Jump to content

User talk:DrStrauss

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has rollback rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has pending changes reviewer rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has new page reviewer rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has page mover rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has file mover rights on the English Wikipedia
This user has extended confirmed rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has AutoWikiBrowser permissions on the English Wikipedia.
Trout this user
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dberks (talk | contribs) at 20:16, 10 July 2017 (→‎Draft:Chicago Toy & Game Group: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Usertalksuperwitharchives

14:41:59, 5 July 2017 review of submission by Devopam


hello @DrStrauss:, could you please elaborate on the reliable sources aspect here when you get time. It will help to understand the issue and subsequent correction where needed. Devopam (talk) 14:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Devopam, we need independent media sources that give significant coverage to Bhowmick to establish notability. DrStrauss talk 14:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

15:09:53, 5 July 2017 review of submission by NataliaWozniak


Hello DrStrauss, thank you for taking your time and reviewing the article about tenor saxophone player Jimmy Roberts. I would like to ask for your help and get some information about the neccessary changes that need to be made to improve the article. This is the first Wikipedia article I'm creating and I've been looking at the articles of other instrumental musicians to make sure my references are good enough and since https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jake_Clemons is an instrumental musician as well I looked at the references from this page and thought that the sources I found will be good enough. I found additional information about the artist at http://www.allmusic.com/artist/jimmy-roberts-mn0000088777/credits. Could you let me know if this source is reliable enough and would be a good reference source? NataliaWozniak (talk) 15:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)NataliaWozniak[reply]

Hi NataliaWozniak, half of the references are to affiliated sources. One link in an "external links" section to an official website is fine, but using them as inline references is useless for establishing notability. DrStrauss talk 14:52, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File mover granted

Hello DrStrauss. Your account has been granted the "filemover" user right, either following a request for it or due to a clear need for the ability to move files. Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:File mover for more information on this user right and under what circumstances it is okay to move files. When you move a file please remember to update any links to the new name as well! If you do not want the file mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Widr (talk) 18:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shraeya Srinivasan

Hi, Shreaya is an upcoming national level athlete and just finished her high school. That's why you see lots of articles, references from the local newspaper and her school. She's just starting to get regional and national attention as a champion and there are now new references from the reputed Boston Globe, Boston Herald.

Also since most of the articles are from single local source, its easier to verify as well. Let me know if you want the journalist contact and i can have it arranged for verification. Srinisankar (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Srinisankar, can you cite the journalist's work using our inline system? A walkthrough can be found here. DrStrauss talk 14:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(@DrStrauss:) Ah yes i've used Cite to refer to all the sources and the journalists. You can see that section under References there. Pls let me know if you need any additional information. Srinisankar (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)srinisankar[reply]
@Srinisankar: well, you need to put absolutely everything about Srinivasan in the article to show her notability. Everything. If there's more, then there may be a chance of preventing it from being deleted, in its current state, it's not got much of a chance. DrStrauss talk 19:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks a lot for all your support! ComPol (talk) 21:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@ComPol: wow, thank you! And anytime! DrStrauss talk 09:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't mention it! Quite well deserved! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ComPol (talk • contribs)

Draft

Hi, Can you please take another look at my articles. I need to publish it quickly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pierrelias (talk • contribs) 06:44, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, what's your draft called? DrStrauss talk 09:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Pierrelias: are you referring to Draft:Dominique Lemay? DrStrauss talk 14:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DrStrauss, I have updated the tone of my article, Draft: Dominique Lemay. Can you please take a look. I need to get it done quickly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pierrelias (talk • contribs)
@Pierrelias: your draft is in the queue and myself or another reviewer will look at it as soon as we can. May I ask why you're so keen to get it published so quickly? DrStrauss talk 18:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because i have been working on it for over a month now :/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pierrelias (talk • contribs) 11:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Pierrelias: that's a shame, but it's better to have a good article which takes longer to make than a rushed inferior one. DrStrauss talk 15:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re submission of Emtec Draft

Hello DrStrauss, I have been working on the Emtec draft for Wikipedia. We have edited the draft numerous times based on feedback and removed press release links since they were cited as not reliable. Can you tell me how many "reliable sources" are needed to validate the existence of the organization? We have provided numerous links to partner pages where we are listed. We are not a large IT services organization like an Accenture who gets articles written about them... so need some help if you can to understand what we need to get it approved. We have modeled our page after other competitors that are currently live and listed. We have seen other orgs with minimal info that are approved. Any help would be appreciated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Emtec

My ID is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Devers9

Devers9 (talk) 12:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Devers9,
Throughout your message you often refer to yourself in the plural and imply that you are employed by Emtec e.g. we are not a large... organization. I therefore must ask you to read our terms of use in relation to conflicts of interest which can be found here. I would strongly advise you to place {{UserboxCOI|1=Draft=Emtec}} in your userpage to declare said COI.
The reliable, independent sources that I was referring to are not needed to verify the existence of Emtec but to establish its notability. Most companies are not notable enough to meet Wikipedia's criteria for corporate inclusion so you need to show that Emtec has received significant coverage from multiple major independent, reliable media sources.
You may find the following links helpful: WP:COI, WP:NCORP, WP:42 and WP:DISCLOSE.
DrStrauss talk 15:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:U&I (NGO)

I had posted an article on Draft:U&I (NGO). It was declined on the context that it doesn't have references. I have added references at the end of the page, as bibliography. Could you please tell me ways to improve my article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NandakumarSG (talk • contribs) 12:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NandakumarSG, we strongly recommend using inline citations, not just links at the end. Please see WP:REFB and WP:CITE to learn how you can make inline citations. DrStrauss talk 15:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you sir! — Preceding unsigned comment added by NandakumarSG (talk • contribs) 16:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

14:01:11, 6 July 2017 review of submission by 213.8.204.22


Dear Dr. Strauss: I have improved the submission for Yitzchak Mayer by adding citation references. All of the information in the Early Life section (not just the first line) comes from the Jerusalem Post article I have referenced. I didn't think it appropriate to cite the same source multiple times. There are many other sources for this information, but they are articles in Hebrew, French and German. Should I cite these foreign language articles as well? Ambassador Mayer is a prominent Israeli public figure whose work is now available in English for the first time. As a result, I believe it appropriate that he have an English Wiki page. 213.8.204.22 (talk) 14:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @213.8.204.22:, we generally require extensive inline citations in biographies of living people next to all claims made. Don't worry if you cite the same source multiple times, but having other sources to corroborate another is always appreciated. Thanks, DrStrauss talk 15:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

16:17:54, 6 July 2017 review of submission by Holdhard


I am not sure what is meant by not able to substantiate the references, I have personally checked those that were possible and indicated where the reference could be found on the internet. As this is my first article I am struggling to make sense of all the requirements so some help would be much appreciated. Short rejections are sometimes not useful to beginners. Many thanks for your help

Hi Holdhard, thank you for your message. The issue with your draft is that it has no references. The headings you have used do reference books but not in the style we usually require. We prefer inline citations next to claims as opposed to the article being structured around the references. The "In Conclusion" section may want cutting out because it is very essay-like. Links that may help are WP:REFB, WP:HOWTOCITE and WP:ESSAY. Thank you. DrStrauss talk 17:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Please advise on proceeding after rejection. Variety.com has 17 million unique monthly visitors (Source: Google Analytics, 2015), IMDB, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Return_to_Timbuktu 103.255.238.168 (talk) 05:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 103.255.238.168, notability isn't inherited. Just because Variety has talked about Return to Timbuktu doesn't make it notable. While Variety is probably the best source you've got there, you need more like it to show that RtT passes our notability guidelines. DrStrauss talk 18:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft review decline clarification

Hi there!

I'm writing to clarify your recent review of this article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Luminar My second version of it (the one you reviewed) was prepared according to the first reviewer, who asked to use a neutral tone and remove the promotional statements. That's why I replaced all information that could be taken as promotional and left only most informative and basic information, which could be confirmed by the references I was able to find. I didn't add a detailed explanation of all its features, workspaces, details of software etc. in order to avoid the "promotion", which was the main issue in the first version. As I understood your suggestion, the article isn't informative. But I'm afraid that I might cross the line of "promotion" if I add more information about the product. I'll be glad to edit the article once more, but I wanted to ask you how should I do that, to meet your "informativeness" criteria and avoid "promotion".

Please advice. Thank you! (Jenyajc (talk) 08:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Jenyajc, the issue with the draft is that it's more like a Bloomberg entry as in it doesn't give much substantial information as prose about the company. Please try to use references to flesh the content out a bit. Thank you, DrStrauss talk 20:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

12:52:23, 7 July 2017 review of submission by Abenci


Hi DrStrauss,

Please help me to understand what's wrong with my article and if there is any chance to be able to publish it. Should I remove some references or there are some other conceptual wrong matters?

I used these pages as reference and they look to me even worst:

Thanks,

Alberto

Hi Abenci, I understand the issue you're having. Wikipedia needs information to be both neutral and extensive. If you can't write enough without it becoming an advert then the business might not be notable enough for Wikipedia. We don't reference Wikipedia itself, please see WP:42 for further information. Thanks, DrStrauss talk 20:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks DrStrauss, can you please explain me why the pages I liked above meet WP:42 requirements instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abenci (talk • contribs)
Hi Abenci, just because something else exists that fails our standards doesn't justify the creation of your article. If you think that those articles don't meet our criteria for inclusion, please nominate them for deletion. DrStrauss talk 16:34, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:30:06, 7 July 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Ubaid1salfi


Hello DrStrauss, Thanks for your review. I have given enough relevant citation for above subjects notability. A person saving people during riots and building a blood bank to serve the humanity is notable in my view. I found some news paper cutouts at https://tajallieshahabblog.wordpress.com/in-news/ which are in regional language but those are not available as archive copy on respective newspaper websites, so kindly suggest me the way to include those as citation. your help is much appreciated. Thanks

Ubaid1salfi (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ubaid1salfi: please mention more about his role in the riots. You've dedicated only one sentence to it - a reader may want to know more. Please see WP:HOWTOCITE for instructions on citing paper sources. DrStrauss talk 19:15, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DrStrauss: Thank you for your suggestion. I have added more info. about his role in riots and added the citation although those are not available online as archive copy but available as cutout on above said URL. Kindly let me know if some more modifications are required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubaid1salfi (talk • contribs)
@Ubaid1salfi: you might want to resubmit it and get advice from another reviewer because I am not proficient in the language which some of the new sources are written. It may still be declined, but if you submit it a reviewer who is more familiar with the language in question may pick it up. DrStrauss talk 13:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

21:25:34, 7 July 2017 review of submission by Chubbles


Hi, I just took a look at the draft for John Coates Jr., which I didn't write. Coates definitely deserves an article (the Spanish and German wikis already have one on this American musician), and the draft as it was submitted was a little rough around the edges, but I did some copyediting and added two new sources, one quite substantial. You've requested that the Allmusic links be removed, but Allmusic is a good third-party source for music which I use frequently; Scott Yanow, who wrote Coates's article, is one of their best writers. I think this article is ready to move to mainspace; do you have any objection to my doing this? Chubbles (talk) 21:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chubbles, little improvement on the version that I declined has been made so far. The Spanish and German Wikipedias have different criteria for inclusion from the English Wikipedia. I don't doubt that Coates is notable enough for an article but the sources simply don't show it. Once the submitter, or another user, has improved it, they can submit it for re-review. DrStrauss talk 16:43, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But an American musician with articles in other languages is usually (though, I grant, not exclusively) a good indicator of general notability - if you have international prominence, you likely meet WP:MUSIC. With the AMG, Morning Call, and Washington Post references, the article is likely to survive a notability challenge at AfD; that's a fair bit of substantial sourcing right there. I did all of the improving of the article since you declined it; I doubt the OP will return to work on it. So the question is, what more needs to be done for it to be minimally acceptable as a mainspace article (I would argue it already meets that threshold), and is there anything preventing me from just moving the draft to mainspace on my own? (I don't want to step on your toes, but I also don't want to see a serviceable draft about a notable topic wither on the vine.) Chubbles (talk) 19:43, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Chubbles: you're probably right, it would survive an AfD. Reviewers often decline AfCs that will survive AfDs for that reason: an AfC article will be better because of peer review. I don't mind either way, feel free to move if you think it's okay. DrStrauss talk 20:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, just cleaned it up some more (including the addition of one more major third-party source) and transferred to mainspace. Thanks Chubbles (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

help

You made constructive remarks about the entry I submitted for review. However, I've never created a wikipedia entry before and wanted to know specifically what in the entry is causing the rejection? I sincerely want to understand what is needed. Any guidance would be appreciated. Best regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Updater500 (talk • contribs)

Hi Updater500, I assume you're referring to Draft:John Allen Hendricks which you submitted three times yesterday. The issue was that it didn't have independent, reliable sources which gave Hendricks significant coverage. Pinging Joe Roe as he declined it a few hours before I did. DrStrauss talk 16:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Updater500 and thanks for the ping DrStrauss. As I said I personally would not advise resubmitting this draft as I think the subject is simply not suitable for inclusion and it will continue to be rejected. However if you want to anyway (and feel free to), the simple tip I give to newbies writing their first article is: read other Wikipedia articles. In this case, look at other biographies of academics (we have thousands. Look at what they include: a chronological list of their education and the faculty positions they have held, their major areas of research, assessments of their contribution to scholarship by independent sources. And just as importantly what they don't include: lists of everything they've ever published, details of routine academic duties like sitting on review boards, superlative descriptions of their influence (e.g. "leading scholar") that are not grounded in sources. Also try to match the formatting used by other articles (e.g. sections, lists), because while this isn't strictly necessary for a draft to be accepted, it does make it a hell of a lot easier for a reviewer to read. – Joe (talk) 17:14, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

regarding an Submission declined

Hey my Submission on Mohena Kumari Singh has been decline as it says submission is lake of reliable sources. i just have edit it and resend it. i just want to know by 'reliable sources' did you mean that referrals ? i am confuse on it can you clear it?? it's my first page so i am bit confused. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zakzazak (talk • contribs)

@Zakzazak: reliable sources are references to respected sources, for example, your draft references Wordpress which isn't one of these. I would advise withdrawing the submission until it has been further improved because in its current form it will almost certainly be declined. DrStrauss talk 16:46, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

21:01:28, 8 July 2017 review of submission by RKJonze


Article has been edited to remove "Peacock" terms. The language flagged in the first sentence is a paraphrased version of the article cited in the first two footnotes. This article was written by a museum curator of a major institution who I believe is an expert in this field and is independent of the subject of the article.

Hi RKJonze, three things: firstly, be careful when paraphrasing sources as it can cause copyright issues, secondly, the author of the article is irrelevant, a neutral article written by a teenager is better than a non-neutral article written by an expert and finally, the inline external links need removing. Thanks, DrStrauss talk 21:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

22:20:59, 8 July 2017 review of submission by Brandonjakcruz


hello, i am making a page for a band out of mainly content form an existing page. the band KNOW is a new band that sprung from the band Dr. Know. please let me know what you want or need to make this page get published. i am the singer of the band. thank you, brandon jak cruz

Hi Brandonjakcruz, have you considered making KNOW a subsection of Dr. Know? Furthermore, it's strongly advised against for people to write autobiographies (or articles about something they're personally involved in). You might want to consider waiting for somebody unaffiliated to write it. DrStrauss talk 10:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lashon Hakodesh

Hello. I'm confused by your close of the requested move at Talk:Leshon Hakodesh#Requested move 1 July 2017. Although consensus seems to support the move and you moved the page as requested, you wrote "Not done" and your edit summary says "not done; consensus is against". Did you press the wrong button or type the wrong text? Is there some other explanation for the disconnect between what you did and what you wrote? — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 02:32, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MShabazz, I've now corrected the template. Thanks for drawing this to my attention. DrStrauss talk 07:45, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 12:34, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Japan Pharmaceutical Association

Hi, I wonder if you have had a chance to consider the comments left for you at the above mentioned draft page? Thanks Dr.khatmando (talk) 04:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dr.khatmando, I think Legacypac is best suited to dealing with your draft considering his recent comment on it. DrStrauss talk 09:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:DrStrauss thanks for the ping. I'm temporarally unable to move pages to mainspace. I can request you (or anyone) to move it or the creator can do the move, but it's a lot cleaner if someone AfC approved running the AFCH script does the move. Thank-you. Legacypac (talk) 23:56, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Branko Petranovic

I'm not the author of this draft but I took freedom to ask you why you did refuse the article submission? You wrote

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

Why do you think that the sources are inadequate, not reliable? Why the sources are not sufficient? Which source is not secondary or does not provide significant coverage? Please, go to the draft talk page and be more specific i.e. be sure that you have access to the given secondary sources and your reading comprehension of the sources written in Serbian is adequate in order to address claimed notability issues.

Thank you.--178.222.129.66 (talk) 12:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:The Empty Grave

Hi,

You declined my draft article because of the Tumblr reference. However, I have seen other articles use Tumblr as a reference. Plum3600 (talk) 16:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are 5 million plus pages on English Wikipedia. Every one of them has some problems. The existence of a problem on page X does not justify creating the same problem on page Y. Tumblr is not a WP:RS because it is user generated with no editorial oversight. Legacypac (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ACTRIAL

Hi. All the discussion is basically over and done with - thank goodness. The next stage is pure technical development which will require graphic, language, and programming skills from both the WMF and the community teams. Your input would be welcome, but you'll find answers to all your questions if you take a moment to read (in their entirety) the pages at WT:NPPAFC, Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Analysis and proposal, and Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers/Archive_7. If after that you still have any questions, which is unlikely, you are welcome to ask me or TonyBallioni. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kudpung, I'll give those a thorough read. I'm not familiar with the MediaWiki blacklist so if that is the method that is chosen I won't be able to help but I am familiar with template syntax and would like to think I'm proficient at making good designs so if I'm needed, please ping me! It's great to see that this is finally materialising, I'm impatient after six months so I cannot imagine six years. Thanks, DrStrauss talk 13:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

11:54:28, 10 July 2017 review of submission by 128.220.159.13


Thanks DrStrauss for taking the time to review the Draft.

I could use help on figuring out what additional references could strengthen the draft. I have tried to incorporate as many references as I could find. Thanks

Furian Deletion Contest

Hi

I saw that you have contested our post for "Furian" in UK bands. I understand that you have your reasons but I have a more personal plea with this one I suppose. You are correct in saying that we have never charted but we have featured on Kerrang radio (which I can provide proof for) and have been established as both a registered business and a band and are registered with PRS as an artist (the global royalties agency). By that merit we are surely a band that could be entered.

I completely understand that you are playing by the rules and don't wish to approach from any other angle than, we could really use the traffic that this wiki entry can provide (due to our relation to the chronicles of riddick searches). Being a band is a very tough game to play and we need every little bit of help that we can get in directing people to our page. I ask kindly that we work to fix this instead of denying it. Would love to hear your feedback, ears are completely open. I am new to wikipedia and I'm positive that you've identified that straight away. But I would rather be helped than denied.

Kind regards,

Dan Martin-Hall — Preceding unsigned comment added by PyarRecords (talk • contribs) 13:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PyarRecords, I understand the predicament you're in but Wikipedia isn't for personal gain. However, there is a possibility that your band is notable but the article doesn't convey it. It's likely to get deleted but I would suggest creating a draft by following the instructions here which means that you can work on it with the help of experienced editors before it is approved. You may also have to change your username or start a new account because your current name may violate the username policy. Thanks, DrStrauss talk 13:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your time DrStrauss. I really appreciate the help and guidance and understand completely. I wasn't suggesting it as a promotional method, merely a happy side effect but regardless of that I absolutely understand and also appreciate your understanding in replying. Keep up the good work! PyarRecords (talk) 13:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Open access

Thanks. I had come across the Canadian one because it was badly categorized in the Category:Canada tree, but hadn't investigated the Category:Open access by country tree to see how good or bad the rest of its siblings were — but if they're all as bad as the Canada one was, then yeah, batching them together was definitely the way to go instead of 80 standalone AFDs. I've already added a comment to the new discussion accordingly. Bearcat (talk) 13:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: thanks for bringing that category to my attention. Only 80 out of the 128 pages that wanted nominating were in the new page feed so I've added the rest with AutoWikiBrowser. I presume you're content with your !vote standing with the amended selection? DrStrauss talk 15:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

15:07:06, 10 July 2017 review of submission by Averyfriedman11

Hello, I am inquiring about the decline of the page I created for the Center for Communication. I would appreciate any recommendations you have regarding how to make this entry suitable for Wikipedia. Please let me know, and thank you. Avery Friedman.

Hi Averyfriedman11, the draft contains a lot of weasel words, peacock terms and unsourced statements. Have a look at WP:NPOV, particularly the weasel and peacock sections, and see if you can identify some of them. Thanks, DrStrauss talk 15:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response, I have looked into weasel and peacock terms and then looked over my entry and erased words like "notable" and "experienced," could you point me to some more exisiting problematic areas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Averyfriedman11 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

17:43:59, 10 July 2017 review of submission by Nour-hm: More unaffiliated sources are needed

Hi DrStraud, thank you for taking your time to review the article about eXo Platform (software page). I would like to ask for your help and get some information about the necessary changes that need to be made to improve the article. The content of this draft used to be in the eXo Platform company page, the current references were added in the company page following your request to add reliable sources to the content which was approved with these same references. Since the content of the page is software oriented more than company oriented, we decided to move it from the company page and to create a new one, software oriented where this content could explain more our software, we also kept the same references by adding them to the new page (the current draft), the most of the references are taken from unaffiliated sources such as cmswire, theServerSide and InforQ. Could you please specify the sections that need reliable sources, and I will do the necessary. Thanks again for your help. Nour-hm (talk) 16:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

17:52:56, 10 July 2017 review of submission by CreateWikipg


Hello: You stated that the content can not be verified? It can be, and there is no mention of what specifically cannot be verified? Leaving me in a guessing game trying to figure out what I don't know. Everything written here is 100% true and I can provide you with documentation to prove it. I thought I had. The last time this content was denied the editor stated that they wanted me to show a section comparing CHAP to the other scientific methods used by the our US government. I did that, and now it's something entirely different. I am sure you can understand my frustration with this process being every time I submit it.. it comes back with a "different reason" why it has not been accepted. Please provide me with WHAT content specifically does not follow with your wiki protocols? So, I may correct or delete it. Much is appreciated.

Draft:Polarization_Constants

Hello,

I provided some additional details why this article is of a significant interest. In particular, I tried to explain what are the mathematical and practical applications of the described problem. Rezniko2 (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:LP_Raju

Hi, My submission is declined, "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."

what is reliable sources? what is that you are looking at? please let me know if there is anything that needs to be submitted or have to be changed. I am not sure if there is anything incorrect here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravichanndraa (talk • contribs) 19:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Chicago Toy & Game Group

Hello, I work for the ChiTAG group and my boss wanted to know why these sources are considered unreliable. We added reliable local news sources and added articles that discussed us. Please help us resolve it, ChiTAG Group

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DrStrauss&oldid=789975027"