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 John hanley parc (talk | contribs) at 16:16, 5 September 2017. 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
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 30

00:48:21, 30 August 2017 review of submission by MG-Lon


Hello , i'm sorry if Offended you. However Iam simply trying to ge the article on wikipedia, we thought met the criteria. I thought it was more so my referencing. We shall try again at later date when we have more credible sources as I have been quoted a few times.

Thanks for your time.

@MG-Lon: Hello, MG. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the delay in response. I'm not sure that I see an actual question here but, if there is one, feel free to let us know. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

08:26:45, 30 August 2017 review of submission by 68.175.131.44


68.175.131.44 (talk) 08:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC) Please how can someone assist to select reference on the Subject Draft Ejembi John Onah that just fits independent source?[reply]

Hello, IP address. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the delay in response. I assume you are asking about Draft:Ejembi John Onah. If so, the most recent reviewer was quite clear about their suggestion -- identify three sources that you think demonstrate encyclopedic notability and ask us whether we agree that they do make that demonstration. Are you now asking us to do that for you? But the whole point of the suggestion is that you -- the person most familiar with the subject -- identify the sources. If I've misunderstood your question, please let us know. And if you have any other questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I just saw that you posted again below. Feel free to respond under either posting. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 10:31:59, 30 August 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Vlaurentius


Dear Sirs, I've tried to follow the guidelines and I've added several links from primary sources. However I still see the same critics. Please tell me what I am still doing wrong. Thank you very much in advance

VL 10:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Maurits Roland Falkenreck (v. Falken-Reck) is strangely named. What is the "v. Falken-Reck"? A variant of his name? Or a title, starting "van"?
It is written as one large paragraph, making it unreadable.
The references are not cited correctly. Please read Referencing for beginners.
It contains promotional (and largely meaningless) language such as "he learned from a young age how to take his concepts/ideas to the next level". Maproom (talk) 12:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

21:16:15, 30 August 2017 review of submission by 68.175.131.44


Based on the comments on talk forum on the subject by Jmcgnh yesterday advising that the subject select 3 best references that can satisfy notability, the subject has 3 such references with citations in peer review journal totaling, 131, 103 and 7 counting totalling 241 and counting, can that be ok for notability? Further other work the subject is doing includes pioneering nano activities in 189 countries in association with global leaders of the field in academic, policy makers and private sector 68.175.131.44 (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I thought you would log in with your username.
First you need to tell me the theory you are using to support notability under WP:NPROF.
Second, using bare citation counts is perhaps supportive but not all by itself sufficient to establish notability.
Third, we have seen the assertion in the article about all the work Onah has done and the organizations he has worked with, but some note of that has to have been taken by a publication that is not directly associated with Onah. It's a citation to that publication that can be used to help establish notability. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 23:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 31

10:18:55, 31 August 2017 review of submission by Aghnn123

Hi, My submission was declined for this reason: "The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes." I did use footnotes to cite my sources, so I'm a bit confused - could someone explain what I did wrong? Thank you! :-)

Aghnn123 (talk) 10:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Large chunks of the article do not have inline citations. In fact, there isn't an inline citation until four paragraphs into the article. For living people especially, you need to have inline citations for any claims made in the article, if they cannot be properly cited then they need to be removed. Sulfurboy (talk) 10:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:49:40, 31 August 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Regulussimo


I am unable to connect the quote number in the main text and the references I cited in the box references. Finally, I am requesting assistance in order to create the page. --Regulussimo (talk) 13:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)--Regulussimo (talk) 13:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC) Regulussimo (talk) 13:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Regulussimo. The mechanics of inline citations are counterintuitive. Don't place the references in the references section, but mix them in with the text, within <ref></ref> tags. I've done the first one for you as an example. See Help:Referencing for beginners for more information. A further improvement would be to supply more information than bare urls. Citation templates are good for that. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

19:34:17, 31 August 2017 review of submission by Dibcap17

Hello. I am requesting assistance because my article draft has been rejected. I'm listing multiple outside sources and links to other Wikipedia articles. The content is completely verifiable through reputable news sources. Please help provide feedback as to what I can more specifically to get this article published. Thank you. Dibcap17 (talk) 19:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dibcap17. It's good that the content is verifiable. That's a fundamental requirement for all content on Wikipedia. Being verifiable is not, however, sufficient justification for a stand alone article. The draft was declined because it failed to show that IngramSpark is notable.
Of the sources cited, comstocksmag, irishtimes, and libraryjournal make only brief mentions of the company. The Independent Publishing Magazine appears to be a trade journal. Trade journals are often discounted by reviewers for notability because of their limited circulation and an often too-cozy relationship with the companies and industries they cover. That leaves publishersweekly as the only source of any depth. The AP report in usnews, with a sentence about the company, is a distant second. That isn't enough attention from the world at large to demonstrate that the company is notable and has had a significant or demonstrable effect on anything.
IngramSpark is part of Ingram Content Group, which is part of Ingram Industries, yes? I suggest you use the information you've gathered to expand the article on the parent company instead of attempting to create an article on the subsidiary. Emphasize the company's history, readers can visit their website to find out about their specific self-publishing services. You may then create a redirect from the name IngramSpark to the article on the parent company so that readers seeking what little there is to say about the company can easily find that information. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 1

06:49:49, 1 September 2017 review of submission by XL2000


Dear Wiki helpers,

I wrote an article about Pillar Project, a new Blockchain project which (IMHO) will change the world. Even though the project is in its early stages, I would think it would deserve a place on Wikipedia. My article was rejected (and deleted) because it was promotional. Promotion is not my goal, and Pillar Project has nothing to gain or no need for promotion, but I understand how the terms apply.

Right now, I am not sure if my article can be rewritten enough to make it accepted. I think it is factual about the current state of the project. I am therefore kinda lost on what I should change, and if the article is in some for acceptable at all. Can someone help me indicate the promotional problems, and indicate if rewriting will help at all?

Many thanks for your help!

XL2000 (talk) 06:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi XL2000. The draft has been deleted a third time for being unambiguous advertising or promotion, so I can't evaluate its contents. "In its early stages" is almost synonymous with "not notable". Things in their early stages normally have not been covered extensively by indepedent reliable sources over a period of time, and thus do not meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Wikipedia is not for "getting the word out" about anything, it only reflects what the world at large has already taken significant notice of. I recommend that you set the topic aside until it has changed the world. Meanwhile there are millions of other ways to improve Wikipedia, check out Wikipedia:Community portal for ways you can help. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:52, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

15:30:20, 1 September 2017 review of submission by Mikkedn


Hello, I just submitted an article named "Bice Piacentini", it's actually a translation from an italian page with the same name. It's about an italian author which is very little known, there are no references to her online, except for a couple of pages. Therefore I cannot quote anything online that proves her existence, how can I have my article published if there is no other reference of her online? Mikkedn (talk) 15:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mikkedn. There is no need for references to be online, but all content must be verifiable in published reliable sources. To cite an offline source, I recommend using an inline citation with a citation template such as this:
<ref>{{cite book |last=Rossi |first=Mario |year=1956 |title=Obscure book where you found the information |language=it |location=Milan |publisher=Skira |pages=114-115 |oclc=fill in oclc from worldcat.org}}</ref>
See Help:Referencing for beginners, Wikipedia:Citing sources and Template:Cite book/doc for more information. There are other templates in the same family for citing academic journals, magazines, newspapers, etc. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2

06:05:18, 2 September 2017 review of submission by Don.carlos.ch

Made 9 reliable references, e.g. a TV station's report (TV Nova, Czechia), print magazines (Playboy, VOLO), online magazine (Artmageddon) and official independent databases. Why is this not good enough?

OK, we're trying to establish notability. For that, we need some in-depth coverage by reliable sources. Which three of the current references would you consider the best? If you've read WP:NACTOR, how do you think your sources align with those guidelines? — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 06:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

06:52:04, 2 September 2017 review of submission by RashadFarroq


RashadFarroq (talk) 06:52, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please grant us access to be allowed to have a Wikipedia page for Rashad Farooq

Hello, Rashad. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Before posting here, I declined your submission for the reasons stated on the draft itself. You will really need to demonstrate that you have received significant coverage from reliable sources before your autobiography will be accepted for publication here. And a single two-minute clip on a local television station is not going to be sufficient. On a different matter, writing autobiographies is extremely discouraged here on Wikipedia. If you haven't already done so, you might want to read WP:AUTO, which will explain some of our concerns about autobiographies. I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

08:48:57, 2 September 2017 review of submission by Karlweber-kw

What should I improve specifically in the article? Karlweber-kw (talk) 08:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Karl. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Later today, I'll leave some comments on your draft (and will notify you when I do that). NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
please, help me. What should I improve specifically in my article?. Thank you in advance NewYorkActuary

14:57:00, 2 September 2017 review of submission by Giznej


As I mentioned earlier, I do not agree. There are many good reasons to have two different articles on "mathematical optimization" and the subclass "linear programming". By the same reasons there should be also an article on "Multi-objective Optimization" and also an article on "Multi-objective linear programming".

Hi Giznej. I have requested comment on the draft at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Draft:Multi-objective linear programming. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

23:51:26, 2 September 2017 review of submission by Okc97


I submitted this article for review almost a month ago now. When will the review be finally finished? I would like the page to be published and made available to the public as soon as possible please as I have created the page for someone who is very old and sick, and will pass away soon. It would be greatly appreciated if the review of this page could be expedited. Thank you.


Okc97 (talk) 23:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Okc. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. We've been very backlogged here this summer and it probably would have taken another week or so for your submission to work itself to the front of the queue. But I took a quick look at it and saw that there wasn't much need for waiting that extra week or so. I've declined to accept the submission for the reasons that I've stated on the draft itself. I recognize that this is not the result you were hoping for and, if you have any questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 3

09:05:05, 3 September 2017 review of submission by Rane2030


I have started to write an article about an artist, now I have finished the article and submitted it for review. Perhaps, I cannot find the article I registered in the Wikipedia - when I insert name of the article in Wikipedia search field to search, it has no article with that name! Please help to clarify this, does it mean the title entered in the Wikipedia has got deleted? If so how should I continue with my work (I have put a lot of energy to prepare the article - now in Sandbox for review) Please help me Thank you rane2030 Rane2030 (talk) 09:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rane2030: I've moved your submission to Draft:Wickrama Bogoda, which is the preferred location for articles that have been submitted for review. While you wait for a review, however, you need to correct your referencing in the submission. Right now, you have a large list of external links, some of which I presume you meant to be sources. That's not an acceptable way to supply references for a biography. You might want to look at Help:Referencing for beginners for instructions on how to go about putting in proper references so your article has a chance of being accepted when reviewed. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 09:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I realize that I didn't address part of your question. Because the article name was still "sandbox", you would not have been able to find it using the subject's name. And, until it is accepted into "mainspace", it should not be showing up in external searches, such as Google. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 11:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

12:34:29, 3 September 2017 review of draft by Grindcomber


Grindcomber (talk) 12:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 4

08:22:58, 4 September 2017 review of submission by Collins Mtika


Please could you advise if I have correctly submitted the article "Ian Cockerill" for creation review. I first submitted it on 31 July 2017, then by mistake I re-submitted it on 19 August 2017. The line below the draft article now shows two submission dates. Did the second submission for review cancel out the first submission? Thank you for your assistance Collins M Mtika


Collins Mtika (talk) 08:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Collins Mtika. The draft is in the pool and likely will be reviewed within the week. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

10:48:33, 4 September 2017 review of submission by Jenyajc


Hey guys,

I'm trying to get this article reviewed for about half a year now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Luminar As you can see from the edits history, I've updated it several times according to the reviewer's notes, each time adding necessary and removing unnecessary parts. But after the last edits, where I was asked to "add more reviews", now it has been marked for "speedy deletion" for promotional tone, as I understand. I've almost given up in my efforts to make it meet Wiki criteria, since the last suggestion from reviewer seems to be in conflict with "speedy deletion" criteria.

Please help me to understand how I need to edit it so it is published.

Thanks

Hi Jenyajc. The draft has been deleted, so I can't see it to comment on it. The two reviews recorded on User talk:Jenyajc, from July, suggest that the topic may not be appropriate for Wikipedia (most companies and products are not suitable for the encyclopedia). If that's the case, no amount of editing will fix the problem. If you're interested in improving Wikipedia, there are millions of other ways to do so, see Wikipedia:Community portal. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Worldbruce, thanks for checking my situation. The point is, that I've fixed all the issues that reviewers were pointing at, in particular - the promotional tone (1st fix), the lack of informaty (2nd fix), and the additional amount of reviews (3rd fix). I don't 100% sure that the article did go under the "may not be appropriate for Wikipedia" condition, since none of the last two reviewers didn't say anything like that exactly. Moreover, the reason the article was marked for "speedy deletion" and eventually deleted, was "promotional and advertising" - the reasons that were not mentioned by two last reviewers, and which I fixed in the first edit. I've done everything I was asked for. It does seem to me now that every reviewer has his own opinion on the matter of notability/tone, and in my case, they are different.

Don't get me wrong, I understand that there's plenty of similar cases all over the Wikipedia. But the amount of efforts and time I've put on it to see it deleted in the end is extremely demotivating for me as a newbie.

Thanks! Jenyajc (talk) 19:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:22:24, 4 September 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Orangegeum


I have just had my first article rejected for the second time at review stage. I had thought I had made necessary corrections having checked the articles recommended by the first reviewer, but have clearly missed something as the second reviewer says "Please fix the formatting links for this to be accepted". I'd be very grateful if someone could tell me specifically what I need to change as I'm inexperienced with this. With many thanks in anticipation. Orangegeum (talk) 15:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Orangegeum. What are you trying to communicate with the big, bracketed, hyperlinked numbers like the one at the end of the lead sentence?

Christina Malman (2 Dec 1912 - 14 Jan 1959) was an artist and illustrator, best known for her work for The New Yorker magazine [1]

It is formatted a bit like a reference, except it isn't a superscript. Clicking it doesn't take one to a numbered reference at the bottom of the page, and the home page of The New Yorker doesn't support any part of the sentence to which it is attached (other than the fact that The New Yorker exists, which isn't really in question). So why is it there?
In some cases, like "included Consumer Reports [[2]]" you've used a link to Wikipedia. If you meant it as an internal link (hey reader, you might be interested in Wikipedia's article on the subject I just mentioned), the correct way to format it using the source editor is included ''[[Consumer Reports]]'', which renders as "included Consumer Reports". If you meant it as a reference (hey reader, the proof of what I wrote can be found by following this link) then understand that Wikipedia, being user-generated, is not a reliable source and should not be used as a reference.
For each of the big, bracketed, hyperlinked numbers: convert it into a reference by using <ref></ref> tags as you have with the small, hyperlinked numbers in superscripts; convert it into an internal link by using pairs of square brackets; or remove it.
It may help to study some of Wikipedia's best articles as examples. Other helpful reading includes:
--Worldbruce (talk) 17:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

18:29:47, 4 September 2017 review of submission by Maclafornia925


i have made several changes to this article - took out apostrophe to form a plural

information in the infobox took out citation use the {{cite web}} template and as many of its parameters as are applicable when forming your citations.discography sections are formatted the first names of children edited ---

This is the best place to discuss this submission, Maclafornia925. I'm glad you posted here.
One thing we need to clear up is what you think the eventual title of this article should be: Lovie Johnson, Pezzy Montana, or Montanta Montana Montana. There's no need to change the name of the draft, but it should be clear to the accepting reviewer what the final page name should be.
Since I was the last reviewer and I declined the submission based on notability considerations, perhaps it would be best if you explained - based on your understanding of WP:NMUSIC - which facts or references meet one or more of the criteria. I may have missed something. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 19:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

22:04:37, 4 September 2017 review of submission by Whispering


Well this is awkward, I went to check the user's talk page like I normally do after a decline and found out the user has been blocked for advertizing. Now, do I just leave the draft as is and let the bots tag it for deletion in six months or could I tag it for a speedy of some sort? Whispering 22:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

People do sometimes appeal their blocks successfully, and musical artists sometimes have a big breakout after toiling away in obscurity, so I'd say the best practice is to just let the draft age out in the normal process. Someone may also come along who wants to improve it. While that may seem rare for drafts, I just saw it happen today where someone was trying to create a new article, then discovered there was an existing draft in better shape. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 23:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the advice. Whispering 05:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 5

09:09:54, 5 September 2017 review of submission by Vectorebus

Please advise if the logo I redrew and uploaded of Bloem City Blazers on Upload Wizard followed the correct process: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloem_City_Blazers#/media/File:Bloem_City_Blazers_logo_for_T20_Global_League.svg Vectorebus (talk) 09:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

11:59:55, 5 September 2017 review of submission by Perplexed12

I submitted an article on "Roaring Reggie Newton" and I understand it has been rejected. I proposed adding references over the next few days along with a photo of Newton that I will place on Wikipedia Commons. Can I still proceed with these two or does the rejection close the matter? Where do I find the story I submitted if I can continue? Perplexed12 (talk) 11:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Perplexed12. Yes, you may continue improving Draft:Reginald Newton. It is essential that it cite a range of independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain a significant depth of information about Newton. Inexperienced editors commonly misjudge where the bar is set, both in terms of what is a reliable source and how deep those sources need to be to demonstrate notability. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

13:52:48, 5 September 2017 review of submission by Manish Aacharya


Manish Aacharya 13:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC) why does my artical not show wikipedia in google

16:16:48, 5 September 2017 review of submission by John hanley parc


tl;dr: skip down to Bottom Line.

Hi. I'm asking for newbie help in drafting 1st article, rather than a re-review.

Ablative Analysis[3] is a term of art in the new field of Machine Learning[4]. I publish in this field, and I wrote the article because I heard this unfamiliar term used in a conference call and was disappointed that wikipedia did not describe it. I wanted other people to easily find a description.

Despite citing seven authors who use the term, the 1st draft was rejected as not adequately supported by reliable sources. That's cool, I didn't expect my first attempt to immediately go sailing through, this is going to be a learning process. My understanding is that the article is currently rejected because I haven't done enough work yet, and the action item is on me to improve the writing, that's good. I seek constructive criticism.

The help I'm requesting is: what's my next action item? What should I improve?

Here are some specific aspects I am considering, but I welcome you to raise new aspects as well as comment on these: 

   1. Perhaps the text of the article needs to be expanded or adjusted to more closely follow the structure or vocabulary of one of the cited reliable sources, or to make stronger or weaker assertions.
   2. Perhaps the article is too long, and it would be easier to start with a shorter one that organically grows with contributions from others.
   3. Perhaps the article's few paragraphs are not adequately supported by reliable sources due to inadequate inline citations, and I should add one or more. Maybe Ng's ref. 1[5] gets cited two or three times, with a couple of the other refs. thrown in.
   4. Perhaps the article's list of seven references does not adequately support (with reliable sources) the article content, and I should expand the list of references.
   5. Perhaps the seven references do not adequately support the article because they are not sufficiently reliable sources. For example Ng [6] or Thrun [7] may not have enough verifiable awards listed, or I need to mention paper counts or citations or h-index, or I need to describe references that won Best Paper Award or appear in journals or conferences above some specified level of prestige or have been cited more than N times.

potential further references to add:

- I chose to ignore e.g. Richard Socher's[8] remark about "one could reduce the confusion by performing an ablative analysis (show its performance with different parts removed)" in http://hunch.net/?p=1852 because it is brief and in a blog rather than a peer reviewed journal, so it didn't seem above the bar for a citation. (BTW he used confusion in this technical sense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confusion_matrix)

- Kan Chen et al., Systems and methods for attention-based configurable convolutional neural networks (abc-cnn) for visual question answering, U.S. Patent Publication US20170124432 A1 [9]

- Gunnar Sigurdsson et al., What Actions are Needed for Understanding Human Actions in Videos? [10]

- Rafal Jozefowicz et al., An Empirical Exploration of Recurrent Network Architectures [11]

- Rico Sennrich et al., The University of Edinburgh's Neural MT Systems for WMT17 [12]

- Michael Yang et al., On support relations and semantic scene graphs [13]

- Yi Zhu et al., Efficient Action Detection in Untrimmed Videos via Multi-Task Learning [14]

- Miloš Cerňak, Diagnostics for Debugging Speech Recognition Systems [15]

- Xiaolong Wang et al., Transitive Invariance for Self-supervised Visual Representation Learning [16]

- Abhinav Shrivastava et al., Beyond Skip Connections: Top-Down Modulation for Object Detection [17]

Bottom Line: I respect your process, and am asking for someone to hold a newbie's hand to shepherd me through my first new article. Thank you!

John hanley parc (talk) 16:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=799094360"