Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2013 February 17

= February 17 =

Robert Bell Hamilton - Estimated wait time?
Hi there,

I just wanted to check the estimated wait time on a new article we have submitted for review - on the architect Robert Bell Hamilton.

Regards,

James — Preceding unsigned comment added by James.harding (talk • contribs) 01:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * We have a massive backlog of more than 1,400 unreviewed submissions; the oldest are about three weeks old. But submissions are not necessarily reviewed in chronological order. Huon (talk) 02:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Atilla Iskifoglu
Hi there, I wonder how long is rewieving will take, its already being a long time. Can you please let me know?

Many Thanks

Deborah — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkremer (talk • contribs) 09:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * A review can currently take up to a month because there are so many submissions waiting to be reviewed. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Indian motorcycle company,USA/origin&
Dear Madams &Sirs, I am new to this venture,I I would appreciate any and all the assistance I can be afforded on this endeavor.Thank You, see you on the trail....Over and Out.......Indian Guide Klyde aka IGK>>-> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indian Guide Klyde (talk • contribs) 12:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * That draft was empty. If the company has received coverage in reliable, independent sources such as news coverage or maybe articles in reputable trade magazines, you can request others to write an article via WP:Requested articles and its sub-pages, here probably Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies. Please add links to the sources to your request so that the other editors will have something to base an article on. If the company hasn't received such coverage, it's not notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Huon (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Understand the terminology now ... objectivity required
Hi, I submitted a piece in Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/O'Reilly House Museum and my apologies as I thought "spammy" referred to it being a somewhat mediocre and often less than desired subsitute for the real thing??

However, based on the comment of the most recent editor, I suspect it referred to the fact that I was insufficiently objective (too much opinion and subjectivity?). At least that's the impression I get...

There are two references that I can use -- Canada's Historic Places and the Encyclopedia of Newfoundland and Labrador. Will those be sufficient? When I looked at the entry for the Drake House (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_House_%28Newfoundland%29), a museum close to Placentia, the reference they used was the registered heritage structure information.

If possible, I can complete a new draft using primarily those two references and be more objective in what I write.

Thanks for the input and for making it more clear what is meant by "spammy" ... learn something new every day, they say. All the best ... Malitza (talk) 18:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The Drake House (Newfoundland) article is hardly a shining example of what a Wikipedia article should look like; it does not cite any sources whatsoever. For now I've tagged it for cleanup; if no sources can be found we'll have to delete it. But while other insufficiently sourced articles exist, that's no reason to create more - each submission must stand on its own merits. The Encyclopedia of Newfoundland and Labrador sounds like a good source, provided it covers the museum in some detail. Canada's Historic Places also looks like a good source to me, but while it discusses the house, it does not mention the museum at all. So the house itself may be more notable than the museum that currently occupies it, and in that case it may be better to write an article on the house, not on the museum. Huon (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Luxury Point at Sayreville
Please review this page ASAP.

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Luxury Point at Sayreville

Thank You

Deepen03 (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I have reviewed it and had to decline it because it's an advertisement masquerading as an article. The draft is full of promotional phrases such as "luxury", "iconic", "world’s finest retail market" and so on. Almost none of them are supported by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The draft would have to be rewritten almost entirely to achieve a more neutral tone and to summarize what the reliable sources actually do say about the development project. In fact, they don't even call it "Luxury Point". By the way, there's a massive backlog of almost 1,500 unreviewed submissions, and yours is no more important than the others. It may take three weeks or more for a submission to be reviewed. Please be patient. Huon (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)