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 Stats sanx (talk | contribs) at 09:26, 10 June 2014. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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


June 3

Review of Draft:Studio Under

Hello. I've been told that my submission had been denied. I would be happy to understand what to improve/change so it would be accepted.

Best regards,

Eran Gal-Or — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.114.5.10 (talk) 08:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We can't tell which article you are talking about, but the reasons are given in the centre of the pink box on the article, with links in there to pages that explain the various terms. Rankersbo (talk) 13:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, found it now. There are no independent, reliable sources to the article. There are lots of external links to the websites of various entities referrerd to in the article, which prove those entities exist and nothing more. The links don't say anything about Studio Under. You need references that talk about Studio Under, and the events and facts in your article. Rankersbo (talk) 14:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Katch 22

I have edited the article for the band Katch 22 many times and all of the information is correct and available to be checked on the internet, i.e.record release dates etc. Why is it not entered on the website. (Mike-eastman (talk) 11:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)). mike-Eastman (Mike-eastman (talk) 11:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

@Mike-eastman: Because this is what you submitted. What else could be done here?

Mike-eastman, it looks as if your draft had been deleted as an abandoned draft, a few hours before you tried to re-submit it. See [1]. To get it reinstated as a draft, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/G13. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good Katch, V. I should have spotted that. Fiddle Faddle 20:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/UK Data Service

Hi there I've responded to the original reviewer's concerns about citations and updated the page, but I can't figure out how to re-submit it. Can you help? Many thanks. Scozzolino (talk) 13:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted the review templates and comments at the top of the page - I have just restored it. There is a big blue button in the pink template for resubmitting. Please do not delete any of the review stuff at the top of the page - it is the record of the progress of the draft and also has many links to advice and help pages. It is automatically removed when the article gets accepted, but until then it needs to be kept. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:40, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:GreenLips/Sandbox

Hi, y wife and I have been trying to post articles for wiki's review. Subject titled "Bill Haney". We have put probably 50hrs into trying to get this very worthy man listed. We keep getting deleted even through we are carefully following the many many many rules. We have submitted newspaper articles and a bio and it just keeps getting swallowed up - deleted with messages saying different reasons. The latest being "deleted: out of scope. Can someone please work with us? Thank you in advance to any one who tries to help us GreenLips (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenLips: Submissions like yours are problematic. Your words above hint that you have a conflict of interest. I might suggest quitting this effort altogether.
That said, here are my comments: You'll need to add in-line citations for all your assertions. Much of that content (high school, personal life) is really not important enough to mention. Your subject doesn't appear to meet any subject-specific notability criteria so you'd need to make a case for WP:GNG. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenLips: In answer to your questions at my talk page: Your file uploads can be found at Special:ListFiles/GreenLips. You uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, which is a sister project. WP:CITE does not require that you provide scans of newspaper articles (File:SundayOaklandPress,1997.png, File:NYTimes,Apr1993.png, File:JacksonCitizenPatriot,Mar2002.png, File:Detroiter1990.png, and File:BirminghamEccentric,Dec1989.png), you only have to list which periodical, on what day, on what page, as well as the title and author. I'm sorry that was unclear to you.
When you use phrases like "very worthy man" and "someone who truly deserves it", it makes me doubt your objectivity. We are writing an encyclopedia; we're not here to celebrate heroes or condemn villains. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenLips: : May I suggest Wikipedia:Mentorship? Fiddle Faddle 20:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Draft:Relativistic Global Non-Inertial Reference Frames

My recent;y submitted paper Relativistic Global Non Inertial Frames was declined for copyright violations. I would like to know which parts of the article the reviewer feels that there is too much overlap with published work ..

H Crater

Hcrater (talk) 14:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hcrater. According to the deleting administrator, [2] it was an unambiguous copyright infringement from http://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.3257. That article appears to be co-authored by someone with a name similar to yours. Are you one of the authors? The problem is, even if you are the author and hold the copyright, if it has been previously published, then we cannot publish substantial chunks and/or paraphrases from it on Wikipedia unless it has been released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. I was unable to find anything to confirm what license it had been released under on either the article or its abstract page. Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials has more information on this. – Voceditenore (talk) 15:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Hcrater: I was very specific in my comments but perhaps the submission was blanked before you could read them. You wrote a very technical paper hosted by Cornell University and recreated that content in your submission. I determined that fact by Googling random sentences in your submission. We value your contributions but we cannot host someone else's content. When using even public domain content, you must leave a clear notification that the content had already been published elsewhere. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:13, 3 June 2014 (UTCIt
((reply to Chris Troutman)) Yes, I am a coauthor with Lusanna on the arxiv paper paper you googled. Our article is a distillation of our arxive paper. Would it be possible to resubmit the article with this notification (i.e. that it is a distillation of the arxiv paper)? HCrater Hcrater (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hcrater , minimally you have to list the source(s) for any Wikipedia article, but a "distillation" (from what Chris says, the draft contained verbatim sentences, etc.) requires evidence that the paper has been previously published under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. Until that is in place, the draft cannot be restored. Voceditenore (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
((reply to Chris Troutman)) I have contacted the distribition arxiv for the purpose of finding the liscense

agreement all contributors agree to. The URL with the details is http://arxiv.org/help/license The particular portion of that agreement I believe relevent is... " In order to submit an article to arXiv, the submitter must either: •grant arXiv.org a non-exclusive and irrevocable license to distribute the article, and certify that they have the right to grant this license, •certify that the work is available under either the Creative Commons Attribution license, or the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike license, and that they have the right to grant this license, or •certify that the work is in the public domain (we will store this information by associating the Create Commons Public Domain Declaration with the submission)...."

Please let me know if this is sufficient to allow me to have my article restored to my sandbox for further editing that would explicitly state it is a distillation based on the arxiv article and any other necesssary editing you would recommend. Horace Crater Hcrater (talk) 15:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid it's not sufficient, Hcrater. You must provide proof that your article was specifically released either into the public domain (highly unlikely) or under the Creative Commons Attribution license. We do not accept the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike license, as all text on Wikipedia must be available for commercial use. This will probably entail an email from arXiv with a copy of the original submission which specifies the license. Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials has more information on this. Voceditenore (talk) 15:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ::((reply to Chris Troutman)) I received the following note from the Cornell arxiv Dear Horace Crater, We do not provide any document regarding this. You should send them the link to our documentation regarding the licenses. --arXiv admin

Here is the note the above was a response to.. Dear arxiv admin, Thank you for your helpful response. Is there a way I can provide proof to Wikipedia that my article was specifically released either into the public domain or under the Creative Commons Attribution license? Horace Crater

So, it looks like I have come to the end of my rope..My mistake was to submit to Wikipedia a paper that was based on a specific article instead of one based on a general subject area. I will contact my coauthor to determine our next step. I suspect we will resubmit an article based on a general subject area which includes the area of the arxiv paper but not exclusively. In that event it would be most helpful if I could obtain the ascii version of the sandbox as there were many tedious details we may want to reuse. One suggestion would be for you to restore it for a few hours and when I copied it for my records I could notify you and then you could delete it permanently. Thanks in advance for any help in this regard. Horace Crater Hcrater (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hcrater: Again, I want to reiterate that we appreciate you bringing your technical knowledge to Wikipedia. Our rules are firm on this matter. Also, as WP:DCM explains this help desk can't process any type of permissions documentation. Contact would have to go through WP:OTRS.
If you'd like your draft restored in order to copy it, see WP:REFUND. My suggestion would be to write a new article using your paper as a source as well as your other sources together rather than re-create a copyrighted work. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Draft:Craig Henderson

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Haileesettle (talk • contribs) 15:01, 3 June 2014

Hello Haileesettle . I have removed the copy of your draft which you had pasted in here. The link to it sufficient. Can you let us know what your question is or what sort of help you are seeking with the draft? Voceditenore (talk) 15:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Local 77 Duke Labor Union

Hi, I was just wondering if I could receive edits for my Wikipedia article on the Local 77 Labor Union. Thanks. Karenli2014 (talk) 16:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Karenli2014. What do you mean by "receive edits"? Are you asking for someone to help you with the draft? Or are you asking for a review? You have currently submitted it for a review (half an hour ago). Unfortunately, a review may take more than 3 weeks. The Articles for creation process is very highly backlogged. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 16:40, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Hexagon Geospatial

Hi,

There is a note on my talk page that the article I submitted, Draft:Hexagon Geospatial, was not accepted because it contained copyrighted information. I don't understand.

None of the text of the article is copyrighted. It does include copyrighted images - the Hexagon Geospatial company logo, for example. Is it possible for you to look back and see if it was rejected because of the copyrighted images? Or if there was something else in it the reviewers thought was copyrighted?

Aren't company logos normally copyrighted? If yes, then how do other people include them on pages they create for their companies?

The page has been deleted for me, but I am hoping you have a record of it somewhere.

Thanks, Slhuff (talk) 18:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)Slhuff[reply]

This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. Please consider checking out WP:REFUND. Hope this helps! APerson (talk!) 00:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Slhuff, According to the administrator who deleted the draft [3], it copied or closely paraphrased the text at http://www.hexagongeospatial.com/products/data-management-compression.aspx and other pages on that website. That website is clearly marked © Copyright 2014 Intergraph Corporation. As such, it will not be refunded. You will need to re-write the draft in your own words. But before you try that, I strongly suggest that you read:
And if this applies to you, also read:
Voceditenore (talk) 08:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Draft:Rick Rosas

Hi, I am having difficulty with the submitted article on Rick Rosas. The references are confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikey909 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikey909: Please would you explain your rather large question in bite sized chunks? Before you do, please read WP:REFB in case it helps your thinking.
Remember that references are intended to corroborate facts you have asserted in the article. They must come from significant coverage independent of Rosas, and in WP:RS Fiddle Faddle 20:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Liam.bertuzzi/sandbox

I was woundering why my great important article didn't make it through and I would like the honest truth pleaseLiam.bertuzzi (talk) 20:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To quote the comment left by the reviewer:
It appears that your submission is either an attempt to be humorous over being factual, or is an obvious hoax. As Wikipedia strives to contain only factual entries, we can not accept your submission at this time.
I think this more or less sums it up. APerson (talk!) 00:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Liam.bertuzzi. you already asked the same question here and received an answer yesterday [4]. Your behaviour and your "article" is disruptive and wasting everyone's time. Please stop it now. Voceditenore (talk) 07:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Neudesic,_LLC

Hi there,

I'm new to posting on Wikipedia and am hoping to gain an understanding of what I can do/change to have my article published post rejection; Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Neudesic,_LLC

Appreciate any/all help!

Best, schansler

Schansler (talk) 23:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Schansler. The reviewer left some good guidance and links for you on your draft. I'm assuming you haven't read them? In any case, please read the following which apply to all editors, and especially to ones who are writing about subjects with which they have an affiliation:
Voceditenore (talk) 07:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Draft:Fashionbi

Why my article was declined? Could you provide us with a better guidelines so we can post it correctly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fashionbi (talk • contribs) 23:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fashionbi, did you read the reasons for the decline at the top of your draft, click on the guidance links you were given, and read them? Your draft was blatantly promotional and had no references whatsoever, let alone ones to independent reliable sources, e.g.
Fashionbi is an multicultural company, headquartered in Milan, Italy and Shanghai, China, which empower professionals to make smart decisions in the fashion and luxury industry.

The fact that you cannot even see how promotional and inappropriate the text is for an encyclopedia is a prime example of why Wikipedia strongly discourages editing with a conflict of interest. If you want some guides please read the following:

Please do not submit the draft again until it is written in a neutral point of view, and referenced to multiple independent sources.
Voceditenore (talk) 07:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 4

Looking for guidance and help for creating good wikipedia page

Hi Wiki,

Our wikipedia was tagged as copyrighted information and promotional. Do you have a guide or helpful resources in creating page for our organization?

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks,

--Designthatrock (talk) 01:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Designthatrock, your deleted draft Draft:Limitless Ventures Inc. was a blatant copy of http://www.limitlessventures.org/about/.
The fact that you cannot even see how promotional and inappropriate the text was for an encyclopedia is a prime example of why Wikipedia strongly discourages editing with a conflict of interest. If you want some guides please read the following:
Voceditenore (talk) 06:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Draft:Asia Pacific Vision

Dear sir or madam,

I am confused why the article was declined, perhaps there's something I can fix and resubmit again? Thanks.

Warm regards, Paul Hongkong2015 (talk) 02:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear sir or madam, I'm not sure why my article was declined. Is there anything I can do about it? The link to my article is

Draft:Asia Pacific Vision

Many thanks for your help in advance.

Regards,

Paul Mak

Hongkong2015 (talk) 06:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Paul. I don't blame you for being confused. This was a draft about a clearly real news agency but was declined with the following reason given:
The proposed article is not suitable for Wikipedia. Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles on fictional subjects should cover their real-world context and contain sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance—not just a summary of the plot.
The reviewer (User:JustBerry) was using an automated script and most probably checked the wrong reason for the decline by mistake. My impression from the four references you've used is that this subject probably would meet the criteria for inclusion (See WP:ORG). I suggest that instead of simply listing them in a separate section, you add them as inline citations (see Help:Referencing for beginners) and perhaps find more sources, e.g. "Faux better or worse: fact and fiction are blurring as the taste for faux-news rises." in Television Asia (April 2004). Also be aware that Wikipedia articles about companies, especially if written by editors associated with those companies, come under special scrutiny (and rightly so). My advice would be to shorten the article, and make it it as matter-of-fact, neutral, and boring as possible, i.e. written in encyclopedic style. It's current style is not too bad as company articles go, but there's still room for improvement. Voceditenore (talk) 07:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also ask User:DGG, who is especially experienced in reviewing articles like this, if he has some further input on this. Voceditenore (talk) 07:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


First, I must apologize for the bad reviewing. Our use of this script is an anachronism--it is too susceptible to error, and anyone qualified to review should be capable of writing a proper delete reason that explains the proper reason in detail. Myself, I almost always write a custom message and almost never use the script. The sooner we get rid of the entire current AfC structure, the better our reviewing will be. The problem with the article, as I see them is primarily the rather informal promotional tone, It will help to remove all, or almost all adjectives. Then let me know on my talk page. DGG ( talk ) 09:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with DGG's use of comments. This reviewer was indulging in a series of unlikely reviews. and had been discouraged. I hoped all had been caught. Hongkong2015 you deserve our apologies. Accidents happen, even in the best regulated houses. Fiddle Faddle 11:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Draft:4INFO

*confused* First I made the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:4INFO with about 250 citations, then https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Drumlineramos does what I thought was an awesome job wikifying it, & now it's rejected because of not enough citations. I'm also confused how to leave Drumlineramos a message. TY! MarkMillerITPro (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MarkMillerITPro. I am the reviewer who declined the article today. I can only review what I see, and I hope my comment on PR (etc) is useful for you. To send a message to Drumlineramos you simply visit their talk page at User talk:Drumlineramos, create a new section and ask your question of them.
It is by no means unusual for Wikipedia editors to disagree, but our overall objective with the WP:AFC route to to do our utmost to ensure that an article that is accepted is unlikely to be challenged for WP:N or WP:V, and references in WP:RS that are about the entity and independent of the entity are vital in this. Being nominated for deletion hurts. Being declined is simply a delay. Fiddle Faddle 18:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Timtrent.*chuckle* Cool. TY!

MarkMillerITPro (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Timtrent that an article accepted at AfC should be able to pass AfD, but when uncertain, I usually accept it. There often is doubt, because even after many years of experience there, I am not able to predict what would necessarily happen at AfD, where decisions are sometimes rather peculiar, or at least random. A possibly acceptable article should not depend on my personal guess, and I think it best to let it take its chances . Additionally, articles exposed to view at AfD often do get improved during their process there; certainly they have a better chance of getting community attention there than they do here. (Some editors have said that a 50% chance of passing AfD is good enough to accept--I try to use a higher standard of at least 60%, but numbers aren't all that meaningful.) DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Timtrent.:Hi DGG.:Hi Drumlineramos. Today I stumbled on an article I hadn't seen about King of SMS and AdMob of SMS. I added it. Anyone willing to take a look & let me know it's ok?

MarkMillerITPro (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Timtrent.:Hi DGG.:Hi Drumlineramos. Then I remembered another article, & I've added it. It's citation #13. imo that would help with "significant and independent coverage of the org". Could you 3 or someone else take a look & let me know if that was helpful?

MarkMillerITPro (talk) 18:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Timtrent.:Hi DGG.:Hi Drumlineramos I stumbled on an article I had seen before, that also may help with "significant and independent coverage of the org". Altho I added it, it's citation 16, imo it's a little clunky how I wrote it, and you may have a better idea.

MarkMillerITPro (talk) 18:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Timtrent.:Hi DGG.:Hi Drumlineramos I think I fixed the clunkiness. Let me know if you think the draft needs something further. TY!

MarkMillerITPro (talk) 18:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was doing something else today & found yet another article regarding notoriety. I think this draft is ready for publication. TY! 22:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

  • I looked at it, and, since it appears there may be sources for notability on the basis of market share, I made a preliminary pass at editing it to remove the unusually extensive promotionalism. Listing every imaginable see also and category is promotionalism . Giving a "for example" illustration of the firm's advertising technique is promotionalism. Listing more of its social marketing sites than its own website is promotionalism,

I have not yet checked to see which of the references are based of press releases; possibly most of them are, in which case they will need to be removed. I think it would probably pass AfD, but I am reluctant to accept an article with such sources. I am not sure why I contributed this amount of work to an article in a subject in which I have no interest, except perhaps to demonstrate the almost inevitable low quality of coi editing. DGG ( talk ) 01:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I looked at the edits. No problem from my perspective.

MarkMillerITPro (talk) 01:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Timtrent.:Hi DGG.:Hi Drumlineramos Last night I did find a reference that had byline PRWIRE, & switched that out to a more reliable source. Anyone willing to take a look?

MarkMillerITPro (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • @MarkMillerITPro: I'm going to stay away, I think. I try not to get too close to articles I review. If you think it is ready after listening to various pieces of advice, simply resubmit it. You can continue to improve it after resubmitting. Fiddle Faddle 16:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Probably because you are a decent person" That's what I thought your motive was. I'm father of large blended family. very messy. very close. Lots of opinions. I'm inclined to wait and see if anyone else will take one more look & possibly accept it, because I've been thru submission 2xs, & it sits there for more than 30 days each time is how I experience it. Is it not likely to be accepted without submitting again? Thanks! MarkMillerITPro (talk) 16:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

that afcs take 30 days to improve is in one sense our fault, but it is an almost inevitable failing because of the shortage of competent reviewers. If every really experienced editor took a hand and did a few on a regular basis, we could deal with it better. But in a project like WP there's just no way to get people to do anything they do not want to. The fix will therefore have to be to the process, and the best immediate things I can think of are1. to simply accept acceptable articles, rather than sent them back for minor improvements which could be made after acceptance, 2. to remember to remove G11s and test pages immediately, 3. and strongly discourage people from submitting hopeless articles repeatedly, all these would reduce the workload by at least half. A proper process first separates out the obvious, so there is time to spend on the ones that need it. DGG ( talk ) 00:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Timtrent.:Hi DGG.:Hi Drumlineramos I didn't notice DGG's comment about needing another 2008 reference, & found another reference tonight. TY!

Help request

The article I drafted Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The African Americans: Many Rivers to Crosswas declined because I improperly used in-line citations and subheadings. Before I try to resubmit, can I get some help on this?

Thanks! Kmburke76 (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)Kevin[reply]

@Kmburke76: Thank you for coming here. As the reviewer in question I'm not sure how best to answer your question. Is it that my explanation was unhelpful, or do you need more technical help? I do not visit this page regularly, so, if you need a fast answer from me rather than from others, please {{ping}} me Fiddle Faddle 17:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neither was reason to delete the article. The only reason I do not accept it immediately is that it is written as a press release,and I wonder if it is not copied from one. Please omit judgments and adjective, use fewer & shorter quotations,and rely less on Gates. As for headings , see Help:Cheatsheet.(hint: look at the code of exiting articles) But this could have been improved later, trivial matters of style are not a reason for rejection. As for references, we prefer but do not require that every significant fact have a source that is obvious, and it's preferred that every paragraph at least have one. But except for BLPs, they are required only for facts likely to be challenged, and I do not see any. Except for a BLP, or a contentious article, this too is a matter of improvement, not rejection. Articles do not have to be perfect, justgood enough to holdup at AfD. DGG ( talk ) 19:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of submission by Technical 13 (contribs•talk)

What does everyone who monitors this page think of the new header for each section for those that use the ask link in the header? I did it for multiple reasons, first, it's a pain to find which section they commented in when there are multiple "Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Your submission name here" sections. Second, since we are dealing with mostly new users here, it will be nice to have a nice big link to their contributions in the header (in case they actually sign and are using the default signature). Third, since we are scattered with submissions in User:, User_talk:, Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/, Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/, Draft:, and Draft_talk: now, it would be just too unmanagable to leave it as "Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/" or even change it to "Draft:". So, I eliminated that element all together. I'd be happy to add a preload template that will allow them to add a link directly to their draft in a {{La}} style template if that is wanted and people think it will be appropriately used. (I might even be able to create a custom substitutable template that will check if there is actually anything on the page they list (and try to find the most plausible namespace if it's not quite where they say it is), but that will take me a little of experimenting)... Let me know what you all think. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 16:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a good idea (or something like it), Technical 13. But wouldn't it be better to post this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation for more input? Most of the people here are very busy just replying to queries about submissions. Voceditenore (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Technical 13, your original heading here read:
Review of submission by [[User:Technical 13}}|Technical 13}}]] ([[Special:Contribs/Technical 13}}|contribs]]•[[User_talk:Technical 13}}|talk]]
Did you intend those stranded curly brackets and non-working links? I've edited to what I think you meant it to look like. Please change it back, if it's not what you meant. Voceditenore (talk) 16:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ye, thank you, and I've fixed it in the preloadtitle in the actual link. Thanks again.. The reason I posted here instead of there, is you are the people that have to see them and navigate with them all the time.. You are the directly affected audience. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 17:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I almost forgot to mention, I've also added a navigational box in the lower left corner of the page that will be static as you scroll up and down through the requests so it will be easy to get to the top, toc, today's requests, and bottom of the page. I can expand that or collapse it upon request. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 14:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Draft:Sébastien Dewaest

Accepted Moved to Sebastien Dewaest for me, recreate again — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.162.137 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)‎ Delete moved to restart a Sebastien Dewaest will becomes a article for users — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.162.137 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)‎[reply]

Hello 86.15.162.137. You cannot accept your own article unless you are an autoconfirmed registered editor, but today I accepted it and moved it to article space. I also created a re-direct for it from Sebastian Dewaest. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 06:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of submission by Abbeyokuns (contribs•talk)

Hi Reviewer,

please does it mean when i write something in the sandbox it can go live to become an article..? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbeyokuns (talk • contribs) 20:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Abbeyokuns. Work in your sandbox will only go into article space if you move it there or if you submit it to Articles for Creation and a reviewer accepts the draft and moves it into article space. However, your sandbox is visible on Wikipedia (and to some search engines). I see that User:Abbeyokuns/sandbox was deleted because it contained copyright material from http://www.vanguardngr.com/2014/03/player-can-bribe-keshi/. You cannot paste copyright text anywhere on Wikipedia, including your user pages. If you want to work on a draft, you will need to write it in your own words. Voceditenore (talk) 07:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 5

Review of submission by FloLau123 (contribs•talk)

Regarding the submitted page titling as "Poman Lo", will appreciate to advise the reason for declining the relevant submission. It will be grateful to share the tips on how to pass the submission review. Thks a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FloLau123 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello FloLau123. Your (Draft:Poman Lo) was declined for a lack of inline citations. These are important for biographies of living. people. I have now formatted your references as inline citations. However, before re-submitting, I suggest you find further press coverage of Ms. Lo. I suspect she would met our criteria for inclusion if you can find further independent sources. The one you already have, a lengthy article about her in the The Standard (Hong Kong), is a good start. Look for more like this. Also a reference for the fact that the children's series she devised and produced has won an award. Note that while it is preferable to have references in English, you can also use ones from the Chinese language press if necessary. Hope that helps, Voceditenore (talk) 07:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of submission by 69.171.187.22 (contribs•talk)

Could someone take this information for me and write an article on it in order for a wiki page to come into being later? http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4471193/?mode=desktop&ref_=m_ft_dsk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.187.22 (talk) 05:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 69.171.187.22. This is a help desk for editors who are working on drafts. This is not the place to request that someone write an article for you. If you wish to request that, please go to Wikipedia:Requested articles. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 06:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regaining use of Ambrosia10/sandbox after a redirect from there to Draft:Charlotte Cortlandt Ellis after draft has been accepted.

I was drafting my first article for Wikipedia in my sandbox and submitted it for review. I wasn't surprised that the reviewer declined to accept the article but he/she instead redirected the draft article from my sandbox into a Draft:Charlotte Cortlandt Ellis page. After some work my first article was accepted today but I am unsure now how to get the use of my sandbox back in order to plan my second article. I know there is probably an easy fix I'm just such a novice at this that I'm not sure what it is. Could you help?Ambrosia10 (talk) 05:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from User:Ambrosia10/sandbox)

Redirect page

  1. REDIRECTCharlotte Cortlandt Ellis

Ambrosia10 (talk) 05:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of submission by Chow Sang Sang (contribs•talk)

Hello! This is Chow Sang Sang. Noted that my article is not accepted. Could you explain why it's not accepted? And could you give me specific examples or point out some lines in my article which are not accepted, for my easy understanding and I can improve it as soon as I can. Thanks very much!

Title of my submission: Chow Sang Sang (Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Chow_Sang_Sang) Chow Sang Sang (talk) 07:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately not, you have asked this question a little too late. The article was declined at the beginning of December last year, and as you hadn't done anything about it in over six months it was assumed you had lost interest in developing it the article was deleted. If you do want to continue working on this article, please follow the instructions on your talk page for recovering the deleted page.
Please be aware before continuing that writing about yourself is strongly discouraged. Rankersbo (talk) 08:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Draft:Tom De Beuckelaer

Dear reader,

I have a question regarding my submission of the article on Tom de Beuckelaer. Draft:Tom De Beuckelaer

My submission got declined, because the references do not adequately evidence the notability. However, six independent references of different countries are used to support the notability of this article. Not many articels are supported by references of so many countries. In my opinion, significant evidence has been provided to support that this article is worthy of inclusion. Therefore, I would like the submmission to be reconsidered. In the case it is still not accepted, I would appreciate more thorough feedback.

Pantapasin (talk) 10:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Scott McDonald

Greetings. I would appreciate any help in improving the article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Scott McDonald. I have received helpful feedback along the way and have done my best to follow the sage advice and provide accurate sourcing. Unfortunately, the article was rejected, with feedback saying "Public relations mentions and internal industry mentions do not show notability."

At this point, I do have to admit I am a bit confused. I have sources in this article from BusinessWeek,the NY Times and Wharton School of Business among other notable and independent sources. Sources referred to as "internal industry mentions," are actually citations from independent B2B publications.

As this was my first attempt at submitting an article, I had originally borrowed sourcing ideas from an existing page for a person in a similar role as Scott: the CEO of the Boston Consulting Group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Lesser. Rich Lesser's references include links to a press release, his bio on BCG's site and his LinkedIn account. After my first round of feedback, I cleaned out similar references for Scott. Would it help to re-include them? Just want to make sure I am following proper procedures. I do feel the article in it's current state does meet the standards of notability as posted on Wikipedia, and surpasses the standards set by pages already approved. Thanks much in advance for your review. (Kingman13 (talk) 12:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Review of submission by 78.186.147.222 (contribs•talk)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Biotekno http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biotekno

Hello,

my new post was deleted couple of times with the following comments: u sayfa silinmiş. Sayfanın silme ve taşıma kaydı referans için aşağıda verilmiştir.

16:38, 4 Haziran 2014 Eldarion (Mesaj | Katkılar) Biotekno sayfasını sildi (Madde 6: Kayda değer olmayan oluşum: .) 16:58, 29 Mayıs 2014 Eldarion (Mesaj | Katkılar) Biotekno sayfasını sildi (Genel 11: Reklam amaçlı sayfa: .) 08:12, 14 Mayıs 2014 Eldarion (Mesaj | Katkılar) Biotekno sayfasını sildi (Madde 6: Kayda değer olmayan oluşum)

I have tried to get comments from the modereator but my comments were also deleted :)

I would like to change the page moderator or get a detailed explanation.

Thanks. (78.186.147.222 (talk) 12:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]

This help page relates to the English Wikipedia. If you wish to ask a question regarding the Turkish Wikipedia, you need to do so there. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of submission by SlatersGarage (contribs•talk)

Hi, all... My recent submission Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dean M. Brenner was rejected a couple weeks ago, and I was hoping for some clarification as to why... The feedback I received had said something about "submissions for a fictional character," which didn't make sense to me, as the subject of my submission is, in fact, real... Any additional input you can provide that would help me edit my submission into acceptance would be most appreciated. Thanks, SlatersGarageSlatersGarage (talk) 13:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SlatersGarage: This was part of the JustBerry mess. I am re-reviewing the article now. Fiddle Faddle 14:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Maciek_Pysz

Hello

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Maciek_Pysz was not approved yesterday on the grounds that the subject is not notable enough. I checked the notability guidelines for musicians when I created the article and I am sure the subject meets them so I would like to know how to improve my article so it can be accepted. All my sources are reliable, they are major jazz websites.

He has two albums ( one released, the other in the studio for release later this year) on a major UK Jazz label which has many famous jazz musicians in its catalogue. He had reviews of his debut album in 4 major jazz newspapers (not blogs) including All about Jazz (a major US jazz magazine) and Jazzwise which is the major UK jazz magazine. One of the people in his trio is already in Wikipedia ( Asaf Sirkis) so he is connected to a notable person. He is connected to another notable Wikipedia person (Aar Maanta) by appearing on Aar Maanta's album. I put accurate references to all 4 reviews. He received funding from UK Jazz Services (after applying against a lot of competition from other talented musicians) for touring and recording, so the quality of his work is very high and that is valdated by his having received funding for both recording and touring.

Also was there a problem with my referencing? Each reference is verifiable and opens the correct page to the reference. One article is from a magazine to which I provide a month and the author of the review. How do I improve the referencing with the sources I have?

I do not know how else to make the subject notable. Please help. Thank you.

Marycjames (talk) 15:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)Marycjames[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jerry Cooke (Yuri Kutschuk)

My wiki article is not an autobiography. Yuri Kutschuk is deceased, Oct. 18, 1921 - Oct. 27, 2005. He was a famous LIFE & Sports Illustrated photographer, like Neil Liefer and Alfred Eisenstaedt, who have wiki pages. Please advise on how to have my page reviewed again with the least delay, without re-entering all the information on the page? And, will I still need to change the username? I look forward to your answer. Thank you. Yurikutschuk (talk) 15:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Draft:Sacha Dunable

 Done this draft is may be done - 86.15.162.137 (talk), 15:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC) Accepted move to Sacha Dunable as a article for Intronauts, per Reviewer 86.15.162.137 (talk), 15:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC) plus Added as an article on wikipedia, we should redirect to Sacha Dunable, 86.15.162.137 (talk), 15:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of submission by Enaronch (contribs•talk)

What was the reason my article was declined? I'm the manager of the artist that I'm writing about. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enaronch (talk • contribs) 17:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your article has been declined as it is written in Chinese. This is the English Wikipedia, either write your article in English or rewrite it on the Chinese Wikipedia. Darylgolden(talk) 01:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Jessegalebaker/sandbox -- Warning message from system

I submitted new article content from my user sandbox. The yellow "Review Waiting" box is there; however a warning message also appears:

Reviewer tools[show] Warning: This page should probably be moved, but a page already exists at Draft:Sandbox.

Is this a problem? Jessegalebaker (talk) 17:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of submission by Northcotemusic (contribs•talk)

Hello, My article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Northcote (band) has been approved and classed as "start class". I have made the recommended edits. When will I know when it has been re-assessed and/or when it has passed official review? Northcotemusic (talk) 18:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Northcotemusic: It has been approved, you say? That is it. It has been approved. See Northcote (band) Fiddle Faddle 07:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Draft:Some Kind of Fairy Tale

In this draft article I submitted, at the bottom of the page it says "Draft waiting review." But at the top of the page it says "Draft not submitted for review." Which is correct? Is there anything I should do to facilitate the review? Jack Orion (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@JackOrion217: It is a foible of the various 'behind the scenes scripts', you need not be concerned. Technical 13 is this something the rewrite of the scripts is handling? Fiddle Faddle 22:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not yet, but I'm hoping to have a fix for that when I get working on the guided tour pages for draft space (which will move the submission status off the actual draft on to the /editnotice page). There most certainly should be a fix in the next 6-12 months (maybe sooner if I ever get "that" kind of free time to dig in). — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 22:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of submission by Beatnik Party (contribs•talk)

Hello, editors:

I am wondering what else I would need to link to in order to qualify this band (see link at end) for notability. They are on a "major" indie label (as far as they exist) with four LPs, and they are constantly touring nationally. I don't want to link to their gigs page in the article just to prove it, since that seems silly. They've had write-ups in many publications, but not yet any national papers or magazines (such as the NYT). The articles that I thought were relevant and notable, and still accessible, I linked to. (They did receive a mention in the New Yorker's Talk of the Town, but hey.)

The thing is the band is by its nature probably always going to remain somewhat under the radar. They are probably one of the premier examples of "chamber pop" in the country, but that's not exactly a chart-busting genre. I also see a whole lot of bands that are less notable in many respects but who have managed somehow to get an entry.

Please do be assured that I am in NO WAY affiliated with this band besides liking them. They have no idea who I am and I've never met them. I just thought they deserve at least an acknowledgment of their existence. What else do they need to do or provide in order to prove their notability that I have not included in the article as it stands? After reading the notability guidelines, it seems like they are pretty well qualified.

Thank you for your help!

This is the first article I have ever submitted, so please excuse anything I am doing wrong here!

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cuddle_Magic_(band)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Cuddle_Magic_(band)

Beatnik Party (talk) 18:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You say "They are on a "major" indie label" which one? Please indicate who they have released their LPs through? And please back up this info with a link to reliable source. Bellerophon talk to me 19:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

19:39:35, 5 June 2014 review of submission by Technical 13


  • Fiddle Faddle, this should address your concern of multiple sections by the same user. The template I created, {{Lafc}} should be able to take just about any pagename form and return if there are any pages with that name in Mainspace, WT:Afc/ space, Draft:, or the user's userspace (may have issues with drafts that are directly on their userpage or more than one subpage deep, still working on that). I think this is an improvement over my last modification, what do you think? All comments on the changes are welcome. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 19:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Technical 13: Well, yes, but look one section below Fiddle Faddle 22:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fiddle Faddle, they didn't quite read the instructions and made half of a wikilink... I hadn't thought about that possible error, but it would be easy for the responding helper to fix (like I just did) and as you can see, the template found a submission in both Draft: and Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/ so that will need to be addressed and see if a merge is appropriate. ;) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 22:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do need to fix it to SUBST that template or the username won't be what it is suppose to be.. (thinking out loud)... Unless I create a new parameter to make the username static... Fixing that part... Also trying to fix the talk page links as they are off... — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 22:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

22:04:52, 5 June 2014 review of submission by DRHaken


Review of Draft:Long finned Perth Mint Surgeon Fish

I am doing this for a school project, it is all 100% false, i plan to keep it on wiki for 2 weeks, i am proving to many teachers across the world that wikipedia is a viable source, and that people will edit it , probably within minutes, if it does go life. My teachers always say that Wikipedia is not a viable source because ANYONE can edit it, but this is not true, it is the MOST viable source since ANYONE can edit it, it is the most updated collection in the entire world, i couldn't of asked for a better library.

Thanks, 

              Bennett

207.68.250.104 (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@207.68.250.104: I think you've successfully proven your teacher's point. Hoaxes aren't allowed on Wikipedia so I've nominated your draft for deletion. I appreciate your enthusiasm and I encourage you to register for an account to become a regular editor. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Steele (filmmaker)

I am trying to create an article on filmmaker Taylor Syeele titles Draft:Taylor Steele (filmmaker) who is a notable subject, the article has been rejected 4 times and i am addressing each problem but still being rejected, can i please have some advice on the latest rejection as the reviewers comments are the same as first rejection and those issues were addressed, thank you Peterogers88 (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. See comments at Draft:Taylor Steele (filmmaker). Bellerophon talk to me 19:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

01:09:54, 6 June 2014 review of submission by Arnlodg

I'm in sand box (learning about wiki and editing) This is my second draft, Could you critique encylopedic tone and sources, thanks. Arnlodg (talk) 01:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. See comments therein from Dodger. Bellerophon talk to me 19:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 6

08:01:49, 6 June 2014 review of submission by Schmuels

Hello, I have re-edited the text, and added many relevant sources. The pictures I uploaded were deleted but I don't understand why. I would like some help. Thank you--Schmuels (talk) 08:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Schmuels (talk) 08:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Draft:Nikki Gregoroff

I've gone over and over and cannot find why it is being rejected. I've even looked at other sites that have same kind of info. Please help! Flowervr (talk) 14:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only reference you have included is a link to the singer's own website. On that basis alone the submission instantly fails the notability criteria at WP:ANYBIO. Please read the notability criteria for singers at WP:MUSICBIO to see if the person you are writing about meets those criteria. If they do, please add links to reliable sources to evidence those facts (not the singers own website). See WP:INTREF for help on adding references. If they do not meet any of those criteria, then this person is not notable enough for Wikipedia. Bellerophon talk to me 19:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kristine Cecille Isidro

Rg allstar (talk) 14:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC) I just want to know the reasons why my article submission has been rejected. I cited several sites for references and put in all the necessary information in the article, is there something wrong with it?[reply]

You need to explain more clearly why she is notable according to standard defined at WP:NGYMNASTICS. What medals has she won, at what events? You need to WP:CITE these claims to relieble sources. You also need to provide some reliable sources for her biographical information (such as her date of birth) in order for the submission to comply with Wikipedia's biography of living persons policy. I have looked at the three sources you have listed in the submission and frankly I am none-the-wiser for having read them. They are spectacularly uninformative. Bellerophon talk to me 19:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In particular, you need to document the awards. We cannot know yet whether she will actually compete in the 2014 Olympics--if she does, it will be much easier to write an article. Additionally, the writing uses unsupported puffery. You cannot say things like "all of Isidro 's routines were designed with high difficulties and her music was selected to bring out her uniqueness." without a third party published source. (Don't all gymnasts at her level design difficult routines and select appropriate music?.) DGG ( talk ) 00:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Draft:Ricky Aramendi

Accepted move to Ricky Aramendi as a article 86.15.162.137 (talk), 17:50, June 6, 2014 (UTC)

 Done Bellerophon talk to me 18:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Tablethree/sandbox

Draft: Nayda Collazo-Llorens Just wondering why my references didn't show up once I pressed "Save"? I have done them in html (as I've edited other pages) with <ref>followed by</ref>.Tablethree (talk) 20:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Issue appears to be resolved. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 7

04:24:05, 7 June 2014 review of submission by 208.101.167.65


208.101.167.65 (talk) 04:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC) MALIFICA[reply]

  • I'm sorry, this post is the only edit for your IP and you've not told us where your draft is, so we have no way of helping you. Can you tell us where your draft is? Do you just have a general question about editing that isn't related to a specific new page you are trying to create? If so, the regular help desk may have an answer for you or the Teahouse which is a little easier going friendly place for general questions about editing Wikipedia. Good luck! — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 13:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

06:52:55, 7 June 2014 review of submission by Sucheta Raikar


I am not sure how to proceed further. I have have provided genuine references but yet I am asked to provide more. Do I shift the external sources to the references to make the article more credible.

Sucheta Raikar (talk) 06:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Kind of. IMDB is not a reliable source. Times of India is very much a reliable source, even in their "blogs" section, when they have a title that explicitly talks about the person. Try reading WP:REFB again. But to me it seems likely that the person is notable, and that just the layout and perhaps some extra sources needs more work. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
to extend this good advice a little, the need is to show that his work has been noticed as notable directing on notable films. It's not enough that the films be notable--his directing must be specifically discussed by the sources also. It should be possible to show this if you use the material--and use it not just in general referencesi n the endf, but as references to specific points in the article. DGG ( talk ) 03:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

16:01:01, 7 June 2014 review of submission by Embar1

Would like to include Bio of Pete Uebelacker that is linked from American Motorcycle Hall of Fame Inductees. Most of the other inductees have bios included. Embar1 (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Embar1, the issue is that you've provided no WP:Sourcing whatsoever, so a reader has no idea where to verify these facts. While you can probably use the AMHF site to cite a fact or two (do not simply copy-paste their bio, that would be a copyright violation), we still need a wider body of coverage. Can you find verification of facts about him and his career in motorcycle magazines, books of racing history, etc? If so, please footnote them in. See WP:Referencing for beginners. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These all look like they could be used as sources: — Brianhe (talk) 00:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

18:34:34, 7 June 2014 review of submission by Ecubee

Ecubee (talk) 18:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ecubee: Your submission has only one independent, reliable source. Further, your subject fails WP:MUSICBIO, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:GNG. Please read all those guidelines before proceeding. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:03, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

18:52:51, 7 June 2014 review of submission by Svarshavsky

I am confused regarding why my article has been rejected on June 7. There is a comment that because of the lack of independent sources (probablu this is from May 28 and it has been resolved), and another one that because of incorrect use of citation. Which one is actual and what would you recommend me to do? Thank you. Sergei Svarshavsky (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Svarshavsky: The latest comments are the ones you should be most concerned about. Too many of your sources are from the subject himself, therefore not independent. Please read WP:RS and WP:42. On another point, I recommend removing all Russian words from the text of the article as it's both unnecessary and confusing. The sources can remain in Russian but I'm not so certain we need Cyrillic translations of so much Latin text. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Draft:Jaroslav Balcar

Accepted move to Jaroslav Balcar as a Olympic ski jumper article 86.15.162.137 (86.15.162.137|talk), 19:03, 7 June 2014 (UTC) Accepted i'm sorry i put his older brother dead is wrong i did not ment to and made a mistake. Please move this article into space to Jaroslav Balcar, Jodi. a. schneider 86.15.162.137 (talk), 19:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop using the {{accepted}} template, if you have not actually accepted something (which you are technically unable to do as an IP editor). It is confusing for others. I have moved the article to mainspace. Bellerophon talk to me 09:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

23:45:16, 7 June 2014 review of submission by FeatherPluma


Dudes, what gives with advancing Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The ACE Study to mainspace? I've tweaked this AfC submission and I judge it good for advancement to mainspace. However, the advancement template isn't working for me for this draft. Can you help, please? Oh, and the article should be renamed to "Adverse Childhood Experiences (study)", right, and should be affiliated to the Medicine and Psychology wikiprojects. Please put some wind behind the sails on this one. Ta muchly. FeatherPluma (talk) 23:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FeatherPluma (talk) 23:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a first time I've seen this...

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The ACE Study is fully move protected and an administrator is needed to accept and move the page to article space if they see fit. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 00:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have unprotected the draft. It was moved to an inappropriate place by the original author, and when that move was reverted, the draft was protected to prevent a repetition. Accepted by FeatherPluma. Huon (talk) 01:00, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 8

06:10:57, 8 June 2014 review of submission by Setgoidgp

Setgoidgp (talk) 06:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is an egregious advertisement and probably deserves to be speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G11. However, it is just possible that there is a notable basic subject underneath all that. If you've come here for advice on how to proceed, my advice would be to delete everything you have written so and start again, after having read WP:FIRST (and probably WP:NPOV, WP:N, and WP:RS). Bellerophon talk to me 10:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

10:19:15, 8 June 2014 review of submission by M.jesionek


We had the following text:

<ref>Kligler’s letters, collection Dani Kligler – Kligler’s grandson</ref>

This was removed. In our scientific field we are able to add a "personal communication" as a reference.

Our question is - is there a mechanism to add a personal communication ?


M.jesionek (talk) 10:19, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, no, Wikipedia does not accept private correspondence as a reliable source. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

10:25:46, 8 June 2014 review of submission by M.jesionek


sorry second try, we assumed all tags would have been effectively wrapped in a html equivalent of pre

Our query was

We had the following text as a reference 

 "Kligler’s letters, collection Dani Kligler – Kligler’s grandson"

This was removed. In our scientific field we are able to add a "personal communication" as a reference.

Our question is - is there a mechanism to add a personal communication ?


M.jesionek (talk) 10:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@M.jesionek: This help desk is for pending drafts. Your article was already approved. I've answered you on the article's talk page. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

11:13:12, 8 June 2014 review of submission by Sucheta Raikar


The motivation behind my submission is a sincere feeling, as an avid film goer and student of cinema, that there should be a Wikipedia entry for a maverick Casting director like Mukesh Chhabra who has revolutionized the casting industry in India with his democratic and unconventional methods of casting. In the near future, He's likely to win several awards and accolades that would make the world look up and take notice. Casting for ages was considered a small and inconsequential cog in the large wheel of film making as the HBO documentary Casting By highlighted. But back home in India, it even lacks the basic professionalism that Hollywood follows. And hence the criticality of what Mukesh has done.

I think, given my several attempts in meeting the Wikipedia policies for submissions. it's clear that I need expert help to make the article worthy of inclusion. Please help me in this endeavour.

Regards Sucheta

Sucheta Raikar (talk) 11:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sucheta Raikar: You may be unaware of WP:Mentoring. This ought to provide the help you seek. Fiddle Faddle 15:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Accepted Surprisingly, Chhabra has been interviewed quite extensively in Indian media. I have neutral-ified the prose and tidied it into the mainspace. Bellerophon talk to me 23:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

11:48:43, 8 June 2014 review of submission by Frinked.tpm


Frinked.tpm (talk) 11:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HOW TO MAKE MY OWN PAGE

Frinked, please see Wikipedia:Writing your first article. If you have general questions about starting, after reading the "First" article, you can visit WP:Teahouse to get expert advice. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

12:49:20, 8 June 2014 review of submission by Mcorderoy

Can this be removed, T. Corderoy is an author (with a page on wikipedia), and this page re-directs searches away? Thanks Mcorderoy (talk) 12:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've done this, which may achieve what you want. Note that search engines may (or may not) take a few days to catch up. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

15:01:48, 8 June 2014 review of submission by Cincao03


Cincao03 15:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Kelly Oubre

My article has been declined, but its a good article. I have done every thing submiitrd it twice and declined can i have any help.Cincao03 15:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cincao03: Your submission fails WP:NHSPHSATH, WP:NHOOPS, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:GNG. Please read all that material before you attempt to continue. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I read it all Chris Troutman (talk) there is nothin else i could do. You could get more info of him and fix yourself, i cant make it any better. Cincao03 18:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cincao03: Well then, it won't get written. Try the reward board for help. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Native Son (American Band) article

Will you please help me, I do not know what I am doing wrong, I have edited and reedited my article so many times I am become discouraged... :(


poekneegurlPoekneegurl (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've used very poor quality sources. As a rule, YouTube, Allmusic and other Wikipedia articles are no good for evidencing something's notability. Give us better sources, like books, newspaper articles, interviews in magazines etc. If no such sources exist, then the band may not be notable enough to be in Wikipedia. Bellerophon talk to me 23:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

17:07:22, 8 June 2014 review of submission by Poekneegurl

I am not sure what I am doing wrong, will you please help me with this article? I see something that needs correcting in red, that has something to do with "cite", but I don't know how to correct it, is that all that is holding up it being ok'd. If not please steer me in the right direction...all of the members of the band have their own PRIVATE WIKI PAGES...but not as their band Native Son...which they refer to in each of their .com pages or in the wiki articles that have been created for them.

These guys got together in 2010 thru 2011 and worked as a cohesive unit many times, even touring clubs overseas. I use to work in the industry and have several friends in it, I have it on good word that they will be getting back together and are writing compositions together. I would like to get this article out, so when they do, and people hear their music, they will know who all of them are and the years of experience they have in the industry between them. Most are old men on their last leg and I think they need to be recognized for their many accomplishments in the business with a respect for who they are as Native Son ... they are all Son's of American soil and it should be known that they are, some of the World Known Musicians.

I just need time to put up my references and build on the article, as well as giving others the opportunity to edit it, add to it and refine it with what THEY know about these four guys. Please take time to research them and you will see just WHO they are, this is not your "average" garage band... These are musicians who are in demand today...and a couple are philanthropist and help people and I want that known as well. People need to know that talented musicians, sometimes DON'T JUST PLAY MUSIC and give back in other ways. There are 2 of them that have consistently worked with David Foster, Quincy Jones Michael Jackson and only musicians that are greatly respected rise to that height in the business.

I just feel they are to be acknowledged and their lives pointed to.

Thank you..

poekneegurlPoekneegurl (talk) 17:07, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Poekneegurl (talk) 17:07, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Poekneegurl: First, the articles about the individual members are poorly sourced and might be deleted themselves, so don't attempt to hang your hat on that. Second, your draft submission fails WP:NBAND and generally lacks reliable sources. Your emotional pleas indicate you're not being objective about this. Please also read WP:GNG and WP:42. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

20:53:16, 8 June 2014 review of submission by Maria.Rento IESF


I don't know what do to reflect the text's references on references bottom side. Can you help me, please? Thanks a lot. Maria.Rento IESF (talk) 20:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC) Maria.Rento IESF (talk) 20:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Fixed, you had deleted the {{reflist}} at the bottom which causes footnotes to list themselves. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:45, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 9

00:32:00, 9 June 2014 review of submission by Johngosoeya3d

Johngosoeya3d (talk) 00:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Johngosoeya3d: Per WP:AUTO autobiographies are not allowed. Your submission has no sources. Your submission is in broken English, so you might be better off editing in Burmese-language Wikipedia. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

01:57:16, 9 June 2014 review of submission by Angelvgirl99


Angelvgirl99 (talk) 01:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC) i am trying to find out why my wikipage was declined i put nothing but the truth in it and wanted to let others know about a great writer u can look her up on line and learn a little about her if youd like to i think that it would help get her noticed if i did set the page up[reply]

 Done Did you read the big pink boxes at top of Draft:Anne Marie Davidson, and the two hand-typed comments below those? If you read those, they very clearly explain why the draft was declined, and what you would have to do to fix that. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

05:58:18, 9 June 2014 review of submission by Whitepimpin

Kief Brown is a grammy nominated song writer who is significant in the music industry. He is signed to a major label Atlantic Records, and to a major producer Kane Beatz. He sang and wrote the hook for "The Show Goes On" by Lupe Fiasco which went on to sell over 3 million copies in the United States alone. I do not know if the reviewer understands the music industry or business. Also keep in mind that Kief Browns real name is Jonathan Brown and he appears on several Wikipedia pages. This fact alone should make him relevant and would provide a link to the pages that already list him as a song writer. I have seen several pages on Wikipedia for producers and writers who do not have 1 major credit to thier names. I even wrote one. Please reference Cyber Sapp. He did one song for Gucci Mane " Freaky Gurl" and it charted 64 on billboard. He has no other significant credits. Kief Brown has a song writing credit on a song that charted in the top ten on Billboard and is verified triple platinum by the RIAA. I understand that my draft needs work, but I disagree with the editor saying that he is not relevant. Also one of the sources listed in the article is from BMI, which if the editor understood the music business he would know that BMI is the largest music rights organization in the U.S. The fact that BMI did an article on him points to the fact that he is relevant to the music business. Whitepimpin (talk) 05:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The draft in question is at Draft:Kief Brown. No editor has said that the person is not relevant. Incidentally, the BMI source you mention is not an independent source because Brown works for, or is promoted by, BMI. In addition, your draft claims that Kief Brown and "JR Get Money" are one and the same person, but the BMI source suggests this is not the case. This uncertainty will need to be resolved. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

06:10:21, 9 June 2014 review of submission by Microbilo


Microbilo (talk) 06:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My Article submission has been rejected twice and the raised issues has been resolved to the best of my ability. I have submitted it for a 3rd review by I need help from anyone that can edit it and make any further corrections they think that's necessary. All contributions are welcomed and appreaciated. Thanks for your helpMicrobilo (talk) 06:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue, although this has not been properly highlighted in previous reviews, is Smith's dubious notability. I have examined all 22 references listed in the draft and the only secondary source that lends him any significant coverage is the Poker-Nave source. All the others are either online picture collections in webzines and blogs, stuff he's published himself, his own website, agents websites and profile sites, or passing mentions of his name/photograph. In order to be eligible to have a Wikipedia article models must meet the criteria at WP:NMODEL or WP:ANYBIO. It seems you have tried to satisfy the previous reviews requests for better sources by increasing the number of sources with little thought to the quality of them. It probably should have been explained to you that what is needed is a smaller number of high quality independent sources, not a large number of trivial ones, that are closely connected with the subject. If such sources can't be found, you're probably wasting your time. Bellerophon talk to me 10:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

06:56:53, June 9, 2014 request for review by Imkarthick

Your submission Draft:Drivespark was declined on 8 June 2014 by FoCuSandLeArN. It is not currently submitted for review. Visit the submission page to see the reasons for it being declined; click on the links in the decline reason for more information. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

10:45:56, June 9, 2014 request for review by Mermaidartscentre

I submitted content and have received a message saying that issues need to be resolved to clink on this link to edit the submission and this is here it brings me: Wikipedia does not have a talk page with this exact title. Before creating this page, please see Wikipedia:Subpages.

The message reads exactly this: Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved. If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mermaid County Wicklow Arts Centre. To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window. If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Please remember to link to the submission! You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors. MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC) Mermaidartscentre (talk) 10:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the link in the message you received. The draft you were working on can be found at: Draft:Mermaid County Wicklow Arts Centre. Goto that page and click the 'edit' tab at the top of that page to make changes. Bellerophon talk to me 10:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can answer your question right here. You need references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. "substantial sources" must be more than mere notices of events being held there. Local newspaper accounts are not always free from influence by press releases, so local centers like this can be difficult to write articles about. I see there is already mention of the center in the County Wicklow article, so since the center has a distinctive name, what I suggest for now is a redirect to the section there, and I've just made one for yo, and also one for the alternate form, Mermaid, County Wicklow Arts Centre (I've also edited that section of the County article to remove some adjectives of praise, which we avoid at WP.). DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

12:18:00, 9 June 2014 review of submission by Global uty


This article has a lot of values and a good addition to Wikipedia database. This article is about one of the well-established university in the United Arab Emirates, which is Murdoch University Dubai. The university is unique in its program offering related to the Media/business industry with a very well established start of art media and campus infrastructure facility. As a student I have experienced the hands of learning experience with the great studio facility which contributed my success to find my current position as a Multimedia Engineer in one of biggest television channel. I believe wiki should list such kind of educational institutions for the best interest of the parents and students who is looking out for media/business education with in Middle East & Africa’sn region. I am sure that inclusion of the said article would help many stake holders.

Global uty (talk) 12:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but for that to happen you would need to write the article neutrally, like an encyclopedia article, not promotionally, like an advertisement. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

12:54:16, 9 June 2014 review of submission by Philip Jones 1933-2008


Hi, I just tried to re-submit my article after someone got back to me said there was not enough referencing - I have edited it now ...how can I tell it it has been re-submitted properly?

Thank you

Louisa

Philip Jones 1933-2008 (talk) 12:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was deleted for introducing copyrighted material. See WP:CV and possibly WP:DCM. Bellerophon talk to me 14:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

13:34:45, 9 June 2014 review of submission by Jaa.office

Request for information on why submission was declined. Kindly provide direction on making the needed changes. Jaa.office (talk) 13:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaa.office: The article reads like a resume. Per our WP:BLP policy, all material needs to be sourced and the current version has a lot of unsourced content. Plus, more independent third party sources would help show notability. --NeilN talk to me 16:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

14:09:58, 9 June 2014 review of submission by IvaInc

Hi all, This is the first article I want to post. Here's the deal, I'm working for travel agency. We've noticed that there's no travel terminology ralated to some things. So, I told them to write about all hotel room types as a test and then to figure out some other articles as well, then that we'll put it on our website + quote it on Wikipedia. We want to quote whole article from our website that we wrote. I don't know how to provide proof that author of the article wants to put his article on Wikipedia and how to quote it properly. Thank you :)

Iva IvaInc (talk) 14:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines for providing proof of ownership for copyrighted material can be found at WP:DCM. However, from the sounds of things you want to copy your website onto Wikipedia. Presumably, to increase your web presence. This is not what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Please do not do what you are suggesting. Bellerophon talk to me 16:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@IvaInc: Please also read WP:REFSPAM. --NeilN talk to me 16:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Bellerophon:If I wanted just to simply increase our presence, I could have just written an article about that travel agency, right? But I didn't do that. We wanted to give some explanantions regarding terminology since there's not a lot of information on Wikipedia. Plus it's good to be on our website also so people could read and learn. We do not want to harm anyone nor do we want to break any rules. There's no need for your hostile tone. We just wanted to give something back to the community and share our knowledge. Peace ;)IvaInc talk to me 09:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

15:38:58, June 9, 2014 request for review by CMW4903

I submitted a biography of Marcel Paula Carmen Houston at the end of May. I was rejected because I did not have the correct citations to newspaper articles footnoted. I did not then and still do not have the correct information for the citations such as volume and page numbers. Therefore, I removed all mention of the newspaper articles and re-submitted the biography. I was rejected again, but this time I could not find a reason for the rejection. Why was the article rejected ? What do I need to do to get this accepted? CMW4903 (talk) 15:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]



I think the reason it was rejected a second time is because I did not have a link to the re-submitted draft. Is that right? How do I add this link to the draft and re-submit it? CMW4903 (talk) 16:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@CMW4903: Resubmission won't help if you don't fix the problem indicated at the top of the draft: "The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you." Content needs to be cited using reliable sources. There's no way around that. --NeilN talk to me 16:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

16:28:49, 9 June 2014 review of submission by Maria.Rento IESF


Maria.Rento IESF (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Can you please tell me why my article "Abel Laureano" has enought notabily? Sincerely I don't understand. Can you tell me what else I must include in my article for its acceptance? Thanks a lot. Maria RentoMaria.Rento IESF (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Maria.Rento IESF: The previous reviewers left plenty of reasons why this submission won't be accepted and you would do well to read them. To simplify what they've already said:
  1. Laureano is a professor but he fails WP:ACADEMIC.
  2. You don't support the article with reliable sources. (WP:RS)
  3. Of the sources you have listed (like University of Porto), none appear to be independent. (WP:42).
  4. There isn't any news coverage to make Laureano generally notable. (WP:GNG).
Presumably you work for the Instituto de Estudos Superiores Financeiros e Fiscais and aren't here as an objective contributor. (WP:NOTHERE) Wikipedia is not here to advertise (WP:NOTADVERTISING) so I'd recommend you visit the reward board to find a Wikipedian to help you. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

17:29:23, 9 June 2014 review of submission by Microbilo


Microbilo (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC) My Article submission has been rejected three times and the raised issues has been raised has been resolved to the best of my ability. I haven't submitted it for a 4th review. So, I need help from anyone that can edit the entire draft and include only verifiable sources and make any further corrections they think that's necessary. I grant anyone who's knowledgeable of the system to give it a beneficial edit and proper moderations. All contributions are welcomed and appreaciated. Thanks for your help Microbilo (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Microbilo: Try the reward board. Another Wikipedian might be able to help you complete this. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Or, he could have read the response I directed him to here. Bellerophon talk to me 17:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will confirm what Bellerophon says--it is doubtful whether than can be an article until the subject has become substantially more notable, with good sources to prove it. I'd wait till then. There's no point in trying to get people to help with an article when it won't be successful. And there are plenty of people here who will help anyone work on an article that really looks promising, without any specific reqward other than knowing we've helped a person and helped WP, DGG ( talk ) 00:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

20:49:34, 9 June 2014 review of submission by Sylviahaidar


Sylviahaidar (talk) 20:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the article is in my sandbox and is not intended for release. I was just practicing and hoping you can help me with the article layout!!!!

Hello Sylvia, if you're not ready for Submission, please make sure you don't hit any "Submit draft" button on the page, just the "save page" button when editing. I suggest you read WP:Writing your first article for starters, and if you have questions about starting out, ask at WP:Teahouse. After you have a submission ready and submit, at that stage we can help you here at AFC Helpdesk. Thanks for checking in! MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

00:29:29, 10 June 2014 review of submission by Microbilo


Microbilo (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My Article submission has been rejected three times and the raised issues has been raised has been resolved to the best of my ability. I haven't submitted it for a 4th review. So, I need help from anyone that can edit the entire draft and include only verifiable sources and make any further corrections they think that's necessary. Can Only one referencing 'Poker Knave' which seems to be a secondary source be accepted as a single referencing? The link to Newpaper publication 'The Sun Newspaper UK' is a secondary source, but only allows those with paid subscription to have full detailed access to it's publications. I grant anyone who's knowledgeable of the system to give it a beneficial edit and proper moderations. All contributions are welcomed and appreaciated. Thanks for your help. Microbilo (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Microbilo. Perhaps someone else can help you improve this submission further; however just as a side note, the Sun's website being behind what we call a Wikipedia:PAYWALL is not an issue at all, and does not directly affect its suitability as a reliable source. (Though some would perhaps argue that the Sun itself is not in fact a reliable source, especially for material about living people.) Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please also note that because you have asked this question more than once, there are additional replies further up the page, in the other location where you asked. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

01:20:17, 10 June 2014 review of submission by JSOR11

Hi, I just want to know what is wrong with this article and how I can fix it- I have had other editors look at it from the tea house and they gave it the ok! I am not sure what is wrong- please I would like to have this article posted!

Sincerely, JSOR11 (talk) 01:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@JSOR11: I told you what was wrong when I reviewed it: "Fails WP:NPOL, WP:GNG, and WP:ANYBIO. Please read WP:RS and WP:42." Instead of trying to advertise your candidate ahead of the election, wait for her to win and then write the article with the following news coverage. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

06:19:13, 10 June 2014 review of submission by Etiqa-my


Hello. I'm not sure what's wrong with the article. I want to create a wiki page about Etiqa. I've checked through the website and there are no page about Etiqa yet. Please advise. What can i do to improve.


Etiqa-my (talk) 06:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Etiqa-my. There are two big problems with your draft. First, it does not establish the importance of the subject by providing references to independent reliable sources that talk in detail about the subject. For example these could be newspaper reports or financial industry magazine articles. The huge listing of awards that you have included is not very useful for this purpose because it is not at all clear that any of these awards are significant and well known in themselves. Ideally, you could provide your references to sources as inline citations - see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners - and the facts stated in your draft should be based on what the sources say about the subject.
The second big problem is that your draft reads very much like an advertisement or like what a marketing agency hired by Etiqa might say about how they want to represent the brand. So for example, none of "performance with conscience, crystal clear, hand-in-hand, and rock solid" are clear neutral quantifiable facts such as one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. (Another aspect of this problem is that you cannot copy and paste material created by the company into Wikipedia, for copyright reasons.)
Perhaps one way to help partly resolve these problems would be to focus on writing about the company and the business, rather than about the brand. I see there is already a Wikipedia article Maybank - perhaps Etiqa should merely be a redirect to that article?
Please read our page about Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, particularly the part about promotional usernames; you may need to change your username. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks alot for the reply. I'll be doing some changes and re-submitback the article. Yes, Etiqa is Maybank sub company for Insurance and Takaful. Once the article is approved, will get Maybank to relink to Etiqa.

Hi there. How can i insert the sidebar. For me to put the Etiqa logo image, etc. similiar like Maybank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etiqa-my (talk • contribs) 07:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.194.252.40 (talk) 06:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For that you want Template:Infobox company. I do really think, though, that you would have more success improving and expanding the Maybank article, rather than trying to create a new article to replace it. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

07:00:35, 10 June 2014 review of submission by A1unlimited


The first rejection comment was that the article is not in neutral tone, and the source Abode Magazine is impenetrable and would be better to go the page number. I explained that the link is a digital issue of the magazine and you have to flip to the page number that I stated, or maybe just delete that source. Then the reviewer replied he must have missed the page number and not to delete the source if it is a good source. So I revised the article in a neutral tone, copying an existing similar article in Wiki. Still rejected stating I used peacock terms. I can't see any. Please can you help me. Thanks. A1unlimited (talk) 07:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A1unlimited (talk) 07:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The submission is only four lines long a stub, so how it can twice be failed for WP:NPOV or writing style is incomprehensible to me. Moving on, I don't believe that Maristela meets the notability requirements at WP:ARTIST and I don't believe the existing sources give the level of significant coverage required to satisfy WP:ANYBIO. A lack of demonstrated notability is the problem here, rather than writing style. You need to edit the submission to explain why Maristela is notable enough to meet the criteria at WP:ARTIST/WP:ANYBIO. Bellerophon talk to me 09:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

09:26:31, 10 June 2014 review of submission by Stats sanx


Hi, My draft data editing was rejected. The comment given was the subject already exist. But I could not find anything on wikipedia which talks about theory of editing survey data. It is not editing in the conventional way which means editing a book or an essay. The topic I wanted to create is what National Statistical Institutes use to edit their survey data that they collect. The page i was pointed to to make my edit was Data editing which is a page on editing audio and visual files. What I wanted to create was a page on statistical editing which involve numbers on a spreadsheet and how to determine whether these are believable or not and whether they will give good statistical estimates for e.g., the proportion of people in UK who have a total wealth of greater than 200 million pounds. Can you please look at my page and give me constructive ideas about how to improve it so that it can be added as a wikipedia page Draft:Data editing Thank you Stats Sanx Stats sanx (talk) 09:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=612332467"