Help desk
< December 1	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 3 >

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.

December 2[edit]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Defense Officer Personnel Management Act[edit]

Hello! I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and this is my first attempt at drafting an article. I noticed my AfC still has the "Article Not Submitted for Review" box at the top of the page while the "Review Waiting" box is at the bottom. Did I mess this up? Thanks for your help. Ramos37 (talk) 02:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)Ramos37[reply]

I believe I fixed it. Small template issue, I moved them around to the correct locations. I've seen it a few times, so it's probably not your fault. Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for the submission! CharmlessCoin (talk) 03:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help!05:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)Ramos37 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramos37 (talk • contribs)

title /name change[edit]

Article for creation/Dr. Horst Thilo.

Hi, I have made a mistake in the title. It should read, Dr Heinz Thilo. I don't know how to change the title.!!! 74.239.209.92 (talk) 06:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've significantly rewritten the draft and moved it to the mainspace at Heinz Thilo. Articles on doctors commonly don't mention the "Dr" in the title; compare Josef Mengele. The article could still do with some better sources, especially on Thilo's early life and on his imprisonment in 1945. Huon (talk) 12:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Edward Evelyn Greaves[edit]

hi! i have created this page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Edward_Evelyn_Greaves#High_Commission_of_Barbados.2C_Ottawa

when will it publish??

please give reply

regards ReynoldaustinReynoldaustin (talk) 13:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's currently a massive backlog of more than 1,300 unreviewed submissions; it may take about three weeks until a reviewer takes a look at your submission. However, at a glance I don't think the references are sufficient to verify the draft's content. For example, Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source (that would be circular), and none of the other sources mention Greaves' education or his terms as a representative. You should also use inline citations to clarify which reference supports which of the draft's statements. If the draft were reviewed in its current state it would probably be declined. Huon (talk) 15:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/MySecretLuxury[edit]

My article was rejected because the reviewer felt it read like an advertisement. I edited it as much as possible. However, still not sure why it is not approved. I provided 6 outside articles that were written about the business being described. A competing business (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babeland) sounds MUCH more like an advertisement and is approved.

Any specific comments/suggestions would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srybchin (talk • contribs) 19:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, other problematic articles exist, but that's no reason to create more. Each submission must stand on its own merits. Secondly, the draft is chock-full of fawning adjectives: "luxury", "first-of-its-kind" (that one could actually be sourced, but still), "world-class" and so on. Thirdly, BetaBeat is a blog, the XBiz source doesn't say they nominated MySecretLuxury for anything, much less "only" two months after founding (and even if it did it would still be a primary source), the The Frisky and Inc. articles seem based on the BetaBeat coverage and provide little additional information, and let's be honest, the TechCrunch piece reads like a badly-written parody. Conversely, these sources don't confirm many of the draft's claims; for example, none discusses MySecretLuxury's relation to Denslow Digital LLC or mentions the "emerging trend of subscription services". The dubious sources and the verifiablity problems would on their own be sufficient to decline the draft; the tone is just the icing on the cake (and admittedly it is better than the version that was reviewed).

Finally, if you are Stacy Rybchin as your username suggests, you may want to read our guideline on conflicts of interest. Writing about your own company is discouraged. Huon (talk) 20:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Article Review[edit]

Hello, I have 2 articles submitted for review but I've noticed that they keep falling farther and farther down the list rather than moving closer to the front to be reviewed. Have I done something wrong?

One article is titled "Paul Fetler" and the other is titled "Studies for Cello - J.L. Duport."

Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by -AH-Bowmaster (talk • contribs) 23:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both drafts are correctly submitted for review; as long as there's a "review waiting" message and they're categorized among the pending AfC submissions (the very last line), everything is OK. Those numbers are the total of unreviewed submissions, not your drafts' places on the list. So they aren't falling down the list, but the list is getting longer. Due to that massive backlog it may take some time until a reviewer takes a detailed look, but the Studies for Cello draft has already received a reviewer's comment, and I agree: The section on the select etudes seems excessively long and doesn't cite any reliable secondary sources; it should probably be shortened. Huon (talk) 23:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]