Main page

Talk page

Submissions
Category, Sorting, Feed

Showcase

Participants
Apply, By subject

Reviewing instructions

Help desk

Backlog
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?
- For questions on how to use or edit Wikipedia, visit the Teahouse.
- For unrelated questions, use the search box or the reference desk.
- Create a draft via Article wizard or request an article at requested articles.
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

Top of page
Table of Contents
Today's posts
Bottom of page

October 1

October 2

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cristóvão Tezza

So, my article was rejected for lack of sufficient citations for information on a living person. I accept the critique, but I have some questions on how to best fix it. In preparing the article I initially translated the bulk of it from the Portuguese Wikipedia (pt:Cristóvão Tezza), and then supplemented it with additional details I found on my own. The parts that need sources come from the part I translated, which leads to the following problems:

Q1: The original article had few inline citations, but when I did a search I discovered that the original source I was looking for was in the original article as an external link. There are two problems with this link. The first is that it is a blog entry that claims to reproduce the content of an interview with Mr. Tezza that was published elsewhere. Is citing to the blog good enough or do I need to find a copy of the original magazine that published the original interview? (It's a Brazilian magazine that I can't find online, so I don't think I can find it short of going to Brazil.)

Q2: The second problem with the link is that the original Portuguese Wikipedia article copied about a paragraph worth of content exactly word for word. I'm pretty sure we can't copy that much material even with citations. I can't rewrite the original because my Portuguese isn't good enough to write, so my question is how do I fix it for my English article? The fact that I translated it means it is not a word for word copy. Should I rewrite that portion anyway to make it clear we're not plagiarizing?

In addition to the above, I have another question about citations.

Q3: I know I'm supposed to give attribution to the original article when I translate it, and I'm not sure I did that correctly. I initially wrote a comment to that effect in the edit notes when creating the page, but when it went in the the Articles for Creation queue it disappeared, so I put another note on the page itself in the references section. Is this sufficient or is there another preferred way of giving attribution when translating from another Wikipedia?

Help on these issues will be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Vojen (talk) 00:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion would be to cheat: Use a template such as {{cite journal}} to cite the original Brazilian article, provide the URL to the online version, and trust that the online version is a faithful representation of the magazine interview.
Rewriting that part can't hurt. I'm not that much of an expert on copyright, but I believe it usually includes the right to translations—thus too close a translation of a lengthy copyrighted text would still have copyvio issues.
I believe the preferred method is the use of Template:Translated page on the talk page. That template should take four parameters: The language code of the source article, its exact title, its version number, and the version number of the target article where the translation was added. All other parameters are unnecessary. Huon (talk) 05:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I followed your advice. The translation templates are just in the main space as there is no dedicated talk page yet, but when the article gets approved I'll check and make sure they transfer over to the new talk page. I also added some citations and rewrote a lot of the text to make it more of a summary than translation. It's not a great article and could still use some cleaning up, but hopefully it's good enough. Thanks for your help. Vojen (talk) 22:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Invincible Defence

I would like to know why my article on Invincible Defence was declined for inclusion in Wikepedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian G. Mc Enery (talk • contribs) 06:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was declined due to a complete lack of references to independent reliable sources describing the concept. Click on the links added to the submission page in order to learn more about this. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Oak Furniture Land

Having had the article reviewed by an Editor who said "I see references to The Times, BBC News and The Daily Telegraph, so your submission has a good chance of describing a notable company and passing." I am surprised and confused that the article was declined on the basis "This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule."

Any thoughts or comments? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RDPW75 (talk • contribs) 09:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A problem may be WP:CORPDEPTH, which says that "routine notices of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops" are not useful in establishing the notability of a company. The submission does seem to include numerous references to material of that nature. However, because the submission also has references to thoroughly reliable national-level press (including The Times) discussing the business in more detail, I disagree with User:Hasteur's assessment of the submission. I suggest you submit it again to see if you get a different result. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you disagree then why don't you review it yourself. I declined for the percieved WP:CITEKILL nature of the references for each major city's outlet. If you had taken the time to review the comment I left underneath, you would see that removing every reference beyond the Oak Furniture Land: From eBay trader to retail mogul you would see that there's only 3 references left which would clearly be in danger of having a NPPer or any mainspace editor jump up and down on it. Fix the problems identified and it'll probably pass. Don't and you will not receive any help from me as I think the submission has a greater than 50% chance at being put up for deletion. Hasteur (talk) 13:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed 4 of the references for the outlets. My concern is "This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability". I was not aware of WP:CITEKILL. Where is the balance? Should I resubmit now? All feedback welcome, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RDPW75 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/MemoQ

I recently made my first attempt at article submission with Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/MemoQ. It was a quick effort to start a page describing commercial software used for translation support; similar pages exist for other software in use for that purpose, such as OmegaT and SDLTrados. Considering that this tool is probably the second most popular in use and has some interesting differences with others, I thought it appropriate to have a description available. I am trying to organize an informal group to look after a set of relevant pages on translation technology, because the current pages are, for the most part, out of date.

Before I submitted, I asked an acquaintance to have a look at the page and tell me what more was needed before I submit the stub. He made a few changes and said that he thought it was ready, which surprised me a bit, because I had added only the most basic skeletal information to familiarize myself a little with the editing process. I had made my first edits to any Wikipedia page only an hour or two before.

Not surprisingly, the make submission was rejected. I would like advice, specific if possible, on what additional referencing or other changes would be considered adequate for the page to be accepted and be more readily available for review and improvement.

Best regards,

kslossner Kslossner (talk) 10:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The most important thing to add is references to coverage of the software in independent sources. For example, reviews of the software in computer magazines, or translation industry magazines, whether online or printed, would be ideal to add as references. Some more information on this requirement is at Wikipedia:VRS. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NB the draft is at User:Kslossner/MemoQ.--ukexpat (talk) 18:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Garden of Martyrs

I have submitted a new article titled The Garden of Martyrs (opera). Wikipedia states that there is an entry with the same name. I have not found any articles with this name. Is this a unique title for an article? Heron10 (talk) 11:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)heron10[reply]

Actually the "same name" warning referred to "sandbox". I have sucessfully moved your draft to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Garden of Martyrs where you can continue working on it while waiting for it to be reviewed. BTW the "(opera)" disambiguation is not needed because there is currently no other article named "The Garden of Martyrs" on the English Wikipedia. If someone were to write an article about the book or something entirely different with the same name, we would need to add a disambiguator, but not until then. (I have also edited the section heading here to link the correct page.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Breaking Point

Good Morning! Last evening I offered my first article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Breaking Point, a brief history of Breaking Point, a 1970s Central Texas rock band. The article was not accepted and I'd like some additional feedback. Thank you in advance, Fficombat (talk) 12:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC) Morgan Montalvo[reply]

Sad to say, this band seem very unlikely to meet the requirements of Wikipedia:BAND, and thus your article is extremely unlikely ever to be accepted. If you do want to continue improving the article (perhaps just for practice before working on something else?), then the "golden rule" link in the decline notice will give a clear idea of what should be added to make the article closer to being accepted. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Garden of Martyrs

I want to put copyrighted material in the article. I have obtained permissions in for the synopsis for The Garden of Martyrs. How can I tell if this has been accepted?

Heron10 (talk) 14:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)heron10[reply]

I believe you would need to wait for the reply email you receive after sending the permissions through to the email address at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted material. If the material in question is to go in mainspace (article space) then the person dealing with the email would also add a confirmation note on the talk page of the article, but presumably this will not be possible until after the AfC submission is accepted.

If, instead, you provided permissions by altering the website where the material is already hosted, then I believe you don't need to do anything else.. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your analysis is correct. There is quite a backlog at OTRS where permissions are reviewed so it may take some time.--ukexpat (talk) 18:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Frank Eliscu 1912 - 1996

on sept. 27 i submitted a biography but there was a problem saving. I am not sure if it got saved and I cannot find it. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Frank Eliscu 1912 - 1996.NBELQ (talk) 15:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you click this link Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Frank Eliscu 1912 - 1996 it should take you to it. It is currently awaiting review. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 15:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conviva Page [[1]]

Hello. I recently submitted a page for [[2]]

Previously i submitted the same content on september 25th but the page was deleted - I am not sure why. Please let me know if you have any edits for my submission. Thanks DianaDmariepaschal (talk) 19:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC) Diana Dmariepaschal (talk) 19:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, that page has never been submitted for review (I am not able to see deleted pages or revisions). You can submit it by putting {{subst:submit}} at the top of it.

The most common reasons for immediate deletion of pages, are copyright violations (material copied from the company's website, for example), or blatantly promotional material in the article space. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Promoting Early Access to Counselling and Help for Youth

Hi. This is my first time doing this. My submission was a page called P.E.A.C.H.Y. for a charity of the same name. My username is eubankr (just in case). The submission was rejected. Please tell me what I need to correct in order for the submission to succeed.

Thanks for any information.

Eubankr (talk) 20:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need to add references to independent sources that discuss the organisation in detail. Newspapers (whether online or offline) would be ideal as sources for this. Some more information about how to add sources, and what sort of sources to add, can be found in the links at the top of your submitted page User:Eubankr/sandbox. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 3

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Zeoform

Resolved

Hi

I would like to know if the wikipedia page, Zeoform, is being reviewed? I created this page about a month ago and have heard no responses about this. Please could you help me? When is it likely that it will get approved? I appreciate that wikipedia is non profit and run by volunteers but would love a progress update.

Thanks

Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeoform (talk • contribs) 03:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page in question WAS User:Zeoform but it has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Zeoform. There is no submission template. As I said on your talk page, you need to add {{subst:submit}} to the bottom to start the process. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was submitted without changes and declined with suggestions for improvement. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mushroom Group

Hi - We have recently created a page for Mushroom Group, but have since noticed it not being successfully submitted.

Both comments re: the unsuccessful Mushroom Group page submission note that Mushroom Records are a subsidiary company and has the same date it was founded as Mushroom Group, implying that they are the same. Mushroom Records, however, is a separate entity to Mushroom Group and is now a defunct company. Mushroom Records was one of the first two Group companies, but the Group has since started and still owns two dozen of Australasia’s biggest music and entertainment companies.

Could you please let me know on how we can successfully submit, now knowing the differences I've mentioned between the two pages?

Thank you.

Thewillbarton (talk) 07:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simply hit the blue "Resubmit" button in the pink review box. There is a review note about the subsidiary company on the page. BTW adding a few more sources would be helpful. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lucius Aurelius Marcianus

This article was declined on the grounds "seems very unsure of the facts". I am in some difficulty here as I understand Wikipedia does not permit authors to chose between rival sources, but only to present them all without indicating a preference. (For instance: is the Historia Augusta or Zosimus more likely to right about the murder of the Emperor Gallienus; which of the rival interpretations of the Greek text on the Plovdiv memorial am I to accept; etc, "The facts" relating to the history of the Roman Empire in the third quarter of the Third Century AD are quite often uncertain and contradictory and this is reflected in histories of the age. I am sure that it is not intended that the encyclopedia should not concern itself with the issues of that era. I only raise this matter as I am unsure what I should do to make this piece publishable.Pjbjas (talk) 08:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pjbjas. My first impression is that this draft should be moved to article space. Furthermore, you are correct to state in the article where sources differ. Just to be on the safe side, I suggest you ask for an opinion from User:Cynwolfe, a very experienced editor in this area, or ask for a second opinion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS I've gone ahead and contacted Cynwolfe for an opinion [3]. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's beautifully written, Pjbjas; thank you. Is there a book, chapter or peer-reviewed paper that addresses as its main topic Lucius Aurelius Marcianus among your sources? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it has suddenly become a requirement that every ancient Roman needs to have had an entire book, or chapter of a book, written about him as the main topic, we will be deleting literally hundreds of ancient Roman biographies as non-notable—not to mention medieval clerics, and Renaissance humanists, and the only modestly successful poets and novelists and artists of the 19th century. I'm perplexed by the rejection of this article on the basis of sources. It has excellent sources. Its sources are superior in relevance, range, and quality to those used in articles on major figures such as Mark Antony and Marcus Crassus. IMHO, the article has copyediting and style issues, but as I investigated further after leaving a comment, Pjbjas has written other biographies that are stylistically more conformist (though some issues remain), and should be able to address such points as the oddity of ellipses in subheads. (To answer the question, probably Zosimus: but the problems of the feared but unavoidable Historia Augusta are central to dealing with this historical period, the difficulties of which Pjbjas has stated accurately.) Cynwolfe (talk) 15:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is WP:SYN. The author is putting before us some of what history tells us about a person or persons with the names Lucius, Aurelius and Marcianus. It reads beautifully and I don't doubt their sincerity, but before agreeing to Wikipedia hosting this, I'd like to see what a named expert has to say about an historical person, Lucius Aurelius Marcianus. Pjbjas, is there an historian who agrees with your portrait? I have access to many of the sources you cite but it would simplify things for me, and help others without access to your sources, if you could point me to a source that supports your case - that adduces all or most of the evidence you do in constructing Lucius Aurelius Marcianus. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See this entry on the Last Statues of Antiquity (LSA) Database at Oxford University. Voceditenore (talk) 11:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That'll do for me. Publish. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Atomic Reach

Hi, Thanks for your feedback. I've added another citation and included a bit more info but I'm still unclear as to how to cite properly. Can you please help? Thank you! Sharon Sharon12345 (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, How do I edit this entry for submission? Thank you, Sharon Sharon12345 (talk) 14:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Click "Edit" at the top of the page. You may wish to read Wikipedia:Tutorial, Wikipedia:Your first article, Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or Wikipedia:VRS first or at the same time. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 15:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean, "how do I submit it"? If so, when you are ready for review hit the big green button that says Submit your draft when you are ready for it to be reviewed!. Do note, at the moment I'm writing, your article is not yet ready for review since it has only one reference. Please see WP:Notability for what our minimum sourcing requirements are. Also note you've almost but not quite got footnoting down; you coded it right, but the code block of text belongs immediately after the sentence it WP:Verifies, not just at the end of the article. So good start, but sources, sources, sources. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Gray56/sandbox

Done Leamington College for Boys was a grammar school in Leamington Spa, Warwickshire, England that opened in 1848 and subsequently became part of the North Leamington Community School in 1977.

I would like to create an article "Leamington College for Boys" but my attempt was declined, please help. Gray56 (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Gray56/sandbox, the reason your draft was declined was because the page was completely blank other than the "Submit" tag. Did you perhaps not hit the "save" button when you finished the draft? People sometimes hit the "preview" button and don't notice the warning at top saying "this is only a preview, you must save your changes" and end up submitting a blank document. In whatever case, your draft was not on the page and so we could not review. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dag Alveng

hi

i am trying to create article about norwegian photographer and it is blocked could you tell me why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kotkowska (talk • contribs) 18:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is Declined because:

You have provided no WP:Sourcing whatsoever, so we have no way to verify if the article is accurate or not
You have only written one single sentence about Alveng, which tells us nothing about why he is important, why we should read about him, etc. A single sentence is not at all enough for a biography. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Atomic Reach

Hi, I've added another source for my submission and I've tried to fix up the citations but I'm unclear about what to do. Can someone please help? Thanks, Sharon Sharon12345 (talk) 19:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your references seem to be formatted correctly, although you repeat both of them unnecessarily. You could, if you wish, now submit the article for review. However, it is rare for a submission to be accepted with only two sources. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thank you. I have added another reference and have tried to submit but I was not able to do so. Can you please help? Thanks, Sharon Sharon12345 (talk) 16:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You submitted it successfully. Twice, in fact (don't worry, the duplicate beige "waiting for review" template won't do any harm). Don't be alarmed by the purple "draft" template at the top, that's just an artifact of how the system works. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pyspread

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pyspread I have submitted an article Pyspread for creation that has been declined.
The comment says: "sources are not independent of subject".

After reading the help page on Wikipedia:Third-party sources, the following questions come to my mind:

Obviously, the cited LWN.net article is not considered sufficiently independent as a source. LWN.net states that it has an editorial board (see FAQ section). The article has been written by Forrest Cook, who has no link to the project Pyspread.
Why is it not "entirely independent of the subject being covered" as stated in Wikipedia:Third-party sources?
Would a first page Slashdot article with 300+ discussion posts be reliable enough as an additional resource?
Would an article at a site such as Golem qualify as a reliable resource?

(Martin Manns (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]

There are several issues with that LWN.net article. Firstly, their FAQ says it "was intended to be an attention-getting side project of a new consulting company", which doesn't quite say "reliable source" to me. While they apparently do have an "executive editor", they themselves use scare quotes for that job description - again something that doesn't quite inspire confidence. But even if it were a reliable independent publication, it isn't used as a reference anyway - it's merely added as an afterthought. And finally, a single reliable source is not the amount of significant coverage we need to establish that the subject is notable - that usually requires at least three to five sources.

Slashdot has routinely been found not reliable. I don't think any number of discussion points will change that. Golem.de, on the other hand, has a dedicated editorial staff with journalistic experience, and it should serve as a reliable source. Huon (talk) 22:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Huon for your helpful reply. Martin Manns (talk) 08:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 4

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Frank Eliscu 1912 - 1996

Done I submitted a biography Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Frank_Eliscu_1912_to_1996 but do not think it saved. Can you check?NBELQ (talk) 12:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC) I FOUND IT, SORRY TO BOTHER YOU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NBELQ (talk • contribs) 12:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone interested, the page is at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Frank Eliscu 1912 - 1996. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Breaking Point

Would documentation, photos, etc., help? I can provide images of my HS diploma and college degrees as evidence that I moved on from the band, along with a photo of a pick I used at the still-talked-about Sept. 6, 1976 Red Rock Barbecue Grand Opening show as proof that I'm the former frontman for Breaking Point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fficombat (talk • contribs) 14:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The page is at User:Fficombat/sandbox/. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, submitting personal paperwork doesn't work, per WP:No original research. Only published works are admissible, generally speaking. What we need is serious news media, music biz journal, or academic coverage of this band. I strongly suggest you read WP:Notability (music) which will probably answer 90% of your questions, and for the remaining 10% you can check back in here if anything about those requirements is unclear. All good? MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:21, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk: Articles for creation/Octane Fitness

Done Can you please help me understand what I need to do to get this submission accepted? I don't understand why it is still declined after multiple edits. Thank you. Wikipedia talk: Articles for creation/Octane Fitness Juliemking (talk) 18:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Answered at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Can_you_help_me_get_this_article_approved.3F. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 5

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Enrique Godoy Sayán - need someone who reads Spanish

Done
I took a stab at reviewing this but all the references are in Spanish. It will take a long time for me to wade through those even with Google translate. Are there any Spanish-speaking reviewers who can give this a go? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:25, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish-speaker here, took a look and though a few of the refs are a bit iffy, there are plenty enough from serious sources that I gave it a Accept. Plus added a few refs I found on GoogleBooks, did some section merging, etc. So all good. MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Now_Interact

Hi, I recently submitted an article on a company that is not yet registered in Wikipedia (Now Interact) but the article was declined. having worked for organisations that are included in Wikipedia like Investis, I used the Now Interact's website and Swedish company house to gather information. I even modeled the article on company pages like LivePerson and LiveChat and Mediata Solutions to ensure it would meet Wikipedia approval (as these pages have obviously been approved). I tried to remain factual stating the history of the business and the investment structure, which I think are very important to the 1000s of people or organisations which will be searching for information on this organisation. As I used templates of existing pages I am totally unsure why the article was not approved. Please could you help me make adjustments or give me an idea of why it was different from the other pages I mentioned. Many thanks. Mike

Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Now_Interact

MikeBoogaard (talk) 07:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC) MikeBoogaard (talk) 07:57, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is basically the lack of independent, reliable sources. You have listed four sources: the company's own website - obviously not independent, the website of an investor in the company - not independent, the company's own linkedin page - again not independent and finally a listing on a directory website - all it shows is that the company exists. You need to prove that somebody who has absolutely no connection at all to the company has taken note of the company and written substantial information about it in a reliable publication. Short answer; look for articles in newspapers and business magazines (real articles written by journalists not PR fluff put out by the company itself). Compare the sources in your draft to the ones in the Investis article - it cites mainstream news and business publications. Even so the Investis article is far from a good example of what such article should look like. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chandola Lake

Done
My above Article has been rejected due to following reason This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms, that are designed to promote or show-off the subject.

Comment of the reviewer is as under - "Language is informal and conversational. Clean up and tightening of the language, reduce the number of sections and this will be a good stub article. The Teahouse can provide some guidance on finishing this".

This is my first article. I have tried to formalise the language, deleted not relevant matters and also included about five indepdent, reliable, public sources in the Article. Before re-submission, I request some experienced editor to review my Article and provide comments for improvements.Jayshukla2006 (talk) 08:25, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overall it was pretty good, so I did a little cleanup and Approved it for you. Please note the cleanup I did for your future reference in your next articles. Also a few minor things for you to clarify in the article: did you mispell the name "Tajn Khan Nari Ali" or is that actually right? Also, is it "Khari Cut" or "Kharicut", or do the two spellings mean different things? Lastly, a few of your citations are unclear, so please note the tagging I placed on them asking for clarity. Overall solid work, and we hope to see more from you now that you have learned Wikipedia skills! MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your approval & excellent suggestions for improvement. I will definitely implement your suggestions in this Article and my next Articles.Jayshukla2006 (talk) 11:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dat Kali temple Dehradun

Done
The temple is dedicated to godess kali and has a very large following in and around Dehradun. Hindus visit the temple on new vehicle purchased and specially during Navratra, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.89.19.52 (talk) 13:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have declined your draft because you have not provided any WP:Sourcing. Please see my comments at the top of your draft. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bruce Ryan

I am having a very difficult time footnoting. Is there a tool? I have terrible formatting problems when I try to use the Cite.php extensions. HELP!.

I am having a terrible time using footnotes. When I use the HTML <ref>. . .</ref> {{reflist}} it fragments the page, stops at footnote 2 and repeates the footnotes over and over in the middle of the text. HELP!!! ArdenHathaway 15:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem is you were using that code in the wrong places; you were ending individual footnotes with </references> which is not how it's done. For individual footnotes you want code like this: <ref>John Smith. ''History of Apples''. 1922</ref>. And then at the very end in the "References" section you put this code, just once per page: {{reflist}}. I've fixed this for you.

Separate issue: the way you're formatting your long lists doesn't display clean. I fixed a few of them for you, so please make the others formatted the same way all down the list. There are separate content issues to work on in this article, but let's get the format cleaned up first since that's easy. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Vaaltje/Randall schmit

Done

Hi Wikipedia Editors! I inadvertently created this page with lower case for the artist's last name. "schmit" should read "Schmit". I cannot find the way to correct the case on the surname title of this page. Can you please correct this for me and/or show me how I can fix this. Thanks so much,

Vaaltje (talk) 21:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC)Vaaltje[reply]

Your submission is now at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Randall Schmit. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 6

Review of Wikipedia talk:Jim Bopalouie/JB Basses

Hello, I'm sorry I don't want to take up too much of your time but I am wondering why my submission was denied? This is my first time and I'm still trying to work out how this is all done.

Thank you for your time.JB Basses (talk) 06:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to the log, the submission was declined because it was blank. Did you forget to press "Save" when creating the article? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 07:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Exit (rapper)

Hi there, I would like to know how I can go about creating an article for a South African hip hop artist Exit. We started our own record label and we working on his debut EP. Four tracks have been recorded and mastered already for this EP? Thanks,ThokozaniMiya (talk) 09:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have a conflict of interest. I would probably wait until Exit becomes notable enough that somebody else independently writes an article about him. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tiffany "Hammer Girl" Patterson

Editors,

I am having difficulty with footnotes. I believe I've used the correct format but the sources don't appear in the references at the bottom of the page.

Please check the section that says, "Review waiting". I would like to know if you can offer suggestions. Also, if there is something else that strikes your eye for improvement, please let me know.

Here is the page in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Hammer_Girl#cite_note-2

Thanks for you help, Popmusicwiki (talk) 10:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Perry McGee (Professional Tracking Advisor)

Hi,

I understand my initial two submissions and why they were declined but since then I have learned create correct citations so I am a little confused as to why the last submission was declined.

Could someone tell me what is wrong with the final submission and I will correct.

The last comments were based around the citations but I have worked on these and understand I was doing it completely wrong.

Thanks for all your help.

Jamie User:Jameskennedymc

Jamie, before we get to the other issues, please also note you have at least three different copies of your article pasted onto the page. Please delete all the extra ones, there's no need to preserve extra copies since you can always use the page's "History" tab to see all past versions. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the "History" tab, and your article has not been declined since 18 September, which was when I gave the advice about footnoting, which you then fixed throughout the article. So nobody has Declined your article since that point three weeks ago, it just hasn't been reviewed in its current form because we have a big backload of drafts we're reviewing currently, so the process is going a little slow this month. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mind matters online

Hello, My name is Ehsan Ahmedzai, you can say I am new at this article posting, recently I submitted an article which was declined, I was just curious to see what will happen then and after that. I would love to write an article on some genuine topics and publish it here. Can you please guide me a little what kind of topics can I write on and successfully submit it as well.

Regards Ehsan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eaasoul (talk • contribs) 16:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 7

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Canadian Golf Magazine

Hello,

It has been noted that my article does not adequately evidence the subject's notability, however, I have assembled the articles based on another similar article which has been accepted by wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scoregolf.

How is it that they do not have any outside references and my article requires them? How do you reference a magazine?

AverageJoe10 (talk) 06:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Scoregolf article was created in 2006, when no review process existed. There are also outstanding issues with that article, as noted on that page. So it would be better to use a recognised Wikipedia Good Article as an example to work from for your draft Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Canadian Golf Magazine, rather than just any magazine article. Good Articles about magazines can be found at Wikipedia:Good articles/Social sciences and society under "Magazines and journals". You should be able to see from these how to provide sources to demonstrate the notability of a magazine. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Classical Chinese Wikipedia

There are not only five references. Others are located in the article itself like the See Alsos and [[reference|text in article]] form. Moreover, it is an article about Wikipedia, so why is it not accepted. And by the way, it is translated from pages zh:维基百科:文言文维基百科 and zh-classical:文言維基大典, and partially only. Most of it are my research and they are all from the Wikipedia itself so Wikipedians should know. 124.197.123.242 (talk) 06:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia projects do not have automatic notability. Information must be verifiable in independent reliable sources. You can find more information about this at Wikipedia:VRS. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Zhang_Zetian

=I wish to highlight that one of my submissions at Articles for Creation is pending review and has yet to be reviewed despite such a long period of time. It is Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Zhang_Zetian. I submitted the page three times and from the day I started the Afc talk page to 29 September 2013 (third submission), it is almost one month. Till now, no reviewers seem to have reviewed the page.

I wish to ask reviewers to review the page as soon as possible as I have waited for so long.

Thanks!

124.197.123.242 (talk) 06:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The submission has now been reviewed (and declined) by LukeSurl. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/How to make symbols with the keyboard

Why didn't I get in? There was nothing like it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fruitwarrior (talk • contribs) 12:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Buymore Limited

Let me know what else I can do to improve the article. I am writing about this start up and there are not many sources out there, given that it just launched last month and it is still under Incubation at iBizAfrica. Thanks. Smartjon (talk) 12:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Smartjon[reply]