Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 10:56, 24 November 2013

Main page

Talk page

Submissions
Category, List, Sorting, Feed

Showcase

Participants
Apply, By subject

Reviewing instructions

Help desk

Backlog
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?
- For questions on how to use or edit Wikipedia, visit the Teahouse.
- For unrelated questions, use the search box or the reference desk.
- Create a draft via Article wizard or request an article at requested articles.
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

Top of page
Table of Contents
Today's posts
Bottom of page

November 18

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Andrew Berry

I cannot understand why my page for Andrew Berry Hairdresser hasn't been published. I've supplied all the correct information.Lucyarnott (talk) 04:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because Berry is a living person, the minimum standard for his article is stricter, and all information in the article must be cited to a good source per our policy on living people using in-line citations. Currently, your submission has none. The subject seems to be tangentially related to a number of people centred around Factory Records, but notability is not inherited so he can't have an article just because several of his friends do. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Forum on Information Standards in Heritage

Hello,

I'm hoping to improve a Wiki entry that was rejected recently but have not heard anything as to why or what I need to do to get it published. I would be most grateful for any advice on how to proceed.

Many thanks for your help.

Best wishes,

Tanja

Forum on Information Standards in Heritage (FISH), UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tasu08 (talk • contribs) 10:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The submission was declined because it does not appear to be a notable topic for a standalone article. Web forums are generally unsuitable topics for Wikipedia (simply because anyone can set one up and there are so many of them), and your references mostly deal with English Heritage. You might be able to mention MIDAS Heritage in that article briefly, but I don't think you'll be able to do much more at present. By the way, you should generally avoid writing about articles dealing with subjects you are closely involved with, as it can create a conflict of interest. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ian Morison

Hi,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Ian_Morison

...top of page shows "Article not currently submitted for review."

...bottom of page shows "Review waiting."

I suspect some meta markup has been left in place accidentally, please confirm that article is in review or advise corrections if not!

Thanks! 52degreesN (talk) 12:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article was correctly submitted for review, and has now passed. Thanks for your submission! Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Barry Jon Beck

Why does the article Barry Jon Beck have a warning that it's an orphan, when other Wikipedia pages link to it? How can I get this removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gremlin700 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi Folks, I am editing the entry Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Søren Brier as suggested by DGG but I am a bit confused on how to discriminate between information that should go into References, Sources and External Links. Thanks so much ˜˜˜CRAU999 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crau999 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: is, as he says in your submission, a specialist in biographies on academics. I've pinged him as he's probably the best person to answer your specific questions. For what it's worth, I tend to put references to inline citations in "References", general references (such as books or related reading where the entry in "References" is a shortened footnote) in "Sources" and anything that's also worth reading but not directly related to anything in the article in "External Links". However, to cut a long story short, for the purposes of getting your submission accepted, the honest answer is "it doesn't really matter too much". Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie has it right: it doesn't matter much. What matters is that we do have references, not where we put them. The way I think on it, the distinction between additional reading and external links is that the reading is normally print, but can be online if it;'s book-type material, the ER's are web pages and the like. If something is in the refs it doesn't have to be duplicated, but sometimes it does help--like always adding the official CV as the first EL, even if you have previously used it to support routine biographical facts. It has happened that people have rejected AfCs for handling references in a way they don't like, but they're shouldn't do that, because any way that clearly documents the material is acceptable. DGG ( talk ) 16:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sturgeon Ventures LLP

Hi everyone, I've recently submitted a new article for creation. The first feedback was a little disappointing and actually confusing. I wonder if I could get a better one - what is actually wrong with it and how to improve it. I have a COI here and would very much appreciate your help so I can go back and try to make it better. Many thanks, Kat Kt1502 (talk) 17:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Max Muscle Sports Nutrition

Hi! I am having trouble uploading my article. Everytime I think I have submitted it, the next pages says "Article Not Currently Submitted for Review". Are you able to tell me if my article has been submitted, or how I can submit it? Thanks! Lboureston (talk) 18:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Lindsey[reply]

Done. When you submit the article there is a section of text that explains that you should ignore the grey box and it will get cleaned up later. I've just been and done the clean up and your article is awaiting review. Rankersbo (talk) 19:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jim Carver (politician)

Please inform me of the reasons for which this submission has been rejected and advise me as to how to rectify it. Yours Mark Daniel (Daniboy72)Daniboy72 (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Generally candidates for Westminster or Brussels/Strasbourg aren't considered notable under WP:POLITICIAN so either UKIP would need to take 2 seats in his region at the next EP election, or he needs to have a high profile in the press to be proved notable. The reviewer seems to feel that the mention of Mr Carvers name in the reliable sources of the article aren't significant. Rankersbo (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 19

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/La Jolla Symphony and Chorus

Hi, I was wondering if you could explain exactly why the Wikipedia page for the La Jolla Symphony and Chorus was rejected and if it is possible to revise it in a way that would make it acceptable. Thank you. Cesander (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi can you check you've read the standard comments on the page itself, and checked the policies it links to? Rankersbo (talk) 10:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/National Astronomy Week

Hi,

While I've edited Wikipedia before, I've never created an article, so I would appreciate some assistance.

I've created this new article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/National_Astronomy_Week

I've tried to submit it for review, but at the top it still says "Article not currently submitted for review". (I've seen notes saying this will be cleaned out, but it's now about 10 hours since the article was submitted, and the message is still there.)

At the bottom it says, however, "Review waiting. This may take several weeks, even months. The Articles for creation process is severely backlogged. Please be patient. There are 2201 submissions waiting for review." This appears twice, presumably becuase I clicked the "Review" link twice on seeing the message at the top.

Firstly - is this article in the review queue or not?

Secondly, this article is about an important astronomical event in UK in March. I've submitted it on behalf of the Organising Committee. Is there any way we can get this reviewed and live in a reasonable time?

Yours sincerely,

Dr W B J Blake.

Brendan blake (talk) 08:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the article is in the queue- if it has a yellow template on it it's in the queue. It may take some time but it will be dealt with in the next few weeks, not months. The clean-up is done by a human at the moment, so it does take a while, but someone is working on automating the process.

I haven't looked that closely, but your article actually looks quite good for a first attempt, especially given you appear to have a conflict of interest. Bear in mind wikipedia policies on promotion , and being a directory asking for things to be expidited may be counter productive.

We are here specifically to talk about the mechanics of the AfC process, there is also a teahouse where people are there to generally guide in the process of writing articles. Rankersbo (talk) 09:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - that's very helpful. I'll try to get some additional reviews done as soon as possible to ensure accuracy and objectivity.

Brendan Blake (talk) 10:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Science Behind Jesus Christ: The Scientific Explanation of God

HELP!!! I read your instructions for creating new article, I went through the article wizard. I copied and pasted the article that I wanted to publish, some text in the article was highlighted in blue. I'm not sure how to format or correct any issues as I am not sure what the blue highlight means. Also I am not sure if I am citing references correctly. Please advise. I realize you are a volunteer and your time is valuable, so I want to say thank you in advance for your help; I am grateful for it.

Glascoed (talk) 11:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)glascoed[reply]

Deleted as a copyright violation. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How can i resubmit my article?

Resolved

after trying to submit my article, and resolving the problems in it, i would like to resubmit it, how do i do that? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Fascial_Manipulation

thank you for your help

NatalieBrettler (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Fascial Manipulation[reply]

Add the code {{subst:submit}} (including the curly braces) to the top of your article when editing it, and after saving, a yellow "submit" box should appear, indicating it is queued for review. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should click the resubmit button on the pink decline box- but you had removed the decline box by mistake. I have submitted the article for you and it's now awaiting review. Rankersbo (talk) 12:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Portfolio Management Software

I am not sure if my Article [Portfolio Management Software] was submitted for revision. If yes, was it approved? If not, what can I do to make it approved?

Thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Croesusfin (talk • contribs) 19:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Food Structure Journal 1982-1993

I am the author of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Food_Structure_Journal_1982-1993. I submitted the text for a review already on November 12. Until today I was not registered but then I was unable to upload an image of the journal cover (Food Structure Vol. 12, No. 1.). Consequently I have registered but I cannot satisfy the conditions of reviewing my text 10 more times. Your help will be appreciated. Thank you. Milos.Kalab@agr.gc.ca MKalab (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Victoria A. Budson

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Victoria_A._Budson I am new to Wikipedia and would so appreciate help in creating this article about my colleague, Victoria A. Budson, who is Executive Director of the Harvard Kennedy School Women and Public Policy Program. ^[1] ^[2]. A different individual tried to create the page for her and it was rejected. Thank you Akkauth (talk) 20:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed it and left a few notes for you. If you need further assistance please feel free to return here. You can also find help from subject specialists at WP:WikiProject Feminism. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ Boxwood Festivals and Workshops

Hello, I was wondering if the article at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ Boxwood Festivals and Workshops would be acceptable if I removed the references which refer back to the festival's pages (except perhaps the first as it refer's to a quote for their mission), the Six Water Grog page, and the Welcome to Lunenburg page as it is no longer available. I am also thinking hat the Best of Boxwood 2013 article reference should also be removed. This would leave 5 references outside of the festival page(s). I am trying to see if there are references from secondary sources as well and would augment with them if I come across any but I am not having luck finding these. Could you please advise?

Also, there is apparently a space at the beginning of the page name. Ho would I fix this?

Ksumwalt (talk) 20:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 20

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Czeslaw Znamierowski

Hello, can someone help me with understanding why this article was declined. I I written about the Soviet artist - Czeslaw Znamierowski ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Czeslaw_Znamierowski ) but it was rejected. Reason was "In order to be accepted, you'll need to provide multiple independent sources that establish this artist's notability. These might include newspaper articles, reviews, information from published books, etc. If these sources are available online, the references should link to them."

As far as I can see I did provide multiple independent sources that establish this artist's notability. Each source is a newspaper articles, review or information from published book of that time period. All sources where written during Soviet era by well establishes newspapers, magazines and books. I located these sources in the National Library of Lithuania. Due to this, please let me know why these references do not fit the Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you. Earthsphere (talk) 00:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(See also the discussions at User talk:Quadell#Earthshpere.) – Quadell ^(talk) 14:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This issue has now been resolved amicably. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Labrador Sea Water

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Labrador Sea Water This is my first submission to wikipedia, and I'm learning the process. It's a class assignment for my oceangraphy course. I have text in my edit that is not showing up in my preview page and I'm not sure what the problem is. I've tried to compare it to other pages when I go to their edit boxes, but I don't know why it is not matching the format I've entered. The article skips a whole header, and then just puts the last 2/3 of different header onto the first one. What am I doing wrong? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianfbennett (talk • contribs) 03:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should be fixed now. Just a ref tag that didn't get closed (common problem). LionMans Account (talk) 05:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is clearly ready for mainspace, please submit it so that it can be approved and moved out of the very long waiting list as soon as possible. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jim Leverton

Could someone who understands this concept have a look at my article which has now been declined twice and advise if there is any likelihood that I can ever get this accepted or if it is always going to be refused on the grounds of notability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Jim_Leverton

Many thanks for your help in advance.

Sally of Kent (talk) 08:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Leverton? Local musical hero? Contemporary of Noel Redding? Session player? Member of several notable bands? Appearing in multiple book hits here? Of course he's notable! I'll pass the article now. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi Sally. Wikipedia:MUSICBIO says that a musician may be notable if they have "been a reasonably-prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles". Leverton seems to meet this criterion. In addition, the Rolling Stone source is a good independent reliable source, even though it doesn't say a lot about Leverton himself. So I would hesitate to say there is no way Leverton is notable; more sources might well be out there. Remember that sources don't have to be online on the web to be useable. Newspaper or magazine articles from the 1960s or early 1970s, or books discussing aspects of the music of that era, might be most useful in proving his notability. Just putting his name into Google Book Search brings up at least a dozen books that mention him, most only in passing (mentioning a band's line-up), but some, for example, "Gallagher, Marriott, Derringer & Trower: Their Lives and Music" in slightly more detail.

Ritchie333 has now approved the submission and it is at Jim Leverton. I see Leverton has been in action in Kent as recently as less than a week ago. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the further advice - I will add some of the book references as suggested. Sally of Kent (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Town Spurs - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Cape_Town_Spurs

I don't understand why this article keeps getting rejected when the other, "affluent" team (Seven Stars) that absorbed Cape Town Spurs to form Ajax Cape Town is accorded a page in Wikipedia.

The reference to Cape Town Spurs on the Ajax Cape Town page does not do justice to the history and struggle credentials of Cape Town Spurs and how it succeeded during the Apartheid era despite not having anything near the facilities and finances that Cape Town City (the white equivalent) had. I wouldn't have written the article if this history was not notable!

The problem with an article such as this is that the history of this club hasn't been codified in the extensive references that you seem to demand of this article (and not of Seven Stars) - this seldom happened during the Apartheid years mostly because poor resources and to avoid being prominent to the government of the day. In the article I have tried to emphasize this struggle history to explain why this team is notable but really want to avoid turning the article into a diatribe about how difficult it was to be a non-white footballer during the Apartheid era, as this would not only detract from the success of the team but would also comment on a sensitive subject that is better left to later generations to deal with from a more objective perspective.

But I think that this topic needs to be put on record now while the former players of the team are still alive and able to give their oral input to the history of this Club. I am not one of those players but rather I am a long-standing student of history, as well as a white South African. so my purpose is, I believe, entirely objective.

Can you let me know why this article keeps failing your review process.

Linus

Unfortunately Wikipedia never publishes original works. If this club is really as notable as you believe there simply must be some independent reliable sources about it. The oral history you refer to so passionately must first be published by a reputable publication before any of it can be used in Wikipedia. Perhaps you should collect the oral histories and write a book or at least a comprehensive article about the club and get it published in a reputable history journal or football magazine. Maybe SAFA or the History Department at UWC might be interested in assisting you with the project, if you're willing to take up the challenge. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't accept that as a reputable reliable source.

Angelina Souren (talk) 21:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Attention State Training

Hello-I'd like to know why my article was rejected for submission. thank you Kelsball89 (talk) 15:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)kelsey[reply]

It was rejected because it was blank when you submitted it. I see you have now added text to the page. If you wish to submit it now, just add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the page. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/UConn Office of Economic Development

I had submitted my article for review (after I made edits as suggested by the editor who reviewed the article Anne Delong (I believe). However, I have not heard back if my revisions have been accepted or denied. Admittedly I am completely unfamiliar with the wiki universe and have found it a bit cumbersome. I would just like to know if my article is apprved as is, or i there are further things I need to do to edit it. Thank you in advance. Sic12002 (talk) 16:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC) sic12002[reply]

This submission is currently awaiting review. Unfortunately reviews are often taking a very long time at the moment (as much as a month or more) because there is a very large backlog. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Your submission name here

I have made the edits recommended by the reviewer for the entry "SPOC" I created. Do I need to do anything else to get it posted now? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poetfount (talk • contribs) 16:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This submission has been accepted and is now at Small private online course. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sanjiv Buttoo

cant seem to submit new article for review — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjiv67 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is currently submitted for review. The box at the top saying it is not, is wrong. However, in its current state it is likely to be declined. You should read Wikipedia:VRS for a summary of what needs to be added, and Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners to see how to do so. You may also need to review Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 18:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Curved Space Diamond Structure

I am developing my first article and have submitted it for review while continuing to improve it and learn how this is done. I am looking for some help with the following:

category inclusion, is there a template I should use? What is a typical procedure for creating the code to include. I guess I just don't understand how an article gets categorized or where they come from.

Photo inclusion. I'm not sure where to begin with this one. Should there be one photo? multiple photos if there were multiple locations where the article item was installed? Should the photos first be loaded or found in commons?

Is there a template for what the object is made of or how it is constructed. Seems like there may be something like this for historic structures I have looked at. Is it an info box?

I am very new and inexperienced and have been reading the article creation wiki's, but any tidbit, idea, or outpouring of information will help and be appreciated. Scottsadventure (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scottsadventure, welcome to Wikipedia! For help with categories, Wikipedia:FAQ/Categorization should help. The basic format is to add the category at the bottom of the article, for example [[Category:Playground equipment]]. However, categories should only be added to full articles, not articles for creation submissions.

Images aren't necessary, and adding won't help your draft get accepted, but you're welcome to add some. The number depends on the exact article. For an article the size of your draft, I'd say more than one or two would start to look crowded. The photos either need to be uploaded to commons, or they need to qualify under Wikipedia's fair use policy.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by your third question. Does Template:Infobox artwork fit in this case? Howicus (Did I mess up?) 19:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Edward F. Fischer

Resolved

Good afternoon,

I'm a graduate student at the Vanderbilt Center for Latin American Studies, and I'm looking for assistance with an article I submitted on Professor Edward F. Fischer. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Edward F. Fischer The submission was rejected based on lack of "notability" but I'm looking for additional information on what else might be needed. I think that there are several reliable sources listed there that speak to his notability, including NPR, The New York Times, and Psychology Today. He is a renowned writer and lecturer on political economics, Guatemala, and the German social economy and is much sought after for his expertise on these topics in the private, public and academic arenas. Any advice you might be able to offer on what information might be necessary for this to pass the notability requirement will be greatly appreciated!

Thank you,

VU CLAS (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Elizabeth Murphy[reply]

Hi, one problem that makes it rather hard to judge the sources of your draft is that you have formatted the references in a way that makes the URL links "invisible" and renders them as just a number in square brackets. To make the URL directly readable please remove the brackets you have placed around them or alternatively consider using the standardized {{cite}} templates. I unfortunately don't have time right now to evaluate the individual sources for Notability, I will be back in about an hour so I can do it then unless someone else would like to do it before then. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that can establish notability is the post he holds- is his proffessorship a named chair- ie is he anything other than an ordinary proffessor. That could save a lot of the effort in proving his notability by showing his work has gained attention. Rankersbo (talk) 10:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the sources - he easily passes GNG so I have acceped the article, which is now at Edward F. Fischer. Please continue to improve the article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 21

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bayesian programming

Dear reviewers,

The review system seems quite obscure to me. Consequently, I have 2 simple questions:

1 - Is my article (Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bayesian programming) correctly posted for review ? is it presently pending review ? (I think it is but I am not completely convince about that).

2 - Is it possible to invite people to review an article ? Is it even possible to invite them to become reviewers and review an article ?

Thanks in advance.

Erreip (talk) 10:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your article is correctly posted for review and it is still pending. No, there is no option to invite people to review. Reviewers are a different class of WP users and it takes time to become one. Maybe you can ask someone on their talk page or such, but I may be wrong on that. Jaideep.writer (talk) 11:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dead Underground

Hi. Can you tell me if my article is meeting all the standards or any suggestions. I have added some of the independent news reviews as said before. Jaideep.writer (talk) 11:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nederburg

HI There,

I hope you can help, the page that I am trying to submit seems to cut off content after 2 paragraphs.

I hope you can help me in understanding what is causing this?

Thanks so much Kate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kate Haslewood (talk • contribs) 13:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DoneHave a look now- there was a problem with your references. Instead of a start (<ref>) and an end (</ref>) each ref had two starts. Rankersbo (talk) 14:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for creation: Sibyl Heijnen

I understand from the comments that I have to find sources that have nothing to do with art yet cover this artist's work? Such as, say, Japanese newspapers, but not art magazines, art books or museum publications? (Unfortunately, I don't read Japanese.)

I am sorry, but this just does not make a great deal of sense.

If I browse Wikipedia, I see many pages for people who are much less noteworthy than this artist and who do not meet these criteria either. Look, for example, at the page for Hans Krondahl. You'll see that he has similar yet fewer literature references, including one writer who also wrote about Sibyl Heijnen) and is not quite of the same caliber. Surely, I don't have to tell you that there are quite a few other pages in Wikipedia and even quite a few that make the page about Hans Krondahl stand out positively.

So in other words, visual artists - even if they are world-renowned - have to become targeted by the press like Hollywood movie stars before they can be included in Wikipedia, these days???

I shake - and scratch - my head.

That would signify a devaluation of Wikipedia, in my eyes. Is Wikipedia heading in, for example, the direction of a celeb/gossip magazine in order to be able to include mass-targeted ads at some point? I have seen similar developments in what used to be good news media, so I would not be surprised. I am very interested in hearing your feedback on this.

Angelina Souren (talk) 21:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Angelina Souren. Your understanding of "Independent sources" is a bit too "broad". Art magazines and books are in fact the ideal sources, as long as the writer or publisher has no connection with the artist - such as a website of a gallery that is selling their work, such a gallery has a financial conflict of interest to not be as critical as a neutral commentator might be. You can use sources that are connected to the artist for uncontroversial information such as about the artists education or where they live - the kind of facts that are not potentially critical or promotional. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Peter York Solmssen

I need help with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Peter_York_Solmssen I have a number of articles from reliable sources (with a paragraph or more about Peter Solmssen) referenced in the article(Reuters, new York Times) as well as German reliable sources (Handelsblatt , manager magazine, and Die Ziet). Can you suggest any way to make these stand out, since the main criticism I am getting why this is not published is that Peter Solmssen is not notable? thanks,RebeccaHS (talk) 23:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article has now been accepted and is at Peter York Solmssen, I also cleaned up a few minor issues. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 22

Review of User:Laurie1956/sandbox

I have an article that I just submitted and I didn't realize it was in the "History category" it should be in news articles or current events, how exactly do I move it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurie1956 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about categories these will be added if and when the article is approved. The article currently reads like a piece iin a magazine or newspaper, rather than an encyclopaedia article - it needs a lead section, to be more emotionally neutral and to have more references than the single local news story. An encyclopedia article should be a neutral presentation of the facts, any emotional response should come from the way the reader responds and identifies with the facts themselves, not the way it is written. News outlets tend to try and engage their readerships with the story with the way they present it. Rankersbo (talk) 07:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Professor Rob Horne

I submitted this article on 5th November. I realise there is a backlog for reviewing submissions, but I am concerned because at the top of my article it says "this article has not been submitted" yet at the bottom it says awaiting review. Please let me know that it is in review and any idea of when it will go live. I believe the article is well written and thoroughly referenced, but I guess all authors believe this! Thank you. AdherenceBehaviour (talk) 09:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was in the queue, and still is. I've tidied it up so it's less confusing. Rankersbo (talk) 11:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Facebook lottery scam

HEllo team of Wikipedia!

I am trying to submit an article but I can not go through the uploading picture process. On the advanced menu it says upload a picture and gives me code. I put the name of the file there but on the review it doesn't show the picute. How can I deal with this, it is an important article for a very popular internet scam and I want to warn the people. Plese help me! I also want to know how to put references, I tried using the button but it said "error" Thanks!OreWoKitasu (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)OreWoKitasu (talk) 12:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Lottery scam seems to be about the same subject. LionMans Account (talk) 17:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Omegawave

Hello,

I'm trying to submit an article for creation (Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Omegawave) and clicked submit.

At the top of the page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Omegawave#Omegawave) in the blue box I'm informed that: "Article not currently submitted for review. This is a draft Articles for creation submission. It is not currently pending review.....etc."

And then at the bottom of the page in the yellow box I'm told that: "Review waiting. This may take over 3 weeks...etc."

Can you please tell me if the article is submitted or not, the messages contradict each other.

Thanks.

On a related note, I have probably submitted the Talk page as an Article for creation (Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Omegawave https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Omegawave) as well as a proper article for creation.

Sorry about that. I only want to submit the Article for creation, and not the Talk page

Thanks for your help.

Peter

Peter Cura (talk) 13:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drafts are supposed to be in the "Wikipedia Talk" namespace. The copy in the "Wikipedia" namespace will be deleted soon. Please continue working on the copy at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Omegawave. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lebeau Mansion

I am trying to submit a page for Wiki and I am having issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bia31Star (talk • contribs) 13:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to your contributions record this question is the only thing you have ever done on Wikipedia. Perhaps you were not logged in when you tried to create the page? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Skimlinks

Hi! I submitted an article about a company a few weeks back here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Skimlinks and it was deleted without any notice or feedback. I'm a bit frustrated because though I've edited Wikipedia in the past, this was the first article I created which made this particularly discouraging. I would have appreciated an explanation and tips on how to make it better - I understand there's a backlog but an explanatory template of some kind would have been nice. I was planning on editing and resubmitting it should the submission be denied but now there's nothing left.

There seems to be a note on there about how it was "Unambiguous advertising or promotion" and I'd very much like to know what gave the reviewer that impression? I tried to be as neutral as possible in my description of the company and included many references to well known publications such as TechCrunch, the Drum, Management Today, the Guardian, etc. It's one of the biggest startups in the UK so I think it passes notability criteria. Similar sized companies like Mind Candy and US competitor VigLink have Wikipedia pages and I tried to emulate the tone in those as much as possible. Would it be possible to get an explanation and can I get the content back so that I can re-work it to match Wikipedia's criteria? Thanks for your help! Juniper4589 (talk) 14:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not normal procedure round here to delete without notification, on advertising grounds. If we think something is promotional we usually decline with a message to that effect, and give you a chance to clean it up. Even if there is a problem such as too much copy-and-paste, or abusive content we would leave a note on your page. Rankersbo (talk) 14:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was the impression I was under which is why this was all the more unpleasant! I knew writing an article about a company had risks in terms of sounding like promotional material which is exactly why I did it through the wizard. I was really counting on getting some constructive feedback. I've commented on the reviewer's talk page to let him/her know. Is there any way the page can be reinstated? Juniper4589 (talk) 15:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it into the article space. I cleared out more than 100 articles from the "over 4 weeks old" category yesterday, and this one looked like advertising to me (still does, a bit) but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt and let it go through AfD instead of being speedied. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 15:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cleveland Institution of Engineers

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cleveland Institution of Engineers

Hi there,

I received a notification that the submission for the above page has been reviewed by DragonflySixtyseven. However, when I go to the page or my talk page I don't see anything back about the review and if it was accepted or not. Also, I can't seem to find anything about DragonFlySixtyseven.

As the article is not in the article space yet, I presume it has not been accepted, but how do I find out what the outcome of the review was and why it was not accepted (yet)?

JvB 19:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvanboggelen (talk • contribs)

I can't find any evidence that anyone has reviewed it. It is still in the queue to be reviewed. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Transgender Inequality

Is this article up for review? It says not currently submitted at the top and up for review at the bottom? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Group3socialinquality (talk • contribs) 19:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Group3socialinquality Did you go here and click Save page? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is correctly submitted for review. I have cleaned up the redundant confusing template. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has been reviewed and accepted. The article is now at Transgender inequality. Congratulations! Please continue to improve it, there are several tags at the top of the page pointing out various issues that need attention. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Verbal Behavior Milestones Assessment and Placement Program

Hello -

I am curious as to what review stage my article is in - and how I will be notified when it's completed. The article is over the VB-MAPP.

Kind regards,

Sarah — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahlcox05 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done - moved into article namespace. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 21:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 23

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/fare soldi

hello there, i'd love to get some help to get my article published, in order to get going and start to fill the page with all the details, thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riotmaker (talk • contribs) 01:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, before your article can be published you need to add some sources - please see the golden rule for more information. Also consider that everything on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view, so statements like "Fare Soldi are a household name for everyone who loves modern disco stuff" are generally not appropriate. Let me know if you have any questions! --Cerebellum (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Wisdom Tree

Re: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Wisdom Tree Hi, I was wondering if someone could help me confirm whether my article has been accepted for review. Albeit, I understand there's some waiting of up to three weeks. I'm not sure what I must do as far as the Title is concerned. This is the name of the film. There is another article with a similar title "Wisdom Tree" in another category. This article is for "The Wisdom Tree", and must be put under independent films, US-produced. Thanks a bunch, in advance. Pictowrit (talk) 03:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC) pictowrit Pictowrit (talk) 03:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you've done everything correctly, and I've just reviewed the article. Let me know if you have any questions! As for the title, The Wisdom Tree is fine for now, it can be changed later if necessary. --Cerebellum (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Your submission name here

Why my article is declined?Why its not published?I want to to the specific error that I did!Than it will help me to better writting/improve the article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smadilbd (talk • contribs) 11:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you take a look at User:Smadilbd/sandbox the reason will be obvious. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Izabela Kopeć

Hello, I'd like to ask why my submission was declined? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.235.96.50 (talk) 18:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because of historic events like the Seigenthaler Incident, all new biographies of living people must be referenced with in-line citations to high-quality reliable sources. Citing sources and Referencing for beginners has more information. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sex for Fish

Review of sex for fish intext referencing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jab3366 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the referencing and other problems, reviewed the article and accepted it. It is now at Sex for Fish, please continue improving the article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 24

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Anushka Sen

When will my article accept on wikipedia???..--Krishnadahal12 (talk) 04:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission was declined because it was completely unreferenced. See my comment above. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 07:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:LaurenHefferon/Ossian Lindholm

Hi I just wanted to make sure that I submitted this OK. It is my first time and if there are any errors, you can tell me

Lauren — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaurenHefferon (talk • contribs) 10:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Metamorphosis

I am submitting a page about a modality called. Metamorphosis . Another branch of the same modality is already up on WIKi. But it is not the same as ours and ours was the original name and founder The one called metamorphic Technique is by a student of the founder and the founder was not pleased about it altho both have now passed anyway. In view of the number of pages called Metamorphosis about other things do you think we should call our page metamorphosis rstjohn to make it easier to find-if it would be or would it confuse the issue. ???? The founder being Robert St John. Ta Urania 10:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

[1] (http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2013/10/30/boston-aims-first-city-erase-gender-wage-gap/aCjb4QGHQaRPS0AYqxseeJ/story.html)

[2] (http://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/wappp/about-us/people-at-wappp/executive-director)

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 423: / Line 423: @@
 Lauren  <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:LaurenHefferon|LaurenHefferon]] ([[User talk:LaurenHefferon|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/LaurenHefferon|contribs]]) 10:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+== Review of [[Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Metamorphosis]] ==
+I am submitting a page about a modality called. Metamorphosis .  Another branch of the same modality is already up on WIKi. But it is not the same as ours and ours was the original name and founder    The one called metamorphic Technique is by a student of the founder and the founder was not pleased about it altho both have now passed anyway. In view of the number of pages called Metamorphosis about other things do you think we should call our page metamorphosis rstjohn to make it easier to find-if it would be or would it confuse the issue. ????  The founder being Robert St John. Ta Urania 10:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)