Help desk
< February 24	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 26 >

Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

February 25

01:57:07, 25 February 2022 review of submission by 58.88.62.124

58.88.62.124 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Apartheid in Malaysia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am not the initial writter or submitter, but I think this draft should be re-reviewed. I disagree with the initial reviewer Nyanardsan that this is a "POV-pushing essay", when there are citations and other sources that talks about this topic. 58.88.62.124 (talk) 01:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can appeal to the reviewer, but you could also try expanding the existing article about Bumiputera (Malaysia). 331dot (talk) 09:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

05:34:53, 25 February 2022 review of submission by Billapartygang123

Billapartygang123 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:The Walking Zombie 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have been trying to publish my draft "The Walking Zombie 2" but it is being rejected every time. Please check my draft and tell why is it happening i have put many riwvews and sources about it and I am not biased in the article. -Billapartygang123 Billapartygang123 (talk) 05:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Billapartygang123 The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. It appears that the game does not meet the special Wikipedia definition of notability. The sources are largely game walkthroughs, places to obtain the game, and other minor coverage. 331dot (talk) 09:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier it was declined due to lack of independent references but now i have put many independent rivewis/sources. Please check and approve it for article. Billapartygang123 (talk) 11:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Billapartygang123 You put sources, but you have not summarized what they say. An article must summarize what independent reliable sources say about the game, not merely tell about the game. For additional comments, please edit this existing section, instead of creating additional sections. This is easier to do in full desktop mode. 331dot (talk) 13:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So I have to also tell what those independent reviews are telling? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billapartygang123 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:09:16, 25 February 2022 review of draft by Emmy1707

Emmy1707 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Philipp Hochmair (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you very much for the quick reply and the tips. I have made the corrections and added the missing sources, but I am unsure if they are sufficient. Again, I would be very happy to receive a reply.Emmy1707 (talk) 13:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emmy1707 (talk) 13:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:23:34, 25 February 2022 review of submission by Jmcapdevj

Jmcapdevj (talk · contribs)
- No draft specified!

Jmcapdevj (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2022 (UTC) I submitted a revised version of John R. Falck draft following suggestions by the last reviewer I reduced the number of citations and condensed the text as much as possible. I would like to know: a) was it received, b) are the changes acceptable, and c) what do i need to do to finalize it Thanks Jorge Capdevila (ID Jmcapedvj)Jmcapdevj (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Asked and answered at Teahouse. John R. Falck now an article. David notMD (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:06:12, 25 February 2022 review of draft by HiMyNameIsFrancesca

HiMyNameIsFrancesca (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Securities services (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, the reasons given for not accepting the article don't seem to actually apply to the article. I came on this article after it had been completely rewritten and edited it for grammar and organization. However, the reviewer on the 22nd just gave the same exact reason, copy & paste.

I don't see how it reads like an advertisement. The topic is clearly notable, it's a huge subsector of the financial services industry. It is not focused on any company or country, etc. The article is well-referenced, it is neutral on the topic, notability is not in question.

So I am completely befuddled by the rejection on the 22nd, especially since there is a huge backlog yet it happened so quickly, by copy & pasting the same identical reasons that probably did apply before someone rewrote it.

Can some people please actually look at it and state how the complaints about it actually apply?

HiMyNameIsFrancesca (talk) 21:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HiMyNameIsFrancesca, funny you say copy and paste as the article is a copy and paste of Custodian_bank.Slywriter (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[[1] -earwig report comparing the two.Slywriter (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of the other article BUT that does not negate the fact that none of the reasons for rejection actually apply to the article. If they do apply to Securities Services, they apply EVEN MORE SO to Custodian bank because I edited the Securities services article for grammar and removed some slangy words like "players" that gave it a hint of being advertisement-like. It seems to be written originally by someone in the UK but maybe English is their second language. If VALID reason had been given for rejecting the article the first time, I wouldn't have wasted time editing it. This kind of sloppiness in rejecting articles is NOT a good way to get people to participate in Wikipedia. HiMyNameIsFrancesca (talk) 21:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]