Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk
| Main page | Talk page | Submissions Category — List (sorting) | Showcase | Participants Apply — By subject | Reviewing instructions | Help desk | Backlog drives |
- 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. |
| Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions |
|---|
November 14
Help me out to improve the article. It says the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. To my knowledge it is not written from a first or second person perspective. what types of peacock terms are used ?
--Stallion444 03:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stallion444 (talk • contribs)
- "Swamini Ātmaprajñānanda deeply appreciates the knowledge/intellectual heritage/tradition in India" - which independent reliable source said so?
- "People are in for experience and miracle, and do not want to study" - what does this have to do with a factual biography of a living person in an encyclopedia?
- "One cannot bypass Sruti" - this is a statement of opinion, not a factual piece of encyclopedic information backed by an independent reliable source.
- ... and much else similar.
- There are also three lengthy sentences about the person's material being available on YouTube. This needs trimming. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I have created this entry for an important historical company (in my opinion) to do with the nuclear accelerator industry worldwide. What can I do to have it accepted ? I have tried to find supporting doccumentation and added those links but clearly it is not enough. Where can I find more material? Vector1 nz (talk) 07:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Vector1 nz. I've added more references to it to establish notability and moved it into article space at Auckland Nuclear Accessory Company where you can continue improving it. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I was wondering if I could change the name of this instead of just being Spire, but instead to change it to Spire (company). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johne1323 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yes that is sensible. You can't move (rename) pages yet, but it is fine to leave this for the reviewer to do if/when the article is accepted. The reviewer will know they have to do this, as there is already an article spire on a different topic. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dental Savings Plans Not sure how to take it to the next step of having the article reviewed? I have the article saved, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Dental_Savings_Plans
KellyWhalenPR (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- Please see the messages on your talk page here: User talk:WhalenPR. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)
- WhalenPR, at the bottom of the grey notice on the top of your draft page click on "Submit your draft when you are ready for it to be reviewed!". However, if you submit this now it will be almost certainly rejected. It is a rather blatant advertisement for DentalPlans.com (a client of Whalen Public & Media Relations?) masquerading quite unsuccessfully as an article on a general subject. The only example of "providers" that you give is the following:
- "Among the companies that sell dental savings plans, DentalPlans.com is largest in the nation, offering consumers the freedom to choose a dental savings plan from more than 30 of America’s most trusted networks, like Aetna, Cigna, Careington, Signature Wellness, and UNI-CARE. Finding a local dentist is easy–more than 100,000 participating dentists across the country participate in at least one dental savings plan."
- You also provide no references to support any of the other assertions in the draft (the rest of which reads like a brochure to get people to buy these plans in general), simply some general external links. If you want to write an encyclopedic article on the subject of dental savings plans in the United States, fine. But it requires considerably more work than this and there is no need whatsoever to mention any commercial sellers of these plans or their brokers. Voceditenore (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Despite submitting my page for review, the page still says at the top that the page has NOT been submitted. Can you double check and confirm whether or not it has actually been submitted?
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cardinal Peak Engineering — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aking1309 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, that has been submitted. You can ignore the "not submitted" message because it is incorrect. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
November 15
I was trying to create an article but I made it in talk page instead of project page as I am a new user. I then changed my page to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Frompo and deleted whole thing form talk page. Have I done anything wrong? And what should I do with talk page what should I will write there a bio of that term or technology? Please Help me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerBenson1984 (talk • contribs)
- This is now awaiting review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Frompo. You should probably look into adding some more independent reliable sources - Wikipedia:VRS explains what is needed. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Reply to your Articles for Creation Help Desk question on Frompo
Hello, WikiProject Articles for creation! I'm RogerBenson1984. I have replied to your question on the Articles for Creation Help Desk about Frompo.
You can read it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#NEW SECTION.
Dear Sir, I posted an article about Yogacharya Tapan Bose, aka Swarupananda Brahmachari. Please let me know if it has been reviewed and when I would expect this article to post. Thanks for your help,
Lakulish — Preceding unsigned comment added by LAKULISH (talk • contribs) 07:23, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, this was reviewed and declined today. You can see the reason for it being declined in the pink box at the top of the submission page. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I have re-submitted a page for The Minories for approval, but have 2 concerns. 1 - I am not sure if the page is in the correct place for submission 2 - The title of the page is "Minories" but should be "The Minories" and I am not sure how to change it. I have tried but failed. Can you help please? Thank you. Claire and Iris 11:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by IrisB at TMG (talk • contribs)
- It's your lucky day, I know Colchester well, love walking round Castle Park, and have heard of the Minories. It's definitely notable, so I will pass it now, then try and cite the article to reliable sources over lunch (it has enough to pass the minimum criteria, but I would quite like to get the entire article properly sourced to C class ASAP). I've gone with The Minories, Colchester as there already is an article on The Minories for the street in Central London. Thanks for the article! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi all I have received these comments with regard to a recent submission I made. Can you please elaborate to give me any ideas on how to improve the submission: This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
Any advice would be gratefully received. Suewesty (talk) 19:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
resubmit of article (Arnold J. Sameroff (psychologist)) in creation with recent edits. Needs to be re-reviewed
2xprofs (talk) 20:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Hi today ,I (2xprofs) edited an entry previously created but initially rejected due to formatting limitations. The article--- Arnold J. Sameroff(psychologist)--has been reformatted to conform with Wikipedia guidelines. I am resubmitting the latest version for further review . Thanks for your help. 2xprofs (talk) 20:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
November 16
I need support regarding a deletion of Kernow Positive Support article. Please see my comments on my talk page Davidtardis (talk) 00:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC) I look forward to your comments and assistance at your earliest to help restablishment of our important information and article.
Review of User:Houston T Watts/sandbox
Who will be doing the verification? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Houston T Watts (talk • contribs) 00:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- No verification is required, as that page is not currently submitted for review. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Review of User:Davidtardis/Article for creation
Please note I am rather confused, having taken over a year to get this article approved it was unceremoniously deleted around October 2013 stating we were not a national charity and therefore not notable. I have tried to work out how this article and/ or it's original can be reestablished on Wikipedia. As it was available for several months etc. please refer to my talk pages and messages I have left. I have therefore recreated the article with some minor changes as I firmly believe this article is a important information resource. Regarding advertising and promotion, after the eventual acceptance by Wikipedia I was assured that the article eventually conformed to the policies and rules after long discussions with a variety of editors etc. please help regarding the reestablishment of this article. Davidtardis (talk) 02:05, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- I've replied on Davidtardis' talk page, and suggested to the most recent deleting admin to take this article to a deletion review. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
i notice that someone has recently decline the article ... Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dareysteel without droping a comment, please can anyone please take a good look to this article and see what is not relieble source, i feel to my understanding that wikipedia is a free and open source, not vandalism. please verify that very article and see why the source are not independent or relieble source, secondly i will be glad if you assist in developing the article , so the article can be more better.... thanks Akochanwata (talk) 19:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
what is wrong w my submission of bio for alan Meckler? I saw the comments about "context" but not sure what this means? is there a way for other editors to improve the content? this person surely deserves inclusion. also, I am confused about communication in wiki? when you respond, whoever you are, you will write on my talkpage? why cant you just write to me at my email address (which you say I am not allowed to give?) and/or give me a phone number to call. the whole experience has been frustrating and I would think that you would want to encourage people such as myself to make contributions?? Mikesiris (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)thanks, mike s
Please check why article on "Juuso Walden" is repeatedly rejected citing lack of references which is counter factual. The article is referenced from history studies, thesis work and sources listed in the reference list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spespatriae (talk • contribs) 23:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- The article lacks footnotes. Refer to this page for step-by-step instructions on how to add footnotes to your article. --Huang (talk) 16:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- I have accepted this article. The sources were highly reliable and independent, simply not placed as inline citations. There is no requirement for inline citations to accept an article, especially when the person is no longer living. Doesn't anyone here read the reviewing instructions?
- Avoid the following errors:
- Avoid declining an article because it correctly uses general references to support some or all of the material. The content and sourcing policies require inline citations for only four specific types of material, most commonly: direct quotations and contentious material (whether negative, positive, or neutral) about living persons.
- Voceditenore (talk) 11:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- I have accepted this article. The sources were highly reliable and independent, simply not placed as inline citations. There is no requirement for inline citations to accept an article, especially when the person is no longer living. Doesn't anyone here read the reviewing instructions?
November 17
Hi! My name is Karla Bernardo, and I am the Public Relations Officer of the UP Portia Sorority, the UP College of Law's only law-based sorority. I was also the one who made the iskWiki page from which this article appears to have been copied. Is there any way I can still post this here in the main Wikipedia page? iskWiki is the Wikipedia page for UP students, but our alumni is hoping (especially for this year, as we are celebrating our 80th anniversary) that we have an official Wikipedia page. The History and other information I placed here are the official ones we use every time we are required to put out something about our sorority.
I hope you can allow me to use this information here.
Best, Karla Bernardo
Karlabernardo (talk) 02:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello Karla. Unfortunately, it can't be published here as a copy of this web page. That page is clearly marked © 2009-2013 Diliman Interactive Learning Center. I am going to reduce the draft to a stub temporarily. There are two things you can do which would allow Wikipedia to republish:
1. The easiest way is to place the following notice with this exact wording on the web page in question:
- The text of this page is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).
or
2. Send an email granting Wikipedia permission to use the text following the instructions at: Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials#Granting us permission to copy material already online. This one is more complicated and you must follow the instructions and wording there exactly or the permission will not be considered valid.
Please also remember that once you have released the text under a free license, you cannot revoke the release. Anyone can re-use and alter it freely, even for commercial gain. The only condition being that they must attribute the text to the copyright holder (UP Portia Sorority?) and they cannot republish it under a more restrictive license. In the meantime, I suggest you concentrate on adding independent sources to the article to establish the notability of the subject. Simply referencing it to the sorority's website is not enough. I hope that helps. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
please can someone kindly help me urgent to fix this article about.. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Margot O'Neill i have a big problem on the references list.... i need your assistance, thanks you in advance 15:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Mohammede aziz abdul (talk)
- What is wrong with the references list? --Huang (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- Nothing now. I fixed it for him :). There was a format mistake in one of the references that prevented them from showing. Voceditenore (talk) 16:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC) thanks u for help.Mohammede aziz abdul (talk) 10:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Since the Articles for Creation is severely backlogged, is there any reason not to simply post the article without waiting for review? Would it be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smackeben (talk • contribs) 20:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- You can move the article directly into mainspace if you are a autoconfirmed user (ie: your account is older than 4 days and you have more than 10 edits), but if it gets speedy deleted or deleted via discussion, don't say you weren't warned. The good news about GamerFitnation is that it contains citations to multiple reliable sources, which means it won't (and, indeed, hasn't) been declined without hesitation. However, a reviewer has to check all the citations to confirm they contain sufficient coverage about GamerFitnation, which will take some time. This does mean though, that if your submission passes, it's highly unlikely to be deleted. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
How do I respond to the following reviewer message? (I have verified that there is NO Wikipedia article on this person.) Thank you!
"Please verify that Tim Jerome (actor) does not already exist and that it does not need to be moved to a different title." — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDR1944 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- That's an instruction for somebody reviewing the article. You can safely ignore it. As it is, I've declined your article but with some further work it might pass in the future. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ACURIL Can you help on this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/ACURILKmccook (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
This article seems to have gotten lost. A colleague began it and I'd like to work on it.
Can you help on this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/ACURILKmccook (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- The article was last submitted three days ago. There is currently a severe backlog of more than 2,000 submissions, which means unfortunately there's a delay getting things processed. Sorry. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I have taken over the account for the Integrated Marine Observing System which previously had a page deleted from Wikipedia due to copyright infringements, which I believe were due to errors by the information provider, who was the holder of the account. I have inherited the username and password and hope to rebuild the entry.
I would like to re-create the page with similar content, but it is unclear how to contact the original deleter. I click on their name in the advisory panel but it is not clear what to do next.
Could you please provide instructions on how to either 1) contact the deleter or 2) re-list the page with approved content.
Jess Tyler, Communications Manager, IMOS Franhutchi (talk) 23:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- "I have taken over the account" ... "I have inherited the username and password" - that's not generally a good idea, because our policies on sockpuppetry specify that an account is used by one person only and that piggybacking onto another account is not allowed.
- The article was deleted due to infringing Wikipedia's specific copyright policies, which are a little confusing to new editors. Put simply, anything you write on Wikipedia can be reused and resold by anyone else. If somebody wanted to take the contents of my talk page and publish it as a book, they can (they'd be a little crazy, but they wouldn't be infringing copyright!) Because most people don't expect this, we can't accept text copied from another site unless it is specifically marked with the same copyright policy, or somebody has contacted the Volunteer Response System to clear its copyright status.
- The simplest thing to do is to rewrite the article in your own words. However, make sure you include references to reliable sources such as commercially published books, magazines or newspapers, or the submission is likely to be declined again. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Help. I have spent way too much time trying to add an infobox with a photograph to the article about George O. Jackson Jr. I have uploaded an image and managed to add the infobox to the article. But I cannot make the image appear.
Thanks for your help. JoanLouise (talk) 23:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- I have fixed the infobox to display the image. The copyright status is a larger concern, but I see you have asked that on Media Copyright Questions, so somebody will be able to help you there. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
November 18
I cannot understand why my page for Andrew Berry Hairdresser hasn't been published. I've supplied all the correct information.Lucyarnott (talk) 04:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- Because Berry is a living person, the minimum standard for his article is stricter, and all information in the article must be cited to a good source per our policy on living people using in-line citations. Currently, your submission has none. The subject seems to be tangentially related to a number of people centred around Factory Records, but notability is not inherited so he can't have an article just because several of his friends do. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
I'm hoping to improve a Wiki entry that was rejected recently but have not heard anything as to why or what I need to do to get it published. I would be most grateful for any advice on how to proceed.
Many thanks for your help.
Best wishes,
Tanja
Forum on Information Standards in Heritage (FISH), UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tasu08 (talk • contribs) 10:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- The submission was declined because it does not appear to be a notable topic for a standalone article. Web forums are generally unsuitable topics for Wikipedia (simply because anyone can set one up and there are so many of them), and your references mostly deal with English Heritage. You might be able to mention MIDAS Heritage in that article briefly, but I don't think you'll be able to do much more at present. By the way, you should generally avoid writing about articles dealing with subjects you are closely involved with, as it can create a conflict of interest. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Ian_Morison
...top of page shows "Article not currently submitted for review."
...bottom of page shows "Review waiting."
I suspect some meta markup has been left in place accidentally, please confirm that article is in review or advise corrections if not!
Thanks! 52degreesN (talk) 12:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- The article was correctly submitted for review, and has now passed. Thanks for your submission! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Why does the article Barry Jon Beck have a warning that it's an orphan, when other Wikipedia pages link to it? How can I get this removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gremlin700 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Question
Hi Folks, I am editing the entry Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Søren Brier as suggested by DGG but I am a bit confused on how to discriminate between information that should go into References, Sources and External Links. Thanks so much ˜˜˜CRAU999 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crau999 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- @DGG: is, as he says in your submission, a specialist in biographies on academics. I've pinged him as he's probably the best person to answer your specific questions. For what it's worth, I tend to put references to inline citations in "References", general references (such as books or related reading where the entry in "References" is a shortened footnote) in "Sources" and anything that's also worth reading but not directly related to anything in the article in "External Links". However, to cut a long story short, for the purposes of getting your submission accepted, the honest answer is "it doesn't really matter too much". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Ritchie has it right: it doesn't matter much. What matters is that we do have references, not where we put them. The way I think on it, the distinction between additional reading and external links is that the reading is normally print, but can be online if it;'s book-type material, the ER's are web pages and the like. If something is in the refs it doesn't have to be duplicated, but sometimes it does help--like always adding the official CV as the first EL, even if you have previously used it to support routine biographical facts. It has happened that people have rejected AfCs for handling references in a way they don't like, but they're shouldn't do that, because any way that clearly documents the material is acceptable. DGG ( talk ) 16:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I've recently submitted a new article for creation. The first feedback was a little disappointing and actually confusing. I wonder if I could get a better one - what is actually wrong with it and how to improve it. I have a COI here and would very much appreciate your help so I can go back and try to make it better. Many thanks, Kat Kt1502 (talk) 17:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi! I am having trouble uploading my article. Everytime I think I have submitted it, the next pages says "Article Not Currently Submitted for Review". Are you able to tell me if my article has been submitted, or how I can submit it? Thanks! Lboureston (talk) 18:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Lindsey
- Done. When you submit the article there is a section of text that explains that you should ignore the grey box and it will get cleaned up later. I've just been and done the clean up and your article is awaiting review. Rankersbo (talk) 19:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Please inform me of the reasons for which this submission has been rejected and advise me as to how to rectify it. Yours Mark Daniel (Daniboy72)Daniboy72 (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- Generally candidates for Westminster or Brussels/Strasbourg aren't considered notable under WP:POLITICIAN so either UKIP would need to take 2 seats in his region at the next EP election, or he needs to have a high profile in the press to be proved notable. The reviewer seems to feel that the mention of Mr Carvers name in the reliable sources of the article aren't significant. Rankersbo (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
November 19
Hi, I was wondering if you could explain exactly why the Wikipedia page for the La Jolla Symphony and Chorus was rejected and if it is possible to revise it in a way that would make it acceptable. Thank you. Cesander (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hi can you check you've read the standard comments on the page itself, and checked the policies it links to? Rankersbo (talk) 10:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
While I've edited Wikipedia before, I've never created an article, so I would appreciate some assistance.
I've created this new article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/National_Astronomy_Week
I've tried to submit it for review, but at the top it still says "Article not currently submitted for review". (I've seen notes saying this will be cleaned out, but it's now about 10 hours since the article was submitted, and the message is still there.)
At the bottom it says, however, "Review waiting. This may take several weeks, even months. The Articles for creation process is severely backlogged. Please be patient. There are 2201 submissions waiting for review." This appears twice, presumably becuase I clicked the "Review" link twice on seeing the message at the top.
Firstly - is this article in the review queue or not?
Secondly, this article is about an important astronomical event in UK in March. I've submitted it on behalf of the Organising Committee. Is there any way we can get this reviewed and live in a reasonable time?
Yours sincerely,
Dr W B J Blake.
Brendan blake (talk) 08:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yes the article is in the queue- if it has a yellow template on it it's in the queue. It may take some time but it will be dealt with in the next few weeks, not months. The clean-up is done by a human at the moment, so it does take a while, but someone is working on automating the process.
- I haven't looked that closely, but your article actually looks quite good for a first attempt, especially given you appear to have a conflict of interest. Bear in mind wikipedia policies on promotion , and being a directory asking for things to be expidited may be counter productive.
- We are here specifically to talk about the mechanics of the AfC process, there is also a teahouse where people are there to generally guide in the process of writing articles. Rankersbo (talk) 09:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks - that's very helpful. I'll try to get some additional reviews done as soon as possible to ensure accuracy and objectivity.
Brendan Blake (talk) 10:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
HELP!!! I read your instructions for creating new article, I went through the article wizard. I copied and pasted the article that I wanted to publish, some text in the article was highlighted in blue. I'm not sure how to format or correct any issues as I am not sure what the blue highlight means. Also I am not sure if I am citing references correctly. Please advise. I realize you are a volunteer and your time is valuable, so I want to say thank you in advance for your help; I am grateful for it.
Glascoed (talk) 11:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)glascoed
- Deleted as a copyright violation. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
How can i resubmit my article?
Resolvedafter trying to submit my article, and resolving the problems in it, i would like to resubmit it, how do i do that? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Fascial_Manipulation
thank you for your help
NatalieBrettler (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Fascial Manipulation
- Add the code
{{subst:submit}}(including the curly braces) to the top of your article when editing it, and after saving, a yellow "submit" box should appear, indicating it is queued for review. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I am not sure if my Article [Portfolio Management Software] was submitted for revision. If yes, was it approved? If not, what can I do to make it approved?
Thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Croesusfin (talk • contribs) 19:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I am the author of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Food_Structure_Journal_1982-1993. I submitted the text for a review already on November 12. Until today I was not registered but then I was unable to upload an image of the journal cover (Food Structure Vol. 12, No. 1.). Consequently I have registered but I cannot satisfy the conditions of reviewing my text 10 more times. Your help will be appreciated. Thank you. Milos.Kalab@agr.gc.ca MKalab (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Victoria_A._Budson I am new to Wikipedia and would so appreciate help in creating this article about my colleague, Victoria A. Budson, who is Executive Director of the Harvard Kennedy School Women and Public Policy Program. [1] [2]. A different individual tried to create the page for her and it was rejected. Thank you Akkauth (talk) 20:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- I have reviewed it and left a few notes for you. If you need further assistance please feel free to return here. You can also find help from subject specialists at WP:WikiProject Feminism. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I was wondering if the article at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ Boxwood Festivals and Workshops would be acceptable if I removed the references which refer back to the festival's pages (except perhaps the first as it refer's to a quote for their mission), the Six Water Grog page, and the Welcome to Lunenburg page as it is no longer available. I am also thinking hat the Best of Boxwood 2013 article reference should also be removed. This would leave 5 references outside of the festival page(s). I am trying to see if there are references from secondary sources as well and would augment with them if I come across any but I am not having luck finding these. Could you please advise?
Also, there is apparently a space at the beginning of the page name. Ho would I fix this?
Ksumwalt (talk) 20:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
November 20
Hello, can someone help me with understanding why this article was declined. I I written about the Soviet artist - Czeslaw Znamierowski ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Czeslaw_Znamierowski ) but it was rejected. Reason was "In order to be accepted, you'll need to provide multiple independent sources that establish this artist's notability. These might include newspaper articles, reviews, information from published books, etc. If these sources are available online, the references should link to them."
As far as I can see I did provide multiple independent sources that establish this artist's notability. Each source is a newspaper articles, review or information from published book of that time period. All sources where written during Soviet era by well establishes newspapers, magazines and books. I located these sources in the National Library of Lithuania. Due to this, please let me know why these references do not fit the Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you. Earthsphere (talk) 00:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- (See also the discussions at User talk:Quadell#Earthshpere.) – Quadell (talk) 14:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- This issue has now been resolved amicably. – Quadell (talk) 19:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Labrador Sea Water This is my first submission to wikipedia, and I'm learning the process. It's a class assignment for my oceangraphy course. I have text in my edit that is not showing up in my preview page and I'm not sure what the problem is. I've tried to compare it to other pages when I go to their edit boxes, but I don't know why it is not matching the format I've entered. The article skips a whole header, and then just puts the last 2/3 of different header onto the first one. What am I doing wrong? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianfbennett (talk • contribs) 03:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- Should be fixed now. Just a ref tag that didn't get closed (common problem). LionMans Account (talk) 05:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- The article is clearly ready for mainspace, please submit it so that it can be approved and moved out of the very long waiting list as soon as possible. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Could someone who understands this concept have a look at my article which has now been declined twice and advise if there is any likelihood that I can ever get this accepted or if it is always going to be refused on the grounds of notability.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Jim_Leverton
Many thanks for your help in advance.
Sally of Kent (talk) 08:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- Jim Leverton? Local musical hero? Contemporary of Noel Redding? Session player? Member of several notable bands? Appearing in multiple book hits here? Of course he's notable! I'll pass the article now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Hi Sally. Wikipedia:MUSICBIO says that a musician may be notable if they have "been a reasonably-prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles". Leverton seems to meet this criterion. In addition, the Rolling Stone source is a good independent reliable source, even though it doesn't say a lot about Leverton himself. So I would hesitate to say there is no way Leverton is notable; more sources might well be out there. Remember that sources don't have to be online on the web to be useable. Newspaper or magazine articles from the 1960s or early 1970s, or books discussing aspects of the music of that era, might be most useful in proving his notability. Just putting his name into Google Book Search brings up at least a dozen books that mention him, most only in passing (mentioning a band's line-up), but some, for example, "Gallagher, Marriott, Derringer & Trower: Their Lives and Music" in slightly more detail.
- Ritchie333 has now approved the submission and it is at Jim Leverton. I see Leverton has been in action in Kent as recently as less than a week ago. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the further advice - I will add some of the book references as suggested. Sally of Kent (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Cape Town Spurs - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Cape_Town_Spurs
I don't understand why this article keeps getting rejected when the other, "affluent" team (Seven Stars) that absorbed Cape Town Spurs to form Ajax Cape Town is accorded a page in Wikipedia.
The reference to Cape Town Spurs on the Ajax Cape Town page does not do justice to the history and struggle credentials of Cape Town Spurs and how it succeeded during the Apartheid era despite not having anything near the facilities and finances that Cape Town City (the white equivalent) had. I wouldn't have written the article if this history was not notable!
The problem with an article such as this is that the history of this club hasn't been codified in the extensive references that you seem to demand of this article (and not of Seven Stars) - this seldom happened during the Apartheid years mostly because poor resources and to avoid being prominent to the government of the day. In the article I have tried to emphasize this struggle history to explain why this team is notable but really want to avoid turning the article into a diatribe about how difficult it was to be a non-white footballer during the Apartheid era, as this would not only detract from the success of the team but would also comment on a sensitive subject that is better left to later generations to deal with from a more objective perspective.
But I think that this topic needs to be put on record now while the former players of the team are still alive and able to give their oral input to the history of this Club. I am not one of those players but rather I am a long-standing student of history, as well as a white South African. so my purpose is, I believe, entirely objective.
Can you let me know why this article keeps failing your review process.
Linus
- Unfortunately Wikipedia never publishes original works. If this club is really as notable as you believe there simply must be some independent reliable sources about it. The oral history you refer to so passionately must first be published by a reputable publication before any of it can be used in Wikipedia. Perhaps you should collect the oral histories and write a book or at least a comprehensive article about the club and get it published in a reputable history journal or football magazine. Maybe SAFA or the History Department at UWC might be interested in assisting you with the project, if you're willing to take up the challenge. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
You wouldn't accept that as a reputable reliable source.
Angelina Souren (talk) 21:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello-I'd like to know why my article was rejected for submission. thank you Kelsball89 (talk) 15:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)kelsey
- It was rejected because it was blank when you submitted it. I see you have now added text to the page. If you wish to submit it now, just add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the page. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I had submitted my article for review (after I made edits as suggested by the editor who reviewed the article Anne Delong (I believe). However, I have not heard back if my revisions have been accepted or denied. Admittedly I am completely unfamiliar with the wiki universe and have found it a bit cumbersome. I would just like to know if my article is apprved as is, or i there are further things I need to do to edit it. Thank you in advance. Sic12002 (talk) 16:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC) sic12002
- This submission is currently awaiting review. Unfortunately reviews are often taking a very long time at the moment (as much as a month or more) because there is a very large backlog. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I have made the edits recommended by the reviewer for the entry "SPOC" I created. Do I need to do anything else to get it posted now? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poetfount (talk • contribs) 16:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- This submission has been accepted and is now at Small private online course. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
cant seem to submit new article for review — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjiv67 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- This article is currently submitted for review. The box at the top saying it is not, is wrong. However, in its current state it is likely to be declined. You should read Wikipedia:VRS for a summary of what needs to be added, and Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners to see how to do so. You may also need to review Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 18:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I am developing my first article and have submitted it for review while continuing to improve it and learn how this is done. I am looking for some help with the following:
category inclusion, is there a template I should use? What is a typical procedure for creating the code to include. I guess I just don't understand how an article gets categorized or where they come from.
Photo inclusion. I'm not sure where to begin with this one. Should there be one photo? multiple photos if there were multiple locations where the article item was installed? Should the photos first be loaded or found in commons?
Is there a template for what the object is made of or how it is constructed. Seems like there may be something like this for historic structures I have looked at. Is it an info box?
I am very new and inexperienced and have been reading the article creation wiki's, but any tidbit, idea, or outpouring of information will help and be appreciated. Scottsadventure (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Scottsadventure, welcome to Wikipedia! For help with categories, Wikipedia:FAQ/Categorization should help. The basic format is to add the category at the bottom of the article, for example [[Category:Playground equipment]]. However, categories should only be added to full articles, not articles for creation submissions.
- Images aren't necessary, and adding won't help your draft get accepted, but you're welcome to add some. The number depends on the exact article. For an article the size of your draft, I'd say more than one or two would start to look crowded. The photos either need to be uploaded to commons, or they need to qualify under Wikipedia's fair use policy.
- I'm not quite sure what you mean by your third question. Does Template:Infobox artwork fit in this case? Howicus (Did I mess up?) 19:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
ResolvedGood afternoon,
I'm a graduate student at the Vanderbilt Center for Latin American Studies, and I'm looking for assistance with an article I submitted on Professor Edward F. Fischer. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Edward F. Fischer The submission was rejected based on lack of "notability" but I'm looking for additional information on what else might be needed. I think that there are several reliable sources listed there that speak to his notability, including NPR, The New York Times, and Psychology Today. He is a renowned writer and lecturer on political economics, Guatemala, and the German social economy and is much sought after for his expertise on these topics in the private, public and academic arenas. Any advice you might be able to offer on what information might be necessary for this to pass the notability requirement will be greatly appreciated!
Thank you,
VU CLAS (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Elizabeth Murphy
- Hi, one problem that makes it rather hard to judge the sources of your draft is that you have formatted the references in a way that makes the URL links "invisible" and renders them as just a number in square brackets. To make the URL directly readable please remove the brackets you have placed around them or alternatively consider using the standardized {{cite}} templates. I unfortunately don't have time right now to evaluate the individual sources for Notability, I will be back in about an hour so I can do it then unless someone else would like to do it before then. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- One thing that can establish notability is the post he holds- is his proffessorship a named chair- ie is he anything other than an ordinary proffessor. That could save a lot of the effort in proving his notability by showing his work has gained attention. Rankersbo (talk) 10:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- I checked the sources - he easily passes GNG so I have acceped the article, which is now at Edward F. Fischer. Please continue to improve the article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
November 21
Dear reviewers,
The review system seems quite obscure to me. Consequently, I have 2 simple questions:
1 - Is my article (Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bayesian programming) correctly posted for review ? is it presently pending review ? (I think it is but I am not completely convince about that).
2 - Is it possible to invite people to review an article ? Is it even possible to invite them to become reviewers and review an article ?
Thanks in advance.
Erreip (talk) 10:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, your article is correctly posted for review and it is still pending. No, there is no option to invite people to review. Reviewers are a different class of WP users and it takes time to become one. Maybe you can ask someone on their talk page or such, but I may be wrong on that. Jaideep.writer (talk) 11:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Can you tell me if my article is meeting all the standards or any suggestions. I have added some of the independent news reviews as said before. Jaideep.writer (talk) 11:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
HI There,
I hope you can help, the page that I am trying to submit seems to cut off content after 2 paragraphs.
I hope you can help me in understanding what is causing this?
Thanks so much Kate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kate Haslewood (talk • contribs) 13:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- DoneHave a look now- there was a problem with your references. Instead of a start (<ref>) and an end (</ref>) each ref had two starts. Rankersbo (talk) 14:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Articles for creation: Sibyl Heijnen
I understand from the comments that I have to find sources that have nothing to do with art yet cover this artist's work? Such as, say, Japanese newspapers, but not art magazines, art books or museum publications? (Unfortunately, I don't read Japanese.)
I am sorry, but this just does not make a great deal of sense.
If I browse Wikipedia, I see many pages for people who are much less noteworthy than this artist and who do not meet these criteria either. Look, for example, at the page for Hans Krondahl. You'll see that he has similar yet fewer literature references, including one writer who also wrote about Sibyl Heijnen) and is not quite of the same caliber. Surely, I don't have to tell you that there are quite a few other pages in Wikipedia and even quite a few that make the page about Hans Krondahl stand out positively.
So in other words, visual artists - even if they are world-renowned - have to become targeted by the press like Hollywood movie stars before they can be included in Wikipedia, these days???
I shake - and scratch - my head.
That would signify a devaluation of Wikipedia, in my eyes. Is Wikipedia heading in, for example, the direction of a celeb/gossip magazine in order to be able to include mass-targeted ads at some point? I have seen similar developments in what used to be good news media, so I would not be surprised. I am very interested in hearing your feedback on this.
Angelina Souren (talk) 21:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I need help with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Peter_York_Solmssen I have a number of articles from reliable sources (with a paragraph or more about Peter Solmssen) referenced in the article(Reuters, new York Times) as well as German reliable sources (Handelsblatt , manager magazine, and Die Ziet). Can you suggest any way to make these stand out, since the main criticism I am getting why this is not published is that Peter Solmssen is not notable? thanks,RebeccaHS (talk) 23:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
November 22
Review of User:Laurie1956/sandbox
I have an article that I just submitted and I didn't realize it was in the "History category" it should be in news articles or current events, how exactly do I move it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurie1956 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- Don't worry about categories these will be added if and when the article is approved. The article currently reads like a piece iin a magazine or newspaper, rather than an encyclopaedia article - it needs a lead section, to be more emotionally neutral and to have more references than the single local news story. An encyclopedia article should be a neutral presentation of the facts, any emotional response should come from the way the reader responds and identifies with the facts themselves, not the way it is written. News outlets tend to try and engage their readerships with the story with the way they present it. Rankersbo (talk) 07:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I submitted this article on 5th November. I realise there is a backlog for reviewing submissions, but I am concerned because at the top of my article it says "this article has not been submitted" yet at the bottom it says awaiting review. Please let me know that it is in review and any idea of when it will go live. I believe the article is well written and thoroughly referenced, but I guess all authors believe this! Thank you. AdherenceBehaviour (talk) 09:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- It was in the queue, and still is. I've tidied it up so it's less confusing. Rankersbo (talk) 11:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
HEllo team of Wikipedia!
I am trying to submit an article but I can not go through the uploading picture process. On the advanced menu it says upload a picture and gives me code. I put the name of the file there but on the review it doesn't show the picute. How can I deal with this, it is an important article for a very popular internet scam and I want to warn the people. Plese help me! I also want to know how to put references, I tried using the button but it said "error" Thanks!OreWoKitasu (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)OreWoKitasu (talk) 12:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- The article Lottery scam seems to be about the same subject. LionMans Account (talk) 17:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
I'm trying to submit an article for creation (Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Omegawave) and clicked submit.
At the top of the page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Omegawave#Omegawave) in the blue box I'm informed that: "Article not currently submitted for review. This is a draft Articles for creation submission. It is not currently pending review.....etc."
And then at the bottom of the page in the yellow box I'm told that: "Review waiting. This may take over 3 weeks...etc."
Can you please tell me if the article is submitted or not, the messages contradict each other.
Thanks.
On a related note, I have probably submitted the Talk page as an Article for creation (Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Omegawave https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Omegawave) as well as a proper article for creation.
Sorry about that. I only want to submit the Article for creation, and not the Talk page
Thanks for your help.
Peter
Peter Cura (talk) 13:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I am trying to submit a page for Wiki and I am having issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bia31Star (talk • contribs) 13:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi! I submitted an article about a company a few weeks back here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Skimlinks and it was deleted without any notice or feedback. I'm a bit frustrated because though I've edited Wikipedia in the past, this was the first article I created which made this particularly discouraging. I would have appreciated an explanation and tips on how to make it better - I understand there's a backlog but an explanatory template of some kind would have been nice. I was planning on editing and resubmitting it should the submission be denied but now there's nothing left.
There seems to be a note on there about how it was "Unambiguous advertising or promotion" and I'd very much like to know what gave the reviewer that impression? I tried to be as neutral as possible in my description of the company and included many references to well known publications such as TechCrunch, the Drum, Management Today, the Guardian, etc. It's one of the biggest startups in the UK so I think it passes notability criteria. Similar sized companies like Mind Candy and US competitor VigLink have Wikipedia pages and I tried to emulate the tone in those as much as possible. Would it be possible to get an explanation and can I get the content back so that I can re-work it to match Wikipedia's criteria? Thanks for your help! Juniper4589 (talk) 14:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- It's not normal procedure round here to delete without notification, on advertising grounds. If we think something is promotional we usually decline with a message to that effect, and give you a chance to clean it up. Even if there is a problem such as too much copy-and-paste, or abusive content we would leave a note on your page. Rankersbo (talk) 14:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- That was the impression I was under which is why this was all the more unpleasant! I knew writing an article about a company had risks in terms of sounding like promotional material which is exactly why I did it through the wizard. I was really counting on getting some constructive feedback. I've commented on the reviewer's talk page to let him/her know. Is there any way the page can be reinstated? Juniper4589 (talk) 15:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- I moved it into the article space. I cleared out more than 100 articles from the "over 4 weeks old" category yesterday, and this one looked like advertising to me (still does, a bit) but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt and let it go through AfD instead of being speedied. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 15:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- That was the impression I was under which is why this was all the more unpleasant! I knew writing an article about a company had risks in terms of sounding like promotional material which is exactly why I did it through the wizard. I was really counting on getting some constructive feedback. I've commented on the reviewer's talk page to let him/her know. Is there any way the page can be reinstated? Juniper4589 (talk) 15:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cleveland Institution of Engineers
Hi there,
I received a notification that the submission for the above page has been reviewed by DragonflySixtyseven. However, when I go to the page or my talk page I don't see anything back about the review and if it was accepted or not. Also, I can't seem to find anything about DragonFlySixtyseven.
As the article is not in the article space yet, I presume it has not been accepted, but how do I find out what the outcome of the review was and why it was not accepted (yet)?
JvB 19:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)