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
Ak47hamza (talk | contribs)
138 edits
Line 251: Line 251:


<!-- End of message -->[[User:RanjitBimrah|RanjitBimrah]] ([[User talk:RanjitBimrah|talk]]) 03:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
<!-- End of message -->[[User:RanjitBimrah|RanjitBimrah]] ([[User talk:RanjitBimrah|talk]]) 03:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

== Need to know the submission problem ==

Hi, I need to know what is the problem with the article of Farhan Sarwar. I have published once but the article will be removed due to self-promotions and now i rewrite the complete article still i am unable to publish my article in the wiki. I need help what is issue occurring?

Revision as of 06:34, 2 August 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


July 23

02:44:50, 23 July 2017 review of submission by Nmmoore

I am trying to attach a picture to the page, however, every time I try to I get a notification saying that I can only use pictures that I have taken myself. I have received permission from the founder of the organization saying that I am able to use pictures, can someone tell me if I cam doing something wrong. Nmmoore (talk) 02:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nmmoore. Even if the founder explicitly said you may use a picture in Wikipedia, that is not enough. The copyright holder (usually be the photographer) must be willing for anyone to use it for anything, including commercial purposes. These two guides contain the community's collected wisdom on how to use a copyrighted photo where fair use does not apply:
This page is for questions about the Articles for Creation process. The article has been created already, so if you have further questions about it, please ask them at the Wikipedia:Help desk or, for image copyright questions, at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 10:56:54, 23 July 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Minerva259


Hello there,

I've just re-edited this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:John_A_Houlihan after a few suggestions from one of your editors, do I need to resubmit it again for publication? If so, how do I do this?

Many thanks,

Minerva259

Minerva259 (talk) 10:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Minerva259. To resubmit, click the blue button within the big pink box at the top of the draft. In future, do not remove reviews or reviewer comments, they will only be removed if and when the draft is accepted. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 24

July 25

Request on 02:24:56, 25 July 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Giteshs78


Please help me a write a Article...

Gitesh Sharma 02:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Draft has been deleted. NewYorkActuary (talk) 11:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

05:31:42, 25 July 2017 review of submission by Omar rafikkk


Omar rafikkk (talk) 05:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please help with the article creation. I am trying to write an article on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:National_Skill_Development_Corporation_NSDC & has been pending for a long time. I need assistance on how to improve the article & get it live on wikipedia.

@Omar rafikkk:} Hello, Omar. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the very great delay in response. I've taken a look at your submission and I'm not convinced that a separate article on this corporation is appropriate. All of your references are statements made by the government of India, so it doesn't appear that this public/private organization has been the subject of much independent coverage. But this is to be expected of many organizations operated by government ministries. In your case, the better approach will be to expand the listing for the NSDC that already appears in the brief article on the Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship. When presented within the Ministry's article, the lack of third-party coverage will not be a problem. And discussion of the various organizations will improve the Ministry article, as well. I hope this response has been helpful. If this is the approach that you choose to take, please let me know and I'll be happy to assist you further. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:28:38, 25 July 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by 86.170.6.71


Please advise what other references I need to cite in my article. Your help is much appreciated 86.170.6.71 (talk) 11:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

86.170.6.71 (talk) 11:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I left a comment on Draft:Leonard Walters. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

14:58:03, 25 July 2017 review of submission by BeaglePower


BeaglePower (talk) 14:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC) Defining Lewis acid or base strength and how to compare one acid or base to another is not simple. This Wikipedia piece is meant to show that there is a way to unambiguously define Lewis acid and base strengths. To understand the definition the need for two parameters (or properties) must be clearly demonstrated. This graphical approach clearly illustrates something that many students have trouble understanding.[reply]

I do not understand reason that the article: A Visual Definition of Lewis Acid and Base Strengths is not suitable topic for a Wikipedia article. BeaglePower (talk) 14:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply] 

I have taught his approach for many years in an advanced college chemistry course and I, as well as others,  have found it very helpful to students for learning the unambiguous definition of Lewis acid and Lewis base strengths. If a Wikipedia piece had been available when I first learned of this, it would have been very helpful to me as I prepared to teach this. We offered this visual definition in the hope that it would be useful to others trying to teach about acids and bases.

BeaglePower (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BeaglePower, I think getting some assistance from WikiProject Chemistry is the best way to solve this issue. The regulars there are familiar with the styles and norms of writing about the subject on Wikipedia. I have posted a request for help there. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a WP page on the ECW Model. The draft article could be re-written to be a section of that article. EdChem (talk) 16:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
EdChem I have tagged the draft for merging. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dodger67, I have posted to BeaglePower's user page because there have been additions and reversions. I did mean that a re-write was needed as the tone is not encyclopaedic. Hopefully that will be helpful. EdChem (talk) 15:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks EdChem, I'll leave this to you guys to sort, my chemistry education more or less ended in high school, over 30 years ago. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Dodger67, but I think the real issue is whether the content is encyclopaedic. Hopefully BeaglePower read what I wrote and see the difference in tone and style. It's not whether the content is accurate – the chemists like Smokefoot and me have to check that – but I would hope that any experienced Wikipedian can see and comment on the stylist and tonal issues with the draft as written. I am sure that BeaglePower is frustrated to have additions reverted, but understanding what is and isn't appropriate text for Wikipedia would help greatly. I don't want to have to sit and redraft it all. EdChem (talk) 16:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

22:23:08, 25 July 2017 review of submission by Ahmedelkas

My draft was declined and i don't know what's the reason for that please help Ahmedelkas (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Response has been given on the Draft page. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:36, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 26

July 27

02:10:07, 27 July 2017 review of submission by Webrlamy


The copyright issues encountered in the past stem from the usage of Dr. Arceneaux's official biography. He provides it to anyone interested and it lives out there from his past sharing. I am not sure how to address this. He provided the same biography/his words to me for usage in this article. It is not copyrighted material. I have reviewed much of the documentation but am still unsure as to the correct steps to take. Any and all help is appreciated.

Thank you!


Webrlamy (talk) 02:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Draft has been deleted. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:37, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Webrlamy. The deeper problem than copyright is that Arceneaux should not be a major source of information for a biographical article about Arceneaux. Autobiographies, including ghostwritten ones, are unwelcome here. Wikipedia is mainly interested in what arms-length sources say about a subject, not what the subject says about themselves. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you. I had requested the official biography directly from him. I have been doing the research and referencing. It is my first time to attempt such an endeavor and my lack of skill-set is a bit of a problem. I am currently writing a hopefully better article and will try again.

--Webrlamy (talk) 11:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:08:57, 27 July 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Manisha madan


Hi, I am trying to create a Wikipedia page for Puneet Kaura -- the Managing Director & CEO of my company Samtel Avionics. My submission has been declined twice. I have tried to keep the language as neutral as possible and tried to give references of third-party industry articles as I learned. However, the problem is that this article is about Puneet Kaura in his capacity as MD and CEO of this company and his company's achievements are his achievements. I may not have references of how he has contributed to the growth of his company except in news articles which are based upon his interviews or profiling, but they are not acceptable as they are company-sponsored articles. Please help me in creating a submission which adheres to Wikipedia guidelines.

Manisha madan (talk) 09:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Manisha madan (talk) 09:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Manisha madan: Hello, Manisha. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the delay in response. Based on what you've said here, it seems unlikely that an article on Mr. Kaura will be accepted for publication. But if Kaura's accomplishments are the same as your company's, why not simply write about the company? I'm not sure whether a stand-alone article on Samtel Avionics would be appropriate, but a section about the company might fit well into the already-existing article on the Samtel Group. If you do choose to take this route, be sure to declare your employment relationship on the Talk page of the Samtel Group article (to see how this is done, look at the Talk page for the article on Satish Kumar Kaura, where I've already made your declaration for you). You might also want to declare your relationship with the Samtel companies on your own user page, which you can create simply by clicking here. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:25, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

09:32:59, 27 July 2017 review of submission by Marina51

Hi, my submission has been rejected a couple of times and I am having serious problems on understanding what I need to change. I already published his biography exactly as it's written but in italian on the italian wikipedia and had no problems... please help. thanking you in advance, MarinaMarina51 (talk) 09:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC) Marina51 (talk) 09:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marina51. Each language version of Wikipedia operates according to its own policies and guidelines, set by the community of editors who contribute there. So an article may satisfy the rules for the Italian Wikipedia but not the English one, or vice versa. The good news is that if an article satisfies one set of rules, it can often be improved to satisfy another set of rules with a small amount of work.
TheSandDoctor declined the draft because they felt there were statements that require inline citations and don't have them. I'm not sure exactly which statements they meant, but there is much analysis of Schiattarella's work presented in Wikipedia's voice, such as:

Since the beginning of his activity back in 1970, he stands out for his independence from the cultural context of research and architecture of those years, facing an experimental path of his own inspired by the Modern Movement.

This research methodology is still today one of the key elements characterizing the entire production of his firm: a project comes from redefining contents and reorganizing them in a program design on which architectural choices are based upon.

On the edge of interactions between contents and shapes, he carries out an almost hand-crafted testing which, with an easy dismantling of parts of the building components and their re-assembling, he establishes new architectural wholes.

This should be attributed. Is it Schiattarella's opinion? Your opinion? The opinion of an academic, published in a reliable source? The draft lists four general references. Often misunderstandings between authors and reviewers can be ironed out by using more than the minimum inline citations. If content like this paraphrases the four general references, use inline citations to tell the reader which pages of which ones. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:25:14, 27 July 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Faizan Ijaz


I have written three articles but I was not able to put refrences properly so my articles were rejected so I need help Faizan Ijaz (talk) 11:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Faizan Ijaz: Hello, Faizan. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the great delay in response. I think it is possible that you have chosen a topic worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia, but you haven't done a good job of demonstrating that. Your draft contains only three sources -- one of them to Wikipedia and another to the organization's own web site (for which, incidentally, you didn't provide an actual link). But the third is from the website of Dawn, a respected Pakistani newspaper. Unfortunately, the article that you linked is more about the new ameer than it is about the organization itself. But perhaps the organization has received in-depth coverage in other articles from that paper. If so, then it is those other sources that you should be looking for and, if you find them, using as the basis for your article. I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

23:49:22, 27 July 2017 review of submission by El Capitano81


His book does not come out till october/november so i don't think there are reviews yet, i found some advance reviews on good reads, there is also some blurbs on the amazon page for his book. https://www.amazon.com/Only-Dead-Inside-Surviving-Apocalypse-ebook/dp/B01MUGWVIG Are the other references to news sites and publications not enough. what else can i add. also what does i mean about inherited notability, too suggestive of a business profile?

@El Capitano81: I disagree with the initial review and have moved the article into mainspace where it can be further improved. jcc (tea and biscuits) 14:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 28

14:35:03, 28 July 2017 review of submission by Koreaforeign


Hello, I`m the chairman and the principal of the Korea Foreign School in Seoul. Name of Rainbow International School, Seoul changed to Korea Foreign School on June 28, 2017. So I try to make a new Korea Foreign School page in wikipedia and connect it Korea Foreign School`s Google Plus Page. Can you please help me?

@Koreaforeign: Hello, Mr. Principal. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the great delay in response. I see that, since your posting here, your submission has been declined a second time, this time for not establishing the encyclopedic notability of your school. I regret to say that I share that assessment. Your submission contains nothing that can't be found on your school's web site (except for the listing of after-school activities). Such submissions tend to be viewed here on Wikipedia as mere extensions of the school's web site and, as such, are viewed as "promotional" or as "advertising". But regardless of "promotionalism", there remains the fact that you have not demonstrated that the world at-large has taken notice of your school, as might be evidenced by in-depth coverage of the school by reliable third-party sources. And without that evidence, it is unlikely that your submission will be accepted for publication. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 29

Draft:Captain Ravee

Thsi is my first article on wikipedia. I submitted a previous version and it got rejected now i have edited it again and submitted. Please check if still there are chances of it being rejected.Devansh0043 (talk) 09:55, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined for the reasons stated on the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

10:06:53, 29 July 2017 review of submission by Blackswanjunkie


I got the message from SwisterTwister but not sure how to respond directly to him. He/she said "Notable and acceptable, but please add all additionally available reviews and similar significant and it would help the article." When I had looked at other author Wiki pages I didn't see a place where they had their reviews, so I'm not exactly sure if I should add a section for reviews, or just add them randomly into the draft. Or link each book to one of the reviews? Thanks

Blackswanjunkie (talk) 10:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Blackswanjunkie. It is key when using other Wikipedia articles as examples to use excellent articles. Study Wikipedia's best biographies of writers. There are various ways to use what other people have written about the author and their work. Some of it is woven into the text of the author's chronological biography. Some may be used in the next section, which usually summarizes the author's philosophical or political views, if any, to the extent that they're covered by independent sources. Some is used in a subsequent section describing their writing/works (influences, themes, style, technique, genres). Some may be used in a legacy/reception/reputation/criticism section, which may be the last subsection of biography, a subsection of writing/works, or a stand alone section.
Whatever you do, it's important to use reliable sources. A book review by a professional critic in The New York Times is fine. However, a blog or user-generated site like paranormalromanceguild.com or goodreads is essentially worthless, and should not be cited in the draft. Although a blog is a reliable source for the opinion of the blogger, anyone can blog, and an encyclopedia isn't really interested in the opinion of some random reader. You may find the List of biographical dictionaries of women writers in English and Women's writing (literary category)#Resources useful. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 30

18:04:00, 30 July 2017 review of draft by Kiholmes


I'd like help ensuring an the objectivity of an entry I created, now in draft at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Board_of_Certified_Safety_Professionals#cite_note-5.

This was originally a section in another article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certified_safety_professional, but that article has a variety of extraneous information globbed onto it.

I tried to clean it up, but was a bit ham-fisted, for which I apologize.

Could someone assist me in finishing the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Board_of_Certified_Safety_Professionals#cite_note-5 article, and maybe reviewing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certified_safety_professional?

Thank you.

Kiholmes (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kiholmes: Hello, Ki. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the delay in response. Articles about industry groups often face difficulties here at Wikipedia, because most of the material written about them is geared to the professionals in that particular industry, and not the general public. Rescuing your article might be possible, but it's going to take a lot more effort than merely listing the sponsoring organizations and the various certifications that are offered. You might take a look at some of our better-quality articles on industry groups, such as the Public Relations Society of America, the Japan Medical Association, and the Entertainment Software Rating Board. I doubt that there will be enough material on the BCSP to make articles as extensive as the ones I just named, but reading them can give you an idea about how to structure an acceptable article, as well as what types of material will prove useful. On a less urgent note, I see that you've place all of your references in the form of "bare URLs". Doing this runs afoul of our WP:CITE, which requires that you provide essential bibliographic detail to the reader. With a bare URL, you are telling readers (including reviewers) that, if they want to learn this information, they have to leave Wikipedia and find out for themselves. Later today, I'll head back to your draft and re-format one of the cites with the {{cite web}} template, which you can then use as a example for the rest. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:21:16, 30 July 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Matkadomu


Hello there!! I'm hopeful to add a few more names to the American female novelists list (there are a ton of dudes! we need more chicks!!) and am starting with the first one I have the most info/articles/sources on.... But the lovely reviewers and RileyBugz mentioned I need to delete unsourced things...but I am not sure what is considered unsourced and yet OK to put on there - was looking at like...Jamie Ford's author wiki page and tried to emulate it in terms of neutral points of view and independent sources, but maybe I still missed a few obvious pointers...so please help!! So excited to be part of this and to eventually figure out how to be more of a reviewer on here to help out wiki!! Cheers!!! Matkadomu (talk) 20:21, 30 July 2017 (UTC)matkudomu[reply]

Matkadomu (talk) 20:21, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Matkadomu: Hello, Matkadomu. Thank you for you submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the delay in response. Regarding sourcing, the "Early life" and "Personal" sections are completely unsourced. If you can't find reliable third-party sourcing for these sections, they will need to be removed. And the Kinney's Housekeeper section is completely unsourced. I see that you do have the Chanticleer review cited in the lead paragraph, but that's the wrong place for it. It should be used as a reference in the section about the book (generally, the lead paragraph should simply be a summary of the information that is presented (with sources) in the article itself). Also, before posting here, I did some general clean-up, but there's more to be done -- you've overlooked placing all book titles in italics and the section headings should be in sentence case (i.e., only the first word is capitalised unless a later one would be capitalised for some other reason). Having discussed these preliminary matters, there is the much larger question of whether you have demonstrated that the subject has achieved encyclopedic notability. I don't think you have. We are told that the Housekeeper book is the subject's primary claim to notability, but this statement appears to rest only on the book having received an award from the non-notable Chanticleer Book Reviews web site. And that site appears to be one that exists mainly to provide services to promising new authors. It does so by writing (to use their own words) "REVIEWS that get RESULTS" (capitalisation in the original). And it charges the author $400 for the review. Frankly, I just don't see why Wikipedia should have an article on this author. But, I expect that you disagree and I look forward to hearing your comments. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:31:46, 30 July 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Nramesh


I had submitted my article titled Brodha V for review last month and it was declined by @DrStrauss for formatting issues. @DGG and @RileyBugz pointed out that they were minor issues and they listed the article back for review. I made the required changes as well and have been waiting since a month for review however, my draft keeps getting pushed back. If one of you can please take a quick second look I'd be really grateful. Please help since I am in a time crunch and I know that the article is in good shape, and needs to be published because there have been a lot of queries.

Nramesh (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nramesh: Hello, N. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the delay in response. It appears that you neglected to actually re-submit your draft for another review. You can do so by clicking the "re-submit" button in the box near the top of the page. Given the current backlog, I expect that it will take a few weeks before a reviewer gets a chance to look at it. In the meantime, you might want to address the concerns raised by the reviewers -- your current draft does not satisfy our Manual of Style in several respects and it is not written in a neutral encyclopedic tone. I encourage you to read through WP:Your first article and our WP:Tutorial (especially the section on Formatting). As for writing in an encyclopedic tone, take a look at some of our better articles on musicians, such as Ayumi Hamasaki or Frederic Chopin. Doing so will give you an inkling as to the neutral tone that is expected. By the way, what "queries" are putting you in a time crunch? Here on Wikipedia, we generally don't have any deadlines. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 31

Request on 02:34:59, 31 July 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Navalaviator84


The reviewer suggested that the content of the submitted article be incorporated into the existing "CVW-17" article. The problem however is that the content of the new page does not belong in the CVW-17 article. The new article seeks to give the history of a Carrier Air Group which was established on 1 April 1944 as "Carrier Air Group 82 (CVG-82)", was redesignated to "Attack Carrier Air Group 17 (CVAG-17)" on 15 November 1946 and then again redesignated "Carrier Air Group 17 (CVG-17) on 1 Sep 1948. That Carrier Air Group was subsequently disestablished on 15 September 1958. On 1 November 1966 (over eight years later) a new Carrier Air Wing designated "Carrier Air Wing 17 (CVW-17) was established. There is no relationship between the Carrier Air Group which was in existence from 1 April 1944 to 15 September 1958 and carried the designations CVG-82, CVAG-17 and CVG-17 and the Carrier Air Wing designated CVW-17 which was established more than eight years after the former unit was disestablished. The history of the former unit (CVG-82/CVAG-17/CVG-17) does not belong in an article the subject of which is the latter unit (CVW-17).Navalaviator84 (talk) 02:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Navalaviator84 (talk) 02:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Navalaviator84: Hello, NavalAviator. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. I'm a bit confused about what is happening here. The material in your draft is virtually the same as the material you added last week to the Carrier Air Wing Seventeen article. Do you intend that this material reside in two places? Or do you intend to remove the material from the Air Wing Seventeen article? NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

05:50:37, 31 July 2017 review of submission by Riccardo de Gennaro


Good morning everybody. I am experiencing a problem with 'Palmarés' section of the page I am creating and which is currently pending, waiting to be approved. I have added an image already available on Wikicommons next to "European championship 2017", but I couldn't manage to perfectly allign the small file (Gold world medal) and the words. In other words, I'd love the file to be positioned slightly higher: can anybody help me, please?

This is how it is now: *

European championship 2017

Thank you

Riccardo de Gennaro (talk) 05:50, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Riccardo de Gennaro. I've modified how the image is used in the draft. If the result still isn't the effect you're seeking, someone else may be able to adjust it further. Images like this are helpful when they simplify complex information, such as in a long vertical list of medals or where different levels of medals for different years are listed on one line, see for example Attila Vári. In Draft:Sara Cortella, the image, like the draft's overuse of bold, seems to be an attempt to add pizzazz rather than convey information. I recommend removing the image. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Worldbruce (talk) Hi, Worldbruce, and thank you for your help. The effect is what I was loooking for and I am happy about it: I will surely consider your suggestions, both about removing the image and not using too many bold words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riccardo de Gennaro (talk • contribs) 22:46, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

09:55:20, 31 July 2017 review of submission by PrajaktaN


Hello there,

I have re-edited this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:BookMyShow and have made possible necessary edits, added adequate references too. Before submitting it for review, would appreciate if the given draft is reviewed before hand for any changes/improvement.

Thanks,

PrajaktaN

Hi PrajaktaN. The draft is in the pool, and will be reviewed in due course. You are welcome to continue improving it while you wait. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

15:47:57, 31 July 2017 review of submission by Robertgombos


Robertgombos (talk) 15:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

While improving various contemporary artist's entries (it's one of my two specialties) stumbled across Won Ju Lim, a Korean American artist with enough coverage (solid verifiable primary and secondary sources) and decided to create an entry since there are a few WP entries linking to the artist's entry (redlinks). So, I created Draft:Won_Ju_Lim. However, being the first article I create, I decided not to publish it directly to the mainspace, instead, I wanted an AfC opinion. The review box appended at the bottom of the draft and I'm not entirely sure if it should stay there or I should move it to the top. Any suggestion/help would be much appreciated.

I tried to find a free image verifying the main sourced listed on [Public domain image resources] and I couldn't find any. Probably a fair use, low resolution, image could be used. To respect WP policy, I should wait to see if the article makes it into the mainspace or not. Is that right?

Cheers! Robertgombos (talk) 15:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robertgombos. Thank you for your contribution. I've moved the yellow "Review waiting" box to the top. It could have stayed at the bottom. Alas, it won't be possible to satisfy criterion #1 of WP:NFCCP because, since Won is living, a free image could be created. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:34, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Worldbruce! I wasn't sure enough where the "Review waiting" box should be placed and I wanted to make sure that my AfC submission is properly tagged. When I created the draft I could of move it myself into the mainspace, but I wanted a second opinion on it. I see that the AfC group needs to review a lot of drafs. Robertgombos (talk) 14:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

16:36:53, 31 July 2017 review of submission by Eternalpatience

I am a student working on a series of articles about the development and evolution of influencer marketing as part of my internship. This article is about a marketer/CEO who coined the term in the 90's and with big tobacco's help launched this marketing technique. I have never written one of these before and the last reviewer was mean, unhelpful, and made personal attacks (even making fun of my username). Can you please help me get this article in shape, its part of my job/internship. And can you help me file a complaint with the last reviewer? Thank you very much. Eternalpatience (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC) Eternalpatience (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eternalpatience. Examining ten sources at random, only "Mirrorball’s Blatter takes marketers to cutting edge" contains a significant depth of coverage of Blatter, and it's only referenced to support the statement, "In 2003 Blatter launched Mirrorball Group LLC". Two other sources contain brief mentions of him, and seven don't mention him at all.
I suggest you start over, using at least three independent, reliable sources that contain significant coverage of Blatter. Write a draft using only those sources. If, after you've squeezed everything you can out of those sources, the draft needs additional context for the reader to understand Blatter, then you may add a few of the other reliable sources from this version that don't mention him or barely mention him, but don't let them overpower the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:22, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

20:25:45, 31 July 2017 review of submission by Authority12345


My article written for the Stephens County Development Authority was declined for too many sources from the same place. The only thing is that the busienss is quite small and does not have many other sources online. How can I get this article published with as much information that is relevant but still use sources that aren't there? The main source is their website which has their information, history, etc. Thanks!

Hi Authority12345. Would you clarify what you mean by "written for"? If you are writing an article at the behest of a business, you may have a conflict of interest. Most businesses and organizations should not have an article on Wikipedia, see WP:BFAQ#COMPANY. An encyclopedia article should not be a regurgitation of what they have to say about themselves - that's what their website is for. Wikipedia is not for adversiting, marketing, or public relations.
The bulk of any article should be based on multiple, independent, reliable sources that contain a significant depth of information about the organization. They've been around since 1965. Has any academic studied their effectiveness? Has any newspaper profiled them? Sources need not be online, but if there are no arms-length secondary sources there should be no Wikipedia article. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 1

03:13:18, 1 August 2017 review of submission by Jonloliverru


I thought my draft was under review but I haven't received any feedback for approximately 3 weeks and wonder if I did something incorrectly? Thanks for any help!

Jonloliverru (talk) 03:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jonloliverru. The draft is in the pool to be reviewed. About 200 drafts have been waiting longer, so it will probably be another week or two before it is reviewed. You may continue improving it while you wait, or check out other ways to help. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

08:18:22, 1 August 2017 review of submission by Apmsia


Apmsia (talk) 08:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC) Hi I need help with writing a page that is on the verge of deleting. I want to know how i can write it within the guidelines[reply]

Hi Apmsia. If you're trying to write a draft about a company, understand that most companies are not suitable subjects for Wikipedia, see WP:BFAQ#COMPANY. You have been advised to study the guideline on conflict of interest and the how-to page "Your first article", and that is good advice. To demonstrate that a topic is notable, multiple, arms-length, reliable sources are required, and they need to contain a significant depth of information about the topic. Such sources will also help avoid a promotional tone. Without such sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

17:32:52, 1 August 2017 review of submission by AnyaRoss


Hi! I need some help adding a photo for the logo of this organization. Could someone show me where to put that code and how to do it? Thank you!! AnyaRoss (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AnyaRoss. The logo is copyrighted. It could be added to an article under the fair use provisions of copyright, but may not be added to a draft. Instead concentrate on finding independent secondary sources. The sources cited at present are the company, its press releases, trade journals (which often have a limited circulation and too-cozy relationship with the industry they cover), and, the best of a bad bunch, a piece in Crain's Cleveland Business, but even it is mostly primary source interview. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

18:25:16, 1 August 2017 review of submission by Josebrancometi== 18:25:16, 1 August 2017 review of submission by Josebrancometi





Since I am new to wikipedia, I need your help to get my article approved. It is legitimate but I'm not able to understand how to address your valuable queries

19:04:02, 1 August 2017 review of submission by Timewilson61


timewilson 19:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC) I have a n article saved in sandbox for review. us there a way to speed up the review process? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timewilson61 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tim. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. I've restored the submission box to the top of Draft:Aidan Powlesland and you may resubmit it for review when you feel that it is ready. With our current backlog, I expect it will take the better part of a month before a reviewer can get to it and, no, there is no way to speed up that process. I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My page submission was declined afch 9 what does that mean?

Why was the page I created declined? SpeakersVoice (talk) 19:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Posting moved here from Project talk page by NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SpeakersVoice: Hello, SpeakersVoice. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. The best source of information as to why your submission was declined is the reviewer who looked at it. You'll find that person's name and Talk page link in the box at the top of your draft. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

20:07:19, 1 August 2017 review of submission by Ian.fraser1


Hi. When I log onto Wikipedia I am taken to my Ian.fraser1 page, and I also have a UserTalk page under my name Ian.fraser1. However, once I am logged onto Wikipedia and click on my name Ian.fraser1 that appears in the top navigation, I am taken to a page that states the following: Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact name. In general, this page should be created and edited by User:Ian.fraser1. If in doubt, please verify that "Ian.fraser1" exists.

I find this message confusing. Do I need to create a User:Ian.fraser1 page, even though it seems that onealready exist in your system?; or should I just ignore the message from Wikipedia, which appears to be saying my user page doesn't exist?

Thanks in advance for any advice you can provide. Best regards.Ian.fraser1 (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC) Ian.fraser1 (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ian. Just so you know, questions like this really should be directed to our Teahouse but, as long as you're here, I'll make some observations. There's a page for a User:IanFraser/sandbox that was created in December. Is this the page that shows up when you log in? And more importantly, is this you? If it is, then you've got two user names and you should simply stick to your current user name. And this will mean creating a new user page under the name User:Ian.fraser1. But things get a bit more complicated if you are not the same Ian Fraser who created his page back in December. The complication comes from the possibility that your user name might be a bit too close to that of an existing user. We don't decide such questions here and you'll get a reliable answer by asking at the Teahouse. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:32, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much NewYorkActuary. That is indeed helpful. I am definitely not User:IanFraser/sandbox. I am Ian.fraser1, so I will take your advice and pose my question in the Teahouse. Cheers!Ian.fraser1 (talk) 21:01, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2

Request on 03:03:25, 2 August 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by RanjitBimrah



RanjitBimrah (talk) 03:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Need to know the submission problem

Hi, I need to know what is the problem with the article of Farhan Sarwar. I have published once but the article will be removed due to self-promotions and now i rewrite the complete article still i am unable to publish my article in the wiki. I need help what is issue occurring?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=793512268"