Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Line 571: Line 571:
First, when you lern how to drive one card and it is you first time, take time for be expert , how fast you can drive oll the way , you have to be shure for that, it is the same case for my requesting, I wand to lern and be expert how can be if you oll the time rebuke me and I Can not concentrate that s wy I waste time [[User:CAUSSIN|  (caussin)]] ([[User talk:CAUSSIN|talk]]) 13:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
First, when you lern how to drive one card and it is you first time, take time for be expert , how fast you can drive oll the way , you have to be shure for that, it is the same case for my requesting, I wand to lern and be expert how can be if you oll the time rebuke me and I Can not concentrate that s wy I waste time [[User:CAUSSIN|  (caussin)]] ([[User talk:CAUSSIN|talk]]) 13:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
[[User:CAUSSIN|  (caussin)]] ([[User talk:CAUSSIN|talk]]) 13:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
[[User:CAUSSIN|  (caussin)]] ([[User talk:CAUSSIN|talk]]) 13:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

== 14:08:10, 4 September 2015 review of submission by Roberta Buoite Stella ==
{{Lafc|username=Roberta Buoite Stella|ts=14:08:10, 4 September 2015|declined=Draft:HighStep_System}}

Hello everyone,
I would like some help with this article. It was refused because it sounds like advertisement. The reviewer told me that the two major problems are the tone (I am working on correcting that) and the fact that the parts of the system are listed like a list of products. I would like to know if you have any suggestion on how to describe how the system works without mentioning the single parts. I am not sure how to proceed with this.
(There is a COI, since I am working for this company, but I am ready to change anything in the article that doesn't respect the guidelines of Wikipedia).
Thank you very much!
[[User:Roberta Buoite Stella|Roberta Buoite Stella]] ([[User talk:Roberta Buoite Stella|talk]]) 14:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:08, 4 September 2015

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

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


August 28

06:49:47, 28 August 2015 review of submission by Tjbones88

I'm kinda new with wikipedia. I'd love to write some articles about photography that is my passion. So, I noticed that one of my fav photographers out there was not yet in the english version of the wikipedia and I decided to start with him. But I'm doing something wrong. Could you please tell me how to improve my article to get it published? Any help will be appreciated. Thank you so much.

Tjbones88 (talk) 06:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If photography were your passion, surely you would be out there taking photographs yourself, not taking an interest in other photographers?
Anyway, a quick example is that if, as you say, in May 2015, Joey Shaw "shocked the fashion world for his XS campaign", then reliable independent sources will have discussed this shockwave that rippled across the fashion world. Since they did so, you should cite that, as explained in Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners, for each individual source that did so.
Do that with each statement or claim made in your Draft, and the notability issue should quickly go away. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 22:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

10:18:25, 28 August 2015 review of draft by Fashionworld 2015


Hi, I need your help. I create a draft on account1, and paste it to account "Fashionworld_2015", but article is deleted. Now i reedit the content, which is very similar to the previous one, is it alright? Areticle is "EDressit".

If there is still some matters, plz tell me some. Yours sincerely, Fashionworld_15


Fashionworld 2015 (talk) 10:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is to be deleted as a copyright violation. Wikipedia drafts must use 100% of your own words. Fiddle Faddle 10:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

11:13:39, 28 August 2015 review of submission by CockerellDerm15


The article on Clay J. Cockerell was declined. I'd like to know why it was declined and how to rectify this so the article can be approved. Please advise. The login is CockerellDerm15. Thank you.

CockerellDerm15 (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blatantly promotional, no evidence of notability, no inline references, probably an autobiography. Is that enough reasons? Maproom (talk) 20:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

13:11:08, 28 August 2015 review of submission by Paracel63


Hi! It seems this article draft doesn't adequately show the subject's notability. I've come to be involved with it's development through my occupation as a mentor at Swedish Wikipedia, where the article Mattias Bärjed is developed in parallel. I've looked through the notability criteria, and I do find things there that match the article draft in its current state. The draft deals with a Guldbaggen winner (sourced, criterion #8 for musicians/ensembles?). Is it a problem that he hasn't made an international solo career (despite him being amply known from his years with The Soundtrack of Our Lives)? Much of his musical career has been with TSOOL, and then he has done lots of session/concert work with notable groups such as Refused, Broder Daniel, The Hellacopters and the like. His later years as a film score composer has been quite successful as well, and that is sourced in the article draft. But maybe there are notability problems that I cannot detect right now. Many thanks for enlightening me on this. Best of wishes.--Paracel63 (talk) 13:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paracel63 (talk) 13:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

19:37:59, 28 August 2015 review of submission by Riitam


We need to get listed on wikipedia.

Riitam (talk) 19:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Riitam, sorry but Wikipedia does not care what you need, this is an encyclopedia, not social media or a marketting site. See the notability standard for bands and musicians to check if the band qualifies for an article (not a "listing"). If it does, you need to provide the sources that prove it; if not, there's nothing that can be done, sorry. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

19:46:57, 28 August 2015 review of submission by AndrewCorser

I am requeting assistance after the following advice: "Sulfurboy has not edited Wikipedia since August 11. There's no way of knowing whether he is merely offline for awhile or gone for good. I'd suggest reposting the foregoing inquiry at the Articles for Creation Help Desk. Go there, click the big "Click here to ask a new question." link and carefully follow the instructions at the top of the next page which pops up. Good luck and thanks for helping to improve Wikipedia. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)" It is to the following that TranporterMan was responding: "Sulfurboy rejected my draft article about Mary Spiller (see ref above) on the same basis of Mary Spiller not being notable enough as Worldbruce had rejected an earlier draft. I believe that I had included a number of independent references showing notability in the latest draft, and tried to rasie this matter with Sulfurboy through his talk page (see below). I have not had a reply, and my comments have now been archived on Sulfurboy's talk page - I assume this is equivalent to a rejection of my comments by Sulfurboy. I would appreciate some response on my comments. Thank you. Mary Spiller submission - 11 August 2015 

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mary_Spiller

(From Sulfurboy talk archive 5) In response to your rejection of my article about Mary Spiller, siting insufficient "notability" SulfurBoy, you have repeated WorldBruce's assertion (why is it, by the way, that you aren't willing to talk to the world as who you are? I am Andrew Corser from Cornwall in the UK, and don't need to hide behind some nom d'ordinateur!) that "notability" is the issue regarding Mary Spiller. Could I draw both of your attentions to: 1. The Oxford Times says: “Miss Havergal's regime was tough but thorough and the gardening school (1932-1971) produced several famous lady alumnae including Mary Spiller (who has trained huge numbers of gardeners in Oxfordshire).” I suggest this expresses “notability” - or perhaps you don't consider “famous ladies” to be notable? This is an independent, secondary source – whether you consider the Oxford Times as reliable may be up to question, but it answers WorldBruce's “one good source” jibe!! 2. WorldBruce says "The other BBC page only says Mary was the first woman to present Gardener's World." So, apparently, it is not significant that Mary was the first female presenter on the BBC TV's Gardener's World. At the time (1980 - 35 years ago: do either of you remember the prevailing culture at the time?) there was concern amongst the producers of the programme about having a woman in what had been a traditionally male role. Of course, there is little chance of finding any independent reliable secondary evidence of this. Again, it happens to be something to do with the success/progress of women - I hope this is not a problem for you to take on board. It is clear to me that this is something of note (viewing figures of Gardeners World were 2 million plus in the UK - not quite "Coronation Street" figures, but a significant figure for a "niche" subject). 3. There is another reference early on in the article to Shirley du Boulay's book. Mary appears in this book about the gardens of 12 expert gardeners. The chapter about Mary rubs shoulders with chapters about Alan Titchmarsh, Percy Thrower and Geoffrey Smith (and 9 other eminent and notable gardeners). In the world of gardening, this rates as notability in my book! That's 3 references. Then there is the BBC TV programme: WorldBruce says "The BBC apples piece doesn't mention Spiller at all." No, the snippet from the whole programme doesn't. Elsewhere, the programme does say a lot about Mary. So how does Wikipedia cope with this? I have a [pirate] copy of the programme, but it isn't currently available on BBC iPlayer...so is this independent secondary source not relevant because you can't view it? And, of course, Mary "was awarded the RHA Associateship of Honour in July 2008 [13] [14]" - this is an honour limited to only 100 living gardeners in the UK. I wonder why she was awarded this by the Royal Horticultural Society if Mary Spiller isn't notable? Now, if you can explain your assertions about notability, I would be interested - and if you retain your views that Mary Spiller is not shown to be notable by these multiple independent sources, then your influence within Wikipedia suggests that Jimmy Wales' idea has become shallow and obsessed with only the Interweb era. Andrew Corser — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewCorser (talk • contribs) 10:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC) AndrewCorser (talk) 12:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC) Andrew Corser andycorser@gmail.com" AndrewCorser (talk) 19:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have several comments:
  • Sulfurboy is normally extremely active, but has made no edits at all for two weeks. It seems likely that he is in holiday.
  • You are encouraged to try to improve the article, and resubmit it. It will probably be someone else, not Sulfurboy, who assesses it next time.
  • It is usual for Wikipedia editors to avoid revealing their real identity.
  • The above wall of text will deter almost anyone from reading the whole thing – I certainly haven't.
  • I have added a BBC citation to the draft, maybe it will help. I suggest you try to find one or two more good sources for citations, and delete most of the unacceptable or marginal ones. If you resubmit, the article will be judged on quality of sources, not quantity.
  • In my (irrelevant) opinion, the draft is already good enough to be accepted. Maproom (talk) 21:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@AndrewCorser: Mary Spiller may well be notable. The draft has been declined because in the reviewers' judgment the draft failed to establish that Spiller is notable. Articles for Creation is an iterative process: a submitter asks for a review; a reviewer evaluates the draft and, if it doesn't meet Wikipedia's minimum standards, provides advice; the submitter improves the draft, and the cycle starts again.
I will gladly explain my review, but if a draft I have declined is resubmitted, I do not review it again at AfC. I follow this practice so that submitters get the benefit of a fresh look from a reviewer who may judge the same material differently.
1)The Oxford Times article you quote was added subsequent to my review, so I have no comment on it.
What I wrote when I reviewed the draft about the other article in the Oxford Times (the one by Linora Lawrence) was not meant as an insult, and I apologize if it came across that way. I was attempting to show you what sort of source you should be looking for to demonstrate notability. Lawrence would be a good source for demonstrating Havergal's notability because it discusses Havergal in some depth. What is needed are sources that cover Spiller at a similar level of detail.
Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a source, of how far removed its content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing that does not discuss the subject in detail. A 200-page biography of a person is non-trivial, whereas a mention in passing ("John Smith at Big Company said..." or "Maria Gomez replaced Fred Jones") is trivial. Lawrence is not a good source for proving notablity because it's coverage of Spiller is well down at the trivial end of the scale.
2) The problem with the BBC web page is again one of depth of coverage. It has a bare eight words to say about Spiller. Being the first woman to present Gardener's World is a credible claim to importance, and suggests that it's worth looking for sources that demonstrate notability, but it does not in and of itself prove notability. I find unconvincing the assertion that there is little chance of finding any independent reliable secondary evidence on this point. Wikipedia has numerous well-sourced articles about things much further back than the 1980s. Hence my suggestion that research at a library might be more productive than limiting oneself to online sources.
3) The book by Shirley du Boulay is another source added subsequent to my review, so I have no comment to make on it.
4) With regard to the TV programme, sources must have been published, but there is no requirement that they be available online. Each citation must provide enough information to identify the source. In this case, a sensible minimum would be the title of the episode, the name of the series, the network, air date, and time at which the event occurs in the source (e.g. "5:12 minutes in"). When a source may be difficult to access, it's good practice to include a direct quote in the citation as well, so long as the quote is not excessively long. If the programme says a lot about Spiller, you may need multiple citations, each to a different point in the programme.
5) I don't know why Spiller was awarded the RHA Associateship of Honour, and the draft doesn't enlighten the reader. When I reviewed the draft, the only source cited regarding the award was one that is not independent, her employer. If an award is significant, winning it will be covered in depth by independent reliable sources such as newspapers and magazines, and the problem of meeting WP:BASIC will be solved.
P.S. It was only by chance that I saw your posting here. Generally if you wish to communicate with an editor you need to either leave a message on their talk page, or use a template, such as Template:Ping, as this reply does. Worldbruce (talk) 04:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

20:58:59, 28 August 2015 review of submission by Christineink

Hi! I believe this subject is notable and am working with him personally to get the page online. Can you advise as to how (and specifically which) references can be improved so this page will be approved? Thanks. Christineink (talk) 20:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Christineink, you have a few good quality sources, Forbes, Washington Post and so on, but you have far too few references; there are whole paragraphs and even complete sections that have none. For a biography of a living person the referencing standard is particularly strict - every disputable fact or claim must have a proper reference. Generally we expect to see a minimum of one reference in every paragraph (if the paragraph is about only one topic/issue of course).
It is actually unfortunate that you are working directly with the subject as that almost inevitably leads to the inclusion of unverifiable information - stuff he knows about himself but has never been independently written about and published. It is far easier to write a Wikipedia article about people and things you know nothing about - then you are completely dependent on only the published sources you find. Throw out everything he told you that is not also specifically backed up by a published source. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 29

Request on 14:42:24, 29 August 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Lucalove2


Hello, I'm trying to make a Wikipedia page for my Frisbee team Long Hill in Cambridge. I've put a lot of work into the page and as most of our references our in Facebook witch Wikipedia cant accept there is little else I can reference. Ive very annoyed/fustrated as I have done all I can to make the page look well made and it keeps getting rejected for what I think is no good reason. Once it is published there are other people that can add more to the page and make it better but they can't do that yet.

I'm annoyed as I think that anyone who knows enough about a subject should be allowed to write a Wikipedia article about it and I think the rules are a little strict and learner unfriendly.

Many thanks

Luca


Lucalove2 (talk) 14:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lucalove2, the issue is that your references do not prove that the team is notable. Basically if no mainstream newspapers or magazines (not the school newsletter, Facebook, personal blogs, etc.) have ever published an article about the team - or at least a few paragraphs about the team within an article about the sport - it is simply impossible to write a proper Wikipedia article about it. There are many things in the world that are just too unknown to ever have an article in Wikipedia. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

16:18:48, 29 August 2015 review of submission by Halls4521


Thank you for allowing the creation of the article for "Just One Last Look". Is it alright for me to free up my sandbox now and "de-link" it from the article? Also, the article's history actually starts at August 14 2014; the dates before it are sandbox stuff.--Halls4521 (talk) 16:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Halls4521 (talk) 16:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed I have cancelled the redirect from your sandbox to the newly created article for you, so feel free to use it again. For future note, if a draft has been moved out of your sandbox to draft-space, you can cancel the redirect and start using your sandbox again straight away. - Happysailor (Talk) 18:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

18:30:38, 29 August 2015 review of submission by PjP007


I'm the official publicist of professional (youth) football player Mink Peeters (of Real Madrid). I've been asked by him, and his manager, to write an article on him for Wikipedia. I've done so, and have tried to post is, but it's declined! I think that's ridiculous. I'm wondering how we ever can get an article about Mink Peeters on Wikipedia. We anyway will not accept any article on him by an outsider!

PjP007 (talk) 18:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have a conflict of interest in creating this football players page, and as such, should step back from creating the article in question. For note, you may have also violated Wikipedia's Terms of Use for Paid editing as you were asked to create it as his publicist.
Articles can be created by anyone, on anyone, and you don't have the right to not accept an article created by someone else.
To clarify the decline, your draft was declined because you failed to show significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to show notability. Specifically for a sportsperson, he must pass the notability guidelines for footballers. Lastly, youtube is not a valid reference. - Happysailor (Talk) 18:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You claim that I may have violated Wikipedia's Terms of Use, since I would have been paid for writing it, but I haven't been paid for it at all, and I blame you for suggesting that, without any proof! (It was merely a kind favour.)
I just wrote that article, and tried to post it, to prevent that someone else writes, and posts an initial article that's based on incorrect information. Anyway, if Wikipedia doesn't appreciate my eventual contribution, let's just forget about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PjP007 (talk • contribs) 12:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In your own words, as his official publicist (sic), you're being paid to publicise him, which is why I said may have been in violation. As long as you disclose your Conflict of Interest (which you have partly) you're fine (though you're still discouraged from editing articles you have a COI with).
As I said though, articles can be created by anyone (including yourself), but MUST be sourced to show significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to show notability. If you don't do that, then the article won't be accepted. We rely on published sources for our information, so unless there are reliable sources out there with the wrong information, the article should be correct. - Happysailor (Talk) 18:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, happysailor, for clearing this up. I'm afraid I'm not familiar with editing, and posting articles at Wikipedia. I therefore do not know how to prove that the information has been sourced, and is correct (as obviously is required). Does this link help on that?: http://www.realmadrid.com/en/football/academy/under-19/mink--martin-peeters — Preceding unsigned comment added by PjP007 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 30

06:46:15, 30 August 2015 review of submission by RachR310


Hi, I would like some advice on how I can edit my article to better address the reviewer's comments. Would appreciate help on identifying lines that have peacock terms or do not have a neutral tone and any advice you can give on how to change these. I have looked at other pages linked to SMU such as the page on 'Lee Kong Chian School of Business' and I feel like the tone and sources I've used are similar so I'm not sure why my draft has been rejected. I'm really new at this so any help would be appreciated. RachR310 (talk) 06:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many Wikipedia articles exist which do not meet the desirable standards... this is partly because new articles could be created without being reviewed, up until a few years ago. So when using an existing article as a comparison or an example to work from, it would be better to use a recognised Wikipedia Good Article. You can find lists of these recognised Good Articles in the various headings and sub-sections to be found after scrolling down the page at Wikipedia:Good articles. A Draft need not be quite so comprehensive or comprehensively referenced as these to be accepted, but they can help to give an idea of the sort of sources, sourcing, and tone that is required.
Anyway, for good or ill, your Draft has now been accepted and is at SMU School of Accountancy for the time being. It has been nominated for deletion. That is an entirely separate process and its fate will be decided at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SMU School of Accountancy. If you need any help dealing with that process, you may consider Asking A Question at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 22:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15:20:21, 30 August 2015 review of submission by 86.8.28.175


I submitted a draft about my brother but I'm not sure why the page rejected as unsuitable?

Ex-Wikipedian, Ian McAllister, told me that a Fellow at Cambridge University was notable enough for Wikipedia due to his academic achievements. He asked me to include links to all his hundreds of publications so that's what I did.

I also included a paragraph about my brother repeatedly being World Tiddlywinks champion, but am happy to delete that if it's off topic.

Please would you advise if there is any other information I should provide? Thank you

86.8.28.175 (talk) 15:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is he notable for? The article says nothing about his work in chemical engineering, though it has an excessively long list of his publicatiions. Maproom (talk) 08:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"a Fellow at Cambridge University was notable enough for Wikipedia" sounds like a topic on which @DGG: would have views, and I hereby invite him to offer an opinion, since we are struggling thus far. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 22:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He may be notable, but it needs further evidence, and rewriting. I've declined the article for now--see my comments there. He might also be notable as a Tiddlywinks champion, but I'm no judge of that. DGG ( talk ) 22:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! A very prompt response, and I am glad to see you also clarified it to "Fellow in a Cambridge college" which is of course the position, not "Fellow at Cambridge University". Or so I think, anyway. For anyone with Tiddlywinks expertise, the Draft in question is Draft:Patrick Barrie. Brother of Patrick, please work on DGG's suggestions which he has mentioned on that page. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 22:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

17:35:38, 30 August 2015 review of submission by Jtdailey


Good afternoon. My name is John and I was wondering if the aforementioned page is in the queue for being re-reviewed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:C.O._Simpkins,_Sr 

It isn't clear to me if it either needs additional edits or perhaps it wasn't correctly resubmitted for re-review and  approval.

The submission has gone through two reviews and I addressed the reviewers concerns - the first was about the possibility of copyrighted material and the passages and references were deleted. The second reviewer was concerned that it wasn't sufficiently encyclopedic and had "peacock" phrases. Those were reworked as suggested.

My last edit was two weeks ago and the page doesn't seem to have been re-reviewed • 23:44, 16 August 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+22)‎ . . m Draft:C.O. Simpkins, Sr. ‎ (Some minor stylistic changes were made. They were made on top of the more significant edits submitted after the previous review.) (current)

When you have a moment, could you let me know what next steps I might need to take at this time? Thanks for your time and assistance. Jtdailey (talk) 22:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)Jtdailey (talk)[reply]

Jtdailey (talk) 17:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This question is about Draft:C.O. Simpkins, Sr., with a final period. (It is very helpful to people here if you give a correct link to the draft that you are asking about.) It is not currently in the queue for review. It still needs a lot of work, including (but not restricted to) correct formatting of the section headers. Look at any other long Wikipedia article to see how section headers and a reference list are done. Maproom (talk) 08:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jtdailey His notability by our rules is from his election to the Louisiana House of Representatives. Try to focus the article on his political career. Avoid general undocumentable statements lie "a calling to address the injustices that faced people of color, " , which are mere puffery. Reformatting the headings is trivial, and not a reason for rejection. The real problem is that the formatting indicates that the material is likely to have been copied from another source, probably "The Story of Courage, Lest we Forget: Dr. CO Simpkins (part one) available through Amazon.com by Deborah Simpkins-Savage. This is not permitted. Even if you are the author, and donate the material under a free license according to the exact rrquirmeents at WP:DCM, the material would be unsuitable--the detail is way excessive. In particular, remove the long quotations. Include only significant honors--and each of them must be individually documented by a third-party independent reliable source. DGG ( talk ) 22:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

18:32:34, 30 August 2015 review of submission by TwoQuarters


Hello. I am a first-time editor. I saw many leaders I wanted to develop pages for. This has been a humbling experience and I'm still working on my first one!!! Lots of respect for those who have mastered this!

The Andre Taylor draft is in much better shape now thanks to the help of a couple of experienced Wikipedia editors. Thanks again. Now, I'm trying to figure out how to improve the footnotes/references. The references are all listed but I cannot find details on how to insert reference numbers into the article, when the references have already been listed. Making this even more complicated for me is realizing that I have to change the order slightly to comply with your effort to gives readers an ordered list of references that coincide with the article. For example:

Andre Taylor is an American entrepreneur... (first reference is correct...Business Guru story.)

Early Life and Education... (this is really reference 12 - Graduation-Day Say...)

Career...(after Taylor Insight Worldwide should be reference ) After "sports content and sports related websites" should be references 21. After access to the sports industry should be reference # 16 and 17. After Business Innovator of the Year should be reference # 20 and 21)

In Other Publications... Taylor became a columnist for Community College Entrepreneurship in 2009 and for The Shriver Report in December 2013 (http://shriverreport.org/people/andre-taylor/)

He contributed an article called: "Three Principals for Top Performers," to Medical Tourism Magazine in 2015.

http://www.medicaltourismmag.com/medical-tourism-three-principals-for-top-performers/

In Public Speaking.... Taylor has delivered speeches to conferences.... These are references...1,2,3,4,5, 8,9, 10, 11,

Please help. I think I am almost done with this short and basic page. Just need to understand how to make these kind of edits going forward. TwoQuarters (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TwoQuarters (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried working through any of the methods suggested at Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners? Arthur goes shopping (talk) 22:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

22:36:15, 30 August 2015 review of submission by Victoria S. Creed


Victoria S. Creed (talk) 22:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC) 22:36:15, 30 August 2015 review of submission by Victoria S. Creed[reply]

Victoria S. Creed----

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Victoria S. Creed I am a bit dense and don't understand what I should be doing. I have notified my father's students who want to make additions and told them to register and then use edit. I have read all the comments and would like to work on improvements but don't understand the directions in the Draft differences article. I apologize. Victoria S. Creed

Hello Victoria. What is a "Draft differences article"?
An article you submitted to articles for creation has been accepted for Wikipedia and is now a published Wikipedia article entitled Richard Schanck.
The full internet link for that article, which you would give to anyone else who wanted to edit the article, is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Schanck
Arthur goes shopping (talk) 23:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 31

Request on 03:16:14, 31 August 2015 for assistance on Draft:Psychology of eating meat by FourViolas

It appears the draft I've written gives off SYNTHy "vibes", and reads like an essay or research paper. Per my reasoning on the talk page, I believe the specified problems are stylistic rather than substantial, but I'd love fresh eyes and evaluations either way. If you have spare time, you could look over some of my non-AfC submissions to check for similar problems: Graham technique, Hedareb people, Giordano Dance Chicago, Mary Cannon. Thanks! No need to {{talkback}}, or to wear your usual kid newbie gloves. FourViolas (talk) 03:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem with that draft is that you have not taken a topic and written an article about it, you have taken an essay you wanted to write and given it a title. I have looked very briefly at the other articles you list, and while I can't vouch for their quality, I am confident that they don't suffer from that particular problem: they are all about definite topics. Maproom (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your time and perspective. Does the fact that all of the following are peer-reviewed published articles, written by research psychologists and specifically studying meat consumption, affect your impression that this subject does not exist as a "definite topic"?
They do not change my impression. Likewise, a dozen authoritative articles by respected journalists with titles like "Why you should vote Democrat" would not convince me that the topic was worthy of an encyclopedia article. Maproom (talk) 21:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How is that analogy relevant? These sources are not hortatory opinion pieces; they are refereed analyses and surveys of rigorous research into the psychological factors of the act of eating meat, and are published in academic journals which could not long survive if they published partisan propaganda. They are scientists who are, according to expert peer review, objectively researching the psychology of eating meat or reviewing the work of other scientists in this field. WP:GNG requires, as I'm sure you know, significant coverage in reliable secondary sources; by any definition, the first source above, along with others from the article (Rozin 2010, Ogden 2010, etc), satisfy this criterion, which may not be refuted by WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
For parallel examples on which you're likely to have less of a personal opinion, compare the sources above and the 92 sources currently in the draft to Traffic psychology#References, Police psychology#References, Filipino psychology#References, and Indigenous psychology#References. FourViolas (talk) 00:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 07:28:08, 31 August 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Chy syl


Hi Articles for Creation Team! Early August, I submitted an article Draft:TeachPitch to the Wikipedia Community. I was happy to get feedback from TimTrent that I had wrongly used the references and external links and encouraged to try again. I resubmitted the article- now referencing in the appropriate way - and was wondering two things: 1) Is it better now? 2) When it comes to the use of of sources you mentioned that they need to be notable, independent of each other and be present in abundance - I did some research and found a lot more on the topic some in English but also articles in Chinese, Spanish and French - are those valid as well? Or do they all need to be in English? Thank you very much for helping me out here. Any advice you can give me is very much appreciated:) Chy syl Chy syl (talk) 07:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC) Chy syl (talk) 07:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chy syl, while we do prefer English sources, you can use other languages too if English ones are lacking or of lesser quality. (It's quite easy for us to find reviewers who know languages such as Chinese, Spanish or French, if necessary.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

13:03:14, 31 August 2015 review of submission by Medicalphyls


Medicalphyls (talk) 13:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC) What is the problem with this article? I think it is simple, point to point and easy to understand.[reply]

Hi Medicalphyls - the style is not like a Wikipedia article, I strongly recommend that you ask the subject specialists at WikiProject Medicine for assistance. The format and layout issues are easy to fix so don't worry about that at this stage. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

14:12:16, 31 August 2015 review of submission by NeviRom


NeviRom (talk) 14:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC) I need assistance concerning Draft:AVS Video Converter. My article was declined due to lack of notability and reliable sources. I have added more sources such as books and articles in scientific journals, please review my article and references on the subject of notability, if it needs more editing.[reply]

You can resubmit your draft for review by clicking the blue Resubmit button in the red template at the top of the page. It will then be re-reviewed by an editor. - Happysailor (Talk) 17:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

14:22:03, 31 August 2015 review of submission by Medicalphyls


Medicalphyls (talk) 14:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC) I have rewrite the article and I will like to kindly inform you that all the sources mentioned here are quality references like Scott-Brown's Otorhinolaryngology. it is one of the best book available on ENT surgery and medicine. so please kindly check reviews and reply.[reply]

Hi again Medicalphyls, the problem is not the sources, it's the style of your writing. You've also been advised to request help from WikiProject Medicine - please do so. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

helloRoger (Dodger67) thank you for your reply and advice. I appreciate that. Medicalphyls —Preceding undated comment added 16:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

16:56:06, 31 August 2015 review of submission by Cortknoxx


I would like to get my wiki page approved. Made some changes..I want to get the user: taken off of the name when searching in google.


Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cortknoxx (talk • contribs) 16:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have written the draft on your userpage which is why it's not the full name, and has user: at the beginning of it. I have moved it to the draft namespace, and submitted it for you. - Happysailor (Talk) 17:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

17:12:28, 31 August 2015 review of submission by TCVCJ

I wrote an article on the Coal Miners' Memorial in Richlands Tazewell County VA and saved the page so I could go back and work on it some more before I submitted it - now I cannot find it! Can someone help me? Thank you!TCVCJ (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC) TCVCJ (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When did you write it? as your last contribution on your account before your post was on 6 August. Are you sure you saved it to Wikipedia, or alternatively were you logged into a different account (or not logged in at all?)
The only page I can see that matches, is a draft started in 2010 by User:SheepNotGoats - Happysailor (Talk) 17:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I wrote the article on Thursday, August 20th. It's possible I was not logged in - but I surely thought I was! So, should I just rewrite the whole thing and try again? I was so pleased that I had what I thought were good references and I had put them within the body of the article - but I'll try again if that's my only alternative. Thank you for your help!TCVCJ (talk) 18:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TCVCJ (talk) 18:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

18:59:26, 31 August 2015 review of submission by Cortknoxx


I did not intend to put page in draft mode as people cannot read as they used to bcause the page has been moved. Please return bacjk to user if possible — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cortknoxx (talk • contribs) 18:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this about Draft:Cort Knoxx? If so, please read the explanations there... including the links... about why the page is in Draft space and what you can do about it. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

19:35:04, 31 August 2015 review of submission by Keshakoko1


Keshakoko1 (talk) 19:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC) On August 25, 2015, I did edit and saved it and resubmitted. I corrected what wiki said I needed to do. This is so complicated. I've done what you asked and still do not know WHY I can't get this through? I've been messing with this since May. Can someone please review and post? Thanks![reply]

Chris

Keshakoko1, I declined your draft for two reasons:first, because it does not have sufficient inline citations. Inline citations must be included in biographies of living persons. For example, the draft claims that he won the Golden Halo Lifetime Achievement Award in 2014 - which of the references actually says this? A user should not have to read every reference just to verify that he did indeed with the award. See WP:REFB for more information about inserting references into the body of the text (I highly suggest using the refToolbar).
Second, the draft (at the time) did not have any references that talked about Geller in any great detail. The Golden Rule states that there must be significant coverage of an individual. In other words, if no one has taken the time to write about Geller, then he shouldn't have a Wikipedia article. I see you have added a few more links to the page, and have not looked at them yet, so I honestly couldn't say whether you have fixed that problem. However, while you are adding the inline citations I highly suggest considering the references and seeing if they meet the "significant coverage" criteria.
As a small addendum to my second point - a short "name-drop" reference can be used without issue for things like Awards receipts (provided they are from reliable sources) but they do not do anything to demonstrate notability. I hope this clears things up. Primefac (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 23:47:49, 31 August 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Sleaver2



Answer already received.

Sleaver2 (talk) 23:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


September 1

Request on 02:28:23, 1 September 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Aagreeny4


I'm not sure how to do my citations. my article was rejected and suggested to use footnotes, would someone be able to help me with my citing and footnotes so they are done the right way?

Aagreeny4 (talk) 02:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

04:09:18, 1 September 2015 review of submission by 1Evikram


1Evikram (talk) 04:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 1Evikram, do you have a question for us? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

08:48:15, 1 September 2015 review of submission by Chy syl

Hi AfC team - thanks for all your help with my article thus far. I was earlier assisted by TimTrent and Dodger67 and have made the necessary edits taking into consideration referencing, notability and significance. I found sources in several languages (English, Russian, Chinese, Spanish and French) and hope it is okay now. Please be sure to let me know if you need me to make any further changes? - Happy to dive into this:) Thanks for all your hard work! Chy syl (talk) 08:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC) Chy syl (talk) 08:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chy Syl. This Draft Draft:TeachPitch has been resubmitted for another review, so it will be reviewed when a reviewer gets to it. At present this is likely to take considerably less than a week. If you have any more specific questions or concerns, please let us know. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 23:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 10:36:08, 1 September 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Jenefer445



Jenefer445 (talk) 10:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

11:44:48, 1 September 2015 review of submission by Shashank29


Shashank29 (talk) 11:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15:39:52, 1 September 2015 review of submission by Nhusha v

Hi there, I've created a page about the upcoming UN Habitat III Conference. However, there is a message "This sandbox is in the article namespace. Either move this page into your userspace, or remove the {{User sandbox}} template." I don't understand what is the issue and how to deal with it. Please give me further instructions. I would also like to know how long will it take for the page to be reviewed and become public.

Thanks,

Nhusha Vu

Nhusha v (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed. As for your question, you created the page directly in the Article space, so it is already public. Primefac (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

20:12:49, 1 September 2015 review of submission by Sebastian.kevany


I am following up on a number of unsuccessful submissions -- reckon I have addressed all issues but have heard nothing back recently.

Also writing to say that in regards other "reliable sources" - the articles I reference have numerous academic citations I could use?

Sebastian.kevany (talk) 20:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian.kevany, the number one issue that you have so far ignored (though to be fair, it hasn't explicitly been stated) is that 3/4 of your references are from papers you've written yourself. PRIMARY sources are strongly discouraged, and they should ideally be replaced by independent sources not directly connected to yourself or the Riposte. Primefac (talk) 21:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

22:36:17, 1 September 2015 review of submission by Giasecretariat

HI can you please advise why our page has been rejected?

Best regards Ana Giasecretariat (talk) 22:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the rejection is explained at the top of the draft, in the words "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified." The blue links there are to pages which you may find helpful. Maproom (talk) 22:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


September 2

Request on 03:38:27, 2 September 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Krishanuthe13th


My article has got rejected saying it reads like an advertisement. I have rewritten it. Can you please let me know if it is fine now? Also, is there any problems with the references I have cited? All of them are from reputed Indian newspapers and publications.

Krishanuthe13th (talk) 03:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:28:23, 2 September 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Easytiger1981


Hi! I'd like to request your assistance with my submission "Intersog" that was declined twice. The reason is that it reads like advertising. I've edited the article to be more narrative, but it was still declined. I'm new to Wikipedia, can you please suggest areas for improvement in my article? Thanks in advance!

p.s. I checked similar articles about IT companies in Wiki and adjusted mine to their style, but it was still rejected, although I didn't use any promo text in the article and it reads neutral + I did research within my connections and asked them to read the article and say whether it reads like promo and all of them confirmed the article reads neutral, so this is confusing.

Easytiger1981 (talk) 08:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

12:15:53, 2 September 2015 review of submission by Kneubeiser


My reviewer said my references weren't notable enough. I'm not sure why as they are the original sources from which the content came -- aka the journal's official website. I also mirrored the page after the format of other similar Wikipedia pages on scientific journals, and they used the same types of references. Examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aging_Cell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer_Science

Kneubeiser (talk) 12:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

12:34:18, 2 September 2015 review of submission by {{SUNREST}

Template:SUNREST|07:39:17, 18 October 2024|page= Create an article of China Energy Fund Committee (CEFC)

Template:CEFC}} I submit the page of CEFC few times but those said got some problem, now all the documents are here, thx a lot

China Energy Fund Committee (CEFC) is a non-governmental, non-profit civil society organization. The Committee is an NGO with Special Consultative Status, the United Nations Economic and Social Council (UN ECOSOC). Registered in Hong Kong, the Committee obtains tax exemption under Section 88 of the Inland Revenue Ordinance as a charitable organization. Also registered in Virginia, the United States, the Committee obtains tax exemption under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code as a public charity.


SUNREST (talk) 12:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

22:49:56, 2 September 2015 review of submission by Highfifan

I attempted to write my first article on a guitar player that I really admire, but it's been rejected two times already. First time because I didn't have footnotes, and second time because of unreliable sources. The thing is that the main sources I've used are independent 3rd party newspapers. Please help me! -Highfifan (talk) 22:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC) Highfifan (talk) 22:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Highfifan, at the moment you only have two independent reliable sources that discuss Garcia in any great detail. If you find a few more sources (particularly to verify the information found in the Solo Career section) your draft will be much better off. Primefac (talk) 00:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 3

06:20:57, 3 September 2015 review of submission by kanika007

I have been trying to gather the most reliable secondary sources but there are still notability issues in the draft. I need help from Wikipedia's end in order to get a solution to the above said problem and take this page live which I need to as soon as possible. Also, I need to understand how I can change the draft name from Affle India Pvt. Ltd. to Affle. Kanika007 (talk) 06:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kanika007: Please understand that it the information that goes on Wikipedia is only supposed to be about subjects that already have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. Wikipedia is not designed to be used for promoting a business, and therefore probably isn't the proper venue for publishing things that need to be live "as soon as possible". If sources that meet the standards of being reliable, significant, and independent don't exist, then it may be TOOSOON for your company to have an article. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

08:41:25, 3 September 2015 review of submission by Niranjankanth


I JUST WANT TO KNOW WHY MY ARTICLE IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO GET POSTED. THIS IS NOT FAIR FROM YOUR SIDE. I REQUEST YOU TO GRANT MY ARTICLE MY ARTICLE TO BE PUBLISHED. Niranjankanth (talk) 08:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Niranjankanth: Please read the text in the pink and grey box at the top of your draft. Your article was lacking because YOURSHOPPE doesn't meet the standard of WP:CORP, which articles about businesses are required to meet. I would also suggest that you not type using all capital letters, as that is perceived as shouting and rude. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

10:19:39, 3 September 2015 review of submission by Mdiagouraga


Mdiagouraga (talk) 10:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mdiagouraga, and welcome to Wikipedia! While efforts to improve Wikipedia are always welcome, unfortunately your contributions are not written in an English that is good enough to be useful. You appear to be more familiar with French; did you know there is a French Wikipedia? You may prefer to contribute there instead. In any case, welcome to the project, and thank you for your efforts! If you need help, please feel free to notify me on my talk page. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bonjour, Mdiagouraga, et bienvenue sur Wikipédia. Bien que les efforts pour améliorer Wikipédia soient toujours bienvenus, vos contributions en anglais ne sont malheureusement pas d'une qualité suffisante pour être utiles. Vous semblez être plus familier avec le français. Savez-vous qu'il existe un Wikipédia en français? Il est possible que vous préfériez contribuer à cet endroit. En tout cas, bienvenue dans le projet, et merci de vos efforts! Si vous avez besoin d'aide, vous pouvez m'en faire part sur ma page de discussion. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

12:04:29, 3 September 2015 review of submission by Timbits82


I'm looking for an image to go with this article but since the phenomenon is rare there are very few still images available. As the effect is not stationary, a video would be most appropriate, but I do not know how to determine copyright status or whether youtube videos are appropriate for a Wikipedia article. Advice would be appreciated...

Timbits82 (talk) 12:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Timbits82: Most videos on YouTube are licensed under the "Standard YouTube License", which is not compatible with Wikipedia. However, YouTube does allow video uploaders to mark their videos as licensed under "Creative Commons CC-BY 3.0". Any video licensed as such can be used on Wikipedia. To see the license on a YouTube video, click on "Show More" under the description, and the license will be shown near the very bottom of the box. Unfortunately, when I searched for "crown flash" and filtered to only creative commons files, none of the results seemed applicable to your draft. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:50, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ahecht: Thanks Ahecht, that's very helpful. Can I use a still image from a video that is licensed as "Creative Commons"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timbits82 (talk • contribs) 08:50, 4 September 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]
@Timbits82: Yes, as long as the type of CC license doesn't have "NC" (non-commercial) in the name. Also make sure that you specify the original source and author when you upload the image. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

18:29:25, 3 September 2015 review of submission by TCVCJ


I can't get back to my correspondence with the person who reviewed my draft! I want to edit the draft as he told me to do - but I can't find it again! And I can't remember his name! Maybe Dodger? Please help!TCVCJ (talk) 18:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TCVCJ (talk) 18:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TCVCJ: A list of all the pages and drafts that you have created can be found here. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again TCVCJ, the discussion you're looking for is at User talk:Dodger67#14:03:11.2C 3 September 2015 review of submission by TCVCJ. If you ever lose track of something you posted just click on the ""Contributions" link in the menu at the top right of the page, you'll get a list of everything you've ever done on Wikipedia. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

18:35:10, 3 September 2015 review of submission by Mayerpam


Mayerpam (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I drafted an article about a new company called "Scioderm"

Then I saw that at the same time the Company Amicus Therapeutics referenced to "Scioderm" although the page had not yet been created. I am new to this and pasted in the draft and so I may have bypassed the review process even though the article was about at the 250 position in the queue for being reviewed. Should I just leave it as is. I did not mean to go live until a review since I understand this is the protocol

Thanks

Request on 18:47:51, 3 September 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Terrieditor1234


I do not know exactly what is wrong with the article I wrote, if someone can help me review and edit it, that would be great. Thank you B Terrieditor1234 (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

20:57:42, 3 September 2015 review of submission by TCVCJ

I have checked every <ref> for spelling and space - but the red error message still stays! Am I missing something or does it just take time? Thanks for your help!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TCVCJ (talk • contribs) 20:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed. You didn't use the </ref>tag to close the reference. In other words, you need to have <ref>....</ref> for the refs. Primefac (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 00:52:44, 4 September 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Mojohi10


Hi I am having ongoing difficulty trying to meet the Wikipedia guidelines on notability. I have conducted significant research into Shane Moran who is a well known business and public figure in Sydney and New South Wales generally. The Moran family name is notable in Australian business, and Shane family has famous and colourful history. Shane has been the subject of a number of periodicals, however, my research has thus far failed to meet the requirements. Would you please assist me in highlighting his notability and shoring up the research relating to this.

Mojohi10 (talk) 00:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

08:09:17, 4 September 2015 review of submission by 203.199.205.25


Request on 08:12:35, 4 September 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Abstruse123


I could not understand why the post was declined. The celebrity in question is popular with many noted Indian newspapers writing about him on Sep. 3rd, 2015. Kindly help in correcting the page. Thanks.

203.199.205.25 (talk) 08:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

11:42:37, 4 September 2015 review of submission by Rdewan23


I believe that this subject is notable being a Human Rights lawyer and former diplomat that has been written about in many newspaper articles. Rdewan23 (talk) 11:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rdewan23 - Some of the sources you have referenced do not mention Sheldon at all and others contain barely a passing mention. None of the independent sources actually discuss Sheldon himself in any detail - at most some quote a few phrases from him about various issues. You need to find independent sources that write directly about Sheldon in significant depth. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

13:11:39, 4 September 2015 review of submission by CAUSSIN

First, when you lern how to drive one card and it is you first time, take time for be expert , how fast you can drive oll the way , you have to be shure for that, it is the same case for my requesting, I wand to lern and be expert how can be if you oll the time rebuke me and I Can not concentrate that s wy I waste time (caussin) (talk) 13:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC) (caussin) (talk) 13:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

14:08:10, 4 September 2015 review of submission by Roberta Buoite Stella


Hello everyone, I would like some help with this article. It was refused because it sounds like advertisement. The reviewer told me that the two major problems are the tone (I am working on correcting that) and the fact that the parts of the system are listed like a list of products. I would like to know if you have any suggestion on how to describe how the system works without mentioning the single parts. I am not sure how to proceed with this. (There is a COI, since I am working for this company, but I am ready to change anything in the article that doesn't respect the guidelines of Wikipedia). Thank you very much! Roberta Buoite Stella (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=679426294"