Help desk
< May 6	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 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.

May 7

01:38:59, 7 May 2018 review of submission by Savant-Man

Savant-Man (talk · contribs)
- G.I. Joe: Ever Vigilant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello. I need to find sources a few drafts that are needed to be improved. These are the drafts:

These are other articles that needs to be improved, like some the Transformers and G.I. Joe comics by IDW Publishing.

And just in case, I started to prepare a draft titled "Hasbro's untitled cinematic universe", to converge the G.I. Joe film series with the other brands.

I hope this is worth for all for you. And thank you so much for everything, despite I'm still a rookie writer.

Savant-Man (talk) 01:38, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

01:43:50, 7 May 2018 review of submission by MozzyAU

MozzyAU (talk · contribs)

I'm wondering how long the next review will be. It's been a number of weeks.

MozzyAU (talk) 01:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MozzyAU: It has been 7 weeks, and I don't think any draft has been awaiting review longer than about 9 weeks, so it shouldn't be too long now (relatively speaking). --Worldbruce (talk) 01:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

08:16:43, 7 May 2018 review of submission by Tamaragordon91

Tamaragordon91 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Bezalel (electronics) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi may I know if my contribution passed your criteria? as I read the Wikipedia rules and I think I obey your rules/guidelines. Tamaragordon91 (talk) 08:16, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review. It's on the day I'm working to clear. Legacypac (talk) 16:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

15:54:13, 7 May 2018 review of submission by Miguel.ptf

Miguel.ptf (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Indie Campers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello AFC help team, I recently created a draft page for Indie Campers, a tourism start-up based in Portugal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Indie_Campers. After some time of evaluation, it has been declined by reviewer Legacypac, with the following explanation: «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 guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies, 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.»

Do you think you would be able to help me in further understanding why the article was not deemed as valid/acceptable? I ask this as I have included 13 references/sources on the article page, of which 11 are significant coverages about the topic (the company itself) and only 2 of them are not direct but rather indirect coverage. All those sources are also totally independent from the subject/company, and are seen as published, reliable sources on their own contexts (main national publications in Portugal + Euronews + main topic-related publication in Germany).

I have attempted to read as much as possible - before and after having found out about the declining of the submission - about the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies, and I have also compared this article with articles for other companies, and I do not see how this one is less complete/less referenced than others that I have seen published. However, I naturally accept and understand other opinions/visions on the matter.

I would appreciate the help! Thank you so much in advance. Best, Miguel.ptf

Miguel.ptf (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CORPDEPTH. It is a relatively young company and the page reads like an ad. Legacypac (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

16:38:08, 7 May 2018 review of submission by Nina07011960

Nina07011960 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Ella Sheppard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Draft:Ella Sheppard

We've been waiting a very long time for review. One of the editors listed the page as needing "an extended discussion of the draft's shortcomings." The problems mentioned have been fixed for weeks, and I have received no response in this "discussion." Please advise.Nina07011960 (talk) 16:38, 7 May 2018 (UTC) Nina07011960 (talk) 16:38, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have a backlog streching to 8 weeks. She is notable and dead. I've approved the page. Carry on in mainspace Legacypac (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

21:01:00, 7 May 2018 review of submission by MariaSynenka

MariaSynenka (talk · contribs)
- Symbols of Ukrainian people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello! My article has been accepted and received Start class. But I haven't received any recommendations on how to improve it. Please help, I do want it to be a decent article. As this is a translation from Ukrainian, adding new sources may be an issue. Thanks! MariaSynenka (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

peer review or wikiproject (Ukraine?) will be better. Quek157 (talk) 09:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good article. Don't worry about the assessment. Legacypac (talk) 15:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]