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 434: Line 434:


[[User:Fabregado|Fabregado]] ([[User talk:Fabregado|talk]]) 13:54, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
[[User:Fabregado|Fabregado]] ([[User talk:Fabregado|talk]]) 13:54, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

== 21:52:10, 11 September 2018 review of submission by Robroots187 ==
{{Lafc|username=Robroots187|ts=21:52:10, 11 September 2018|declined=Draft:Flow_187}}


[[User:Robroots187|Robroots187]] ([[User talk:Robroots187|talk]]) 21:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)


I have added more sources and news to qualify ... This is starting to look like discrimination ...

Revision as of 21:52, 11 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 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]

Shana Tova KineretVeYarden! So, once the article on Rav Yosef is accepted, we can easily link it to the Hebrew Article. As for the draft itself, I think the original editors had a few notes. First, they said that the current article sounded like it praised the Rav, and normally Wikipedia likes to be neutral. There were also some issues with the references and citations, but I can try and go in and fix those. Bkissin (talk) 16:52, 11 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

No longer relevant have decided on 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnK3142 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Abb14c The article above seems to have been deleted, as you have requested it to be. I cannot see the page, so I can't offer help Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:39, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:12:28, 9 September 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Fazlam


I'm trying to make an initial page for the ethnic Pahari people who live in the western part of the jammu kashmir region but i'm being told a page is already made but that page refers to the pahari people of nepal who live east of the jammu kashmir region.

Fazlam (talk) 18:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fazlam - There isn't enough information here to warrant a new page specifically for it. If you can gain sourced information for this, then add it to Pahari people. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:37, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

22:42:22, 9 September 2018 review of draft by Vellino


Hi - I was hoping someone might be able to review my submission. I submitted my second version 8 weeks ago.

Many thanks - André

Vellino (talk) 22:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vellino Reviewed and declined. See comments on the panel atop of the draft page. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 13:42, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

23:55:31, 9 September 2018 review of draft by UnrealAir


When I attempt to change the link to the channel on the infobox, it always ahows a link to some banned youtube channel and the channel parameter always reads P. Michael P. Link I want it to go to: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3q7lahh4WXoco8h-JTMATA P.S. I just repurposed PewDiePie's infobox. --UnrealAir (talk) 23:55, 9 September 2018 (UTC) UnrealAir (talk) 23:55, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UnrealAir - I have fixed this particular link. However, you should ask the question - is the subject notable for a wikipedia page? Please see the general notability guidelines, and see if the subject meets these. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 10

Request on 01:21:05, 10 September 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by 137.119.141.90



137.119.141.90 (talk) 01:21, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

03:49:18, 10 September 2018 review of draft by Sharath RK Teja


Sharath RK Teja (talk) 03:49, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please point out the parts of the article that sounds promotional, so that I can improve it?

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Sharath RK Teja#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:27, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your declaration, Sharath RK Teja. I see that Draft:Grptalk has been deleted for being unambiguous advertising or promotion. So the short answer to your question about which parts is "all parts". See WP:BFAQ#COMPANY for an explanation of why it's a bad idea for a company to try to write an encyclopedia article about themselves, and what the alternatives are. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

14:59:15, 10 September 2018 review of draft by Navysaylorgirl


Navysaylorgirl (talk) 14:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not how to resolve some of the original editor's comments. We had an exchange back when I originally wrote this, and he offered some advice, but now I can't find that page, and it looks like he is taking a break from Wiki. I haven't been paid to write this, so I really don't know what to do about that. Can someone offer some suggestions on more neutral language to use to make this less "overly positive"? I'd really like to get this posted in some form. T/Y

@Navysaylorgirl: The user is not inactive, they just edited an hour and a half ago, see Special:Contributions/Cameron11598. JTP (talk • contribs) 18:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]


September 11

Request on 03:04:01, 11 September 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Navysaylorgirl


I asked for help making the article I submitted more neutral. I was especially confused because the message I get states that the original editor "is taking a short wikibreak." But the editor that responded told me that the original editor was in fact available. However, that editor provided no constructive help, which does me no good. I would simply like to do what is necessary to get this to meet the guidelines. TY


Navysaylorgirl (talk) 03:04, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Navysaylorgirl. Removing information from non-independent sources can help achieve a neutral point of view. I tried that as an exercise, and there's almost nothing left. The two remaining sources are independent and reliable, but they do not contain significant coverage of Proman. This leads me to conclude, like reviewer Cameron11598, that Proman is not notable (not a suitable subject for a Wikipedia article). No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. The only constructive advice I can offer is to move on to a different topic. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:32, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

04:03:30, 11 September 2018 review of draft by Mvscrimenti


I don't understand why article submission was rejected. The editor said there weren't enough high-quality sources, but I have 15 news stories about this company from Reuters, Bloomberg, Forbes, FT and other highly-reputable news sources. Please advise. Mvscrimenti (talk) 04:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

06:14:16, 11 September 2018 review of submission by Kai Kiat


Draft:Mao_Daqing

Hi. Did anyone see this latest revision?

Kai Kiat (talk) 06:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kai Kiat. No one has seen Draft:Mao Daqing because it has not been submitted for review. You may submit it by clicking the blue button in the large gray box at the top of the draft. Note that the draft has significant formatting problems, possibly caused by copying and pasting a rendered article instead of copying and pasting the wiki markup from the edit tab of an existing article. The draft also misuses external links. There should be no links in the text that take the reader away from Wikipedia. It might be wise to fix those problems before you submit the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:55, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

12:42:17, 11 September 2018 review of draft by Mpwong


I received this response to my submission: Please note Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference. Does this mean that I have to remove internal references to people cited that have Wiki pages?

Mpwong (talk) 12:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mpwong. Yes. Do not write Student of Chiura Obata<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiura_Obata</ref>, because Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and should not be used as a reference. Instead write Student of [[Chiura Obata]] See WP:Linking for more information about internal links.
More generally, you seem to have missed the point of references. In a statement like, "She went on to become a corp de ballet dancer for the San Francisco Opera Ballet Company [1]." the reference must prove that she was a corps de ballet dancer for the San Francisco Opera Ballet Company. The cited source proves nothing of the kind, it's just the San Francisco Opera's homepage, which doesn't mention her at all. See citing sources and WP:REFB for further guidance.
Understand that although the above are important problems to fix, they are not the main problems with the draft. The main problems are that it is based far too heavily on what the artist says about herself, and very little on what independent sources, such as The New York Times and The Washington Post, say about her. An encyclopedia biography should not be a copy of the person's website. By not using independent sources, the draft fails to demonstrate that she is notable (that she belongs in Wikipedia). To correct this, throw away everything you've done and start over, using only independent sources at first. Once you've squeezed everything you can out of independent sources, you may add something non-controversial from non-independent sources here and there to round out the biography. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://sfopera.com/

13:54:28, 11 September 2018 review of draft by Fabregado


Please i want to know if my article is due for publishing? I have corrected every errors there in, but if there is/are any please let me know


Fabregado (talk) 13:54, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

21:52:10, 11 September 2018 review of submission by Robroots187


Robroots187 (talk) 21:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]


I have added more sources and news to qualify ... This is starting to look like discrimination ...

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=859125833"