Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 February 6
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < February 5 | << Jan | February | Mar >> | February 7 > |
| 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. |
February 6 edit
05:22:31, 6 February 2017 review of submission by Anees7210 edit
Please let me know why the article was not approved. Anees7210 (talk) 05:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- Hello, Anees. I see that one of our reviewers has already responded to you by placing a comment near the top of your draft. If we can be of any further assistance, please let us know. NewYorkActuary (talk) 09:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
06:07:20, 6 February 2017 review of submission by Ayaani edit
i created a page named Bahari.. the link you provided is Bahari_(village), so i just want to change that link to Bahari_(Sidhi). because it'll show in search engine when user type sidhi or bahari sidhi, actually i was searching bahari then the result came on google is bahari but that was not a bahari_(village). in the wiki search page there were other bahari like bangladesh bahari etc came. so please check this once and give a suitable link or edit your edit page and add there bahari_(village) tooo.
thanks
Ayaani (talk) 06:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- The page is now located at Bahari, Sidhi. NewYorkActuary (talk) 09:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
16:32:25, 6 February 2017 review of submission by Theautist edit
I'm not sure why it keeps saying i didn't have enough citations - i cite the original each time. However i did have two reference sections at the foot of the page for some reason, one of which was empty - i've deleted that now - is that what was confusing everyone?
- Hello, Theautist. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. The best source of information as to why your submission was declined is the reviewer who looked at it. I see that you've already contacted that person, so I expect that you'll get an informative response in the near future. For now, I'll offer two observations based on my own quick look at your draft. First, you may have done yourself a disservice by placing your references in the form of "bare URLs". Doing so means that, if any reader (including a reviewer) wants to learn essential bibliographic detail such as who wrote an article and when it was published, they have to leave Wikipedia and gather that information for themselves. You can avoid this problem by using the {{cite web}} template. Second, I see that you cited at least one review to the website of the author of the book, and not the publisher of the review. This is problematic, because the author's website is likely to reprint only those portions of reviews that were positive. Gathering such "censored" reviews for use in the draft creates an issue under our neutral-point-of-view policy. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
17:27:17, 6 February 2017 review of submission by Rgschroeder12 edit
Can you tell me how much longer it will take to review my draft? I think I followed all the guidelines, so it shouldn't take long to review it. Thanks.Rgschroeder12 (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Rgschroeder12 (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- Hello, RG. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. As I type this, there are about 100 drafts that entered the queue before yours, so it is going to take a few days before someone gets around to looking at it. Although I can not give a precise amount of time, it will almost certainly be looked at within a week. Thank you for your patience. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
19:39:10, 6 February 2017 review of submission by Sausalitoarchitect edit
- Sausalitoarchitect (talk · contribs)
- No draft specified!
I am just learning how to edit and I realize I submitted my first two articles before I understood the entire process. Both people were architects ("creative professionals") in the Organic Architecture style. They were partners and their work was published in notable publications and books and some won awards. I realize I submitted both too early and before I understood what kinds of references you accepted and I wrote down some references that were not important. I am revising both pages to make it clear that they were both notable and are widely cited by peers and successors and they have a significant body of work. Will I be able to resubmit both pages?
- Hello, SA. Thank you for your submissions to Wikipedia. Yes, you can resubmit those drafts. Indeed, I see that you have already done so with one of them. For the other, simply click the "resubmit" button near the top of the draft when you feel it is ready to be looked at. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
How do I resubmit the Violeta Autumn one?
- You already did -- back on January 12. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
22:29:24, 6 February 2017 review of draft by Karenthewriter edit
Is there a way that I can change the name of an article before it is submitted for review?
I am preparing to submit an article entitled "Wide Awake", want to change the name to "Wide Awake Magazine", but can't figure out how to do so. This is only my second article. My first one (Meg Duncan) was written back in about 2008, so I'm not a Wikipedia expert. I thought I could edit everything, including the title, until I finished it.
Thank you for any help you can give me. Karenthewriter (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit§ion=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AFC_submission/draft/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Wide_Awake# Karenthewriter (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- Hello, Karen. I'll be happy to do the renaming for you, but "Wide Awake Magazine" doesn't seem to be the right choice. As shown in the Library of Congress listing here, the word "Magazine" wasn't actually part of the title. So, it seems to me that Wide Awake (magazine) is the better page title. If you agree, I'll go ahead with the change. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)