Help desk
< April 29	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	May 1 >

Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

April 30

To change article from 'Submit for review' to 'Go Live'

I submitted an article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Prof. Arun Kumar Sinha for review. I find the the review feedback is coming slow and one of the editors said that the subject seems notable, but not very good references are there. I wish to change the submission to 'Go Live' so that I can get better feedback while the article is live. Also, other editors can add references etc. Please give me the technical advice of changing 'Submit for review' to 'Go Live'.Saramohanpur1940 (talk) 09:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed quite a few of the current references are not the reliable, independent sources Wikipedia content should be based on. For example, Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source. You still heavily cite primary sources such as the writings of Sinha and his relatives, and the draft's tone is still very problematic and editorializing: "It is not surprising", "it is reassuring", "it is rather ironical", for example. And vast amounts of content still don't cite any sources whatsover. I'd strongly advise against turning the draft into a live article before these problems are resolved, or the "feedback" you receive may well consist of a deletion nomination or of a removal of all the content that currently is not reliably sourced, which would leave only small remnants.

As an aside, you can hardly complain about slow reviews when the draft was reviewed a few days ago but you simply reverted the reviewer. You cannot complain about unspecific comments either when you haven't addressed much of the rather highly specific advice I gave you on April 20. Huon (talk) 10:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. agreed. I now go for heavy editing and revert back. I agree with your comments. Do you suggest merging of many paras and to have an article in much fewer words, where references are acceptable. I will awit your reply. Somehow, I find your coments very correct, and not personalised, and hence helpful.Saramohanpur1940 (talk) 10:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tim Gosling

I am trying to submit a new article and am just wondering why it is taking so long to get this reviewed? the article isWikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tim Gosling Custardpieboy (talk) 10:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Due to a severe problem with your references (you had <ref> tags, but no closing </ref> tags; thus major parts of your draft were interpreted as one big footnote and not displayed correctly) the draft was never actually submitted for a review. I fixed that and submitted the draft on your behalf, but you should use inline citations and add your references right to the statement they support - see also WP:Referencing for beginners on how to easily create nicely-formatted footnotes. At a glance I also had the impression that quite a few of your references were primary sources, not the reliable, independent sources Wikipedia content should be based on, and that the draft's tone was unduly promotional. You may want to address that before the draft is reviewed; I expect in its current state it would be declined. Huon (talk) 13:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish author

Hello,

I would like to create an English page for a Swedish author Mons Kallentoft but I wonder why the article was denied to be published? Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NordinAgency (talk • contribs) 13:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer was fairly clear as to why the submission was declined. Biographies of living persons must be supported by reliable sources. The author's page on his publisher's website is not considered a reliable source. Independent sources are needed. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Submitted draft: Purple Strategies

Hi there, I've just added an AfC template to a draft in my userspace to submit it for review. I'd like to add an explanation so that the reviewing editor is aware that I have a COI with the topic, Purple Strategies, on whose behalf I wrote the article. Where should I place this information? I'm confident that the firm meets notability, and I've aimed to write the draft as neutrally as possible, but I'd like to make sure that reviewers know I have a COI so that they can check for any POV or promotional issues in the draft. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 14:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your openness; I've left a note at the top of the draft referring to this comment. I noticed three issues with the references: Firstly, press releases are not considered reliable sources because they are not subject to editorial oversight; they should not be used. Secondly, the company's own website isn't quite an independent source and should only be used for uncontroversial details (such as, say, the founding date); I believe whenever you cite the company's website you also cite a truly independent source for the same statement and thus could avoid citing the company website altogether. Thirdly, some of your sources (including the Ace Metrix press release but also the "Breakfast and politics" newsblog post, for example) don't mention the company at all and thus cannot be used to write content about the company without producing an "original synthesis" of the published sources, something Wikipedia tends to considerer original research. If no source explicitly mentions that Purple Strategies' managing director once was a managing partner of National Media Public Affairs, that's probably not that significant to Purple Strategies in the first place. Excepting those issues, the draft looks very good to me; notability shouldn't be an issue at all (and that's usually the greatest hurdle). Huon (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Huon, this is really great feedback. I've followed your advice and updated the draft to remove the source that was a press release, along with those that cited the Purple and Citizen2's websites. I've also taken out the Ace Metrix information and the mention that Bruce Haynes was previously managing partner at NMPA. Do you have any other thoughts about the article? Thanks again, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 02:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Sandy347/sandbox

Hi Wikipedia community,

I'm writing to ask a question in regards to the article that I published about 6 hrs ago. I am new to Wikipedia and I am still learning my way around. Would appreciate your help. I am wondering what happened to the article that I published? I don't see it. Did I publish correctly? I am getting the following messages at the bottom and my article appears twice. Is this normal? Please help. Thanks.

My article draft name is; Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/St. Dominic Catholic Church (Miami, FL) My URL to the page is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sandy347/sandbox

Your draft has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/St. Dominic Catholic Church (Miami, FL), the preferred location for drafts awaiting review, by Dodger67 who also removed the duplicate draft (you probably pasted the draft into the almost-empty edit window when you submitted it for review, thereby duplicating it); it has by now been reviewed by Mdann52 and can be found at St. Dominic Catholic Church (Miami, FL). It is a live article. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia! Huon (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]