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
Yallanish (talk | contribs)
20 edits
No edit summary
Line 157: Line 157:
Let me know the reason why my page creation on this topic has been declined? Let me correct the mistakes. I have a lot of topics to create and I have the data related to them. Guide me where I struck so that I can continue my creations without error!
Let me know the reason why my page creation on this topic has been declined? Let me correct the mistakes. I have a lot of topics to create and I have the data related to them. Guide me where I struck so that I can continue my creations without error!
[[User:Senthilsgsm|Senthilsgsm]] ([[User talk:Senthilsgsm|talk]]) 07:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
[[User:Senthilsgsm|Senthilsgsm]] ([[User talk:Senthilsgsm|talk]]) 07:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

== 09:20:27, 22 November 2016 review of submission by Yallanish ==
{{Lafc|username=Yallanish|ts=09:20:27, 22 November 2016|pending=Draft:Blade_shearing}}

My article has been waiting for review for over four weeks and I am just wondering why it hasn't been reviewed yet? Is there anything else I need to do for this to happen?
[[User:Yallanish|Yallanish]] ([[User talk:Yallanish|talk]]) 09:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:20, 22 November 2016

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category — List (sorting)		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


November 16

02:13:39, 16 November 2016 review of submission by Imran CDC



Hi there, just wondering why my draft for CDC Malaysia was not approved? It look properly referenced and not written in a biased way. Can some kind person help me? Would really appreciate this! Cheers!


Imran CDC (talk) 02:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is Draft:CDC Malaysia. You were given some useful advice by the reviewer, who said to read some other articles and to format your article in the same way as other articles on businesses. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:33:38, 16 November 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Fluffyfloss1


Hello! I firmly believe the draft "draft:filthy frank should be an article. How is a youtuber with millions of subscribers not "notable enough", but for example football player dedi iman, with ONE reference page who no one's ever heard of, or Tord Johansson, who also has a single news article of his death as reference, who also NO ONE KNOWS, have articles when they are far, far less notable! Frank is a very influential youtuber, with tons of fans, and that alone makes him notable! wikipedia shouldn't be about how many "official-enough" references you have, but about creating pages with good, true information that people are interested in! the article on frank is not false information, it is not a stub, and lots of people will find it interesting WHEN it is made into a real article, thank you very much.v

Fluffyfloss1 (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Filthy Frank. If you disagree, you may appeal to deletion review. In the case of footballers, or other professional sports people, there are notability guidelines that people who have played in particular professional sports leagues are considered notable (as are state legislators, generals, and people having certain other specific distinctions). Robert McClenon (talk) 03:15, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

19:29:45, 16 November 2016 review of submission by Ohenry70


I'm am confused by the reviewer's statement that the references are "simply republished advertising" and are not "independent, reliable, published sources." The listed references were not written by the subject and were not written to promote the subject. Rather, they discuss the subject in connection with his accomplishments and current projects, just as any news article would. In fact, these and similar sources are currently listed in an existing published Wikipedia article about Mr. Gresta's partner, Dirk Ahlborn. The fact that Ahlborn had a page but not the equally notable Gresta is what led me to write about him.

The reviewer also states that the article is nothing more than a business listing. In reviewing existing biographical Wikipedia articles about notable individuals it is quite common to see the many names of businesses he or she has been involved in during the course of their career, especially when they relate to the notoriety of that individual. Again, I would bring to your attention the existing article on Dirk Ahlborn, which, while perhaps less detailed than my article, is almost entirely about Ahlborn's work with JumpStartFund and Hyperloop Transportation Technologies.

I have never met Mr. Gresta and I have no connection to his hyperloop project other than a passing interest in the futuristic element. Thus my point of view about the man himself is entirely neutral. After a more thorough re-read of my article I can see where I may have been influenced by the research to be a bit too "energetic" in my wording and will edit accordingly. And of course, as a new contributor I need and want to learn from my mistakes. However, I did my research before I wrote this article and I believe the references and overall style are consistent with many existing Wikipedia articles. Ohenry70 (talk) 19:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia Ohenry70! Thanks for your contributions. There is a bit of a learning curve for new article creation, so everyone is always welcome to work in the Draft space to get up to speed.
Wikipedia is very diverse, and some reviewers have a "critical view" (to put it politely) of anything business related. They can be very unwelcoming to newcomers. But even though they may be very vocal, rest assured they are in the minority and many of the claims they make are not supported by current consensus regarding business-related topics and notability.
The best thing now to do is to continue searching for independent, reliable sources that significantly discuss Gresta, as opposed to smaller mentions of Gresta from within reporting on Hyperloop Transportation Technologies. If there are enough reliable sources, then start cleaning up the text and resubmit. If there are not enough reliable sources to pass notability tests, then there is not much to do but move onto a new topic, and check back now-and-then if any new reporting about Gresta is published . Cheers -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 08:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 17

Request on 09:57:04, 17 November 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Shankarwar R Rohit



Shankarwar R Rohit (talk) 09:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

09:57:04, 17 November 2016 review of submission by Shankarwar R Rohit

What is the question? It appears that you have been doing some test edits in your sandbox, which is a valid use of your sandbox, and that you have not submitted it for review. If you had submitted it for review, it would have been declined as a test edit. What is the question? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]


November 18

00:10:53, 18 November 2016 review of submission by Joanna Buckley


Hello, I am just enquiring about a draft article that I submitted for review on 24/10/16 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Robert_Owen_(artist) ), at that time there had been a note saying there were 1,174 articles in line waiting for review and to expect 2-3 weeks approx. I noticed that there are now 928 articles waiting in line 4 weeks later at 18/11/16.. Can you advise me if this is correct and the lead time for review is going to be much longer than expected? I am just checking to make sure that there hasn't been some mistake, as this is my first article and I am not familiar with the process. Many thanks, Joanna Joanna Buckley (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joanna Buckley (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Joanna. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. Right now, the review queue is extremely backlogged and we are currently working through drafts that were submitted some three weeks earlier than yours. I think it is reasonable to expect another two-week delay in looking at your submission. We regret the delay and thank you for your continued patience. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

01:40:25, 18 November 2016 review of submission by Sugda98


I want to make an article i am working on look nicer. How can I put pictures in the article. the copyright rules are very confusing and i am unsure how to get all of that info from a picture i found on the internet. thank you. Sugda98 (talk)sugda98 Sugda98 (talk) 01:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sugda98. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. The procedure for uploading images, as well as the copyright rules surrounding them, can seem difficult at first. You might want to take a look at WP:Uploading images, which is our introduction to the process. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

11:51:31, 18 November 2016 review of submission by Bookslaidbare


I have added additional links to the page but got a note that the edit was unconstructive ,I am not sure that can be so, surely any additional material is a constructive addition. I cant even re-submit, I cant understand why it is proving to be so difficult to edit and update a page for submission. It was refused as the reviewer said the person wasn't notable, we asked the man himself to provide links to interviews etc and those are the links I have uploaded, or at least tried to. Can i assume that this latest set back is indication that any submission about him will be rejected because I cannot fathom what exactly you are willing to accept.I have removed links that were indicated as causing an issue but still completely lost as to what teh expectations are now. Can you please explain what is going on and why?

Hello, Bookslaidbare. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. Where did you get that note telling you that your edit was unconstructive? NewYorkActuary (talk) 12:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews are not considered independent sources and do not establish notability. The draft has no references. The draft is also inconsistently formatted. The draft is also, to use Wikipedia terminology, not written in a formal neutral style. You will need independent sources (not interviews) and to rewrite the existing draft. I don't see the comment about a link. Read the external link policy, which will say to put any external links in a section at the end of the draft, and that external links do not take the place of independent sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

15:56:49, 18 November 2016 review of submission by Davinaya


Hello! I resubmitted an article for review more than 4 weeks ago but still I haven't got an answer. It was rejected before on October 13th. I wonder if the article still has chances to be reviewed and published. I appreciate your comments. Thank you.


Davinaya (talk) 15:56, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Davinaya. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. Right now, the review queue is extremely backlogged and we are currently working through drafts that were submitted some two weeks earlier than yours. I think it is reasonable to expect another one- or two-week delay in looking at your submission. We regret the delay and thank you for your continued patience. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I accepted it. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:38, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

16:21:55, 18 November 2016 review of submission by WaqasT


I had updated the article based on the suggestions of the people on this help page and then resubmitted it for a review. More than three weeks later, it's still under review. Can I get any idea when it will be reviewed?

Hello, WaqasT. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. Right now, the review queue is extremely backlogged and we are currently working through drafts that were submitted some two weeks earlier than yours. I think it is reasonable to expect another one- or two-week delay in looking at your submission. We regret the delay and thank you for your continued patience. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

20:20:20, 18 November 2016 review of submission by 69.120.80.240


Hi, Might you be able to tell me when this article will be reviewed? Thank you for your time. Laura

69.120.80.240 (talk) 20:20, 18 November 2016 (UTC) 69.120.80.240 (talk) 20:20, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Laura. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. Right now, the review queue is extremely backlogged and we are currently working through drafts that were submitted some ten days earlier than yours. I think it is reasonable to expect another one- or two-week delay in looking at your submission. We regret the delay and thank you for your continued patience. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 19

November 20

20:41:21, 20 November 2016 review of submission by Pogga D


I am not at all clear what is meant in this context by reliable resources. The books are there, the reviews and references are there. Some, admittedly unpublished, are letters in my possession. I really do not see what I can do to address this.Pogga D (talk) 20:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pogga D it seems like you have not read the review comment. The draft does not contain enough references, whole paragraphs have none. Basically every substantive claim should have a source. Unpublished material cannot be used at all. The fact that you posess such letters implies that you have a close connection to the subject, please read the conflict of interst giudeline -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:25, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

20:56:23, 20 November 2016 review of submission by Dannadel


Hello, I submitted my article for review about 4 weeks ago, so I'm just curious if there's anything further I need to do make sure it gets published. Please let me know. Thank you, Dan Nadel

Dannadel (talk) 20:56, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 21

07:29:01, 21 November 2016 review of draft by SunnieSkye


I need to color co-ordinate my season header/titles with the Series overview part. I tried to do it manually in the edit box but the final draft shows no color in title box of each season chart (the part where it says "Season #" "Episode #" "Episode Title" "Original Airdate" and "Judges".) Looking at other tutorials/articles on color and text, there's many options and I don't know which one will work with my format.

FYI, The page I created where I'm having the color problem is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:List_of_Halloween_Wars_episodes It's supposed to be an episodes page to link to this other page I recently created: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_Wars

SunnieSkye (talk) 07:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:15:36, 21 November 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Publicmbp


Our article has been declined multiple times. The suggested changes have been made each time and the article continues to be declined. We had added 3rd party reviews and have made every effort to comply to the standard writing guidelines. Any further assistance or guidance you could give would be greatly appreciated. Thank you kindly! Publicmbp (talk) 18:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Publicmbp (talk) 18:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We need some articles for 2017

We don't have 2017 in baseball 2017 in music and 2017 in television but when are we going to see these articles being created.2600:8803:7A00:19:BC15:DA40:B315:B801 (talk) 23:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 22

05:47:43, 22 November 2016 review of submission by Vise Electronics


Hello!

I have just created Wikipedia page on 21 Nov 2016 and submitted for review.Now I got draft mail stating that article got rejected and wanted to know the reason behind the rejection. So that again I can create article and will not commit the mistake. Please help me out of this.

Thanks,

Vise Electronics (talk) 05:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

07:46:55, 22 November 2016 review of submission by Senthilsgsm

Let me know the reason why my page creation on this topic has been declined? Let me correct the mistakes. I have a lot of topics to create and I have the data related to them. Guide me where I struck so that I can continue my creations without error! Senthilsgsm (talk) 07:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

09:20:27, 22 November 2016 review of submission by Yallanish


My article has been waiting for review for over four weeks and I am just wondering why it hasn't been reviewed yet? Is there anything else I need to do for this to happen? Yallanish (talk) 09:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=750932136"