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 Bliss Ajootian (talk | contribs) at 21:42, 18 July 2014. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category — List (sorting)		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


July 12

04:51:33, 12 July 2014 review of submission by 14.98.237.105


14.98.237.105 (talk) 04:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined as an advert. Fiddle Faddle 07:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

06:43:28, 12 July 2014 review of submission by 122.176.45.8

My article is rejected, Why? 122.176.45.8 (talk) 06:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We need to know what the article is before anyone can give you an additional explanation. There is no draft article associated with your IP address. Fiddle Faddle 07:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

12:15:24, 12 July 2014 review of submission by Relativityman


I am not requesting a re-review. I need help in re-writing my scientific article from the point of view of an inquisitive reader looking up the subject in an encyclopedia. Possibly the services of a 'ghost writer' much more familiar with that type of presentation may be the best solution. Can you help? Relativityman (talk) 12:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relativityman (talk) 12:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think this draft can be turned into a valid Wikipedia article. It is original research, something Wikipedia explicitly is not the place for, it contains factual errors such as the G/g issue I pointed out here, it contains claims that contradict current scientific knowledge. I'd suggest you publish your results in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal instead of Wikipedia. Huon (talk) 13:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

20:19:46, 12 July 2014 review of submission by Frosty Rime


Hello Wikipedia Editors,

I was surprised to have your response this quick to my article "The Bachelor or Salamanca" as I was expecting to get it in a few weeks. I just want to know why my article has been declined. My article may not be perfect but it has been written so true to its content and my understanding of the book. If it has been short of something, I had expected it to be improved by you. And plus no one every wrote about the book in Wikipedia and so I thought my article surely should be helpful to other people.

I will appreciate if you provide me with reasons.

Best regards,— Preceding unsigned comment added by Frosty Rime (talk • contribs)

@Frosty Rime: I'm glad we were able to review your submission faster than you expected. The reviewer left comment on the draft and I assume you didn't read it. Reviewers (volunteers, like all Wikipedians) don't typically improve unsatisfactory drafts.
Your submission is very essay-like in that it reads like a book report, not an encyclopedic article about the book. The plot and characters are actually the least important part of articles like these, as the article should talk about the development, publication, and reception of the novel. These elements are discussed in our manual of style about novels. You'll need to provide independent and reliable sources about the book in order to assert notability. Wikipedia doesn't have an article about Le Bachelier de Salamanque in either English or French, so I wish you luck. You may want to reach out to WikiProject Novels for help. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 13

05:21:24, 13 July 2014 review of submission by Claygi


Why was it rejected?

claygi (talk) 05:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer left a short rationale on the draft itself .Did this not help enough? Fiddle Faddle 12:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

11:08:27, 13 July 2014 review of draft by 184.79.6.125


184.79.6.125 (talk) 11:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@184.79.6.125: Your draft was a copy of text from pastebin. If you wrote that content originally, you'll have to read our instructions on donating material to use it here. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

22:39:10, 13 July 2014 review of draft by PamelaDrakeGregory


Experiencing issues embedding an image as infobox header; weblink to an image is not accepted, while a link to a PC image file appears as text and not image.

Please note: This is an image of independently-released recording packaging, approved by the copyright holder, who appears in the image and is the subject of the article, which was written with his input and consent as a cooperative second party. This is not a major label recording and as such has no corporate copyright holdings or involvement. Additionally, all input to this article was made with the subject's approval and consent.

PamelaDrakeGregory (talk) 22:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The system works as designed. Files have to be uploaded to be embedded. New users do not necessarily have the right to upload pictures early in their editing career. In part this is to seek to ensure an understanding of copyright issues. Fiddle Faddle 22:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:COPYRIGHTS. Copyright is, generally, vested in the person who took the picture, not the person who appears in the picture unless special contractual circumstances apply. All pictures are someone's copyright. We have very specific rules to protect copyright that must be followed.
Looking at the draft it seems to me that you also need to read WP:MUSIC. So far it appears to me that it will fail to leap this hurdle. Fiddle Faddle 23:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 14

How to can I a member of German national football team?

How to can I send a complements for German National Football team?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheikh Mamun Morshed (talk • contribs)

@Sheikh Mamun Morshed: Wikipedia is not a web forum and we don't communicate with the subjects of articles. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

06:11:29, 14 July 2014 review of submission by Asastikar

Hello, Have created an article for SHREEM Group of Companies on Saturday using Sandbox and have had submitted for a review; however, I am not clear as to why it has not been accepted. Please help me understand what is missing and or where have I gone wrong. Thank you. Asastikar (talk) 06:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer has left a succinct comment on the draft. Have you visited the draft and read it? If not, please do. There are links for you to follow. If you have and are still unclear please come back here and ask for additional help. Fiddle Faddle 07:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

08:29:32, 14 July 2014 review of submission by Sarah Woodward


I would like a re-review of my declined article on Briggs Marine, or at least advice on how this article will be fit for publishing. It is concerning me that though my article has been declined, similar articles on which I based Briggs Marine are published on Wikipedia - for example Offshore Marine Management, Bibby Line, West Marine and Atlantic Marine to name a few. I would be grateful of any advice you can give me. Kind regards. Sarah Woodward (talk) 08:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have accepted this article draft and it is now located at Briggs Marine. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

09:43:56, 14 July 2014 review of submission by Cristina Voinea Andreea


I submitted for revision my article almost two weeks ago and I still have no answer. Also, it was denied the first time and I tried to better it. I think that I followed all the rules and that the subject is relevant for the people who are working in the plastic surgery sector.

Cristina Voinea Andreea (talk) 09:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cristina Voinea Andreea: no Declined You've said a couple things that I'd like to address. First, "I think you should adapt your rules from country to country". This Wikipedia operates for English-speaking people of any country worldwide. Rules do vary between different languages, however, so you might try Romanian-language Wikipedia. Second, "the subject is relevant for the people who are working in the plastic surgery sector". Again, this is also not a consideration. Our guideline WP:PROF discusses the notability of all academics from any field, nationality, and time period, separate from general notability. (We don't have a guideline for specific for the notability of medical doctors.) Each and every submission has to qualify for notability under one of our notability guidelines. Finally, your submission lacks independent sources on which to establish a claim of notability. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

15:02:12, 14 July 2014 review of submission by Olamikhx


Olamikhx (talk) 15:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Olamikhx: no Declined It is my opinion that a successful law firm should hire a Wikipedia editor for a task like this, because copying text wholesale from other websites while failing to provide independent and reliable sources is a waste of a secretary's time. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

16:07:19, 14 July 2014 review of submission by Tommy Praytor


I need help, I am not referencing correctly and I need someone to help me through so I can get my page up. Thomas Praytor is a stock car athlete who is ranked #8th in overall points in the ARCA Series. He is listed on other Wikipedia pages and we would like to make one for him to state who he is and what he is doing. This is my first time making a Wiki page and would love to master the skill.

Thank you

Tommy Praytor (talk) 16:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tommy Praytor: no Declined Your username evinces a conflict of interest. Your submission was copied from other websites and most of your cited sources were not independent of the subject. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and editors need to approach it that way. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise or conduct public relations and Wikipedians are discouraged from doing so. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

19:08:45, 14 July 2014 review of submission by Kamichailo


Kamichailo (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC) I received this meesage and do not know what to do: This sandbox is in the Draft namespace. Either move this page into your userspace, or remove the This sandbox is in the Wikipedia namespace. Either move this page into your userspace, or remove the {{User sandbox}} template. template.[reply]

Do I need to do something before my article can be published?

@Kamichailo: I've removed that template, as it's only needed in user sandboxes. However, moving Draft:TearScience to Wikipedia:TearScience is inappropriate, and will be reverted. Also, most of your draft is copied from parts of the TearScience website and is written promotionally. Finally, your draft resembles a link farm; please read our guidance on external links. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

20:48:43, 14 July 2014 review of submission by Irinaalbescu

I am wondering how long it takes for a DRAFT to be reviewed?

Irinaalbescu (talk) 20:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Irinaalbescu: no Declined Not long, at all. Please read WP:ANYBIO and WP:42. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

21:50:27, 14 July 2014 review of draft by 50.190.107.28


50.190.107.28 (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

22:42:17, 14 July 2014 review of submission by Relativityman


I am not requesting a re-review. I am asking for help in re-writing my scientific article in a suitable style for an encyclopedia. The subject is a sensible alternative theory of relativity. A copy of my ideas for the lead section follows:

Natural Relativity

Relativity in physics concerns Nature's changes to the sizes of the physics 'dimensions' (mass, length, time) in relativistic situations via the laws of physics, and the causes of those changes.

Natural Relativity (NR) (ref to Physics Essays paper, here) is a system of relativity factors based on the change in mass E=mc2 when energy is applied in relativistic situations.
NR rejects the possibilities of gravity or speed being causes of relativistic changes, but, applied energy is assumed to be the common cause of changes in mass. It is an important facet of NR.
For the most part, NR deals with unrestricted motion, whereas in Einstein’s SR (ref to Einstein's paper, here), all motion is restricted to a postulated constant speed of light.

Relativity factors are measures of the change in size of each of the three 'dimensions' for two types of relativistic situations.
Relativity factors are derived only from, and are therefore fully compatible with, the fundamental laws of physics, principles of relativity, and obvious physics facts, hence the chosen name.
Only one NR relativity factor differs from those derived by Einstein in 1905, but that difference is extremely important.

The two types of relativistic situations are those where there is (with no dissipation of energy) (a) a positional displacement of a material object involving a resisting/assisting force (such as gravity), with no resulting motion (the gravity case), or (b) a change in relative speed of a material object due to acceleration by externally applied energy (the speed case).

NR contains a test for confirmation of supposed universal constants, i.e. application of true relativity factors to the ‘dimensions’ of a candidate must produce no change to its value in both types of relativistic situations.
Not surprisingly, confirmed universal constants have the same set of relativistic ‘dimensions’, but h and c fail the test, where h is the Planck factor and c is the speed of light.
Even G failed the test (but is correctable)! When the fault was corrected, the Planck units[1] and the subsequent geometrized (natural?) dimensions vanish. They all violated the principle of relativity, anyway.

The one NR relativity factor differing from those derived by Einstein in 1905 was that for the change in length of moving objects (the speed case). Einstein’s calculations predicted a contraction in length, but NR predicts a small increase in length so that properties of matter are the same everywhere in the same physical conditions.

Relativity factors are also derived in the speed case for the factors of proportionality h and c in physics equations, as they have values that are dependent on the speed.
Relativityman (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ R.M.Wald, General Relativity, p.470, University of Chicago Press (1984)

Relativityman (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Relativityman: First, this task doesn't hold the importance for the community that it does for you. Second, if you want volunteer editors to write for you, try the reward board. For the cost of a barnstar (which is imaginary) you might get the help you need. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

23:24:38, 14 July 2014 review of submission by Trueinfo00

I have received the declining message and would like to know the detailed reason and how to improve it to meet the Wikipedia's expectation. Please advise me. Trueinfo00 (talk) 23:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That notice does suggest that you visit Draft:MOL-Instincts to see the detail. If you have already done this and need specific answers, do, please, come back and ask. Fiddle Faddle 13:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 15

02:36:05, 15 July 2014 review of submission by Minusminority


Minusminority (talk) 02:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wiki Admin:

I am wondering about the status of an article draft I submitted, "Steve Geng" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Steve_Geng). At the time I submitted it there was a notice stating it might take a week or so to be reviewed. It has now been over a week...Thanks for your help! Minusminority (talk) 02:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We are not admins, unless we happen to be; we're just ordinary folk helping out. Reviews happen by the good fortune of encountering a reviewer who considers they have the skill to review your piece being available at the time your piece is ready.
I've not reviewed the draft formally, but IU have left a comment on it for you to consider. Fiddle Faddle 12:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Timtrent!...Sorry for erring in calling you "...Admin"...I appreciate your reply...Minusminority (talk) 16:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

11:57:14, 15 July 2014 request for review by SymphonyNow


On June 5, just a few days after first submitting an article titled "Arthur Post," I got a response from a Wikipedia editor that said the article was not approved and needed inline references. I resubmitted the article with the inline citations on June 12 but haven't heard anything back. I wasn't sure I used the resubmitting function properly, so would like to check whether the article has indeed been resubmitted properly. My submission name is: SymphonyNow. SymphonyNow (talk) 11:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked on Draft:Arthur Post and it was not submitted for review.I have taken it as your intent to submit and have done so on your behalf. Thank you for checking. Fiddle Faddle 12:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

12:39:43, 15 July 2014 review of submission by 99.74.122.20

I don't understand why my submission was declined. David Snowden is well known and respected in his line of work. He has worked within the entertainment industry and owns one of the largest, most successful entertainment booking agencies in the country. Was my submission in an incorrect format? Did I leave out something vital for your approval? 99.74.122.20 (talk) 12:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read the succinct comment left by the reviewer on the draft. If you find parts of that need further explanation please come back here and ask the specific questions you need to. Fiddle Faddle 13:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

15:08:32, 15 July 2014 review of submission by GHMason12


GHMason12 (talk) 15:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC) Submitted page The Authors Road confusion[reply]

Several weeks ago we submitted a page for review, got responses, corrected and resubmitted, adding sources, etc (I believe we resubmitted, we're not really sure what happened when we pushed the buttons we were told), and we've heard nothing.

Is there a way to find out status? Is there something else we should be doing?

Thank you, George Mason GHMason12 (talk) 15:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell you that it was submitted correctly and is now in the queue, awaiting a reviewer's attention. Do not let this stop you from continuing to improve Draft:The Authors Road. Submission does not bolt it in place. Fiddle Faddle 10:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

16:37:34, 15 July 2014 review of submission by Catherinehv1993


I don't know how to make a title of the page. I want this Wikipedia site to be decided to the film called "The Anatomy Of A Great Deception. Secondly, I don't know how to make the About The Film Maker, David Hooper. . . Bigger and Bolded.

Can you please help?

Catherinehv1993 (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Catherinehv1993. You do not need to make the title bigger and bolder. If it is ever accepted as an article the title will appear at the top of the page in large italic type with each section having its own heading. Placing == on either side of the heading name when you are editing a page creates its own section, e.g.
==About the film maker, David Hooper==
See Anatomy of a Murder for an example. Note, however, that I have removed all your text from the article and replaced it with a one-sentence factual description of what it actually is. Your draft was a verbatim copy from this page on Indiegogo where the filmmaker is soliciting funds to complete the film. Even if it had not been a copyright violation, the text was so blatantly promotional that it would qualify for speedy deletion on those grounds alone. I'm going to be frank with you here. This is an unfinished, unreleased film by an unknown filmmaker. Until it is actually released and receives significant, in-depth coverage from reliable sources which are entirely independent of the project and its press releases, this draft will never be accepted. I suggest you wait until the film is actually completed, released, and independently reviewed before you attempt any further work on it. If you have any connection whatsoever with this project, including those responsible for its online marketing, you need to read our conflict of interest guidelines and follow them scrupulously. Voceditenore (talk) 12:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

20:53:18, 15 July 2014 review of submission by Winsoftinc.

Hello, I do not understand why our page was declined while similar pages like "Averna (company)" ; " National Instruments" and "" which are in the same filed. were accepted ?!?!?! Winsoftinc. (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Winsoftinc. Using another company article like Averna (company) as a model is not a good idea. Virtually every article about a company which is not publicly traded on a major stock exchange and which has not received extensive in-depth coverage in the mainstream press or highly regarded financial publications, e.g. Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, was written either by a company employee or by a paid editor. There are so many of these that they tend to stay on Wikipedia for a long time before they're eventually deleted, but it doesn't mean they're acceptable articles. Your draft needs references to significant in-depth coverage of this company by high-quality sources which are completely independent of it and not press release based. I think you'll find Wikipedia's FAQ for organizations (and editors writing about them) to be a helpful guide. I also strongly suggest you change your user name. Please see the Wikipedia policy on Promotional names and, of course, Conflict of interest. Changing your username explains how to ask for a name change. Hope that helps. Voceditenore (talk) 11:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 16

01:27:17, 16 July 2014 review of draft by Encyclopedious


Hello,

Can you please show me where to find information on how to create a new article on a person whose name already exists but that of another person with only the same name?

Thanks so much for your time and help! Encyclopedious (talk) 01:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedious (talk) 01:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Encyclopedious. It would have what we call a disambiguated title, i. e. Chris Jennings (musician). If/when your draft is accepted, the reviewer will move it to that title. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation for more. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 11:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

02:41:28, 16 July 2014 review of submission by B Taylor-Blake


I've submitted a draft of a proposed new page, currently entitled "Edward Roy Perl." Is it possible to have this renamed simply "Edward R. Perl"? This is the first time I've tried to create a page and I'm a little lost. Thanks.

B Taylor-Blake (talk) 02:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It can be changed at any time in the future. Right now please concentrare on making it a cracking great page, full of good material and useful references. We change page names by moving them. A new editor has to wait a while before rights to move articles are granted. Fiddle Faddle 11:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! -- B Taylor-Blake — Preceding unsigned comment added by B Taylor-Blake (talk • contribs) 17:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

05:22:57, 16 July 2014 review of submission by The Brain Coach

Submission of this page for inclusion was declined. I have no idea why as there are thousands of wikipedia entries for commercially released music albums. I would appreciate an explanation as I do not believe that I've violated any guidelines, policies or copyright.


The Brain Coach (talk) 05:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you are talking about User:The Brain Coach/sandbox? If so there is a succinct explanation there. Please ignore the thousands of other articles, they do not set a precedent here. If they did the standard would get lower and lower and Idiocracy would approach faster. If I have the correct draft, please visit it, check the message there, and ask again if you don;t understand something. Please, next tme, link to the arrticle you are discussing. We can guess, but are not always right. Fiddle Faddle 11:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

08:18:06, 16 July 2014 review of submission by Khoahuynhpro


Huynh Minh Khoa 08:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

hi admin i have posted link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:WorkSafeGEAR_(2) but i am waiting more two days not approve. Please check and let me know...

thanks admin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khoahuynhpro (talk • contribs) 08:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We are not admins. We are a team of volunteers who review your work to help you. As such we do not work to a timetable. I see Draft:WorkSafeGEAR (2) and Draft:WorkSafeGEAR. I intend to review one to decline it so you work on the other. PLease do not create multiple versions. Work on the version that you wish to have reviewed only. Fiddle Faddle 10:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

09:54:06, 16 July 2014 review of submission by Juliaempire


I have tried a few times now to submit, can someone please help me with what exactly I need to delete from my article in order for it to be accepted?

Juliaempire (talk) 09:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Holiday Sidewinder? You need to delete nothing. Wjhat you need to do is to show notability and to verify that with references in reliable sources. There is work to be done. Go to it with a will! Fiddle Faddle 10:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

10:53:05, 16 July 2014 review of submission by Relexsolutions


Hi! Recently I created a new page "Relex" and submitted the draft. But now I actually want to delete the whole page but I can't find any way to do that. How can I delete the Relex-draft?

Relexsolutions (talk) 10:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SImply blank the page. This is only appropriate for draft pages you create. It signifies that you, as author, wish it to be deleted. Fiddle Faddle 11:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

13:22:20, 16 July 2014 review of submission by Jonkmanskas


The six books published by the author mentioned in the article are all old books (written between 1956 and 1969). I wish to cite all those books as I do not have references. The template that pops up when citing a book is confusing in that it does not explain what information is required in the various spaces. For instance, whose first and last names are required? The person who cites the books? Not all the books that are mentioned in the article have ISBN numbers and the publishers don't exist anymore. Will my submission be rejected because of that? I will placed images of each of the books.

Jonkmanskas (talk) 13:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jonkmanskas. I've fixed the references for the books by using there using OCLC numbers which I got from WorldCat here. However, proving that the books exist is a minor problem. This article is full of very detailed information about the subject and her life. Where did it come from? If there is no published source for it and it is based solely on personal recollections or personal knowledge, we cannot publish it. WP:No original research explains more about this. If you do find a published source for the biographical details, it's quite all right for it to be in Afrikaans. But whether or not that would attest to the subject's notability will depend on the source itself. Sources published by her family or herself would not count towards establishing notability. She is mentioned in this unpublished PhD thesis in Afrikaans. You may be able to get some ideas for sources from it. best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

14:32:50, 16 July 2014 review of submission by Khoahuynhpro


Huynh Minh Khoa 14:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi admin i am writting the item for link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorkSafeGEAR please check and let me know it, because the principle of Wikimedia

khoahuynhpro thanks

Greetings khoahuynPRO, I am not an administrator and therefore I have merely tagged the page as This article may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion because in its current form it serves only to promote or publicise an entity, person, product, or idea, and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic, based on the principles of Wikimedia. Thank you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

15:35:35, 16 July 2014 review of submission by Saferoutestoschool


Hello, I'm curious if by page National Bike to School Day is not an appropriate resource for Wikipedia. Do I need to put effort into bulking it up with additional resources or is this just not the right space for this?

Thanks! Colleen

Saferoutestoschool (talk) 15:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to get to the end of the third sentence before I even discover which "nation" this is about?!? This is an encyclopedia, not an events noticeboard.
Have you read over WP:42 and WP:REFB? If you include the expertise you gain from those in your draft, it will make it much easier both to read and to review. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

16:05:39, 16 July 2014 review of submission by Susannahcallahan


Susannahcallahan (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Help Desk - I submitted edits for a page and it says that there is a 2-3 week waiting period, with a growing number of submissions in order for review that is over 1,000. Just trying to get some clarity on if that number is pretty accurate and if I can rely on a response in 2-3 weeks? Or if it may take longer for some reason. Would like to move forward since these edits are minor, but this is a major roadblock!

Thanks for your help, Susannah

Hello Susannah. It may well take several weeks for a review. However, in its current state it would be immediately declined. Virtually every article about a company which is founded in the last 5 years, not publicly traded on a major stock exchange and which has not received extensive in-depth coverage in the mainstream press or highly regarded financial publications, e.g. Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, was written either by a company employee or by a paid editor and now come under particular scrutiny. Your draft needs references to significant in-depth coverage of this company by high-quality sources which are completely independent of it and not press release based. You also need to cut out the advertising-speak. The draft basically does nothing but advertise its products and website and the fact that it's a start-up seeking venture capital. I think you'll find Wikipedia's FAQ for organizations (and editors writing about them) to be a helpful guide. If you have any affiliation whatsoever with this company or those engaged in its online marketing, you should also read our guidelines on conflict of interest and follow them scrupulously. Voceditenore (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

21:10:12, 16 July 2014 review of submission by Skandaleas


How can I type-in the company's info., e.g. Company Logo, Mykonos Windmills America MWA, the names of the founder and other officers? Thank you! Skandaleas (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC) Skandaleas (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you want Template:Infobox company for that. But first, please read and understand (and implement) WP:42 and WP:REFB. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

21:33:02, 16 July 2014 review of submission by Mahmudul Hasan Milon


Mahmudul Hasan Milon (talk) 21:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for Wikipedia to have an article about this topic yet. See WP:42. (No draft or page submitted.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


July 17

07:24:41, 17 July 2014 review of submission by 83.57.7.177

Why was my article declined? 83.57.7.177 (talk) 07:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to Mobsyte created by the now blocked User:Mobsyte? Click on Mobsyte and it will tell you why: "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". There are also similar warnings and explanations on User talk:Mobsyte. Read them. Voceditenore (talk) 08:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

11:06:02, 17 July 2014 review of submission by Bakerga1

Hello, I am trying to add a company page for the company I work for and I cannot understand why it keeps getting rejected. I have tried to put as many references in the article as possible. I really need some help with this. Please HELP?!!? Bakerga1 (talk) 11:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are two points here.
  1. You have a conflict of interest and are unlikely to be able to write a neutral and well structured article about your employer.
  2. The references are not appropriate. I have left a comment on the article to that effect and flagged many of the references as primary sources
I do not see the firm as notable at this stage, and would decline it as such if I reviewed the article today. Many law firms are not notable. My son works for one of your size, give or take. It's a great firm, but notable it is not. If you have been asked by a manager to create a WIkipedia article they have given you a poisoned chalice, perhaps unwittingly so. Wikipedia is not web space for your firm, nor a place to hang its shingle. There is a high hurdle to leap. If you can leap it, fine. Fiddle Faddle 11:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

12:41:19, 17 July 2014 request for review by Estelle.mab


Dear Sirs,

I am asking some help today because I have to create a Wikipedia article/page about my company, VSL International, in English. I am French, and I speak and understand English well but when I'm trying to follow your instructions for creating an article I get confused... I know that it is not advised to write an article on our own firm but I'm sure that with your help I will be able to create an article which will remain neutral.

I have already submitted twice my article, which has been refused, and I wish I could get some help from you so that the lay out (which is very difficult to understand to me) and the sources can be accepted by your administrators.

A French Wikipedia article already exists as "VSL (entreprise)", I suppose that this is an important information for you. Yet, neither my colleagues nor me are the authors, and we don't want a simple traduction of the French existing page.

Here is the article I have submitted a few weeks ago:

VSL, a company with Swiss origins, is specialized in the construction of concrete bridges and special structures. Well-proven systems and sound in-house engineering are the basis for innovative conceptual design and reliable, efficient engineering solutions. VSL has been contributing since 1956 to some most prestigious and complex concrete structures in the world. It has applied the principles of post-tensioning to bridges (including cable-stayed structures), buildings, LNG tanks, nuclear containments, industrial plants, tunnels, offshore concrete structures. VSL operates through 60 locations as a worldwide network. The Group provides technical consultancy and support, with a full range of works from project planning through to complete final design, construction engineering and the execution of works on site.

Key figures[edit] • 3900 employees in 2013 • 60 locations worldwide in 35 countries • 2 technical centres (Switzerland, Singapore) • 32 registered patents in use

Some references[edit] • Kwidzyn Bridge – Poland • Chi Shi Bridge - China • Tran Thi Ly – Da Nang, Vietnam • Second Penang Bridge – Malaysia • Aberdeen Channel Bridge, Hong Kong • Foundation works on the Observatory road, Hong Kong • Heavy Lifting of the Fonte Nova stadium roof, Salvador Da Bahia, Brazil

References[edit] • http://www.vsl.com/ • http://www.vsl.com/images/brochures/general/vsl_presentation_03_2014/view/index.html

Thank you for your help, waiting for your response. Best Regards

Estelle Mabille Estelle.mab (talk) 12:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is the company notable? If so please read WP:42. We require references from significant coverage about the entity, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. If it is notable then you will find some. If not, then you will not. The words above are an advert. This will not be acceptable, even with references. Fiddle Faddle 13:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

13:02:48, 17 July 2014 review of submission by Fionnloch


Hi. Am awaiting review of this, and just wondered if I needed to shift it from the Draft/Sandbox to my User space (there's a message to this effect at the top of the page, which I've been ignoring). Sorry to bother you, but this is my first contribution, and I don't know my way around the system yet - but I want to avoid the piece not getting reviewed because I hadn't moved it!. Thanks.

Fionnloch

Fionnloch (talk) 13:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fionnloch; it's fine to ignore that message. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

14:25:09, 17 July 2014 review of submission by GeoffreySmithGalleries


GeoffreySmithGalleries (talk) 14:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted my article for review months ago. I have no idea why it hasn't been reviewed or approved.

Hello, it does not appear that your draft was Submitted, it was simply sitting on your userpage with an incorrect "unreviewed" template (that template is for published articles needing further review). I have moved your draft to the correct place and put it in line for submission. Bear in mind the line may take a few days, and also it is very common that even a viable article will have to go through several reviews to get polished up enough to publish. Your draft is now at Draft:Geoffrey C. Smith. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

15:06:59, 17 July 2014 review of submission by 108.86.125.204


108.86.125.204 (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC) why was it rejected?[reply]

IP, you haven't told us which article you're asking about. You wrote the article from either another IP or from a logged-in account, since it isn't shown on the history of this IP. If you have a username, please log-in and re-sign your message with your username. If you wrote it on an IP account, please provide here the address of the specific article you're asking about. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

17:28:24, 17 July 2014 review of submission by Musence


Hello, I have made the inline citations I needed to make and also edited the heading to correct format for my Wikipedia page, but when I click the "resubmit" it prompts me to a new blank screen where my previous page with all it's sourcing and text is gone. Please help.

Thank you,

Teddy

Musence (talk) 17:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, I thought this would be a simple misunderstanding, but I'm getting the same. (To reviewers:) Is there a glitch with AFCH currently? MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

17:41:51, 17 July 2014 review of draft by Margielennon


Hello. I'm requesting help on my citations and references. I was told to put in cites, and I used a template. This also put Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). around the cites, so my article had duplicate references instead of citations, then references. Then I put in the cite with just

and references [1] and it still isn't looking right.

I'm confused on if the cites {{ }} need a Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). or if not, how do I not have duplicate references?

Margielennon (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ info
@Margielennon:, your footnotes appear to be listing just fine now; did the problem work itself out? MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

17:58:24, 17 July 2014 review of submission by Zarathuddite


Greetings! I'd like to correct the issues with my article which was recently accepted, Tristan Meinecke. One issue is that additional citations are needed, and I am researching that in his estate's archives and at the library, because I know there are publications and articles which exist but I had not previously been able to track down.

Another issue is that the page is an orphan, and I was hoping for some guidance on the best way to go about fixing that. I know Meinecke was an associate of the Chicago Surrealists, that he studied at the University of Michigan and was exhibited multiple times at the Art Institute of Chicago's Chicago and Vicinity shows in the 50s. It sort of surprises me that none of those exhibitions have pages of their own, not even the 1957 No-Jury Show which got a lot of press coverage at the time. Any advice on how best to un-orphan the article is appreciated. Zarathuddite (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the 1957 show got a lot of press coverage, why not create an article about it? That article in turn may end up being an orphan, of course... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

20:18:33, 17 July 2014 review of submission by 86.144.86.205

I tried to create an article here .Can this project be deleted please - it will no longer be used - it will not be published. REPEAT - can it please be deleted. Thank you Steve Butcher

86.144.86.205 (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@86.144.86.205: What draft? You'll have to sign-in with the same account or use the same IP you used with whatever draft in order to request deletion. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

21:06:58, 17 July 2014 review of submission by Emiskew


Hi, I submitted an updated article for review on July 4 and I'm still waiting for it to be reviewed. Have I resubmitted it correctly?

Emiskew (talk) 21:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have. Reviews take an arbitrary period because those who review are volunteers and tend to stick to their own specialist areas. Please continue to improve the draft while you wait for a volunteer to pass your way. Fiddle Faddle 21:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
no Declined with substantive reasons in two additional comments at the draft article. Fiddle Faddle 21:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

22:06:49, 17 July 2014 review of submission by Carnalito


I'm not sure, why it was rejected. Please tell me why so I can make the changes and make improvements. Thanks!

Carnalito (talk) 22:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Don Benito Alvarez Toral was rejected for the reasons given at the top of that page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


July 18

02:11:20, 18 July 2014 request for review by AmericanArt52

Hello~ On Wednesday, July 16 at approximately 2 am, I submitted a request for an article to be created, and a draft of an article I wrote on the subject of the composer and author Albert Glinsky. I have been searching in the Submissions List but cannot find any record of the article (AFC) submission. I am suspicious that it was not submitted because in the top right corner of my sandbox, where I continue to work on the article, it has a green banner saying, "Submit Your Draft for Review."

Can you please tell me if it was indeed successfully submitted? Also, can I continue to work on the article in my sandbox until such time as it is reviewed-- and if so, will your reviewers be looking at the updated version in my sandbox, or the original version I submitted on July 16?

AmericanArt52 (talk) 02:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello AmericanArt52. Your draft has been accepted. It was moved into article space early this morning (UK time) [1]. You'll find it at Albert Glinsky. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 06:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

07:22:50, 18 July 2014 review of submission by 220.239.246.214

I was wondering two things- one, obviously, why the article was declined and secondly, how and where can I retrieve the article I submitted so that I don't need to go through the process again?

It's tricky as I didn't know that the article had been declined or how to find out?

Thanks lots

220.239.246.214 (talk) 07:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't find out because you aren't logged-in to your account. If you log-in, you'll see bright yellow "you have messages" alert at the top of your screen, and your message page will be telling you the current draft was declined.
So far as where, your draft is still in the same place: Draft:Jacqueline Harvey. The message on your Talk page (which you can see when you log-in) also has the link in case you forget.
So far as why: the reason is given in the large pink box at the top of your draft. Please read that and click any of the blue words to see the specific guidelines if you need more detail. Let us know if you've taken a look at those guidelines and aren't seeing how to address the issue. MatthewVanitas (talk) 07:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

09:07:32, 18 July 2014 review of submission by Amit Sarin


Hi i have created a page (above is the link mentioned) please let me know why my request to create the page has not been accepted?

Waiting for a quick reply

Amit Sarin (talk) 09:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please actually look at the comment left by the reviewer. Fiddle Faddle 13:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

11:50:10, 18 July 2014 review of submission by Monica Mbaraga


Hello

I submitted an article today for review: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Pielparade_(South_African_military_slang)

The article explains a slang term for several sexual practices which were - and are - prevalent in the South African military. Due to practices which the slang term describes being highly taboo, and because many of the activities of the South African army in the late apartheid era are very controversial, the slang term is rarely openly discussed in public and it is hardly written about. Thus it is almost impossible to find reliable sources, though I have pasted working documents of my article on various websites asking for more information. I would like to know if Wikipedia has leeway for publishing articles on subjects like this one which is certainly common knowledge in South Africa but the international community is not aware of it because it is so rarely discussed or written about? It would be useful for researchers or readers to be able to access information on this subject in Wikipedia, since they will struggle to do so elsewhere. Could you help me by letting me know in which section of Wikipedia such articles are published and how I should proceed? It seems a pity to me if articles are discarded due to a lack of reliable sources even though the information it contains is tacit to a large population.

Thank you

Monica Mbaraga (talk) 11:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The thing about Wikipedia is that it is an encyclopaedia. Your article is more in place in a dictionary of slang. We cannot accept unsourced or anecdotal material. WP:TRUTH is relevant to your question. It is not a shame that it is discarded. It is important that it be discarded since there is no verifiability. WP:42 applies to everything here. Fiddle Faddle 13:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Monica Mbaraga:, for my side, I'd note it's an interesting topic, but encyclopedia's don't do WP:Original research. That is, we only cover topics once they've already been documented. If your topic is still in the research, interview gathering, investigation phase, while it may be an interesting topic it's still at too early of a phase to get encyclopedia coverage. "Things everyone knows" can't be used in an encyclopedia because readers cannot WP:Verify them, but if for example you and some other researchers publish some academic papers on this, or it gets a chapter in a book about S.African military culture, then we could have a Wikipedia article with clear citations to the book that documents them. I'll disagree slightly with FiddleFaddle in that I don't think it's the "slang" aspect that's an issue, so much as just the lack of documentation at the moment.
Being that your intent is to give the world a clearer understanding of these traditional military practices, among the better ways you could help would be to work with either a journalist or an academic in bringing this to their attention, providing your own knowledge in interviews, and helping them find other servicepeople that could help record their recollections of these customs. Assuredly somewhere there must be academics writing on human sexuality in culture who would be interested, or a journalist covering such topics that would find the topic insightful into understanding masculinity in South Africa.
An encyclopedia can only "serve pieces of a cake" that's already baked and done. What you have right now is bowls of flour and sugar, so you're in too early of a stage, but must find some cooks to collaborate with. Please don't be discouraged, it's an interesting topic, just the research needs to move forward and be formally documented before it goes into an encyclopedia. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree that it is "certainly common knowledge in South Africa", being South African and having firsthand knowledge of the conscription era. HelenOnline 16:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Helen. I'm also South African and have many friends and acquaintances who went through conscription and not a single one of them has ever mentioned anything even remotely like the content of the draft. I may be off-base here but it looks to me like the type of urban legend/propaganda/disinformation nonsense fabricated by people with a politically motivated anti-conscription agenda (similar to the well known lie about Special Forces recruits being forced to strangle a puppy they have raised). All the Google hits for the term "pielparade" are less than two days old and seem to originate from this draft article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

14:25:20, 18 July 2014 review of submission by 66.194.102.6


Hi there, I do not understand why ShopVisible's article is being rejected for "sounding to much like an advertisement." We've edited, made changes and resubmitted this article multiple times - Back in December, when this article was rejected for sounding like an advertisement, we made the necessary changes and no reviewer since has mentioned that this sounds like an advertisement. Please point out specific language as to where this article sounds like an advertisement, but other industry companies and competitors have very similar voice and language in their currently published (accepted) Wikipedia articles. For example, Magento's article goes into detail about products offered and value to its customers. Our article does not mention any sales language that goes beyond the voice used in Magento (and other competitors') Wikipedia pages, yet our submission keeps getting denied. If this submission sounds too much like an advertisement, then I'd be glad to point out several other currently published Wikipedia articles that possess the language you are denying this submission over. Please advise, we've continuously been working with multiple editors to get this article published on Wikipedia and it seems as though there is no consistency when it comes to "advertising" language. 66.194.102.6 (talk) 20:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)Jennifer Blackburn 66.194.102.6 (talk) 14:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)Jennifer Blackburn 66.194.102.6 (talk) 14:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)66.194.102.6 (talk) 17:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)Jennifer Blackburn[reply]

66.194.102.6 (talk) 14:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@66.194.102.6: @72.16.218.22: Who's "we"? I'm hearing a lot of talk about "our article" which doesn't inspire me with trust.
Be advised that "other stuff exists" isn't a valid rationale. I understand your frustration but Wikipedia has lots of articles that have problems. Your submission does read promotionally. Take, for instance, the sentence "ShopVisible also enables your back office management including orders, inventory, channel, content management and more." I don't know about others, but I don't have "back office management" and Wikipedia isn't trying to communicate this idea to people looking for business solutions. Furthermore, this sentence is copied word-for-word from http://www.shopvisible.com/author/shopvisible-marketing.aspx among other internal company websites! Sentences like "Fortunately, these unique challenges and necessities can be supported by a new breed of technologies that have the potential to simultaneously meet the complex requirements of a B2B transaction environment while delivering the rich customer experience buyers expect when buying online in their personal lives." are laughable. There's no neutral point of view; this sentence is meant to advertise.
You have no independent and reliable sources. Almost all of them are PR websites and corporate partners. You haven't established corporate notability and this dearth of sources indicates a lack of general notability.
Wikipedia is not going to be part of your business's "omni-channel experience" so cease and desist. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

18:21:16, 18 July 2014 review of submission by Mbufty


Mbufty (talk) 18:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC) Trying to put the history of Moringa Royale and The Moringa Health Group ,LLC on here and got a response that it did not meet guidelines. Can you please explain to me what I can do to make it stick. Thank you, Michael Owner Moringa Royale The Moringa Health Group, LLC[reply]

One thing you might do is to look at it. Does it even look like a Wikipedia article? What would you say to an employee who presented you with a report that simply looked like it does? And, after that, does it have any references? Have you noticed that it is 100% promotional? Please start by finding independent references and write the article from there. Fiddle Faddle 21:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

21:42:06, 18 July 2014 review of draft by Bliss Ajootian


Bliss Ajootian (talk) 21:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I wrote an article on Roberta Kaplan. I thought I submitted it for review nearly two weeks ago; at the time the warning was that it would take a week to review. I am fine with it just taking a long time to wait its turn for review. I just wanted to be sure that there wasn't a problem on my end--did I do the right thing in submitting it? Has it been rejected & I just didn't figure that out yet? Thanks for tips. This was my first article for Wikipedia and I want to be sure I did it right, or right enough.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=617505756"