User talk:Nicholishiell
Nicholishiell, you are invited to the Teahouse
[edit]Hi Nicholishiell! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
Your submission at Articles for creation
[edit]- If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nested Neutron Spectrometer.
- To edit the submission, 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 . Please remember to link to the submission!
- You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.
- Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! buffbills7701 19:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation
[edit]- If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nested Neutron Spectrometer.
- To edit the submission, 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 . Please remember to link to the submission!
- You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.
- Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! RadioFan (talk) 12:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation
[edit]The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
- If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
- If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)As reviewing administrator, I apologize for the prior reviews of your article. I think the latest reviewer in particular didn't seem to understand that the references were not omitted, merely repeated, which is a trivial style error. I simply normalized the style and accepted he article. However, this really needs additional references from other sources, written by people other than those who developed the device. Please add them as soon as possible, following the style presently in the article. DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)