Help desk
< March 20	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 22 >

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.

March 21

00:49:42, 21 March 2017 review of submission by Hespeb

Hespeb (talk · contribs)

Hello,

 I submitted a revision of my entry over a month ago.

Please let me know it's status. Thanks, Bob

Hespeb (talk) 00:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You actually just submitted it two weeks ago. The AfC system has hit another backlog, this time at about 850 submissions. Please be patient as we reduce the backlog and get to yours as quickly as we can. Thank you, JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

02:59:16, 21 March 2017 review of submission by Tabrown5

Tabrown5 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Richie Harrison (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I am requesting help! Please help me by reviewing this article to verify that the draft is ready for publishlication. The article was previously rejected for "badly formatted reference links" and I would like to ask help for someone to review the article to check that the reference links are better formatted, and give an opinion as to whether the article is ready to go live. I really appreciate your help so that the article is not rejected again, or heaven forbid we upset the Wiki-Gods! Thank You. TaBrown5

Tabrown5 (talk) 02:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tabrown. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Your formatting looks fairly good, and far better than many of the other submissions we receive here. I'm confident that the Wiki-Gods are well-pleased with your efforts. But since you've asked, I'll point out a few things. First, the dates of the AllMusic references should be the date that the web entry was posted on the AllMusic site, not the date the album was released. I understand that AllMusic generally doesn't date its postings and, if I'm correct about that, then the "date" parameter should be left blank. Second, Wikipedia's Manual of Style differs from those of other publications. And so, just because another publication chooses to use all-caps in the name of an article, we don't feel obliged to follow their practice and, under our Manual of Style, we don't follow their practice. The same is true for a publication that uses all-caps in its title. And third, reference no. 18 ought to use the {{cite interview}} template, which will facilitate presenting the information not normally required for non-interview references. And two final points -- your references should include the "access-date" parameter, which is essential for citing web material (because the material in a web posting can change over time) and the "Additional references" section can also use the citation templates for their formatting. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

04:55:09, 21 March 2017 review of submission by Rdev5

Rdev5 (talk · contribs)
- User:Rdev5/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Received the following comment from SwisterTwister on an article pending review (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rdev5/sandbox):

"Specifically focus with all majorly published book reviews in major publications; notability cannot be inherited from others. SwisterTwister talk 22:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)"

Does he mean that our citations should be trimmed down to only majorly published book reviews in major publications, or is he attempting to alert other reviewers that our content is no good because it attempts to inherit notability from others?

Also, can you please clarify what this line actually means: "notability cannot be inherited from others." I've read a little bit on it on Wikipedia, but am not entirely sure which citations or content specifically are held in question here.

Thanks!

Rdev5 (talk) 04:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rdev5: Please clarify what you mean by "our". The policy on Wikipedia is "one user—one account". Usernames should not be shared by multiple individuals.

"Notability is not inherited" is the idea that the notability of a notable subject doesn't rub off on related subjects. Clearing away the name dropping in "she was appointed by President Reagan’s Treasury Secretary Donald Regan to serve as special assistant and chief of staff to Undersecretary for Monetary Affairs Beryl Sprinkel," does being special assistant and chief of staff to an undersecretary automatically make one notable? No. Tone down the name dropping and the citation overkill.

If the premise is that Machol is notable as an author, the sources to concentrate on are book reviews by professional reviewers in reputable publications. Interviews of someone on a book tour to promote their book are apt to be regarded as primary sources and not independent. Get rid of forbes.com/sites. These are blogs. Those written by contributors rather than Forbes staffers are not reliable sources for facts, and Wikipedia doesn't really care about the opinions of random bloggers. The same probably goes for sites like Fatherly and mom.me. Wikipedia is user-generated, so it is not a reliable source, and should not be used as a reference. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Worldbruce: Understood, thanks. The use of "our" is not meant to suggest there are multiple individuals using this account (which is strictly mine). This is my first Wikipedia page, so bear with me. There's one other person helping me with content and proofreading (in this case, citations) that came to mind, but they're not using my account to make any edits on anything.

21:38:11, 21 March 2017 review of submission by Islamborinca

Islamborinca (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Islam Borinca (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wha i should do exactly?

Declined for the reasons explained on the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]