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
Fightmore (talk | contribs)
79 edits
No edit summary
Line 290: Line 290:


Thank you.
Thank you.

== Request on 06:08:11, 14 May 2017 for assistance on [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation|AfC]] submission by Fightmore ==
{{anchor|06:08:11, 14 May 2017 review of submission by Fightmore}}
{{Lafc|username=Fightmore|ts=06:08:11, 14 May 2017|declinedtalk=Draft:Zebronics}}

<!-- Start of message -->
HI I have reedited my article and I would like to know how it looks right know also what should I do for its improvement. If possible I would also wish to know about when can it reviewed

<!-- End of message -->[[User:Fightmore|Fightmore]] ([[User talk:Fightmore|talk]]) 06:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:08, 14 May 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


May 8

Request on 04:24:53, 8 May 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Tabloc



Tabloc (talk) 04:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tabloc: Hello, Tabloc. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Did you have a specific question? NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

10:19:49, 8 May 2017 review of submission by Semper liber


Semper liber (talk) 10:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Hi I have changed my article name from Emil_Meek to magomed bibulatov by using the pressing (alt-shift-m) on the move button; however, the article name remain the same. There is the link. Please help and thank you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emil_Meek

10:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Reply - It appears your move was reverted by another editor, if you are wondering why they made that decision I would ask them directly on their talk page or the article talk page. Isingness (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

13:51:37, 8 May 2017 review of submission by Splaymudbcr


Splaymudbcr (talk) 13:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Do you have a specific question regarding your draft? Off the bat, it appears you will require more references and the use of inline citations in order to have the draft approved. You may want to read the following document for further information on what kinds of references should be used on Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Isingness (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Splaymudbcr: Hello, Splaymud. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Articles about local radio stations tend to have a difficult time here on Wikipedia, because we generally find an article to be appropriate only if the station has a very large audience or is otherwise notable on the basis of its age or unusual history. Some of this is spelled out in greater detail at WP:NRADIO. I took a look at your submission and didn't see anything that would lead me to believe that Black Country Radio meets those guidelines. If I've missed something, or if we can be of any further assistance, please let us know. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

22:56:43, 8 May 2017 review of submission by Chosenonefilms

Hello, i am new to wikipedia and would like to say hello and thank you to all who respond a few months ago i invented a new casino table game. i paid to have this game varified by a 3rd party company to run the numbers and attest to all the rules and such. my article was denied for what i see as "no reliable source". i read the articles on what to do and how to make this better, but none of them touches upon "NEW" inventions or ppl or companys. just looking for a little help to see why my article was denied more clearer, what i can do to to varify it now. or if the person who denied it was just rapidly denying everyone? thanks in advance. it seems to me my article is legit and looks fine. and i have since found other articles with much less info and varifications that are still allowed.  :( sad face .....help

Hello, ChosenOne. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Your submission is unlikely to be accepted for publication, because you have not made any demonstration that your patent-pending game has been the subject of substantial coverage by reliable sources that are independent of your company. Indeed, your submission contains no references at all (the link to the company that you hired doesn't count as an independent reference). As a general rule, the subjects of Wikipedia articles were already notable before their articles were written, whereas you seem to want to use Wikipedia as a means of promoting your new game. I wish you the best of luck with your new patent-pending game, but until it has been noticed by the world at large, it is unlikely to be the subject of a Wikipedia article. On a different note, your user name implies that you are a corporate account that is actively promoting one of its products. You might want to read our conflict-of-interest guidelines. You also will need to change your user name. See our policy on promotional names for more information. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 9

Request on 02:12:07, 9 May 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Drolsson


Hi I have added a draft but it has been declined due to notability and yet other Councillors at the same level of government with less external references are in wikipedia. This would presume that they are more notable yet Cr Adam Allan has had more media coverage than them. I have added external and independent citations that are not linked with him but it was still rejected. As an example see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wines and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Murphy_(Australian_politician). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Owen-Taylor and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Schrinner. These four are all at the same level of government. Thank you

!-- End of message -->Drolsson (talk) 02:12, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

04:52:31, 9 May 2017 review of submission by Jacob.ki

I am creating an article about a company that has been in existence for 30 years and made a difference to the industry it addresses. The content is neutral and the intent is to state facts. Enough references are provided in the article to showcase where the info is coming from. However, it is getting deleted stating the content is 'promotional' and it is 'soapboxing' etc. As a new user, i am clueless on what mistakes i am making in the content. Is there anyone who can help?

Jacob.ki (talk) 04:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jacob, and welcome to Wikipedia. It seems like your submissions are being deleted under CSD G11. Please read the relevant criterion to see why it was deleted. To help, I suggest looking at examples of what to avoid here and here. Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions. Thanks! ProgrammingGeek talktome 11:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please also note our guidelines on conflicts of interest. ProgrammingGeek talktome 11:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

17:47:45, 9 May 2017 review of submission by Annerpino


I am unclear as to why 3 of 4 of my images did not upload. I believe copyright violation is suspected, though all images are my own creations.

The article is meant only for consideration in the 'Explanations' section of the Shadow Person page. It is an analytical synthesis offering a physiological theory, as verifiable or not, as any other explanation therein. The theory presented has the capacity to be studied, whereas "These hallucinations have been directly compared to the paranormal entities described in folklore." (already on the page) offers no explanation, and several other explanations are presented as speculations, possibilities, and comments. Thanks so much for your good work!

Hello again, Anne. I took a look at your account over at Wikipedia Commons and saw no evidence that you've tried to upload any images other than the one that now appears in the draft. Beyond that, I can only repeat the advice that I gave on May 4 -- study WP:Uploading images to see what steps you might have missed with the other images. But your posting here raises a more basic issue. If you really intend this to simply be an addition to the already-existing article at Shadow person, then you shouldn't be here at Articles for Creation. Instead, you should be having a discussion with the folks who work on that article. That discussion will take place on the article's Talk page, which is here. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

18:05:58, 9 May 2017 review of submission by 2600:8803:7A00:976A:703B:83DB:F00E:F95C


2600:8803:7A00:976A:703B:83DB:F00E:F95C (talk) 18:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can You Move The AAC Football season article From The Draft To The Main Article. 2600:8803:7A00:976A:703B:83DB:F00E:F95C (talk) 18:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, IP. Can you provide a link to the article? It's unclear which you are referring to. Thanks! ProgrammingGeek talktome 18:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

21:06:24, 9 May 2017 review of submission by Chickboat


I just created my first article (Cultural and Natural History Collections at the University of La Verne). I am self-taught on HTML, and having a hard time trying to figure out how to add footnotes and references. Do I <ref>[bracket]websitelink[bracket]<ref> after the sentence where I want the footnote? I thought this is what I should do, but that makes a mess of my submission. I tried listed the link below references, also a mess. Chickboat (talk) 21:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chick. Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia. The immediate problem you are describing is caused by overlooking the "/" in the ending marker. So, although the footnote should have a <ref> in front, there should be a </ref> (note the slash) in back. And yes, the footnote (with the markers) should be placed at the end of the sentence (or paragraph) that it is referencing. But now to the larger problems. First, you might want to work through our WP:Tutorial. Doing so will introduce you to the basics elements of our Manual of Style. And second, it isn't all that clear to me why we need a separate article on the collections. We already have an article on the University of La Verne and the material you are creating could easily fit within the pre-existing article. If you agree, then you do not need to submit your work through Articles for Creation. Instead, you can simply begin a discussion on the Talk page of that article, with a view towards seeing how your material might best be presented. The talk page is at Talk:University of La Verne. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 10

07:19:54, 10 May 2017 review of submission by WonkaNerd


Hello!

Thanks for reviewing my article. I don't believe I have broken any of the rules/ guidelines of 'what wikipedia is not', and I believe my article is a warranted and worthy addition to Wikipedia.

I understand that wikipedia needs to have guidelines for their content, and I have read these guidelines carefully. I am passionate about my topic, I spent weeks researching, investigating and writing this article. (I even reached out to an online quote investigator! Here is the result). As wikipedia is a community-built resource, I believe I have the right to contribute this content. I don't understand why I am being denied this right.

The suggestion was that this page might be more suited to wikiquote. I have to disagree! As I'm sure you are aware, Wikiquote mainly contains lists of quotes from films and books. While this is a great resource, my article is not simply a list of quotes. It is an explanation of the origin behind many lines of dialogue in the film, and contains detailed references and links to great works of literature. It also contains information about the making of the film, the translation of the film from book to screen, and other relevant anecdotes.

I would greatly appreciate it if you could please reconsider my article. I don't believe it would denigrate Wikipedia in any way, or contribute to any change in its image or reputation. My article is thoroughly researched and about as academic as a an article about a kids movie can be! Please let me share this information on the almighty Wikipedia.

@WonkaNerd: I told you not to steal the everlasting gobstoppers or the National Union of Oompa Loompas would be on your case ... anyway, on a more serious note, the quotations belong over on our sister project Wikiquote, so wander over to https://en.wikiquote.org/ and add them there. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

10:34:16, 10 May 2017 review of submission by Splaymudbcr


Splaymudbcr (talk) 10:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Slapmudbcr: The reviewers didn't do a particularly good job of explaining things to you here. They told you your article had no references, even though it did. Citations to regional news and Radio Today are perfectly acceptable, and it is not a requirement that they are integrated as footnotes in the text, though obviously we would prefer that. Furthermore, having had first hand experience in seeing how difficult it is to set up a local FM radio station, I am generally of the view that it is such a high barrier to clear that any reliably sourced article of such a station can have an article here. Therefore, I have passed your submission and it is now live at Black Country Radio. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

11:33:30, 10 May 2017 review of submission by Mh.saneei


Mh.saneei (talk) 11:33, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Did you have a specific question? ProgrammingGeek talktome 13:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

19:40:24, 10 May 2017 review of submission by Jayne3

I do consider the subject of my article, the artist Leatrice Rose, to have been a notable person in her field, as per the references so far. . May I have the article resubmitted for review? I would like to thank all of the editors. Jayne3 Jayne3 (talk) 19:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jayne. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. If you want to re-submit your draft, just click on the "Resubmit" button that appears near the top of the draft. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 11

12:55:01, 11 May 2017 review of submission by Whoami2know

Hi I would like to find out why my article has not been published or what I need to change?Smart Repair already has an own page in the german WIKI and a Page on PDR a smart repair related topic (PDR is part of smart repair techniques) is found in the english wiki.Thank you WhoamI2know Whoami2know (talk) 12:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Who. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. The best source of information as to why your submission was declined will be the reviewer who looked at it. You'll find the name and Talk page link for that reviewer in the "decline box" near the top of your draft. Before posting here, I took a look at your submission and found that it contains no references other than a link to an article in the German-language Wikipedia. I too would have declined it, and for the same reasons as given by that reviewer. But I encourage you to discuss the matter further with the reviewer. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

14:28:49, 11 May 2017 review of submission by Hoglundandy


Hi, I inserted an array of sources/references, and tightened up the draft -- let me know what else you need. Andy

16:08:38, 11 May 2017 review of submission by Tomjaycox

My name is Thomas D Jaycox, I submitted published articles by my father Thomas C Jaycox. They were denied because "Same person cannot submit documents by them" Please, this is not me, published articles are from my father who died in 1985. Please allow to be published on Wikipedia. Thank you Tomjaycox (talk) 16:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

19:42:43, 11 May 2017 review of submission by Tank721


Hello, I am working to upload this page so that others and members of the open source community can contribute. The page has been under review over the last few months and I've made edits to get the basic page uploaded. My goal is to have other contributors. Is the page in a good enough place to go live? It looks like my page was last reviewed two days ago, so was it accepted?

Please help me.

Thank you

Tank721 (talk) 19:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - At this point you have not properly sourced all of your assertions. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources to ensure each inline citation you use to back up each assertion is in line with Wikipedia's referencing restrictions. I would not re-submit the article until every single point is supported--you can also do this by removing uncited assertions. Currently some of the citations you already used (such as Wikipedia) would need to be replaced with reliable references as well. Isingness (talk) 20:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 12

12:01:08, 12 May 2017 review of submission by 2003:D8:8BD1:1701:8D68:A59A:474C:E88F

What has happened to Wikipedia? Years ago, pages went up immediately or within days. Now, all it takes is some reviewer who knows nothing about the subject to decline a submission, and then a delay of apparently months in some cases ensues. This is not efficient. If Wikipedia is going to say "no" speedily, then it ought to be able to respond with equal speed when concerns are addressed. 2003:D8:8BD1:1701:8D68:A59A:474C:E88F (talk) 12:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

17:00:25, 12 May 2017 review of submission by 106.51.241.47

Hi Can you please help me letting know about what all the reliable sources that I can edit and send. 106.51.241.47 (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

17:04:23, 12 May 2017 review of submission by 106.51.241.47

Draft: Ashwin Rao Pallakki Hi Can you please let me know on what are all the other sources I need to submit for the successful review of my draft and so that the article may be published. Thanks in Advance. 106.51.241.47 (talk) 17:04, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

17:06:41, 12 May 2017 review of submission by 106.51.241.47


Can you please let me know on what other sources I need to submit so that my article gets reviewed successfully and can be published.? 106.51.241.47 (talk) 17:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide reliable sources from third-party providers independent from the subject. JTP (talk • contribs) 20:05, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

17:08:37, 12 May 2017 review of submission by Ashwin Rao Pallakki


Can you please let me know on what other sources I need to submit so that my article gets reviewed successfully and can be published.? Ashwin Rao Pallakki (talk) 17:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Hi there; it appears that all your references are either not reliable or primary sources. I would follow closely the advice provided at Wikipedia:Reliable sources to find new ones. Most specifically, you will not be able to use YouTube, social media, or a circular reference to Wikipedia itself as sources. These are not relevant, reliable third-party sources as per this site's definitions. Isingness (talk) 05:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

17:59:37, 12 May 2017 review of submission by TuriSteffen


I tried to submit a photo with the draft I created, but received the following error: An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive. Any idea what I'm doing wrong? Thanks! TuriSteffen (talk) 17:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 13

07:20:30, 13 May 2017 review of submission by Bringing bits to life


My page has been sent to review many days back. as of now, I haven't got any update yet. Also, my page was previously declined as I did not have reliable references. I have added a few more reference now. I request you to look upon this and notify. Bringing bits to life (talk) 07:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I would strongly advise you to read the document Wikipedia:Inline citation to understand how to insert support for what you want to add to Wikipedia (every single item you want to add must conform to this). I would also advise you read Wikipedia:Reliable sources to ensure what you add is something that Wikipedia will accept as regards its sourcing. Isingness (talk) 05:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

09:02:24, 13 May 2017 review of submission by Obriens86


I've written an article on First Day Covers, but the submission has been declined. It says to expand the article First day of issue. However, if someone actually read my article, it would say that first day of issue is a term reserved for Royal Mail postmarks, so it is separate from 'First Day Covers'. The first day of issue article is relevant to American Covers, however, the article I've written talks solely about Britain. Not every country looks and deals with first day covers in the same way. For example, Royal Mail is unique to Britain. This is why first day covers as a topic is different to first day of issue and why I believe it should have its own article. I understand the other comment regarding the Britain but and I will swiftly edit that

Obriens86 (talk) 09:02, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I would strongly advise you to read the document Wikipedia:Inline citation to understand how to insert support for what you want to add to Wikipedia (every single item you want to add must conform to this). I would also advise you read Wikipedia:Reliable sources to ensure what you add is something that Wikipedia will accept as regards its sourcing. Then, once you have better content, I would advise following the advice of your AFC reviewers and adding that newly created abridged content to the page they have requesting you add it to. If one day enough reliable sources arise for you to de-merge the content from that page into a new Wikipedia entry, then feel free to retry AFC at that time. Isingness (talk) 05:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 10:42:13, 13 May 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Murf1999


I'm not sure what I need to change. Please let me know in point form what need to be done.


Murf1999 (talk) 10:42, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Dear User:Murf1999, as you have not added any support to evidence the accuracy or truth of your addition, it cannot be included in this encyclopedia. In order to craft content that is reliable, I would recommend reading the following document in detail: Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I would also recommend a general copy-edit, as it is not entirely clear what you are talking about in the current text. Isingness (talk) 05:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:08:52, 13 May 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Ashwin Rao Pallakki


HI Can you let me know how well I can make changes to my article so that I can get my article reviewed successfully and my article gets published. Ashwin Rao Pallakki (talk) 13:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

18:51:15, 13 May 2017 review of submission by Koolbreeze


I want to make the distinction between the Stuart Wilson in this article and any other Stuart Wilson Koolbreeze (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Koolbreeze (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Koolbreeze. I've retitled your draft and it now appears at Draft:Stuart Wilson (musician). If you have any other questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


May 14

01:10:45, 14 May 2017 review of submission by Choclawrence


Dear Helpdesk Experts,

I am new to article creation in wikipedia.

I have been working on a new and fresh version for the title 'Kobi Arad' in the recent several days - I believe it has encyclopedic value.

I have made effort to keep it concise and not commercial. Also, senior editor - Anachronist has viewed the article and has advised to submit it for review.

I humbly request your expertise in helping me edit this draft, and in uploading it successfully to wikipedia.

With thanks,

Lawrence

Choclawrence (talk) 01:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

03:59:36, 14 May 2017 review of submission by Prairiefire2


Prairiefire2 (talk) 03:59, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1) I created an entry for election audit, and was told that the page already exists, but it does not come up when I search on 'election audit' or 'election auditing.'

2) A good entry for election audits would at least mention both a) process audits and b) results audits, and explain the need for election audits and something about current practice and history.

3) There is an entry for "risk-limiting audit" (RLA) but risk-limiting audits are just one type of election audit--specifically, one type of a results audit. RLA is not used in many US jurisdictions; other types of election audits are much more common. In a well-organized encyclopedia, RLA would be covered as a subsection of a larger entry about election audits.

4) The entry for RLA is very poor--one paragraph with incomplete basic info about RLA, and one completely off-topic paragraph about the 2016 Presidential recount, in which audits played no part.

5) At first, I simply intended to improve the entry for RLA, but realized that the greater need was an entry on the general topic of election audits.

QUESTION: If there actually is a page on election audits (the general topic) can you give me a link? QUESTION: If the editor who told me that 'election audits' already exists was referring to the entry for RLA, should I edit that to be a more complete summary of the whole topic of election audits in general? If so, I'll need to change the name of the entry so as not to be misleading.

Thank you.

Request on 06:08:11, 14 May 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Fightmore


HI I have reedited my article and I would like to know how it looks right know also what should I do for its improvement. If possible I would also wish to know about when can it reviewed

Fightmore (talk) 06:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=780305917"