Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Main page Talk page
Showcase Assessment Participants Reviewing instructions Help desk Backlog drives
Welcome to the Wikipedia Articles for Creation help desk

  • This page is only for questions about article submissions to Wikipedia. Are you in the right place?
  • For your own security, please do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page; we are unable to provide answers via email.
  • Please keep in mind that we are all volunteers, and sometimes a reply may take a little time. Your patience is appreciated.
Click here to ask a new question.

A reviewer should soon answer your question on this page. Please check back often.
Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions


August 27[edit]

08:22:15, 27 August 2014 review of submission by Hamik.m[edit]

Hamik.m (talk) 08:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear reviewers

I would like to ask you concerning my first article that is now waiting for a review. The article is about a painter Tigran Tsitoghdzyan, who is going to have his first auction in September. This is a pivotal event un the life of every painter and I assume there will be a lot of people trying to wiki him. The article contains only of general info, bio and a couple of citations about him from art magazines. I had already two rejections and worked in close collaboration with the reviewers to change everything that was not suitable for wikipedia. Even removed citation from as one of the reviewers told me it is sometimes regarded as yellow press.

I would kindly ask, if it is possible, to review it before September (I hope now it is OK to be accepted.)

Thank you very-very much.

@Hamik.m: Symbol declined.svg Declined First, please don't take a partisan approach to editing. Wikipedia is not concerned with advertising the work of artists, musicians, or authors although many of those people want to use this website to advertise. Second, the handful of sources you have don't make the case for either the notability criteria specific to artists or general notability, especially as most of those citations only show the artist's work on the cover of non-notable magazines; they don't include articles about the artist. The key point is proving the artist's work is on permanent display in a museum. Your draft still doesn't have many in-line citations and it reads like an advertisement. I appreciate that you've put work in on this but sometimes it's too soon to push a subject when notability might not become apparent until many years from now. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Chris. I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you on all of your comments. The article is just a bunch of biographical facts and a couple of citations from respected art magazines, which do not only give a cover as you write (which is actually more important than article in many cases) but also have large articles concerning the artist. I do not know which part of it made you think it looks like an advertisement. If you find that any part there seems advertising, just kindly let me know and I will take it out. Concerning your point about the museums, will that mean that the painter is not a painter for wikipedia until a museum buys it for a permanent display? Does not make too much sense, right? As for now one of the works is presented at the Phillips Auction, which is one of the most respected in the art world. It is lot number 222 ( If this is not enough proof of existence of an artist for Wikipedia, or wikipedia wants to stay uninformed about the artist until one of the curators finally gets it to a museum - that's pretty ridiculous, don't you think so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamik.m (talkcontribs) 07:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

"passion for art" and "chosen to star" are examples of non-neutral wording that are not suitable for an encyclopedia. One of the artist's works being up for auction is not enough to prove their notability. The Mail Online article goes some way to proving notability, but cannot go all the way on its own. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Chris, I have removed all the wording that may be considered non-neutral. Considering the sources, they are all 3rd party and totally independent. None of the articles was done because it was payed for by the artist. As I mentioned, I even deleted the "daily mail" as considered it not trustworthy enough for wikipedia. But Fjords Magazine and Visual Language are both respected art magazines and totally 3-rd party. The only external links that are connected to the painter are the links to his website and portfolio on the web. All of the other external links are 3rd party. Later the information about the work sold from Phillips Auction will be added to the article also, but for now there is no permanent link for the lot. I cannot agree with the remark of Arthur goes shopping that "One of the artist's works being up for auction is not enough to prove their notability." It depends on the auction first of all. I hope none will doubt Phillips is one of the most respected contemporary art auctions in the world and there is no possibility to get there without being a notable artist. Just have a look on the page about the Phillips Art Auctions on the Wikipedia before giving this kind of remarks It is actually totally unprofessional that the highest rank experts working at the auction consider the artist notable, while reviewers of the wikipedia do not. After all the article is just about the existence of a man named Tigran Tsitoghdyan who is a painter. So can I assume that Phillips auction considers him a painter, and wikipedia does not? If there is anything else that wikipedia reviewers may consider advertising-like, i will gladly remove it, but concerning the notability I do not think there should be an issue. Don't you agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamik.m (talkcontribs) 08:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

14:34:21, 27 August 2014 review of submission by PraktikantatUFA[edit]

PraktikantatUFA (talk) 14:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC) 14:34:21, 27 August 2014 request for review by PraktikantatUFA

The draft in question appears to be Draft:Wolf Bauer (film producer). This draft has been declined once and now submitted for another review. As it is a biography of a living person, it seems likely that inline citations will be needed. Have you taken a look at Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners to see how to add them? Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

19:01:49, 27 August 2014 review of submission by KreyszigB[edit]

KreyszigB (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Can the title of the article which is currently waiting for review/creation from Westland CL.20 to Cierva CL.20 because this seems to be the convention for this aircraft. (if you look at the Westland archive for instance KreyszigB (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done I have moved the page to Draft:Cierva CL.20 in the draft space which is likely but not guaranteed to become its eventual name. I do not feel competent to perform the actual review of this article. I prefer to have a nodding familiarity with the topic material when an article has only one reference. While awaiting review please trawl for further references and add them to the draft, and make any other improvements that you can. Fiddle Faddle 09:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I will request assistance from WP:WikiProject Aircraft. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

19:17:29, 27 August 2014 review of submission by[edit]

Hi - my page was declined so I'm just wondering why. Thanks Grant (talk) 19:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Grantheadifen: As explained on the draft, it reads like an advertisement. Also, it is totally unreferenced and makes no claim to notability. 20:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

19:32:06, 27 August 2014 review of submission by John Rothberg[edit]

John Rothberg (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Drafted "Bruce D. Sturman" for a new inclusion. Want to do 2 things: first, contribute anonymously; second actually submit for consideration/review. What do I do to accomplish these tasks? Thanks.

@John Rothberg: We absolutely cannot have unsourced biographies of living people, especially where the article makes claims of criminal conduct. I assume you're looking at The New York Times and The Day? Neither of those sources makes out what the article claims. Please find serious references before attempting another article. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

20:01:15, 27 August 2014 review of submission by TarvarusMedia[edit]

I would simple like to know what I can add that will make this artist that as been indicated for 3 Grammy awards excepted. there are many third party news article I can add. but as ref, not as citations, does this help? and in addition, several musicians that have played on Orlando's albums and in his group or opening act for his group have Wiki pages.

This year Orlando's group releases and album featuring the Philadelphia Symphony.

Thank you very much for the help you can provide. TarvarusMedia (talk) 20:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@TarvarusMedia: Add references. References are essential. Please also read our notability criteria for musicians. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

23:53:42, 27 August 2014 review of submission by Butcan[edit]

Kana 23:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Having gotten the cart before the horse, I submitted this afternoon the third (final) revision of a biographical article "Beebe Freitas" and THEN discovered the article "Wikipedia: How to save an article proposed for deletion". Is it possible to retract the article at this late point so that I can properly follow the suggested guidelines? If not, do I have any further recourse in the event the article is given its third rejection and the subject frozen out? Thanks. Kana 23:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:Butcan the page Draft:Beebe Freitas is not under any threat of deletion at all. You can continue working on it and call on us for assistance at any time. I'm not at all sure where you get the idea that there is a "three strikes" rule - I've never heard of one and I've been active here for over seven years. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
@Butcan: The alleged three strikes rule must come from the rumour mill. If you can tell us where you found it we can work out how to snuff the rumour out, somehow. The entire review process is iterative. Some articles need far more than three iterations to become acceptable, and, while this can be a little tedious, this is absolutely fine. I'm glad this article has been accepted and that you have worked hard on it to solve the previous issues. We like accepting articles. I wish the ratio of those we can accept easily to those we have to push back for more work were higher. I suspect Dodger67 will agree with me wholeheartedly here, as will all other volunteer reviewers. Fiddle Faddle 09:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
@User:Butcan & User:Timtrent - Indeed I do agree! Congratulations on the very nice new article you started Butcan, so what's next? It would be really good if you can help us trace the origin of the "three strikes" rumour so that we can try to squash it - such nonsense can do a lot of damage to the project. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

August 28[edit]

11:40:37, 28 August 2014 review of submission by[edit] (talk) 11:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

14:14:42, 28 August 2014 review of submission by Bemporad[edit]

Dear Helpdesk,

I just submitted a few minutes ago a new article titled "Metaphonia". Nevertheless, the right title should be "Metaphony": the reason why a changed the title is the need for a disambiguation page about the therm "metaphony". In fact, the article I wrote decribes a new theory of music harmony named "Metaphony", wich is totally different from what described in the existing page on Wikipedia ( dealing with historical linguistics. Please let me know how to proceed.

Sincere regards, Alessandro Bemporad

Bemporad (talk) 14:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

In order to avoid confusion I have renamed your drat thus Draft:Metaphony (musical harmony). If this name proves to be imperfect that is fine and can be changed at any point in the future. I regret I do not have the skill to review this draft myself. In order to help readers are any of the references ones where there is an online version? Adding a link will be especially helpful, though not mandatory at all. 14:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)Fiddle Faddle

Request on 14:32:54, 28 August 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Linkdata[edit]

I'm trying to get some help on how to get my page approved. I'm working on "Draft:Link_Data_Security".

Yes I know this is a company and I'm not trying to make any commercialing, but I think that Link Data Security has a mentional history. Though Link Data has been a 3th party distributor, they have been on the edge of development when it comes to hardwardware(CD/DVD) recognition, and got more than 30 years in copy protection.

I don't clearly understands what the last reviewer was telling me to update, as I believe I have already done so? I wan't to make the best page possible without any commercializing involved, please help me.

Best regards, Frank Jelstrup

Linkdata (talk) 14:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@Linkdata: I have doubts about the independence and reliability of Tape-Disc Business magazine, which you use heavily as a source. It's possible it's a well-known trade periodical in your industry. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

18:01:30, 28 August 2014 review of submission by Nicoler2014[edit]

I would like to know why the article I wrote was rejected and what I can do to improve it so that it won't get rejected again. Thank you.

Nicoler2014 (talk) 18:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Your ideal first step would have been to follow the advice "Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer" on the notice declining the draft and looking at the messages left on the draft itself, where a useful message has been left. If you don't understand this message please come back and ask us, or ask the reviewer who declined it, or both. Fiddle Faddle 19:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

19:03:33, 28 August 2014 review of submission by[edit]

I created all the content of the article. Please direct me what directed you to believe this is not my work... For I worked long hours to create the content of my article. Sincerely, Windsor Lindor. (talk) 19:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

We need to know what the article is, please. There are no articles currently associated with this IP address. Fiddle Faddle 19:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

19:10:55, 28 August 2014 review of submission by Wlindor[edit]

I did not login when I posted my initial question and not sure if it was posted. I worked long hours to create my article and many hours editing my work for your review. What did direct you to determine that my article has copyrighted info? Please advice... Wlindor (Windsor Lindor)

Wlindor (talk) 19:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The article was deleted for the following reason: "19:46, 28 August 2014 Hut 8.5 (talk | contribs) deleted page User:Wlindor/Windsor lindor (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement: It is rare that we are mistaken, but it can happen. One thing you need to understand is that we have absolutely no idea who you are. This means that, even if you wrote we have no idea that you are the author. We have thus protected that copyright owner's copyright. Imagine how angry you would be if someone else had exploited your copyright material.
Please look at Wikipedia:Donating copyright material, but recognise that self promotion will never work on Wikipedia, and that the text of is very unlikely to be useful in a Wikipedia article. Please read WP:COI and WP:Autobiography. Fiddle Faddle 19:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

20:03:08, 28 August 2014 request for review by Goldmgmt[edit]

Hello, I'm wondering why my submission for celebrity tattoo artist , TV personality and international cover model Lea Vendetta was not accepted. Thank You.

Goldmgmt (talk) 20:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Good lord. It was declined 3 months ago today! It seems you have not looked at it. When you do you will see why. If you submit articles for review it is quite useful to follow through more often than at 3 month intervals. Fiddle Faddle 20:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
It is, however, a copyright violation of and will soon be deleted if it has not been already. Fiddle Faddle 20:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

20:04:06, 28 August 2014 review of submission by[edit]

I'm working on a draft for an upcoming indie video game. I've done my share of anonymous editing, but this is my first time creating a new article, so I would like to see feedback from experts in case I've missed any key points. No copyvios, wiki syntax is ok, notability is established with diverse gaming journalist coverage (no unreliable blogs), article text is easily verifiable with inline citations of second- or first-party online sources. I'm mostly worried about the overall style and tone of my writing, or perhaps something I've missed completely. Let me know if there are any glaring issues! - (talk) 20:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Your article layout and formatting is great. Whether notability is established, I will leave to the reviewer. Just because something is not a blog does not automatically make it useful for proving notability. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! I'm aware that the videogame journalism isn't a well-established industry and notability is often questionable, but I tried to include sources listed in WikiProject Video games/Sources as reliable. - (talk) 23:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

20:52:27, 28 August 2014 review of submission by Mjschiff[edit]

I just submitted a proposed page, and it says that it will take quite a while to be approved. I would like to work on another new page, but when I go to my sandbox, it refers me to the information page that tells me about my submission. What do I need to do to get to my sandbox again?

Mjschiff (talk) 20:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

There is an infinite number of sandboxes. Let's assume your new article is called "Foo", you can create User:Mjschiff/Foo by clicking the link and work in it at once. Fiddle Faddle 21:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

22:56:45, 28 August 2014 review of submission by Politics & Sci-Fi[edit]

I'm newly signed up and this is the first page I've written. I put in a reference on the editing page and I then saved it. But when I looked at the preview page, the reference had been replaced by this: tags, these references will then appear here automatically --> and the rest of what I'd written after that was missing. Is this normal for a preview page, or have I done something wrong? Politics & Sci-Fi (talk) 22:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

You forgot an angled bracket. Please view the history of that page to see what I changed to fix it. Also, please don't submit a draft for review until you have added independent reliable sources that evidence its notability. WP:42 might help. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

August 29[edit]

10:06:00, 29 August 2014 review of submission by[edit] (talk) 10:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

What is your question? Fiddle Faddle 15:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Request on 10:31:36, 29 August 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by[edit]

I added an article about the civic influence hub in Lebanon. It is a registered lobby group in Lebanon that is working on socio-economic change. The article was reviewed and declined. I need to know the reason and how we can fix it.

Thank you. (talk) 10:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

It is at Draft:Blue Gold Lebanon and the reason is cited on it. Fiddle Faddle 15:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

12:10:16, 29 August 2014 review of submission by Drubbo chowdree[edit]

How do i include photographs?

Drubbo chowdree (talk) 12:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

As your account passes certain hurdles you will be able to upload and insert pictures. Right now please concentrate on the text and references fro your draft, which I have just Symbol declined.svg Declined. The reasons are on the draft. There is work to do. Go to it with a will. Fiddle Faddle 15:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

17:29:14, 29 August 2014 review of submission by Jena fuller[edit]

Jena fuller (talk) 17:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi I've written a band page and I tried to link to a youtube video but I got a blacklisted link notice. I wonder if that crosses the line from encyclopedia to promotion? I don't see youtubes on other band pages here. I saw a whitelist option for links but I don't want to do anything that might hinder my article's acceptance (the wait is long enough!) so I thought best to ask before I do anything else.

Second question is, I see wiki pages that have a "Contents" box on them. My draft doesn't, so is that something I need to generate or does that occur upon it going from draft to article?

Thank youJena fuller (talk) 17:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Youtube is a problem because so many of the videos on it are breaches of copyright. It is deemed inappropriate to link to such a breach. Many other youtube videos are promotional and unreliable sources. You can see why we avoid it! There are ways of linking to youtube. See {{youtube}} for details. It is usually only deployed in an External links section.
Contents is autogenerated when an article exceeds a certain number of sections. I suggest you ignore it and be pleasantly surprised when it happens. One can fiddle with it,but I suggest you do not. To find out how it all works I suggest you use your sandbox to play. Fiddle Faddle 18:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

17:33:17, 29 August 2014 review of submission by Bragdonite[edit]

I need to understand specifically why my article in Arthur Dyson is declined. I have not yet mounted the images, but I am getting copyright clearance on those even as I write this to you. Please tell me precisely why this Wikipedia essay, which took me four months to write, does not qualify for publication on your web site. What error? What lack? Every citation is accurate, and there is a diversity of sources. Arthur Dyson is one of the most accomplished living architects in the organic architecture tradition, and has no representation on Wikipedia.

It is inconceivable to me that that there is any informational basis for this article to be declined. I am a respected architectural historian published in five languages, with over 100 articles, two book essays, and a monograph to my credit. For 35 years I have been considered a national authority on organic architecture. I observed the thicket of rules and guidelines.

Thank you for your time.

Bragdonite (talk) 17:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Bragdonite - I'm afraid there's some confusion here, your draft at Draft:Arthur Dyson has not been reviewed yet, thus not declined either. We will try to get to it as soon as possible, but we're struggling with a very large backlog. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

AFC-Logo Decline.svg Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. 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, go to User:Bragdonite/sandbox and 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.
   You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Cheers and Thanks, L235-Talk Ping when replying 03:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bragdonite (talkcontribs)

@Bragdonite that message is about your Sandbox page at User:Bragdonite/sandbox which is in fact blank except for the decline template - so don't worry about it. Your draft about Arthur Dyson is at Draft:Arthur Dyson and is still waiting for review. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

18:20:00, 29 August 2014 review of submission by Allisonellis[edit] was flagged as an orphan so I updated the referral links. My question now is - how long does it take for the orphan notification to go away? Is there anything else I need to do on my end?

Thanks so much.

Allisonellis (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Allisonellis - the orphan tag doesn't "go away" - you can remove it when you've fixed the problem. You'll find it near the top of the page, it looks like this: {{orphan| month year}}. When you delete it please state in the edit summary that you're removing it because you've fixed the problem. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

August 30[edit]

08:35:40, 30 August 2014 review of submission by Skadge[edit]

Hello, we (~5 researchers from 5 different research project) have been working on an article to compare (academic) robotic simulators.

I appreciate that Wikipedia policies regarding 'original research' require published sources. Most (if not all) of the projects referenced on the page have academic publications attached to them, but those publications give technical overviews that are not sufficient to provide accurate technical comparisons. Hence the reference to websites. Would it be sufficient to add references to the academic publications in the first table ( to prevent the WP:OR flag?

[Please also take into consideration that the current article discussing simulation in robotics Robotics_simulator is just a list of links to websites, with no order (except the one the respective authors of the softwares decide to set, ie, theirs first), no comparison, and many outdated/obsolete references. I believe our proposal for a more systematic comparison represent a notable improvement.]

Thanks for your help Skadge (talk) 08:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

References to academic papers (for example) can pose problems. Broadly, unless the paper has been peer reviewed, or published in a WP:RS, it is a primary source. Primary sources may be used in a restricted set of circumstances, and a consensus may need to be reached on their deployment in this case (if you choose to deploy them). THe objective, yours and ours, is to achieve an authoritative record of the material that is published elsewhere, not to create new research, nor to synthesise new research from existing material.
Others here will know the various Wikiprojects to contact for advice. My suggestion is to open a set of discussions on the talk page of the draft to show your thinking, and to reach relevant consensus on any areas of doubt, inviting the WIkiproject(s) to help and comment.
The draft as a whole has excellent potential. I am sure you don't need to be told that. The world of academe is very different from Wikipedia. Reading WP:ACADEME will; indicate how different.
Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles. I would love to have accepted this one at once when I reviewed it, but I viewed it as needing reference polish. Fiddle Faddle 08:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick feedback. Still, I do not understand why a page that compare readily available softwares (1000th of similar software comparison pages exist -- and are useful -- in a variety of domains on wikipedia) suddenly lead to WP:OR issues. I mean, the page only compare features of these softwares. It does not try to synthesise research/review approaches, etc. Skadge (talk) 08:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
@Skadge: The other pages you mention may or may not be poor pages. The issue we have is that no page here may set a precedent for any other page. If we allowed that then the standards would decline rapidly and we would head faster and faster towards Idiocracy. Wikipedia has a great many pages that are below the standards we strive for. It is valid to flag any that you find for improvement, perhaps even deletion. Any editor may do this and should do this. A comparison page that is not referenced may, in extreme circumstances, be seen to utter a libel. This is something we wish to avoid.
I am aware of your good motives in creating a decent, clean, and correct comparison page. I'm equally sure you wish it to be of the highest quality. Excellence in referencing achieves this best. Fiddle Faddle 08:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
@Timtrent: I understand your answer. I'm fine with discussing on the Talk page of the Draft how to reach the wikipedia standards, but I have to admit that I do not yet understand what you are looking for/expecting. How would you build a reliable (and simply *factual*) comparison of publicly available softwares if neither references to the projects' websites or academic publications are not suitable? Skadge (talk) 10:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
@Skadge: If you re-read both what I have said, which is an interpretation, and then study policies and guidelines, which are chapter and verse, I hope you will see that there are carefully regulated circumstances in which both types of less reliable verification may be used. The thing you are creating as an article is one of the hardest to source. This is why I am asking for excellent standards and great care. What we all look for is diligence in finding and deploying sources which are independent of the item, are significant coverage of it, and are in WP:RS. Once those are in place less reliable sources can be used to backfill verification that one can only get from, for example, a primary source. Fiddle Faddle 12:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Because this conversation has direct relevance to the draft and the subsequent approved article, I am copying eveything above here, including the title, to Draft talk:Comparison of Robotic Simulators. My strong suggestion is that further discussion should take place there. Fiddle Faddle 15:23, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

August 31[edit]

13:04:11, 31 August 2014 review of draft by[edit] (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

That page is not currently submitted for review. Please feel free to submit it for review once you have added more detail and sources. Wikipedia:VRS might give you ideas about the sort of sources that would be useful. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

13:05:13, 31 August 2014 review of draft by[edit]

I want to insert a photo of the pagoda (talk) 13:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

@ You have to be an autoconfirmed user to upload an image, hence why you should register your own account. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

15:33:36, 31 August 2014 review of submission by Prateekmalviya20[edit]

I submitted this draft 10 days ago, but it's can't review till now.

Prateek Malviya 15:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is normal. There is currently a very large backlog of submissions awaiting review, so it can take from several weeks to over a month for a submission to be reviewed. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

18:38:15, 31 August 2014 review of submission by Sparkoparkes[edit]

I have been struggling to insert two photographs into my first article, entitled: Walsall Lithographic Co. Ltd., in my Sandbox. Having spent a couple of hours and re-doing them several times, I finally managed to upload them into Wikimedia Commons, then had a bad time trying to insert them into my article with my own, proper captions, instead of the rather stilted, awkward captions I had to give them at the Uploading process. Try as I might, however, I could not get them to appear in the Preview of my article at all, much less get them to appear as I wanted them to appear, in a box down the right-hand-side. There is nowhere I could find any help or instructions how to do that, which is VERY frustrating! My latest draft, which has now been submitted for Review, only has the edited, written lines for the two photographs at the bottom of it, so I have no idea whether or not they will be included in the final page, if it passes review. Sparkoparkes (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Sparkoparkes. I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to do with the pictures, but the basics can be found in the picture tutorial.
With that being said, though, I don't think your article will be accepted, with or without pictures. There are absolutely no outside sources cited for the information. Wikipedia needs sources. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 18:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
@Sparkoparkes: I moved your draft to Draft:Walsall Lithographic Company, so you can use your sandbox for something else. I subsequently declined it, as it had no sources. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

September 1[edit]

00:36:12, 1 September 2014 review of submission by Strangecow[edit]

How do I add a photo?

Strangecow (talk) 00:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Strangecow: See our instructions about uploading images. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

09:00:07, 1 September 2014 review of submission by Hamik.m[edit]

Dear reviewers. Once again addressing to you asking to review our article when you have time. The question is that the painter the the article is about, will be having one of his works presented at the Phillips Auction. This is a very important event in the life of a painter, and there will be lots of people trying to wiki him. I have edited and removed all the text that other reviewers considered ad-like. Now the article consist of purely biographical facts and 4 citations from respected 3rd party art magazines, as well as Daily Mail and La Reppublica.

One more question was that my last reviewer considered that the painter does not pass the notability criteria. I would like to disagree with that, and the best proof for the painters notability is actually the expert committee of the Philips auction where the painter is going to be present at lot #222 (the link is in the article). Phillips is one of the oldest auction houses, established in 1726 and trying to rival with Christie's and Sotheby's so the experts there are top ranked.

Please review the article ASAP to be able to get online before the auction.

Thank you very much in advance. Hamik.m (talk) 09:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

How do i get my submission approved?[edit]


We are the makers of a portal called - The Future Of Design. The basic information about the portal was submitted by me for your approval. The submission is not an advertisement. It is information about the portal, created for the art, architecture and design fraternity. Please guide me what changes in the text can help me get approval.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roopasabnispinge (talkcontribs) 09:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing at Draft:The Future Of Design and no deleted page at The Future Of Design, nor has your account edited any other pages that I can see. So I can't offer any comments on your submission, not having seen it.
Some useful pages related to this topic that you could read include Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:NOTDIR, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

12:44:34, 1 September 2014 review of submission by Smallzz089[edit]

I submitted a draft earlier and wish to include a JPEG file in the post but I could not get it done on my own. I want you to help out with this as I seem not to be getting it right after much attempts.

Smallzz089 (talk) 12:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Smallzz089: Symbol declined.svg Declined You have to wait to become an autoconfirmed user before you can upload images. It won't matter because your draft needs a lot of work to get accepted. Try adding some reliable sources before adding images. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


I recently had an article accepted, entitled Handwashing in Judaism. When I go to my Sandbox, I still see the article there, just as it would appear on WP Article Space. My question to you is that if I delete my Sandbox article (which appears exactly as it appears on WP Article Space) will it be deleted from WP Article Space too? In short, my question is "How do I clear my Sandbox without affecting my article in the Wikipedia Article Space?"Davidbena (talk) 15:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Davidbena: Your sandbox is a redirect. You can remove that redirect coding and re-use your sandbox with absolutely no impact on the article in question. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

15:28:39, 1 September 2014 review of submission by Ralphiedee[edit]

I re did the page it has references which can be checked

Ralphiedee (talk) 15:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ralphiedee: No, you have one reference (Discogs) which isn't a sufficient reference on Wikipedia. You need information from newspapers, magazines, and books. Also, you have no in-line citations, which is also a problem. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2[edit]

03:00:37, 2 September 2014 review of draft by Marion at Woodfork Genealogy[edit]

Marion at Woodfork Genealogy (talk) 03:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I need to add footnotes/endnotes to my article, but I don't see instructions on how to do that. Can you tell me where I can find that information

I see information for citations but not footnote

@Marion at Woodfork Genealogy: See Help:Footnotes. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

09:27:08, 2 September 2014 review of submission by Ire1234[edit]

Ire1234 (talk) 09:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Ire1234 is my username

I'm just wondering why the page was rejected i think it's a good site and i've nothing to do with the company {not promoting} i'm only a amateur stargazer. If it can't be made could one of your editors look into it and may be write a page about it as it has being on a number of papers in Ireland and abroad.

I wonder why you have not actually looked at the reviewer's comment on the draft? It tells you all you need to know. We require references from significant coverage about the entity, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. This has none. Fiddle Faddle 11:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


I have included what I had hoped was a correct citation to a medical journal - I used the Cite reference to 'journal' and entered all relevant details. The small text appears by the side of the report referred to in the text as the correct medical journal name but when clicked does not redirect the user to the said journal - please can you tell me what i am doing wrong?

Also, I have included special characters for URL's in my text but these appear in the saved article as the full URL - is there a way of this appearing as a smaller icon in the text - again what am I doing wrong here please :(

BaileyBoo (talk) 11:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)