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
Bent0811 (talk | contribs)
104 edits
No edit summary
Line 162: Line 162:


= February 19 =
= February 19 =

== 13:35:09, 19 February 2017 review of submission by Bent0811 ==
{{Lafc|username=Bent0811|ts=13:35:09, 19 February 2017|page=

}}

[[User:Bent0811|Bent0811]] ([[User talk:Bent0811|talk]]) 13:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:35, 19 February 2017

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 13

Request on 03:05:55, 13 February 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Raouf.Ayas


Hello,

I need ti know why I cannot publish my article. Its talking about the biography of my father as a syro lebanese who lived in Egypt. Is there any references I can add to my article? Something is missing?


Raouf.Ayas (talk) 03:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Raouf. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. A biography of your father will be suitable for Wikipedia only if he had been the subject of in-depth coverage from reliable sources. This is our "general notability" criterion, which you can read about at WP:GNG. As for finding such sources, you might try asking the folks who work at our Egypt project. Their talk page is here. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:22:43, 13 February 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by 2600:8803:7A00:19:8554:3F1:8AE4:6DAA


There are dead links and one of them needs to be fixed now so that this article can be crated. 2600:8803:7A00:19:8554:3F1:8AE4:6DAA (talk) 15:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2600:8803:7A00:19:8554:3F1:8AE4:6DAA (talk) 15:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The season only starts in August, there is simply nowhere near enough content to create this article now. The date is literally the only substantive fact that is known about it now. Put it on ice until some more definite information is published later in the year. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

16:39:22, 13 February 2017 review of submission by PoorRicardo



I am confused. I thought I was supposed to create a sandbox of my user page and then submit it, but when I do the game that introduces one to Wikipedia, it asks me to create the page in the real space (i.e., not the sandbox). My submission has now been rejected for notability, but I am not submitting an article about myself. Rather, I am trying to create a user page modeled after some of your model user pages. Thanks for your guidance. PoorRicardo (talk) 16:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PoorRicardo only new article drafts are reviewed here, please go ahead and create your user page directly. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up PoorRicardo If this draft was submitted in error, you can have it deleted by placing {{db-g7}} at the top of the draft. Deletion usually occurs within a few hours of the request. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

17:23:19, 13 February 2017 review of submission by Robert Bednarik


Robert Bednarik (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My draft article "Kinetic Energy Metamorphosis" has been reviewed by a chemist. It is not about chemistry, it is about a tribological phenomenon, please have it reviewed by a tribologist, or at the very least by a geomorphologist. Prof. Robert G. Bednarik

February 14

11:34:50, 14 February 2017 review of submission by Edaham


I am writing as this is the first time I have submitted an article for review and I would like to know if the minimal format I have presented is sufficient to begin the article and enter it into the article space for later expansion. Is this an accepted method of beginning an article which is a WP:BLPEdaham (talk) 11:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edaham (talk) 11:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Edaham. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. I see that your draft has already been declined by one of our reviewers. If you would like more detail behind that decision, the best place to ask is on the Talk page of that reviewer (and you'll find a link to that page next to the reviewer's name near the top of the draft). For what it's worth, I too would have declined your submission, because you haven't demonstrated that the subject has received in-depth coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Nor have you demonstrated that the subject meets any of the criteria set forth in WP:CREATIVE. If you can find sources that do meet these requirements, feel free to add them to the draft and we'll be happy to take another look at it. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 15

15:31:49, 15 February 2017 review of submission by Joseph Walsh


I need some help with editing guidelines. Is there a page on Wikipedia for that? Also, can someone steal my idea?

Hello, Joseph. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Yes, we have quite a few pages that provide help for editors. You might take a look at our WP:Tutorial, as well as WP:Your first article and WP:Writing better articles. As for your second question, I'm not sure what "idea" you are asking about. But please be advised that when you post any text on Wikipedia, you have generally granted permission to anyone anywhere to copy and modify it for their own purposes. See WP:Copyrights for more detail. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

18:44:10, 15 February 2017 review of submission by Styleupfashionmagazine


Styleupfashionmagazine (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Styleup. Did you have a specific question? NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


February 16

01:53:00, 16 February 2017 review of submission by Seanhubert


Seanhubert (talk) 01:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC) I just can't seem to get my pictures loaded up from:. File:Https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Maria-Ratkova with musicians(10).jpg Maria Ratkova Russian Mezzo in Rome>[reply]

I've tried everything and these are original unused pictures. is it becuase the article is in draft review form?

Hello, Sean. No, it wasn't because the page is a draft. The problem was incorrect coding. If we can be of any further assistance, please let us know. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

14:45:13, 16 February 2017 review of draft by Chief Justice JTR


I'm working on a biographical page for Mountjoy Bayly, the second Sergeant-at-Arms for the US Senate. I'm not sure how to format the sidebar that should contain all of the biographical information (birth, death, parentage, siblings etc.). Could you please advise me on how to format the sidebar, or direct me to the appropriate page?

Thanks Chief Justice JTR (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC) Chief Justice JTR (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Chief Justice JTR. See Template:Infobox person. Just copy and paste the markup at the top of the draft and fill in the equal signs (e.g. name = Mountjoy Bayly etc.). Anything left blank the template will simply ignore. TimothyJosephWood 14:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sweet! Thanks, I really appreciate it. Chief Justice JTR (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

17:11:00, 16 February 2017 review of submission by 77.139.182.222


It's been more than two weeks since i asked for this article to be reviewed and still no answer.

77.139.182.222 (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP address. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. As I post this, there are about 200 submissions in the queue ahead of your submission. Although it is not possible to give an exact date, it looks like it will take about another week before a reviewer looks at your submission. Thank you for your patience. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

17:21:46, 16 February 2017 review of draft by Topcipher


Is this good enough for me to submit for Article creation? I have exhaustively added all the external references and the right citations, ensuring that the language does not resemble that of advertisement (not that Google would in any way benefit from this as my attempt is purely and simply to shed light on the technology that once existed and quite possibly could either return or be shut down forever). Thanks. TopCipher 17:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Top. Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia. In one sense, your draft is "good enough" to submit for consideration. But whether or not it gets accepted for publication is an altogether different question. For what it's worth, I wouldn't accept it, because it provides little more than what one would find in a product's brochure. I recognize that you've written the draft in a neutral tone and, thus, have avoided the problems seen in many other submissions here. But I still don't see how that's enough to render the subject worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Then again, other reviewers might have different opinions and you are certainly free to submit the draft and see how the reviewer feels about it. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@NewYorkActuary: Thanks for helping with your inputs. Truly appreciate the efforts and your insights over my language (about it being non-promotional). I am facing issues on other articles and so I'm working hard over making it better.
TopCipher 05:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
This query has been resolved and the article has been accepted for creation. Thanks
TopCipher 05:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

17:53:17, 16 February 2017 review of submission by SaraSears


Hi, my submission was declined due to This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Would someone be able to help me in figuring out what to add to make the page correct?

Thank you! SaraSears (talk) 17:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sara. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Your draft needs the same thing that would be required of any article on a company -- a demonstration that the company has received in-depth coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the company. So far, you haven't made that demonstration. Has the company been the subject of an article in the Wall Street Journal or the Harvard Business Review? Or any other reliable business publication? If the answer is "no", then it is unlikely that your draft will be accepted for publication here. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

22:17:27, 16 February 2017 review of submission by Mgenzac


Mgenzac (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply] 

Hello. I have added third party references regarding the subject's research  and contributions. I am enthusiastic that this might be sufficient. Thank you for all your help. Do you think it  may be  adequate ? Thank you!!! Mgenzac (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


February 17

02:29:22, 17 February 2017 review of submission by Wilwyg


Wilwyg (talk) 02:29, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i've added more sources. i'm not really sure what else to add.

Wilwyg (talk) 22:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could someone explain why this article was declined? I've provided a range of reliable sources, including one of the most established newspapers in NJ, where the subject is from, as well as CBS, IMDB, inter alia. Thanks.

21:14:59, 17 February 2017 review of submission by Bridget.bailey

I have removed all advertisement like qualities to The Vanguard School page and would like it to be reviewed to take out the "reads like an advertisement" portion. I would also like to know how to reference it as most information comes from our website. I can link online media that tells about us from boarding school profile websites, if this would work. It is very important to me to get this page up and functioning. I definitely do not want it to have a biased view. Please tell me how this can be removed and what would I need to cite to make it up to standards. Bridget.bailey (talk) 21:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bridget.bailey: You write "our website" and "tells about us". If you are employed by The Vanguard School to, among other things, edit the Wikipedia article about them, you must follow Wikipedia's paid-contribution disclosure requirements. Failure to do so is a violation of the terms of use.
I've removed the mission statement. It is meaningless puffery designed to promote the organization. No school has as their mission "to provide an uncaring, hostile environment which prevents our students from developing to their fullest capability." That that eluded you shows why you are ill-positioned to evaluate whether all advertisement-like qualities have been removed from the article. It illustrates why you really, really, really should not be editing the article at all.
This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. Because this is an existing article please consider asking for any further assistance at the Wikipedia:Help desk. There editors will try to answer any question regarding how to use Wikipedia. WikiProject Schools may also be able to provide advice. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine if you removed the mission statement. It was because I saw it on other schools, where they say the same "puffery" as you called it. I am not being paid to edit the article at all. I took the information from their website. That was all. I updated this article BECAUSE it had incorrect and insufficient information. That is all. I will go to the Help Desk from now on. I didn't know where to look for help. I see it is not here. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bridget.bailey (talk • contribs) 18:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 18

Request on 06:25:02, 18 February 2017 review of submission by Anupriyatkd


}}

kindly tell me why my content is not published. i have published true cntents.

Anupriyatkd (talk) 06:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anupriyatkd. Content in Wikipedia must be verifiable. Articles must cite reliable sources to show where the material came from. As the review of the draft says, Help:Referencing for beginners can guide you through the mechanics of citing sources using footnotes.
Malayala Manorama is a reliable source. IMDb, however, is user-generated, so it is not a reliable source, and you should not use information you found there. Cinetrooth.in and cochintalkies.com don't exhibit the characteristics of reliable sources. Regarding them, I suggest you ask for advice at WP:RSN, specifying the exact statement(s) in the draft you want to use them to support. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

16:02:28, 18 February 2017 review of submission by Wikijahnson

The comment on the article is: This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. My question is this: I could potentially add dozens of references from notable, independent sources, even to the extent of footnoting every sentence in the article. How do I strike a balance between excessive referencing and insufficient referencing that leads to a lack of notability? Thank you! Wikijahnson (talk) 16:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wikijahnson. Reference quality is more important than quantity. New editors are often advised to cite at least three independent, published, reliable, secondary sources containing a significant depth of information about a topic. The draft cites personal papers in an archive (not published), a patent and company documents (neither independent nor secondary), a YouTube video (not reliable or secondary). It cites a conference paper, which is a good start, although something published in an academic journal is prefered, because conference papers usually aren't peer reviewed. It also cites a page in Mass Transportation, which appears to be a magazine or trade journal rather than an academic journal, so ok, but not the best possible source. The way to establish notability is to add a modest number of sources that tick all the boxes - independent, published, reliable, secondary, and significant depth - and remove poorer sources.
With regard to citation density, make it easy for readers (and reviewers) to tell where the information in the draft came from. If everything in a paragraph came from the same source, there's no need for an inline citation at the end of every sentence, one at the end of the paragraph would be fine. Three of the last four paragraphs cite no sources, which is unwise. See Help:Referencing for beginners for a shorthand way of using the same reference more than once. For offline sources, consider using the cite template's quote parameter if the passage is no longer than a few sentences, see "Additional annotation" in Wikipedia:Citing sources for more information. You may also find Wikipedia:Writing better articles useful, in particular what it says about structure and tone. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Worldbruce - thank you for that input - very helpful! One source you didn't mention that I would like to hear from you about - newspaper articles - would they be independent, published, reliable, secondary, but not, perhaps, significant depth? Wikijahnson (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikijahnson: Newspaper articles are the next best thing to scholarly sources, see WP:NEWSORG for more information. Avoid passing mentions of the topic. Aim for sources with at least a few paragraphs about it. An example of very good depth would be: "Revolutionary Type of Bus Being Tested Soon". The Hancock Democrat. Greenfield, IN. June 30, 1949. p. 3 – via Newspapers.com. Free access icon. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 19

13:35:09, 19 February 2017 review of submission by Bent0811


Bent0811 (talk) 13:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=766310729"