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 RealityTVnerd (talk | contribs) at 01:59, 8 December 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


December 1

03:31:29, 1 December 2017 review of submission by Myuvaraj17


I have created a new article for a laundry company. How can confirm whether the article is submitted for review or not? May I get an email notification after the review successful? how can track this article submission? Myuvaraj17 (talk) 03:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Myuvaraj17. Draft:Fabricspa has been submitted for review. Its status is indicated in the yellow box at the top of the page. There is currently a backlog of over 2000 submissions so I'm afraid it will take some time to be reviewed. You can track it using your watchlist and get email notifications by ticking "Email me when a page or a file on my watchlist is changed" in your preferences. – Joe (talk) 10:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

04:15:33, 1 December 2017 review of submission by Nateannoyingkerkhoff

I submitted my article for review and was declined. The reason was clear, fair, and helpful. I am missing notable sources, but my page is for an organization that is not from the United States. We are currently translating material, but most of the sources are in Korean. What is the best way to approach this? Nateannoyingkerkhoff (talk) 04:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nateannoyingkerkhoff. Feel free to cite the sources in Korean. Whilst this is the English Wikipedia and English sources are preferred for our readers' convenience, if they are not available then sources in other languages are perfectly acceptable. – Joe (talk) 10:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nateannoyingkerkhoff could you tell us what the article is? We might be better able to help you Egaoblai (talk) 11:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC) NMever mind found it at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:UniKorea_Foundation I think you just need one or two sources to help the article on it's way. At the moment there's just one source. Has the foundation been featured in any newspapers, magazine articles or books or NGO reports etc? Egaoblai (talk) 11:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

09:48:19, 1 December 2017 review of submission by Chiaradalmaso2


The English voice about Filarmonica is considered as missing Reliable Sources. I don't get what it means actually. Could you address me through the steps to solve it out? Thanks very much Chiaradalmaso2 (talk) 09:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chiaradalmaso2. On Wikipedia every piece of information should be referenced to an external, reliable source. Your draft currently has no references, which means that none of the information can be verified by others. You will need to add references to where you got the information from. For instructions on how to format them see referencing for beginners. – Joe (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

12:34:44, 1 December 2017 review of submission by Lisaconnick


Draft:Lily Cassandra Alphonsis

Lisaconnick (talk) 12:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lisaconnick: I'm afraid I have had to delete this draft as it could be considered libel. I don't know anything this woman and my main thoughts about Harvey Weinstein are "how come he's getting just desserts while Donald Trump is getting off scot free?", but we cannot write about accusations of criminal behaviour without excellent and well-respected third party sources. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:45, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

16:00:08, 1 December 2017 review of submission by Tihonata

{{LafcTihonata (talk) 16:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Tihonata=Tihonata|ts=16:00:08, 1 December 2017|pending=Draft:Portea_-_Home_Health_Care}}[reply]

Good evening, question is whow long it will take to publish article?

Tihonata (talk) 16:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC) 16:00:08, 1 December 2017 review of submission by Tihonata[reply]

@Tihonata: Unfortunately things are quite backlogged here. We have some submissions that have been in the review queue for nearly two months. Reviewers here are WP:VOLUNTEERS and decide for themselves which submissions to review so things are not always reviewed in the order they're received. ~Kvng (talk) 22:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

19:43:34, 1 December 2017 review of submission by Fritzgoebel


It may not be clear where this proposed page, 'Named passenger trains of the United States', belongs in Wikipedia. My idea is that the page 'Lists of named Passenger Trains', will link to it, while the proposed page will then itself link to the pages of alphabetized lists of American trains. In short, the proposed page provides background for the Wikipedia user to help them understand that there can never be a 'definitive' list of named American trains, given that there is often uncertainly about whether a train designation is really a name or just a description.

Fritzgoebel (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fritzgoebel: I would think this is something you should discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains or Talk:Lists of named passenger trains. We have an active community of Wikipedia editors dealing with rail topics. ~Kvng (talk) 22:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2

01:37:41, 2 December 2017 review of submission by Blueant2


Hi, sorry I had to create a new account. I forgot my password over the past few months.

I created the Bugcrowd page and included links to several reliable sources, many of them were major national news networks/sites, and the articles do not promote the subject they just cover the news about the subject. Can you help me understand what the issue is with my sources?

When writing this page I looked at a similar company, HackerOne, which includes very similar sources and doesn't even cite sources for many claims. Yet it was deemed notable and worthy. Can you help me understand the discrepancy?

Thank you, BlueAnt

@Blueant2: Hello, Blueant. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the delay in response. As for why your submission was rejected even though a similar company has an article, Wikipedia has well more than 5 million user-generated articles and it is inevitable that some will exist even though they should not. But the existence of that article will not relieve you of the need to demonstrate that this particular new company has received substantial coverage from reliable independent sources. And even with the new references added earlier today, I don't see that you've made this demonstration. Most of your sources merely confirm that the company has particular clients and that it received financing from particular sources. But none of that is encyclopedic. Of the other references, some just make routine announcements of changes in management, one is an interview and another barely mentions the company at all except for quotes from an officer about bug bounty programs. And there's the piece from Forbes, which was written by a contributor and, thus, can not be considered a reliable authoritative source. In all, and despite your use of fifteen references, I don't see enough evidence to suggest that this new company is "notable" in the sense that Wikipedia uses the word. I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

07:46:31, 2 December 2017 review of submission by LindsayUittenbogaard


I recently drafted a page on Social Alignment. At the time I was not so close to this subject matter, so indicated this on the draft page creation. For one reason or another now I am close to it - it underpins the a business concept I am working on. Do I need to change this if if yes, how? Thank you! LindsayUittenbogaard (talk) 07:46, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LindsayUittenbogaard. That doesn't sound like a conflict of interest as far as Wikipedia is concerned, so you don't need to do anything, no. – Joe (talk) 18:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

11:46:25, 2 December 2017 review of submission by Khannarahul

@Khannarahul: Hello, Khannarahul. Did you have a specific question? NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

18:58:38, 2 December 2017 review of draft by SteveLHarris


This is the first time I've contributed an article to Wickipedia (Balch, Frederic Homer) and I need help in several aspects of the entry: When I click on the "I" button for italics to list book or magazine titles, a whole succession of letters appears on the line, but nothing I type is printed in italics. 

  Also, how do I insert footnote numbers in the main text and what format do I use for the footnotes themselves?  How do I list items in a bibliography?  And how do I list news & magazine articles about the subject?

  Thanks for helping out.

Sincerely,

Steve Harris (User Name: SteveLHarris)


SteveLHarris (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SteveLHarris. If you're editing the source, clicking the "I" button should insert the text ''Italic text'' where the text cursor is. If you were to preview the page you would see it rendered as Italic text. The idea is that you should replace the words with the text that you want to be italic, leaving the markup around the words intact. Once you know the markup, it's easier to ignore the button and just type two apostrophes before the words you want to italicize, and two more apostrophes at the end of the italic text. This technique works well for things like book titles in running text (such as The Bridge of the Gods). Footnotes are a bit different.
The best starting point to learn about footnotes is Help:Referencing for beginners. The most counter-intuitive thing about them is that you don't write anything in the "References" section. Instead you intersperse the references with the text. I've redone one inline citation in a recommended format, using {{cite book}}. It takes care of italics within the citation automatically. There are similar templates, {{cite news}} and {{cite magazine}}, for other types of sources. There's a lot more you can do, using the same reference again, avoiding Ibid, using groups to separate notes from references, and using shortened footnotes to avoid repetition (which may be what you mean by a bibliography). Start with the basics. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 3

Request on 13:26:24, 3 December 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Maxkostenko


I want to make a good name of the page. Now it is User:Maxkostenko, but it have to be ... Ninja


Maxkostenko (talk) 13:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Maxkostenko. If a reviewer were to accept the draft, they would assign an appropriate title at that time. Because Wikipedia articles only cover notable topics—those that have gained significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, as evidenced by significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources, there is no realistic chance that the draft will be accepted for publication. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

14:18:33, 3 December 2017 review of submission by Swollards7775


My apologies for misunderstanding what is expected when posting an article on Wiki. I am having difficulty in understand your guidelines in submitting an article. I have attempted to properly describe what the core foundations are without it being biased. What parts should I change which will help that not to sound like such? Also, I was told that I need polished sources to cite from. What if the organization is fairly new and has a few external interviews but not a lot which can back up the facts which need to be stated about the organization? Please help me to properly do this as I feel people should be aware of our organization and what it consists of.

Thank you for your time and assistance in this matter. Please know that I am really new at this sort of thing.

Swollards7775 (talk) 14:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Swollards7775. Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, as evidenced by significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources. Student sources may be discounted because of their narrow audience and because student journalists are by definition still learning their trade. If the organization is too new to have been widely covered in more mainstream outlets, then it is not yet a suitable topic for the encyclopedia. This is not the place to "get the word out" about anything, so your motive in writing the draft is at odds with the purpose of Wikipedia. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

17:58:03, 3 December 2017 review of submission by Amitagarwal3000


Amitagarwal3000 (talk) 17:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Amitagarwal3000[reply]

but i dont understand why mine article was decline i am producer of this album mine site is amit02.com

please tell me what to remove from article i will do that thanks

Hi Amitagarwal3000. Wikipedia is not a directory of every album in existence. Articles cover notable albums—those that have gained significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, as evidenced by significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources. If the album is not notable, no amount of editing Draft:Amitagarwal3000 will make it acceptable.
As the producer of the album you have a conflict of interest when writing about it, so it is a bad idea for you to continue with the draft. Wikipedia is not for advertising, promotion, or public relations. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:46:32, 3 December 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Clofback


I'm trying to add an article for a James Taylor concert DVD, but it is getting rejected for lack of citations. The article simply provides track information and a summary of the description printed on the DVD case. I tried citing the DVD but it still got rejected. What do I need to do?

Clofback (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Clofback. Thanks for getting involved as an editor. See WP:NALBUM for an explanation of why a draft consisting only of information copied from the DVD and packaging will not be accepted as a stand alone article, and of what sort of independent coverage would be required for acceptance. Wikipedia: WikiProject Albums may be able to suggest sources.
Creating a new article is one of the most difficult, time-consuming, and frustrating things to attempt on Wikipedia. There are many easier and more productive ways to contribute. You can find suggestions from WikiProjects that align with your interests, or at Wikipedia:Community portal. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:45, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


December 4

00:23:30, 4 December 2017 review of draft by Rowlandrobinson94


Rowlandrobinson94 (talk) 00:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hello, I am trying to make a page and I do not know anything/ am very confused. Help lolRowlandrobinson94 (talk) 00:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rowlandrobinson94. I've left a welcome basket of links on your talk page to help you get started. It's easiest to begin by improving some of our 5.5 million existing articles before trying to create a new page. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

01:56:45, 4 December 2017 review of submission by Sofbar1


How do I change the name of a "Draft" that has already been submitted for review/

Sofbar1 (talk) 01:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sofbar1. In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). Focus on the content first, before worrying about the title. The current content stands no chance of being accepted for publication. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 03:46:25, 4 December 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Editor0088


There are thousands of entries with the same sources from my article, but mine is not approved? Please help.


Editor0088 (talk) 03:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Editor0088. Encyclopaedia Metallum (metal-archives.com) and discogs.com, being user-generated, are not reliable sources and should not be used as references. If thousands of articles reference them, then you can help to improve thousands of articles by finding replacement sources that are reliable. Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources has some suggestions. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

11:06:31, 4 December 2017 review of submission by Theunveiledvisage

Hi, It has been more than 2 months now since I had written the draft on "Suhail Chandhok". After it got rejected because of having used the peacock terms, I rectified the same. However, there is no update on the article being accepted or rejected. I'm anxious now and need to know what the status of the article is. Kindly look into the matter and give me an update regarding the same. Your help will be appreciated. Thank You. Theunveiledvisage (talk) 11:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Theunveiledvisage. The draft has been in the pool to be reviewed since October 27. About 430 drafts have been waiting for review longer than this one. With the current backlog, the draft is likely to be reviewed within the next three weeks. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:08:08, 4 December 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Jojooo75


Hi! I am looking to publish a Dutch article on a Dutch politician, but apparently I am in the English section. How do I get to the Dutch Wikipedia so I can have my texted reviewed once more?

Thank you so much.

Jojooo75 (talk) 11:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jojooo75. The url for the Dutch Wikipedia is https://nl.wikipedia.org/ --Worldbruce (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

12:23:08, 4 December 2017 review of submission by Supersickmemes


Supersickmemes (talk) 12:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Supersickmemes: Hello, Super. Did you have a specific question? NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:24:07, 4 December 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Chinna98



Chinna98 (talk) 12:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chinna98: Hello, Chinna. Did you have a specific question? NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

14:50:14, 4 December 2017 review of submission by Paul Hermann

Hello, I tried to publish a wikipedia article about a French brand called "Gifi" but unfortunately my article has been refused two times already under the claim that it did not include "independent" sources. After my article was first refused, I included new sources which mentioned this brand but weren't directly linked to it before re-sending it, but again my article was refused because of a lack of independent sources. Could you please tell me why my sources aren't considered as independent ones? I thank you in advance for your answer. Regards, Paul Paul Hermann (talk) 14:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Gifi doesn't cite any sources at all. So the claim that it does not include "independent" sources is irrefutably true. Maproom (talk) 18:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Paul Hermann. Possibly you are confusing external links with sources. From the draft it appears you are struggling with some of the basics of writing for Wikipedia (which is not unusual, none of us was born knowing how to be a Wikipedian). I've left a basket of welcome links on your talk page that may help you get your bearings. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:52:24, 4 December 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by 68.102.39.189


Can you Move the 2018 In American Music from the Draft to the main Article Space if you please there's 3 references. 68.102.39.189 (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

68.102.39.189 (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A. It is not submitted for review.

B. Where are your three references? I see none. JTP (talk • contribs) 22:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the request actually pertains to Draft:2018 in American music. Bradv 18:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 5

17:49:36, 5 December 2017 review of submission by Tbliss558

Retaliatory rejection Tbliss558 (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC) The draft was in the queue for review. Some wikipedia editor had already suggested I change the pagename to Richard Levine (director). Levine is better known for writing so on December 1 I contacted the user talk IRC page simply to clarify the general rule regarding these titles. I was immediately greeted with "he's not notable, my Dad directed X tv shows and doesn't have a page...." and so on and so forth. I replied that i did not ask for an accelerated review, that the user talk IRC page explicitly says that asking questions here would not accelerate a review, that I was simply asking a general question. TJH2018 was offended and, THAT SAME DAY, retaliated by accelerating the review of the article and rejecting it. The ostensible reasons for the rejection are inapplicable to the subject. This rejection is retaliation. How do I appeal this? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbliss558 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tbliss558. I am an impartial reviewer and not connected to the editor who conducted the previous review, TJH2018. I have looked at the draft article. I see lots of productions that Levine has been involved in, supported by IMDB references. These are not considered reliable references because IMDB content is largely user-generated. See WP:IMDBREF and WP:Citing IMDb. The two references that aren't from IMDB include only mere mentions about Levine, whereas the notability guideline for biographies (used to determine which people there should be Wikipedia articles about) requires that there should be substantial, in depth coverage about the person in multiple reliable, independent publications. As the draft currently doesn't meet the notability guidelines, the previous reviewer was right to decline the draft for the reason given in the grey box. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Curb Safe Charmer. There are four, not two, non-IMDB citations, one of which is a NY Times review of a film Levine wrote and directed. These are not mere mentions. In addition to writing and directing two films, Levine is a leading television showrunner (supervising writer/producer). Equally important but unaddressed is the timing of the rejection, which evidences retaliation. I plan to ask for a formal review of this rejection but thank you for your prompt response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbliss558 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tbliss558: Sorry, yes, there are four references that aren't to IMDB. I have re-read the NYT review and it tells me one thing about Levine - that he directed the film that the article is about. Their article mentions him twice - once in the first paragraph and once in the credits. That is not in depth coverage. The Variety article tells me two things about Levine - that he wrote the pilot and several episodes, and that he's the executive producer. The LA Film Festival page names Levine as the screen writer and director and uses the word 'acclaimed' but says nothing else about him. The Deadline references confirm that he is the writer and executive producer, but say nothing else about him. These references are fine for the purposes of verifying facts in your draft, but they don't help establish notability. This essay is worth a read - it explains in a straightforward way what we look for in references to establish notability.
Regarding your belief that the previous reviewer acted in WP:BADFAITH, I wanted to point out that the 'queue' for review isn't really a queue in that any reviewer is at liberty to review articles in any order - there's no rule that we have to review the oldest first. I tend to focus on short articles rather than work through them in chronological order, and others may only review articles about particular subjects, for instance. If I've reviewed one draft that someone has submitted and I see they've submitted another, I might review it at the same time while I have it open on my screen. So I do not see anything inherently wrong in a reviewer that you interacted with on IRC reviewing your draft that day. I have not seen your exchange of IRC messages with them so I don't know the full facts - you can make your complaint here. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

20:27:16, 5 December 2017 review of submission by Lloan

I have wrote this article based off one of Fit Body Boot Camp's competitors Wiki Page: Orange Theory Fitness. They also refer to their main business site in the same manner that I did. We also utilized independent sources. Would it be possible to point to what sections specifically shouldn't be included? The response given for rejection was, with all due respect, a bit vague. Would it be possible to get a bit more as far as clarification? I would very much appreciate that, thank you for your time.

Lloan (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

22:21:32, 5 December 2017 review of submission by Garry McCallum

HI,

I am a historian from my hometown of Hamilton in South Lanarkshire and I run a History page called Historic Hamilton. I recently added my site and I want to contribute to Wiki, However, my content was deleted.

How can I add my work and research to Hamilton related things?

Garry McCallum.

Hi Garry, sorry to hear you're having a bad first experience with Wikipedia. But looking over your contributions, I am getting the impression that you have not fully understood the nature of our project. Wikipedia is a volunteer-edited encyclopaedia. At Draft:Garry McCallum you attempted to write an article about yourself, which is not something we allow – would you trust an encyclopaedia where the subject's wrote their own entries? It is also written as an informal personal reflection, in the first person no less, rather than a neutral and factual encyclopaedia article.
You then contributed a lot of text to Hamilton Mausoleum, much of which may be useful, but this also has major problems. You have again written it as a personal reflection, including many first person references to yourself. This is not how encyclopaedia articles are written. It also has many formatting errors, no paragraph breaks, and not links to other articles that would integrate it into the encyclopaedia. More seriously, you have not included and references for what you have written, so it is impossible to verify. You also 'signed' your contribution with "Historic Hamilton. © 2017". Again this is not how Wikipedia works. We are based on the concept of free content and in contributing that text you irrevocably released it under a license that allows anyone to reuse it.
You have also added links to your draft on yourself and to your website to several Hamilton-related articles. We consider this spam; Wikipedia should not be used as to promote yourself or your website.
I don't want to discourage you from contributing further; it sounds like we could really benefit from your knowledge of local history. However, I would slow it down a little and focus on making improvements to Hamilton, South Lanarkshire and related articles step-by-step, rather than adding large volumes of text at once. Make sure that you write these as neutral encyclopaedic summaries in the third person, and that every statement is supported by a reference to a reliable published source (see referencing for beginners for instructions). I'd also advise spending some time reading other Wikipedia articles, to get a sense of our house style, and familiarising yourself with our core policies and guidelines. I have recently written a couple of local history articles at Bagshaw Museum and Howley Hall, for example. Thanks. – Joe (talk) 08:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

23:27:43, 5 December 2017 review of submission by 68.102.39.189


What's taking long to move the 2018 in baseball from the draft to the Main Article Space. 68.102.39.189 (talk) 23:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

68.102.39.189 (talk) 23:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please be patient. There are over 2,500 submissions awaiting review. JTP (talk • contribs) 03:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 6

02:36:01, 6 December 2017 review of draft by Medical Imaging


Hi. I just want to make sure I have put in enough references to (1) make the article a valid one, and (2) to make sure that the formatting of the references is correct. (I sense that it is not). I tried to copy a template and make necessary modifications but I think that it got messed up. Please instruct on how to correct.

Best Wishes, from Medical Imaging.

Medical Imaging (talk) 02:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Medical Imaging. I filled in that cite template for you; you weren't too far off. Ideally, there shouldn't be anything in the References section except the {{reflist}} template. The five inline references clustered there should be removed or re-positioned after the specific statements in the draft that they support. One other thing that leapt out is that the three team names use external links. Those links should be converted into references if they prove the fact that he played for the team, or removed if they just prove the team exists. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

06:36:02, 6 December 2017 review of submission by InternetFriend


How can I improve this draft? InternetFriend (talk) 06:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, InternetFriend. Your references are presented as bare URLs and instead should be formatted with full bibliographic details. Please read Referencing for beginners. Also, you have way too many references for a draft article of this length. Reviewers find it irritating to see 17 references for a single assertion. Three is enough for almost all claims. Experienced editors sometimes call this "refbombing". It is far better to have six or eight high quality references in a draft than dozens of lower quality references. Please read Wikipedia:Citation overkill, and trim away all but the highest quality references, formatted and presented to properly display the bibliographic details, that show that this person is notable by Wikipedia's standards. This is a case where more is not better. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. I already submitted the article. Is it possible to cancel a submission? InternetFriend (talk) 06:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@InternetFriend: Hello, Friend. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Yes, it is possible to cancel your request for review and I'll be happy to arrange for that if you would like. But, with the current backlog, it will likely take the better part of two months before a reviewer gets a chance to look at your submission. So there's plenty of time to address the referencing issues without withdrawing the request for review. Let us know which course you prefer. NewYorkActuary (talk) 08:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@NewYorkActuary: Thank you for your feedback. I will try to address the referencing issues. Please don't cancel the submission. InternetFriend (talk) 14:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@NewYorkActuary: I'm still trying to address the referencing issues. I was wondering, how do I add a content box? InternetFriend (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@NewYorkActuary: I was able to add a content box. Please check back to provide more feedback.
@InternetFriend: WP:CITEKILL is the most obvious remaining problem. Anywhere you're using 13+ sources to support one statement, trim it back to no more than about 3 sources. Chose the most reputable, most reliable sources, those that contain the most information about Karas, so long as together they fully support the statement where cited. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Worldbruce: I'm now working on the blood donation section. Thank you for your feedback.

13:21:55, 6 December 2017 review of submission by Catalin.viciu


Hi, how can I make the page both in Romanian and English? Can I keep this version as the romanian version and make an english page?

Hi Catalin.viciu. This is the English Wikipedia and we only accept articles in English. The Romanian Wikipedia is a separate website and can be accessed at http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/. – Joe (talk) 14:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

15:28:31, 6 December 2017 review of submission by Robert L Mitchell2


The article is currently in review. At what point can I add pictures to the article? Robert L Mitchell2 (talk) 15:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert L Mitchell2. The answer depends on the source of the pictures and their copyright status. Some photos may not be added until after a draft is accepted. Because the presence or absence of photos will have no effect on whether a draft is accepted, at this stage it's more profitable to focus on the text of the draft, its referencing, and formatting. You may find Help:Referencing for beginners, Wikipedia:Manual of Style, and Wikipedia:Writing better articles useful. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

17:25:21, 6 December 2017 review of submission by Chrisking1977

Hi, I'm still very new to Wikipedia. I have created a draft page for someone I believe to be a very notable Canadian journalist. I had trouble getting his page published a few years ago, and am now trying again, this time with more evidence based citations. I just want to make sure I haven't forgotten anything so I can get through the approval process a little faster this time. If you have a moment, can you check my article and let me know if there is anything else I an do? Thank you so much for your help. Chrisking1977 (talk) 17:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

22:07:23, 6 December 2017 review of submission by Danielweston007


Danielweston007 (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Which exact information does wikipedia need proof of when creating an autobiography? Additionally, what sources are considered valid sources?

Danielweston007 (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Danielweston007. There are at least three issues here - the first is that biographies need to have inline references that show where the statements made about the person were sourced from - see WP:BLPSOURCES. The second is that of notability. All articles in Wikipedia need to be about notable subjects. Notability on Wikipedia is measured by the extent to which other publications have already written in depth coverage about the subject. You will need to show that there has been in depth coverage about Daniel Weston in multiple independent, reliable publications such as national newspapers, books, music journals etc. Thirdly, your user name matches the name of the person that the article is about, and the draft switches from referring to Weston in the third person (he/his) and first person (I/my). If this is an autobiography please read WP:Autobiography and take heed of the section about writing about yourself. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May have hit send for review before intended

23:34:38, 6 December 2017 review of submission by SheridanFord


THIS WAS A MISTAKE. I did not intend to submit this for review yet. My WikiEdu course is composing a book article from our textbook. It is notable as a recent publication by leading scholars in the field of music. sheridanford (talk) 23:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry, SheridanFord, the decline doesn't affect anything and you can re-submit it whenever you're ready. I would say that it's rare that scholarly edited volumes are independently notable. If this is an exception, I would advise focusing on adding citations to reviews and other publications that discuss the book. It's unlikely to pass review if it consists entirely of chapter summaries. – Joe (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 7

10:37:51, 7 December 2017 review of submission by DillFredino89

Have made Changes Is This Good Enough DillFredino89 (talk) 10:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

23:42:37, 7 December 2017 review of submission by InternetFriend


I'm still working on the references. How can I improve this article? InternetFriend (talk) 23:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

23:51:47, 7 December 2017 review of submission by BoofDoofPoof


BoofDoofPoof (talk) 23:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why u deny my page.. I worked hard on what I wrote. :(

01:59:41, 8 December 2017 review of submission by RealityTVnerd


This was my first attempt at page creation. I would love the opportunity to work on it further to remove the issues that resulted in its deletion. Sorry, totally new to this and don't have super strong computer skills. I work as a producer on a number of Australian Reality TV Shows so I would like to create further pages for some of the people I have produced in the future. To be honest, I don't really understand why this page was deleted - are you able to shed some light on this so I can remove the problematic content and not repeat this error moving forward. I won't be mentioning my personal involvement in these shows - it isn't for self-promotion.

My training wheels are certainly on!

RealityTVnerd (talk) 01:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=814313218"