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 Derrin Tanser (talk | contribs) at 00:12, 22 February 2016 (→{{subst:#time:H:i:s, j F Y}} review of submission by {{SUBST:REVISIONUSER}}: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, List, Sorting, Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

  • This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
  • Do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page.
  • Watch out for scammers! If someone contacts you saying that they can get your draft published for payment, they are trying to scam you. Report such attempts here.
Ask a new question
Please check back often for answers.
Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions


February 15

Request on 06:33:57, 15 February 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Chinmaygupta28


Hi Team, I have submitted an article Draft: Flexing It which has neither been reviewed nor published as an article. Would like to know if there is some step pending at my end or reviewer's didn't have time to go through it?

I am keen to cover the active start-ups in India and this was first in the series as this start-up ha recently raised funds and getting increasing coverage in Indian & SEA media. Let me know when would it be published?

vrinda 06:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Chinmaygupta28:, your article is not currently submitted for review, please click the Resubmit button in the pink box at the top, and it will put your draft in the queue for next review. MatthewVanitas (talk) 09:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

11:47:42, 15 February 2016 review of submission by Stevemcquillin


I have images of the Vermillion Institute and would like to know how to load them; they appear under the heading Vermillion Institute on Facebook. thank you

Stevemcquillin (talk) 11:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Stevemcquillin:, please focus on getting the article published first, then afterwards let's add images. If the images are definitely, verifiable pre-1923, they are out of copyright and can be uploaded directly to Wikimedia Commons. If their provenance is unclear, or they are post-1923, you can only upload them if you yourself, personally, are the copyright holder, as in you yourself personally took the photograph. If you are the photographer, you can also upload them to Wikimedia Commons provided you check the box agreeing that you are releasing the photos under Creative Commons. You may not use any post-1923 photos taken by another person, government website, newspaper, etc. unless the copyright holder fills out a specific WP:OTRS form for Wikipedia (no, not just a "they sent me an email and said it's okay", they have to fill out the form).
Hope this helps, but the key takeaway is: finish the article first, then worry about photos. No point solving the photo puzzle if the article doesn't publish. I've left you comments on your draft to guide you to getting it finished, and I see no reason that it won't eventually publish once you get it properly cleaned-up. Cool article, looking forward to seeing it done! MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 21:17:25, 15 February 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by 173.169.139.115


Looking for guidance on article submission. 173.169.139.115 (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 22:17:39, 15 February 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Talomar


Hello there,

I request assistance on the revision of the draft "Extended mathematical programming".

This is the first time I attempted to write a Wikipedia article and the draft was modeled on the Wikipedia article on SAMPL. I request some guidance on how to revise it, since I do not know where to start. Is it too long? Too much detail? Too many examples? Please advise.

Thank you. Talomar (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Talomar (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 16

00:00:11, 16 February 2016 review of submission by Cbbdb

I am asking for assistance because I created this draft apart from canine cancer detection. When it was declined, the reviewer commented that it has the same subject of canine cancer detection, which is true, but the difference is I added so many more qualitative things to Bio-detection dogs that isn't on Canine Cancer Detection. I have spent many hours on this draft and I believe it is worthy of its own page. I don't understand why there can't be two pages about the same subject because if a person searches canine cancer detection and sees the little about of information, then they will research Bio-detection dogs, and because my draft has a lot of qualitative information on it, it will be more helpful. This is also a school project that I have had to do for the past 4 months. I had originally planned on building off of and editing Canine Cancer Detection, but then my advisor told me that it would be better to create my own page which I did. I also think another reason it should be published is Bio-detection dogs is a page that does not currently exist on wikipedia an I would like to be the first to have it published onto wikipedia. I don't know how I can make Bio-detection dogs any more different from Canine Cancer Detection than it already is. Maybe you could help advise me on how to do this? Cbbdb (talk) 00:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cbbdb: I don't know why your advisor thought creating a new article would be better. The entire content of Draft:Bio-detection dogs revolves around using dogs to detect cancer, a topic that already has an article. Having multiple articles on a topic is not the Wikipedia way. Wikipedia instead favors large, comprehensive articles. A reader interested in a subject should find everything worth knowing about it in one place, rather than having to read different spins on it by different editors in different places. The content you have developed should be merged with Canine cancer detection to improve that article. If you think "Bio-detection dogs" is a phrase that readers are likely to search on, you are welcome to also create a redirect from that term to Canine cancer detection (see Wikipedia:How to make a redirect). Worldbruce (talk) 20:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

02:47:19, 16 February 2016 review of submission by Unionpearl


I have written an article for review, but the title is wrong. How do I change the namespace before submitting it for review? Otherwise, I think it's ready.

Unionpearl (talk) 02:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done @Unionpearl:, fixed the title for you. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 17

02:52:14, 17 February 2016 review of submission by Gabem274

Hey guys - just wondering why my article was not approved for submission. Will do whatever it takes to get a piece on this company up! Gabem274 (talk) 02:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gabem274: I encourage you to heed the reviewer's lengthy comment on the draft. To it I've added a further detailed comment that may be helpful. Worldbruce (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 18

07:23:06, 18 February 2016 review of submission by 41.242.136.10

I'm wondering why my article has been declined? what is it i'm not doing right? This is a church document i want to be with wikipedia. kindly assist me to publish the information.

Waiting for prompt response. Kindest regards 41.242.136.10 (talk) 07:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PEkwam: Wikipedia only publishes articles on topics that have received significant attention from the world at large. For example Old Church of St Nidan, Llanidan has been written about in books and scholarly journals. Most churches are of only local interest, and have only been written about by people connected to the church, such as on the church website, and are thus unsuitable for an article in Wikipedia.
Instead of Wikipedia, I recommend that you write about the church on a social networking site such as Facebook or Google+, or in an alternative outlet. Worldbruce (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 07:42:19, 18 February 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Caetreli


I submitted an article for review about Bed-Knob and Broomstick the book published by Mary Norton. The reviewer felt I had violated the copyright of another online author. However, since I provide the reference source as an end-note and I do not need to state in the text that I was paraphrasing, I feel the reviewer was overly harsh in reviewing and deleting my work. I respectfully request that someone else please evaluate the situation. If it is still a problem, then at least allow me the opportunity to correct the problem, instead of deleting it straight away. Thank you.

Caetreli (talk) 07:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the now deleted draft was at Draft:Bed-Knob and Broomstick. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

15:37:44, 18 February 2016 review of submission by Operating words


Operating words (talk) 15:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to suggest a page about an artis and researcher. I have read the policy of not making posts unless there is a notable significance specially if one suggest an article about once self. So i would lke o suggest a page with some links and request to be reviewed by another editor. could i do that here? Operating words (talk) 15:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Operating words: I'm not sure that I understand your question, but if you would like to ask a volunteer to write an article about a person, the place to request that is Wikipedia:Requested articles. Be sure to add your request in the correct section, and list some independent, reliable sources of information about the person. Worldbruce (talk) 18:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

17:10:43, 18 February 2016 review of submission by Bnriverkeeper

I am trying to get this page published. I just created it and took the information from the Buffalo Niagara Riverkeeper website. At the bottom of the page I have the website reference but I keep getting denied for not adequately showing the subject's notability. There is a reference to the site on the page. Bnriverkeeper (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably you haven't read the feedback at the top of your draft or on your user talk page. There are many useful links in those feedback boxes, but the important part which answers your question is " Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". --David Biddulph (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:46:21, 18 February 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by LG Brichetto


Hello. I have resubmitted an article for creation review after adding more sources. I would welcome collaboration with other editors to improve this article. The article was resubmitted about 1 week ago. Thanks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Parables_TVLG Brichetto (talk)


LG Brichetto (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

20:23:43, 18 February 2016 review of submission by Devongallant


Hello, my article was rejected based on guidelines of notability. I had used IMDB citations at first, not realizing that that website was not allowed as a citation, so I have removed those links as well as any links to personal websites and tried to expand on the news media coverage. Unfortunately, there is only limited coverage of this art school in the media however, as it is now an accredited College level educational institution, I believe that it is deserving of its own article as an organization and is relevant to wiki's "Higher Education in Quebec," article. Any help in trouble shooting this article is greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Devongallant (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 23:13:47, 18 February 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Sfawcett


After already doing a detailed revision I get the following Message from R. McClenon: "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." I guess I'm expected to read/study multiple wikipedia explanation pages to try to figure out exactly what's wrong!?

I just don't understand exactly what this R.M. person wants? I'm not trying to trick anyone here. I'm just trying to post a legitimate profile of someone. In fact, as far as I can tell, what I've done so far is already better than many such profiles I have seen on wikipedia. That said, can someone tell me specifically what I need to do to get it right? I need an example(s) as to what I have to do to get this article accepted? Please, tell me exactly what I have to do to get my "Champian Fulton" profile accepted; specifically please?

There's no point in engaging in an endless "guessing game" cycle. Tell me specifically what I need to do and I'll fix it.

Thanks very much.

Sfawcett (talk) 23:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sfawcett: Being an effective contributor to Wikipedia is nine parts reading to one part writing. The draft shows that you know how to cite a source using footnotes (the format is unusual, but should be acceptable), so the most important link you've been pointed to is minimum standard for inline citations. Biographies of living persons (BLPs) have the most stringent requirements for inline citations of any type of article.
The lede is a summary of the rest of the article. The facts it summarizes should already have inline citations in the body of the article, so inline citations in the lede would be redundant. For readability reasons, inline citations are discouraged in the lede (if you study featured BLPs you'll see that about 60% have none). The fact that the reviewer has criticized the lede for not having any inline citations suggests that they don't feel the lede accurately summarizes the article, or they were unable to find corresponding inline citations in the body, or they believe some statement in the lede is implausible enough to require a second inline citation. You would have to ask them for clarification.
How many inline citations to use in the body is a judgement call. The reviewer pointed out that the entire biography section contains no inline citations. Is there really nothing in that section likely to be challenged? Don't you think someone reading "started playing piano and trumpet at age three" and "a world renowned trumpeter" is likely to react with "Oh yeah, prove it!"? On this particular draft, one citation per sentence would be overdoing it, but you're likely to encounter push back from reviewers without at least one citation per paragraph.
Another way to look at it is that if each source is cited exactly once, the author is probably doing something wrong. A good source, well used, will support content in several different places in a well-written article. See Help:Referencing for beginners#Same reference used more than once for the best way to cite a source multiple times. Worldbruce (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

23:51:59, 18 February 2016 review of submission by Joewriter


I am confused by the response from the editor who rejected the entry, who says the entry lacks sufficient documentation; however, there are a dozen end notes, citing articles in the New York Times, the St. Louis Post Dispatch, Readers Digest, Contemporary Authors, and other sources. The subject of the entry is the author of a baseball novel that was a finalist for a prize, was cited by the editors of a major metropolitan newspaper as one of the best works of fiction for the year of its publication. It also received a good number of other strong reviews from other newspapers and magazines, which I did not cite, since I thought the point of the entry was to be representative and not encyclopedic. The book has received mention in a number of articles citing the best baseball novels of all time; perhaps the entry might mention those? I am not sure what else to do with this but would like some guidance.

Joewriter (talk) 23:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 19

13:27:09, 19 February 2016 review of submission by Alone Rajput


Alone Rajput 13:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


Alone Rathore Sazzar 

Sir why my article is not showing in Google search or why it not uploading

If I have done some wrong then suggest me... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alone Rajput (talk • contribs) 13:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

19:50:46, 19 February 2016 review of submission by 198.0.65.41


198.0.65.41 (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC) can u plz add triple e by sciencee olympiad triple e is a topic[reply]

This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. If you would like to start writing a new article, please use the Article wizard. If you have an idea for a new article, but would like to request that someone else write it, please see: Wikipedia:Requested articles. I hope this helps.
/wiae /tlk 03:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 20

Request on 08:44:15, 20 February 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Lisztmacher


My page on R. Bruce Dold was rejected for lack of notability. I accept this. I just got another message about it. It is entirely unclear how to DELETE (not modify) a proposal. Lisztmacher (talk) 08:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC) Lisztmacher (talk) 08:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lisztmacher -I have accepted the draft, as a Pulitzer winner Dold is obviously notable. Thanks for the article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

09:55:01, 20 February 2016 review of submission by Mgarrickbyrne


Hello Wikipedia! I am having trouble determining what constitutes an in depth third-party source. And after looking at other people's questions, Googling, and comparing my draft to published articles, it only gets more confusing. I added verified news sources and web sites representing broadcast television before my last re-submit, and I continue to beef the page up with references unrelated to the subject's workplace website and IMDb page, but I did leave those initial references in the article because I felt they supported the statements I made.

I'm at the point where I'm wondering if there is a format I should be following. Is there a format for an entertainment industry professional - non actor?

Mgarrickbyrne (talk) 09:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mgarrickbyrne: No single page will give you all the guidance you're looking for. Template:Biography is a good structure for any biography. Other formats are also acceptable. No one has written a good biography of a film critic to use as an example. However, Margaret Fuller and Isabella Beeton, biographies of a book critic and a journalist, are among Wikipedia's very best. The biographies of journalist Abby Martin and editor Anna Wintour, although far from perfect, are also good. Studying them may be helpful. A few essential references are:
An independent or third-party source is one that has no vested interest in a topic. The subject of a biography is not an independent source about themselves because it is to their advantage to make themselves look good. Similarly, an organization they work for has an interest in promoting their work. The ideal independent source in this case would be a scholarly one, perhaps a film historian or someone who studies entertainment journalism. Failing that, next best would be a professional journalist writing for the most reputable and mainstream outlet you can find (think Los Angeles Times, Variety, or NPR).
The quintessential example of an in-depth source is a 200-page biography. A chapter in a book, or even a couple pages, is probably enough to count as in-depth. The low end of what's acceptable is intentionally vague, but anything with less than a few paragraphs talking directly about the person is unlikely to be considered "significant coverage" by reviewers.
The draft has far too many citations for the amount of content (see Wikipedia:Citation overkill). Based on examining a dozen of its sources, they aren't the kind to be citing. I see things written by Drake, blogs, user-generated sources like IMDB, and passing mentions. Set aside all that rubbish and see if there's anything left.
It can be difficult to prove the notability of journalists. It can seem as if they must be notable when their work is all around you, but however ubiquitous their work, it does not directly translate to notability. Notability requires other reliable sources writing about the journalist and/or citing their work. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

17:52:55, 20 February 2016 review of submission by Tractracccc


Tractracccc (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC) For my draft, Draft:Hong Kong Public Relations Professionals' Association, the reviewer referred it to another reviewer. Then the second reviewer said he would not review the article because some of my sources are in Chinese. What should be my next step? Wait for another reviewer? Thank you! Tractracccc (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tractracccc: Hi, welcome to the Help Desk! The draft is still submitted for review, and another reviewer will be along in the coming days or weeks to assess it. We're not all equally comfortable with different languages, and while Google Translate is useful in a pinch, it's often easier for a reviewer fluent in the reference's language to do the review. So I'd say just wait for another reviewer to take a look—it's in the queue! Thanks, /wiae /tlk 03:35, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 21

01:40:47, 21 February 2016 review of submission by Kim Oun


Microsoft Corporation Onedrive Kim Oun 01:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim Oun (talk • contribs)

@Kim Oun: Hello, do you have a specific question about a draft? Thanks, /wiae /tlk 03:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 03:58:45, 21 February 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Skandaleas


Can you show me an example of how an article should satisfy the required (English) language to be accepted before its publication.

Skandaleas (talk) 03:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Skandaleas, it is a very simple rule, perhaps the simplest one we have: Articles must be written in English. Any recognised standard variety of English is acceptable - British, American, Australian, Indian, South African, etc. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:28, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Skandaleas: I'm not sure I understand your question, but if you're asking for examples of articles at the time they were accepted, you can find a list of recently accepted articles here. They're highlighted in green. The national variety and standard of English will vary. Worldbruce (talk) 06:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

21:55:59, 21 February 2016 review of submission by Ldallas55


Hi. My article was declined due to issues of notability, and I'm not quite sure how I can better establish notability. All of the sources I cited are reliable, and the stance in the article is verifiable within those sources. I would appreciate suggestions. Thank you.

Ldallas55 (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

21:58:04, 21 February 2016 review of submission by VERVE CONNECTIONS


What I really want to do is to describe some community awards that have been set up in the UK so that people know about the background and purpose of them. Because people in the USA, UK and Caribbean are interested to know about them and also the winners and nominees over the years to be posted about them. But instead, i used my username as I am not really that good at reading and understanding what I am supposed to do to complete this task. Can you please help me to change the title of the article from Verve Connections to The Mixed Blessings Awards (MBA's)? VERVE CONNECTIONS (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

00:12:44, 22 February 2016 review of submission by Derrin Tanser

{{Lafc|username=Derrin Tanser|ts=00:12:44, 22 February 2016|link=

Hi

I created an article an article on the 14th January 2014. The article was rejected. However it appears in google search engine results at http://speedydeletion.wikia.com/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Captain_Brock:_Space_Badger

This is the original draft of the article and is no longer accurate. Is there any way you can please delete this completely to avoid it appearing in search results.

Thank you

Derrin Tanser

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=706188567"