Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category — List (sorting)ShowcaseParticipants
Apply — By subjectReviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives

Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

• This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
  • For questions on how to use or edit Wikipedia, visit the Teahouse.
  • For unrelated questions, use the search box or the reference desk.
  • Create a draft via Article wizard or request an article at requested articles.
• 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.

• Top of page
• Table of Contents
• Today's posts
• Bottom of page

June 19

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Minneapplesauce

This note was left as the reason for the Minneapplesauce wiki not being published.

"Comment: The source from the Minnestoa Daily is good, but it's all I can find, and the article should include more than one reliable source. — The Earwig (talk) 08:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)"

My understanding is that I do have multiple sources due to the language here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SELFSOURCE

There is multiple sources for this wiki if the site itself is counted. Couldn't the site be considered a valid source for 1) a statement on the source of content on the site, and 2) a statement on the medium of content? I don't believe either of these come across as advertisements for the site, they simply state the policies in a clearer fashion than outside sources spell out.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.162.50.2 (talk) 20:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

True, primary sources can be used with care to verify certain facts. But you also need to prove that Minneapplesauce is widely known and therefore suitable for an encyclopedia - for that, you need to show independent, reliable coverage about the subject, for example news articles and books. Sionk (talk) 22:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Joint Center for Artificial Photosynthesis

This note was left as the reason for the Joint Center for Artificial Photosynthesis article not being published.

"Comment: This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources."

I'm rather confused about this because the references that I have include one reference from the United States Department of Energy, one reference from the Caltech official news site and one reference from the University of California at Berkeley official news site! --Superwizard (talk) 03:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

To me those all look like primary sources: The DoE reporting on its own Innovation Hub and UC Berkely reporting on the exploits of its own professor. CalTech is also a primary source (it's associated with JCAP, and their article basically says, "Hey look! We got mentioned by Obama!"), and I doubt CalTech's "Marketing & Communications" division shares their scientists' reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, but it does not mention JCAP at all, so it's rather irrelevant anyway. To establish notability, a topic must have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, sources not affiliated with the subject. Maybe there has been some independent newspaper coverage of JCAP? Huon (talk) 03:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! I added several newpaper articles that talk about JCAP and so hopefully that should be go through this time!--Superwizard (talk) 04:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Help

Please redirect Template:You have new messages (last change) to Template:Usermessage. 117.227.4.212 (talk) 10:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

That seems an unlikely search term for the template, which should not be in common use anyway. Huon (talk) 12:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Junq and ipod

how do i change the title of the article? (to JUNQ and IPOD) also, how long will it take till you decide if to publish the article? thanks! Proteinfolder (talk) 13:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I expect that when the submission is accepted, the accepting editor will move the article to the correctly capitalized title. Should a mistake occur at that time, you can request the page to be moved to the correct title.

The oldest articles currently awaiting review were submitted on June 8. Thus, it will probably take a few more days until your submission gets reviewed. Please be patient. Huon (talk) 14:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of User:Pasovereign/Bowtegrity

I am inquiring about the process of adding figures to show the Bowtegrity in the article. Are there step by step instructions available? Thanks, Paul A. Sovereign — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pasovereign (talk • contribs) 14:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but there are many steps. It depends primarily on who owns the copyright. You can start here: WP:IMAGES. If you need more information, or help, check back here.  :- ) Don 21:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hope International

Hello!

I am in need of some guidance for my article titled Hope International. I have submitted the article three times, received good feedback, and have made many changes. Since my last submission I've had the article reviewed by several proof readers and do not feel that the article is biased. Additionally, I have compared it to several other articles written on organizations (FINCA, IJM, Accion International, Grameen Bank, Special Olympics, Bank of America, etc.) and feel it is quite comparable to them.

After reading my article could you please provide me with specific examples of bias so that I can change them? When I read through I am no longer able to find biased language or statements. The majority of my sources are separate from the subject (some info had to be pulled from Hope as there is no other way to obtain info). When I compared my article to others, similar info had also been pulled directly from the source as sometimes there just aren't other options. I'd love any other suggestions for improvement as well.

Thanks so much for your help!

RunLeahrun (talk) 15:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)RunLeahRun

I have read over your article very quickly. First thing is to read: WP:WORDS. Examples directly from your article that need to go, IMHO, are:

focus of alleviating physical and spiritual poverty through microenterprise development.

cycles of physical and spiritual poverty

intentional witness for Christ, to utilize savings services and to serve the very poor in remote locations

simultaneously promote economic development

Hope works with individuals of all faiths though Biblical principles lay the foundation for the entirety of Hope’s operations

The aforementioned principles are applied through regular staff devotion and prayer, the provision of bibles to clients, the verbal sharing of the gospel, client evaluation of services, partnership with local churches and ministries and the employment of staff to lead the various spiritual integration activities within each of Hope’s programs.

This is all advertising hype. Make it go away.   :- ) Don 22:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Matthew 25: Ministries

Hello,

I recently submitted my article on Matthew 25: Ministries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Matthew_25:_Ministries) for review and it was decline on two different occasions. I was wondering if you could possibly tell me in what places I need to change it so I can fix it and resubmit it. I am new to Wikipedia and was wondering if you could give me some tips on how to make my article ready for submission. I tried to make the changes I thought were needed from the first submission but they were not enough. Any help you are able to give would be very much appreciated. Thank you!

Joodia (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Joodia

You have listed 3 citations that basically provide facts and figures on your organization. We need citations that support the assertions in the article. If you sent 500 zillion boxes of cereal somewhere, then give a citation proving that it really happened. Not everything needs a citation in an article about an organization, but we need some things to show that theses number are not just made up in somebody's daydream. If you responded to a disaster, there must be an article about it somewhere.

 :- ) Don 22:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability

I am unsure why this article has been rejected.

MegEC (talk) 16:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Megan

The citations provided are not independent of the subject, or they are promotional of the subject. We want to see some third party, totally unrelated to the subject(not one of the actors or directors) say, "This is wonderful" or "This really sucks". Either will make it notable, but just having a listing that it is showing somewhere does not make it notable, it just proves that it exists.  :- ) Don 22:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

June 20

Sughra Rababi

How do I add images to the article page 'Sughra Rababi' I have created and also change its appearance. Thanks, Zeba Vanek — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeba Vanek (talk • contribs) 02:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Technically this help desk is only for questions about the article creation process; once your article has been vreated, you should ask the general help desk instead. Some help on images is available at Help:Images, but since the article is rather short, I don't think it needs more than the one image it currently has. As an aside, you should use inline citations and footnotes so our readers can easily verify which reference supports which of the article's statements. Huon (talk) 08:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Carla Olson

huh? what couldn't be confirmed? you have got to be kidding... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.220.120 (talk) 06:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The sources provided are not reliable. "Personal knowledge", for example, cannot be the basis of Wikipedia content; we require published sources independent of the subject, sources known for fact-checking and accuracy. If no such sources can be found, Olson probably is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Huon (talk) 08:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

help me

i cant publish the article that i want to publish. i have given many reference.. but it is not publish . can any one help me. what should i do. i cant figure out the problem... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmi.bd (talk • contribs) 07:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I've replied in detail at Talk:National Institute of Traumatology and Orthopedic Rehabilitation. Huon (talk) 08:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

pls help

The article National Institute of Traumatology & Orthopedic Rehabilitation has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

   no evidence of notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —

Your submission at Articles for creation ==

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/National Institute of Traumatology & Orthopedic Rehabilitation (NITOR).
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Nouniquenames (talk) 18:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

plz help how can i make my article succeed.... its about a hospital of bangladesh

See Talk:National Institute of Traumatology and Orthopedic Rehabilitation. Huon (talk) 08:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of User:Acharya vikas kaushik ji/Acharya VIKAS KAUSHIK JI

Dear Helper,hope u will like my new article.

<ACHARYA> 20:23, 19 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+160)‎ . . User:Acharya vikas kaushik ji/Acharya VIKAS KAUSHIK JI ‎ (→‎Request review at WP:AFC: new section) I wish to know the status rgdg publication of my article in wikipedia pl peruse my article. thx (Acharya vikas kaushik ji (talk) 09:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC))

There are some serious issues with your draft. The references provided are primary sources, but Wikipedia content should be based on reliable secondary sources, sources independent of the article's subject and known for fact-checking and accuracy. Such secondary sources are necessary to establish Vikas Kaushik Ji's notability. Furthermore, you should use inline citations and footnotes so our readers can easily verify which reference supports which part of the article. Also, the article currently reads like a hagiography; sentences such as "Little did the family know that, one day, Vikas Kaushikwould join the awesome ranks of men of letters and men of parts,and create history that one could write about." are hardly appropriate in tone.

You might also want ot read our guideline on conflicts of interst. Writing an autobiography is strongly discouraged. Huon (talk) 09:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of JaneMacC

It says at the top of my article that it has not been submitted for review - but it says at the bottom that it has.

I don't mind waiting - just want to be sure that I have managed to submit it - how can I tell?

Best wishes Sinead JaneMacC (talk) 12:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Jane, do you mind providing an updated link to your page? The link that you provided leads to a page that is not yet created or in the works even, and I searched for your page without the (practice) following it and could not find that either. I would love to help if I could find your page, and I remember from creating my own page that it does appear odd at first with both tags on your page but the cleanup bot will remove the tag marking your page as unsubmitted after a while.

As a side note, I apologize to Acharya vikas kaushik ji for the notifications you may receive that do not regard your question. In the future, Jane, please submit your questions as your own thread on this page and not as a part of another user's thread. I have given this its own title and hopefully that should solve this issue

Patrick Bradshaw (talk) 14:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of User:Acharya vikas kaushik ji/Acharya VIKAS KAUSHIK JI

Dear Helper, thanks a lot for your feedback.

i have adhered to your request for secondary reference checks and submitted 5 case studies and couple of references which will facilitate in authenticating Acharyajis noteworthy status.

I would be very grateful to you if the same is gladly accepted by you for WIKIPEDIA at the earliest. Kindly acknowledge.

warm regards,

(Acharya vikas kaushik ji (talk) 13:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC))

I'm sorry, but those case studies are not reliable sources. The individuals writing them are not recognized experts on astrology or health remedies. The case studies have apparently been written by invitation, which would in my opinion make them primary sources, not secondary sources. They have not been published with a reputable publisher, making them either self-published or original research, and neither is acceptable on Wikipedia (there are some exceptions for self-published sources if the author is a recognized expert on the subject and has previously had other texts published with a reputable publisher, but those do not apply here). We cannot expect our readers to verify our articles' contents by mailing random people for confirmation, our readers cannot confirm to whom the given gmail addresses belong anyway, and the case studies do not support the draft's content in the first place.

My suggestion would be to look for newspaper articles on Kaushik. Huon (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear Helper / Huon : Hi ! Thanks for your feedback, which I appreciate. Yes, your contention, that, the case studies and the sources etc., mentioned do not appear to be authentic apparently, but it is, in reality, just otherwise. The case studies and sources are all authentic, and open to scrutiny and investigation of any sort and at any-point-in-time by any agency anywhere, whatsoever. All of us, globally, have cellphones and individual email accounts, and these are vital for connectivity. The sources, who have been cited and quoted, have given their respective experiential accounts and their insights with assertion. You will be, glad to know, in all certainty, that, immensely reputed media channels including some of the top newspapers and television channels in India have made significant and positive mention, categorically, about Acharya Vikas Kaushik and of his profile , personality, and contributions in the realm of Astrology, Vaastu, Wellness, Yoga, and Astro-Health-Remedies, and all this has been done pursuant to their own inquests.

There is explicit and substantial mention of such media coverage in Acharya Vikas Kaushik’s website : www.astroacharya.com , and you may kindly have a look at it too. You will appreciate that, the weblinks of such coverage have a limited shelf life, but the scanned versions are easily available and accessible on the aforesaid website, and so are the video-Galleries. He has also travelled overseas to the Middle East and Mauritus. Acharya Vikas Kaushik is an exemplary protagonist of the schools-of-thought which are described in the article for publication in Wikipedia. In any dispassionate reckoning, his coverage in a reputed and a non-pareil powerhouse like Wikipedia is warranted, as it will invariably benefit enormous people in more ways than one. He is a precursor of a movement which he represents and which is diametrically different and opposed to occult, with which it may have been confused. May I earnestly request you to reconsider and to do the needful to have him suitably covered in Wikipedia, and, of course, only after having done the assessment and any verification by visiting his aforesaid website and perusing the authoritative media coverage or contacting the recepients of his gracious services which have brought an absolute transformation . I am also including the cell numbers of some references with whom you would like to checkout . Will fervidly look forward to your kind and positive response asap, please .

MR NEERAJ JAIN +91 9871706399 jainastrovaastu@gmail.com

MR ASHISH SRIVASTAVA +91 9971071104 forashishsrivastava@gmail.com

(Acharya vikas kaushik ji (talk) 06:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC))

As I explained above in some detail, it does not matter for Wikipedia whether the "case studies" are real or fake. Wikipedia requires its sources to be published by reputable publishers, and if they are not, verifiying that they are indeed real places an undue burden on our readers (and if only a thousand readers per day were to mail those case studies' authors for confirmation, it would place an undue burden on them, too). The media coverage mentioned on Kaushik's website may serve as reliable secondary sources, but then we should use those media reports directly, with enough bibliographical information such as the newspaper, the publication date and, if possible, the author. Since those sources are non-English, per WP:NOENG we'd have to provide an English translation of the relevant parts. And most importantly, the Wikipedia article should be based on such news coverage; it's not enough to point out that it exists. For each possibly contentious statement of the article (such as the claim that Kaushik "is a much-sought-after astro and spritual guide to innumerable people both, in India and overseas" - as an aside, I doubt the people are truly innumerable), we should provide a footnote with a reliable secondary source explicitly confirming that statement. Huon (talk) 08:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Steve Schlanger

Changes have been made to this submission but every time I hit "Save", it immediately takes me back to the original page that says the submission was declined. What should I do?

Also, everything includes references that mention Schlanger and supports the claims that he has done or is doing the things that are listed in the article. Don't know what additional info would add more credibility since these are factual accounts. He has or is on several national T.V. networks and will be featured prominently on NBC at the London Olympics.

Please advise.

SessoccerSessoccer (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The "decline" message is still the old one; consider it a historical record: When the draft is re-submitted, the next reviewer will see what problems the last one found, and can check if those issues were addressed.

The references are a mixed bag. Several are to Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors, and that would be circular referencing; Wikipedia does not accept itself as a reliable source. The Google Docs were unaccessible to me. Still others were primary sources such as the Ski Channel announcing its new program with Schlanger. The very first one, "St. Louis A.I.R. Awards 1998 Best Sportscaster" does not provide a source at all, and even if there was a source for that award, it's supposed to support the claim that Schlanger won multiple awards. Most of the rest only provide trivial coverage. The only source that does more than mention Schlanger in a single sentence is the CSTV moderated chat, and since CSTV is Schlanger's employer, that's a primary source again. What we need are reliable secondary sources which provide significant coverage of Schlanger. Huon (talk) 18:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Clone A Willy

Hello! I am wondering if you can help me with this wiki contribution. It keeps getting rejected, but I have included more inline references, external and internal, than many other pages I see. Also I had the pictures I used approved by the manufacturer of this product. The feedback I've received is just the standard vague 'you need more references' or 'you need more reliable sources.' Could you help me by suggesting some specific things that might help? All of the sources I've linked to are reliable; is there a certain genre that my page is missing?

Thanks, Tabitha (Offthetwig (talk) 19:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC))

Unfortunately quite a few of the sources you linked to are not reliable: User-submitted content, blogs and personal websites usually do not come with any editorial oversight or the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy we require. Other sources, while reliable, do not support the statement they were cited for: The article says Clone A Willy "received acclaim from sexologists, erotica aficionados including the notorious Storm Large [...]" - and the reference only says Storm Large once worked for the company. That's not "acclaim". Many of the reviews point to the Clone A Willy website instead of the original publication, and that website does not provide sufficient information to identify the original issues of the publications that featured the reviews. If those reviews could be sourced to the original publication, they might indeed be reliable sources - but the article's content would have to be based on such sources, too, and they shouldn't just be added as an afterthought.

As an aside, you should use footnotes for your inline citations. That allows you to add bibliographical information, such as the authors and dates, to the sources without cluttering the article text. Huon (talk) 07:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Adam Carmer

Hello, I'm new a this, but I submitted this article a little over a week ago, and I was kind of hoping I could get an idea from someone about how long the process takes as to whether it is approved or not. I appreciate any help. Thanks!Gary.mexico (talk) 19:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The oldest drafts currently awaiting review date from June 9. There is a severe backlog; please be patient.

As an aside, your draft currently does not use real footnotes. By enclosing the footnote text in <ref></ref> tags, putting it directly after the text to be supported by that footnote, and adding a {{reflist}} template in a separate "References" section at the very end of the article, you can create footnotes in Wikipedia's standard format. Huon (talk) 07:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Joe Harris

Hi there - it seems someone has created an article at roughly the same time along very similar lines - on that basis this can be deleted or merged

BenWalden (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Since your draft has several sources the live article lacks, I'd suggest you add them to the article before we delete the draft. You can nominate the draft for speedy deletion by adding {{db-user}} to the very top. Huon (talk) 07:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

June 21

Asking why my article was declined

I am VERY much an amateur at creating Wikipedia pages. I submitted an article Wikipedia talk Articles for creation/Denny Morales. it was originally declined for lack of references but I have since added quite a few references. If you can help me "get it right" I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you. Bill Paddock Billppaddock (talk) 02:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Websites offering to sell a musician's work are not considered to establish that musician's notability, due to the obvious conflict of interest there. That was your first reference. The rest are from allmusic, which as a directory of essentially everything music, also does not establish notability. It may be reliable for stating that Morales is in the credits, or for when an item was released, but it does not establish that Morales is considered notable in the field. What we need are sources that actually discuss Morales and his work, rather than simply listing it, and are independent (i.e. are not also selling his work). Also, please properly format your external links (see Help:Footnotes and Help:Links). It's not required for a successful submission, but it makes the review easier. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

How do I submit a completed article?

My article has been moved to "talk" but I don't know how to tag it for review -- or where to put the tag, or anything else. Please let me know and I will move forward. I appreciate your guidance -- I imagine I will get better at this as I go along. Wikipedia talk: Articles for creation/American Sports Builders Association Mhsprecher (talk) 02:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Put the following bolded text at the top of a submission to submit (or resubmit): {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} Someguy1221 (talk) 02:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Issue with newly created page

Dear Sir/Madam, I've created a page here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longbai_Xincun_Station) recently and got approved. However, the chinese version of this page linked to another station which is on the same metro line. As a native chinese speaker I would like to edit that page so that both the english and chinese version means the same station, but would the current linked page, which stands for another metro station, be affected? If it would, how should I edit the page?

Thanks. Kind Regards Michael Zhang Eamond (talk) 09:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC) (username: eamond) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eamond (talk • contribs) 08:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't speak Chinese and thus have to guess a little, but if I understand you correctly, the problem is that the link from Longbai Xincun Station to the Chinese Wikipedia pointed to a different station, namely Hangzhong Road Station. That link was created by the line [[zh:航中路站]], the English article's very last line. I have changed that link so that it points to what I believe is the correct Chinese article, zh:龙柏新村站. Please check that I didn't screw up. Huon (talk) 08:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Huon, your understanding is absolutely correct. Thank you for the help. Cheers, Michael Eamond (talk) 09:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cove (band)

I have entered an article for creation 'Cove (band)' which has been delcined twice on the grounds of unverifiable information despite there being lots of refernces. Why is it being declined when there are pages (such as Joeyfat) which have almost no references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Covesounds (talk • contribs) 15:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

First of all, there were fragments of an earlier version of your draft, including a second {{reflist}} template, which effectively hid all your references. I have fixed that; possibly the reviewer simply did not see the references you have.

Secondly, the references leave much to be desired. I checked quite a few, and none of them even wrote a sentence about Cove. The most I found were track listings. That's not the significant coverage required to establish the band's notability. (Facebook and MySpace may provide more coverage, but those are primary sources and cannot establish notability.) I don't see which criterion of WP:MUSIC they are supposed to satisfy, either.

Thirdly, other articles with insufficient sources exist, but that's no reason to create more. Huon (talk) 17:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of User:Genepez/sandbox

I submitted for review the wrong version of the article 'Lumiere & Son Theatre Company': a version that omits all the footnoted references. How can I take this version off the Review waiting list and replace it with the current referenced version? Genepez (talk) 17:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The easiest way would be to simply edit this version and add the references. I have removed the submission template for now; please re-submit it when you're finished adding the references. Huon (talk) 17:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of User:Acharya vikas kaushik ji/Acharya VIKAS KAUSHIK JI

Dear Helper, im UNABLE to upload ACHARYA VIKAS KAUSHIK JI PHOTO TO MY ARTICLE CAN U PL DO IT FOR ME THX.i am praying to God that my article would feature on WIKIPIDEA soon with your kind assistance. jai shri krishna! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acharya vikas kaushik ji (talk • contribs) 17:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

You can upload images via Special:Upload, but your account must be autoconfirmed - it must be at least four days old, with at least ten edits. If the image comes with a free license such as the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License or one compatible to it, you can also upload it to the Wikimedia Commons via their Upload Wizard. If it isn't free, you probably should not upload it at all because one of the criteria for fair use is that no free equivalent is available or likely to become available, and for photos of living persons we usually assume that a free one could become available if it isn't already.

Two other points: Firstly, you have not addressed the issues with the references I pointed out (I can't read Hindi, but I expect something called "readerblogs" is a blog by a newspaper reader, not content published by the newspaper itself, and thus not a reliable source). You should concentrate on that, not on bells and whistles such as images. Secondly, Excirial told you that you should not publish medical histories with identifying information and email addresses on Wikipedia unless sourced to a reliable published source - and probably not even then unless the person whose details you publish is the article's subject. Excirial even deleted Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ACHARYA VIKAS KAUSHIK JI for that reason, but you immediately re-created the page in your userspace, including the information you were told not to publish. Such conduct is more likely to see you blocked than to see your article published. Huon (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/iDonate

Hi, I created a draft of a new article - Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/iDonate I submitted and it was quickly reviewed. I then did several updates as per recommendations and resubmitted. I am not sure if I resubmitted properly as the first feedback still shows. Please let me know if it is properly resubmitted. Poshpaddy (talk) 18:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's properly resubmitted. The first feedback just serves as a historical record. As long as there's a "Review waiting" message and the article is categorized among the Pending AfC submissions, everything is OK. But I saw that many of the references appear to be primary sources, such as the platform's own website, while many others don't mention iDonate at all. That's not the significant coverage in reliable secondary sources necessary to establish notability. Huon (talk) 18:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Healthy Back Store

So - I understand that "notable" references are needed in order to make this article worth including on Wikipedia. I'm wondering why a Washington Post article is not notable? I'm also wondering how it is a business like Relax the Back - makes it into Wikipedia and they have ZERO references? What is it about this company that makes it worth listing but not Healthy Back Store? I'd appreciate more direction and information on how to make this work. Thank you.

98.148.100.118 (talk) 18:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The Washington Post is certainly a reliable source, but a single piece of local news is not quite the "significant coverage" required to establish a topic's notability. For comparison, a Google News search for Relax the Back shows articles in the San Francisco Chronicle, Deseret News, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, and the Austin American-Statesman - all on the first page. While that article indeed does not cite sources, many reliable sources exist. A comparable search for the Healthy Back Store produced mostly press releases, which are not reliable. Anyway, the existence of other insufficiently sourced articles is not a reason to create more.

My suggestion would be to find more news pieces, preferably not just local news. In particular, the lead of the draft is still only supported by primary sources. Huon (talk) 19:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

My article is sitting uncommented on since May 6th

Hi ,

I'm probably not communicating correctly with my reviewer but I completed all the tasks he asked me to perform to ensure my article was ready for publishing but I have heard nothing since early May.

Can you please help? Thanks Guillermo

My article is sitting uncommented on since May 6th

Hi ,

I'm probably not communicating correctly with my reviewer but I completed all the tasks he asked me to perform to ensure my article was ready for publishing but I have heard nothing since early May.

Can you please help? Thanks Guillermo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsuescum (talk • contribs) 21:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Guillermo, I am unable to help you at the moment since you never referenced what your article is or provided a link. However, from looking at your user talk page, I have gathered that the page you wish to submit is Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Somebody's Hero - The Movie. If this is correct, then all you need to do is click the link "click here" in the review box at the top (next to the text "When the submission is ready to be re-submitted") and then click submit on that screen so that your article will be re-submitted for review.

Hope that helps! Patrick Bradshaw (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

P.S. If the article I posted is not your article, ignore everything that follows! :) I gave your article a quick read-through after I dealt with your question, and I do not think that the article is ready for review yet. First, the reviewer's comment was never dealt with and there are still no inline citations in your article. Because of this, it is hard to determine what of your content is verifiable and whether any of it is more speculation. And secondly, it seems that a majority of your references come from the website for the movie itself. Please try to refrain from primary sources (see reliable sources) and instead use reliable secondary sources so that the reviewers can pass this article easily and we can ensure that the content contained is properly neutral and not biased. As I read through your article, I do see that it is not biased and thus your primary sources may be okay in this instance. I think you have a very good start to your article and as long as you put inline citations into your article it should pass review (depending on how the reviewer sees the primary sources - it's worth a try imho!). Good luck! Patrick Bradshaw (talk) 21:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/East Valley

My submission (East Valley) was recently rejected by Wikipedia. The reason cited was that: "the page already exists under 'East Valley (Phoenix Metropolitan area)'..." However, upon further review of that page, there is merely four sentences to that page, while mine nears 4,000 words of cited work - a project compiled by an array of published writers from the (East Valley) area. Besides, there is no article with ONLY the name EAST VALLEY. The purpose of this article is to display the East Valley as a separate entity from the greater Phoenix Metropolitan area. That purpose would cease to exist if I simply adding my content to the page that has Phoenix in the title. I am seeking my page to be created separately - with the name "East Valley."

I strongly urge the reviewers of Wikipedia to re-consider. The content, in both quality and quantity, of my article-for-creation is vastly superior to that of "East Valley (Phoenix Metropolitan area)." Or, if I am to add my well-written content to that page, there must be a way of changing the title of that page to ONLY reading: EAST VALLEY. Is there a way to make this work?

Jfornara (talk) 23:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, there is an article named East Valley; it's a disambiguation page for the various areas named "East Valley". Secondly, creating a separate article about the same subject to express a different point of view is known as a "POV fork", it's inconsistent with Wikipedia's policies. Our purpose should be to write an encyclopedia, not to promote some local area. Thirdly, quite a few of your references are primary sources. Especially when discussing the companies and institutions you often rely solely on such sources, but Wikipedia content should be based on secondary sources. On the other hand, claims such as the one about Intel being the company with the most profound impact are unsourced, and even worse, the sources given sometimes do not support the claims they are cited for - Intel's 10,300 employees are one example. Also, quite a few of the sources do not mention the East Valley at all - the Intel article from The Arizona Republic, for example, repeatedly mentions the Greater Phoenix Economic Council, but a "southeast Valley city" is the closest they come to mentioning the East Valley. That seems to flat-out contradict the point you want to make. The Skysong Center, Aerospace & Defense Research Collaboratory and Arizona State University websites do not even provide such roundabout references. Finally, the draft's tone at times is decidedly unencyclopedic. For example, encyclopedia articles usually do not ask questions. Also, phrases such as "another story of blazing growth" are hardly appropriate except as an attributed quote from a reliable source. We're not writing a land developer's commercial.

In summary, I don't think a second article on the East Valley is warranted; I would instead suggest you merge those parts of your draft that are both relevant to the East Valley and supported by reliable secondary sources into the East Valley (Phoenix metropolitan area) article. Huon (talk) 01:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

June 22

Status of my article 'Radha Vinod Raju'

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Radha Vinod Raju

I created an article 'Radha Vinod Raju' for AFC. How many days take for submission ? Vikian (talk) 04:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikian (talk • contribs) 04:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC) 

Accepted While there is a massive backlog and the oldest articles awaiting review date from June 10, I saw that your draft was well-sourced and accepted it right away. Thank you for improving Wikipedia! Huon (talk) 07:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Grosvenor Rugby Club

Can someone advise me on how to make the draft article mentioned above suitable for contribution? I am merely trying to give my rugby club a presence of Wikipedia, one which I can then build on over time.

Stevie huge (talk) 10:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Most importantly, your draft needs reliable secondary sources such as newspaper articles. Wikipedia content should not be based on primary sources such as the club's own website. Furthermore, significant coverage in secondary sources is required to establish a topic's notability. You should also use inline citations and footnotes so our readers can easily verify which reference supports which part of the article.

I also found the draft rather technical. It should be written for a general audience. I, for one, didn't quite understand these details: "The 4th XV completed all their fixtures and finished 4th in Minor East 2." I gather some team played in some league, but what team exactly, and what league? If we have articles on the leagues and the team system, some links to them would definitely be in order. As an aside, you don't have any links; wikilinks are created by square brackets: [[Grosvenor]] will link to Grosvenor. More help on links is availabe at Help:Links. Finally, the draft's last sentence about the club's vision sounds rather unencyclopedic. I expect most clubs have some similar "vision", but unless it has been discussed by secondary sources, it tells us very little about the club. The "long and proud history" also seemed laudatory and debatable - I'd say any club founded after 1950 is too young to have a long history... Such a statement would need to be attributed to a secondary source. Huon (talk) 11:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Matthew Mitchell (producer)

Help

Re: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Matthew Mitchell (producer)

I've had it bounced back a few times now regarding inline citations. I thought I had done this, I have the citation ref numbers, I have the list at the end and I also have external sources at all. I'm not sure where it is that I'm drawing a blank. Please advise what extra I need to do for this as I thought I had met all requirements.

Many thanks

Alison Anderida1971 (talk) 11:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The main problem to me seems to be that the sources you have don't actually cover Mitchell in significant detail. For example, the Variety review of the Nutcracker or the Tony Award website don't grant him an entire sentence, and the Olivier Awards website doesn't even mention him. That's not the significant coverage required to establish Mitchell's notability. On the other hand, parts of the article are not supported by sources at all - for all I can tell, only two of his awards and very few of his production credits are sourced. As an aside, "references" should actually be referred to (preferably via footnotes). For all I can tell, that's not the case with quite a few of yours. Furthermore, one of those references is a Wikipedia article, but Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source. Huon (talk) 11:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Steve Schlanger

Since the original response to my first submission remains as a historical record even after it has been edited, how do I know when my edited version has been reviewed?

SessoccerSessoccer (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Steve Schlanger

How do I know when my revision to the original submission has been reviewed?

Sessoccer Sessoccer (talk) 14:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

When it had been submitted, but no longer has a "review waiting" message, it has been reviewed. You can also check the page history. Your draft hasn't been re-submitted since it was declined on June 19, though. Huon (talk) 16:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/St. Andrew's School, Eastbourne

yo109.204.82.155 (talk) 14:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

What do you need help with? Huon (talk) 16:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Younger's

The draft I submitted has been rejected on two grounds: lack of evidence for the notability of the subject and lack of verifiable sources. Re notability, there are few companies that survive successfully for over two and a half centuries and become a household name (in this case, in the UK at least). By the 1960s it was "common knowledge" in Edinburgh that the company was the city's biggest employer. Re sources, it is really not possible to find secondary sources on this subject other than the company's own histories. So the question is, should Wikipedia have an article on Younger's, as a companion to the page on McEwan's (which is historically far less notable), or should the information be simply unavailable on the above grounds. As I feel sure many people do seek information on this company, and presumably draw a blank at present, it seems a shame that this article cannot fill that void. Kim Traynor (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately "common knowledge" is not acceptable at Wikipedia; we require reliable published sources which are independent of the article's subject. I cannot believe that there are no secondary sources on a 250-year-old company. Surely it has received some newspaper coverage during those 250 years, perhaps an article on the occasion of its 250th anniversary? Maybe even textbooks on the history of Scottish breweries? Admittedly those references may be difficult to find, but that's no excuse to base the article on original research. Huon (talk) 16:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pykulovychi

How do I use this article as translation for: http://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B8%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87%D1%96

I haven't yet translated properly the full text of the article in English, but first I was to make sure that I can have this article as translation of the original article in Ukrainian.

Please let me know how I do this, so there will be a link on the left side of the original article saying that there is also an English translation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asatler (talk • contribs) 15:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Translating articles from sister projects in other languages is fine in principle, but I believe this particular Ukrainian article doesn't have either footnotes or that many sources. While per WP:NOENG Ukrainian sources are acceptable (though English sources are preferable), I don't think those three external links serve to support all the Ukrainian article's content. In that case you'd have to either find additional sources or shorten the article. I don't read Ukrainian, so I may be wrong, but it would still be helpful if you added footnotes so our readers can verify which source supports which part of the article. Huon (talk) 16:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Fénix UNAM

Hello, I'm trying to make an Article, for the Mexican Ultimate Club Fenix. A lot of the facts I got them because I play on that team. However I trying to retrieve some facs from some websites. My question is the following: if a lot of the facts are from my experience on the team, does that still doesn't make the standard for an article?

The article name is Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Fénix UNAM (Fénix UNAM)Laramos 24 (talk) 19:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately your personal experience counts as original research and is not acceptable for Wikipedia - we require reliable published sources that are independent of the article's subject. Our readers wouldn't be able to verify your personal experience. Huon (talk) 21:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation page != article

This was declined on grounds that it contained insufficient information for an article, but it was a request for disambiguation, not for a new article. 31.18.251.44 (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we need that disambiguation - there's not much ambiguity among the articles you link to. One doesn't even exist (and therefore should not be linked on a disambiguation page), another two are specific models of bus monitors which are unlikely to be mistaken for the general term (or vice versa). Yet another is a monitoring system for (omni)buses that's never actually called a "bus monitor", and I don't see how it could be confused with the others. That leaves Bus Monitoring and bus analyzer, and for those hatnotes should suffice - maybe we could even merge them. Huon (talk) 21:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, the page I suggested a merge to is a similar (but more inclusive) disambiguation. --Nouniquenames (talk) 22:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Resubmitting article for review

I would like to resubmit Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Thomas Giovine now that I have added several references. I thought I had correctly re-submitted it, but it has not been reviewed a second time. How do I make sure that it has been submitted for a secondary review? Thanks, Tagiovine (talk) 20:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The article has been correctly resubmitted. There's a "Review waiting" message, and it's categorized among the Pending AfC submissions (the very last line). But there's a massive backlog, and the reviewers simply haven't yet found the time to look at your article again. Please be patient.

As an aside, I don't think the sources show sufficient coverage of Giovine to establish his notability. The school website and the IAPD website don't even mention him, the New York Times quotes Giovine on the stock market, but provides very little information on him, and the GFI website doesn't mention anything about him but his job as CEO of Giovine Capital Group. That leaves us with Bloomberg, and I'm not sure the Bloomberg profile alone is significant enough. On the other hand, parts of the article, such as Giovine's swimming accomplishments or his responsibilities at Republic New York Corporation, are unsourced. Huon (talk) 21:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

June 23

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Halfin-whitt regime

Annals of applied probability is the top journal on applied probability. In a very long paper in that journal Halfin-Whitt regime is described as a 'seminal work' and as a'pioneering effort'. It surely should appear in Wikipedia. If you put what I prepared as a stub then surely more people in this area will be able to improve it.Shuroo (talk) 11:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

As the reviewer has already stated, it is difficult at the moment to understand what your article is about. You need to start your article by clearly explaining what the subject is, without jargon, so any person of reasonable intelligence can understand.

Secondly, you need to show that the subject is notable. You need to cite reliable, independent published secondary sources sources to prove that the subject has been widely noticed and talked about. The research paper by Halfin and Whitt is a primary source which doesn't count towards notability of the subject. Sionk (talk) 12:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

As I wrore, I included a VERY reliable published secoundary source. Also "Halfin-Whitt regime" has 35,500 occurances in Google and about 200 in Google Scholar. If this does not convince you please transfer my request to a senior editor. Shuroo (talk) 07:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

That goes to show that it should be possible to write a good article on this subject - but as the reviewer noted, this draft isn't it because it provides far too little context. For example, I had no idea what an "exponential" server is, or what a "centered" queue length process is, or what a limiting diffusion is. I could guess some of those terms, but for others I can't even guess what they mean in this context. The article should either tell me or provide links to other relevant articles. For example, you could probably clarify the exponential servers by stating that it's an M/M/c queue for large c - I'll still not know what it is, but if you provide the link I can read it up.

I'd also suggest that you state the result before discussing its history and importance, not the other way round.

Regarding sources: If there are so many secondary sources, it should be easy to find a few others and to use them to support relevant parts of the article. How about one putting the Halfin-Whitt regime in relation to previous similar results? As an aside, you should use footnotes to clarify which reference supports which part of the article. In particular, such laudatory terms as "seminal work" and "pioneering effort" must be attributed to the source; otherwise they would be considered peacock terms. They would also be more at home in a separate section on the impact of Halfin and Whitt's result than in the discussion of the result itself.

As a further aside, the editor who declinined your submission is as "senior" as they come, and Sionk is also a veteran of WP:AFC. You can take their word on this draft's problems. Huon (talk) 11:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/INLANDGROUP

(Copyright violation removed by Huon.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by IRTPL (talk • contribs) 14:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

There are quite a few problems. First of all, the article draft should be written at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/INLANDGROUP, not here at the help desk nor at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/INLANDGROUP. Secondly, your draft had no references at all. Wikipedia requires reliable sources independent of the subject not just to allow our readers to verify the article's content, but also to establish that the topic is notable enough for an article in the first place. Thirdly, the draft's text was copied verbatim from the company website in violation of copyright. For that reason I've nominated the draft for speedy deletion. Also, the draft's tone was anything but encyclopedic - just to point out the obvious, we do not welcome readers to our articles, and "exciting" is a word to avoid. Thus I don't think releasing that website under a free license would be worth the effort even if you have the rights and would be willing to do so; that text would not be a good basis for an article anyway. Finally, you might want to read our guideline on conflicts of interest. Your username suggest that you represent IRTPL, so much so that it's probably in violation of our username policy. (You should therefore either request your name be changed or create a new account with a permissible name.) Writing articles about your own company is strongly discouraged.

In summary, my advice to you would be to not write this article but to wait until someone not directly affiliated with IRTPL does so. Huon (talk) 16:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

June 24

Change Name of Article

Hi, I want change name of the article Imaginary relativity to capitalize Imaginary Relativity. How can i do this. Help would be great!Mehran950 (talk) 04:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

You could petition at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Note, however, that this page has been nominated for deletion. It would be a good idea to wait until that discussion has run its course before starting the move request. (Another option at that time might be to bring it up on the article's talk page, or to move it under WP:BB, as long as you wait for the AfD to end, provide a reason in the log, and understand the potential for someone to revert.) --Nouniquenames (talk) 05:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

please note my answer about the Halfin-Whitt regimeShuroo (talk) 07:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/iDonate

Hi, I am posting in an effort to get some advise on a new Wikipedia page where time is of the essence. I have made several edits to Wikipedia in the past, but this is my first page submission. My company recently launched a free online fundraising web platform for charities and nonprofits called iDonate. We have registered over 100 charities in the first two months. The platform has some features which are not available anywhere else (eg, white label fundraising pages, dedicated online auction shop). The initial page submission was rejected and we have resubmitted with (hopefully) the necessary corrections to get the page listed as expeditiously as possible. Our concern is that it may take some time to demonstrate how we meet the necessary criteria. Meanwhile the charities continue to struggle. Our view is that the ethos of Wikipedia would be to support an initiative of this importance to help raise much needed monies for charities and nonprofits. As soon as the project proves itself in Ireland, we plan to go International with the service. The website is already raising 1000's of euros per day in Ireland. We plan to use the Wikipedia page to further promote the project. We appeal to you to support the project in the short-term. If you feel at any point that iDonate is not a bona fide operation, you always have the option to remove the page. Thanking you in anticipation and I look forward to working with you. Paddy Coyne - pcoyne @ ebook . ie Poshpaddy (talk) 08:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

First of all, writing about "your company" may be seen as a conflict of interest and is discouraged.

If the sources on the web platform do not yet exist, we should not have an article on it. Wikipedia is not the place to raise awareness of this platform (and in particular not to promote it, see WP:NOTPROMOTION and WP:SPAM; this is exactly the reason why writing about your company is discouraged); our articles should only cover subjects that are notable already.

The vast majority of your sources seem either to provide trivial coverage or to be primary sources; I don't think they establish the subject's notability. Huon (talk) 11:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nivis

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nivis

Article on Nivis has been turned down twice on notability grounds. This is a well known, 15 year old company in an important technology area that promises to have a huge impact on the world over time (the Internet of Things). Is the issue that I still have not adequately documented the company or is there a belief that this topic is inherently not noteworthy? (I note that there are already articles on other companies working in this field.)

I'm still a little new at this, so let me know if I have missed something obvious.

Thanks!

Southern Artist (talk) 15:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia measures notability by "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Among your sources, three are press releases, which are presumably not independent, another two are blogs, which are usually considered low on the "reliability" scale (and one blog post seemst to be just a reposted press release), another two just drop the name and tell us very little about the company. The best two are Business Week and smartmeters, and I'm not at all sure about the latter - the article doesn't come with information on the author, there's no indication of editorial oversight, and I cannot tell wheter smartmeters has the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy required of a reliable source. My suggestion would be to look for more in-depth coverage in clearly reliable sources, such as newspaper articles.

Two comments aside: Firstly, while Nivis may have a huge impact over time, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball - that it may become notable does not mean it already is. Secondly, regarding the articles on other companies: Other stuff exists, but every article has to stand on its own merits. Huon (talk) 16:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Submission declined

(Copied from Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions)
Hello.

I am not new here, and have been editing since mid-2008. However, my recent submission at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Find and replace was declined as a how-to manual by the reviewer, although, (s)he did state that it was a good topic. I'd been invited here by the reviewer. I would greatly appreciate assistance in rewriting the article to become more encyclopedic. I do have reliable sources, and at least I've accomplished that. Help would be greatly appreciated. 69.155.143.207 (talk) 20:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC), copied here 22:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC), last modified 22:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what to say about this. Are the Microsoft help pages supposed to be the reliable sources? They seem overly company-specific (for example, I doubt find-and-replace operations in a Linux environment use what Microsoft calls the "FindText function"), I'm not sure they actually come with the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy necessary to be considered reliable (there's definitely no editorial oversight), and worst of all, the first one doesn't even say what it's cited for. A company's support pages on its own product also look like primary sources to me. The topic might be discussed in textbooks on software development, but I'm no expert and wouldn't even know where to start looking.

Regarding the how-to problem: The entire middle of the article is an explanation on how to search and replace. That should probably be removed entirely. I'd say: Explaining the functionality commonly associated with finding and replacing is encyclopedic, explaining which buttons to click is not. Huon (talk) 00:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

June 25

average time to get a review?

I know it will vary, but what is average? 64.134.168.97 (talk) 01:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)