User talk:Jones1901

Albert Foulds

Hello, the reason I moved the article is that the one source cited for his career [1] names him as Bert Foulds. Feel free to improve the article with your own sources. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jules Wright (September 14)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was:

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Jules Wright and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Jones1901, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See my talk page. I am at Meta:Meetup/London/98 and will try to discuss it there. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 08:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jules Wright has been accepted

Jules Wright, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Hermera34 (talk) 15:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Vic-Wells Association (March 21)

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

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

More secondary references are needed.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:The Vic-Wells Association and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:The Vic-Wells Association, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and will be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

BoothSift 23:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the family

I take it that you are London based- that does make it easier! We have a fairly long meet up of amazing people on the second Sunday of the month at the Penderal's Oak, Wetherspoons, Holborn. It runs from 1.05 till 5.00 officially, somewhere near the entrance around table 38. London 144. I have a section on an untidy userpage-User:ClemRutter#training- which gives links to training material- and reference material too. That will help in getting this article accepted.--ClemRutter (talk) 11:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article- the content looks fine the referencing issue have been addressed and that was the main criticism. So I think it is a case of waiting. It will pass. As I understand it this draft procedure is triggered by being new and having a low edit count. So can I suggest you build up your own user page, experimenting with sections, formatting tricks and give the reviewer something to go on if he checks up. Then back here. The page needs sections- at the moment it is just a history. Think of the end user (for instance the BBC radio reporter for instance, who had to do three minute script for a breaking story in zero time, they will Google, find this first, glance at it, see the prose is excellent and will just change a few words so there isn't a blatent copyvio- and you will be on the air). Section- what do they do now? where do they do it, who's in charge. What is their relevance to society- and the theatre world History- beautiful well referenced prose- you have that (though you could split it into before the name change and after. A section a list of greatest achievements. A see also section- for related companies. Go to the top and place a tag and then sit down and write and info-box! I am all in favour of incorporating wiki-training in any course and the London meetup 144 is a great place to exchange ideas. --ClemRutter (talk) 12:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then there is the infobox. Template:Infobox theatre group most pages have one. It is template so just copy the gobblegook across onto the page and fill in the bits you can. Then preview to see the magic.

I'll ask Ritchie333 over here to have a look and advise how to get this tranferred from Draft: space to mainspace more quickly.ClemRutter (talk) 16:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've accepted the draft. The standard for draft reviews is not (and never has been) "does this have enough sources" but rather "would the article be deleted if it was in mainspace". As there are multiple book references, and a quick Google Books search shows the Vic-Wells Association name-checked in several publications, it would be unlikely to be deleted even after a full deletion discussion.

The next London meetup is at 1pm on Sunday 14 July at the Penderel's Oak, 283-288 High Holborn WC1V 7HP. As Clem says, the meetups are a good place to see what regular Wikipedians get up to and also to get real-time help from experienced editors. For example, last week in Oxford we had a brand new editor who wanted to correct information in a biography but didn't have a suitable source. RexxS, who is very experienced in training new users and has run many workshops on them, gave them plenty of advice and ideas, and we might see them at the London meetup trying to see what to do next. (He can also sort the infobox out if you ask nicely). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page says "I am interested in editing articles about remarkable women" - you may be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red which is geared towards improving Wikipedia's coverage of women biographies and acts as a place to exchange ideas and help each other out with source material and general improvements. Megalibrarygirl may be able to give you further information. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Vic-Wells Association has been accepted

The Vic-Wells Association, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]