Jump to content

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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Line 502: Line 502:


[[User:Vanrumbeke|Vanrumbeke]] ([[User talk:Vanrumbeke|talk]]) 12:16, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
[[User:Vanrumbeke|Vanrumbeke]] ([[User talk:Vanrumbeke|talk]]) 12:16, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

== 18:19:14, 22 December 2019 review of draft by Brittvansloun ==
{{Lafc|username=Brittvansloun|ts=18:19:14, 22 December 2019|draft=User:Brittvansloun/sandbox}}


[[User:Brittvansloun|Brittvansloun]] ([[User talk:Brittvansloun|talk]]) 18:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:19, 22 December 2019

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

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


December 16

10:39:02, 16 December 2019 review of submission by Winston16

i have added 5 reliable and independent sources that give the subject significant coverage. please can you re review this

Winston16 (talk) 10:39, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of the new sources appear to be significant coverage. The closest is the Tugendhaft article, but it says almost nothing about the person and talks mostly about the event. Plus, the newspaper is focused on the subject, so it would have needed to be much more in-depth. The rest are basically profile entries and primary sources where the content is provided by the subject themselves. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:18:48, 16 December 2019 review of submission by Juanestebanp94

I request that please there be a new revision of this article in which I have rewritten everything from scratch, I have added many more references and literature, and I have changed the wording to make the article more informative. I hope it will now be notable enough to be included in Wikipedia.

Thank you.

Juanestebanp94 (talk) 14:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Juanestebanp94 Lots of unsourced and entirely inappropriate promotional content... "The company moved to a larger office in Barcelona on Passeig de Gràcia, and for the first time had separate departments dedicated to Development, Projects, Marketing, Accounts and Management" " The main outcome of the decade of research in these fields was the creation of a prototype microscopic traffic simulator and a software environment for traffic modeling and analysis" " launched Auto, a new software platform for testing path planning algorithms for self-driving vehicles" " its software is used in 85 countries and deployed in transportation networks worldwide, from New York City to Paris, San Diego, Toronto, Sydney, Singapore and London." etc etc etc. Theroadislong (talk) 15:39, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:14:22, 16 December 2019 review of submission by Amazsara10

Hi, I am trying to translate a page and upload the images but fail for that, appreciate if you can give some tips for that? Thanks. ~amazsara10 Amazsara10 (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amazsara10, firstly, please see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Amazsara10. All of the images have been deleted by Commons because they were copyright violations. As images taken from the internet, they are assumed copyrighted by default. If you do in fact own the permission to use the images, please email permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, who will confirm this, and store the permission in their archives. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 18:09, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


17:54:26, 16 December 2019 review of submission by TylLangDev

For some months I made a real new programming language called: Tyl. I think that software developers of all ages and backgrounds, will have an interest in a new and special programming language. I am not sure that the COI issue is as much relevant to the page because I am not into business or self promotion of any kind, the software is given on a free basis and is intended for anyone who has interest in software languages. If any modifications are needed, or other actions, please let me know. I intend to give this software also for educational purposes to help students and curious people learn other programming languages. As for references or "sources", it is understood that as a new software language, there are none such, and waiting for years will not be good for those who can be interested in the information in the meantime. I wrote an extensive and special informative website as a reference to the programming language. TylLangDev (talk) 17:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TylLangDev: Wikipedia only covers subjects that have already received reliable independent secondary source coverage. Without sources, there is no chance that the draft will be accepted, because this would fail the fundamental purpose and pillar of Wikipedia. There are many other ways you can publish your content, but I'm afraid Wikipedia is not one of them (until if and when there are sufficient sources). —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 18:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:54:31, 16 December 2019 review of submission by NoteBlockBoi

There is only one written source on Thomas, however I personally know his grandson Jackson Sabo, could I use Jackson as a source? NoteBlockBoi (talk) 21:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@NoteBlockBoi: Wikipedia requires reliable sources, which means no individual accounts. If they did an interview or a piece for a reliable source with editorial oversight, we could use that for content, but not for notability (i.e. approving the draft). —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 22:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:55:23, 16 December 2019 review of submission by Jakerubin

Hi, all I'm trying to do is remove the "(business)" from Cargomatic_(business) page - can you please help me. I was planning on creating a new page, and then migrating the old page to the new page - is there a better/faster way to accomplish this? My request got rejected for "copyright" reasons... Jakerubin (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the original page for you, it is now at Cargomatic. For future, you can read up on Help:Move, which is what Wikipedia calls renaming pages. I also tagged the Draft:Cargomatic for speedy deletion, because it's copy-pasted content and shouldn't be done. You can edit Cargomatic directly. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 22:17, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 17

03:00:11, 17 December 2019 review of submission by CheatCodes4ever

I’ve fixed it. How do I submit the page for review? CheatCodes4ever (talk) 03:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CheatCodes4ever, as a rejected draft, it can only be submitted by AFC reviewers using the script.
As the article currently has one source, a link to the chart position of a song they were involved in, it would be rejected if resubmitted.
As the article is a biography of a living person, there should be reliable sources to support all claims made. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 08:30, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

04:30:36, 17 December 2019 review of submission by Sentai01


I wish I could resubmit my draft on wednesday but I can’t. It only says ask for advice but no resubmit. can you fix it please?

Sentai01 (talk) 04:30, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sentai01, it has been rejected, so can't be resubmitted, expect by AFC reviewers themselves, using the tool.
As I've previously told you, please see Wikipedia:Too soon, and WP:Crystal Ball. The article can be submitted when there is more coverage to base the article on. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 08:27, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


06:29:34, 17 December 2019 review of draft by DonCamillo


Hi, I don't really understand why this article is not accepted. I agree that the article needs editing, and the media articles that are linked might deal with events that seem insignificant (even if in fact a big market fire is not insignificant in Nigeria) but they also establish that this is one of the main markets if not the main one for a 1,5 M+ city (Kaduna), and more than 40 years old. I've been there and it is a huge market (something like 2 hectares?). Kindly reconsider. Thank you. --DonCamillo (talk) 06:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DonCamillo (talk) 06:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DonCamillo. Instead of creating a new article, expand Kaduna#Economy, which currently has a single, unsourced, sentence about the market. Turn that into a well-sourced paragraph that describes the location, the mid-1990s fire, the 2000 fire, the rebuilding, and the renaming. If you wish, you may create a redirect from the name of the market to that section of the city article. Right now there isn't enough information about the market to justify a stand alone article focused solely on it. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:22:02, 17 December 2019 review of submission by Sunny4bd2


1. This is a web portal that is very useful for people in the region. 2. Unemployment rates are high in my country and people do not have sufficient resources. 3. If this article is published, it could help a lot of job aspirants by helping them reach for options and vacancies which are otherwise not easily accessible. 4. It's weird that the article has been flagged as "not notable" though the webpage clearly provides details that are useful to society as a whole. 5. Searches for Wikipedia articles are high in my area and inclusion of this article could be very beneficial for all age groups. 6. Rejecting the article without any advice or suggestions is not really a Wikipedia thing! Hope you help... Ninja (talk) 07:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sunny4bd2, The page was rejected as isn't suitable for an encyclopedia.
However good your motivations are, we only host encyclopedic articles about notable topics, and are not just a web host.
Notability is determined by receiving significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the topic. If a subject doesn't have this, then we have no way to verify the article's contents, so can't have an article. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 08:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:49:00, 17 December 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Brenchristo

I need assistance to quote references in my article. What type of references do I need? Can I submit photos of my certificates? Brenchristo (talk) 12:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brenchristo, to have an article, any subject has to have recieved significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the topic. This is so we have reliable information that is probably correct to base the article on, ensuring the encyclopedia's content is as accurate as it can be. See WP:SOURCES for what counts as a reliable source.
Certificates etc aren't classed as reliable sources, as they are unpublished. The reader should be able to verify the contents of our articles by reading the sources themselves, and they can't do this with unpublished material. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 13:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For how to actually add references to an article, once you have them, see Help:Referencing for beginners ~~ OxonAlex - talk 13:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:21:22, 17 December 2019 review of draft by Romdet


Hello, I don't understand the change of status on the SkyFirst page. Can you tell me how to get back to the normal mode, please ?

Romdet (talk) 15:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Romdet, your article was moved from the main encyclopedia to draftspace, as the sourcing wasn't deemed sufficient. You need to demonstrate (in the article) the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the topic, in order to have an article. This is so we have reliable information to base the article on, helping keep the encyclopedia as accurate as possible. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 15:42, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:22:45, 17 December 2019 review of draft by The siner


The siner (talk) 15:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Can someone please check my submission
    the_siner (talk) 5:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
The siner, Please check WP:NACTOR. At the moment there is no evidence the subject meets these criteria for having an article. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 15:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OxonAlex, Thank you, I applied changes, appreciated if you can check itUser:the_siner 17:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All links are from notable resources, did you even check my update? The siner (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you check my update? The siner (talk) 20:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Reoky Multiple reviewers have already checked the draft. You haven't changed anything since the last review. Please don't continuously post comments here, this won't get the draft approved. I looked at the sources and none are in-depth, they all look like profile entries. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 20:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:40:35, 17 December 2019 review of submission by Kenpj


My thanks to the several editors who have advised on my draft "Percy Jackson Grammar School". I have tried to merge the content into the "Outwood Academy Adwick" article. I fear it needs tidying up with skills which I do not have! In particular, I have ended up with two sets of references and I have not managed to transfer the photos. Kenpj (talk) 16:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kenpj (talk) 16:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:50:13, 17 December 2019 review of submission by Paul.jonah.paul


I would like to request that this page be re-reviewed. I disagree with the previous editors' assessments that it 1) is not notable enough of a subject to be published, 2) doesn't contain reliable sources, and 3) contains buzzwords. Thank you.

Paul.jonah.paul (talk) 22:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul.jonah.paul, I took a look at it, saw the changes that had been made since the last review, and agree with previous reviewers. Most of the sources are from questionable or bad sources. This company seems to be run of the mill, and thus no reason we should cover it. I know that can be disappointing after working so hard on an article, but remember that creating an article from scratch is hands down the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. I hope you stick around, and find something else here that you are interested in editing. Working on existing articles is a good way to get familiar with how we do things, and help you should you decide to start another article. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:42, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 18

03:22:11, 18 December 2019 review of submission by Cyeks5Om


I believe the page was rejected because the subject had insufficient coverage from sources. To fix this I have added additional media coverage.

Cyeks5Om (talk) 03:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cyeks5Om, You will need more than just three references. The existing refs do not cover the subject in enough detail to meet our notability guidelines. You need sources that are reliable, independent, and give significant coverage to the subject. If such sources cannot be found, the subject is not notable. If they can be found, please add them, and drop a note here so that a reviewer can re-activate your submission. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:59, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no dispute as far as I can see about notability in the sense that Wong Weng-chi is a publically elected official in a national level election. There is no 'number' of references that qualifies for significant coverage - the reliability and independence of the sources should be taken into account. In this case we are citing national newspapers and his role in the articles is certainly more than a trivial mention. Wong is central to the articles' topic. We also have to take into account that many sources are in Chinese language newspapers that would not be suitable here. The particular elections have attracted a vast deal of attention (as can be seen by the detail to which wiki pages about them have been created such as 2019 Hong Kong local elections) and to the extent of International media coverage. It follows that those who are elected are certainly notable. As far as I can see, the page (now) meets wiki criteria for notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyeks5Om (talk • contribs) 10:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are basing your rationale on arguments that are not part of Wikipedia's notability guideline. None of the sources in the article qualify for WP:GNG. And there's no rule against non-English sources if you have such. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:12, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

04:57:35, 18 December 2019 review of submission by Indianbeauty

I have updated a new reference link. Kindly review it. Indianbeauty (talk) 04:57, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indianbeauty, The sourcing is still insufficient. The advice of Theroadislong is correct: the subject is not notable and thus we cannot cover it. I suggest you turn your attention elsewhere on Wikipedia, and edit some existing articles. Making an article from scratch is the hardest thing on Wikipedia, and very few folks succeed on their first go. Editing some other articles will give you a feel for how the place works. If you have questions about Wikipedia or on where else to edit, you are welcome to ask them at the friendly Teahouse. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:56, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


05:18:03, 18 December 2019 review of draft by Wikidevster


Can I know in plain English not legal gibberish of why an article is rejected and what needs to be done to fix it... Wikidevster (talk) 05:18, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidevster, It needs sources and prose. You seem to be writing about an album, thus I suggest you read Contra (album) for an example of how an article about an album ought be written. Currently you have no sources (see how to properly add references at referencing for beginners). Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06:04:04, 18 December 2019 review of draft by Maddiedlt


How do I rename my draft?

Maddiedlt (talk) 06:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Maddiedlt: See Help:Move, which is what renaming pages is called on Wikipedia (it also moves the talk page, page history, etc.). In short, select Page->Move, in this case it would be at Special:MovePage/Draft:Roger_A._de_la_Torre,_MD. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 13:05, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:12:16, 18 December 2019 review of draft by Lmanenti


Dear all, I would like to know if my article is under review. Many thanks.

Lmanenti (talk) 10:12, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lmanenti: Hi, yes it's in the review queue. Unfortunately, it can take a long time to get reviewed because there are so many drafts waiting. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 13:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:56:31, 18 December 2019 review of submission by Bandaru Danaiah kavi garu


I dont know why i have been rejected, can you please explain me why Bandaru Danaiah kavi garu (talk) 11:56, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bandaru Danaiah kavi garu: As the reason stated and linked to, the subject does not meet the notability threshold. You need multiple reliable independent in-depth sources that cover the subject. Also, you should properly WP:DISCLOSE the conflict of interest. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 13:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:55:57, 18 December 2019 review of submission by 37.6.253.37


37.6.253.37 (talk) 14:55, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any questions? Your subject does not meet the notability criteria for musicians - Wikipedia:MUSICBIO, therefore they can't have an article. We would have no way to verify the contents of the article if there is no reliable coverage to base the article on. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 16:36, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:58:38, 18 December 2019 review of submission by Ehuff29


My article was request was denied because it says it looks like a copy of this link: https://github.com/YetiForceCompany/YetiForceCRM/issues/11680, but that link contains no information in my article, and is about a completely different subject area. Can I ask you to please relook at this article and this link that you have sent me. You sent me a chat page about a discontinued CRM product; my original submission was about Digital Operations Platforms - which have been coined by (and sourced to) Forrester Research.

Ehuff29 (talk) 18:58, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ehuff29, you would need to contact the deleting administrator in this case. This would be HickoryOughtShirt?4. Only admins can see deleted articles. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 07:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:09:55, 18 December 2019 review of submission by Rshirale

I understand the value of Wikipedia and thank you very much for re-reviewing the page. Harvard Business Analytics Program is a part of HBS, a very important program that's shaping analytics for the world. Having this on Wikipedia will definitely help spread the word. Please approve. Rshirale (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rshirale, the draft has been deleted as an administrator saw it as unambiguously promotional. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia containing neutrally written articles about notable topics, not a place to advertise a business. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 07:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


21:43:47, 18 December 2019 review of draft by HLHJ


I'm an experienced editor, and wanting to help out with the backlog, I found an article that's been here a really long time and fixed it up. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to just move it to the mainspace now. See talk page for comments on sourcing.

HLHJ (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed and approved the submission. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


December 19

02:13:42, 19 December 2019 review of submission by Aganija05

Hi. I got my article declined because of refrencing issues, but I got that fixed. I used reliable sources, such as the bands credits on album releases and their bio on their record label's website. I want to resubmit it. Even though it's sort of a stub, I'm proud of it. Could you tell me how to resubmit my draft? Thanks. Aganija05 (talk) 02:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aganija05: You can just click the blue Resubmit button. However, it will get declined again for the same reason, and probably permanently this time since it likely means you don't have other sources. You need to add sources that meet the threshold of being reliable, independent and in-depth. The previous reviewer already explained this. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 12:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:45:54, 19 December 2019 review of submission by Octino


Hi there, i was wondering if you could give me any advice on how to improve my article ? It's my very first one, so any advice I can use on this one, or any future ones would be very helpful.

Thank you!

Octino (talk) 09:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Octino. Rejection is meant to be final, to convey that the topic is not notable (not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). Most businesses are not notable. You may find WP:BFAQ#COMPANY informative. No amount of editing can fix the problem. There is no option to re-submit the draft because volunteers do not intend to review it again.
You are welcome to write about something else; we have nearly 6 million topics to choose from. If you're only interested in writing new articles about extant companies, you may wish to explore alternative outlets. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:32:48, 19 December 2019 review of submission by Alx27alx

Hello, i would like to get assistance in order to make the topic more notable for wikipedia. The company i am writing about is pioneering on the swiss market trying to help solve the problem of vacant homes. I understand that perhaps i need to refocus the writing, but i would really appreciate your tips. The idea to add a wiki page came after i saw guestready page on wiki, that is a very simple business and does have an approved page.

Alx27alx (talk) 14:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Alx27alx: What you need as a minimum is reliable independent sources that cover the topic in-depth. GuestReady article isn't great, but it has such sources. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 15:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:36:58, 19 December 2019 review of submission by Gvsnraju


Gvsnraju (talk) 14:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


can you give me exact information why you are rejecting. if you have reliable source i will provide to you. can you do it for edit?

@Gvsnraju: The threshold is having multiple reliable, independent and in-depth sources. The ones in the article fail at least one point each. It is unlikely there are any better sources or presumably you would have already included them. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 15:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:38:42, 19 December 2019 review of draft by Gscroggins


My article has been in the "reviewing phase" for quite a long tim now and was wondering when it would be finished? Gscroggins (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gscroggins, The review process is currently taking at least 8 weeks, please be patient. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:45:44, 19 December 2019 review of draft by Donald Sylvester


I know why my article was rejected. I have more references but don't understand how to format them. Perhaps they are merely footnotes?:

Extended content

Fab TV

[1]

Hollywood Reporter:

[2]

Deadline:

[3]

Variety:

[4]

[5]

Indiewire:

[6]

BAFTA

[7]

Collider:

[8]

AwardsDaily

[9]

Consumerguide.com

[10]

Matthew Toffolo

[11]

BoomLibrary

[12]

BFI

[13]

The Exorcist, Revised 2nd Edition, Mark Kermode, P.127

[14]

The Encyclopedia of Musicians and Bands on Film, Melissa U.D. Goldsmith, Paige A. Willson, Anthony J. Fonseca, P.332

[15]

References

  1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xitxFigsn14
  2. ^ https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/ford-v-ferrari-sound-team-featured-thrs-behind-screen-show-1255117
  3. ^ https://deadline.com/video/james-mangold-ford-v-ferrari-matt-damon-interview-oscar-contenders/
  4. ^ https://variety.com/2019/artisans/production/james-mangold-crew-ford-v-ferrari-1203393985/
  5. ^ https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/ford-v-ferrari-sound-team-featured-thrs-behind-screen-show-1255117
  6. ^ https://www.indiewire.com/2019/11/ford-v-ferrari-sound-design-1202190953/
  7. ^ http://awards.bafta.org/award/2006/film/sound
  8. ^ https://collider.com/ford-v-ferrari-review-christian-bale/
  9. ^ https://www.awardsdaily.com/2019/12/16/joker-1917-ford-v-ferrari-lead-mpse-motion-picture-sound-editors-announce-nominees/
  10. ^ https://blog.consumerguide.com/speed-sound-ford-v-ferrari/
  11. ^ https://matthewtoffolo.com/2018/03/08/interview-with-supervising-sound-editor-donald-sylvester-logan-walk-the-line-310-to-yuma/
  12. ^ https://www.boomlibrary.com/blog/interview-donald-sylvester/
  13. ^ https://www.bfi.org.uk/films-tv-people/4ce2bb58e295f
  14. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=jLiUKCPQWj8C&pg=PA126&lpg=PA126&dq=donald+sylvester+sound&source=bl&ots=dpwbWZ6AuB&sig=ACfU3U3O0rxPpmzNCJF3qDJZZc-yg2WpOA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwizrtvAvsLmAhWFKn0KHdHMDjkQ6AEwCXoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=donald%20sylvester%20sound&f=false
  15. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=_TP3DAAAQBAJ&pg=PA332&lpg=PA332&dq=donald+sylvester+sound&source=bl&ots=aOp4YtLXVT&sig=ACfU3U0pyCo25UHvcUeWGAKbM1GlIchohA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjqgOmLwsLmAhVtIDQIHawOAL04ChDoATAAegQICxAB#v=onepage&q=donald%20sylvester%20sound&f=false

I hope these references will be enough to permit my article to be published. Thank you!


Donald Sylvester (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Sylvester, You can simply add them, along with the info they support, as you have them currently. You can then use a handy tool called ReFill link here to automatically create nice, filled references. If you need further help, leave a note on my talk page. You might also wish to read referencing for beginners. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:48:16, 19 December 2019 review of submission by TLHistory

I have added more credible sources and added more background information. TLHistory (talk) 20:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TLHistory. The bulk of any article should come from independent, reliable sources. Novice editors are commonly advised to cite at least three such sources. The draft cites one. Find two more, and minimize the use of her and her employer as sources.
The opinion piece in The New York Times is not a reliable source for facts (it may not be used as a source for "was a founding member ..."). It is reliable only for opinions. Those opinions must be attributed, they may not be stated in Wikipedia's voice ("According to feminist Nona Willis-Aronowitz, Densmore believed ...").
Remove Prabook. Being user-generated, it is not a reliable source. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:58:31, 19 December 2019 review of draft by Nsomnaik21


For niche industries with significant prominence in healthcare (i.e. precision medicine), what are acceptable sources for references? I've written an article citing in-depth articles from prominent third party, industry sources but it was declined with the note that these sources aren't prominent enough. While there are many articles that offer a high-level overview of this industry, company specifics are unlikely to be written up in NYT or WaPo. Given that, what sources would be acceptable? I can also cite scientific journals but most are behind a paywall which I'm trying to avoid. For this article, I followed the rough template offered by The Foundation Medicine article and cited articles from many of the same publications. Guidance is welcome!

Nsomnaik21 (talk) 21:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nsomnaik21. Examples of sources that could demonstrate notability include independent press coverage and analyst reports. The New York Times would be fine. For business coverage, The Wall Street Journal might be even better. Other metropolitan newspapers work too. Often a large paper near the company's headquarters has coverage. Check The Mercury News in San Jose. Academic journals are unlikely to say much about the company unless they're business studies. There is no need to avoid paywalled sources.
Remove Crunchbase, it is considered generally unreliable, and use of the source is generally prohibited. Although NASDAQ-traded companies are often notable, there is no guarantee that Personalis is. Being public for six months may not be long enough for significant coverage to have developed. You may need to wait a couple of years. --Worldbruce (talk) 12:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


December 20

01:16:04, 20 December 2019 review of submission by 2601:18C:8500:A730:6C45:A793:8137:60E9


Even though this is not a notable person, he still has done stuff to the community that not a lot of people have done like raised 1,000+ to charity as well as support most charities through his career.

He also built a supportive community to help other people and much more. 2601:18C:8500:A730:6C45:A793:8137:60E9 (talk) 01:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He may be a cool person, but so are many. But only notable people, those that have been covered by reliable sources, can be in Wikipedia. Not being in Wikipedia isn't the end of the world, most folks don't. I recommend you put this article aside for now, and work on editing existing articles. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:44:16, 20 December 2019 review of draft by Ioannis1981dr


Hello! I am John and I created an article in en.wiki about my village in Crete, as I did in greek wiki and in german wiki. My article was declined and I sumbitted it again and I m waiting for approval! Plz Help!!Ioannis1981dr (talk) 09:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ioannis1981dr (talk) 09:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ioannis1981dr. Draft:Agios Georgios was declined because it makes statements that are not supported by references. You have added some references, but there are still statements that do not cite a source. Specifically, the altitude of the village, its population, and that many people from the village now live in a nearby town and city. To fix the problem, add references for these, or remove the statements. --Worldbruce (talk) 11:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:36:33, 20 December 2019 review of submission by Blackdusty0604


Blackdusty0604 (talk) 11:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blackdusty0604, as a rejected draft, it can only be resubmitted by an AFC reviewer, using the helper script to override the rejection.
The article needs references from reliable sources to support all information in the article. At the moment you only have one reference. We need all information to be from reliable sources, so it is verifiable.
Add some more references, (see WP:v) and then come back here and ask for it to be submitted by an AFC reviewer. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:38:52, 20 December 2019 review of submission by Blackdusty0604


Blackdusty0604 (talk) 14:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


15:17:13, 20 December 2019 review of draft by GYT19701086


GYT19701086 (talk) 15:17, 20 December 2019 (UTC) Be Bold: Would you allow the artists from a country, where English is not the first spoken language, to claim existing and doing a good work in the world? I do not understand why my article about Mincho Panayotov, artist and art teacher, is not accepted at the English version of Wikipedia. Knowledge about the world outside the english speaking countries is certainely valuable. At the moment Mincho Panayotov's works are presented in two of the main, brand new galleries in Plovdiv, one of the oldest still inhabitted towns in the world.Two of Mincho's sons are also artists, one of them teaching in Bulgaria, and the other one successfully working in Norway. Thank You in advance for your attention! And looking forward to your answer, Galina www.galina-art.com GYT19701086 (talk) 15:17, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GYT19701086: You will need to improve the article first. We have minimum standards for quality, and your draft does not currently meet them. You need inline citations to reliable sources (please see referencing for beginners for a guide on how to do so). You need at least 3 good sources, ideally more. Every claim in the body must be backed by an inline citation. Also, remove any external links from the body. You would also be well advised to read your submission for grammar errors before submitting again. I wish you well, and you are welcome to ask here if you have any more questions. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:36:12, 20 December 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Luis Peral


We submitted a new Wikipedia page for our dear colleague Luis Peral that passed away in July, the first draft was rejected and we submitted another one with changes made from the comments we received. We would like to know if you received that second draft and if its under review.

Thank you, Dara team

Luis Peral (talk) 15:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Luis Peral. Please clarify what you mean by "we". The policy on Wikipedia is "one user—one account". Usernames should not be shared by multiple individuals.
The yellow box at the top of Draft:Luis Peral entitled "Review waiting, please be patient." shows that the draft is in the pool to be reviewed. The current backlog is 4-5 months, so it could take that long. As another reviewer has commented, external links (those that take the reader away from Wikipedia, like Refugee Law Reader) are not allowed in the body of the article. They should be removed or, if they support the content where they appear, converted into references. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:27, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Please guide me to correct the shortcomings of this article. Thanks and thanks to the managers Draft:Pars (Shahnameh). Goodarz Irani (talk) 19:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Goodarz Irani, For starters, you need more reliable sources, presented as inline references. See referncing for beginners if you need help. At least 3 good sources, preferably more, are needed. The main issue is lack of context. You need additional context to explain to the average person what this is. Most folks don't have in-depth knowledge of Iranian history, and thus have no clue what the article is about. Make it accessible to the average person please. Additionally, from what I see, this might be fictional? If so, it must be presented as such. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 21

Request on 02:43:59, 21 December 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Arizonista


I would like to know why my very simple edit. I changed the line "Police found no evidence..." to Police SAID THEY found no evidence..." which of course is more careful and less declarative. This is elementary journalism. Please explain.


Arizonista (talk) 02:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arizonista, Howdy hello! This isn't the standard place to ask those sorts of questions, you should ask at the Teahouse in the future. But since you're here, I'll say: you made that edit 3+ years ago. Kind of late to ask that question. The reason your edit was undone has been lost to time. In fact, its possible that the phrasing was just changed in general. Articles change a lot in the course of years. If you want to make the change again, you ought ask on the talk page of the article in question. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:28, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 05:51:49, 21 December 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Dinesh Gautam 1



Dinesh Gautam 1 (talk) 05:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dinesh Gautam 1, Wikipedia is not for writing about yourself or people you know. It is also not for writing about minor news events. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:17, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:51:56, 21 December 2019 review of submission by 42.110.142.141

This subject is notable, Kumar Sen is a very rich business man. Requesting a re-review.

42.110.142.141 (talk) 09:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We do not accept articles with no sources. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:01, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:53:12, 21 December 2019 review of submission by 42.110.142.141

The subject is notable. He is a brilliant maths teacher, requesting a re-review

We do not accept articles with no sources. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:00, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:38:52, 21 December 2019 review of submission by Wkpobox


Wkpobox (talk) 17:38, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Please re-review, additional changes have been made. Thanks

Hi Wkpobox. The references are so incomplete that they are unverifiable. Content on discogs.com is user-generated, so that website is not a reliable source. The AllMusic url is a dead link. There is a relevant page on AllMusic, https://www.allmusic.com/artist/ira-ingber-mn0000098637/credits, but it doesn't support the claims about The Knight Before Christmas or Outlander. I suggest you spend some time studying Help:Referencing for beginners and Wikipedia's best articles about musicians. Then build up experience by editing existing articles for a while. After that, if you still want to create a new article, choose a topic with which you do not have a conflict of interest.
Rejection is meant to be final, to convey that the topic is not notable (not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). No amount of editing can fix that problem. There is no option to re-submit the draft because volunteers do not intend to review it again. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:51:23, 21 December 2019 review of submission by AnuYog


I have made all the changes according to reviewer's suggestions & comments. Kindly have a look & approve this page.AnuYog (talk) 17:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AnuYog (talk) 17:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AnuYog. The draft is in the pool to be reviewed. With the current backlog, you can anticipate that will happen in the next 4-5 months. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:00:48, 21 December 2019 review of submission by Dr.Farrukh Khan


Dr.Farrukh Khan (talk) 18:00, 21 December 2019 (UTC) Why you have rejected my appeal?.If there is a mistake I kindly say can you please correct the wrong stuff and upload it please.[reply]

Hi Dr.Farrukh Khan. Rejection is meant to be final, to convey that the topic is not notable (not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). No amount of editing can fix that problem. There is no option to re-submit the draft because volunteers do not intend to review it again. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 22

12:16:37, 22 December 2019 review of draft by Vanrumbeke


Hello,

This article is not an advertisment. What can I change to make this article meet the requirements? I based the article on the Fanki piling system article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franki_piling_system Links and references to official institutions were also added.

Thank you

Vanrumbeke (talk) 12:16, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:19:14, 22 December 2019 review of draft by Brittvansloun


Brittvansloun (talk) 18:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=931990938"