Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2013 August 13
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < August 12 | << Jul | August | Sep >> | August 14 > |
| 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 13
editHi - I had a quick question...the top of the page says that my article is pending review (yellow box) and the top says it has not been submitted for review. (grey box).
This is confusing. Can you confirm that you are seeing that it was submitted for review from your side?
Thanks very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sg75900 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- The draft is submitted. As long as there's a yellow box, you can ignore any gray boxes. Howicus (talk) 01:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I was searching for Alvarez and Marsal, AlixPartners and FTI consulting for a work project, and it took a while tofind this page which doesn't seem finished, but also isnt in the main section. It looks like someome did some work, will this page move to the main section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.1.203.3 (talk) 03:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- The page is currently submitted for review. If it is accepted, it will be moved to mainspace. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I am having trouble using the references to cite my sources so I kinda put them within the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kensikora (talk • contribs) 04:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- The article as it currently stands is simply not encyclopedic. From reading through it, I get the impression that FiberGlassics is a website about boats, as outlined in this article in Boating Magazine. This source is an excellent one to start with, and you should find other book or magazine sources similar to that, and write your article around it. Nobody cares about when the domain was registered, and who runs the website, and it's counter-balanced by that magazine report saying Kelly Wood made an annual loss of $5,000 on the website. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Review of User:Jamieh100/sandbox
editwhere do you add the wikipdeia title/name? Jamieh100 (talk) 04:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- Your submission has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hardtec Stainless Steel. It has also been declined as it doesn't reference any reliable sources. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Review of User:Christopher Sean Webb/sandbox
editHi,
how do you link to 'categories' within an article ?
Christopher Sean Webb (talk) 09:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- You use the syntax
[[Category:My category name]]. See Help:Category for more information. However, your article as it stands has more serious problems, as a large proportion of text was copy and pasted from this website, which is a copyright violation, so I had to delete it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Resend Edits
editHello, can you please re-send me the edits for this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Carl_Ronald_Kahn
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Carl Ronald Kahn
I would like to make the edits and then resubmit the page.
Thanks.
Elliot735P (talk) 15:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- You can click on "Resubmit" in the "Submission declined" box, which will take your submission to review. If you can verify Kahn has been Professor of Medicine at Harvard, he is probably notable per our guidelines for notability of academics. However, a large amount of content and sources appears to be research done by Kahn, not articles or papers about him. I would trim this information down, as a large amount of references will take time to distill, and cause delays for your submission to be reviewed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I have tried to submit this article for review several times, but I continue to get a dialog box stating the article has not been submitted for review. Is there a way to submit the article?
Inner3 (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- There is a grey button with the text "Submit your draft when you are ready for it to be reviewed!" on that box. Click on that, and your article should be queued for review. However, I would advise you not to do this, as the submission does not appear to be backed with reliable sources and will likely be declined. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I cant tell if my article is actually up for review. Is it actually up? How long does it usually take for a review?
Thanks for your help.
Patrick Santa216.178.108.233 (talk) 17:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yep, it's up for review. Check the bottom of the page. It might take up to two weeks for your article to be reviewed. Howicus (talk) 17:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi there,
I've been trying to upload a page on Joe Cross for months and it keeps getting rejected! I have been told it sounds too much like an advertisement, but I have edited it numerous times since and it is still getting rejected.
Can you please be more specific about the changes I need to make in order for it to be approved?
Many thanks!
Sophie
(Fruitandvegies78 (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC))
- That draft has quite a few promotional statements that are based on primary sources such as Cross' own book or interviews with Cross. For example, Cross himself is the only source for the claim that he was "one of the youngest traders to receive a full trading license at the Sydney Futures Exchange". And his company "aims to help people reclaim their health through juicing and healthy eating"? You really expect us to believe that the company doesn't priarily aim to make money? Then why isn't it a non-profit?
- My suggestion would be to remove all the primary sources and to rewrite the draft from scratch based on what third-party sources have to say about Cross. Huon (talk) 04:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I am unclear how to provide more reliable sources for this article; to us the sources are reliable. We need someone to help us.
68.56.201.191 (talk) 20:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- Of the draft's four sources, the first link is broken, but it seemed to point to a conference website, not a reliable source subject to editorial oversight. The second is a blog post by a personal acquaintance, that's neither reliable nor an independent source. The third is an interview with the founder, also not an independent source. The fourth is the organization's own website, also clearly not independent. We need significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper articles about the organization (not just passing mentions, not interviews, not press releases). Huon (talk) 04:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)