User talk:Shadowowl

Constructive criticism is welcome. Templates are OK, but don't spam me with Guides for Noobs.

Submitting drafts

When marking a draft for submission, please make sure not to select the "yourself" option. Instead, select either the "most recent submitter" or the "page creator" option. This way, you will not receive decline messages like the one above by My name is not dave and the one I mistakenly added here, which I have removed in the following edit. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 02:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I will do that from now on.--Shadowowl on mobile (talk) 20:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jism 3 (August 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Jupitus Smart was:

As before, no evidence that movie has commenced principal photography or ever will

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Jism 3 and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Jupitus Smart 10:11, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On-behalf-of submissions of old drafts

In this edit and this other edit, you submitted for AfC Draft:Antiquary's Books series and Draft:Aspen HYSYS, both drafts that had been dormant for at least 6 months, making them potential material for CSD G13. In the first case, I didn't fix the u= parameter in time, but I caught it in the second. (Legacypac, by the way, manages to do these submissions without imprinting them with their own username, I'm not sure how that works.)

In looking at some of the oldest entries in the AfC backlog, I've seen several drafts that had also been unedited by their initial creator for more than 6 months and were submitted by AfC editors.

Can I ask what's going on? I'm very new to AfC, but this pattern I've described seems to pointlessly add to the AfC backlog and waste reviewer time. Since the articles are in no fit condition to be accepted and now, as I understand it, are not eligible for G13 for another 6 months, they just get declined and go back to Draft: space with nothing having been accomplished (except perhaps to wake up the original contributor). Is this part of some master plan that I'm just too inexperienced to see? — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

14:04:19, 10 August 2017 review of submission by Rekabodzan

Rekabodzan (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Brain Bar Budapest (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Shadowowl,

I see that you reviewed our article submission and declined it on 13 July. It was declined for the 3rd time, so I thought we might need a little help. Could you please give a piece of advice what should we do exactly to get it accepted? As far as I can see, the main problem was with the style and the references. As for the references, the festival is only in its 3rd year, therefore the amount of publications in the international media is limited. However, we have well-renowned and credible sources e.g. Wired, The Next Web or Big Think.

As for the style, could you higlight a few parts that seem like advertisement and make suggestions how to rewrite them?

Thanks in advance.

Rekabodzan (talk) 14:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]