Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2014 October 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< October 6 << Sep | October | Nov >> October 8 >
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.


October 7

[edit]

05:26:30, 7 October 2014 review of submission by Helen7274

[edit]

Thanks for the advice, Fiddle Faddle, but I think I shall do more work on my citations/references before resubmitting. You have mentioned that it's likely that my resubmission will be rejected (actually, I prefer the words 'not yet accepted'), but would like to have done as much as I can to get it at least close to being accepted.

I do have another question: in one of my most oft-used (ahem, I do believe in'...beautifully punctuated text' but I also think it can be done without being a 'Wikipedian Hyphen Luddite.'!)citations, I have provided the wikilink (hope I've got this right...internal link?) every time: is this unnecessary? In other words, once I have provided an internal link, is it necessary to do it again? Instinct tells me it isn't, but I would like to confirm this. It's the same newspaper, but a different date each time.

thanks and regards helen Helen7274 (talk) 05:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Helen7274 (talk) 05:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Helen7274: By "Likely to be declined again" I meant that the process is iterative and, while one should strive for acceptance one might reasonably expect a decline. However, each good piece of work you do tips the scales in favour of acceptance. I simply wanted to insulate you against disappointment. Asreviewers our job is to accept drafts once they have a better than 60% probability of being deletion proof. We sometimes are too cautious, sometimes not cautious enough. My view is that time spent in draft is never wasted while the author is improving the draft, but, once the author runs out of steam it should go forward as an article if it stands a chance of success. The community can also work wonders when an author runs out of steam.
Wikilinks should be to the first reasonable deployment of the word/phrase linked from/to, and not used on the same item thereafter. WP:MOS covers everything, but it is a dull read!
Did you know you can simply add questions to prior sections here? It isn;t mandatory, but tends to be done. Fiddle Faddle 08:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hello fiddle faddle - apropos your last sentence re adding questions to prior sections, I am testing this out in the hopes that I have got it right. helen Helen7274 (talk) 23:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Helen, that is right. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fiddle Faddle/Timtrent/Arthur goes shopping,

I have resubmitted my draft on T Plowright but have a couple of comments: (1) I don't know if i have been over-zealous with the wikilinks; (2) Although I have provided many more citations with secondary sources, I may not have completely addressed the issue of giving too many of his works listed. However, each of these has what I believe to be reliable and verifiable sources; (c) There is one particular source that is used more regularly than any other, but each time it is used, it is a different date. The reason for its regular use is that it is a community-based paper, and thus reports on issues and events relating to the particular community that Plowright is a part of.

I look forward to your responses. thanks for the support, helen Helen7274 (talk) 03:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

05:33:02, 7 October 2014 review of submission by EtisalatUAE

[edit]

I need to know the reason behind the decline of my article.

EtisalatUAE (talk) 05:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then go to the draft and read it, please. Fiddle Faddle 08:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

18:15:59, 7 October 2014 review of draft by Melshaner

[edit]


Why isn't this able to be submitted?

Melshaner (talk) 18:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Much as I hate to answer a question with a question, why do you perceive that it is not able to be submitted? Fiddle Faddle 18:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

18:46:10, 7 October 2014 request for review by Piandme

[edit]

Hi Guys, I'm really only writing so I can get an idea of when my article might be looked at. I realise there are a lot of articles waiting for review, but it would be nice to know when exactly mine might be looked at. If i needed to make any changes to the article I would then be able to do so, in order for the article to be accepted. I hope this doesn't seem like I'm impatient, I'm just genuinely interested to know if you know how long it ight be. Thanks.Piandme (talk) 18:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With his only appearance thus far being a minor role in one movie, he does not meet Wikipedia:NACTOR. Further, the sources given in the draft as currently written do not suffice to meet Wikipedia:General notability guideline. So I have declined this submission for now. Wikipedia:VRS may be useful in seeing what sort of sources need to be supplied. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I would consider his upcoming leading role in Game of Thrones role aas good enough. Having said that though I am looking for some better reference, and a little more inforation Piandme (talk) 16:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

18:49:04, 7 October 2014 review of submission by Asher Raboy

[edit]

My submission was turned down. Why? Would like to fix it and make it right! Asher Raboy (talk) 18:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a recommendation on your draft. I wonder if you have read it? Fiddle Faddle 22:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2014_October_7&oldid=1119640301"