Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2015 June 4

= June 4 =

02:44:18, 4 June 2015 review of submission by 2604:2000:A031:6500:54F5:C39E:7F8D:D14D
Why is it taking so long for the draft to get improved, thank you in advance

2604:2000:A031:6500:54F5:C39E:7F8D:D14D (talk) 02:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * One of my favorite restaurants often has a line out the door and around the block. They've posted signs showing the approximate wait time from different points. Your draft is taking a long time to be reviewed because it's standing in a very very long line, and there are only a handful of volunteers serving at the front. Your draft is still about 10 days from the front of the line.
 * If, when it gets there, it can't be accepted, it will be sent back to you for improvement, after which it will start over at the end of the line. So use this time to improve the draft as much as you can. The Financial Times is generally a solid source, but it only mentions the subject is in a photo-crawl caption. Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, discussion forum threads, and blog posts (by someone who does not appear to be a professional journalist) are rarely considered reliable sources. Find independent reliable secondary sources. Worldbruce (talk) 05:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

03:28:41, 4 June 2015 review of submission by 108.85.144.163
Hi. I am having difficulty with referencing. I have external links as reference and want to post them but can't seem to get it right. I will continue to read up on it but was wondering if I was missing something. I have looked on other pages and the code to try and decipher how to do it on mine but Im not getting it right somehow. Any helpful hints would be very welcome. SusannahWhitehead

108.85.144.163 (talk) 03:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You almost had the technical part; I added the opening everywhere you want a citation, and you'll see the little blue bracketed number appear in the text and a corresponding reference appear in the references section. Read Template:Cite web for information on other useful parameters you could add, and on citation templates for other kinds of sources, like books.
 * Don't worry too much about the formatting, it's much more important to understand what statements in the text should have citations, and to find independent reliable sources to cite. Worldbruce (talk) 04:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

13:32:53, 4 June 2015 review of submission by Okekezi Kamalu
Okekezi Kamalu (talk) 13:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

PAGE''' ]]) 14:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Your draft was submitted one day ago, and the review process make take more than three weeks. What is your question? --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|'''TALK

Request on 16:24:24, 4 June 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by NeoLife1958
Hi,

I have taken over this project from the last person who was working on this submission. I thought I had made the edits required by you all (removing peacock language) and written from a neutral viewpoint. If you can provide specific examples of what needs to be changed, removed, or edited within the page, that would be helpful to give me some better direction.

Thanks.

NeoLife1958 (talk) 16:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * You haven't dealt with the comments at the top of the Draft. So for example you were told on 1 April that the "Early Life" section is completely unreferenced, and over two months later, it still is! Including several statements liable to challenge. There are still external links scattered through the Draft, these either need to be turned into inline citations, or moved to the External Links section.


 * In the lead you have "world-renowned", "eminent", "one of the most influential", and "among others". We don't put phraseology like that even in the lead of the Albert Einstein article, so why should we have it in an article about Furst?


 * I also don't think that "a prolific chain of human clinical evidence displayed and continues to display the health protection benefits of several company products" is actually meaningful, or if it is, it has no place in the lead of a biography.


 * The following are not encyclopedic phrasing:
 * the happy couple
 * in loving memory
 * its mission
 * There's much more throughout the Draft, including still two uses of "revolution...", which are only justifiable if they are supported by an inline citation to an independent reliable source that specifically says that the work was revolutionary. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:35, 6 June 2015 (UTC)