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 TCVCJ (talk | contribs) at 15:22, 20 July 2015. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, Sorting, Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
June 2025
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 14

01:03:52, 14 July 2015 review of submission by Edwardhkrishna


I am just wanting some help regarding my referencing and the notability of this page. The page was declined because of that. I have made some edits to the sources-taken out sources from their website and press releases, and just wanting some more feedback and help. Thanks Edwardhkrishna (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edwardhkrishna (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 05:45:39, 14 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by 180.234.139.216


180.234.139.216 (talk) 05:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

06:20:52, 14 July 2015 review of submission by Edwin munene


Edwin munene (talk) 06:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

07:21:40, 14 July 2015 review of submission by MetalmanUK

Hi Eclipsed,

Very shocked it has been rejected.

How can someone who has over a quarter of a million followers, fans and followers on Social Media worldwide not be notable?

How can someone whose bands have sold and are still selling thousands upon thousands of vinyl LP's and CD's after 40 years not be notable? The latest Jerusalem vinyl remastered reissue is now on its 4th pressing?

How can someone who is known and respected in the music industry Worldwide because of their innovative contribution not be notable?

How can someone who is known to many highly successful and famous musicians not be notable?

How can someone who has been signed to 2 mainstream Record Companies not be notable?. Decca and Universal.

Ask any mainstream Rock Music publication and Heavy Rock fans who Paul Dean and Jerusalem are and 90% will know.

I would humbly suggest that this contribution should be reviewed by someone au fait with Rock Music.

There are hundreds of Wiki pages that feature people who are far less notable than Paul Dean.

Very strange.

Regards Peter MetalmanUK (talk) 07:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @MetalmanUK:, you're confusing "noteworthy" the adjective with WP:Notability, our core policy. It's an easy mistake to make, and this will clear up the situation. Notability is not something people see by knowing about metal music or this band, they see it by you providing citations to reliable published works which prove that journalists and/or academics have found Dean worth writing about. You haven't provided any footnotes at all to prove your assertions, so it doesn't matter if he sold 1.8 million albums and discovered a cure for cancer, because you haven't provided any footnote to, say, a Rolling Stone article that say "In 2004, Dean developed a cure for cancer right as his album sales hit the 1.8 million mark."
We're not saying Dean is unimportant, we're saying you have not yet provided citations to clear documentation of his importance, you've just stated a lot of facts with no clear source. All the facts you put here must come from somewhere, right, it's not just all off the top of your head? In that case, show the reader where these facts are proven, not just "trust me, I know what I'm doing says an anonymous guy on the internet".
You need to go through the article, and wherever you state a fact make sure you have a reference backing that fact up, and footnote it. If you can't find a reliable published source (not a blog, not FaceBook, not iTunes, not AllMusic, but serious sources like music industry magazines, newspaper articles, books of rock history), then you must remove said fact because it is of no value without evidence. See WP:Referencing for beginners for the easy way to code automatic footnotes (don't just number them manually).
Does that help clarify what we need? I know it sounds intimidating at first, but an article is only as good as its sourcing, otherwise you've just given the reader facts they can't back up. If Dean's worth having an article for, he's worth having a strong article for, and that's what we do here at AFC, help you make a strong article that will build Wikipedia and accurately inform the world. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:24:31, 14 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by 180.215.118.246

Request for help to post an article. We would like to create an article for the site www.myrightbuy.com in wiki. This site is an online shopping site for organic products. More than a shopping site we are promoting the terrace gardening and benefits of harmful pesticide free food products in India. We are trying to create an article in wiki similar to Flipkart or amazone, to have the end to end details about myrightbuy. Please help us to create one.

180.215.118.246 (talk) 11:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @180.215.118.246: and @Teaminwebz:, Wikipedia is not free advertising space for your company, we do not allow advertising here. Please do not try to write an article about your own company. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 15

00:56:29, 15 July 2015 review of submission by Scoburn946

curious why declined. It is just a draft that needs additional information. Scoburn946 (talk) 00:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Scoburn946:, that's exactly the point, it's a draft that is not ready. In the pink box at the top of your draft, it has links to the guidelines required for band articles. Please read those guidelines, add the needed sources, and then click Resubmit. The whole point of drafting is to give you a chance to make a strong article so it can be published, it would defeat the entire point if we approved articles that aren't ready. MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

03:53:29, 15 July 2015 review of submission by Seanmoliver

I am unsure as to why my submission is being rejected. This is the second rejection and I have had no assistance in specifying which source is causing the issue. If Wikipedia could tell me the exact source that is in contention, I would be happy to remove or to provide another source. I have reviewed other similar approved submissions and the citing is sub-par to say the least. I have no idea why my submission is subjected to a harsher prejudice. Can you please help me to understand and to resolve this issue immediately? Thank you.

Seanmoliver (talk) 03:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Seanmoliver: The issue isn't that one of your sources is bad, the issue is that the sum of your sources don't quite meet the standards of WP:NMUSIC. The South China Morning Post article is a great start towards meeting criteria 1, but you need multiple articles like that. Most of the other sources are about individual band members, not the band itself. The last source, the broadcast on RTHK, doesn't quite meet criteria 12, because RTHK is only broadcast in Hong Kong, not nationwide. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

11:35:44, 15 July 2015 review of submission by Simon.wbush


I believe my article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:WHITE_(band) - fits the criteria for notable music act, in particular through this criteria - Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network -, cited here - http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/introducing/entries/05a7bc44-1c5b-45eb-98ca-0f0fc8360d25. The performances were broadcast nationally across Scotland on BBC Radio Scotland and I believe were played on BBC Radio 1 also.

Do I need to find a different source to verify this? Sorry, I'm a first timer at this!

Thanks

Simon.wbush (talk) 11:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The editor the reviewed your article, Sulfurboy, should probably answer this. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Playing a three song session on a radio doesn't fit the criteria you are talking about. Please make sure there is substantial independent, reliable coverage. Sulfurboy (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

11:57:21, 15 July 2015 review of submission by Legonor

I wish to update the content of this file with new references and other publications by the author that has been released worldwide Legonor (talk) 11:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Legonor: That's great! You can request that it be undeleted at WP:REFUND/G13. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

13:54:49, 15 July 2015 review of submission by Ahmedahmed777

Hello. My draft was declined again, even after making all the requested changes like sourcing most information using footnotes, and deleting any repeated text.

Ahmedahmed777 (talk) 13:54, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahmedahmed777: Are you referring to the draft at Draft:Meshal Abdullah Al-Jaber Al-Sabah (2)? If so, it was rejected because it was a duplicate of Draft:Meshal Abdullah Al-Jaber Al-Sabah. Please make any necessary changes to Draft:Meshal Abdullah Al-Jaber Al-Sabah and submit that one instead. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

13:55:52, 15 July 2015 review of submission by Angie4557

How do I upload a picture to the page I am creating for E. Wesley Ely? Angie4557 (talk) 13:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Angie4557: If it is a picture that is either explicitly licensed under a compatible free license or a picture that you personally own the copyright to, you can upload it using the File Upload Wizard. If it is a picture that isn't explicitly freely licensed (such as most pictures found on the internet) or that someone other than you owns the copyright to, the copyright holder would need to follow the instructions at WP:Donating copyrighted material before it can be used on Wikipedia. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15:47:04, 15 July 2015 review of submission by Eventias

Hi Eclipsed, I don't undestand why my submission has been reviewed. I put 6 citations from various famous medias. Could you help me to improve it? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eventias (talk • contribs) 15:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Eventias: Please review the definitions of independent sources and significant coverage. The GlobeNewswire, PRNewswire, and Mediame links are press releases, which are not independent. The Business Insider link just makes a passing reference to the company, and is not significant coverage. The Bloomberg link is a directory entry, which is also not considered significant coverage. That only leaves the BrandRepublic link which so closely paraphrases the press release here that it's hard to consider it an independent source. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:06, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahecht: Hello. I undestand. I will look for new sources. Thank you.

16:35:52, 15 July 2015 review of submission by 99.236.233.201

99.236.233.201 (talk) 16:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC) I have heard an expression from the american south where someone said....that man is a real huckleberry....i am still vague as to its meaning...is it a rascal,a scoundrel,or something along those lines???[reply]

@99.236.233.201: This is the help desk for drafts submitted to Articles for Creation. General questions like that should be asked at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

17:23:06, 15 July 2015 review of submission by Eagledj

My article is entitled "Red Lane" but is in my Sandbox as "User:eagled/Another" I want to change the name to "Red Lane". My second question is about how to reference a source 4 times.(McCall) I don't want to use inline references if I can help it. Can't I use ibid or op cite?

Eagledj (talk) 17:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Eagledj: As to your first request, your draft can now be found at Draft:Red Lane. As to your second question, biographies of living or recently deceased people are required to use inline references. The first time you use the reference, you would type something like .<ref name=betts2015>{{cite journal|last1=Betts|first1=Stephen|title=Merle Haggard, Tammy Wynette Songwriter Red Lane Dead at 76|journal=Rolling Stone|date=July 2, 2015|accessdate=11 July 2015}}</ref>. When you use that reference later in the article, you would just type .<ref name=betts2015 /> and it would create a single footnote that links to all instances of the reference in the article (make sure to include the / at the end). No need for ibid, which is strongly discouraged because it becomed ambiguous if the article is later expanded or restructured. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

20:42:38, 15 July 2015 review of submission by Sgsundeen

Sgsundeen (talk) 20:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC) Carlos Eagle's name and work is all over the internet. He has been featured in magazines (see references) and his name and work are his credentials. Thousands of people know who he is. He may not have the "press" credentials that some people have, but his name and the body of work he has produced speak volumes. His name is also listed in Wikipedia under "Ribera, New Mexico". I realize that you use specific guidelines, however there are exceptions to every rule. Check his name on Google and you will get all the reference you need.[reply]

I put his name in a google news search and nothing came up for me. Also google only throws up ebay, facebook and the guys own page. Rankersbo (talk) 22:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 23:10:40, 15 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Edwardhkrishna

Hi guys, just want some help regarding the notability on this page and the sources. Cheers.

Edwardhkrishna (talk) 23:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 16

Request on 04:13:16, 16 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Pwendee

My article on value driver theory has been declined twice. Value driver theory was created by my doctoral dissertation. It has been approved by an accredited university and passed through about 8 levels of review in the scholarly/dissertation process. The dissertation, "A Theory of Value Drivers: A Grounded Theory Study", is published in ProQuest. Value driver theory has been learned and used by people around the world (students and others). So I believe it has passed the verifiable; notable; and independent, reliable, published sources tests. How can I get this article approved? I have posted the article below for your reference. Thanks very much for your assistance.

Extended content
The Theory of Value Drivers, also known as value driver theory, explores the effects of business value drivers on the valuation of businesses and proposes a theory of value drivers. A peer reviewed research study using two research methods – grounded theory and the Delphi method - was conducted to explore the effect of business value drivers and to propose a theory of value drivers. In addition to a list of 72 individual value drivers, the theory of value drivers presents a comprehensive value driver possibilities frontier and value driver chain, both of which are part of and are used to explain the theory of value drivers. The theory of value drivers is comprised of 28 propositions that work in concert with the possibilities frontier, the value driver chain, and other elements.

History of Value Driver Theory

Value driver theory was first introduced as a new theory in finance in December 2011 with the publication of A Theory of Value Drivers: A Grounded Theory Study (Wendee, 2011a). This publication was the culmination of over three years of research into the creation of value by the value drivers that have an impact on a business enterprise.

What Is Value?

As discussed in A Theory of Value Drivers: A Grounded Theory Study (Wendee, 2011a, p. 137): "Many definitions of value exist. The definition of value used in the current study was Buffett’s (1996) intrinsic value based on the discounted cash flow concept. Buffett (1996) stated, 'Intrinsic value can be defined simply: It is the discounted value of the cash that can be taken out of a business during its remaining life'” (p. 11).

A more detailed discussion of the intrinsic value and discounted cash flow concepts can be found in Intrinsic Value and the Intrinsic Value Line in Part I of the workbook, Think Strategically, Think Value: The Complete Handbook for Creating, Sustaining, Analyzing, and Investing in Enterprise Value (Wendee, 2011b); and in A Primer on the Intrinsic Value Style of Investment Management found in Part III of the same workbook.

What Is Value Driver Theory?

In writing their book on managerial finance, Brigham and Ehrhardt (2011) emphasized the creation of value as the central focus for managers: “Our emphasis throughout the book is on the actions that a manager can and should take to increase the intrinsic value of the firm” (p. xix). Others such as Damodaran ( 2002), Kazlauskienė and Christauskas (2008), and Rappaport (1998) have made a similar emphasis. These authors have suggested the use of the intrinsic value model (a discounted cash flow model approach) in the calculation of a firm’s value and have explored the role of value drivers in creating firm value. Value driver theory expands upon the various writings of theorists such as these to create a formal theory of value drivers.

A value driver can be defined as any variable that influences the value (i.e., the intrinsic value) of an enterprise (Kazlauskienė & Christauskas, 2008). The presence and use of value drivers is what creates or destroys value in business enterprises.

The complete Theory of Value Drivers is presented in, A Theory of Value Drivers: A Grounded Theory Study, (Wendee, 2011a). In addition to a list of 72 individual value drivers, the Theory of Value Drivers presents a comprehensive value driver possibilities frontier and value driver chain, both of which are part of and are used to explain the Theory of Value Drivers. The Theory of Value Drivers is comprised of 28 propositions that work in concert with the possibilities frontier, the value driver chain, and other elements to explain how value is created in enterprises. A later refinement to value driver theory introduced the concept of an Intrinsic Value Line(TM) that can be used to show the intrinsic value of an enterprise at various points in time. The Intrinsic Value Line(TM) (Wendee, 2011b) is both a theoretical and real line (real in the sense that it can be calculated and used in the analysis of companies). Value driver theory also suggests the use of management tools in the analysis of value drivers and their effects on enterprises.

The rationale for having a theory of value drivers is that, if an investment or asset is to have value, there must be factors that give rise to that value. Those factors are known as value drivers, and the identification, analysis, and understanding of value drivers was the focus of the paper on value driver theory and the Theory of Value Drivers.

Value driver theory recognizes that the relationships, characteristics, and properties of the Theory of Value Drivers have always existed. They have perhaps evolved in certain ways over time, but as long as humans have been involved in some form of commerce, value drivers have been in the foreground and background exerting their influence. Value driver theory was developed to help recognize and understand those relationships, characteristics, and properties.

References[edit] Brigham, E. F., & Ehrhardt, M. C. (2011). Financial management: Theory and practice (13th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning. Buffett, W. E. (1996). Berkshire Hathaway Inc.: An owner’s manual. Omaha, NE: Berkshire Hathaway. Damodaran, A. (2002). Investment valuation: Tools and techniques for determining the value of any asset (2nd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Kazlauskienė, V., & Christauskas, C. (2008). Business valuation model based on the analysis of business value drivers. Engineering Economics, 57(2), 23-31. Rappaport, A. (1998). Creating shareholder value: A guide for managers and investors. New York, NY: The Free Press. Wendee, P. (2011a). A theory of value drivers: A grounded theory study. Phoenix, AZ: University of Phoenix. Retrieved from http://ivwealthreport.com/Report/think-strategically-think-value/part-i-overview/ Wendee, P. (2011b). Think strategically, think value: The complete handbook for creating, sustaining, analyzing, and investing in enterprise value. Retrieved from http://ivwealthreport.com/Report/think-strategically-think-value/

Pwendee (talk) 04:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Hello @Pwendee:, I don't mean to sound cruel, but the best answer to this is: if Value Driver theory is so significant and notable, then somebody other than its creator will write its Wikipedia article. It's like being in a musical group, and then trying to write your own Wikipedia article: if on the entire planet, amongst your many fans and admirers, there is not one single stranger who is excited enough about your band to write a Wikipedia article for it, can we really say the band is so significant that it needs an article?
As the theory's creator, you are simply far too close to the subject and have a substantial WP:Conflict of interest. It would be easily assumed that your reason for writing an article is to promote the theory, which is not allowed on Wikipedia, see WP:NOTSOAPBOX. My best recommendation: have confidence in your work, and expect that if it truly is as significant as you believe, then before long somebody (not you, not a friend, not a close colleague) will read about it and say "this is fascinating! It should be mentioned on Wikipedia!". Please just abandon the idea of trying to artificially press the issue forward by writing an article about your own work. MatthewVanitas (talk) 12:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

08:20:26, 16 July 2015 review of submission by Dave ashworth

Hi,

Regards the article that was declined - is it because the information we have already presented needs further verification? Or do you require us to put together something more "notable".

For what it is worth, there are existing pages that mention Sample Magic already that we wanted to link from once this article goes live, those being:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharooz

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sounds_to_Sample

Any assitasnce is much appreciated.

Thanks, Dave

Dave ashworth (talk) 08:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:31:35, 16 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Ahmedahmed777

Hello. How do I upload pictures and videos for my draft currently under review in order to improve it?

Ahmedahmed777 (talk) 09:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Ahmedahmed777:, photos and videos do nothing to help the draft get published, so please don't worry about them now. Focus on getting the draft approved first, and then worry about imagery later on. There's no point adding images to a draft when you should be spending your effort to improve the draft and its sourcing first. MatthewVanitas (talk) 12:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

11:53:45, 16 July 2015 review of submission by Wikicohen

I feel this article is in the formal neutral tone as much as possible. What seems to be wrong with it?

Wikicohen (talk) 11:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicohen (talk)

14:22:17, 16 July 2015 review of submission by Wuenschp

i see that i need to provide citations in a number of places but i'm not sure what kinds of resources to bring as a citation. so for example, in writing Cryo-Cell is the only FACT accredited private cord blood bank, or Cryo-Cell is the world's first private cord blood bank. What kind of source is a proper citation for things like "first" and "only"

Wuenschp (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:17:09, 16 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by 99.177.185.93

I have been working adding Maura "Bwee" O'Leary to Wikipedia. It has been rejected twice. I don't understand why. She was an Irish poet of some note, having kept alive the Gaelic language through her work but unlike many of the Irish poets at the time, she did not come from a political or wealthy family. Could you advise me as to what I could do to complete this entry. She is a very important part of Irish history and for many of the Burke family that emigrated to the USA.

I read the guidelines a few times and while Maura has no awards there are two books published about her which I have added the link to. I realize I am a novice at this so if there is anything you can do, I'd appreciate it. Thank you.


99.177.185.93 (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The last reviewer MatthewVanitas, has explained that your draft contains text directly copied from one of the sources. Please rewrite it so that it is a paraphrase of the sources rather than directly copied. O'Leary is clearly notable so that is not a problem, the only issue is the copied text. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


July 17

07:59:53, 17 July 2015 review of submission by JulesHawky


JulesHawky (talk) 07:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Looking at an example for George Mackay (actor) who states "he produced and directed his own production at the age of 5" there are no references to this claim. My article has been declined stating the references are not sufficient. I have noticed that other Wikipedia entries have links to You Tube and their own websites, is this no longer acceptable?

Many thanks for your assistance.

@JulesHawky: So here's the thing: anyone can edit Wikipedia, and Wikipedia doesn't have enough volunteers to review the thousands and thousands of edits that are constantly being made. This means that bad edits can slip through the cracks and, despite the best efforts of volunteers like me, there are lots of bad articles on Wikipedia. Some of them are caught and either fixed or deleted, but you will always find some that are hanging around. Our goal here at Articles for Creation is to get your drafts to the point where they won't be deleted if someone comes across it, so we have to judge articles by Wikipedia policies such as WP:BLP and WP:GNG. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

10:58:36, 17 July 2015 review of submission by Buzzy anslem

Buzzy anslem (talk) 10:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:53:18, 17 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Domiknowledge

Because I just want to post my own summary.Domiknowledge (talk) 12:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Domiknowledge (talk) 12:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Domiknowledge - Please see Referencing for beginners and Notability criteria for musicians. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

13:52:21, 17 July 2015 review of submission by Daltonsocial6

Hi! I've had my draft declined a few times both noting "non-neutral," use of "peacock terms," and that there is not enough documentation on this individual. I was hoping someone could point out specific areas within my draft that I can correct. I have edited this draft to remove everything but the facts of which I found in credible sources such as Forbes, ABC News, Bloomberg, USA Today and Business Journals. That being said, it has been declined again. I'd really appreciate if someone can walk me through the areas that need to be addressed. Thank you!

Daltonsocial6 (talk) 13:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One observation off the bat: the Forbes on which the draft leans heavily is not Forbes magazine, but a forbes.com blog. It is a reliable source for the opinions of the blogger, but not for facts. Replace it with a reliable source. Worldbruce (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15:13:19, 17 July 2015 review of submission by 99.246.164.106


On the rejection page it says "You are encouraged to make improvements by clicking on the "Edit" tab at the top of this page."

Is this what always appears (i.e. I should NOT interpret that there is interest) or does the reviewer have the option to say "You are NOT encouraged..."

Many thanks for your help 99.246.164.106 (talk) 15:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

99.246.164.106 (talk) 15:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@99.246.164.106: That text is part of the standard template. However, to avoid redundancy, the reviewing tool hides it on all but one of the rejection notices if there is more than one on the page. While a reviewer could hide that text by adding an extra parameter to the template, it is not part of the reviewing tool and isn't done in practice.
In other words, it doesn't mean that the reviewer has a specific interest in the article, but in general all reviewers are interested in getting users' drafts to the point where they wouldn't be subject to deletion once they are promoted from draft status. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15:43:22, 17 July 2015 review of submission by Tasmer

Is it possible to add the filmposter to the infobox? There would be one available at IMDb[1]. Kind regards, Tasmer (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tasmer: Film posters are copyrighted, and therefore can only be used on wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, Wikipedia only allows the use of fair-use images in articles, not drafts. Once your draft is accepted, you can add the poster. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0123211/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

Thanks, it worked! Tasmer (talk) 10:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

19:15:12, 17 July 2015 review of submission by Hulakamachaman

I am not sure why the page is being rejected seems to be notable and unbiased to me. Any help and/or suggestions would be much appreciated! Thank you. Hulakamachaman (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC) Hulakamachaman (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, you do not need a comprehensive listing of every single artist that ever performed at the event. Trim that down.
Second, the way you have formatted your references, and the presence of unreliable sources amongst them... for example blogspot... makes it difficult to work out which the reliable sources are. It might make it easier if you removed the unreliable sources like blogs, and also formatted your references to give more detail than just the title and link.
However, it does seem very likely that this event is notable by Wikipedia's standards. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

20:15:35, 17 July 2015 review of submission by Laurencejbest

Hi -

The article I drafted is starting to get review comments. I have a few thoughts in reaction to these comments that would perhaps add value to the review process. I'm thinking the best place for them is the draft article's talk page. Do you agree? Is there a better/approved way to do this?

Below is what I was thinking could go into the talk page. Thanks for your guidance.

Thanks for reviews so far by FoCuSandLeArN and The Average Wikipedian. A few notes:

1) Used the term "important" in regards to Pienkowski's research because I have access to the Web of Science subscription service, which reports that a number of his papers have been heavily cited in peer-reviewed journal articles. For example, his VIRUS-PARTICLES IN EARLY MOUSE EMBRYOS paper has been cited 116 times, and is still being cited forty years after publication. IDENTIFICATION OF HISTAMINE RELEASING FACTOR(S) IN THE LATE PHASE OF CUTANEOUS IGE-MEDIATED REACTIONS, published in 1986, has received 112 citations and is also still consistently cited. I also found the breadth of fields his papers addressed to be notable. I didn't reference Web of Science stats because the reports are copyrighted and not publicly available without a subscription. Any guidance on bringing in WoS stats would be appreciated.

2) I reviewed WP:GNG and WP:PROF during the drafting process, wrestling with the issue that the trajectory of Pienkowsk's career was not that of the typical researcher. Had he remained an academic, he likely would have achieved one or more of the WP:PROF criteria. However, he instead became a clinician and entrepreneur (likely providing the resources to also become a patron of the arts/cultural exchange). This trajectory led to kudos of its own (Eminent Scientist by Kosciuszko Foundation, recognition by Tennessee Legislature, media exposure in US and Poland, etc.), but not kudos typically found in WP:PROF. Again, any thoughts on this would be appreciated.

Laurencejbest (talk) 20:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


@Laurencejbest - You must in fact cite all your sources, regardless of it being subscription only or carved on the wall of an ancient pyramid. Most academic journals are available by subscription only yet they are cited all over Wikipedia and are commonly regarded to be the highest quality sources. By the way, if you need a source for which you do not have a subscription you can request a copy at the Resource exchange. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 18

Request on 13:27:41, 18 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by MetalmanUK


The reasons you have given for declining the submission make no sense to me whatsoever. I believe like many thousands of others would, that Paul Dean is indeed 'Notable' whatever definition one uses. The only problem I see is that I actually put legitimate citations and references within the article, as I didn't understand how to complete the references/citations at the end. This I pointed out at least twice and I was hoping someone would assist rather than just reject.

By the way, please do not quote Social Media at me, I have not used one single reference from any Social Media e.g. Facebook, Youtube, etc.!

With regards to Social Media, I find it strange that Wikipedia still doesn't recognise how important Social Media has become in substantiating facts, which is why every leading Organisation, Media and even Governments now use it. Some Blogs are even bigger than Wikipedia and garner far more respect. I also believe reputable Blogs are no longer classed as Social Media and are widely respected as much as any other factual giving media.

I have noted in recent times how Wikipedia has come under considerable criticism from all quarters and I can now understand why. It would appear that it has slightly lost the plot and needs to join the rest of the World in using the myriad of new information sources.

I am still very disappointed for the rejection as it took many hours of research to put everything together.

Out of interest, a number of years ago, I submitted another contribution which wasn't quite right (same problem), but an extremely helpful reviewer sorted it out for me. Seems times have changed.



This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject. MetalmanUK (talk) 13:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC){{SAFESUBST:Void|MetalmanUK (talk) 13:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you have in that Draft is a lengthy biography of a living person that only appears to cite one single source, and even that I'm not sure whether counts as reliable. That is not acceptable and it will not be accepted in that state. You also have unresolved formatting issues... the myriad of external links in the middle of the article body... as explained to you by the comments on the Draft itself.
Thank you for letting us know your views about Wikipedia having "slightly lost the plot" and being smaller than some blogs. I found this very interesting. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 19

Request on 00:33:16, 19 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Hmkingroman

{{SAFESUBST:Void} 


}}

Can you help me fix my article?

I have now written to the UN and EU, and to many of the world's countries, and am waiting for responses.

Hmkingroman (talk) 00:33, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied per WP:COMPETENCE. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

14:36:02, 19 July 2015 review of submission by BEDownes

Am I allowed to delete any out-of-date or no longer needed content from a talk page I created?

Can I as the author of the article talk page, delete out-of-date or unneeded portions? I'm okay either way, I just thought I'd try to remove some of the clutter? Thank you. --BEDownes (talk) 14:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BEDownes (talk) 14:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BEDownes - You may delete or archive content on your user talk page, but content of other talk pages may only be archived, not deleted (with a few defined exceptions such as obscenity or copyright violations). See WP:ARCHIVE for guidance on how to set up an archive for an article talk page, or tell us which page it is then an experienced editor can do it for you. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15:16:08, 19 July 2015 review of submission by Kash qureshi

Please help me with trying to pass the notability and trying to verify this page as i am currently lost and do not know what to do. Kash qureshi (talk) 15:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


July 20

17:45:07, 20 July 2015 review of submission by Hærdt

May I please have another revision of this page which I recently have submitted to the community: Draft:John Thyhsen. A few updates were made and I'm wondering if someone can help me out with the next step of publishing the page. This article was vetted previously by MatthewVanitas (talk. Thanks MatthewVanitas (talk. User:HærdtHærdt (talk) 17:45:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haerdt (talk • contribs) [reply]

Hi Haerdt, just click the blue "Resubmit" button in the pink review box to get another review. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

03:54:03, 20 July 2015 review of submission by Justuscq

I tried to submit contents for Chordiels Music. I received the comments stating that the references are not made. Kindly help me post the contents Justuscq (talk) 03:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

09:46:19, 20 July 2015 review of submission by Ahmedahmed777

Hello. How do I delete a draft that has been rejected several times?

Ahmedahmed777 (talk) 09:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ahmedahmed777. I see that you have created Draft:Meshal Abdullah Al-Jaber Al-Sabah (2) and also User:Ahmedahmed777/sandbox/Meshal Al-Sabah. Also a user called Ahmed Al-Sabah 2013 has created one about the same person, Draft:Meshal Abdullah Al-Jaber Al-Sabah. Also, a user called Hrh4444 created one some time ago at User talk:Hrh4444.

The most current one of these is Draft:Meshal Abdullah Al-Jaber Al-Sabah.

Here are some issues:

  1. Draft:Meshal Abdullah Al-Jaber Al-Sabah (2) is now not needed. If you edit it to remove all of the content, leaving it blank, an administrator will come along and delete it for you.
  2. User:Ahmedahmed777/sandbox/Meshal Al-Sabah: do the same thing.
  3. User talk:Hrh4444 - Was this old draft also created by you under another account name? If so, you can log in with that name and blank it. If not, someone else will deal with it.
  4. Draft:Meshal Abdullah Al-Jaber Al-Sabah: Was this draft created by you under a different account name, or was it made by another user entirely? I see that you have added your information there, but instead of combining it with the existing information, you just dumped in the text, creating a lot of duplication; this can be fixed. You also added a paragraph which was copied from the web site http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/mems/people/associates/Visiting-Fellows/Meshal-Al-Sabah/index.aspx or another such source, and will have to be rewritten in your own words for copyright reasons.—Anne Delong (talk) 11:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

10:35:13, 20 July 2015 review of submission by 79.180.210.227

I have continuously been checking my page each week to see how many reviews are in front of my entry. However, for the last couple of weeks my page has seemed to be going backwards... It was once number 718 and now is further back, how is this possible?! I have been waiting for about 3-4 weeks and I am becoming frustrated that rather than progressing through the review process it seems that the page is being hindered. 79.180.210.227 (talk) 10:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

10:45:19, 20 July 2015 review of submission by Muslala

I have been checking my pages progress over the last couple of weeks. However, it seems recently that all progress towards the review have been hindered. My submission continues to fall down the list and I am wondering why this is? Last week I was 718 and now I am 764... My patience is growing thin, seeing as it has been 3-4 weeks. Muslala (talk) 10:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Holy Redeemer Catholic parish, Belize City

Does this have any chance of acceptance in Wikipedia? It is about the chief Roman Catholic parish in the country of Belize and the many ways this parish has impacted the country for over 150 years. At the recommendation of a (new) editor I just made numerous in-line footnotes from the major source that I had listed as "Source" at the bottom, though I'm not sure this is an improvement. Can you suggest how this article might be made more acceptable for Wikipedia?jzsj (talk) 12:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15:16:28, 20 July 2015 review of submission by Clemendove99

Clemendove99 (talk) 15:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15:22:25, 20 July 2015 review of submission by TCVCJ

Could someone please check on this article for me? I last submitted it to each reviewer that had looked at it before - I have heard nothing! Thank youTCVCJ (talk) 15:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC) TCVCJ (talk) 15:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=672285289"