Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 August 24
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < August 23 | << Jul | August | Sep >> | August 25 > |
| 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 24
[edit]04:56:46, 24 August 2017 review of submission by Shawn.hossan
[edit]- Shawn.hossan (talk · contribs)
THEN TELL US WHY YOU ARE REQUESTING ASSISTANCE BELOW THIS LINE. Take as many lines as you need. -->}}
I have submitted my article for review at the beginning of August but I haven't received any reply yet. I have provided more references that was told tome. Is there any more problem with my article? When will I get the response? What more changes should I make for my article to be acceptable? Pease let me know
Shawn.hossan (talk) 04:56, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- Hello, Shawn. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Right now, there are more than 500 drafts in the queue ahead of yours and I expect it will be some two or three weeks before a reviewer gets a chance to look at it. Thank you for your patience. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
10:10:52, 24 August 2017 review of draft by Marina petrovska
[edit]
Marina petrovska (talk) 10:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- Reply - Hi there! It does not appear that there is a draft under that name. Is there a specific question you would like to ask? Isingness (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- A draft was (and still is) in the user's sandbox (as well as on the talk page of the sandbox). A French-language version of the draft was declined earlier today. But by then, the user had already copied the (English-language) draft directly into Main space. We have no involvement here. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, thank you for clearing that up! Isingness (talk) 15:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- A draft was (and still is) in the user's sandbox (as well as on the talk page of the sandbox). A French-language version of the draft was declined earlier today. But by then, the user had already copied the (English-language) draft directly into Main space. We have no involvement here. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
14:15:49, 24 August 2017 review of submission by KofiEdward
[edit]- KofiEdward (talk · contribs)
Please this Article has faced a lot of deletion from the Past years because it was it was purely structured and sourced I decided to help and make it s better one because the artist in name Dawn ODG meets most of the wikipedia requirements so please would like to ask for help so this Article can be created .Thanks a lot.
KofiEdward (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- User:KofiEdward has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. Maproom (talk) 20:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
15:25:16, 24 August 2017 review of submission by 84.82.199.142
[edit]
84.82.199.142 (talk) 15:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
The message I got was:
This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the general guideline on notability, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.
My reaction to this is:
1. Other Dutch families of the same list have a wiki-page similar to I designed. See for example
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifford_family_(bankers) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingen_Housz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Vloten_(family)
2. The sources I used do cover the persons at hand in a significant manner, as required or suggested by the WIKI-editor.
3. So please help me solve this problem.
Thank you.
- Reply - Hi there. It appears that the reviewer also left a note indicating that in order to solve the problem, you should include inline citations to support your content. You can read more about how to use the proper formatting here: Wikipedia:Inline citations. Assuming you have the sources to support the content, this will allow the next reviewer to see whether or not there are enough sources indicating the notability of your subject matter. Isingness (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
17:32:13, 24 August 2017 review of submission by Vyasanil13
[edit]- Vyasanil13 (talk · contribs)
- No draft specified!
Vyasanil13 (talk) 17:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Vyasanil13: Hi! Do you have a specific question about your AFC submission? KGirl (Wanna chat?) 20:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
20:09:24, 24 August 2017 review of submission by Quonky
[edit]
The reviewer declined my submission on the grounds that the sources used do not qualify my page for inclusion. Despite what the explanation says, most come from articles dedicated solely to BFF.fm, including several from notable print publications SFWeekly and the San Francisco Bay Guardian (now archived at 48 Hills, which is in itself a notable online publication) and the rest from online publications with substantial audiences. There is only one self-published source, which is the BFF.fm schedule, used to back up the hours of programming. Further, if you look at pages for similar San Francisco internet radio stations like Mutiny Radio and somaFM, my page has twice the relevant sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quonky (talk • contribs) 20:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- Hello, Quonky. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. I share the concerns of the reviewer. Although the sources that you use are mostly independent of the subject, they are in fact all local to the Oakland/San Francisco area. These leads us to the question of whether something is truly encyclopedic if it is only being discussed in the media of its hometown. I expect that you disagree with this assessment, but the failure of a subject to be discussed in non-local sources has been the very reason why many an article has been deleted here on Wikipedia. As for the other articles you mentioned, Wikipedia has more than 5 million user-generated articles and it is inevitable that some will exist even though they should not. I haven't formed any opinion about those other two articles but, more to the point, neither has the Wikipedia community (they've never been the subject of a community-wide deletion discussion). In the meantime, you might want to see if there is any non-local coverage of the station (perhaps in the national popular press?). Or, you can re-submit to find out what the next reviewer thinks. For my part, I'll place a request at the WikiProject for radio stations (WP:WikiProject Radio Stations) to see it they have any general guidance about online community stations. I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Quonky A relatively minor improvement you should do is to include complete bibliographic information in the references: author, date, publisher, etc. - not only the article title. Making such information more obvious helps readers (and reviewers) to more easily evaluate the article. See the Referencing for beginners guide. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:20, 24 August 2017 (UTC)