Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2016 August 8
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < August 7 | << Jul | August | Sep >> | August 9 > |
| 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. |
August 8
[edit]
I replaced the citations for this article with well-sourced third party citations as suggested by the user that rejected this article. This draft is now ready for resubmission, and I'm unable to see how to do this.
Helena Hanbaskette (talk) 04:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Helena Hanbaskette. Please don't remove AfC reviews and their associated comments. They will be removed automatically if and when the draft is accepted. Now that I've restored them, you'll find a bright blue "Resubmit" button in the topmost pink box on the draft. Clicking it will resubmit the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
12:57:38, 8 August 2016 review of submission by Steelpatton
[edit]- Steelpatton (talk · contribs)
- No draft specified!
How do we challenge or request a different reviewer? There are only 6 real people listed under the topic of private investigator in Wikipedia. Most have no real direct bearing on the PI profession. (1) Crouch is a S. African Politician, pilot and several sentences about being a PI (2) Field lived from 1805-1974, was an actor and got involved in the investigation of 1, single case (3) Parco had a TV show and there are 2 small paragraphs about the show and nothing about him as a PI (4) Pellicano was a PI who went to jail for illegal activity (5) Ribacoff is a polygraph examiner who has 4 TV shows listed that he has been on (6) Weber is an attorney involved in the SEC and has only been an investigator since 2014. The TV shows are at best reenactments and at worst simply entertainment and should not be held in higher esteem than books, articles and trade publications. In the article on Kelly E. Riddle, he has been cited in 17 trade journals, has had more than 58 articles published, has written 10 books, and has been on TV programs as well. I would think the readers of Wikipedia would like information on a true PI that has more than 35 years experience as a PI.
Steelpatton (talk) 12:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Steelpatton, to get another review you simply click the blue "Resubmit" button in the pink review box at the top of the page.
- The content of other articles is of no relevance at all. Comparing your draft to other articles is absolutely pointless, the existence of other possibly substandard articles is not justification for creating another substandard article.
- Nothing said or written by Riddle himself (or his colleagues, relatives, associates, agents, employees, employers or representatives) contributes to his notability, you need to find sources written by independent people who have no connection to Riddle at all, that discuss him and his work in considerable detail and are published in reliable sources such as newsmedia, magazines, books by mainstream commercial or academic publishers.
- Your use of "we" is concerning because a user account may only be used by one person, never a group.
- Hope this helps Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- By the way, the draft in question is Draft:Kelly E. Riddle, Private Investigator. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Stuartlipo (talk · contribs)
Please may someone review this article. As pointed out when this article was declined the current re-direct is incorrect. GATCA is formed by part CRS and also includes AEoI, BEPS, TRACE and FATCA. GATCA is an acronym that has become common place within the financial industry and this is what our article is trying to show and inform people of. There will be of course some cross over from the re-direct due to CRS forming part of the overall GATCA acronym.
I have had no further response from my first reviewer when stating the above.
Stuartlipo (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Stuartlipo, there is a blue button labelled "Resubmit" in the pink review box at the top of the draft page - just click it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
16:21:47, 8 August 2016 review of submission by Rdellbillings
[edit]Hi. I have made all the changes requested by the three separate reviewers I have had and I still have not heard about my submission. Can you help me please or tell me what to do next. I have been trying hard since May to get the page posted to Wikipedia. Many thanks for any help you can give. RdellBillings. Rdellbillings (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Rdellbillings (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Rdellbillings. There are 67 drafts that have been waiting longer than this one. You can expect a review within the next 10 days or so. While you're waiting, check out other ways to improve Wikipedia. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
On 7/13/16, the page I submitted on Donegal Insurance Group -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jasobugg/sandbox/Donegal_Insurance_Group -- was declined because another person had submitted a Donegal Insurance Group page.
The page another person submitted was declined, too, for lack of reliable sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Donegal_Insurance_Group.
I have added more sources to my version of the page and I am an official representative of the Company. What could I do to get my version of the page reviewed again?
Thank you for your help.
Jasobugg (talk) 19:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- The fact that you are "an official representative of the Company" is not an argument that weighs with us in favor of accepting your draft. On the contrary, it is a conflict of interest. So, first, make the required disclosure under the conflict of interest policy and the paid editing policy. Do not expect us to be sympathetic to your use of Wikipedia to promote your company. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)