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
No edit summary
Line 294: Line 294:


i dont know how to go on. i am from germany and my english is not too good. I dont get it. I AM HELPLESS. what can i do more??? can anyboby help me pleaaaaase?
i dont know how to go on. i am from germany and my english is not too good. I dont get it. I AM HELPLESS. what can i do more??? can anyboby help me pleaaaaase?

== 02:01:32, 28 April 2017 review of submission by AmienDaouiji ==
{{Lafc|username=AmienDaouiji|ts=02:01:32, 28 April 2017|pending=Draft:Guenter_Mokulys}}


[[User:AmienDaouiji|AmienDaouiji]] ([[User talk:AmienDaouiji|talk]]) 02:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)



i dont know how to go on. i am from germany and my english is not too good. I dont get it. I AM HELPLESS. what can i do more??? can anyboby help me pleaaaaase?

Put in 7 recitations and thats all i can find plus the pictures of the championships. i mastered it to make it in german WIKI but now maybe I am too uneducated to do the english version. I NEED HELP

Revision as of 02:01, 28 April 2017

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


April 22

Request on 17:41:23, 22 April 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by 24.46.97.28


as I submitted article for creation without reference will staff archive enrico j Madrid and article enrico j Madrid for reference

24.46.97.28 (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I see you have added several references. Before re-submitting for review, I would ensure you are complying with Wikipedia:Reliable sources as regards the references you select, and I would ensure that you better comply with the Wikipedia manual of style as regards the formatting of your draft. Isingness (talk) 23:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

23:20:40, 22 April 2017 review of submission by Wernien


Wernien (talk) 23:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May I please as, why the review of my draft article takes that long? I don't want to complain, but could it be that the article has been overlooked or is still not good enough to be published. - Thnak you very much. And I apologise in advance, I do not write very much here. Wernien (talk) 23:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - It has only been less than three weeks; with the backlog you may be waiting a while longer. Regardless, you may want to add third-party references to all parts of your text so that when it is reviewed it does not get rejected for poor sourcing. From what I can see, the JSTOR link is also dead, so you likely want to ensure all parts of your draft are functional to avoid other issues. Isingness (talk) 23:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - Thank you very much, I have repaired two links. I have also checked the references, To my understanding the sourcing should be OK. I am looking forward to the possibility that the article will be published.Wernien (talk) 16:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 23

Request on 05:28:59, 23 April 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by K1 ecentral


Hello, K1. Did you have a specific question? NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 22:17:30, 23 April 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Takudzwa mususa



Takudzwa mususa (talk) 22:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Takudzwa. Did you have a specific question? NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 24

02:36:24, 24 April 2017 review of draft by Jkim713


This is my first submission to Wikipedia and I am trying to fix my reference list. How do I use a reference multiple times in my content. The last line in the my submission references 4 earlier cited remarks but when I cited it, the reference list created whole new lines, that is my list of 10 references became a list of 20 references..how do I fix it? Jkim713 (talk) 02:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, J. Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia. I think you're looking to use the "named reference" technique. You can learn about it at WP:REFNAME. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

02:45:00, 24 April 2017 review of submission by Pergameno


I have writing an entry on Margaret Manion. I have received this message "This article's lead section may not adequately summarize key points of its contents. Please consider expanding the lead to provide an accessible overview of all important aspects of the article. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page. (April 2017)" I have tried to write a lead section. Would you please let me know how to make it better conform with the requirements.

Pergameno (talk) 02:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Pergameno - While this is not generally the place for questions about accepted pages, and is instead a venue for questions regarding pages not yet accepted, there is some easy advice I can provide. A proper lead generally covers all the major aspects of the page in general. Your current lead does not appear to cover all her positions or major publications, if appropriate. A few more sentences should do it. Then ask on the talk page if other editors (especially the person who posted the tag) is/are comfortable with removing the improvement banner. If you do not hear back, you can take that as a yes, and if you do, then re-engage. Hope this helps! Isingness (talk) 03:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 05:07:21, 24 April 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Kenj005


Parthesh Patel (Gujarati:પાર્થેશ પટેલ)


Kenj005 (talk) 05:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kenj. Did you have a specific question? NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

13:43:36, 24 April 2017 review of submission by Skyking30

Hello K6Ka, I respectfully requested that the present photograph of myself be removed and I will provide a more accurate Official Air Force Photograph. The present photo appears to have been "edited" or photo shopped....I will be pleased to provide an Official Photograph upon removal of the present One. Thank You, Christopher S. Adams, Jr, Major General, USAF (Ret)


Skyking30 (talk) 13:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please submit this as an WP:Edit request or on the talk page of K6ka. JTP (talk • contribs) 14:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:22:12, 24 April 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Marc Daum


14:22:12, 24 April 2017 review of submission by Marc Daum

I noticed the article « Bijoux Burma » was declined. I understand i have to rewrite the article to appear to read more than an entry in an encyclopedia. So i will. But also: do you think my article has enough references and sources to establish its notability ? Only two of them i mentioned, are written in english and independent. The other one are in french (for example a thesis from La sorbonne University) or coming from Bijoux Burma official Website. Should i add more? May I add 10 others including articles in Vogue and Paris-Match.They’re not written in english but in french. If so, how long could be the article ? Thanks a lot for your precious help. Marc Daum (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Daum (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - While the quality of the references you have used will be reviewed by the person who decides whether or not to accept the page, and I do not want to step on their toes, I would definitely state that you do not have enough references for the content you have written--because not everything has been cited. If you cite everything, you will stand a better chance for acceptance, if the subject matter is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Isingness (talk) 02:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

14:36:01, 24 April 2017 review of submission by CRDAVIS14


Hi,

May the following articles, while not suitable for coverage in the page itself as not specifically about CollectPlus, not provide requisite evidence of notability for CollectPlus, as per the guidelines? [1] This article references CollectPlus as a key rival to Royal Mail amid its plans to develop its click-and-collect offering. [2] Similarly this article references CollectPlus as a rival that Tesco is seeking to match with development of its click-and-collect offering. [3] this article discusses the best and worst parcel firms in research conducted by MoneySavingExpert, again referencing CollectPlus with significance.

The following are published articles discussing research conducted by CollectPlus: [4] [5] [6] Again, hopefully they show notability but were not included in the original submission as they are not directly about the company.

I hope this demonstrate notability of CollectPlus, but if there anything further I can do, please let me know. CollectPlus is the returns service for a number of known brands such as Amazon, John Lewis and Asos, and announcements in national press can be provided as citations as well if necessary.

Thank-you for your consideration. If none of these are considered sufficient for notability and the article submission remains rejected, I will wait for more notable coverage to be obtained before considering again.

Thank-you.

April 25

04:07:41, 25 April 2017 review of submission by Hankthetank78


HankTheTank (talk) 04:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


How is this not enough notable sources?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Justin_(JMHHACKER)_Matthew

The draft doesn't start by stating what its subject is, is written in unacceptably promotional language, and seems to be largely a rant about how its (unspecified) subject is notable. For example, the shortest sentence in the draft reads "He has made a widely recognized contribution that is in his specific field." Who has? What field? What contribution? Who says that it's widely recognized? Maproom (talk) 10:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

07:00:39, 25 April 2017 review of submission by Stingslp02141989

I would like to know which sources we used in the reference are not verifiable? Is the source below a reliable source according to Wikipedia requirements? http://www.finsmes.com/2016/05/solar-asset-management-firm-radian-generation-receives-investment-from-solar-plus-international.html http://strattonreport.com/news/radiangen-closes-new-round-investment-solar-plus-international/ Stingslp02141989 (talk) 07:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've no view on whether it's reliable. But I doubt that it's independent. It looks to me to be based on a press release. As it says in the rejection note for the draft, "Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Maproom (talk) 10:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

17:36:15, 25 April 2017 review of submission by Arsenl2017


Arsenl2017 (talk) 17:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon. I recently participated in the creation of an article on Gryphon Investors. The article was accepted for publication several weeks ago. Its TALK page indexes in search engines, but the article itself does not. Two things I note: 1. On the Page Information page, it says that the article page is indexable. 2. In the lines of code within the article page, I see 'noindex/nofollow'. Is there a setting that needs to be changed?

Thank you.

Arsenl2017 (talk) 17:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 26

04:31:19, 26 April 2017 review of submission by Oleg Sergeykin


This draft was already submitted three times. Last time, it was rejected by a very odd way (see details below). The draft's text and references were significantly expanded and wikified during these updates:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2017_January_4#15:25:41.2C_4_January_2017_review_of_submission_by_Oleg_Sergeykin

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2017_January_23#11:55:13.2C_23_January_2017_review_of_submission_by_Oleg_Sergeykin

The last time the discussion on the draft was moved from here to Draft Talk:ShrinkTheWeb where I was asked by NewYorkActuary to provide "three references that you feel best demonstrate that the subject has been the recipient of substantial coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I pointed out these three very reliable sources (Technorati, AboutUs.com, MakeUseOf) explaining successful usage of ShrinkTheWeb on their sites. After that, further discussion was ignored, there were no any replies from moderators - neither positive nor negative.

So I guess the aspect of notability has already been covered in sufficient details in those discussions according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies): "A company ... is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject". That's why I submitted the draft again on Feb 25 (for the third time) after adding some additional references and some additional information about Amazon's not so successful thumbnail service (it shows notability and importance of entire website screenshot niche).

The reviewing of the draft took very long time (more than a month) and had resulted very oddly. On Apr 2, there was an attempt to erase the draft with violation of the Wikipedia procedure thru AfD category https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Draft:ShrinkTheWeb by CatSleepingOnTheKeyboard (the account was already deleted!) thus avoiding making a decision on the draft in the correct Wikipedia section (AfC). Immediately after the failure of this attempt, on Apr 4, the article draft was rejected by NotTheFakeJTP using the standard "read more like an advertisement" template without any additional explanation from the reviewer.

Why these accounts tried to reject my draft in such an odd way? Is there any connection between these two accounts? Does such "approach" to AfC reviewing allowed by Wikipedia rules?

And, most importantly, give me a meaningful answer on the same two my questions which I asked in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2017_January_23 :

1) please recommend how to improve the draft or

2) provide me some examples of similar articles which are OK with this "advertisement vs. encyclopedia" requirement

I was not given any answer to these question in the discussion on Draft Talk page Draft Talk:ShrinkTheWeb:

"reads as if its objective is to promote the product" is just a synonym of "read more like an advertisement", so it is not an answer to the questions. Which phrase reads so? Where is the bias in the draft?

I have thoroughly read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles and I really would like to know what is the "differentiation" "between spam articles and legitimate articles about commercial entities" regarding this draft.

Please read all previous discussions about the draft (Jan 4, Jan 23, Draft Talk) before commenting to avoid duplicate questions already discussed regarding the draft. Oleg Sergeykin (talk) 04:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to be rude, but are you suggesting that I am a WP:SOCK? If so, please WP:Assume good faith. It was pure coincidence that I reviewed your draft after the AfD. We reviewers have a "random submission" button, and, if I recall correctly, that it what I clicked and your draft appeared. JTP (talk • contribs) 16:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Unfortunately it is no one's responsibility but your own to address the issues within the draft you have written. Right now it looks like you are relying heavily on sources that Wikipedia does not see as reliable. The general document for understanding a good reference, is Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and if you are looking for help with not writing in an advertorial manner, you may want to review the following Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Words_that_may_introduce_bias. To be honest, you may want to start over and write from the reliable sources (if they exist) rather than appending web references (reliable or not) to fit your narrative. In my personal opinion, there is very little chance you could transform what you have now into an acceptable article, because it appears to be written as a brochure or advertisement at its core rather than an encyclopedia entry. Isingness (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 07:31:40, 26 April 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by 81.183.54.72


Hello! The article I posted was declined and I dont really understadn why and what could I change about it so that it will be approved. this is the message I got: quote This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time. unquote

I wanted to write an article about them because I really like their glasses, I think is a creative idea to make glasses out of vinyl records, and I realized they have a Hungarian wiki page, but not one in English and I thought I write one.

Please, could you tell me what should I do to get it approved?

Thanks a lot in advance! Best, Julia 81.183.54.72 (talk) 07:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is excessively promotional, reading more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia article. It cites no references at all, and therefore doesn't even begin to establish that its subject is notable. Both of these are very clear reasons for rejection. Its first sentence does not explain what "Tipton Eyeworks" is, indeed it does not even mention it. You state above that they "make glasses out of vinyl records", maybe this should be mentioned in the draft?
If you want to improve the draft so that it can be approved as an article, I suggest that you start by finding and citing sources to establish the subject's notability. Without this, any other work you do on the draft will be wasted. Maproom (talk) 09:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heading text

14:19:04, 26 April 2017 review of draft by Jaxson1


Hello, I have 2 questions please How do I change the name of my Wikipedia page from Blue Dogs to Blue Dogs (band) My page redirects to The Blue Dog Coalition Wikipedia page how do I correct this? Thank you

Jaxson1 (talk) 14:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ProgrammingGeek talktome 15:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

14:59:06, 26 April 2017 review of submission by THE PEOPLE OF MBIABONG ETIM, INI - AKWA IBOM STATE


THE PEOPLE OF MBIABONG ETIM, INI - AKWA IBOM STATE (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

THE PEOPLE AND REALMS OF MBIABONG ETIM.

Mbiabong Etim is a statutorily recognized community/area in Ini Local Government Area of Akwa Ibom State, and listed in the official Gazette under the Traditional Rulers Law, Cap 134, Laws of Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria, and with zip code NO. 531108. The Community has a State Government official recognized traditional Ruler/Head which is officially certified by the hand of the State Governor. The History of the Community which had been passed from one generation to another, had been loosely documented and is gradually being forgotten by the newer generation of indigenes and people due to its non-formal and non-official documentation. To enable the preservation of the official history of the people and the community, a committee of scholars and elders were constituted to officially narrate, document and preserve this history. The product of this committee is what is being hereto published in an on-going basis. Please help us to public and permanently preserve our history. I know we do not possess all the skills and knowledge necessary to meet the Wikipedia conditions, but we do not also have know or have access to any specialist within our area on how to get our get our page published. Please help our people and community. Thank you.

This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. If you would like to start writing a new article, please use the Article wizard. If you have an idea for a new article, but would like to request that someone else write it, please see: Wikipedia:Requested articles. I hope this helps.
ProgrammingGeek talktome 15:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

15:36:42, 26 April 2017 review of submission by MickeSSS

There is very little info on internet about this formula. I have asked/emailed several places regarding how to calculate mW/cm2 into the UV level they (WHO and many more)showing. Only 11+ UV and noting more. I think they/many are afraid to get out info. I was having here in Thailand one day 468 mW/cm2 and i must have been calculate wrong. (Divide with 25)Because we would have a UV on 19. So if the good people at Wikipedia could find out the formula so that people can calculate. MickeSSS (talk) 15:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. Please consider asking this question at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what the Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps. ProgrammingGeek talktome 15:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 27

07:58:26, 27 April 2017 review of submission by AravindTreddy


Hello, I started writing about this Dj/Producer from India "Murthovic". First time I haven't given any references for the article, But now I made few changes along with the references and this artist got only these links as references(I could'nt find more).The references used are genuine. Please suggest me how to proceed further. Can I use social media links too ??

Reply - it appears to me that the sources are not likely to advance your cause much, due to the publishers you have chosen, as well as the Wikipedia:Primary sources that you have used. To better understand notability on Wikipedia, ie, how to select a subject matter that is notable enough for a Wikipedia entry, in this field I would recommend you review the following: Wikipedia:MUSICBIO. Isingness (talk) 14:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

15:18:45, 27 April 2017 review of submission by Jyanker


I've gone back in forth with the person who reviewed my article. They are saying that the sources used are not notable.

"Focusing only with the best major independent news in significant publications, and not simply announcements, notices or even trade publications as these won't be as significant in notability. Sources such as announcements, interviews, press releases, notices or similar are unconvincing for notability as they're simply not significant here; what we need is genuine major independent news in significant publications; also, notability cannot be inherited from others."

I have included sources from The New York Times, Huffington Post, Fox News, and Washington Times among others. In addition, the articles linked are not self-promotion, press releases, or announcements. Jyanker (talk) 15:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)jyanker[reply]

No-one is saying that "the sources used are not notable". I suspect they're saying that the sources used do not establish that the subject is notable. For example, the New York Times article does not help to establish that the subject is notable, as it is not independent, but appears to be based on an interview with Ms. Staker. And the Huff Post article only has a brief mention of Brain Chase, not the significant discussion that would help to establish notability. You need to find reliable independent published sources with significant discussion of the subject. And if you've already done that (I haven't checked), it would help if you removed most of the others, such as the NYT one and the Huff Post one, so as to make it easier for a reviewer to find the good ones. Maproom (talk) 21:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

15:54:22, 27 April 2017 review of submission by JammberMusic


JammberMusic (talk) 15:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


How do I improve my submission's referencing , so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable?

JammberMusic (talk)Jammber Team

April 28

01:57:11, 28 April 2017 review of submission by AmienDaouiji


AmienDaouiji (talk) 01:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


i dont know how to go on. i am from germany and my english is not too good. I dont get it. I AM HELPLESS. what can i do more??? can anyboby help me pleaaaaase?

02:01:32, 28 April 2017 review of submission by AmienDaouiji


AmienDaouiji (talk) 02:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


i dont know how to go on. i am from germany and my english is not too good. I dont get it. I AM HELPLESS. what can i do more??? can anyboby help me pleaaaaase?

Put in 7 recitations and thats all i can find plus the pictures of the championships. i mastered it to make it in german WIKI but now maybe I am too uneducated to do the english version. I NEED HELP

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=777587853"