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
No edit summary
Line 263: Line 263:


<!-- End of message -->[[User:FrankelGnome|FrankelGnome]] ([[User talk:FrankelGnome|talk]]) 20:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
<!-- End of message -->[[User:FrankelGnome|FrankelGnome]] ([[User talk:FrankelGnome|talk]]) 20:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

== 21:07:40, 3 October 2017 review of submission by Jasonperillo ==
{{Lafc|username=Jasonperillo|ts=21:07:40, 3 October 2017|page=

High Watch Recovery Center

}}

Thank you for the opportunity to receive assistance. I understand the concerns about the "significance" of coverage and "reliability" of the source, but I feel as though what I submitted meets those guidelines. In the one instance where I felt the source might not have met those guidelines, I included the name of the source stating that "according to High Watch" and included the text in quotes.

The other item I might question is the mention in silkworth.net, but in that case I also made it clear in the text what the source was, as to avoid confusion for folks who might not look to the footnotes.

Again, any help is greatly appreciated. I'm not trying to present questionable information. I just want to present a post that is approved!

Thanks very much.

Jason

[[User:Jasonperillo|Jasonperillo]] ([[User talk:Jasonperillo|talk]]) 21:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:07, 3 October 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


September 27

03:21:21, 27 September 2017 review of submission by Ronald Carlson


Ronald Carlson (talk) 03:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

I object to the decision not to host DAB.

Some unknowleage individual says that this is inappropriate since is seems as tho DAB site is a running "how to" and ovserlooks the fact that DAP is a revolutionary new methodology.

There is nothing like DAB is the profession!

Look at you host "resing bonded bridges."

You should, based upon recent decision on DAB, take it down.

Why?

Resing Bonded bridges are nothing more than conventional bridges, a single iteration thereof.

You'll have to give our editor a better reason that that which was just offered.

I request a "editior's review" on someones unilateral "hack."

Thank you.

Editor SFC

Draft:DIRECT ADHESION BRIDGE--DAP cites no references. It lists some, but does not cite them. This will certainly cause it to be rejected.
Wikipedia has no article titled Resing bonded bridges. Maproom (talk) 21:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

09:16:51, 27 September 2017 review of submission by IKEW S.


Can I edit the title of the Wikipedia page that I have just created? IKEW S. (talk) 09:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@IKEW S.: It's called a page move and you'll find it under the 'more'-tab at the top of the page. be careful, though. It's not simply editing, it's giving the page a new title. Make sure you leave it in the "draft"-namespace untill the reviewers have looked at it. Kleuske (talk) 09:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

12:26:19, 27 September 2017 review of submission by Rachel Pleet at BrandTotal


There are two template messages on the wikipedia page that I created ("Dark Marketing") and I want to address them. The first message says that "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject" and that cleanup may be required. In a very neutral tone, I am writing about a phenomenon that exists in the marketing ecosystem. The company, BrandTotal, trademarked the term "Dark Marketing" which is why the company is mentioned and discussed briefly. How can I "clean the page up" while still being able to explain the origin of the term "Dark Marketing"? The second message on the wikipedia page says it contains content that is written like an advertisement. Please help me understand what exactly I need to remove here to improve the grading of the whole article. Thank you!


Rachel Pleet at BrandTotal (talk) 12:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel, this page is for articles currently in the Articles for Creation process. Dark_Marketing has been accepted and is now in article space. I suggest you post your question at Wikipedia:Teahouse, where you can get advice from experienced editors. Voceditenore (talk) 15:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:30:02, 27 September 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Viktor Paul


Hello, please let me know why the article regarding the draft Ralf Hildenbeutel was declined. It says "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia". I have already made some changes and hope to be going in the right direction. Comparing to other articles about artists/musicians, it seems not not be so different anymore and more neutral now. Kindly let me know what I particularly need to change to improve the draft even more. Thanks very much and best regards.--Viktor Paul (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Viktor Paul (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Viktor Paul. The draft cites a single source, a program listing that merely confirms that Hildenbeutel played keyboards for Earth Nation at Montreux Jazz Live on 16 July 1994. Multiple, independent, reliable sources that cover Hildenbeutel at some depth are required in order to demonstrate that he is notable, in other words that there is a good reason an article about him should be included in Wikipedia.
Phrases like "best known", "most important", and "Ralf decided" cannot be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Sources that support these statements must be referenced, and attribution given in the text for opinions (e.g. According to so-and-so, ...) --Worldbruce (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

20:08:30, 27 September 2017 review of submission by Mathopo



How can I improve the use of the primary sources in the Tetrabrot article?

Thanks!

21:19:46, 27 September 2017 review of submission by 199.58.132.3


199.58.132.3 (talk) 21:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC) Lewis Michael Senior[reply]

Hello, Lewis. Did you have a specific question? NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 28

Draft:Computer Education Leaders in San Mateo County

My submission was rejected because the reviewer thought we were not notable. Computer Education Leaders of San Mateo County is a consortium of computer science teachers in the county on the northern-most edge of Silicon Valley. Why are we not notable. Thanks. Brycemartens (talk) 13:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Draft's creator has a pending question on the Talk page of the reviewer. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Brycemartens. The notability of a topic is evaluated on the basis of the extent of coverage of that topic in independent reliable sources. An independent source is one that has no personal stake or involvement in the topic. A journalist who is not involved in a story except in their capacity as a reporter, for example, is independent. A member of an organization is not an independent source about that organization. Unless there is significant coverage of an organization in multiple, arms length, reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article dedicated to the topic. Wikipedia is not for publicity, promotion, or public relations. You may wish to explore alternative outlets that have different inclusion criteria than Wikipedia. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:54, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:58:28, 28 September 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Dah678


Thanks for the information and guidance about my article. It is regret to inform you that the article submitted by me has been against copy right policy and violating wikipedia's terms and conditions. This has happened due to lot of complications and misunderstanding. However, the article is of my own and I am the author of the article. Now request you to remove this article from wikipedia and oblige. Looking forward to work with large association in the near future.

Dah678 (talk) 14:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Draft has been deleted. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 29

Request on 06:05:28, 29 September 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by SLVenter


HI guys, thanks for your help so far but I am getting really frustrated. I don't understand why my article keeps on getting rejected when it is so similar to other articles on Wikipedia? First my refs were not good enough, and now the ones I used, are not enough. I re-worked the entire article because I was told that it sounded too much like an advertisement (which, when I re-read it with that in mind, I would agree). But now, I don't understand - there are other articles on Wikipedia that also only have one or two refs cited with multiple other external links just like mine - Why are they good enough and mine is not? There is not much info published on rePhotoSA besides for the PCU 5 year review and the website (which I cannot use? Although I see many other articles that cite websites too). I don't know how to move forward with this? Can I cite popular articles written about the project? I know that the information is correct and true. Can we not publish as it is and add more refs later on when more is published on the project? Or maybe is it better to cut the article down to its bare basics i.e. just a definition and collaborating institutions until more is published? Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again. SLVenterSLVenter (talk) 06:05, 29 September 2017 (UTC) SLVenter (talk) 06:05, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SLVenter. The flaw in your reasoning is the assumption that the existence of an article means it's "good enough" for the encyclopedia. It could mean only that no one has gotten around to deleting it yet. Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high-quality and low-quality content. The argument that articles exist that don't meet the policies and guidelines, so more such articles should be created, is not one that will convince experienced editors. The essay "Other stuff exists" may make it clear why.
Wikipedia prefers scholarly sources, but it's okay to cite articles from the popular (i.e. non-academic) press, especially high-quality mainstream publications such as The Guardian, New Scientist, Time, and the like. Independent sources should support the bulk of any article. You may also cite non-independent sources, including rePhotoSA's website, but non-independent sources do nothing to demonstrate notability. If very little information has been published about rePhotoSA except in non-independent sources, then it is not notable and there should not be an encyclopedia article dedicated to it, no matter how brief. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

21:35:16, 29 September 2017 review of draft by Chiu8ka


Hi. I am trying to submit my Draft:World Federation of Neurology page for review. When I click on the button, the message tells me to click Save Page button below to submit. However, this button is not there. Please help. Many thanks. Chiu Chiu (talk) 21:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chiu. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. I just looked at your page and the button is there -- it's the small rectangular one that says "Submit your draft for review!" and is located at the bottom of the large blue box. If it really isn't there, please let us know. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi NewYorkActuary. Thanks for getting back to me and sorry I was not clearer. When I click that button to "Submit your draft for review!", I am redirected to another page that says:
"Just press the "Save changes" button below without changing anything! Doing so will submit your article submission for review. Once you have saved this page you will find a new yellow 'Review waiting' box at the BOTTOM of your submission page. If you have submitted your page previously, either the old pink 'Submission declined' template or the old grey 'Draft' template will still appear at the top of your submission page, but YOU SHOULD IGNORE it. Again, please don't change anything in this text box. Just press the "Save changes" button below. "
However the "Save Changes" button is not there to press and the "Save Changes" link at the top of the page is greyed out. The page is otherwise empty without the actual content, instead there are rows of ↓ characters. Is it because the article is already in the review queue? Thank you in advance for your help. Chiu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiu8ka (talk • contribs) 06:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chiu8ka I have fixed the submission problem and reviewed the draft. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Roger (Dodger67). Thank you sincerely for sorting out the submission link and for your review. I will hope to establish further references and otherwise re-edit to remove any facts whose references I cannot find over the next week or two. Unfortunately it may be the case that many of the references are lost in time and before the Internet was around to record. Much appreciated nevertheless. If I get stuck, I will hope to get back to you :) Chiu (talk) 08:24, 3 October 2017 (GMT)

September 30

04:11:07, 30 September 2017 review of submission by Govinsinghthind

This is a nonprofit brand. This was attempted to be created for purely educational purposes only. Govinsinghthind (talk) 04:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

11:07:41, 30 September 2017 review of submission by Olavolsf

David.Moreno72 declined my submission on the grounds that 'the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Quantum Mechanics instead.'

However that page (Quantum Mechanics) is a general page on the subject, while the one I am proposing presents a specific interpretation of quantum mechanics -- one that can be traced back to many published articles and books as specified in the submission references. The page on interpretations of quantum mechanics shows that there are innumerous proposed interpretations, but the one I am describing is not presented there and also nowhere in Wikipedia (to my knowledge). The proposed page is thus similar in form to the one on the Ensemble Interpretation or the one on the Stochastic Interpretation or even the one on Bohm's Interpretation, despite being different in content.

In fact, whenever the article is accepted, if it will be, I was planning to make a connection to the page on interpretations of quantum mechanics to make it more complete by including this somewhat new approach to the subject (approximately 25 years old).

Thus, I would like to request a review of the submission on these terms.

Olavolsf (talk) 11:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Olavolsf. To determine whether the topic merits a stand alone article, reviewers are looking for independent coverage of the topic in reliable sources. Eight of the cited sources are written by Olavo, so they are not independent. Bohm 1951, Mehra 1987, Coffey and Kalmikov 2012, Takabayasi 1954, Parr and Yang 1989, de la Peña and Cetto 1982, Dodonov and Dodonov 2015, and Shewell 1959 don't mention Olavo's Interpretation.
That leaves Alonso et al. 2001. It mentions Olavo, but on its own it is insufficient evidence that Olavo's Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is notable - that the world at large has paid sufficient attention to it to justify including an entire article on the topic in a general purpose encyclopedia.
I recommend that you add a paragraph about Olavo's Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics to either Interpretations of quantum mechanics or Minority interpretations of quantum mechanics, as you see fit. Then if you still wish to pursue a stand-alone Wikipedia article on the topic, I suggest you get involved with Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics. They may be able to assist you with demonstrating encyclopedic notability and writing for an encyclopedia, which is very different from most academic writing. They can also point you to other articles where your technical expertise could be helpful. Fewer than 2% of all Wikipedia articles about physics are ranked "good" or better by the community, so there is much room for improvement. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

12:40:35, 30 September 2017 review of submission by JELOUWEX123


JELOUWEX123 (talk) 12:40, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JELOUWEX123: Hello, Jelouwex. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Although you didn't actually ask a question, I can see what the problem is with your submission -- you created a sub-page of your Sandbox, but submitted it for review without first copying the content from the Sandbox into that sub-page. You probably want to do that before re-submitting. But be aware that being 14 years old and having a YouTube channel will probably not be enough to justify having an article on Wikipedia. If you re-submit the draft in its current form, it will likely be rejected again. I hope this response is helpful. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:59, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

21:46:43, 30 September 2017 review of submission by Kindness33


Hello. I was writing to find out when my page will become accepted on wiki. Titled "Ursula Hayden". Can someone also please help me if it needs any changes. Thank you.


Kindness33 (talk) 21:46, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Kindness33#Paid editors are required to declare as such. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 1

05:17:14, 1 October 2017 review of submission by Hemant.telvekar


Request on 11:37:10, 1 October 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by MineralMinds


Hi, I am trying to make a translated copy of a webpage that exists in Polish, but keep getting denied the article. It is a company info page for a company that works outside of just Poland, therefore making it important to have this wiki translated into English aswell. Please could you advise me on how I can get this article translated so that it features in English aswell? The Polish article can be found at https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/MakoLab

Thank you MineralMinds (talk) 11:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MineralMinds. The Polish article doesn't help you because it cites only the company website and a dead link. Multiple, independent, reliable sources that contain significant coverage of the company need to be cited to demonstrate that the company is notable - that it is suitable for inclusion in the English Wikipedia. One such sources is: "Biurowiec przy Ogrodowej z pierwszym najemcą. Międzynarodowa firma". Gazeta Wyborcza (in Polish). 21 September 2016.. Finding enough sources to write a full and balanced article is left as an exercise for the reader. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:55:42, 1 October 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Hanna kuku


Sorry, I want to make an English version of this page of Ukrainian wiki - https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Куценко_Оксана_Петрівна And got the message it lacks notability. Is there a simple way to make an other language version of the page? Hanna kuku (talk) 11:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hanna kuku. There is no simpler way to make an English version. You could ask for assistance at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ukraine or Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red. They may be able to assist you with finding more or better sources. Are there articles in the English Wikipedia that would benefit from a link to an article about her? If so, you could link the Ukrainian article without creating an English-language one, using the code {{ill|Oksana Kutsenko|uk|Куценко Оксана Петрівна}}, which produced the text: Oksana Kutsenko [uk]. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

15:45:45, 1 October 2017 review of submission by Reedko64

IMore sources are required so I'm adding sources. But there is a note which I need clarification on. What info is being questioned here: Comment: There's also errors of fact introduced with a clear intent to promote O'Neal. Huon (talk) 22:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC) Reedko64 (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Already answered by reviewer at User talk:Huon#01:57:27, 1 October 2017 review of submission by Reedko64. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

19:40:50, 1 October 2017 review of submission by Sorrasizog


Sorrasizog (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]


I would like to know why is declined when the same article in Albanian language and which references or mine are not reliable! Please explain the not reliable sources.

Hi Sorrasizog. Each language version of Wikipedia operates according to its own policies and guidelines, set by the community of editors who contribute there. So an article may satisfy the rules for the Albanian Wikipedia but not the English one, or vice versa. Also the existence of an article in the Albanian Wikipedia doesn't necessarily mean it should exist there, it could mean only that no one has gotten around to deleting it yet.
Draft:Islam bORINCA has the same problems as Draft:Islam Borinca, plus new ones. The history of Draft:Islam bORINCA has been merged to Draft:Islam Borinca to repair the mess made by copying and pasting.
Websites gazeta038.wordpress.com, albinfo.ch, and iliriainfo.com do not exhibit the characteristics of reliable sources. The unige.ch source is a directory listing, and the epokaere.com article is not independent because it is written by the subject. Wikipedia does not normally have articles on PhD students. Wikipedia does not even normally have articles on professors, although some reach the top of their field and become notable, usually well into their careers.
Continuing to submit this draft without dramatic improvement would be tendentious editing. Such behaviour could lead to being blocked from editing, to the draft being deleted, even to the topic being salted. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2

Request on 01:49:26, 2 October 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Citlali Marquez at SK


Hello, I work for Saint Kentigern Trust Board and I need to create a Wikipedia profile for Saint Kentigern Boys' School, Saint Kentigern Girls' School and Preschool.

I have drafted the Wikipedia profile for the Boys' School but the submission was declined and I would like to get some help in order to get the profile approved which will give me some guidelines to crate the remaining 2 schools profiles that I need to create.

Citlali Marquez at SK (talk) 01:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Citlali Marquez at SK. What you personally need may be at odds with Wikipedia's needs. That's a major reason why people who have a conflict of interest with regard to a topic should not create an article on that subject.
Wikipedia articles are about notable topics, ones that a reader would expect to find in a general purpose encyclopedia. Notability is evaluated based on the extent to which the world at large has taken notice of the subject. Most primary and middle schools are not notable. If Saint Kentigern Boys' School is the one-in-a-thousand exception to that rule of thumb, it will need to be shown by citing significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources.
If you can identify such sources, I strongly encourage you to ask at Wikipedia:Requested articles for an article to be created, rather than attempting to complete Draft:Saint Kentigern Boys' School yourself. If they agree that the subject is notable, experienced volunteers will create an unbiased article about it following the article guidelines for schools. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

14:42:58, 2 October 2017 review of submission by LIbby.Hoban


Hi,

I drafted an article (Clyde Space) which was not accepted. I've updated it based on the comments provided. There isn't a resubmit button that I can see. Is there anything further I should do or will this be reviewed in time as it is?

Thanks, Libby LIbby.Hoban (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LIbby.Hoban. In future, do not remove the reviews or any comments reviewers leave. One reason is that the resubmit button is embedded in the big pink box that contains the reason the draft was declined. The reviews and comments will be removed automatically if and when the draft is accepted. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

21:56:01, 2 October 2017 review of submission by Jzirin


Jim Zirin (talk) 21:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My draft article has been rejected for lack of references. I have updated it. Will this suffice? Jim Zirin (talk) 21:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)October 2, 2017[reply]

Hi Jzirin. The two references you added are both written by James D. Zirin. They do not address the reason the draft was declined because to demonstrate encyclopedic notability the sources must be independent of the subject. In other words, notability is not proven by things Zirin wrote, but by what other people wrote (in reliable sources) about Zirin and his work. The bulk of any article should be based on such sources.
You may be familiar with the old adage that "A lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client". Something similar is true here. Although Wikipedia does not forbid people from attempting to write an autobiographical article, doing so is strongly discouraged and would be foolish. This extends to writing about family and others with whom one has a close relationship, and to hiring someone or being hired by someone to write about a topic. If the topic meets the encyclopedia's inclusion criteria, one of Wikipedia's tens of thousands of active volunteers will write about it. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 3

08:47:16, 3 October 2017 review of submission by Maryam.bzade20




}}

12:54:00, 3 October 2017 review of submission by JaxLax


Am trying to get an article Peter's Railway approved but has been declined, Firstly my original username (Peter's Railway) was blocked so have created a new account (JaxLax) but still working on the same article Can you give some advice

JaxLax (talk) 12:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

17:37:51, 3 October 2017 review of submission by Wafyalumni


Wafyalumni (talk) 17:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request being added as participant

19:08:48, 3 October 2017 review of submission by SheridanFord


I am eligible to become a participant. I am an active member of WIkimedia NYC chapter and have over 900 edits to date: https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=SheridanFord&project=en.wikipedia.org Requesting my username be added to the list so I can use the Article Wizard for a new article.

sheridanford (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

19:20:37, 3 October 2017 review of draft by Mitchko


Hello I am trying to submit an article for review. When I do so, I get a box telling me that a box will appear at the bottom of the article with a "save changes" button for me to click. but I do not see this. Mitchko (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:16:46, 3 October 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by FrankelGnome


Hello, I plan to revise this article so it will not sound like an advertisement. However, If possible, I would like feedback on what sections need adjusting/removing.

Thanks!

FrankelGnome (talk) 20:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FrankelGnome (talk) 20:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

21:07:40, 3 October 2017 review of submission by Jasonperillo


Thank you for the opportunity to receive assistance. I understand the concerns about the "significance" of coverage and "reliability" of the source, but I feel as though what I submitted meets those guidelines. In the one instance where I felt the source might not have met those guidelines, I included the name of the source stating that "according to High Watch" and included the text in quotes.

The other item I might question is the mention in silkworth.net, but in that case I also made it clear in the text what the source was, as to avoid confusion for folks who might not look to the footnotes.

Again, any help is greatly appreciated. I'm not trying to present questionable information. I just want to present a post that is approved!

Thanks very much.

Jason

Jasonperillo (talk) 21:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=803659124"