Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2015 March 15

= March 15 =

00:14:16, 15 March 2015 review of submission by Susannny
What does the number of days mean? Example, AfC pending submissions 1 day. The reason I ask is, my submission has been in the 1 day category all week. I'm wondering why it doesn't become 2 days, 3 days, as the days go along? Is this an indication that I did something wrong? Or does the day # indicate something different than I think? I assume that it means the number of days since you hit the "submit" button. Thx.

Susannny (talk) 00:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi - I'm not sure what you're looking at, but every day the drafts get put into the next day older category.  The only time they sit in a category for more than a day, is if they reach the "weeks" old sections.  Currently your draft is in the 3 days old category (which makes sense, since it was submitted on 3/12).  Onel5969 (talk) 12:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

05:09:29, 15 March 2015 review of submission by Redilion
I have written one article (my first) which is waiting in the sandbox space for review. Now I want to start a new article but can't find out how to create a new draft page without deleting the one waiting for review. Do I have to wait for the first article to be moved to Wikipedia? I guess I could just draft the new one in Word and wait? Thanks, Redilion (talk) 05:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Redilion (talk) 05:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This seems to be answered at User talk:Redilion. If you have another question, please ask it below.  Anon 126   (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 21:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

14:23:52, 15 March 2015 review of submission by Drmicrochp
Dear Articles for Creation Help Desk, My first time article was rejected (surprise). Origamite, the reviewer, left an unclear reason for the rejection. She wrote:

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

That my first time article needs revision is a normal thing, but the reason does not help me with improving the article. Does Origamite mean: 1. That I do not have enough references or footnotes? 2. That I have too many references or footnotes? 3. That my references or footnotes are not acceptable because they cite a foreign language? 4. There is some coding or formatting difficulty with my references? 5. That my references are inadequate because many of them come from blogs rather than newspapers? 6. That my references do not support the statements in the article?

I would think that Wikipedia would be somewhat more cooperative given the time invested in the article and the brevity with which an article is rejected. Can someone at the help desk assist me in figuring out what Origamite meant? I have over 45 footnotes cited in an article of very short length and so it is not clear when he/she says "Please cite your sources for using footnotes". All of my footnotes have their sources cited.

Drmicrochp (talk) 14:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * If you are referring to your submission at User:Drmicrochp/sandbox, there are no references at all. In this case the reason is #1. (#2 is not a valid reason for declining: Sources can be in any language. The other reasons are valid, though they do not apply here.)
 * You can read the introduction to referencing to learn how to add footnotes. Although the formatting is not interfering with the references, it still needs some improvement. You can use the cheatsheet as a reference.  Anon 126   (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 20:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

15:34:29, 15 March 2015 review of submission by Bibishadbolt
I enlisted the movie but it was rejected because the language wasn't encyclopedia tine Bibishadbolt (talk) 15:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

23:19:18, 15 March 2015 review of submission by SerenaLaVine
My submission (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SerenaLaVine/sandbox) was rejected because it was not adequately supported by reliable sources. I need some help with figuring out how to correct the problem.

1.	There are currently 2 verifiable sources: NY1 interview and OSL reference to ACMA as significant source for amateur musicians 2.	How many would be considered adequate? Is it a question of number? 3.	Would testimonials from participants in concerts be acceptable? 4.	Any other basis for rejection of article? 5.	Would reducing historical text help? Can that be verified by participants in the history? How can early history of any org. be verified externally? News reporters are not present at beginnings. 6.	If NY Times wrote article with these contents and I cited it as a source, would that be acceptable?

I'd appreciate any help you can provide.

Thanks Serena (username = SerenaLaVine) SerenaLaVine (talk) 23:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

SerenaLaVine (talk) 23:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi - You list 3 sources in your article.  One, the Carnegie Hall, is promotional.  Another, YouTube, is not reliable.  The third is the "OSL" you mention above, is a simple reference to the organization.  Wiki criteria needs substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources. I'm not seeing an interview in the references. Onel5969 (talk) 02:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)