Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2014 January 3

= January 3 =

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Your submission name here
my article was adjudicated not contain source even though I attached title of the thesis and the name of international publication in the field. article is of general interest because it describes the widespread disease and the person who received awards for this research. it also stands at the Wikipedia guidelines that people in research and academia who broadened their research considerably since the doctorate can be included in article. Your reasoning is not correct.Hans Dahlqvist (talk) 08:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Your article submission at User:Hans Dahlqvist/sandbox contained no references whatsoever other than to the journal that published what I presume was a research paper prepared by yourself. You did not provide any references to substantiate the claims that this is "a breakthrough for understanding insulin therapy and vascular changes in diabetes". You also did not provide any references to substantiate "He was project manager ... at world leading pharmaceutical companies ... for the development of various drugs ... which has since become approved for use within the intended therapeutic areas". Wikipedia cannot include biographies on that basis. You should read Conflict of interest. On a related note, PROFESSOR does not appear to regard associate professors as automatically notable. You may also benefit from reviewing MEDRS. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Scaling dimension
I submitted this article for creation about a month ago but it's not getting any attention. I have doubts if it is really considered submitted. Can you please confirm? Is there any problem with my article that it is taking such a long time to be considered? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhysicsAboveAll (talk • contribs) 14:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * We are currently very backlogged as the submission templates indicate. Currently we're trying to take care of submissions that are over 4 weeks pending. Your submission shows it's only been waiting for 18 days, so it may need to wait longer for a reviewer to evaluate it.  I ran a "cleaner" over the submission so that the pending submission template would be promoted to the top of the page. Have a nice day. Hasteur (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kendall Taylor
I want to submit this article that I have written, but I simply cannot understand all the instructions to get it into the right format. Can somebody do this for me? Also I want to upload a photo to go in it, but I don't know how to do this. So what happens now? I am mystified! Npkt (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Npkt

Review Waiting Time Length
Hello, I have an article that is under review right now. It has been about 3 weeks and it's still in the yellow box waiting to be reviewed. Is it common for the review to take this long? Also, is there anyway I can speed up to process? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marissa.anaya (talk • contribs) 23:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes it is common for reviews to take this long. Further improving the submission (without removing the submission template) may possibly help to speed up the process. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)