Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2012 May 11

= May 11 =

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/H. J. High Construction
My article Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation/H. J. High Construction was rejected because it "appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia." However, no indications were given as to which sections or passages were in question.

I'd simply like to know which sections or passages caused the problem, so I'll know where to edit, revise and rewrite. I'd appreciate a response at your earliest convenience. D102653A (talk) 13:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Everything after the 'History' section. See Guide to writing better articles and WP:NPOV. Oh, and WP:REFB because your references are not properly formatted. Pol430 talk to me 17:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Anything between tags placed after the will not appear. If you prefer to use your own numbered system for now, see BULLET for instructions. Sionk (talk) 21:56, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Google Penguin
Hello, I've submitted an article about Google's Penguin update for review on May 8th. How long do you think it will be before it gets reviewed? The big yellow template says it may take several days. But then I read somewhere else (don't remember where exactly, sorry) that it may take weeks. So, I'm confused. Also, can I submit more articles or edit existing entries while I'm waiting for this one to get reviewed? Thanks:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fenticus (talk • contribs) 13:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC) Fenticus (talk) 13:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ because it's a 'high value' subject and it's good to go (nothing an AWB user can't clear up in a second or two...). You can edit existing entries and you can submit more. I've just cleared the last of the 1st May submissions, so present waiting time is about 10 days. Pol430 talk to me 17:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dr. Ruben Quintero
I'm curious as to why an actual medical website and a newspaper (both listed as acceptable sources according to Wiki guidelines is being refused as "reliable sources". What more could be asked for it? Seola1 (talk) 17:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Everything being described as "pioneering" or "a first" may be problematic as the requirement for neutrality strongly discourages wording articles in such a way as to appear as self-promotional advertisement. The list of 17 "firsts" looks to be pretty much verbatim from his employer's website, one of the two sources listed for the article. Wikipedia is not a suitable venue for self-promotion. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 03:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)