Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2014 July 2

= July 2 =

00:45:57, 2 July 2014 review of submission by Missionedit
Hi, I reviewed Draft:Andrew Brook and declined it for the sources not showing the subject to be notable. But I'm having second thoughts, and would like another opinion. Thanks! ~ Anastasia (talk) 00:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC) Anastasia (talk) 00:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The author contacts you on your talk page so now you have doubts? What criteria does the subject pass? WP:GNG? No. WP:PROF? No. The article asserts the subject is a Rhodes Scholar, but where's the sourcing? The Rhodes scholars list at Oxford says no. We can't develop notability based on the subject's own publications and I doubt there's much notability from those other articles. You were right to reject on notability. I also agree with your comment about layout. The text just looks painful. We need to bring back paid editing because at least those folks made pretty articles.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 05:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

04:45:08, 2 July 2014 review of submission by Josire12
I have been updating Teso College Aloet page but the comments on top of the page are still there when do they go away?

Any help that you can provide will be much appreciated.

Thanks John. Josire12 (talk) 04:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This help desk is for drafts. You can ask your question at Help desk or at the Teahouse. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 05:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

09:42:05, 2 July 2014 review of submission by Noirdeer
Hello Wikipedians, These days I have been writing an article for pCloud - a cloud storage service, however, my article had been rejected for a second time and I really do not understand why. The first rejection was basked on problematic reference pages, and I understand this. However, I don't see an explanation about the second rejection, because the reference list was entirely changed and it does not contain any advertising websites or websites related to the service in any way. Please, advise. Best regards, Nelly Karaivanova Noirdeer (talk) 09:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I see an explanation of the second rejection. Have you visited Draft:PCloud and looked at the comments nder the boxes that decline it? It is a concise explanation. If there are parts of it you would like help with please ask specific questions in this thread. Fiddle   Faddle  10:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

11:10:10, 2 July 2014 review of submission by 93.45.178.185
How long will still take revision for my page having added references to my last draft?

Thanks!

93.45.178.185 (talk) 11:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Reviews are at the discretion of the volunteer reviewers, who try to take the oldest first, and do not tend to review those where they have insufficient skill. The best answer I have is "as soon as we can". Fiddle   Faddle  11:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * If this draft were to be reviewed in its current state, it would be quickly declined. I have had a look at the draft and at the web caches of the former Italian Wikipedia article of which the draft is a direct translation. The article was multiply-deleted on the Italian Wikipedia as an advertisement with no independent sources. In fact, it was deleted and re-created so many times that the title and its various permutations of capitalisation have been salted. See . On June 17th, its creator, Utente:Amedeo Leone, was blocked for three months for disruption and block evasion using IPs. See . The tone of this draft (like the Italian WP article) is promotional and written as an alternative web page for the publication rather than an encyclopedia article. There are no independent sources attesting to its notability. The Prismanews article appears to be press-release based and all the rest are self-published sources, sources directly connected to the publication, or sources which do not mention the subject at all. The publication's founder and editor Romolo Reboa has some notability because of his involvement in the "Laziogate" scandal—Francesco Storace was sentenced to a year and and a half in prison and Reboa was sentenced to one year, but the convictions were overturned in 2012. However, that does not make his publication notable. I can give you no further advice apart from re-reading the advice given to you many times at Discussioni utente:Amedeo Leone, Discussioni utente:109.114.110.70, and Discussioni utente:93.45.178.185. Please also read the advice in Italian at Wikipedia:Pagine promozionali o celebrative and in English at Conflict of interest. Pinging Tim Trent. – Voceditenore (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Out of my scope, I fear. I do not read Italian. Fiddle   Faddle  17:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

16:32:56, 2 July 2014 review of submission by Jds319
I've submitted an article for consideration "Parviz Kambin" twice. both times it has been rejected because the editor states that the references are verifiable. I am trying to correct this but so far have been unsuccessful. I do not understand what is missing from my references. This is the last communication I received from the editor. Dear @Jds319, the references must be verifiable, see WP:VERIFY. For example, consider this reference from the AfC in-process: Savitz M.D., Martin (2005). The Practice of Minimally Invasive Spinal Technique (2005 ed.). AAMISS PRESS. p. 581. How could it be verified? --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ)(Support) 14:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC

Please help me to understand what is wrong with this submission. Jds319 (talk) 16:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I will look at your article, Draft:Parviz Kambin, and leave what I hope you will view as useful comments on it. A reference is a reference is a reference. What us important is that it is independent of the person (a peer reviewed scientific paper can count because of the peer review, even if they are the author), is significant coverage and is in a WP:RS. It is ideal if one can also link to an online version, but it is not mandatory. Fiddle   Faddle  17:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ PLease come back here for new questions. I am also happy to take questions on my own talk page about my specific comments if you find any of them difficult to implement or understand. Fiddle   Faddle  17:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)