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 Samcamden1 (talk | contribs) at 16:36, 29 November 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
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


November 23

04:02:42, 23 November 2017 review of submission by Shanthini29

Hi, I would like to know which are the exact statements that may need citation. Presume I have included all relevant ones. Appreciate advise.

Shanthini29 (talk) 04:02, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shanthini29: Hello, Shanthini. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. In brief answer to your question, all of the statements need citations. This does not necessarily mean that every sentence needs an individual citation -- if all of the material in a given paragraph is coming from the same source, then putting a citation to that source at the end of the paragraph will be acceptable. But this is just a special case that doesn't change the basic rule -- everything in your article needs to have come from a reliable source and you need to tell the reader where you got that information. I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:49, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

04:17:43, 23 November 2017 review of submission by Lil'Latios

Is there a way to group the references by letters, like a, b, and c instead of repeating the same reference multiple times? I know it is possible, but I am still confused how. I've tried referencing the same source as just a link, but it adds it to my reference list as a different and new material. Thank you! (like references 1, 3, and 5 are all the same link, instead of reference A of the same source, reference B of the same source, and so on.)


Lil'Latios (talk) 04:17, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lil'Latios: Hello, Latios. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Yes, there's a way to consolidate what we call "multiple-use references". You can read about it at Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: using a source more than once. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:34, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

05:08:35, 23 November 2017 review of submission by Ignore All Rules


Ignore All Rules (talk) 05:08, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should accept this article! It has over 1200 references. It is about a notable topic. It contains views pro and con (neutrality). It has everything you'd want in an encyclopedia article. You'll laugh, you'll cry, but best of all, you'll learn something. Accept today!Ignore All Rules (talk) 05:08, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

05:59:25, 23 November 2017 review of draft by Lea.palomba.doc


How do I submit my article for review?

Lea.palomba.doc (talk) 05:59, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lea.palomba.doc: Hello, Lea. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. You already have submitted the draft for review. It will likely take a few weeks (perhaps as much as two months) before a reviewer gets a chance to look at it. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

08:01:40, 23 November 2017 review of submission by Hpresswala

Hetal Presswala (talk) 08:01, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please help to know weakness of page submitted to publish. Kindly direct how to make page as per your expectation

There are many weaknesses. It is excessively promotional. It is full of unreferenced claims. It appears to be an autobiography. It provides no evidence that its subject is notable. Maproom (talk) 15:35, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

12:11:16, 23 November 2017 review of submission by VBS-GBS1050

I don't know why the article About professor Gruwez, one of the pioneers of medical surgery in Belgium is not accepted. I have checked other pages about surgeons on Wikipedia, i have tried to write in the same style but the article is refused. Can you help me?

VBS-GBS1050 (talk) 12:11, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is explained in the rejection notice. That is the grey box inside the pink box at the top of the draft. Maproom (talk) 15:29, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 24

07:19:02, 24 November 2017 review of submission by Norie Goto

I posted an article on Wikipedia for the first time. I have several questions now. At the first, I'm not sure I could post properly. At the second, if there is a possibility which my article will be rejected, I want to know and improve those mistakes beforehand not to be rejected. Is it possible? At last, I 'm not sure after my article was rejected, what I should do the next.

I'm not a native speaker, so it is helpful for me that you use simple and easy English for your explanation. Thank you.

Norie Goto

Norie Goto (talk) 07:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Norie Goto: You have successfully submitted your draft and it is waiting for a reviewer. One of our editors, Robert McClenon, has left a suggestion for further improvement while you're waiting for review. It would improve the article to introduce wikilinks but your draft would not be rejected for lacking these. Part of the review involves evaluating sources. Since most of these are in Japanese, this will be difficult for our english-speaking reviewers. There may be an additional delay because of this. ~Kvng (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Norie Goto: Hello, Norie Goto. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the great delay in response. I see two major problems with your submission. First, I'm not entirely convinced that Wikipedia needs an article on wasabi grown in Hikimi. Our existing article on wasabi indicates that the entire prefecture of Shimane accounts for less than 5% of Japan's production. So, it is difficult to see why Hikimi-grown wasabi should have its own article, especially given that your draft really doesn't make much of a case for stand-alone notability. I also see that much of your draft isn't devoted to wasabi itself, but to culture and business plans specific to Hikimi. But that material would be well-placed in our existing article on Hikimi, Shimane.

Second, there is a problem with your sourcing. You have given it almost entirely in Japanese orthography, which renders it virtually impossible for any English-language reader to assess the quality of those sources. All of our articles must comply with WP:Verifiability and this, in turn, calls for following the provisions of WP:CITE. Although there is no prohibition against using foreign-language sources, the description of those sources must be in English. It would be helpful if the article titles were transliterated using Romaji but, even if you choose to not do this, the title must still be translated into English. And the website must be identified (and even a Japanese language website is going to have a URL written with Roman letters). Similarly for the name of the author, the publisher and the date of publication. In all, under proper referencing, the title of the cited article will be the only thing written with Japanese orthography -- everything else will either be transliterated with Romaji or, where possible, translated into English. I encourage you to become familiar with the {{cite web}} template, which will make it easy to provide the necessary bibliographic detail. It even has a "trans-title=" parameter that makes it easy to supply the translation of the title. Later today, I'll re-visit your draft and try my hand at re-formatting one or two of your references, which you can then use as an example for doing the rest.

If you need assistance with the translating, you might want to ask the good folks over at WP:WikiProject Japan for assistance. I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:57:39, 24 November 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Adam Sir Jr.


Adam Sir Jr. (talk) 09:57, 24 November 2017 (UTC)Template:Adame sir jr.:Void[reply]

@Adam Sir Jr.: Hello, Adam. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the great delay in response. However, you didn't actually ask a question. Was there something specific you wanted to ask? NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Syringeal

Why is this not allowed an entry exactly? Syrinx the Nymph (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Syrinx the Nymph: Hello, Syrinx. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the great delay in response. The reason that Draft:Syringeal was not accepted for publication was because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. For more detail, see WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

19:29:37, 24 November 2017 review of submission by Jkarsh

Why was it rejected? Jkarsh (talk) 19:29, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jkarsh: Hello, J. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the great delay in response. The best source of information as to why your submission was declined will be the reviewer who looked at it. You can find that person's name and Talk page link in the "decline box" near the top of your draft. I assume that you are asking about Draft:Tryperion Partners. If so, I did take a quick look at it and found that I too would have declined it, not for its promotional tone but for its failure to establish that the company has achieved encyclopedic notability. All the draft seems to do is document the company's existence and the routine details of its closed-end real-estate investment funds. But the United States has hundreds of such companies and the major players in the field have capitalisations that are measured in the billions of dollars. Here, on the other hand, we have a company whose first fund held about $50 million, as did its second fund. And the current one as yet only holds a single complex in Minnetonka. So, the subject is not a significant factor in its field and we are given no reason to believe that it is noteworthy for any other reason. But other reviewers might disagree with my assessment, so I encourage you to contact the reviewer who declined your submission and learn more about their thoughts on the matter. I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:02:47, 24 November 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Elena.griguol

Hi I need help to understand why the reviewer says the article seems an advertisement. I've changed some parts using a neutral tone and added new references from third relevant parties not directly connected to the original organizer of the event. Please concrete suggestions are very welcome.

Elena.griguol (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Elena.griguol: Hello, Elena. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the great delay in response. We here at Wikipedia tend to give the words "advertisement" and "promotion" meanings that are often broader than their usual ones. I agree that you've generally used neutral language to describe the organization. But I agree with the reviewers that the overall feel is still that of an "advertisement", in the sense that you are telling the reader little more than what the school would tell people on its website or in a brochure. There's one extreme example that I saw -- you give the exact dates on which sessions will be held next year, and nearby is a link that takes the reader to a sales page at which they can register for those sessions. But even if this obvious promotional aspect were to be removed, we'd still be left with a draft that contains little more than what the organization says about itself (and I'm including all of the cites from affiliated persons and entities). What you really need to do is find reliable independent sources that are talking about the organization (not just the field in which it operates), and that do so in depth. Then, an acceptable article might be fashioned out of the material in those independent reliable sources. Without that, I think you are going to find it difficult to get your draft published here. I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 21:11:27, 24 November 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Csgoldberg


Hi There - I tried creating a page that described a company called Pulse Microsystems. This company was integral to the creation of the machine embroidery industry, but does not have a wikipedia page. It was taken down for it was labelled as advertising. I used 3 other company webpages in its creation, and was very objective in listing patent numbers, sources from articles, and the like.

How do I create a company webpage without it seeming like advertising, when there are in fact sources cited? Csgoldberg (talk) 21:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Csgoldberg. Because the draft was deleted, I can't see it to comment on it. You mention that you listed patent numbers, that was probably a mistake. I'm not sure what you mean by "used 3 other company webpages in its creation". If you mean you modeled it on 3 other Wikipedia articles, understand that there's a lot of crap on Wikipedia. If you're going to follow examples, be sure to use Wikipedia's best articles. If you mean you referenced 3 company websites as sources, try to find academic or news sources instead. Commercial websites rank fairly far down the hierarchy of reliable sources.
The problem of promotional tone is independent of whether sources are cited, but can creep into writing if the sources the content is based on are promotional. My own searches found no significant coverage of Pulse Microsystems outside of press releases, which are not independent, and trade journals, which have a narrow audience and may not be independent - there is often a too-cozy relationship between them and the industries and companies they cover. Therefore Pulse does not appear to be a suitable topic for Wikipedia. You might have better luck with the parent company, Hirsch. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Csgoldberg: If you would like more help with this, I would suggest you visit WP:REFUND and request a copy of your prior work be put into a Draft article that we can all see. ~Kvng (talk) 00:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 25

01:35:01, 25 November 2017 review of submission by Mw17

I am writing an article for a class and am trying to publish it. I have had my account for more than 4 days and received a notification that I had made more than 10 edits. Do I still need to go through the review process? I thought I could post it directly given the above criteria. Thank you for your help. Mw17 (talk) 01:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You will see that I dream of horses moved your article back to draft space. The subject is not one I'm familiar with, so perhaps an expert here can judge whether it is ready for publication? As I think you probably know, Wikipedia is not the place to publish original research, but if your article is just a summary of published sources, then it should be acceptable under that criterion. Dbfirs 08:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 03:01:19, 25 November 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Drewzab

Helpers! I have a question about notoriety. My article on the Daisygrinders found here: [1] has been rejected due to notoriety. I contend that in the 1990s when they were active, they were instrumental in the fledgeling 'Grunge' movement. They were signed recording artists and their catalogue is still available for purchase. The band appeared on the front page of The Drum Media magazine with a full article about the band on page 12. This magazine had a distributorship of 120,000 issues. I can provide evidence but cannot find a way to do this through the wikipedia website. There is reference to the DM article here: [2] The band was published by Universal Music, has currently available published works and is available on Spotify. They were signed to a subsidiary of Regular records and Mercury Records - Major Labels. Their back catalogue can still be purchased through Half A Cow music. During the 1990s the band was at the forefront of the Australian Music Scene, playing across the country, supporting Major artists and playing a major festival. They have been cited in the Who's Who of Australian Rock. Is this not sufficient to prove notoriety? Any assistance you can provide to help have this band listed on Wikipedia would be greatly appreciated.

My article has been reviewed many times but is always rejected due to notoriety. I have articles on the band but these are no longer in print nor available online. How do I reference these articles to prove notoriety if they cant be checked by reviewers? Thanks Drewzab (talk) 03:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC) Drewzab (talk) 03:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Drewzab: The Drum Media article does sound like the sort of source we're looking for. Be aware that unless you can demonstrate some other enabler in WP:NMUSIC is met, we will want to see multiple sources like this. Offline sources are perfectly fine. See Help:Referencing for beginners for how to do this. Minimally just describe the source in any academically plausible way (publication, date, title, author, page numbers...) between <ref></ref> tags.

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Daisygrinders
  2. ^ https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10155788055109328&set=pcb.10155788065804328&type=3&theater

05:54:41, 25 November 2017 review of submission by Apsia

Apsia (talk) 05:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC) Hello,[reply] 

      How can I get my article accepted?

Please see below for details, Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Drewmutt was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources. The comment the reviewer left was:

References currently only point to the subject, not independent media coverage of it. Additionally, Wikipedia strongly discourages writing about topics you're close to or created.

How to fix this article? This is my first time doing this in wikipedia.

Thank you,

A P Sia Apsia (talk) 05:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Apsia. I've replied to the same question at the Teahouse. It's far too early for an article. You will need to wait until independent reviews of your work are published, then collect these and summarise what they say. Dbfirs 08:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dbfirs,

What independent reviews are acceptable? Can you give some of these independent review?

Thank you,

A P Sia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apsia (talk • contribs) 00:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't my area of expertise, but reviews should be in independent magazines (for example) and should not be publicity material. See WP:Reliable sources for the policy. Dbfirs 08:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

06:20:17, 25 November 2017 review of submission by Avantgaertner

Hello, how do I resubmit my edited article for review? I do not see this option. Thanks!

Avantgaertner (talk) 06:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Avantgaertner. An editor has added to the draft a template that has a "Submit your draft for review!" button. Click it to resubmit. Normally the "Submit" button is embedded in the box explaining the reason for the most recent decline. In future, do not remove prior reviews and reviewers' comments. They will be removed automatically if and when the draft is accepted. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

08:11:39, 25 November 2017 review of submission by Pvchandramoulli

Pvchandramoulli (talk) 08:11, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pvchandramoulli: Hello, PV. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the great delay in response. But you didn't actually ask a question. Is there something specific that we can help you with? NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

08:15:25, 25 November 2017 review of submission by Nemo8130


Thanks for accepting the article on the Complementarity Plot. We hope that this is useful to the audience of wiki and particularly to the structural biology community. I shall be grateful to learn further whether all subsequent edits to this page will be auto-updated to the public domain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementarity_plot

Thanks and Kind regards, Sankar

Nemo8130 (talk) 08:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nemo8130: When your draft was accepted it was moved to the main article on the English Wikipedia. The original draft doesn't really exist anymore and all further updates will be made to the live version. You can use your WP:WATCHLIST to keep an eye on further changes to this and any other Wikipedia articles you're interested in helping to maintain. ~Kvng (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 26

02:39:44, 26 November 2017 review of submission by 66.190.13.95

66.190.13.95 (talk) 02:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC) Hi My name is Rosalind Kealiher, I am an acquaintance of Valentina Peguero and really wanted to create a page in her honor. She is a semi well known author in the US and especially in the Dominican Republic. Obviously I am not a good writer and I also don't have a lot of time. Is there someone out there who would be willing to write a wikipedia page about her? How would I go about finding the right person?[reply]

Hi Rosalind. To request that an article be written, go to Wikipedia:Requested articles and follow the directions. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

05:08:57, 26 November 2017 review of draft by Julia mji

Can anyone please check if my draft is ok. I think this time I have proper text and links

Julia mji (talk) 05:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Julia mji: That looks like a reasonable start. I would add something to the lead that lets readers (and our reviewer) know why this artist is important. Also the middle paragraph in the Career section has no citations and reviewers may take issue with that as our requirements are fairly stringent for articles about living persons. ~Kvng (talk) 00:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

06:31:09, 26 November 2017 review of submission by Rogerroger3782

It was mentioned to me that I can ask here for more information about why the page was declined. I know I did not have a lot of content for the page yet, as I am new to this.

For notability, I see you want news sources, but all I really have are gaming sources. The only thing I know of is they were in a printed version of the indie game magazine.

I guess I can just include the links I have?

https://waypoint.vice.com/en_us/article/3dpd8n/remembering-from-softwares-forgotten-mech-classic-chromehounds http://www.gamestar.de/artikel/mav-kickstarter-aktion-fuer-mech-actionspiel-gestartet,3032537.html https://www.engadget.com/2014/02/09/mav-follows-in-the-giant-robot-footprints-of-chromehounds/ https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/05/01/mav-released-steam-early-access/#more-204833/ https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/07/28/87-bazillion-mechs-m-a-v-is-a-gearheads-dream/#more-117964/ https://kotaku.com/http-www-youtube-com-watch-v-w00hp8nraxe-this-is-m-a-1517297863 https://www.pcgamesn.com/indie/mav-lego-mech-games https://www.pcgamesn.com/best-new-indie-games-pc-november-05-17 http://archive.beefjack.com/index.html%3Fp=138607.html http://www.nerd-age.com/m-v-kickstarter-spotlight/ http://cliqist.com/2014/02/07/old-is-new-again-in-m-a-v/

I am not sure if any of these count.

Rogerroger3782 (talk) 06:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rogerroger3782: We're looking for WP:RELIABLE sources. I'm not able to definitively determine which of these are reliable and which are not. I suspect you'll have trouble convincing us that an indie game magazine could be a reliable journalistic source. But, I did look at these pages and found most don't eveN mention Bombdog by name. There are only two ([1], [2]) that could possibly be construed as having the required level of coverage. You don't have a very strong case for meeting our notability guidelines at this point. You can continue to look for better sources but sometimes the coverage just doesn't exist and no amount of work on the draft will cause it to appear. ~Kvng (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:46:47, 26 November 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Sextv29


Sextv29 (talk) 09:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sextv29: Hello, Sextv. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the great delay in response. But you didn't actually ask a question. Is there something specific that we can help you with? NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:50:39, 26 November 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Amunyer


Arthur Munyer 20:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

@Amunyer: Hello, Arthur. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the great delay in response. But you didn't actually ask a question. Is there something specific that we can help you with? NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:06, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 27

03:35:25, 27 November 2017 review of submission by 49.255.129.70

Hello!

I'm seeking to understand where this draft page is within the moderation queue? Are you kindly able to let me know realistically where it is? The page was originally submitted for review and rejected on October 23rd and subsequent edits were made shortly after.

Thanks, James 49.255.129.70 (talk) 03:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jdinop. 536 drafts have been awaiting review longer than Draft:Henley. Based on the backlog I would expect it to be reviewed by three or four weeks from now. From a quick glance, I would say it's unlikely to be accepted, so you may wish to improve it while you wait. Studying Wikipedia's guidelines and best writing may be helpful. WP:BFAQ#COMPANY also contains good advice. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


09:35:49, 27 November 2017 review of submission by Sitaheri

Sitaheri (talk) 09:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC

May I know why my article on Afghanistan national swimming federation is declined. It had vital and major sources like International Swimming Federation and Asian swimming federation along with other important sources used.

Best.

There are references in Draft:Afghanistan National Swimming Federation, but they aren't cited in a recommended way. Please read Help:Referencing for beginners. Maproom (talk) 10:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

17:33:31, 27 November 2017 review of submission by Robert L Mitchell2

I am using three references for which I have printed copies of the published articles, but these articles are not available online. One article is from a Spanish language journal (properly referenced) and two more articles are from a newspaper that has changed hands several times since the articles were published and I cannot find an online reference or archive of the articles. What is the best way to cite these three articles?

Hi Robert L Mitchell2. For a newspaper, fill in the placeholders in the following {{cite news}} template:
  • {{cite news |last=AuthorSurname |first=AuthorFirstNames |date=November 27, 1967 |title=Title of article |work=[[The News (Mexico City)|The News]] |location=Mexico City}}
For a "journal" fill in the placeholders in one of the following two templates, {{cite journal}} if it's an academic journal (usually peer reviewed and published by a university or learned society), or {{cite magazine}} if it's some other kind of periodical such as a popular magazine, trade journal, newsletter, etc.:
  • {{cite journal |last=AuthorSurname |first=AuthorFirstNames |date=October 1993 |title=Título del artículo |trans-title=Title of article |language=es |journal=Nombre de la revista académica |volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=22–33}}
  • {{cite magazine |last=AuthorSurname |first=AuthorFirstNames |date=October 1993 |title=Título del artículo |trans-title=Title of article |language=es |magazine=Nombre de la revista |volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=22–33}}
Don't worry about the fact that they're offline. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

18:40:54, 27 November 2017 review of submission by 2A02:8084:2164:C80:DC8F:94BC:825F:B649

HI

2A02:8084:2164:C80:DC8F:94BC:825F:B649 (talk) 18:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC) HI I would like to remove some information from my wikipedia page I need to remove the following information as it is irrelevant to my work as an author of poetry[reply]

1 "in 2007, she was part of a program using art therapy for people with disabilities in Mountmellick called Áthas"

2 and also, this information is in the future tense and has been completed. It is no longer necessary to cite it "During her residency in Kerry, she will be conducting workshops, working with youth and writing a new series of poems.[8]"

Please delete both these sentences, thank you Annemarie

Hi Annemarie. This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. Your request involves an existing article, so is outside our scope.
Annemarie Ní Churreáin isn't your Wikipedia page, it's Wikipedia's biography of you. You do not have the right to control its content. You may not remove reliably sourced material simply on the grounds that you feel it is irrelevant.
See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more information about what you can do. You may start a new section at the bottom of Talk:Annemarie Ní Churreáin asking that action be taken regarding out of date information. It is unlikely to be removed, but something may be done, such as qualifying it with an "as of" date.
If you have further questions, please consider asking at the Wikipedia:Help desk, where editors will try to answer any question regarding how to use Wikipedia. Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


November 28

01:18:50, 28 November 2017 review of submission by Alvinglori


Alvinglori (talk) 01:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To Whom It May Concerned:

I did many revisions and I do not know what are the corrections even if we supplied the correct footnotes and citations (added newspaper, itunes, cdbaby refences and also certificates)

Can you enlighten us what went wrong? we read the guidelines and we follwoed it correctly.

Thanks and more power![1] [2] [3]

References

  1. ^ https://itunes.apple.com/us/artist/john-melo/1258926817
  2. ^ https://store.cdbaby.com/Artist/JohnMelo
  3. ^ http://www.journal.com.ph/entertainment/showbiz/john-melo-at-iba-pang-pinoy-artists-sa-amerika-todo-suporta-kay-manny
no Declined as a copyright violation of https://store.cdbaby.com/Artist/JohnMelo (the independence and reliability of which is also open to question). --Worldbruce (talk) 15:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

06:49:07, 28 November 2017 review of submission by 206.29.176.78


206.29.176.78 (talk) 06:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@206.29.176.78: Hello, IP address. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Is there something specific we can help you with? NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

14:49:52, 28 November 2017 review of submission by AJAYAN BALA


AJAYAN BALA (talk) 14:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 DoneReviews of draft and sandbox versions are done. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

14:50:28, 28 November 2017 review of draft by JMcK 84

I've never done this before. Want to be sure I'm doing it right. JMcK 84 (talk) 14:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JMcK 84. To have your draft reviewed, click the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the bottom center of the large grayish box at the top of the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

17:01:37, 28 November 2017 review of submission by Miajoneswest

First, they told me that i couldn't embed the pictures and videos because i didn't have permission and now, my entire draft was declined because of only "mentions and not enough coverage". can someone help me please get the draft accepted as well as the pictures and videos. I did send an email asking for licensing over 2 weeks ago in reference to the pictures and videos but have not heard a response.

here is the media that they deleted because of licensing - File:Chopin Prelude no. 3.ogg, File:TroubledWater EvJones.ogg, File:GWprelude EvJones.ogg Miajoneswest (talk) 17:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem the reviewer identified, that the cited sources do not contain in-depth coverage, is a considerable one. A quick search found no significant coverage of Jones in independent, reliable sources. Without such coverage there will be no article. You may find it worthwhile to reach out to Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music, and perhaps even Wikipedia:WikiProject African diaspora. They may be able to suggest other sources or where to search. A visit to a good research university library might also pay off.
If you can't find more and deeper sources at this time, consider setting the draft aside, and, if you have any interest in African-American composers, improving existing articles George Walker (composer), William Grant Still, or other biographies on List of composers of African descent or in Category:African-American composers. Then revisit the draft later; as Jones' career progresses, more may be written about him. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


November 29

00:43:54, 29 November 2017 review of submission by Webern1348

When I am rejected they keep questioning whether the information is notable. If they were to examine the subject matter they could see why it is notable. There is a large number of people with pages who are not remotely close to the quality of the subject in question here. Is popularity the only issue in such matters?

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Webern1348 (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Webern1348: Hello, Webern. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Calling the basic issue one of "popularity" isn't quite correct -- but it's not entirely wrong. Whether or not the subject is "worthy", in some intrinsic sense, of having an article doesn't enter into the determination. Instead, what we are looking for is evidence that the subject has received substantial notice from authoritative sources in the subject's field. And all you've given us is two articles from 2012 -- one a local-coverage piece in the Salt Lake Tribune and the other an interview with a California-based website. To us, this doesn't appear to make the subject a "notable" composer. In order to make that demonstration, you'll need to show that the composer has been the subject of sustained in-depth coverage by reliable sources. Without making that showing, it is unlikely that your submission will be accepted for publication here.

On a less urgent matter, did you really intend to write an article about the composer? Virtually everything in your submission addresses that one composition, so much so that the submission might be more-accurately titled "Centrifugal Satz Clock". But that wouldn't change the need to show sustained in-depth discussion from authoritative sources. I mention it only because it struck me as odd to see a biography that didn't say much about the person.

I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

05:11:55, 29 November 2017 review of submission by Alysiamazzella

My draft has been rejected twice because it "sounds promotional." I am requesting help to fix the issue specifically. What do I need to omit or include for my article to be approved. I've researched and read many how to articles but still, I am confused of exactly why my article is being declined.

Alysiamazzella (talk) 05:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:55:37, 29 November 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Timea Orban


Hi, my article got declined for the second time already, so I'm wondering what the problem might be. I'm open to any and all suggestions on how to improve this piece. It's quite disappointing, because I thought I corrected everything that the review suggested. Please help me fix this, Thanks

Timea Orban (talk) 13:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

16:36:27, 29 November 2017 review of submission by Samcamden1

I think it should be re-reviewed because Ellis Mossey is one of the greatest you tubers ever

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=812744693"