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
Scsbot (talk | contribs)
Bots
240,147 edits
edited by robot: archiving September 3
Abb14c (talk | contribs)
10 edits
No edit summary
Line 426: Line 426:


[[User:Christianadrias|Christianadrias]] ([[User talk:Christianadrias|talk]]) 01:59, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
[[User:Christianadrias|Christianadrias]] ([[User talk:Christianadrias|talk]]) 01:59, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

== Request on 06:27:59, 9 September 2018 for assistance on [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation|AfC]] submission by Abb14c ==
{{anchor|06:27:59, 9 September 2018 review of submission by Abb14c}}
{{Lafc|username=Abb14c|ts=06:27:59, 9 September 2018|declinedtalk=Draft:Zolors}}

<!-- Start of message -->
I wrote an article for publication. After review it was not accepted because it sounded like a poem. However, I cleared the text in the editing box and wrote a new one which I published.I haven't received any information yet. Again I still see the message that was left by the reviewer whenever I open my sandbox

<!-- End of message -->[[User:Abb14c|Abb14c]] ([[User talk:Abb14c|talk]]) 06:27, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:27, 9 September 2018

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, 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 3

02:50:46, 3 September 2018 review of draft by 108.204.65.73

why?

108.204.65.73 (talk) 02:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

03:28:45, 3 September 2018 review of submission by Bharathshastry


Bharathshastry (talk) 03:28, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Why My article has be declined please elaborate the issue...?

Hi Bharathshastry. The big pink box on Draft:Manjunath J. Anivaarya contains links to extensive explanations of why the draft is not acceptable. In short, Wikipedia doesn't publish biographies of every film director, only notable ones. For example, there is a biography of Girish Kasaravalli because there is significant coverage of him in independent, reliable, secondary sources (think books and newspapers). People have written extensively about him because he is an eminent filmmaker who has made numerous films and won fourteen National Film Awards. The draft does not cite any independent, reliable, secondary sources containing significant coverage of Manjunath J. Anivaarya. That is probably because he is an up-and-coming director who has made one film. It is WP:TOOSOON to write an article about him on Wikipedia. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

09:04:49, 3 September 2018 review of draft by Shadwell Basin


Shadwell Basin (talk) 09:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Message to @Gbawden: from Shadwell Basin:

You were kind enough to help me with citations and a list of contents for this article. If you were inclined to do so, I was wondering if you'd be able to return to it and check my citations now? I have three thoughts in mind:

1. The printed sources are all accurate, but the sources I've used do not usually reveal a page number for newspapers and magazines, which need to be added. I know this is a nuisance but I imagine your sources may reveal page numbering? However, I'm very sorry for this problem.

2. I take it my sources which are radio or TV broadcasts, which I do have access to, may not be generally available. I can delete them if that is appropriate, although their existence is quite important as they are part of the subject's output.

3. If you can mark any other things needing citation I can either find one or delete the reference. Of course a large part of this writer's life (apart from "Sonia" and the "Fifth Man") is really covered by the single reference of his entry in the British Who's Who published by A & C Black, which I refer to.

Incidentally the subject was a leading thriller writer, widely written about and translated, until stopped (not quite) dead by heart attack. I've been aware of his work since the 80s but have revisited it for something else I've been writing, hence this article as I was surprised there wasn't one, but was not familiar with the Wikipedia process and manuals.

Shadwell Basin, if you're curious, is the largest of the very old (18th/19th Century?) London Docks (near Tower Bridge) which has not been filled in and built on. It is fifteen minutes walk from the City of London but now a lake occupied by ducks, swans and sailing dinghies and I'm looking over it as I write.

Thanks for your help and forbearance to a struggling novice!

11:57:00, 3 September 2018 review of draft by Abhijitdyp


how can i know if my draft is submitted for review or not. i hhave already hit the publish changes and submit draft button thrice but there is no confirmatory message Abhijitdyp (talk) Abhijitdyp (talk) 11:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Abhijitdyp. Currently the draft is not submitted (I don't know if the grey box appeared at the top after you posted). When it's done it should disappear and be replaced (either at top or bottom of article) with a yellow box with writing inside.
If you like, I can submit the draft for review if you're having trouble.
I would note, that currently your draft has no sources, which means it will definitely be declined in review. You need reliable/independent sources (newspapers, books, journal articles etc) which cover Patil in depth.
Usually a draft takes a while to be reviewed, so you usually have time to improve them after submitting, but sometimes they get reviewed quickly (We pick drafts that our in our field of interest). As I said, respond below if you need help submitting Nosebagbear (talk) 12:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nosebagbear: I have submitted the draft as Abhijitdyp and reviewed it while you are making this comment. —AE (talk • contributions) 12:18, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

13:52:24, 3 September 2018 review of draft by Middleeastd


I'd love some help, please. Below are the noted problems: "This draft does not establish biographical notability. It has a large number of references, but the references merely refer to what he and his businesses say, and they do not establish that independent sources have written about him. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)" --With respect, it seems most of the references are independent sources from publications. I wonder which ones should be removed or would be appropriate--any tips would be appreciated.

Also, the person and their activities seems comparable to others in similar fields. Take for example Issa Abdul Salam Abu-Issa.

"Symbol opinion vote.svg Comment: This draft has been reference-bombed, largely with press releases. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:08, 2 September 2018 (UTC)" I'm not sure I follow this comment, please--there are no press releases referenced. Is it that the published articles appear to have been generated from press releases, is that right?

Any other tips on how to rectify this would be helpful.

Thanks so much--just trying to figure this out!


Middleeastd (talk) 13:52, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Middleeastd. I started cleaning up the draft. As the reviewer said, most of the cited sources were not independent (e.g. this press release) or their content about him was nonexistent, trivial, or came from him (e.g. [1]).
I stopped cleaning up before the awards section, by which time it had become fairly clear that he is not notable. Bloomberg is reliable, but indiscriminate. It tries to list all companies and executives, so being listed there is not an indication of notability. The information in Who's Who is supplied by the subjects, so it's reliable for non-controversial information, but again doesn't help establish notability. Interviews that are just Abuissa talking about Abuissa, without independent critical commentary, are primary sources and lack independence.
The awards are not especially impressive, E&Y gives out 400 of them every year. If you continue working on the draft, you'll need to address the WP:BOMBARD in the awards section. There's no reason to cite six sources for one award when a single independent, reliable source will do.
With regard to similar articles, although it is natural to learn by example, it is safer to work from the official guidelines, in this case Wikipedia:Notability (people). Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality articles and poor quality articles. The existence of articles that do not meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is not a good excuse to create more such articles. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why. If you wish to learn from example articles, be sure to use only Wikipedia's best. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

14:25:01, 3 September 2018 review of draft by Ahmad dafer


Ahmad dafer (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello dear As for the topics that have been raised, I have just noticed that most Arab tournaments do not have websites. It is difficult to collect information about them. Therefore, I search through the local newspapers for the results of these tournaments according to the articles that I publish and put in place. In other words, In that country. The other thing is that I was a player in the Al Ahli handball club and became an administrator for the team and I know very well what the history of this club Thank you :)

14:31:54, 3 September 2018 review of submission by Plazarev


I've created this list of JavaScript pivot tables after coming across an article on this very topic: https://dzone.com/articles/comparison-of-javascript-pivot-grids-for-developer I haven't included it in the Reference list, as I've decided to conduct my own research into the features of JavaScript pivot tables represented in the list to find out more details about them. All information provided in the list is technical. I was trying to create an article by the example of this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_JavaScript_frameworks Please, advise me if it makes sense to at least include any of these tables in this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pivot_table

Best regards,

Plazarev (talk) 14:31, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

18:53:45, 3 September 2018 review of draft by Yororipas


Yororipas (talk) 18:53, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, is there a quick way to locate a particular line on a wiki page while editing? i.e. can you get it to display line numbers along the side for example?

@Yororipas: - hi. As far as I know there isn't, what particularly are you intending to do. There isn't any fixed content per line, so different amounts would display depending on screen size etc. Usually if we're trying to point to something more specific we'd indicate/link to a section/sub-section. If that's what you're trying to do then I can tell you, or you can ask a question (or re-ask this one - I may well be missing something) at the TEAHOUSE. Nosebagbear (talk) 07:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

19:57:45, 3 September 2018 review of draft by Wesley Craig


Need help publishing draft of #1 best-selling Christian devotional book of all-time, Jesus Calling, authored by Sarah Young.

The book was first published in 2004 and has sold over 22 million copies worldwide.

Cheers,

Wesley Craig (talk) 19:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

20:43:30, 3 September 2018 review of draft by Sofiagrama6


Sofiagrama6 (talk) 20:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC) brooke[reply]


2018 brooklyn shooting happened just recently. Sofiagrama6 (talk) 20:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC) 2018[reply]

@Sofiagrama6: - there doesn't appear to be any detail, at all, to your draft. Wikipedia requires at least a reasonable minimum of content, as well as suitable referencing, to be provided. It's worth having a look at "Your First Article". Nosebagbear (talk) 07:41, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 4

00:14:29, 4 September 2018 review of draft by KineretVeYarden


I would like to link Wikipedia entry in both languages: the English Entry of Rabbi Yosef Haim HaCohen with the Hebrew entry of Rabbi Yosef Haim HaCohen which exists since 2012 The connection is important for bi-lingual Wikipedia readers

https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%99%D7%95%D7%A1%D7%A3_%D7%97%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D_%D7%94%D7%9B%D7%94%D7%9F

I would also like to ask an English editor if there is a specific suggestion to edit a specific word or phrase to further improve the acceptance of the submission of Rabbi Yosef Haim HaCohen English entry .

Thank you 

KineretVeYarden KineretVeYarden (talk) 00:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KineretVeYarden (talk) 00:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

04:33:58, 4 September 2018 review of draft by 109.102.105.180


Oh yet, Alex4ff resubmitted third time. 109.102.105.180 (talk) 04:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

06:20:49, 4 September 2018 review of draft by Antresajil


Hello, I really want to know whats the problem with my request ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Loolish_Gaming_(Esports) ), my wiki page, you said its more of an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. I really don't know where is the problem, i simply inspired how to write this article from the Fnatic and Team Solo Mid esport wiki pages from where, can you tell me like whats a big problem or something so I know what to modify and how,

Antresajil (talk) 06:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

06:36:43, 4 September 2018 review of draft by Amr247rn


My draft article is still awaiting submission, it is the "very old" submission section with 162 other drafts awaiting editing. My draft is draft:constantine mavroudis. Can I request an update or an edit/approval? Amr247rn (talk) 06:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:01:16, 4 September 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Justbecause09


Hello - I wanted to add some info about an author I came across (very little info exists about the author online), so I wrote a wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Michael_Stall

I am new to writing wikis, and because it has been declined by Heliosxeros, it needs someone with more skill to complete it. I am not sure if anyone cares to review and assist to get it published, otherwise it can be deleted. Thanks!


Just Because ! (talk) 09:01, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

09:48:46, 4 September 2018 review of draft by Luitzen

Please improve my English grammar!

Luitzen (talk) 09:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

16:49:58, 4 September 2018 review of draft by Tripathyalka


I dont want this page to be discarded as this is a part of my experience and I believe people also must know the genuinity of it as their are many companies which are in the same industry..I want your expert help in turning this aim of mine into reality. I was skeptical of even starting to write about it as I had a feeling that it will be rejected thinking it is a promotional one. Please let me know how and what can be mentioned in pages like this so that it stays... Thanks

Tripathyalka (talk) 16:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:54:25, 4 September 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Johnson.devaraj


I would like some good reviewer to review my draft Draft:Arthur Margoschis, and let me know if my draft satisfies wikipedia requirements, to qualify for the main page display.

Recently, I have included credible references, links and citations.

If my draft doesn't meet requirements, then I request the reviewer to advise me on the needed changes. Johnson.devaraj (talk) 18:54, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Johnson.devaraj:, I've resubmitted it for you - it was currently non-submitted and thus couldn't be reviewed. Currently there's a lot of drafts - roughly 3500 in Articles for Change, so as the yellow box says, reviewing could take a long time. It might not - reviewers go over topics within their area of expertise and interest, rather than purely date-order.
I assume by "main page display" you mean like the articles that make up the visible to the public articles? If you mean the front-page, then only articles of established and extremely high quality manage that. A good, though high, first target is to focus on a Good Article.
I've had a skim read of the draft and nothing obvious jumps out that would cause the declining of the draft, but it will need to wait for a formal review to be sure. You can obviously keep editing it in the meantime!
Nosebagbear (talk) 22:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

20:30:18, 4 September 2018 review of draft by M'Laurine


How do I create a page for a person with the same name as somebody with an existing page?

M'Laurine (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @M'Laurine:. I assume you are wanting to make a draft on someone with the name "John E. McCarthy" but the Catholic Bishop John E. McCarthy would prevent a direct match? For the moment I'll assume so (and that you are writing about a different person).
The usual thing to do is add their profession in brackets afterwards. So if they were a footballer you'd create Draft:John E. McCarthy (footballer). Once it is an article, you (or someone else, if you ask) would usually put a link to each at the top of the other's page, to aid navigation.
I hope that helps, if it doesn't, write {{ping|Nosebagbear}} in your next message here and I'll come back to have a look. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! That's exactly what I wanted to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M'Laurine (talk • contribs) 23:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

22:27:57, 4 September 2018 review of draft by Almondbite3


Almondbite3 (talk) 22:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, we were wondering if our page is still being reviewed, as we hadn't heard anything in a couple months. Is there anything else we need to do? thank you very much!

Hi Almondbite3. One question before I start - is there a particular "we" you mean (since when you made the post you were the only editor)?
To answer your question, AfC currently has 3500 drafts submitted to it, which means up to a 2 month waiting time. If it's been longer than 8 weeks since you re-submitted then your draft will have entered a shorter queue which should speed it up a little. The drafts aren't done in date-order, since reviewers have different specialties.
Your draft is better than its original form (I've also fixed some formatting). At a rough glance notability probably is managed, but the actually useful (for notability - I'm sure they're good for individual facts) sources are slightly hard to identify in the mix. If any particular actions from the Alliance have been covered in the last 2 months by a newspaper in detail than adding that would almost certainly tip it over the edge in that particular sense. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

23:20:16, 4 September 2018 review of draft by 108.204.65.73

Why is it taking longer than usual?

@108.204.65.73: - as it noted in the yellow box at the bottom, we've currently got over 3500 drafts, and the amount of reviewers increases only slowly, so the processing time obviously expands. Nosebagbear (talk) 07:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]


108.204.65.73 (talk) 23:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 5

07:43:40, 5 September 2018 review of submission by 194.224.168.10


194.224.168.10 (talk) 07:43, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augur_(software), and this if it has notoriety? Wings has more users and clients than this application. In addition to having a co-invented JSON team member and also has one of the creators of iota serguei popov

Firstly, importance (or notoriety etc) aren't equivalent to notability which is whether there is in-depth, reliable, sources about the topic.
Secondly, one article or another being in Wikipedia doesn't mean yours should - otherwise one insufficient article could mean we'd have to let anything in. It is possible that it means the Augur article shouldn't remain in the guide.
The Augur article has an in-depth source from Fortune. Your draft only uses either crypto sector coverage, all of which is functionally non-independent when it comes to talking about crypto currencies. The latter source is almost entirely a press release (so also isn't independent). Companies/products must meet higher notability requirements, your draft is a significant distance from managing to do so. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

10:43:52, 5 September 2018 review of submission by Dean.Connor


Hi there,

I have submitted a change to an award on this page. Please let me know if this has been approved.

Thank you.

Dean.Connor (talk) 10:43, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

14:04:22, 5 September 2018 review of draft by Camnoble1


How do I add a discography?

Camnoble1 (talk) 14:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

14:37:07, 5 September 2018 review of draft by Colby983


I'm not sure exactly what kind of sources are needed. I already have multiple great sources that should be fine. Please help me to understand this. Colby983 (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Colby983:. Unfortunately your sources aren't great for proving notability. They require secondary sources (so not from the schools/groups involved) that are in depth, reliable and independent (so have no interest in pushing any particular point of view - this can include interviews).
Try looking for non-school (preferably non-local) newspapers, books/book chapters etc.
You also don't really clarify what makes this a particularly notable rivalry - of more note than the tens of thousands of rivalries between nearby schools over sports. WHen you find better sources you should use them to help you expand on this, too.
Hope this helps. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

16:13:59, 5 September 2018 review of draft by 196.91.89.196


196.91.89.196 (talk) 16:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @196.91.89.196: - can you expand on what you are wanting to ask? Nosebagbear (talk) 16:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

17:56:19, 5 September 2018 review of draft by Martasam


Hi there, I have created a page for approval (Gina Cody) I had received a notification that the photo I uploaded would be removed, yet I had sent the necessary permissions from the copyright holder/author to use it. Will the photo be put back up?

Thank you.

Martasam 17:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

19:32:05, 5 September 2018 review of submission by Bobowikiedit


Thanks for reviewing my article. This is my first time creating an article on Wikipedia and I thought I had followed all of the guidelines. My article was rejected as it states that it "reads more like an advertisement." I reviewed all of the guidelines and did my best to keep the article as factual as possible and added a number of external links/references from major publications. I also included information from the subjects company websites, but that was just to add further to the references. I'm happy to modify the content, but I'm not sure what could be changed to make it more "encyclopedia" like. Very much appreciate any help.

Bobowikiedit (talk) 19:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobowikiedit: Two major problems:
  • There's a lack of focus (except maybe "gee, what a swell guy!" which gives it the advertising tone)
  • Many of the sources really aren't that good. It's putting quantity over quality. Really, an article just needs a minimum of three high-quality sources, not tons and tons of "meh" sources.
My usual advice for writing an article about anyone or anything:
1) Choose a topic whose notability is attested by discussions of it in several reliable independent sources.
2) Gather as many professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources you can find.
3) Focus on just the ones that are not dependent upon or affiliated with the subject, but still specifically about the subject and providing in-depth coverage (not passing mentions). If you do not have at least three such sources, the subject is not yet notable and trying to write an article at this point will only fail. This fixes the second problem. Don't bother with Google patents because those are just directory listings. Especially do not use "PRNewswire.com" or any other press release sites.
4) Summarize those sources left after step 3, adding citations at the end of them. You'll want to do this in a program with little/no formatting, like Microsoft Notepad or Notepad++, and not in something like Microsoft Word or LibreOffice Writer. Make sure this summary is just bare statement of facts, phrased in a way that even someone who hates the subject can agree with. This fixes the first problem.
5) Combine overlapping summaries (without arriving at new statements that no individual source supports) where possible, repeating citations as needed. Again, make sure this combined summary is something that even someone who hates the subject can agree with.
6) Paraphrase the whole thing just to be extra sure you've avoided any copyright violations or plagiarism. Again, make sure this paraphrase is something that even someone who hates the subject can agree with.
7) Use the Article wizard to post this draft and wait for approval.
8) Expand the article using sources you put aside in step 2 (but make sure they don't make up more than half the sources for the article, and make sure that affiliated sources don't make up more than half of that).
Doing something besides those steps typically results in the article not being approved, or even in its deletion.
I would also suggest that the initial redraft focus on just one career, not five. Start with the one that has the most independent sources, then tack the others if they are attested to by independent sources. If no independent sources verify a particular career, don't bother mentioning it. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]


September 6

02:25:06, 6 September 2018 review of draft by 68.103.78.155


Can you put the 2018–19 United States Network Television Schedule (Late Night) to the main article page please. 68.103.78.155 (talk) 02:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Hi@68.103.78.155: - I was going to go ask at 2018–19 United States network television schedule if they could help, however I think that would be extremely premature. If you have at their equivalent boxes of programming, every single show/slot has to be referenced. Currently yours doesn't have any, so I don't think they would be willing to add it in as it currently is. If you have a look at the type of referencing they use you might be able to locate equivalent references. Once you've done that, it is probably worth asking on their talk page Talk:2018–19 United States network television schedule if they can help add it in. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:44, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I Did Put A Reference In And I Think it's Ready to Move into Article Space. 68.103.78.155 (talk) 01:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

09:01:08, 6 September 2018 review of submission by Hoppie19911


im requesting assistance in order to gather the correct refferences for my article submission that needs ammendmants if anyone can help me i will be truly grateful.

Hoppie19911 (talk) 09:01, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

12:59:34, 6 September 2018 review of submission by Amithaaamis


Amithaaamis (talk) 12:59, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

19:25:29, 6 September 2018 review of submission by Abdi110


Abdi110 (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

20:39:06, 6 September 2018 review of draft by Editor-Milburn


I posted a page for review in early June. How much longer should it take for review? Editor-Milburn (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)Editor-Milburn Editor-Milburn (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Editor-Milburn. Only 30 out of the 3744 drafts in the pool to be reviewed have been waiting longer, so my best guess would be no more than a week or two until the next review. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:19, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

21:49:56, 6 September 2018 review of draft by Yuriromanorussia


My article for Isaac Angking was declined due to the fact that he has not played a game for a fully professional team yet. However, he has just earned his first cap for the New England Revolution. How can I resubmit my draft?

Yuriromanorussia (talk) 21:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since the review is currently pending, I assume you were able to resolve this :) Nosebagbear (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

23:22:47, 6 September 2018 review of draft by FelixCreative


Hi. I'm confused as to the reference to promoting Leilani Bishop. We only listed her name and linked her name to her wikipedia page. Is this not allowed?



FelixCreative (talk) 23:22, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

23:24:50, 6 September 2018 review of submission by FelixCreative

In terms of secondary references, we dont have any less than some other agencies listed. We dont court media or use PR agencies.

Also, I'm not sure about the lack of 'neutral tone' as we used similar wordage to other agency listings. Please assist.


FelixCreative (talk) 23:24, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:FelixCreative#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:10, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinitely blocked. —AE (talk • contributions) 02:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 7

00:35:20, 7 September 2018 review of draft by Xaviertherapper


Xaviertherapper (talk) 00:35, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added a online music feature

12:32:15, 7 September 2018 review of submission by Naresh Yadav Ateli


Naresh Yadav Ateli (talk) 12:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

13:02:36, 7 September 2018 review of submission by Joe Rockefeller

there is a federal ethical investigation of the name utilized as the information provided by me is the proven fact I know. Joe Rockefeller (talk) 13:02, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It appears that your submission to Articles for Creation was declined because it lacked reliable sources. Please note that Wikipedia requires third-party, independent sources for an article to be considered notable enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia. If you need further help on what sources could be considered reliable, please visit the help desk. Thank you. —AE (talk • contributions) 02:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

14:23:27, 7 September 2018 review of draft by Shadwell Basin


Shadwell Basin (talk) 14:23, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To: Nosebagbear, Gbawden, Cassiopeia, Worldbruce, 

    Thank you all for your help and advice while trying to write the above. I'm most grateful.
    The article is now waiting review in due course and I hope meets Wiki style and requirements,  
    though still struggling to find three page numbers for newspaper articles cited.
                                                                             Many thanks
                                                                             Shadwell Basin

17:38:46, 7 September 2018 review of draft by Abdulelah1


Abdulelah1 (talk) 17:38, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My Fruiticulture submission was rejected because the reviewer wrote "Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Pomology instead."

Fruiticulture is a new term. Times are changing and advances are being made in agriculture. Pomology is not synonymous with the new term Fruiticulture. The emerging term Fruiticulture means "a form of vegan permaculture agroforestry that focuses on fruit growing. This is not exactly Pomomology. Please allow the advancement of the lexicon by allowing this new definition of Fruiticulture.

Respectfully,

Abdulelah

Hi Abdulelah1. The redirect from fruiticulture to pomology was created in 2011, so it isn't a completely new term. However old it is, it may still be too new to justify a stand alone article. Wikipedia is, by design, a trailing source. It doesn't cover topics until they've received significant attention from the world at large. Only one of the draft's twelve sources mentions the term, and it may not be a reliable source. You can open a discussion at Talk:Pomology, or one of the WikiProjects listed there, about whether fruiticulture should be covered in a separate article, but they'll expect you to show significantly better sources about fruiticulture than what's in the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:11, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

17:56:19, 7 September 2018 review of draft by Mythbusterbuilding1


Mythbusterbuilding1 (talk) 17:56, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I have submitted my first article, I want to make sure that it is in guideline. There are a lot of requirements, how can I get my article published without any errors on Wikipedia?

Hi Mythbusterbuilding1. Wikipedia:There is no deadline, so practice, practice, practice. I, for instance, spent six years making about 1,500 edits to existing articles before creating one. By then I understood which topics were suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia and which weren't. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:43, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

21:23:17, 7 September 2018 review of submission by Demographichistorian


I was wondering which statements where made on the article : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Greek_atrocities_in_Macedonia_and_Thrace

please inform me so I can either remove these statements or provide citations .

Demographichistorian (talk) 21:23, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 8

08:46:49, 8 September 2018 review of draft by JohnK3142


Background

Wanting to produce an article on Babylon.js I found that this draft page with the title [| BabylonJS] is still open for editing and a previous a draft with title Babylon.js [draft article] was deleted. To ensure my article is substantially different to and meets the Wikipedia criteria I have asked RHaworth for a copy of the deleted Babylon.js article.

Question

Regarding the titles BabylonJS and Babylon.js which of the following is the better option

1. Edit BabylonJS and redirect Babylon.js to it

2. Submit a new page Babylon.js, have the BabylonJS page deleted and redirect BabylonJS to Babylon.js


JohnK3142 (talk) 08:46, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

13:44:55, 8 September 2018 review of draft by Anonymous1941


Can somebody please take a look at my draft because I resubmitted the draft and with the help of Primefac I was able to fix all the issues with my draft. I have resubmitted the draft and it has been more than two weeks and no one has took a look at my draft. I would really appreciate it if someone reviews my draft.--Anonymous1941 (talk) 13:44, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous1941 (talk) 13:44, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anonymous1941. Someone will review it. The backlog of drafts awaiting review is 2 months going on 3 months, so don't expect anything to happen until November or thereabouts. While you wait, feel free to chip in at Wikipedia:Community portal to reduce some of the encyclopedia's many backlogs. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:47, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

20:40:10, 8 September 2018 review of draft by Srajprosadm


Trying to find out how much longer it is going to take to approve the Praana: article. Thanks much!

Srajprosadm (talk) 20:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Srajprosadm 574 drafts have been waiting longer to be reviewed. It has been waiting 7 weeks. The backlog is running between 2 and 3 months. So I would guess it will be a few more weeks before the next review. Of course there's no guarantee that the next review will result in acceptance. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]


September 9

01:59:35, 9 September 2018 review of submission by Christianadrias


Christianadrias (talk) 01:59, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 06:27:59, 9 September 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Abb14c


I wrote an article for publication. After review it was not accepted because it sounded like a poem. However, I cleared the text in the editing box and wrote a new one which I published.I haven't received any information yet. Again I still see the message that was left by the reviewer whenever I open my sandbox

Abb14c (talk) 06:27, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=858729681"