Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk
|Main page||Talk page
Reviewer — AFCH
Category — List
|Showcase||Assessment||Participants||Reviewing instructions||Help desk||Backlog drives
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|
- 1 December 23
- 2 December 24
- 3 December 25
- 4 December 26
- 4.1 10:09:29, 26 December 2014 review of submission by Eladste
- 4.2 16:58:03, 26 December 2014 review of submission by Monaa Hassann
- 4.3 20:00:01, 26 December 2014 review of submission by Rachele Tardi
- 4.4 22:31:26, 26 December 2014 review of submission by MOVIEMIXMASTER
- 4.5 23:45:38, 26 December 2014 review of draft by Tronninger
- 5 December 27
- 6 December 28
- 7 December 29
10:39:35, 23 December 2014 review of submission by Carmen821
I would be really grateful if you explain what exactly makes the article sound/look like an advertisement and what I can do to improve it. Any advice or help is really appreciated. Thank you in advance.
- @Carmen821: Here are some examples: "Citrio has all the basic functionality of Chrome browser and a number of its own unique features." This is obvious ad copy. If it has features Chrome doesn't then why not list them? The next sentence does so this sentence is superfluous. "Citrio’s video grabber makes it possible to download files from most popular online video websites." What about downloading from the less popular websites? You seem to specify "most popular" like that matters. Again, obvious ad copy. Building an article based on your marketing department's recommendations is foolish at best.
- The big problem with your draft is that most, if not all, of the sources are not both independent and reliable. Gigaom and Lifehacker are the only sources that come anywhere close to being acceptable. Therefore, you have no claim to notability. Come back when PC Mag writes about it. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
12:01:30, 23 December 2014 review of submission by Raymond232323
- Comment I've looked through your draft, and I saw that there were no references. References are extremely important, especially for biographies. Unfortunately, social media is not enough. Try to find references such as news websites, books, magazines, and the sort, and and them into the article. If you need additional help, have a look at this page. Cheers, George Edward C – Talk – Contributions 14:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
04:03:18, 24 December 2014 review of submission by Shelbylv
I submitted my article in November and was pleasantly surprised by a quick review, though a bit sad to see that my article was initially declined. I've cleaned it up and resubmitted, but I haven't heard back and it's been over a month. I added more citations, even though I think a few of them are probably redundant, to prove that the organization is notable, and several of them are from newspaper articles. Is the same person who looked at my article the first time going to look at it again, or is it a different person this time? I'm sure this gets asked a lot, but is there any way to speed this up? I had a response within two weeks for the first submission and I heaven't heard anything for so long, I'm worried my article will get buried. Shelbylv (talk) 04:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Shelbylv: Declined That you've posted here and gotten my response proves that the closed mouth doesn't get fed. I left comments on the draft. Be advised that drafts are reviewed at random so they only way to speed up the process is contact a specific Wikipedian or use the reward board to solicit help. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
05:57:03, 24 December 2014 review of submission by Doncram
Hi to Help desk. My submission was valid, with references, about notable topic of a Danish TV series, was submitted December 1. It was just declined by User:Kvng by reason that there is an article on the topic in mainspace. Well, now there is, since another editor created one on December 9. I am curious, what is the process when this happens. I kinda think it would be "fair" for my version to be approved, then have any additional info from the newer version merged into that, rather than the other way around. I don't terribly care if there is no remedy, but would like to learn if there is, for cases like this. Obviously one thing is that would help would be for me and more people to help out in AFC to reduce backlog, and I am interested but subject to a restriction that prevents me from doing so effectively...i can't put new articles into mainspace...maybe i'll appeal the ban. But even with less backlog this issue must come up sometimes though. --doncram 05:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Doncram: Since I've never interacted with you I read up on your ARBCOM case. I won't register an opinion to your other points but AfC is strictly first-reviewed, first-served. You're welcome to edit the existing article but your draft has no purpose now. You could ask for a history merge if it matters to you to have your edits reflected. With your extensive experience I don't see why that would be important to you. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:31, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply. Right, i am quite experienced and it doesn't particularly matter for me about credit for that article or for a few articles ever, though I suppose it would kind of irk me in a way if there was a systematic dismissal of some bigger series of contributions of mine from the record. I do believe that credit matters in general though, and at AFD I speak up about that sometimes. Anyhow I came here more in way of reporting on my experience, of giving feedback that the apparently canned message "Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Dicte (TV series) instead" seems a bit off-putting. I think that would be off-putting to usual AFC contributors. I have been interested in helping at AFC, and have in the past contributed reviews and participated in AFC Talk discussion about processes (but, limited by restriction, i can't help very much as an AFC volunteer). Specifically I was asking about what is the process, in general, whether there is process like for recognizing an AFC contributor and doing the history merge, i guess, if it is noticed that mainspace has acquired an article while an AFC submission was waiting. It's not a big deal, necessarily, if there is no regular AFC process for this, but I do wonder how often this happens and I was asking if there is a regular process. I gather there is not. It would be better for some new wikipedia contributors especially, if their contribution was recognized rather than denied, in cases like this. I'm still interested to hear if there are any numbers or there is any process, but also I'm okay with this "request" being over if no one who happens to read this knows. Thanks. --doncram 20:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
06:38:57, 24 December 2014 request for review by Helenaslesareva
As i am not receiving any reply and i want to know the problem so i am using this.
- Hello Helenaslesareva, the issue is that your article adds almost nothing that is not already covered at our existing article Alexei Navalny. Frankly, the draft comes across as just an advertisement for the upcoming protest, since the introduction simply states the protest's planned place/date/poster (and that image of the poster is very likely a copyright violation unless you personally own the rights to it and are releasing it).
- Also, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, we largely do not write on future events, since generally those events' importance are not yet established, and might not even end up happening.
- Here is my suggestion, you can just go to Alexei Navalny, ensure that our existing article isn't missing any major details, and after the protest occurs, if it is of great significance and impact (gets major media coverage, causes changes in a nation's policy, etc) then you can add coverage of the protest to the Navalny article. But broadly speaking individual protests only get their own articles if the protest itself is a subject of significant media and academic focus in its own right, and it's be extremely rare that we'd publish on a protest before it even happens. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
18:32:41, 25 December 2014 review of submission by Al Rosenfield
- The upload was successful, but please note the comment on your Talk page which explains why your upload was deleted. It was found to be redundant to an image that was already uploaded on WikimediaCommons, so we didn't need two copies of File:American Airlines Flight 587 vertical stabilizer.png.
- Also note I've left some formatting comments at the top of your draft. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:47, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
19:09:44, 25 December 2014 review of submission by Geolog10
I'm having trouble formatting references. 1) How do I get reference titles into italics? On the edit page, I put the title into "", but it just shows up with the "" and not in italics. Or am I supposed to be inserting symbols from the bottom of this page? 2) What is the purpose of the vertical lines (|)? Are they just to insert spaces in the references or do they do something else? Geolog10 (talk) 19:09, 25 December 2014 (UTC) Done
- Hello Geolog10, the guide WP:Citations would be a great place to check for all kinds of questions on formatting cites. But to speak to your immediate questions:
- The code for italics is not
", but rather
''. That is, on an American keyboard, two apostrophes, the symbol two buttons over from the "L" key on your keyboard, hit it twice. Or, as noted, you can click the symbols at the bottom of the page if you're not sure you're typing it right.
- The piping is used to separate fields, so one of its uses is in the Citation templates, it separates the "author" field from the "url" field and so on. Piping is also used for when you want the name of a wikilink to appear differently from the actual link. So if you're referring to a French artist, you could for example say "He then returned to his
[[France|home country]]" which would display at "He then returned to his home country".
- The code for italics is not
- Hope this helps! MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:03, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
10:09:29, 26 December 2014 review of submission by Eladste
The article I suggested of the artist "Amikam Bar Grama", has been rejected, on the request of having to cite a significant art exhibition or criticism. I have now links in the "External links" section which cite Hebrew sources, that relate to major art locations in the state of Israel, as well as a newspaper review, both of which show the artist's acknowledgement in his state of birth. I would like to reconsider and recognize the artist who is a specialist at a worldwide unique painting style, and is recognized and well documented in the Israeli media for his various contributions, as in the various footnote links in addition to those I recently added.
16:58:03, 26 December 2014 review of submission by Monaa Hassann
How long will it take for an article to be reviewed?
- @Monaa Hassann: Declined Not long at all thanks to your request. Passive terrorism isn't a thing. As you admit the "term hasn't been widely defined or discussed openly as yet". If that's the case then Wikipedia doesn't need an article about it. We rely on many independent reliable sources to write about articles, rather than just writing whatever we think is true. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
20:00:01, 26 December 2014 review of submission by Rachele Tardi
I made (over a month ago) all the changes to the entry "David Forgacs" that were requested by the Wikipedia reviewer. I shortened the entry to make it less narrative, provided referenced sources for statements and had the entry checked for accuracy by an Italian expert on the subject, Prof. Michele Sorice, who himself has an entry in Italian Wikipedia. However the entry still does not seem to have been approved, or reviewed again. Please let me know how long this will take. Thank you. Rachele Tardi
22:31:26, 26 December 2014 review of submission by MOVIEMIXMASTER
The page I posted. I'm not sure if it's posted.
- @MOVIEMIXMASTER: It was reviewed and declined because that content already exists at List of Toy Story characters#Rex. That character does not merit a separate article. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
23:45:38, 26 December 2014 review of draft by Tronninger
Hello everybody, I was trying to translate the following article of "MOTA Maschinenbau" from german and french into english. I am no native speaker and not sure if my translated article includes some grammatical or expressive mistakes. I would really appreciate if anyone of you may have a short look on the article and give me some feedback before I'm going to ask for a review. Thank you very much.
03:52:38, 27 December 2014 review of submission by O2L84U
- @O2L84U: Declined Depending on how you have your preferences set up you should receive an e-mail when I posted to your talk page. I left comments on the draft but I would suggest you read our notability criteria, figure out which one the subject meets, add reliable sources to verify the assertions for notability, and use our "Referencing for Beginners" to properly format your in-line citations. If you can't find a criterion the subject meets or sourcing to support the assertions then the article can't be accepted. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:14, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
12:48:58, 27 December 2014 review of submission by Smichok
I wrote an article recently on the life of Jean Prosper Guivier, which was accepted as 'start class'. I was rather disappointed by the rating as I feel the article is generally well written and well referenced. I have spent several years researching the life of this man and believe that I am perhaps uniquely qualified to write about him. All of the main events of his life which have come to light so far are included in the article. But I would really like to raise the quality rating, and would appreciate your help in doing this.
Any suggestions would be gratefully received, and I hope that my contribution to Wikipedia will help to maintain the high standards we have come to expect from it.
- @Smichok: This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. Please consider asking this question at the Wikipedia:Help desk. - This is where editors will try to answer any question regarding how to use Wikipedia. Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for any help related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps! You can also ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
19:29:10, 28 December 2014 review of submission by Stuff4sale
20:31:03, 28 December 2014 review of submission by Mitzi.humphrey
I am requesting help in determining and documenting the copyright availability for Wikipedia of the many online photographs of the buildings, founders, and brand name logos which could be used to illustrate my draft article on the history of Belknap Hardware and Manufacturing Company in Louisville, Kentucky.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 20:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 20:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC) I am requesting help in determining and documenting the copyright availability for Wikipedia of the many online photographs of the buildings, founders, and brand name logos which could be used to illustrate my draft article on the history of Belknap Hardware and Manufacturing Company in Louisville, Kentucky.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 20:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
21:33:59, 28 December 2014 review of submission by Marylane53
My page on the American Tapestry Alliance was declined because I did not have sufficient independent references. I wanted to ask how many references I should have. I did read the information about notability and the golden rule. I understand that, but I am wondering about the quantity of reliable references that I should have. thanks!
02:46:32, 29 December 2014 review of submission by Jettte
Hi, my submission on Arria NLG was declined because the "references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability". I'm not sure if that's just the boilerplate text that comes with a rejection for low notability or whether I really need more independent sources. The reviewer notes "Existing isn't enough, we also need a reason as to why it is notable, and the article needs to make this clear (preferably in the lead)", which makes me wonder whether I'm simply meant to make it explicit in the lead what Arria is notable for. I've done that now, but it's hard to do without making it sound like advertising. The only other thing I could imagine is that my sources aren't "important" enough, because I've got at least one reference on pretty much every sentence already. I've had a look at existing Wikipedia articles about the other few companies in the same area and they all seem very similar to mine (Narrative Science, Yseop, Automated Insights).
I'd be very grateful for any additional feedback on how I could improve my article and get it accepted.