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:


:Hi {{U|Shoethorn7685}}. The draft was created in May. It has been in the pool to be reviewed since [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Draft:William_A._Harper&diff=906591510&oldid=906024143 your edit of 16 July]. The backlog stands at four and half months, so you can anticipate a review by the end of the year. --[[User:Worldbruce|Worldbruce]] ([[User talk:Worldbruce|talk]]) 02:58, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
:Hi {{U|Shoethorn7685}}. The draft was created in May. It has been in the pool to be reviewed since [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Draft:William_A._Harper&diff=906591510&oldid=906024143 your edit of 16 July]. The backlog stands at four and half months, so you can anticipate a review by the end of the year. --[[User:Worldbruce|Worldbruce]] ([[User talk:Worldbruce|talk]]) 02:58, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

== 06:25:35, 3 October 2019 review of draft by Lifelonglearning1 ==
{{Lafc|username=Lifelonglearning1|ts=06:25:35, 3 October 2019|draft=Draft:Adult_Learning_Australia}}


[[User:Lifelonglearning1|Lifelonglearning1]] ([[User talk:Lifelonglearning1|talk]]) 06:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:25, 3 October 2019

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

10:01:35, 27 September 2019 review of submission by Wendygorski

I am writing a biography about a person I call a renaissance man. So far, in his 63 year old life, he has been an radio astronomer, computer designer, software engineer[wrote WORKWRITER in the 80's], journalist and my partner in Newsbytes News Network, created a TV computer news weekly newscast [The Technology Channel in 1990], author[wrote the book GJ139], a flight tracking website creator[DXFlights], one of the best known travel websites on Greece[ellada.com], a nuclear inspector and now he produces independent movies in Hollywood[first movie was "The Dark Hand" and now "Infernum"].

It was rejected in March 2019 and then again in September by ClarityFriend with the comment: Far from Satisfing (!!).

My questions are: - Can I upload and use photos of magazine covers from the pre-internet era as proof? - Can I include mentions of pre-internet events relating to his life? - Many photos of his early life (thousands were taken on Mykonos, Greece) are on Facebook group archives by other people. Can these be included? I believe these photo archives are public. - Recently the first review from a critic called his latest film, Infernum (to be released December 10 in North America), "INFERNUM manages to evoke the immediacy of the best "found footage" films, with all the breathless suspense and creeping terror but without the awkward contrivances." Can this info be used in the biography? Thank you for providing guidance to be able to submit this biography. Wendy

Wendygorski (talk) 10:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wendygorski. Your misquotation of Clarityfiend's review suggests you may have misunderstood it. Their complete comment was: "Far from satisfying WP:BIO". Wikipedians use shorthand links like WP:BIO to link to policies and guidelines without having to repeat pages and pages of text. Also, the reviewer's comment should be read in the context of the formal reason the draft was declined, which is in the gray box within the larger pink box at the top of the draft. There are over forty links there to explanatory information, which can be daunting. Reviewers often use comments to emphasize a particular point, in this case that the draft's references fail to demonstrate that the topic is notable (suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia).
How far are the draft's references from satisfying the requirements? Novice Wikipedians are commonly advised to cite at least three sources that are independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage of their topic.
  • Not independent: articles.adsabs.harvard.edu, Monthly Notes of the Astronomical Society of South Africa, Barnes & Noble, and cambridge.org
  • Not reliable: revolvy.com, sigidwiki.com, imdb.com, and hkfilmnews.blogspot.com
  • Not significant coverage: naic.edu, setileague.org, cpc-power.com, w3.org, aei.pitt.edu, arrl.org, ellada.com, and nawiliwiliyachtclub.org
Many are also primary sources instead of secondary ones. In sum, the draft sites zero suitable sources. You would need to throw all of them away.
You may not upload copies of magazine covers or Facebook photos taken by other people, they are copyrighted. Photos would be primary sources, so they would not help demonstrate notability. You may cite magazine articles, even if offline. But to demonstrate notability they would need to contain a substantial depth of information about Vekinis, not be written by Vekinis, and be in a publication with a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. The film review quote says nothing about Vekinis, so it doesn't help.
Creating a new article is one of the most difficult, time consuming, and frustrating tasks a new contributor can attempt. We try hard at AfC to be upbeat and encouraging, but the kindest thing in this case may be to tell you up front that the topic doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of being published here. Pick a different topic (one with which you have no connection) or consider an alternative outlet with different inclusion criteria. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:39:19, 27 September 2019 review of submission by Mojapelo Neo


Mojapelo Neo (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC) why was my article declined[reply]

Please read WP:MUSICBIO, the notability guideline for musicians. JTP (talk • contribs) 18:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:03:39, 27 September 2019 review of submission by Tippy115


Ashley Dennis 17:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy info. Article in sandbox about rapper Apollo G has been rejected due to poor sourcing. It has a single YouTube video as a source. TechnoTalk (talk) 00:12, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Another Courtesy info: Sandbox was WP:G11'ed. User is blocked as vandalism only. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 05:17, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:04:01, 27 September 2019 review of submission by Tippy115


Ashley Dennis 17:04, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

why??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tippy115 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tippy115 Courtesy link Draft:Cranfield Plasma Solutions. The reviewer gave good and detailed information in their note. Please reread. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) TechnoTalk (talk) 00:05, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:28:14, 27 September 2019 review of submission by UnicornTears11


Hey, 

    I think I know why I didn't get to publish my article. I didn't spot any sources. I am his daughter so I don't need

sources. What I need is for you guys to publish this. This is his B-day present. If you could review this again with this info, that would be great.

Sincerely, UnicornTears11

UnicornTears11 (talk) 17:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not for birthday presents. It does not need a page for WP:EVERYTHING and everyone, that's why we have notability guidelines. JTP (talk • contribs) 18:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy link - article Matt Keller has been G11'd. TechnoTalk (talk) 00:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:09:47, 27 September 2019 review of draft by YBm2XrpCP


My submission was declined due to "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources." I have added several more sources from different places such as articles from different news organisations[1][2][3][4][5] (+ all the ones that were already on there) and removed most youtube video links as I realise these are primary sources rather than secondary sources. I just wanted to check if these changes are enough before I resubmit? or do I need more sources?

YBm2XrpCP (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "WATCH: YouTuber's Uncanny Musical Impressions Of Everyone From Sam Smith To Jason Derulo". www.capitalfm.com.
  2. ^ ""Rock Out With Roomie! New Media Rockstars"". newmediarockstars.com.
  3. ^ "RoomieOfficial to Perform at YouTube Space London – TenEighty — YouTube News, Features, and Interviews". teneightymagazine.com.
  4. ^ "Roomie age, biography". last.fm.
  5. ^ ""PewDiePie, T-Series and the battle for the biggest YouTube channel"". ABC News.
YBm2XrpCP I reviewed the article and think the sourcing is still too light. The best coverage in your draft is about his ability to sound like other singers, but there are few profiles about him otherwise. Also, the social media links are primary sources, don't show notability, and should be removed. Social statistics like YouTube views and Twitter followers are borderline because bots can be hired to boost the numbers, but what you want is people writing about the views and follower numbers, not just quoting straight statistics. You want more coverage in mainstream publications. TechnoTalk (talk) 23:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 28

03:55:14, 28 September 2019 review of draft by Chicken0me


I've been writing my first Wikipedia page. It's for the Christian Game Developers Conference. I've submitted it several times now, and it’s been declined several times. The first time it was declined was because it contained text which had been copied from another source, I've now fixed that. The second time it was declined was because it wasn’t adequately referenced, I've also fixed that.

But now it’s being declined because it’s references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. I really feel that this topic does deserve a Wikipedia page, and I don’t really understand what’s wrong with the references I have.

After compared to some other Wikipedia pages such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Praise, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylorville_New_Zealand, I really don’t understand why mine doesn’t meet the criteria.

I would really appreciate it if you could point out to me exactly what’s wrong with the references I have and anything else I may be doing wrong.

The link to the draft is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chicken0me Also I have made a few changes since I’ve last submitted it, but I’m afraid to try resubmitting it in case it is declined and deleted.

Chicken0me (talk) 03:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chicken0me. Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality articles and poor quality articles. The existence of an article does not mean it meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. So generally it isn't productive to compare a draft to other pages. 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 or second best.
A new article need not be as long or as good as Intelligent Systems for Molecular Biology, but it is an example of how one might structure a conference article, how much weight to give various aspects, and what types of sources to use. Conferences are a difficult category to write about well. Try setting the topic aside for a while and improving existing articles instead, until you've developed a deeper understanding of how Wikipedia works. See Wikipedia:Community portal for ways to help. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:45, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:53:25, 28 September 2019 review of submission by ZorgerGT

Hello, could you tell me what exactly needs to be fixed on this page to publish it? ZorgerGT (talk) 09:53, 28 September 2019 (UTC)Zorger[reply]

Hi ZorgerGT. The reviewer's comment, below the large pink boxes at the top of the draft, zeros in on the main problem with the draft. Every statement likely to be challenged needs an inline citation to the reliable published source where you obtained the the information. In the biography of a living person, assume that almost every statement is likely to be challenged. How, for example, do you know that "Lakhtachev was born on February 9, 1962 in Miass, Chelyabinsk oblast, USSR"? Go through the whole draft and add inline citations. Help:Referencing for beginners explains the technical details. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:48, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:25:22, 28 September 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Wale Baggis


Hi, I submitted a write up on the man, the music called 'The Alfresco Beats' but the article has been declined twice now. I am writing to thank you for your time and attention, however, please delete all sensitive links I shared with you and delete all copies of such documents therein from your database and systems. Since you do not deem the articles as relevant I think its appropriate not to withhold any document or data related to this. To avoid prosecution,please delete all my data in your database and obliterate my account forthwith. Thank you. My apologies for taking your time. Bye.

86 people here Filter users in channel


Wale Baggis (talk) 12:25, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged your sandbox for speedy deletion as a copyright violation, please also read Wikipedia:No legal threats. Theroadislong (talk) 12:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:11:21, 28 September 2019 review of submission by Taron Wright

I am new to wikipedia so this is my first article I'm trying to publish. As part of a college assignment I have been tasked with writing an article on a recognizable female engineer. This is why I choose Elizabeth Donnelly. She is the new CEO of Women's Engineering Society England. However after publishing the article for review, I got the feed back of "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia" and "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people)". I'm very unsure about how to approach these problems because I thought I was very objective in my article, I do not know how I made it read like I was advertising the person. Also the sources of information on Elizabeth Donnelly's childhood and education are very scarce. They only come in the forms of interviews or her LinkedIn which appears not to be acceptable according to wiki. I was wondering what i can do to get this published or should i just give up and find a new person with more independent sources. Any help would be appreciated, thank you Taron Wright (talk) 16:11, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taron Wright (talk) 16:11, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Taron Wright. It will be difficult to get Draft:Elizabeth Donnelly published because of the lack of reliable, in depth, secondary sources that are truly indpendent. So change topic. Instead of trying to create a new article, spend some time improving existing ones to become familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. 98% of articles are rated less than "good" by the community, so there is much room for improvement. See Wikipedia:Community portal for ways to help. Find a WikiProject aligned with your interests, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Engineering or Wikipedia:WikiProject Women scientists, each of which has identified thousands of articles in their scope that need clean-up. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:10, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:28:12, 28 September 2019 review of submission by Brewcrewmike

Why are there 29 teams that have an MLB season on here, but for some fricken reason not the Brewers? If you are too much of a smart alec and want to create it yourself then be my guest you idiot.

Brewcrewmike (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


18:29:53, 28 September 2019 review of submission by Brewcrewmike


Apparently, my article isn't good enough for you idiots, so if you want to create it then go ahead. It better come out tommarow stupid wikipedia.

Brewcrewmike (talk) 18:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Brewcrewmike: I'm pretty sure that calling Wikipedia editors idiot's or stupid is not going to help your case. Please read WP:CIVIL. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 05:17, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 29

07:38:15, 29 September 2019 review of submission by 103.59.75.30


103.59.75.30 (talk) 07:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


10:12:30, 29 September 2019 review of submission by Bhupeshbb


Techno Gravity 10:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@Bhupeshbb: please read WP:AUTO and WP:NOTWEBHOST. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 05:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:53:54, 29 September 2019 review of draft by Mrisemin


Mrisemin (talk) 13:53, 29 September 2019 (UTC) Hi! I've made several changes to this article since it was deleted the last time. May I have another review?[reply]

But you haven't removed or replaced the many links to YouTube and IMDb which are not reliable sources and give no support for notability. I have also moved it back to draft as it is not ready for main space yet. Theroadislong (talk) 13:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:58:35, 29 September 2019 review of submission by Saruman63

I don't really understand the issue with my draft's sources/references. The information featured in the article are objective facts about the release and the contents of the album. Why can't I use the official website of the company as the main source then? Subjective things like "the only Ace Of Base compilation you’ll ever need" aren't featured in the draft and compared to other AoB-album-articles in the Wikipedia my draft follows pretty much the same pattern, although there is no "Background"-section or sth like that, just because the album wasn't released yet. Saruman63 (talk) 14:58, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Saruman63. Some crowdsourced websites, such as Discogs, MusicBrainz, and Rate Your Music, aim to include all albums, but Wikipedia doesn't want an article for every album. It is an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collection. The encyclopedia only wants articles about things that have attracted significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time.
The publisher's website is evidence that the company selling the album wants the world to take note of it, but not that it is worthy of note, not that it is notabile (suitable for inclusion here). If the draft is similar to other Ace of Base album articles in this regard, and those articles cannot be improved to meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, then they should be deleted. Wikipedia may not be used for advertising, promotion, or public relations. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:25:40, 29 September 2019 review of draft by HeadwayNL


Requesting help to understand how I can make it more clear that my 'submission for approval' is only to a specific section of an existing article (keukenhof. I decided to start with editing just one section and submit it for review in order to 'start small'. As it's a considerable re-write to what is live now, I thought it best that it first be reviewed by an experienced editor. HeadwayNL (talk) 17:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We already have an article called Keukenhof and you are free to improve that one, per WP:BOLD Theroadislong (talk) 09:15, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


September 30

05:04:58, 30 September 2019 review of draft by Money12122


Money12122 (talk) 05:04, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m trying to fix up the page So Fresh: The Hits of Summer 2017 + Best of 2016, so please check out how it’s going now. By the way, do you mind if you help me with the page?

08:02:30, 30 September 2019 review of submission by 180.151.75.66


Updated content. This is not for advertising. Now it has been edited, please review.

180.151.75.66 (talk) 08:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


08:52:38, 30 September 2019 review of submission by Iamatulbhuriya


Iamatulbhuriya (talk) 08:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not all business's are sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 09:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:29:07, 30 September 2019 review of draft by BulbousBow56


I have published now already two times a description about a German shipping company twice in my sandbox whereas both time my draft got rejected. The remarks made were (1) sources don't seem sufficient resp. neutral enough and (2) the article may read like an advertisemen.

However, in my second draft I included various well-konown newspaper (FT, industry newspaper Tradewinds) articles about the company. Still, it got rejected. Furthermore, as I like to describe the company abolsutely neutral but still give most important facts (e.g. fleet size, services provided, etc.), I'm not sure what the actual problem ist - after comparing my drat with different published wiki's on other corporations, I don't see any difference.

Your kind help and advice will be very much appreciated!!


BulbousBow56 (talk) 09:29, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:BulbousBow56#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:27, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:59:00, 30 September 2019 review of submission by Iamatulbhuriya


Iamatulbhuriya (talk) 09:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iamatulbhuriya Already answered above. Theroadislong (talk) 10:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 10:07:00, 30 September 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Leuce


The article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Cafetran_Espresso was rejected and the reason given is that too many references are from blogs. But I don't see any blogs in the references (perhaps what qualifies as a "blog" has changed). Could anyone please tell me which of those references are "blogs"? User Theroadislong also commented that the YouTube references should be removed -- why is that? -- leuce (talk) 10:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

leuce (talk) 10:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is this one http://cafetran4mac.blogspot.com/ which has a clue in the address and is also a primary source, Wikipedia requires reliable independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 10:12, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:58:21, 30 September 2019 review of submission by Serenelife


Dear esteemed Wikipedia admin, I do believe this draft should be reviewed properly again to be included in Wikipedia . The references has been updated with maximum number of corrections. Every link has been thoroughly checked with corrections being made. The draft was seen with maximum times for improvements based on the feedback given for the previous page that is unfortunately deleted. Every occupation presented in this draft has been found proof to support the draft keeping in mind of the deleted article for improvisation. Do guide if any mistakes with this one . Every help that Wikipedia stated has been followed very carefully . Kindly do the amendments required and pleading to help in this submission as lots of hardwork been put. There is no partiality done for anyone nor spamming with this article. This draft was created as I noticed the page was removed previously due to reason that was very challenging . I took up my utmost time to find those references. Do guide for a proper article and giving this draft a considerable chance to be included in Wikipedia . Hereby, submitted with a new improved correction with my humblest and pure request to accept this . Thank you very much and every help will deeply appreciated. Do guide in this page correction to enable producing better articles in future.

Million thanks & do reconsider this draft for resubmission into an article Serenelife (talk) 10:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected yesterday and there has been no improvement since then. Theroadislong (talk) 11:12, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I need help regarding my Sandbox article

Hello everyone

this is my draft User:JoomHayden/sandbox

is this page ready to publish?

help me

JoomHayden (talk) 10:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It reads in a rather promotional manner, more like a CV. Wikipedia articles need to be written in a neutral tone. Theroadislong (talk) 11:14, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:04:10, 30 September 2019 review of submission by 216.8.157.70


Please see notoriety in Bulgarian Wikipedia:https://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80_%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87

and Serbian Biography. Thank you!


216.8.157.70 (talk) 13:04, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


13:09:12, 30 September 2019 review of submission by 216.8.157.70



216.8.157.70 (talk) 13:09, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:48:13, 30 September 2019 review of submission by Joeseph Sparrow

Just wondering why my submission was considered not notable enough? If it needs more html references I could probably find some. The guidelines say the subject does not need to be famous so I'm not sure what the problem is? Just because it is not well known to other areas of the country or world? Other larger famous companies are listed like Bell MTS. Joeseph Sparrow (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The company needs to pass WP:CORP which means it needs to be notable, not famous, ie multiple independent sources have been written about them in-depth. Theroadislong (talk) 18:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:51:39, 30 September 2019 review of submission by 75.112.85.189


Fitness has been around for several years at this point, had countless interviews, multiple tours, a handful of singles and music videos, and a third album on the way. Social media accounts of the band and two of their band members are verified.

75.112.85.189 (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


19:10:16, 30 September 2019 review of submission by Ontarrio


I would like the girl group ARIAZ to have their own Wikipedia article. They are debuting on October 24, it was confirmed today by their agency Rising Star. They have already revealed teaser photos, album name and the debut date. I don't understand why the group isn't notable enough for Wikipedia. Ontarrio (talk) 19:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ontarrio It's a bit too soon we are going to have to wait until they actually debut and get some reviews about their album. After that feel free to come back and create a draft again. Whispering(t) 00:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:33:06, 30 September 2019 review of submission by Joeseph Sparrow

I added some independent, significant, verifiable, second hand sources to the mix. Tell me If I am spamming cause I do not want to get banned. Joeseph Sparrow (talk) 19:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:57:59, 30 September 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Lawzilla


Hello! I am working on editing the above referenced submission which has been declined with reference to a non-neutral point of view and unreliable sources. Can you please kindly advise as to which sources are problematic and resulting in the decline of the submission? I reviewed Wikipedia's verifiability and notability pages, and our sources seem to fit within the requirements - especially with regard to the subject matter being cited and not fitting the criteria for a circular reference.

Any further feedback would be appreciated as I continue the editing process.

Thank you!

Lawzilla (talk) 19:57, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:16:58, 30 September 2019 review of submission by LM TMRW


Hi there, just wondering if I can get some more specific guidance on the TMRW page draft. They've been covered in multiple news segments and obviously I don't want to resubmit until this is 100% in compliance with Wikipedia's notability guidelines--but it would be helpful to know exactly what would make them notable enough to included.

(Thought it was a timely addition particularly as news stories have been stacking up regarding IVF mix-ups and embryo losses and this is the only technology in the U.S. that is testing in clinics as a solution for these specific issues--but this is not laid out in the draft as we wanted to remain neutral and non-promotional).

Appreciate any feedback you can give me, thank you!

LM TMRW (talk) 20:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LM TMRW The draft's only source worth citing is the Institutional Investor article. The others lack independence or are not significant coverage. It would be highly unusual for any two-year old private company to be notable (suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia). Most businesses are not. You may find WP:BFAQ#COMPANY informative.
Rejection is meant to be final, to convey that the topic is not notable. No amount of editing can fix that. There is no option to re-submit the draft because volunteers do not intend to review it again. --Worldbruce (talk) 12:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 1

00:34:52, 1 October 2019 review of submission by Littleboybluesmoke

The infromation is needed on wiki to announce D.C Cross new album . D.C Cross is a notable Australian musician https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darren_Cross_(musician). to link Cross's history more concisely this new D.C Cross wiki page is needed. D.C Cross's new album 'Ecstatic Racquet' was recently released.

Littleboybluesmoke (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Littleboybluesmoke Sorry, I don't understand. Who needs Cross' new album announced on Wikipedia? --Worldbruce (talk) 02:08, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 00:53:22, 1 October 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Arjun2726



Arjun2726 (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arjun2726 I've reviewed the draft and declined it again for the same reason I did before, your draft lacks good sourcing. Facebook, YouTube and press releases are not considered to be reliable enough for sourcing. Whispering(t) 02:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

02:31:33, 1 October 2019 review of draft by Tonymcdonald0311


Tonymcdonald0311 (talk) 02:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Good afternoon, I just wondered if you were waiting on us for anything. I hope we have answered all of your fears about it being an advert.

cheers

Tony

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Tonymcdonald0311#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:19, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

03:50:07, 1 October 2019 review of draft by Elsonelizaga


Footnote 9 is about the paternal grandfather of Antonio J. Montalvan II. He was a governor.

Footnote 10 is about the uncle of Antonio J. Montalvan II. He was a hero.

The information are originally included in the body, but I decided to convert them into comment footnotes because they are not directly about Antonio J. Montalvan II.

Are these footnotes acceptable to Wikipedia? Or should I exclude them instead?


Elsonelizaga (talk) 03:50, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

05:28:53, 1 October 2019 review of submission by Alxdvc


Alxdvc (talk) 05:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Alxdvc Your draft was rejected because it looks to be original research which is verboten here at Wikipedia. Whispering(t) 02:08, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06:01:53, 1 October 2019 review of submission by Natecalima


Added many sources since we finished our second year. There are many more we can add. What else do I need to do to get this public? Thank you.

Natecalima (talk) 06:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:40:25, 1 October 2019 review of submission by 122.168.95.240

Dear Editor please re-review our article because this article is about educational essay writing and Plagiarism. This article is very helpful for student who faces essay writing problem and plagiarism problem when they get admission in universities and during study, lot's of work they can't write essay alone. So this article provides help to students for essay writing and assist them for writing plagiarism free essay. 122.168.95.240 (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


15:42:57, 1 October 2019 review of submission by PeachyEssayW

Dear Editor please re-review our article because this article is about educational essay writing and Plagiarism. This article is very helpful for student who faces essay writing problem and plagiarism problem when they get admission in universities and during study, lot's of work they can't write essay alone. So this article provides help to students for essay writing and assist them for writing plagiarism free essay. PeachyEssayW (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been flagged for deletion for advertising under G11. It is not notable for inclusion. Your account itself has been blocked as a result of your user name and your use of multiple accounts such as the IP above. Thank you. AmericanAir88(talk) 16:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 2

04:02:07, 2 October 2019 review of draft by Sumeetworld


I need help regarding this article. I have made the changes as best as I can. Can this be kindly reviewed and let me know what needs to be corrected so this can be published if possible ?

I can remove the last section other recommended readings and videos if needed.


Sumeetworld (talk) 04:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sumeetworld. The draft has been in the pool to be reviewed since the end of July. The current backlog is four and a half months, so you can anticipate a review around mid-December.
Six external links is a high number. One is normal. Each additional one beyond that becomes harder and harder to justify, so you may indeed wish to review the guidelines on external links and trim that section. "Other Recommended Readings and Videos" is an unusual name for a section. Are they just more external links, or do you intend some of them to be further reading? You may wish to review the standard layout, naming, and content of final sections and continue improving the draft while you wait for a review. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:08:13, 2 October 2019 review of draft by UEL Giles


On the Wikipedia page that lists vice-chancellors of British universities I successfully updated the previous holder of the post with the new holder. I then created a stub for the present holder - Amanda Broderick. This replicated exactly the stub of the previous holder and mirrored the stubs of other vice-chancellors (stating, with reference from a newspaper simply that they held the post). It is not clear to me why this stub has been removed for the reasons given when other stubs that offered exactly the same amount of information and exactly the same referencing have been accepted. My understanding was that stubs were specifically created to grow a subject from a small start. And yet it has been excluded for providing not enough coverage. More referencing and background could be provided but does that not challenge the idea of the stub? I do not understand the balance. I would be grateful for any guidance on this.

UEL Giles (talk) 09:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi UEL Giles. Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality articles and poor quality articles. The existence of an article does not mean it meets Wikipedia's requirements or has been "accepted". It may only mean that no one has gotten around to deleting it yet. So generally it isn't productive to compare a draft to other pages. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why. When discussing whether a draft is acceptable for publication, it's safer to argue from policies and guidelines
The relevant guideline is WP:PROF. The draft says only that she is vice-chancellor of the University of East London, so presumably you are making the case that she is notable under criterion #6: "The person has held a highest-level ... administrative post at a major academic institution". You would have to ask the reviewer, Liance, why they didn't pass it on those grounds. Their decision might hinge on how "major academic institution" is interpreted. If it were Imperial College or the London School of Economics, we probably wouldn't be discussing this, but UEL? They regularly rank in the bottom third of British universities. Is any university, or any British university automatically a "major academic institution"? Perhaps, or perhaps not.
You can debate "major" if you want, but your choice of username suggests that you have a conflict of interest (although you haven't declared one), so your view may not be entirely objective. Broderick probably satisfies other criteria of WP:PROF, so it may be easier to expand the draft slightly so that it doesn't rely solely on criterion #6 and a university press release printed in a local paper. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:02:56, 2 October 2019 review of submission by JachPek


I would like to ask for a new check of this article. I wrote a completely new version which was firstly published on cs.wiki half year ago and is based on many different sources. I also found one case study aboud this NGO published in a historical book about modern history of Jáchymov and will add it to the article soon. Thank you. JachPek (talk) 17:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


18:24:52, 2 October 2019 review of draft by Sandrow studio


I don't understand the instructions for how I can add correct content to the stub page for artist Hope Sandrow...please help.

Sandrow studio (talk) 18:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:07:59, 2 October 2019 review of submission by 2605:E000:4EA2:DA00:1CEA:A64F:ABEE:411B

Hello, I am requesting a re-review for the page for David Amber. I believe that David Amber is sufficiently notable to have a page on Wikipedia. Through his music production in the last couple years, David Amber has received international attention. Especially for his production of "Heart Shaker" and "Yes or Yes" by Twice, a major KPOP group in South Korea. I have made some edits to the wording of the paragraphs to remove any potentially promotional language. Please review. If this is still not enough, please provide feedback on how I can improve this page to be qualified for the Wikipedia page. 2605:E000:4EA2:DA00:1CEA:A64F:ABEE:411B (talk) 19:07, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


19:26:27, 2 October 2019 review of submission by Pholcomb9


This is not an autobiography. This is an up and coming basketball player playing in New Jersey. Please let me know if this changes anything.

Pholcomb9 (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No it changes nothing I'm afraid, the basketball player is not yet notable in Wikipedia terms. Theroadislong (talk) 19:59, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:40:57, 2 October 2019 review of draft by Professorjacobs

I've been a long time reader at Wikipedia and I wanted to help out by making a page for the host of a Netflix show I like. I made a draft of the page and submitted it almost 8 weeks ago? It was reviewed once. No one's looked at it since then? What's going on? I'm trying to help out here and it feels like no one's interested in adding more pages. The name of the page is Nick Uhas. I wonder what's going on here!

Professorjacobs (talk) 20:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Professorjacobs It could take up to 8 weeks before someone reviews your draft due to the number of drafts waiting to be reviewed. Whispering(t) 01:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Professorjacobs. To clarify, the best guess is that it will taken another 8 weeks, perhaps 9, before the draft is reviewed. It was submitted on 29 July. Reviewers are still working on drafts submitted on 22 May. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:48, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 3

02:06:37, 3 October 2019 review of submission by Shoethorn7685

Are there any comments on this article? Any changes that I need to make? I submitted it in May, and am not sure of the process. Thank you. Shoethorn7685 (talk) 02:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shoethorn7685. The draft was created in May. It has been in the pool to be reviewed since your edit of 16 July. The backlog stands at four and half months, so you can anticipate a review by the end of the year. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:58, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06:25:35, 3 October 2019 review of draft by Lifelonglearning1


Lifelonglearning1 (talk) 06:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=919346652"