Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by S2dd (talk | contribs) at 19:15, 30 March 2017. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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


March 24

14:08:05, 24 March 2017 review of submission by Andrewfwilson


Hello. I submitted the above page for review 14 days ago (10th March). The subject was turned into a redirect in 2010, and with the updated information in the draft I think it is now sufficiently notable for a wikipedia page. My question is this: are you waiting for further information from me? I ask because there is a note in REVIEW WAITING box at the bottom of the draft, which says "Warning: The page Jez Bond redirects to Park Theatre (London). Please verify that it is not a copy of this submission and that this page does not need to be moved to a different title." Is that an instruction to me or to the reviewers? If it is to me, I don't understand the sentence, or what I should do about it. The title of the page would be "Jez Bond", but would cease being a redirect. Looking forward to hearing from you. Andrew

Andrew (talk) 14:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Andrew. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Right now, there are about 450 submissions in the queue ahead of yours, so I expect that it will be another two weeks or so until a reviewer has a chance to look at it. Thank you for your patience. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. The existence of a re-direct at the intended page name is something that will be addressed by the reviewer who accepts your draft for publication. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

17:30:31, 24 March 2017 review of submission by Adsiah

I received a reviewer's comment that my page, which is now live, should be moved to draft space until it is ready to be uploaded onto mainspace. How do I move a live page to draft space? Adsiah (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Adsiah. Your article has been moved to Draft:V-Key. When you are ready to submit it for review, click the button that appears near the bottom of the box at the top of the draft. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:40:24, 24 March 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Stevedr83


Trying to start our page for our carousel so we can link to it from the other wiki pages. Here is our website, www.albanycarousel.com, any help would be appreciated. Stevedr83 (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stevedr83 (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To have an article accepted, you will need to establish that its subject is notable by including several references to reliable published independent sources. That draft has only one reference, to a source that is not independent of the subject. (It is also misformatted, but that could easily be fixed.) Maproom (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

21:27:53, 24 March 2017 review of submission by Maxieds


My draft article has been waiting for a review for over a month now. I think it's because the article is somewhat long and the topics are mathematically oriented. How do I find an appropriate reviewer to approve the article without waiting for an eternity for some other mathematician to notice that it exists and needs review? (n.b. I have already included a link to the article on the Generating_function main article where it belongs with a note that it needs review)

Maxieds (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Maxieds. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Right now, there are about 70 submissions in the queue ahead of yours, so I expect that it will be another two or three days until a reviewer has a chance to look at it. Thank you for your patience. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

23:01:55, 24 March 2017 review of submission by Silver Water


1) Did I miss any links that need to be included in this re-written history of the city of Eugene, Oregon? 2) Cullen thought that the second paragraph under the subsection, Indigenous Presence, was too detailed. I am thinking of simply deleting it. What do you think? 3) Do you have any other suggestions before I submit it for review? 4) Is submitting it for review by using the button at the top of the Sandbox page the appropriate next step? Thank you for your help.

Silver Water (talk) 23:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Silver Water, welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk. Submitting for review would be the thing to do for entirely new articles. But submitting is not designed for adding new content to existing articles. So long as you're the only substantive contributor to the draft in your sandbox (it's more complicated if you aren't, in which case the draft's history must be preserved), you have two options:
  1. You can be bold, copy your drafted text, edit Eugene, Oregon and paste your text into the appropriate section(s).
  2. Or if you think your changes are controversial, you can start a new section at Talk:Eugene, Oregon saying "Hey, I've drafted a proposed change to the history section over at User:Silver Water/sandbox. Let me know what you think. If I don't hear anything, I'll make the change in seven days." Optionally, you can ping active editors who've made significant contributions to the article. If after a week no one objects, then go ahead with option #1.
Asking for feedback here may get a response if someone here is particularly interested in Eugene, but because we have our hands full with new articles, you're more likely to get comments at the article's talk page. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Worldbruce: Very helpful comments. Thank you for the direction. It is just what I needed. Though I don't think my proposed changes are controversial, I am new so I took the conservative route and asked for feedback at Talk:Eugene,Oregon, just as you suggested. After I posted, I saw other comments, none relevant to my topic and the most recent from last fall. Thank you again for your help. I'm excited to soon be able to post. Silver Water (talk) 23:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Worldbruce: One final question: Do the footnotes automatically interlace with the ones already present? How does adding footnotes actually work? Thanks again for your help. Silver Water (talk) 00:11, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Silver Water: Automatically interlace is a pretty good description. Conceptually, when you click "save", the file is re-parsed. Ref tags are turned into superscripts in numerical order that link to the full, formatted citation, which is placed wherever the {{reflist}} template is. Inserting your new text in Eugene will behave the same way as if you inserted a new ref in the middle of your draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Worldbruce: I am lost! I didn't understand your explanation. So, here's my question: If I paste in the text that I have created, will the footnotes automatically populate and renumber? If they do, they will save me a ton of work! Thank you for trying to explain this to me again. Silver Water (talk) 23:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Silver Water: Yes, they will automatically populate and renumber. All will become clear when you do it. You could see it now by doing the copying, but only clicking "Show preview" instead of "Save changes". --Worldbruce (talk) 02:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Worldbruce: Thank you! Hadn't thought of trying "Show Preview," another good idea!Silver Water (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 25

19:56:03, 25 March 2017 review of submission by MakinASarah


MakinASarah (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Makin. Did you have a specific question? NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just a shot in the dark, but I assume you are wondering why the page is getting flagged? I think your initial issue is trying to include too much. For content, if you can't find a source that fits Wikipedia's rule on sourcing, then you shouldn't include it. The badly sourced material tends to water down other material that is properly sourced (if there) and makes it hard to see if the singer is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. I have not performed a full review of your page, but can tell you that if you start only employing material that is taken from such sources, you will make it easier for other editors to review your work! Isingness (talk) 02:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 26

Rajeev Kathpalia

Rajeev Kathpalia The deletion of the autobiographical article Rajeev Kathpalia is currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajeev Kathpalia. As a mainspace article, the AFC system is not the right place to get assistance, but the WP:Teahouse is a good place for beginner editors to get help. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

20:18:37, 26 March 2017 review of submission by Neilchristopher100


My page has been declined as the reviewer noted the sources are unreliable. I have included articles and pieces from National mainstream newspapers (New Zealand Herald and La Stampa in Italy), as well as articles from internationally recognised Dance journals and international press such as the Telegraph in London, the National Business Review and the Ministry for Cunture and Heritage, all refer to Mr Ventriglias work directly related to this article, and are third party independent sources not related to the subject himself. I have also referenced websites like the Royal Academy of Dance, Maggio Danza, Royal New Zealand Ballet and Dance Lines.

I have removed the Bold links (as requested by the reviewer), and I am hoping to get some further guidance on what constitutes a reliable source, or indeed if there are particular references I've made that are unreliable. I thought perhaps it was the awards that were not verifiable.

Thank you, any help is appreciated before I resubmit for approval.

Neilchristopher100 (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neilchristopher100. I saw four sources referenced. The first was the Italian Wikipedia, which is user-generated, and thus not a reliable source. The second was Royal New Zealand Ballet. It is reliable, but as Ventriglia's employer, is not independent, so it does not help establish notability. The other two were dead links.
I've turned the first into an inter-language link, which is allowed, but does not verify the statement or help establish notability. I repaired the two dead links, which were malformed. The one to Royal Academy of Dance is reliable, but does not contribute to notability because there is not a significant depth of independent information there. I'm unfamiliar with Danza & Danza. If it's a well-respected magazine it's likely a reliable source, but the url you've supplied is just its home page, which says nothing about Ventriglia. We want the address of a webpage that says Ventriglia won "Best Director of the Year" in 2012 for his work at MaggioDanza.
With regard to the other sources listed in your question, I suspect you're confusing references with external links. See "Referencing for beginners" for how to cite sources. To turn an external link into a reference, you'll essentially move it from the external links section to immediately after the statement it supports and enclose it in opening and closing ref tags. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the advice Worldbruce. . I've update the page and I think I've understood the references. I'd appreciate a quick peer review of the page before submitting. Thanks again --Neilchristopher100 (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neilchristopher100 I see that the draft now has many more references, and many fewer external links, all of which is a good thing. That's about as much of a review as you'll get without actually submitting the draft. There are close to 1000 other drafts awaiting review, and this help desk isn't a way to jump the queue. It's taking about a month for drafts to be reviewed right now. I've dropped a standard Welcome Wagon package on your talk page. It contains a score of links, each of which in turn links to many more policies, guidelines, and essays. After you submit your draft, continue improving it by studying those links. It may also be helpful to study some of Wikipedia's best articles. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

22:23:28, 26 March 2017 review of submission by 2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:AB


I have written hundreds of Wikipedia articles, all through AfC now that IP users can't create them, but I have never waited so long, over a month, for a draft to be reviewed. In fact, it usually only takes a few days. Now I submitted an article I was still working on, Ian S. E. Carmichael, and it was moved faster than I can blink. Although I am an experienced editor, I still thought AfCs were worked on in some date order.

I had questions about the Schmalholz article, also, that I could not get answered. Like Ice-Q, most of the sources are about his stage name, and that is what the article fame is about, and I would like the article there, IN-Q, but could not figure out how to do it. I asked around, but got no good answer. How do I do this?

Is this a regular occurrence, waiting over a month, and is there some reason my articles haven't been waiting this long, and this one did, while a later article flew through?

I write mostly science biographies, plant viruses, and paleontology articles, half the time I ask for project help, and I write minor celebrity articles, usually singers, but I am working on improving slam poetry articles overall on Wikipedia.

Yes, be patient, but this is a long time. No, I don't want an account.

Thanks, --2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:AB (talk) 22:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC) 2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:AB (talk) 22:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC) If[reply]

It is not especially unusual to wait a month for a review. Many reviewers work the drafts that have been in the pool the longest, others prefer to work the most recently submitted. If your question is how to change the name of a draft, that's called moving a page and it's one of a number of things IP editors are not allowed to do. If the draft is accepted, the accepting reviewer will use a title they believe best follows titling guidelines. If you disagree with the title they choose, you may then request a move to a different title. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)I sometimes spend quite some time checking newly submitted drafts. It is possible to decline many submissions at first glance in terms of the "Quick Fail" criteria. In a few (rare) cases it is possible to immediately accept the draft, because the writer has sufficient experience and knowledge of WP's standards to produce an acceptable article without the assistance of reviewers - or has figured out that getting such help is best done before clicking the "Submit" button. The rest of the potentially viable, but not immediately acceptable, submissions I would usually move to Draft-space and do some "automagical" cleanup then leave for later "in-depth review" - sometimes I'd post a request for assistance at a relevant WikiProject if the topic is highly technical and needs a topic specialists knowledge. That's how the obviously hopeless and obviously acceptable get pulled out of the queue early, while the rest end up waiting longer, some for a subject specialist reviewer. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. Your answer below does not. But, yes, I see that many are obvious first dismissals, that clears quite a few. Many of the topic ones seem easy, although I see a deletion process coming up for some. It's still annoying to have one sit for two hours and another for six weeks. I used to write more celebrity articles, though, and now pretty much stick to scientist bios. --2601:648:8503:4467:C160:6162:7443:F334 (talk) 21:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so how come every article submitted on that date has been addressed except for this one? Is there something wrong with my draft itself? --2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:BC (talk) 08:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is of no significance at all, it's random chance that it is the last pending one from that date. It is currently one of 113 drafts in Category:AfC pending submissions by age/3 weeks ago - after the "20 days" category all the remaining pending drafts are lumped together in "three weeks", "four weeks" and "very old" categories. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 27

05:55:46, 27 March 2017 review of submission by MPaul


Hello, in the interests of full disclosure, please know that I am submitting this draft entry as a former student and occasional research collaborator of Jon Chilingerian, Professor at Brandeis University. I am Mitchell Glavin, Associate Professor at Stonehill College.

The main sources for the draft I have submitted are the faculty profiles for Dr. Chilingerian at the websites for the Brandeis University Heller School and the Tufts University School of Medicine. While I am aware of the Wikipedia guidelines that frown upon using text from external sources, I was not entirely sure how to proceed here since these faculty profiles are largely composed by Dr. Chilingerian himself and intended for the widest possible distribution. Since Prof. Chilingerian is still very much alive, there are to date no obituaries or historical profiles that have been published about him.

As you can see, this is my first attempt at a contribution to Wikipedia. I would be happy to try to revise this profile into an acceptable format if I can get some actionable suggestions. Thank you! MPaul (talk) 05:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MPaul. Which criterion of WP:PROF do you believe Chilingerian satisfies? Awards and top n lists carry little weight at Wikipedia unless independent reliable sources cover them. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:29:39, 27 March 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by 112.208.0.141


The reason why i write the article is to help college students to easily find a reference about the Filipino writer Luis Joaquin Katigbak. Please help me for this article.

112.208.0.141 (talk) 14:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP address. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. The subject of your submission appears to meet our standards for having an article, but you've done a poor job of presenting the information. You might want to work through our WP:Tutorial to learn the basics of crafting a Wikipedia article. And you really do need to study our WP:Referencing for beginners, because citing your material to reliable sources (WP:RS) is essential for having an article published here. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 28

10:34:43, 28 March 2017 review of submission by Aurikelvej


Not sure how to include references in article. I've added <ref> after words but don't know if this is enough? Aurikelvej (talk) 10:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aurikelvej. Adding the <ref> tag is an excellent start. Immediately after that, describe the source so that readers can find it if they want to read it themselves. If it's a book, for example, state the author's name, date of publication, title, publisher, and page number. See "Referencing for beginners" for more information. Finally, immediately after the description of the source, place a closing </ref> tag. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:39:21, 28 March 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by KacMo


Hello!

I need assistance because I wanted to put up my first article about this start-up company called PapayaPods. I received a notification that my article "reads more like an advertisement." Understanding the importance of being unbiased, and even though I am the content writer at PapayaPods (unpaid intern), I only used information which had already been previously published, stated facts and not opinions, and made sure to cite every source used.

Can you please explain to me why my article submission was almost immediately declined? As well as, what specific things do I need to change?



KacMo (talk) 15:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Hi there! It appears you may want to visit the following link on what encyclopeadic writing is like. This will explain the kinds of words, phrasings, or even sources that you should avoid in writing a page. Try avoiding declaring why something is a success, for example, and simply write the facts. Encyclopeadic writing can be very different from other forms, so don't be discouraged. Sometimes your topic does not have enough sources to get up on Wikipedia, and that's okay too. For now though, you have been flagged for advertorial language. Another important rule you may want to look at is also the community's rule on promotional words. Isingness (talk) 01:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:51:34, 28 March 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Josephgalasso


Thank you editors. my submission of Andrew Radford is already in existence as a wiki page in Spanish. I have got permission from Andrew to update his publications and to have his spanish wiki-page translated into English. Andrew Radford in one of a very small handful of scholars who has written extensively on Noam Chomsky's Generative Grammar Framework in linguistics. His noted textbooks are classics in the field and his contributions to Chomskyan linguistics has reached around the world. I have personally obtained permission for him to translate and update his current page to English <https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Radford

please note: what appears on page I submitted was not complete (only line 1 and external links appear) i will resubmit using mark-up template

thanks for your consideration, joseph galasso

Josephgalasso (talk) 19:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Josephgalasso You don't need permission from the subject to translate an article from another wikipedia. But just because it exists on Spanish wikipedia doesn't mean it's acceptable here. What you do need to do is make sure that the subject meets OUR notability requirements for academics, and the statements in the article are verifiable, supported by independent, reliable sources. Your draft doesn't do that at the moment. Since you appear to be on a first-name basis with the subject, you also need to consider that you may have a conflict of interest. Good luck, Mduvekot (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

20:28:53, 28 March 2017 review of submission by Artist4Equality


Artist4Equality (talk) 20:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am attempting to update a link in Calvin B. Jones under the heading References. Item listed as #10, the link in the original article has moved. I clicked edit, but the original text does not show up. I added a new item #10 with the correct link, but still can not access the original #10 to remove it. Please advise.

Thank you.

Hi Artist4Equality I have fixed it, reference #10 is located at the bottom of the "Group Exhibits" list. By the way, the article has many problems that need attention, I have tagged it with a maintenance template. (BTW #2 - This article was accepted into mainspace several years ago, thus it is no longer within the purview of this project, if you need more assistance or advice with it please ask either at the WP:Teahouse or the WP:Help desk. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 22:05:28, 28 March 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Christian 1235


I need assistance because I don't know the cheat code for friend list in this article. If someone is a cheat code expert, please fix my article.


Christian 1235 (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Christian. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, I have no idea what you're asking us to do. By the way, your draft seems to appear in two different places: at the location noted above and at User:Christian_1235/PrestonPlayz. You should probably consolidate the material at the Draft location, and then request a deletion of the User-page material. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 09:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 29

Request on 00:28:56, 29 March 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Tricia.miranda


I have tried to submit this article a few times, but it keeps getting rejected. The first time, I was asked to cite the piece more, so I provided citations of articles where the subject is being mentioned doing the work we are saying he did, as well as linking to other Wiki pages.

I'm not sure what else I can do to get this published. I appreciate any help or guidance.

Thank you.

Tricia.miranda (talk) 00:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: it appears that the article is largely unsourced. I would visit The site's policy on reliable sources to determine what you can use to support your writing. If a part of your writing is unsupported by a valid source, then the reviewers of your page will see that part as null and void as regards evidencing the notability of your subject matter. So if you don't have a proper source for that part, delete it. Now, whether or not your subject matter is notable enough for Wikipedia is another story, but without good sources you are providing material that cannot be vetted properly (and will very likely be rejected). Additional issues likely include problems with your use of formatting, but that hasn't been brought up by reviewers yet. However, if you can add more sources that are valid under the policy provided earlier in this reply, that will help in better asserting your draft's notability (if it exists). Isingness (talk) 01:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

02:04:30, 29 March 2017 review of submission by CheronA


Hi checking in on my submission from a month ago

CheronA (talk) 02:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CheronA. There are 100-200 drafts that have been in the pool waiting to be reviewed longer than this one, so expect it to take a bit longer. Use the time to continue improving the draft, or check out ways to help make Wikipedia better at the community portal. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

07:35:16, 29 March 2017 review of submission by WIZRADICAL

My draft on Narada sting operation was returned twice .I am confused .In the present edited condition is it all right? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Narada_sting_operation — Preceding unsigned comment added by WIZRADICAL (talk • contribs) 07:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC) {{Lafc|username=WIZRADICAL|ts=07:35:16, 29 March 2017|page= — Preceding unsigned comment added by WIZRADICAL (talk • contribs) [reply]

Hello, WIZ. Later today, I'll leave some comments on the draft (and will notify you when I do so). NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

10:00:25, 29 March 2017 review of submission by Kovács Krisztina


I have already created my article via Articles for creation process, but I am not sure if my article has been submitted for a review. It says: "The reviewer is in the process of closing the request, and this tag should be removed soon." What is the next step in order to make my article accepted?

Kovács Krisztina (talk) 10:00, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kovács. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. The problem here is that you have asked for a review of an article that you posted directly to Main space. In these cases, the software doesn't quite understand what happened and produces the message that you are seeing. So, did you want a review? If so, I'll be happy to arrange for that by moving the draft into Draft space, where it will enter the queue for drafts seeking a review. If you do not want a review, simply remove the template from the article. Let us know which you prefer. NewYorkActuary (talk) 10:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you so much for your help. I would like my article to be reviewed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kovács Krisztina (talk • contribs) 10:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The draft now appears at Draft:Holy Spirit Church (Sajópálfala). Given the current backlog, it will probably take about a month before a review takes place. Feel free to work on the draft in the meantime. If you have any further questions, please ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 10:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kovács Krisztina (talk • contribs) 10:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

13:54:57, 29 March 2017 review of submission by Wendymartinbower


I was told the article did not meet basic standards and that it reads as an advertisement. What language per se was not neutral enough. Secondly, would adding the following references be sufficiently "notable": WGN Chicago - WGN Chicago NBC WSAZ Interview - NBC WOWK -TV CBS Parkersburg WV News and Sentinel Before I add these I'd like feedback. Otherwise I will need to withdraw the submission until we get more press.

Hello, Wendy. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. The best source of information as to why your submission was declined will be the person who looked at it. You can find the name and Talk page link for that reviewer in the "decline" box near the top of your draft. On a more general note, when reviewers speak of a draft reading "like an advertisement", they often are not referring to specific language. Instead, they are expressing their concern about the overall content of the draft. If a submission appears to be little more than an extension of the company's web site, or a part of the company's social-media marketing strategy, this concern is often expressed as "advertising". When I took a look at your submission shortly before posting here, I got the impression that I was reading precisely (and only) the sort of material that a company might put into one of its brochures. I, too, would have decline it as "advertising". I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

16:42:36, 29 March 2017 review of submission by JRGarica


I am having trouble setting up the formatting for my reference page. I have read the Wiki help pages for citations and referencing, but I am unable to properly format the links so they appear how they should with my internal citations. Is it possible to see an example of how one is suppose to be written as? Thanks in advanced.

Hello, JR. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. There were several referencing problems with your submission. First, if you simply want to direct the reader to a Wikipedia article that provides more information on something mentioned in your draft, you should use a "wiki-link", not a footnote. I converted the two references in the first paragraph, using the WP:Piped link technique for one of them. Also, you can't use Wikipedia as a source for statements, so I simply removed the one that was attempting to use Wikipedia to prove that Hames attended the University of Denver. (You'll need to find proof of this somewhere outside of Wikipedia.) The one proper reference now appears as a formatted footnote, for which I used the {{cite web}} template. I hope all of this was helpful. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 30

02:32:15, 30 March 2017 review of submission by Illinoiswiki10


I am resubmitting this page for Charlie Kirk. I added some sources, and am not sure what the issues are with it as it is.

Hello, Illinois. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Before posting this, I took a look at your submission and found that I agreed with the previous reviewer. You really haven't demonstrated that the subject has notability (in the sense that Wikipedia uses that word) that is independent of the organizations he has worked with. Giving a speech at a convention is probably not enough to sustain a stand-alone article on Wikipedia, and most of the other "claims to fame" derive from the subject's relationship with the organization he founded, Turning Point USA. I don't see stand-alone notability here, but perhaps some other reviewer will have a different opinion. By the way, I applaud your use of citation templates for the footnotes, but a few of them are badly formatted and could use some fixing. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 11:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

07:19:01, 30 March 2017 review of submission by Batozsu89


I am wondering if my draft is going to be acceptable or I need to make any changes on it?If it need any changes what should I change?

Batozsu89 (talk) 07:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Batozsu89. Thank you for your contribution. The draft is in the pool of submissions to be reviewed. Lately, reviews have been taking about a month. While you wait, check out other ways to improve Wikipedia at the community portal. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:57:36, 30 March 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Scn1989


Dear community, the draft of the Wiki page I'm working on has been rejected for the second time due to poor referencing. I've already cut the biggest part of the text in the History section and put all references I have, so I just don't know how to improve the page so that it could be published. The issue is that there are physically no more available external sources I can use. Does it mean our page can't be published with the sources we have? Maybe I should clean up some other pieces of content that aren't supported with references? Do you accept references from official databases (for example, D&B D‑U‑N‑S Number) to prove that our company exists?

Thank you so much, Alexandra Lupanava on behalf of Scn1989 (ScienceSoft, software development company)

Scn1989 (talk) 08:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

19:15:53, 30 March 2017 review of submission by S2dd


Hello -

I'm not requesting a re-review just yet (so apologies if this is the wrong place for this post) but rather guidance.

I wrote an article on Peter Dyke (UK-based organist), which was rejected for its references. In writing the piece I drew on these two other articles about UK-based organists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Briggs_(English_musician) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Baldock

These appear to have an amount of referencing similar to - or lower than - the piece I wrote; so I'm wondering whether these other articles were not good examples to use - i.e. would they be rejected for the same reason as mine was?

I'd also be grateful for direction as to the citations I have included: the review mentions a 'church newsletter' - but I've cited Hereford Cathedral's website, the Church Times, and the BBC - so I'm not sure what I need to do to fix this.

I apologise if these are rookie questions, but your help would be much appreciated.

Thank you.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=773015377"