Help desk
< June 16	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 18 >

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.

June 17

Request on 10:10:11, 17 June 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by CH16

CH16 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Jorma Vuoksenmaa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hey, I made an article about Finnish sport betting professional Jorma Vuoksenmaa. First I made a longer article and then shorter one. Both were not accepted. As a reference there were two big finnish newspaper articles, british Racing Post -magazine, Vuoksenmaas essay in Gambling and commercial gaming: essays in business, economics, philosophy and science. Reno, Nev.: Institute for the Study of Gambling and Commercial Gaming, College of Business Administration, University of Nevada, Reno, his own book and also something else.

I don't understand what kind of references I need to add? Is it problem that references are in Finnish language? Vuoksenmaa is very well-known in Finland but not so much abroad. Finnish Wikipedia accepted this article https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jorma_Vuoksenmaa without any problem.

So can you help me because I dont really understand what I can do to make article match your standards?

CH16 (talk) 10:10, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CH16. Your short version cited only two sources, both written by Vuoksenmaa. They can't help establish his notability because they are not independent of him. Try to avoid using anything written by him as a reference, unless it's the only source for something uncontroversial. Instead list his book(s) in a "Published works" section after his biography and before the references. Don't include shorter works such as chapters or magazine articles. Such a list is self-supporting. It can be helpful to use cite templates to format the list, but there is no reason to append references in <ref></ref> tags to the list entries. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists of works for more information and Antonin Scalia for an example.

Your long version was declined because the reviewer objected to the references, but they didn't explain what it was about them that they objected to. You would have to ask them. References in Finnish are fine. Presentation can influence reviewers.

One reference repeated the url in the title field, another used an invalid dot-separated date format. Minor errors like this can make it look like you don't care.
Reviwers are unlikely to be familiar with the Finnish poker media landscape. You can assist them by linking the website/work/newspaper field, such as The Hendon Mob, MTV3, Ilta-Sanomat, etc.
For foreign language and offline sources, it is helpful to use the cite template's quote parameter. See Wikipedia:Citing sources#Additional annotation.
Interviews may or may not help establish notability, depending on how much analysis there is by the interviewer and how much it is just Vuoksenmaa talking about Vuoksenmaa.
As above, try to avoid citing anything Vuoksenmaa has written. If you must cite his work, make it clear that he's the author.

--Worldbruce (talk) 17:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

22:00:50, 17 June 2017 review of submission by Janweh64

Janweh64 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Don Reitz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I request an independent review of this article. COI paid editor —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've been editing for 5 years now and should know that you'll have to wait your turn. There are other articles ahead of you in the queue but kudos for at least following the AfC process as a COI editor. You might find Category:AfC pending submissions by age helpful to judge how far up in the queue your draft is. jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:08, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know how to interpret the Category:AfC pending submissions by age. A quick explanation of how AFC HELP people give estimates of drafts ahead of me and I would not pester this noticeboard so often. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 06:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want to pester this noticeboard so often, don't pester this noticeboard so often. Some of us, including me, have no intention of helping paid editors. However, I would suggest that the most general way to interpret the categories is that the amount of time that you will wait is random. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Janweh64: Starting from Category:AfC pending submissions by age, and assuming you don't remember when your draft was submitted, you can determine how many drafts have been waiting longer as follows. Follow the subcategory links on that page from oldest to newest until you find the page with your draft on it. Add it's position on that page, counted from the upper left, to the totals from all older category pages. For example, at this moment Draft:Don Reitz:

is not in Category:AfC pending submissions by age/Very old so add the number of pages in that category: 86
is in Category:AfC pending submissions by age/4 weeks ago, about 110 pages in, so add that number

Thus about 200 drafts have been waiting longer than Reitz. That doesn't mean that Reitz will be the 200th reviewed, because volunteers work in all sorts of different ways - it's a pool of drafts rather than a queue, but the smaller the number the more likely it will be reviewed soon. You can estimate when by monitoring the number over a few days. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]