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 ECURBEC (talk | contribs) at 09:54, 10 August 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, Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

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


August 3

Request on 09:36:15, 3 August 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by StephanieHay


Hi,

I just wrote an article about Modo - Circus with Purpose. This is a charity I feel very passionate about but i have little connection with the actual company.

The article has been declined as it appears to be an advertisement and must be written from a neutral point of view, I have re-read the article several times and I can not see any information which appears to advertising the company - all the information appears to be solid facts backed up with independent articles.

The message also says that I haven't used independent sources which i am puzzled with as every source used is published from a reliable, trustworthy source that has not been published by the creator of the subject being discussed (Modo - Circus with Purpose)

I would just like some tips and ideas on what has to be changed and how I can get this article published

Thank you

StephanieHay (talk) 09:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble with writing about charities you are passionate about is that it's easy to loose track of neutrality. As an uninvolved editor and having read the draft, I can see where the rejection came from. It's basically an ode to the company, which is not what Wikipedia is for. Kleuske (talk) 09:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:15:44, 3 August 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Shivanu14


Hello, I want to create this article as this person is world famous and still not on wikipedia. I put all the information which I had. But this page is not publish. I want that you help me to publish this article. Thank you.

Shivanu14 (talk) 11:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shivanu14: Hello, Shivanu. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the great delay in response. I see that your submission was declined twice since you posted your question here and, in both cases, the reviewer noted the lack of in-line citations. They also included links to material that explains this requirement in more detail. I can only repeat that advice -- you should read WP:Referencing for beginners, WP:Inline citations and WP:MINREF. If you have any questions about these readings, feel free to ask. But even after you've done this, there will still be the question of whether the subject has achieved encyclopedic notability. Thus far, you have shown only that the subject has a website and that there are two books containing material by the subject. You haven't shown that independent reliable sources have written about the subject, and that's precisely what you will need to show before your draft will be accepted for publication. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 10:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

17:42:34, 3 August 2017 review of submission by Golden Freak

How I can add a photo in my article? Golden Freak (talk) 17:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Golden Freak. The presence or absence of photos will have no effect on whether or not a draft is accepted, so I advise you to focus instead on choosing a topic suitable for Wikipedia (the subject of User:Golden Freak/sandbox does not appear to be suitable for an encyclopedia). Adding an image is a two step process: first upload it, then use it in on a page.
Go to Commons:First steps and carefully step through the tutorial. When you get to "First steps/Uploading files", don't dive in too hastily. First follow the link on that page to learn about the different licensing options. Other useful advance reading includes Wikipedia:File names and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images, which will prepare you to answer important questions the upload wizard will ask you. If after that you have any questions or doubts, there is a dedicated help desk for image uploading.
Once you've uploaded an image, the picture tutorial can guide you through how to use it on a page. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:11, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

17:43:49, 3 August 2017 review of submission by KehrerK



How to insert photographs, diagrams? kehrer 17:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi KehrerK. Adding an image is a two step process: first upload it, then use it in on a page.
Go to Commons:First steps and carefully step through the tutorial. When you get to "First steps/Uploading files", don't dive in too hastily. First follow the link on that page to learn about the different licensing options. Other useful advance reading includes Wikipedia:File names and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images, which will prepare you to answer important questions the upload wizard will ask you. If after that you have any questions or doubts, there is a dedicated help desk for image uploading.
Once you've uploaded an image, the picture tutorial can guide you through how to use it on a page. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:23, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 4

13:32:52, 4 August 2017 review of submission by RanjitBimrah

I want to request about Ranjit Mangal Singh because our page is fresh and not must be matched with anyone. I'm want to post or show article on Wikipedia. Allow me to add it article while creating same articles in by Wikipedia using Request Article. It's not fake or copy paste instead than its fresh article and have Chairman and Owner of this small business. But Wikipedia doesn't accept my article. Do something as soon as possible. The website is talkapp-messenger.com/about. and more information here in it.

RanjitBimrah (talk) 13:32, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RanjitBimrah: Hello, Ranjit. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the delay in response. You make a point of saying the article is not fake, even though nobody had suggested it was fake. But now that you mention it, I am a bit puzzled as to how Singh's facial expression changed not one bit in the six years between the 1982 photo and the 1988 photo. I'm also struggling to understand how a ten-year old boy could have facial hair. But I'm really struggling with the fact that you categorize Singh as a living person while also telling us that he died in 1990. And I'm more than a little surprised to read, in the final sentence, that Singh started his website two years after he died. I am truly interested in hearing your response. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just his facial expression that changed not one bit in the six years, it's even the folds in his turban. If this is fakery, it's remarkably unconvincing. Maproom (talk) 11:10, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed and (unsurprisingly) declined the draft. Besides the obvious fakery with the photos, the dates make no sense. I'm having a hard time figuring out how the subject could have a Twitter account when he died 16 years before Twitter was founded. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 5

Request on 13:34:35, 5 August 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Sunil dhakare



sunil 13:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Sunil. Did you have a specific question? NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

15:50:17, 5 August 2017 review of submission by M0h1t

The reason for rejection was stated as my not so neutral writing. Well, I can not write on something big as such as Wikipedia. Second, my language is not good. So, if anybody else from Wikipedia team can write few sentences about that person, that will be enough for me, as I have submitted proper sources.

Please let me know what can be done to create a page on Wikipedia about that person. M0h1t (talk) 15:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@M0h1t: You can ask at Wikipedia:Requested articles for someone else to write the article. I've had at least one article created that way, but don't expect quick results. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:27, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

16:02:24, 5 August 2017 review of submission by AmiBwell

In full disclosure, I was asked to publish the article by the company as a PR professional. I did not create any of the content or reference materials. I have had that issue in the past since I am an entertainment publicist and was referencing material I had written and distributed to the press. In moving forward, how should the copy be changed to avoid it sounding like an advertisement? Are the references acceptable? Would adding the links to the companies listed help at all? Would removing quotes from the owner make it appear less like an advertisement or spam? AmiBwell (talk) 16:02, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The tone of the writing could be corrected. Establishing that the subject is notable is more likely to be an insuperable problem. You will need several citations of reliable independent published sources with in-depth discussion of the subject. I looked at the first three sources cited: the first is to the company's own web site, and so not independent; the second, I could find no mention of the subject; the third gave me a list of "0 roofing contractors near Oxford, Eng." I gave up looking after that. I don't know if the article does cite any sources that help to establish that the company is notable. If not, you will need to find and add some. And either way, I recommend removing the worthless citations like the first three, that just make it harder for a reviewer to find the good ones. Maproom (talk) 07:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

19:12:56, 5 August 2017 review of submission by 92.19.39.69

Big companies use Hotjar.com technology, there is no article at present. I'm suprised there is no article. I wanted a reliable source of information. 92.19.39.69 (talk) 19:12, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP address. Our apologies for the great delay in response. As for your comment, you might try writing the article yourself. Or you can request that one be written by posting at Wikipedia:Requested articles. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 10:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 6

01:15:30, 6 August 2017 review of submission by RanjitBimrah

@NewYorkActuary I agree with you but I have another proof to prove it. I will not upload those photo which looks like a teenager and will send you an image link below of description. Tell How can post this articles on Wikipedia? I think I write too many heading like career and mission death etc.. When I try to write articles in the draft for review than according to this reason Wikipedia delete or doesn't accept this article. Hope you will do my help regarding this matter. All sources which are written is this articles fresh. Image link Teenager Ranjit Mangal Singh. Now I will able to write an article on Wikipedia on the name as RANJIT MANGAL SINGH.

Regard RanjitBimrah

RanjitBimrah (talk) 01:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: User has blanked the page. NewYorkActuary (talk) 10:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

05:19:45, 6 August 2017 review of draft by 103.7.79.207


103.7.79.207 (talk) 05:19, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP address. Did you have a specific question? NewYorkActuary (talk) 10:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

17:57:03, 6 August 2017 review of submission by Plofgren

Hi, this is my fist contribution to wikipedia, and I'm trying to understand why my contribution was rejected. The reviewer seems be be concerned because my submission overlaps with information written in my PhD thesis at Stanford, especially the related work section of my thesis. I don't see why this is a problem, since I cite peer-reviewed sources (not my thesis) for all claims made, and was careful to cite a variety of work going back 18 years. I am not publishing anything original here. As background my motivation is that as a 1st year grad student, when my advisor suggested I study "Personalized PageRank" it took me a while to find good descriptions of it and to understand the best algorithms for computing it. Now that I studied it for five years I feel like I should give back and write the article I wish I could have read from the beginning. Personalized Pagerank is used in industry by Twitter, and is covered in core data-mining and social network analysis classes at Stanford, so I don't feel like it is too obscure to deserve a Wikipedia article. Also, the reviewer suggests I merge this article into the PageRank article, but the PageRank article is currently focused on non-personalized PageRank and web search, and I think it would be too much detail to have this much information on personalized PageRank as a subsection of the PageRank article. Please let me know if at least some information on personalized PageRank would be useful to Wikipedia, or if I should give up on sharing my knowledge through Wikipedia. Thanks! Plofgren (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Plofgren. Thank you for your contribution, we value your expertise. Creating a new Wikipedia article is one of the most difficult tasks for a new Wikipedian, not where I would recommend that anyone start. There is useful information in the draft, so how should you proceed?
  • Study, with a writer's eye, some of Wikipedia's best articles on topics of a similar nature: Euclidean algorithm, Binary search algorithm, Linear probing, Pseudoforest, Rule 184, and Sylvester's sequence. Also read Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:Writing better articles.
  • Attempt to do what the reviewer suggests. You're correct that PageRank can't neatly absorb the entire contents of the draft, but isn't the reviewer also right that some of the material could fit there? What would a reader of PageRank want to know about Personalized PageRank, and where would that go? Write that paragraph.
  • Don't depend on hyperlinks to provide vital context. Users may print articles or read offline, and content may be republished without links, so the text needs to make sense without links. In as few words as possible, tell readers what they need to know about PageRank in order to understand Personalized PageRank. Write for as broad an audience as possible.
  • The lead should summarize the body. It is too short for the length of the draft. It also mentions things not covered in the body (Facebook, community detection, and other applications), which shows that the body doesn't fully cover the subject.
  • The tone of the draft isn't quite right for an encyclopedia article, it comes across more like a textbook or instructor lecturing to a class. The use of "we" grates. Try to make the voice of the article more like the examples above.
  • Respond to the reviewer on the draft, directly below their comment, where future reviewers will see it, with regard to any remaining concerns. Keep it short and to the point, e.g.:
Yes, the draft overlaps a portion of my PhD thesis, but mainly the related work section, not the central thrust of my research. I'm not citing my own publications or attempting to promote my work, merely writing about a subject I've become familiar with, summarizing independent reliable sources.
When you've done all that, resubmit the draft. AfC is an iterative process. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Worldbruce, that's a lot of helpful info, and that makes sense. I think I underestimated how much work it would take to get an article approved. I'm not sure when I'll get to this, but when I do I'll edit the draft and re-submit. Plofgren (talk) 05:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

22:33:27, 6 August 2017 review of submission by Rudolf1330


Hi, I was just wondering what is meant by adding more sources to back up he notability of the footballer... It thought it was pretty clear that he was notable enough, seen as he has been at two notable academies and plays for a notable club... There are many much less notable young players who play in a division 3 leagues below the division Lavelle currently participates in so do not see why Lavelle is not worthy of a wikipedia page. Please can you instruct me directly and clearly to what specific area(s) need to be enhanced, as I believe that the sources used in the article are every bit as reliable as other footballers and athletes on wikipedia e.g. Adam Dugdale or Nathan Bondswell (both not at all notable athletes/sportspeople and use hardly any sources at all, let alone reliable ones). Thanks for your time and help in advance.

Accepted because yesterday he played in a match between Morecambe F.C. and Cheltenham Town F.C., which are clubs in EFL League Two, a fully professional league. Thus he meets criterion #2 of WP:NFOOTY. Trout me if I'm wrong. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:56, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 7

02:57:01, 7 August 2017 review of submission by 174.44.65.34


174.44.65.34 (talk) 02:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ManuelBot. Did you have a specific question? NewYorkActuary (talk) 10:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

08:27:30, 7 August 2017 review of submission by Raymond Acheson


Hi, I am trying to provide a Wikipedia presence for my rugby club and my initial article has been rejected due to no references being provided.

This is Lurgan Rugby Club and it is located in Northern Ireland.

We are basically using old photographs off the walls and in photo albums dating back to our formation in 1880 and old tour literature from previous tours to Canada and Italy.

I am a life member of the club and an in charge of events / brand placement and senior player recruitment.

We are currently engaged with a web designer who is creating a web site and social media presence for us.

How can I move this forward without formal references?

Thank you in anticipation of your help

Regards

Raymond Acheson

Raymond Acheson (talk) 08:27, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Raymond. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. The quick answer is -- you can't move forward without formal references. Wikipedia requires that all the information in its articles be referenced to published sources, and the ones you've described here don't meet that description. You might try looking for old newspaper coverage but, even if you find it, that coverage might not be enough if it is limited to local sources. On a different note, I took a look at your draft (Draft:Lurgan Rugby Club History) and found that I would have declined it even if it had been adequately referenced. You don't appear to have even tried to write that draft in the neutral tone of voice that is expected of an encyclopedia (it looks more like sports-page coverage). And you've included a ridiculously large number of photographs. In all, I see a lot of problems that need to be addressed before an article about your club will be accepted for Wikipedia. I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 11:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

09:33:07, 7 August 2017 review of draft by Christy.kwon


Hi, I am currently working on article creation, and it appears that the page i want to create is marked as a spam. What should i do in this case to create an article? It happen because i couldn't understand wikipedia article creation policy well. I would like to know how to restore or any helpful instruction on this matter. Thank you very much for your help. Christy.kwon (talk) 09:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Christy.kwon: Hello, Christy. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the delay in response. You can ask that the article be restored by following the procedure at WP:REFUND. However, I see that the most recent version to be deleted had been cited for two failings -- a violation of WP:PROMOTION and the use of copyrighted material. It is extremely unlikely that copyrighted material will be restored, so I think you will be left with trying to fashion a draft that does not run afoul of WP:PROMOTION. I haven't taken a close look at your current version, but a quick read suggests that you are not providing any information that wouldn't be found on the company's web site. As such, it looks to me that your draft will not be accepted for publication. But other reviewers might have different opinions about it, so you might want to continue work on it. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

12:26:38, 7 August 2017 review of submission by Moleknoll


Hi, I have made changes to my draft to try to satisfy editors, but have not resubmitted them yet. I changed some of my sources to eliminate such things as diaries by the subject and oral interviews, to make my sources more objective and verifiable. Also, just because I chose the username of Vanvleck - one editor thought I was writing about myself even though my draft says my subject, Natalie Van Vleck, died in 1981! Before a possible rejection again, I would like someone to look at my submission and give me a few pointers.

thanks very much!

@Moleknoll: Hello, Moleknoll. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the delay in response. While looking at your draft, I took the liberty of re-formatting one of your references using the {{cite book}} template. These templates (and others like it) make it easy to get proper formatting and also provide a convenient way to provide on-line links when they exist. I hope you can use that one reference as an example for re-formatting the others. A quick look at the draft suggests that some of them will be better done by using the {{cite web}} and {{cite journal}} templates. If you have any questions about using templates, feel free to ask. In a similar vein, I put the first section header into proper format and I trust that you can use that as an example for re-doing the rest. And there is the more nebulous issue of proper "tone" in the writing. At some points, you veer away from the neutral, staid tone that is expected in an encyclopedia. We are told that the subject "live a life in art and nature". Also, that her work is "powerful" and encourages people to "commune with nature". These (and other expressions like them) do not belong in an encyclopedia article and you might want to put some effort into making your writing less florid.

As for the more basic question of whether the subject has achieved encyclopedic notability, I'm not convinced that she has. As you yourself point out, Van Vleck's work "languished in obscurity" until recently. We are told of only one exhibition of her work during her life, at the (presumably) non-notable Brownell-Lambertson gallery (I'm not counting the exhibit run out of Van Vleck's own studio). And although you've shown that the Flanders Center has become very interested in her work, you have not demonstrated why this in itself demonstrates encyclopedic notability. Nor have you demonstrated that any one else has shown this same level of interest. Most of your references are to a single book commissioned by the Center, some of your other references are written by an employee of the Center, and most of the recent exhibitions are in the same Connecticut town in which the Center is located. In all, I don't see how this artist has achieved encyclopedic notability and I think the reviewer was correct in declining to accept it back in June.

I recognize that this is not the response that you were hoping to get. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

19:11:45, 7 August 2017 review of submission by Cliffbridges


I am attempting to clean up this submission and make improvements to meet the site guidelines. Based on previous advice, I have collected sources from a variety of publications, including magazine profiles and news sources. I removed most sources that seemed to be based on press release information (I left one official VA state release). I believe notability can be established from the included sources.

The most recent rejection is somewhat vague however, and I am hoping to get some clarity around specific problem areas in the article. I have attempted an impartial tone, but perhaps the types of information I have included are inappropriate? I'd love some guidance about specific parts of the article that should be removed or re-written to bring it up to standard.

Thanks so much! Cliffbridges (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


August 8

03:23:54, 8 August 2017 review of submission by Hillin

Hi,

It's been over a month since this draft was reviewed and rejected. I've made some improvements to this article, I hope someone can review it again. Hillin (talk) 03:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hillin: Hello, Hillin. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the delay in response. Right now, there are about 80 drafts in the queue ahead of yours and I expect a reviewer will get a chance to look at it within the next few days. Thank you for your patience. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

04:57:39, 8 August 2017 review of submission by Mrngcuegee


Dear Help Desk,

I have created a page and have revised it according to the comments provided. I would like to publish it soon if it is considered appropriate.

Look forward to hearing from you. Thanks in advance for your help.

Kind regards,

Mrngcuegee

Mrngcuegee (talk) 04:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mrngcuegee. WP:AUD states that, for organizations, attention solely from local media is not an indication of notabilty. At least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary. Very few primary schools garner coverage from such sources. If articles about them are created, they are usually merged, typically to the enclosing community. Enforcement of the guidelines on primary schools in Hong Kong appears to have been lax, but that doesn't mean the guidelines don't apply, only that articles exist that need to be improved or merged. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

07:56:34, 8 August 2017 review of submission by Mohsin kadomi


i need to follow up on my article as it has been placed for preview since a long time the article name is ( International Aviation Services Organization ) i have done so many attempts to submit this article but i always receive fast deletion ? i don't know why my article keeps rejected .

please assist thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohsin kadomi (talk • contribs) 07:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mohsin kadomi: Hello, Mohsin. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the delay in response. At the time you posted here, there were about 300 drafts in the queue ahead of yours and it would have taken a week or two before a reviewer got a chance to look at it. But I see that you've already gone ahead and placed an alternate version of the draft in Main space. Accordingly, I've declined your submission, with the suggestion that any material in the draft that does not already appear in the article be added to the article. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 12:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

09:35:22, 8 August 2017 review of submission by Conservativeguy

I am a new user who tried to create a first time article on "NZ CONSERVATIVE COALITION" at website nzconservativecoalition.org.nz I understand my request was rejected for lack of notability. My question relates to social media strength of notability. My website has been going for 7 mths into 2017 and already has: 1) 11,416 views 2) 5,018 visitors 3) 1,812 likes 4) 119 comments 5) 3,273 posts 6) 114 followers 7) posts to twitter, Facebook, You Tube, Google +, Tumbler with followers on twitter and facebook. 8) It has an inbound link from the Conservative Party of NZ where I am also a Board member. 9) The website has 113 pages of content

I am trying to understand the threshold of notibility taking into account social media. Pls advise.

Conservativeguy (talk) 09:35, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Conservativeguy: what you need to do is cite some professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are specifically about the coalition but not affiliated with it. That's what determines notability, not imaginary internet points. See WP:42 for more information.
Well, actually, you shouldn't be doing that since you admit that it's your website. Because it's your website, you have a conflict of interest. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


August 9

00:13:16, 9 August 2017 review of draft by Durbin5891

i have attempted several times to add references to the page i created as it has been changed to a draft because it lacked references. It will not save my edits no matter how many attempts i try. Why will it not allow me to save references to the page?

Durbin5891 (talk) 00:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Durbin. Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia. I see that, since posting here, you've managed to get an edit saved. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

00:52:35, 9 August 2017 review of submission by Hilda S Mitrani


Can you point me to the template to build an info box? Thanks! Hilda in South Florida 00:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Hilda in South Florida 00:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Hilda. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. You're probably looking for either {{infobox person}} or {{infobox medical person}}. By the way, you need to remove the in-article external links from your draft (i.e., the ones that are inside the main text but that send the reader outside of Wikipedia). You will also benefit from reading through our WP:Tutorial, especially the section on "Formatting". And under our Manual of Style, section headings should be in "sentence case" (i.e., only the first word is capitalised unless a later one would be capitalised for some other reason). Also, "&" as an abbreviation of "and" is not used here. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 12:04, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much, NewYorkActuary. I will take the actions you suggested. There's a lot to remember as I learn to write and edit in the Wikipedia style. My thanks, again. Hilda in South Florida 15:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilda S Mitrani (talk • contribs)

07:21:40, 9 August 2017 review of submission by Jan van Bekkum


On June 30 my article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Valve_Connections_of_Propane,_Butane_and_LPG_Containers was declined. I have corrected the article and submitted it again the same day. Since then I haven't had any reaction. Did I miss a step?

Thanks.

Regards,

Jan van bekkum

Hello, Jan. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, you did miss a step -- you neglected to actually re-submit your draft. You can do so now by clicking the "Resubmit" button that appears in the box near the top of the draft. You might also wish to contact the reviewer who declined your draft, to see whether the external links were their only concern (or merely the most urgent of several). You can find the name and Talk page link for that reviewer in the same box near the top of your draft. I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 12:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

14:54:59, 9 August 2017 review of submission by 2600:1700:4D00:DB00:E416:F2BF:937B:43D2

My article was rejected but a reason was not given I was wondering why so I may correct it 2600:1700:4D00:DB00:E416:F2BF:937B:43D2 (talk) 14:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP address. You'll need to tell us which article you are asking about. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

16:22:03, 9 August 2017 review of submission by Deaunna Mitchell

Good Morning, I wanted to know what I'm missing, or need to complete, in order to get approval on the submitted page. Thank you. Deaunna Mitchell (talk) 16:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Deaunna. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Because your draft has already been deleted, I am unable to give you any specific advice about it. All I can say is that the administrator who deleted it felt that either the draft's content or tone (or both) were too promotional of the subject. You can read more about this concern at WP:PROMOTION. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

16:59:39, 9 August 2017 review of submission by Nealpolitan


Hello, I am a college student and I am doing a research paper on Giulio Adriani. Part of our assignment is to create a wikipedia page for the person we are researching, but I am struggling to get my page approved. The editor who declined my page said that it sounded too much like an advertisement for him and that I needed to site more sources. I have gone back and corrected my submission to the best of my abilities. I resubmitted (or at least I think I did) about 2 weeks ago but have not received any feedback. I would love to know the status of my page or if there are any additional changes that I should make! This project must be completed for my class within the next two weeks, so if someone could help me as soon as possible, that would be greatly appreciated! Thank you! Nealpolitan (talk) 16:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)CG[reply]

Hello, Neal. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, you didn't actually re-submit your draft two weeks ago. You can do so now by clicking the "Resubmit" button in the box near the top of your draft. But given the backlog here, it's unlikely that a reviewer will take another look at it within the next two weeks. As for additional changes, you can start by removing the in-article external links (i.e., links that appear inside the main text of the article but that send the reader outside of Wikipedia). But even after doing that, I think you are going to face some serious difficulties getting reviewers to agree that the subject has achieved encyclopedic notability. Guinness record for the world's longest pizza? Not a chance that this will confer encyclopedic notability. Four World Pizza awards? Maybe, depending on who gives the awards. But you've offered no evidence that the awards are themselves notable. And more problematic, your source for the Gold Medal in the 2010 World Pizza Championship doesn't corroborate your claim (it only states that the subject is now a member of the team and doesn't indicate any world championship). Providing sources that don't corroborate your claims will probably sink any chance of getting your draft accepted for publication. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

18:04:18, 9 August 2017 review of submission by Ramesty


Ramesty (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2017 (UTC) I couldn't get the heading right. Ramesty (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ramesty. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. The draft is so short I just went ahead and corrected the formatting. But I don't want to give you any false hope. The reviewer who declined your submission is quite correct in finding that this will never be a stand-alone article, at least not in its current brief form. And especially when it's only reference is MarioWiki. If the draft reflects the sum total of all that can be reliably sourced about the band, you probably should find a new topic to write about. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. To make it an article, I would have to look up a lot more info and expand it (the article), correct? Ramesty (talk) 18:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 10

04:30:06, 10 August 2017 review of submission by Dipshikha Sinha

I have received a message saying that this particular submission includes copyrighted content which is why it cannot be accepted by Wikipedia. I, however, had cited the quotations used in the draft. Does that mean that quotations are not allowed on Wikipedia pages? Kindly provide me with some assistance since this is my very first attempt at creating an article on Wikipedia. Thank you. Dipshikha Sinha (talk) 04:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

09:54:03, 10 August 2017 review of submission by ECURBEC


I have been told that my article doesn't sound neutral. I know I have a problem generally with over-writing could someone please help me 'tone this down' or cut out bits which aren't appropriate? Many thanks. ECURBEC (talk) 09:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=794838391"