Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ghost122 (talk | contribs) at 11:58, 19 July 2017. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category — List (sorting)		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply — By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

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


July 12

06:34:58, 12 July 2017 review of submission by Maniksha.sharma

I have written something on Raw Pressery but I got a feedback saying that some part of the content is promotional. Please help me in understanding which part of the content looks promotional and it would be a great help if someone please assist me in framing a proper non-advertisement or non-promotional content for Raw Pressery. I

Maniksha.sharma (talk) 06:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Maniksha.sharma: Hello, Maniksha. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the delay in response. I see that you've already received some advice from the reviewer who declined you submission. But you didn't ask that reviewer about promotional-ism, so I'll comment on that here. We at Wikipedia use the word "promotional" in a broader sense than you might imagine. Although we use it to mean content that looks like an advertisement for a company or product, we also use it to mean content that looks like it merely duplicates what one might find on a company's web site. And that's the problem that I see with your draft -- it really doesn't give the reader anything more than routine information. All companies exist, all manufacturers get their raw materials from somewhere, and all companies get their financing from one source or another (and there is rarely anything encyclopedic about the particular source of financing). I do note, however, that the Business Insider (India) piece does approach the subject in something more than routine fashion. If you can assemble two or three more substantive pieces that provide a similar type of independent discussion of the company, you might be well on the way to developing a useful article. I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey NewYorkActuary,

Thanks for feedback.

I have rewritten the article based on your feedback. I would appreciate if you can review it and share your feedback with me.

Here, is the revised copy: Raw Pressery believes in delivering 100% natural flavour and no preservatives in their juices, cleanses and smoothies. Starting off as a cold-pressed juice company located in Mumbai, India, they have also branched out into soups.These juices are produced by Rakyan Beverages Pvt Ltd using high-processing technology. All products manufactured by the brand have a strict no artificial colouring and sugar policy.

Please do let me know your thoughts on this.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maniksha.sharma (talk • contribs) 07:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Maniksha.sharma: Hello again, Maniksha. Removing the details about financing was a step in the right direction. But you are still facing the much larger task of demonstrating that the company has received substantial coverage from reliable independent sources. And for that, you'll need more than that single Business Insider (India) article. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:58:27, 12 July 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Mrngcuegee


Dear Help Desk,

My page received several submission rejections and the reason is "Primary Schools are not Notable", "only Secondary Schools and Universities are notable", etc. I do not understand the unfairness to this judgement. I have tried to follow the Wikipedia guidelines to the best of my knowledge but am still receiving criticisms as such. There are Primary School pages in existent as a matter of fact and they seem to be "safe".

Could you please enlighten me?

Thank you in advance for your reply.

Yours,

Mrngcuegee

Mrngcuegee (talk) 08:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrngcuegee: Yes, essentially Wikipedia's policy on the inclusion of schools has recently changed. It used to be the fact that any secondary school, as long as it could be proven to exist was worthy of a Wikipedia article. Now all schools have to show they are notable- i.e. covered by newspapers, media reports etc., and existing schools are slowly being gone through to check that they comply with the new policy. As another reviewer, Worldbruce, wrote, the relevant notability guideline is WP:ORG. Being large, old, or growing does not demonstrate that a school is notable. Significant coverage in independent reliable sources is what proves that a school is notable. jcc (tea and biscuits) 13:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:14:10, 12 July 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Amido3


I submit a draft and there is feedback. I would like to delete it. How can I do it?

Amido3 (talk) 17:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Amido3: Place {{db-g7}} at the top of the page. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 13

10:07:12, 13 July 2017 review of submission by Mrngcuegee

Dear JCC / Help Desk, Thank you for your reply and information. There are significantly more individual notable sources added to the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Shrewsbury_International_School_Hong_Kong. Please review again at your convenience. Yours, Mrngcuegee Mrngcuegee (talk) 10:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrngcuegee: Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Right now, there are about 800 submissions in the queue ahead of yours. I expect that it will be some three weeks before a reviewer gets a chance to take another look at it. Thank you for your patience. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

12:50:29, 13 July 2017 review of submission by EloDinglasan


EloDinglasan (talk) 12:50, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I am Elo Dinglasan, one of the people working on the PNRI wikipedia article draft.

Our first sandbox was speedily deleted, with one of the reasons being a CoI. However, we're not at all endorsed by the PNRI. We're doing this for a class project, and we chose the PNRI because we wanted to help alleviate the stigma towards nuclear research here in the Philippines. If it is for a class project, would that still merit a CoI?

Another problem I think we may have is that though the language (I would like to think) is far more neutral than our first attempt, I'm wondering if the form itself might seem too promotional. Are there subtopics in the article that do not fit in the encyclopedic form?

Thank you for your time, I hope to hear from you soon. :)

@EloDinglasan: Hello, Elo. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the delay in response. Before posting here, I took a look at your submission and, frankly, I found it well-nigh unreadable. Some of the problems can be addressed by improvements in layout and formatting. If you haven't already done so, you might want to work through our WP:Tutorial, which will provide the basics on producing an article with an acceptable appearance. I was also troubled by your citation style, in which the footnotes provide only the author name and page number. The reader then has to search through a lengthy list of sources to find the relevant one. Although this is not a prohibited method of citation (I use it myself when there is a small number of sources), it is problematic here. This can be addressed by using the {{sfn}} template, which provides links from the "short" reference to the full listing.

But the problems go deeper than the mere appearance of the draft. The organization of the material appears chaotic and far too much of it wanders off the main topic. Specifically, there is too much discussion of the science itself, when the main topic should be the Institute. And much of that science is presented with language that will be understood only by specialists in the field. As just one example, can we really expect the average reader to know, or even care, about the "phase identification of a crystalline material"? This kind of technical detail really has no place in the article. And another major problem is the great reliance on "primary" sources. Pretty much all of your references are either to the Institute's web site or to publications of the Institute or to governmental documents concerning the Institute. Compare this with an article such as United States Atomic Energy Commission, which shows a good deal of evidence that the organization has been discussed in detail by sources unrelated to the Commission. In your case, this might be a problem (i.e., getting in-depth discussion by non-related reliable sources), but it is a problem shared by a lot of our articles on government agencies and institutes. The authors of those articles usually address the problem by adopting a "less is more" approach. You can do that here -- describe the Institute (in broad terms), mention the Executive Orders under which it operates, and specify the operational sub-divisions (with a very brief layman's description of what they do). This approach is likely to produce an article that visitors to Wikipedia will actually want to read.

And finally, an article on the Philippine Nuclear Research Institute already exists and so, for this reason alone, your draft will never be accepted for publication. Instead, feel free to expand the existing article with the material that you've created (after, I hope, taking my comments here into consideration). Good luck with the process. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask.

NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:28:48, 13 July 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Hiteshy2h



Hiteshy2h (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hiteshy2h: Hello, Hiteshy. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the delay in response. Did you have a specific question? NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

15:13:48, 13 July 2017 review of submission by Karibsouders


First, thank you for reaching out to me. I am requesting assistance because my edits keep being declined and I don't know why. Who decides what materiel's don't constitute proper sources? I also have the following message at the top of the page: This article reads like a press release or a news article and/or is entirely based on routine coverage. Please expand this article with properly sourced content to meet Wikipedia's quality standards, event notability guideline, and/or encyclopedic content policy. (July 2017)

Thanks!! Kari

Karibsouders (talk) 15:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


  • This is in reference to Gavin Becker. I'd considered bringing this to the WP:BLP noticeboard. I've reverted some contributions by the above editor, and think much more paring of the article will be necessary. I've explained the issues and templated the article; much of it is a recitation of concerts and dates, and these events are not themselves notable for the most part, nor do we need to know that a concert 'sold out', especially if that hasn't been supported by the linked sources. I've asked, but received no response, as to whether WP:COI is a concern; perhaps the article's creator is merely a fan. My suggestion is that Karibsouders refrain from editing and allow experienced and objective users to review and amend the article. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

16:32:26, 13 July 2017 review of submission by Vlaurentius


I would like to know how to place a picture. The picture I am placing is rights free and for some reason the comment of wikipedia is that wikipedia is not sure if it can be placed last but not least I want to place a grid on the right side with basic information on the inventor/person. How do I select a grid in which I can place birth, birth place, occupation etc.. VL 16:32, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@Vlaurentius: Hello, V. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the delay in response. Uploading images can be a complex process. You can begin learning about it by reading WP:Uploading images. Note that, in some cases, an image cannot be added until the draft has been accepted for publication, so this might not be the first thing that you want to do here. The second part of your question addresses what we call an "infobox". In your case, you probably want to use {{infobox person}}. Clicking that link will take you to a page that describes how the infobox is used.

But neither of these two things will make any difference unless you address the more basic problems with your submission. Your submission fails to exhibit any familiarity with even the basic aspects of drafting a Wikipedia article. If you haven't already done so, I strongly urge you to work through our WP:Tutorial, which will provide you with the information needed to craft an acceptable article. You might also take a look at some of our better articles on inventors, such as Joseph Swan or Isaac Singer, because doing so will show how the techniques provided in the Tutorial are applied in practice. And finally -- and this is of utmost importance -- it is simply unacceptable to provide your sources in a single clump at the end of the draft. By doing so, you are telling the reader that, if they want to verify any particular statement, they need to search through all of the sources in hopes of finding the right one. This is not an acceptable practice, especially in a biography of a living person. Instead, the statements need to be associated with particular sources. You can learn more about this by reading WP:Referencing for beginners.

I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:18, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:14:14, 13 July 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by AlexW0005


I submitted an article about Larry Sharpe (politician) he is referenced in other wiki articles and I wanted to create a biographical article explaining who he is, he has run in high profile races like for vice-president US and currently for Governor of new york city. but im being blocked due to our notability standards for politicians, and im usure what exactly I need to add to my article to get past that.

AlexW0005 (talk) 17:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AlexW0005, Sharpe pretty clearly does not meet our notability guideline for politicians: Sharpe sought the nomination of a minor party for a major office, and didn't get it, so he wasn't even in the general campaign. Unless he has had significant political activity not mentioned in the curent draft, he is not going to get in on his political achievements alone. So the only apparent way for there to be a valid article about him is the general notability guideline. Has there been significant independent non-local coverage of Sharpe? Independent published reliable sources that discuss Sharpe in some detail? Multiple paragraphs per source, at least? Not blogs, not press releases or stories that are based on PRs, not Q&A interviews, not anything by Sharpe himself or his close affiliates, not directory listings or passing mentions. If there are, these could be used and cited in the draft.
Some sugestions:
  • The first paragraph of the "Early Life and Career" of the draft is unsourced, sounds rather promotional, and is not really relevant in my view. It might be better removed.
  • As per WP:DOB exact birth dates for living people should usually not be included, and never if unsourced.
  • Refer to the subject by his last name alone after the first sentence of the article: Always "Sharpe" never "Larry".
  • Don't use "currently", use a specific date ("as of March 2017"). Consider how the text would read if approved and then not edited for 5 years. What would "currently" then mean? This isn't a news story, but an encyclopedia article.
  • Don't use "it is said" or "rumored" or the like unless you can say who is saying it, and cite a source.
I hope this is helpful, for other articles if not for this one. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 14

Engineering question

Assume you have been contacted by an engineering student who have lost his/her results work that was saved on a flash disk. Explain how you can help such a student to recover or back up his or her work ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TUMWEKWASE TOMOS (talk • contribs) 14:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tumwekwase. The thing is ... I have never been contacted by engineering students who lost work results from their flash drives. And I don't know what I would tell them if they ever did contact me. Sorry I can't be of more help. You might try asking at the WP:Reference desk. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's users will not do your homework for you. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

20:26:44, 14 July 2017 review of submission by Hollykatharine


I have made improvements to the page for Augustus Post and I believe it may now meet the requirements of a higher class in the grading system. It was originally given a C. Is it possible to get it reviewed again to see if a higher grade might now be appropriate? ~~hollykatharine Hollykatharine (talk) 20:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hollykatharine, once a darft has been accepted and has become a full article, it is no longer under the jurisdiction of the Articles for creation project. Any editor may review any article, but most often a user from one of the projects listed on the talk page. You could ask for a review there. However, The differences between "Start", "C", and "B" don't really matter that much. There is no formal process for any of these levels, and there is a good deal of subjectivity in the reviews for them. "A", "GA" (Good Article) and "FA" all have formal review processes, in which one or more uninvolved editors goes down a detailed checklist of standards to be met. (Only a few projects use the A level.) I will try to take a more detailed look at the articel this evening. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hello, Holly. Congratulations on getting your submission accepted for publication. We generally don't get too involved in assessing the quality of articles, because that's something done by the individual WikiProjects (they do it as an aid to monitoring which of their articles need the most attention). So, you might want to ask for assistance at WP:WikiProject Aviation. You also might consider nominating your article for Good Article status at WP:GAN. If you do the latter, be prepared to trim down the excessively long list of "known for" items. That infobox field is usually intended to hold a very brief description -- here, something as simple as "Aviation pioneer". I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

21:28:28, 14 July 2017 review of submission by Jsavasta

Hi! I was told my page didn't contain enough outside sources and read more like an advertisement. I'd love to make these changes so my page can get published but I'm not so sure what reads like an advertisement and what doesn't. I think I used many outside sources like Forbes and USA Today. I hope you can help! Thank you so much! Jsavasta (talk) 21:28, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jsavasta: Hello, J. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the delay in response.

We here at Wikipedia often use the word advertising in a broader sense that you might imagine. For us, it means an article that appears to be little more than an extension of a company's web site. And I think that's what the reviewer had in mind when they used the word to describe your submission. There's a good deal of discussion of the web site's content, but relatively little about the company itself. I haven't gone through all of your sources, so I don't have an opinion as to whether there is enough material in them to justify an article on your company. But, "more company history, less web content" is the direction you should take. By the way, there is almost never anything encyclopedic about documenting the company's financing. All companies get their financing from one source or another and there is rarely anything notable about the particular source. If a big investment played a significant role in the company's history, then a sentence in there might be appropriate, but a separate section for it? No.

I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

21:33:27, 14 July 2017 review of submission by Diyar Kurda


Diyar Kurda (talk) 21:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Diyar. Did you have a specific question? NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 15

17:55:01, 15 July 2017 review of submission by Larsconks


I need help finding reliable sources for Draft:Varhess, New Jarso. If the ones that I'm using aren't reliable, then I need some help.

@Larksconks: As far as I can see you don't have any sources? If you look at the majority of Wikipedia articles, and all biographies of living people on Wikipedia, they all cite sources. You can do this by placing this: <ref>Link to website/name of book/other citation template</ref> next to the claim you want to source. A guide is available at Wp:Referencing for beginners, alternatively if you click on this link, it takes you to Visual Editor, a Microsoft Word style editor that allows you to easily add formatted references. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Larksconks I did a google search, and I was not able to find any reliable sources that so much as mentioned this show. I fear that it simply is not notable. See WP:OVERCOME, and Wikipedia's Golden Rule. Unless you can find sources about the show that are independent of the show, and are what Wikipedia considers to be reliable sources, this draft is simply not going to be approved. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

18:51:53, 15 July 2017 review of submission by BenjaminHeckhoff


BenjaminHeckhoff (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2017 (UTC) Why my submission is not being accept[reply]

If this is about User:BenjaminHeckhoff/sandbox, BenjaminHeckhoff, the draft is not being accepted because it does not (yet) cite any sources, nor indicate why the subject is notable. Please read Wikipedia's Golden Rule and Your First Article. You need to find, and cite multiple independent published reliable sources that discuss the subject in some detail for there to be any chance of acceptance. Moreover, this is an autobiography which is strongly discouraged, and at the moment it looks rather promotional. You would need to be able to write in neutrally[, which is very hard when writing about oneself. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


July 16

03:03:00, 16 July 2017 review of submission by Tomwadsworth1


My proposed article has been rejected, and I'm baffled. The only criticism I received was that it had no citations and the "formatting was messed up." In reality, my article had more than 100 footnotes, documenting virtually everything. However, my footnotes were originally drafted using the standard format for html citations, and most of them did not immediately translate to actual citations. So, I went through the entire article and manually fixed all 106 citations, and I fixed the formatting. Yet, I'm told the article is declined.

I spent months researching and preparing the article. I'm a veteran magazine editor and a doctoral student who is vastly familiar with professional writing and the need for documentation.

I hate to see my extensive labor thrown away, as if NOTHING in it is publishable. Can anyone help me?

Tomwadsworth1 (talk) 03:03, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tom. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. I just took a look at your submission and saw that the reviewer now seems more amenable to accepting it. I also saw that some of your effort was misplaced, because when a single reference is used multiple times, Wikipedia editors typically use the multiple-use form of referencing. I modified the ten or so references to the May 8 edition of the Daily Telegraph, which you can use as an example for simplifying the referencing for the other newspaper articles that are being used multiple times. Unfortunately, I didn't know the paper's publisher and the article's page number, so you'll need to fill them in yourself. You also can improve the formatting of the section headings, which should NOT be in bold font and which should use "sentence case" (i.e., only the first word is capitalised unless a subsequent word would be capitalised for some other reason). I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

03:21:13, 16 July 2017 review of submission by Steve Quinn

Hello. I moved a newly created article to the draft space. The new title is Draft:Morten Jung-Olsen. Based on the sources provided and based on my own searches, it seems there is not enough support for this article as biography of a living person per WP:BLP, especially given the claims made in this article. This is contentious material and all the negative claims need to be backed up by independent reliable sources. I have translated the references and they do not seem to be sufficient. I contacted the article's creator User:Dans (see diff here [1]). I told them to please go through WP:AFC for release of this article. Thanks for your support in this matter. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Steve Quinn: Thanks. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:02:17, 16 July 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by J.L. Dayawon



}}
Hi and goodevening sir/maam can you please help me on how to create an article ? This is a little bit difficult but i need to learn and i am a newbie here at wikipedia and i also want to learn more about on how to create a biography.Please leave a message at J.L. Dayawon's User:talk and i will respond a " Thank you " once i see you're reply.

J.L. Dayawon (talk) 12:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See message on your talk page, J.L. Dayawon DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

19:59:12, 16 July 2017 review of submission by Mhb20002000

Hello All, I am new to wikipedia and my draft got denied for notability. I would appreciate any help. Could someone explain why it got denied and how I can fix it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Adam_Cote Mhb20002000 (talk) 19:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhb20002000: Hello, Mhb. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the great delay in response. The best source of information as to why your submission was declined will be the persons who reviewed it. I see that you've already asked the most recent reviewer for information and I trust that you will receive a response in the near future. For now, I took a look at the submission and found that I, too, would have declined it. In and of themselves, being an attorney or businessman does not confer notability. Neither does being a military reserve officer who saw active duty (unless one can demonstrate satisfaction of our notability guidelines for military personnel). This leaves the subject's attempts at being elected to state office. And here, our notability guidelines for politicians are fairly clear -- unless the subject actually becomes the governor of Maine, there will be no presumption of notability. And despite your assertions to the contrary (as written at the bottom of the draft), the regional newspaper coverage enjoyed by the subject is probably not enough to convince a reviewer that the subject has enduring encyclopedic interest for a global readership.

I recognize that this is not the response you were hoping to get. But if you have any further questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 17

02:06:02, 17 July 2017 review of submission by MSmuzynski

Hi! I'm new to Wikipedia. My recent article submission was denied due to lack of notability. I have referenced 15 media outlets who have written about the topic, including CBS News, ABC News, Fox News, NBC Today Show, the BBC, and various reputable, international travel magazines, all of which have covered the topic in depth. I've read Wikipedia's guidelines for notability, the golden rule, and the mistakes to avoid pages numerous times. I feel like I have followed the guidelines meticulously, siting verifiable, well-known, independent, secondary, published sources. I don't understand why this article's topic isn't deemed notable. Can someone please explain further? The attraction in which I'm writing about has been featured in hundreds of media stories. How many of those do I need to site to make it notable? Thanks for your help!

MSmuzynski (talk) 02:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MSmuzynski: What is far more serious than the question of notability is that you appear to have a conflict of interest, and may be in violation of Wikipedia's terms of use by failing to disclose that you are engaged in paid editing. See the note on your talk page for more information. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 06:27:51, 17 July 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Harveyjakes


I am trying to get an article published on a company called 'Alpha FX' but it has been declined because the subject's references do not adequately show notability.

I would value some guidance from more experienced member's of the Wikipedia community on how the article could be amended to achieve inclusion.

Jake

Harveyjakes (talk) 06:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

13:55:01, 17 July 2017 review of submission by Chackoge


Hello- I'm just checking in on the Draft: Clark L. Anderson page. The submission was declined on 6 July 2017 and revised the same day to fix external references. It's about 11 days now and while I understand that the process has a backlog, we're well past a week now so I thought I'd make sure that some action on my part isn't slowing anything down. Thanks Chackoge (talk) 13:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC) Chackoge (talk) 13:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chackoge. The draft is in the pool, and will be reviewed in due course. Reviewers will be looking for something in the draft that shows the subject passes the notability guideline WP:PROF. The draft contains no such evidence, and no independent sources, so it will be declined. Rather than citing works written by the subject, base the draft on things written about the subject by arms-length reliable sources. In addition to studying the aforementioned notability guideline, you may find it useful to contrast the draft's sourcing with that in some of Wikipedia's finest writing about academics in medicine: Golding Bird, Frank Macfarlane Burnet, Ray Farquharson, and Michael Woodruff. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

15:44:43, 17 July 2017 review of submission by Hrmrlf17


We are not understanding why the article was declined. I reached out to the person who declined it on July 7 and he/she said they are no longer reviewing. We did not include any inline citations. Our references are at the bottom as footnotes; so not sure what we need to do to get this submitted. Please advise. Thank you. Hrmrlf17 (talk) 15:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

16:32:50, 17 July 2017 review of submission by Shkidd


Hi, This is my first Wiki doc, however the category that I selected was not the correct one (promotes a company, group, product, service, person) but I couldn't find a close category to use.

If the deletion was for this reason, please advise what category can it be listed under.

If it was for other reasons, please advise.

As you can see, there are no direct link to any business

Thanks


Shkidd (talk) 16:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 18

11:31:42, 18 July 2017 review of submission by Nour-hm

I have almost removed all the affiliated links from the article based on DrStrauss feedback: More unaffiliated sources are needed. I would appreciate if you can review it and share your feedback with me by telling if it's OK this way or if it still needs improvements. In order to make sure that the references I mentioned are fine or not, I saw what our competitors have done in their page in order to guarantee article submissions and I found that a lot of them mention a lot of affiliated links but they are accepted. Thanks in advance for your help and your feedbacks Nour-hm (talk) 11:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:34:28, 18 July 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Soumyaalma



soumya 15:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Request on 15:35:02, 18 July 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Diyar Kurda



Diyar Kurda (talk) 15:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

15:35:54, 18 July 2017 review of submission by Soumyaalma


soumya 15:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC) I want a full guidiance how to post an article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soumyaalma (talk • contribs) 15:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

15:55:48, 18 July 2017 review of submission by 197.221.232.68


197.221.232.68 (talk) 15:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Greetings.

The reason I want to include this teachers college on wiki is that it is now defunct and may be lost for ever. It trained generations of teachers in this country. Also nothing has been written about it all the more it should be created so other people can enrich it. It existed in the pre-internet age.

16:29:19, 18 July 2017 review of submission by Megangracehughes


Hi, I realized that my original post was deleted, I've since made another page Anatoly V. Zayats - I can't submit it so perhaps I've been blocked from doing that? Would you have a look and see if this draft page meet the standards for a page? If not please let me know what I should add. Then, would you have any advice so I can submit the page? thanks Megan

Megangracehughes (talk) 16:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

19:31:36, 18 July 2017 review of submission by Vlaurentius


I received the following comment: Please remove the links to wikimedia images that are in the prose. If you want to include images in the content you can, but that's not the way to do it. My question is how do I do this the correct way I really liked into this in detail and thought I was doing it right, I am sorry.

VL 19:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Vlaurentius: Hello again, VL. Our response is the same as the one we gave you a few days ago. To reiterate -- Uploading images can be a complex process. You can begin learning about it by reading WP:Uploading images. Note that, in some cases, an image cannot be added until the draft has been accepted for publication, so this might not be the first thing that you want to do here.

I see that you've fixed the basic problem of failing to link your sources with the statements that they were supporting. That's an excellent step, but you still need to fix the formatting of those references. In a few minutes, I'll head over to the draft and do one of them for you, which you can then use as an example for the rest.

But the submission still has other basic failings in the basic aspects of drafting a Wikipedia article. I again urge you to work through our WP:Tutorial, which will provide you with the information needed to craft an acceptable article. I also repeat my suggestion that you take a look at some of our better articles on inventors, such as Joseph Swan or Isaac Singer, because doing so will show how the techniques provided in the Tutorial are applied in practice.

I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I should have checked more carefully -- I see that you did upload the images. The only remaining problem was the proper coding. I took care of that. Sorry about my error. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

23:56:54, 18 July 2017 review of draft by Grindcomber


Grindcomber (talk) 23:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

05:43:03, 19 July 2017 review of submission by Sumanasa


My contribution draft page - 'Kanchana V Subbarathnam' on wiki was deleted without my permission! How can my work be deleted without confirming with me about the copyright of materials I used? Kanchana V Subbarathnam was my father. He was a violin legend and truly deserved to be on wiki for his achievements. I had no personal benefits or any kind of selfishness in creating this page, but a lot of his fans in carnatic music world would have loved to read about him. I had owned everything I posted and the website kanchanasisters.com was created by me. Please kindly add the deleted page back and if any edits need to be done, I will do it accordingly.

Sumanasa (talk) 05:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

09:37:43, 19 July 2017 review of draft by JamieG01


Hi,

My submission 'Quill Content' has been declined due to lack of 'reliable sources'. Are you able to point me in the right direction as to which sources are classed as 'unreliable' so I can then amend these and ensure your directions are noted for the future. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

I look forward to hearing from you,

Elise Johnson (talk) 09:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elise Johnson (talk) 09:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

11:58:43, 19 July 2017 review of submission by Ghost122

THIS PAGE B4BONAH WAS A BIOGRAPHY PAGE OF AN ARTIST IN GHANA, BUT UPON CREATING THE PAGE IT WAS DELETED REASON BEING THE PAGE HAD NO CREDIBLE SOURCE, Ghost122 (talk) 11:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC) Ghost122 (talk) 11:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=791307948"