipedia page. A Google search of Jake Angeli yields 3.8M results.

It seems to me that in order to assess that Barnett "is not sufficiently notable for inclusion" one has to be applying some metric of notability that I do not yet understand. It is here, that I'm seeking input.

Many thanks. Johnadams11 (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Johnadams11 (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 26

02:37:27, 26 February 2021 review of draft by Fitwrite


In thinking about how I could improve the article more. I think, drastically, to make it more “encyclopedic “ should I make it extremely simple and just chop off the entire article before the heading Psychological Considerations, loosing about 75% of the content. The sections then would be basic outlining of facts, definitions, history and blog content, which is more encyclopedic. But then why do this, as I said in other encyclopedia articles the discussion of academic theory is welcome. Encyclopedia Britannica as I already quoted does this and further in the Encyclopedia Britannica entry entitled “Blogs", hence a similar entry to mine, it treats the subject in a similar way to how I treat it, first outlining definition, then history, then content, then sociological and cultural considerations and it even mentions Pohl as I do. Again Theory of Literature which I emulated my article on, although it is a book review and so a different subject, dives into the article with similar depth and similar academic tone and writing. This article which is listed in your “how to write a good article section” could be argued also to not be in an “encyclopedic tone", it is academic in tone, deals in the language of academic theories and is far more than a simple encyclopedic entry outlining basic facts.

Again, as I keep saying my article is backed up by many references. I know that when I originally submitted the article I had not learned how do wiki mark-up in my references and so my 70 references and over 100 citations were there but they were not coded in; I have now coded them in, in a sophisticated way, using notes that refer to anchors in the reference list. But this is very disturbing when one reads all your signs about ones article such as “has no references” when this is not true. I know the signs on wiki are often computer generated but still they are off-putting. The fact is my article had always had about 70 references from “independent, published secondary sources", which are more than “passingly mentioned". The whole point is that I have mentioned each reference “in significant detail", contrary to the reviewer arguing I have not; which is why the article reads “like an essay", as much as “like an encyclopedic entry". If I “summarized” everything to make it more "encyclopedic" then would I not be in danger of making the article mention each reference only as “a passing entry", as a summary, by definition does. Then the two criticisms by the reviewer walk the same line of being in danger of over-balancing, so to speak.

The reviewer also adds in my review all the standard tags about reading up on how to write good wiki articles and how to research them. I have already followed all these links, before I wrote the article. I read carefully through all those links, thus is why I came to “ Theory of Literature” article as an example of a good wiki article. Incidentally it was only by finally studying the wiki mark-up in this Theory of Literature article that I was able to see how to do sophisticated notes and references (where the references are linked to the notes as anchors and the notes in turn link back to the in-text superscripted reference labels). I researched my article in google, Google scholar , CORE, BASE, newspapers online many listed in the wiki research sections, Google books, and cross-references of theories and sources with-in the academic journals (i.e. “published independent secondary sources", that are further the key of all written research material, e.g. Attwood, F. (2009). Intimate adventures: Sex blogs, sexblooks' and women's sexual narration. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 12(1), 5-20, 1 of my 70 references .) It should be noted that wiki did not allow me entry to other paywalled research databases because at the time I had been a member for less than a month (why is this? it should). However when researching in the depth I researched, you tend to get in to a lot of the same research publically that is similar, if not the same as, in the closed paywalls databases. Again not looking for book publisher perfection, I would have thought that is something another user can go in and do, once my article is published, adding in a few research items from paywalled databases like Cambridge and Oxford. Maybe a university professor specialising in computer studies who likes to edit wiki in their spare time could edit my article in this way, easily and in a couple hours 


  I noticed in the references that I had all done with precision, carefully in APA style, when I coded them in using wiki-mark-up, some came up as needing more fields, but it at least shows them all there, something which again, future wiki users could improve when my article is published . Then all those signs that show in the information about my review are useless to me, as I had already followed all those links in teaching myself how to  write a good article. I noticed @commanderwaterford had suggested that the reviewer had come to a decision about the essay quality  of my article in a few minutes. It occurred to me that if one just looked at the first few paragraphs of the article and did not fully  examine and read thoroughly  the full article, then they may only read the lead, where in the first few paragraphs I summarise the entire article and so I do not include many citations. The lead then is based on all 70 of the references and it would be redundant to tag the lead with numbers 1 to 70 superscript reference labels. However if you just did a fast review, only reading the first few paragraphs you may think that there are not references.  However most other articles on wiki have a lead, to  start, which is a summary introduction and is not labelled with all the references . Also note that in the signs that are shown with the reviewer comments, one of the links goes to suggestions about starting research for writing wiki articles, and one of those suggestions is to see how the subject is treated in other encyclopedias, which I did, as I illustrated in my discussion about the entry "blogs", in Encyclopedia Britannica. One would have thought the Encyclopedia Britannica is a “published independent" source and further a well-respected and accepted model for encyclopedia writing, being from the same academic circles as Oxford University. Incidentally I do not use the Encyclopedia Britannica much as a reference source and most of my sources are “secondary", e.g. academic journals and newspapers.

Again I am always mystified by the circularity in logic and lack of clarity I come up against when trying to enter my article on to wiki. This is more similar to what one would expect from a privately owned corporation with it’s own agenda than the non-profit, user defined free use system that wikipedia is; it is this very free user-defined model of the original wikipedia that upholds a democratic use of the internet. The minute you start adding in monarchic or oligarchic controls over wiki is the minute it turns into a not free publishing empire. I am “just saying" and not trying to criticize individuals. Incidentally in my article I do cover this very topic of how the internet is actually a highly controlled place, less free than real space as outlined in, another “independent published secondary source" that I use, Lessig, L. (2009) Code: And Other Laws of Cyberspace. (large print). ReadHowYouWant.com, you can also refer to [Lessig] on wikipedia. There is a further significance here in that Internet legislation should encourage more freedom, and thus could I would think be extended to wiki. I do not want to “rock the boat" of wikipedia, I just want my article published. As I say it is legible, has references so what is the problem! Why should not I be able to publish it as an autoconfirmed user? Then once it is published any one of the 10s of thousands of professors out there with a specialization overlapping the article or anyone one else with reasonable intelligence can, in a couple hours make a few good quick edits to make the article a shining picture of masterpiece perfection. This user defined way of publishing articles is supposed to be what wikipedia is about, it is not supposed to be a book publisher with a need to produce perfect product before publishing.




Fitwrite (talk) 02:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:58:48, 26 February 2021 review of submission by Jdimiango


Jdimiango (talk) 04:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ https://www.hypable.com/10-toss-a-coin-to-your-witcher-remixes-the-witcher/
  2. ^ https://primaryignition.com/2020/06/10/youtube-spotlight-ill-make-a-jedi-out-of-you-by-the-clarkson-twins/
  3. ^ https://azednews.com/santa-cruz-valley-unified-hosts-steam-and-wellness-night/
  4. ^ https://www.simplemost.com/this-guys-harry-potter-impressions-are-amazing/
  5. ^ https://www.slashgear.com/youtube-rewind-2019-tries-to-be-fair-but-is-it-05602412/
  6. ^ https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/lil-deuce-deuce-beep-beep-sheep-1.4063071
  7. ^ https://www.businessinsider.com/finalists-for-2020-shorty-awards-which-wont-have-physical-event-2020-3#youtube-musician-team-internet-30
  8. ^ https://www.altpress.com/news/man_vocal_impersonation_brendon_urie_billie_joe_armstrong_oli_sykes/
  9. ^ https://insidethemagic.net/2020/06/disney-musical-crossovers-mg1/
  10. ^ https://www.distractify.com/p/shorty-awards-nominees-youtube
  11. ^ https://www.dualshockers.com/just-dance-2018-tracklist-ubisoft-ps4-switch-xbox/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1009015080"