Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2016 July 13

= July 13 =

06:35:21, 13 July 2016 review of submission by Dinabandhu sahoo
Dinabandhu sahoo (talk) 06:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Why my article has not been expected

07:12:03, 13 July 2016 review of submission by Risingsinger
I'm still editing and working on Draft:Leigh Dorough, and so far, finding more info about her is a lot harder than i thought. Can you help?Risingsinger (talk) 07:12, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Request on 16:47:01, 13 July 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Kandsranch
Hi. I am such a newbie!! I did a humungous rewrite for Lean Launchpad, because I hadn't positioned it to reflect the pedagogy that it is. I saved it many times, but when I tried to submit it, I think I lost it. Is it out there in wiki-land? Can you help me find it?

Thank you, Erikka Kandsranch (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Kandsranch, the draft is at Draft:The Lean Launchpad. It has been reviewed and is now waiting for you to respond to the reviewer's feedback. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Request on 16:52:49, 13 July 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Wodaly
Hello, I have been working with LaMona (Wiki editor) to successfully post my article, "California Water Plan." Up until a week ago, it appeared that LaMona had submitted the article, in its most recent version, to other Wiki editors for their appraisal, after I requested that LaMona reconsider her rejection. I saw last week that the article had made it up to about 835 (???) in the queue, but I know longer see that resubmission notice. It seems to have disappeared, though I've received no communication saying that the article was reconsidered, rejected again, accepted, or anything else. I paste my original note to LaMona, requesting that she reconsider, here. I sent it on April 6, 2016, at 18:25. I also no longer see the reply to me, in which LaMona said that she would reconsider and submit the article to other editors for their consideration. Please advise, and thank you for your assistance.

William O'Daly, to LaMona: "Regarding the article 'California Water Plan' and your rejection of it: yes, along with a number of secondary sources, we do reference some primary sources, because what the plan is cannot be understood without some referencing of it. The newspapers you suggest do a minimal job of covering the plan, which is probably because the three main volumes of the plan run roughly 3,500 pages and cover nearly all aspects of water in California. Such articles often are highly superficial in their coverage, often the main thrust being that the plan is being released. Also, you mention that all aspects of the plan must be covered. Frankly, that is an impossible task, particularly for a medium such as an article on Wikipedia. It would take a sizable book to pull off such an endeavor, and then whether the book had done so successfully would require a subjective conclusion. Further, there really is no such thing as viewpoints that "disagree with the plan." The five-year plan is so expansive and inclusive, it's far more the case that thousands of people may agree with certain specific recommendations and disagree with others. For example, the latest plan recommends 18 objectives and more than 300 actions related to those objectives. Each resource management strategy includes recommendations specific to that resource area, and there are at least 30 resource areas. The plan itself neither endorses nor proposes specific projects; it doesn't tell Californians or State of California agencies what they must do. It includes 10 hydrologic regional reports and two hydrologic overlay regional reports that range from 120 to 180 pages each, with history, hydrologic information, region-specific data, summary of projects, recommendations, and so forth. Now, if the article were to describe this, what secondary source could one find that would do so--the LA Times or the Sacramento Bee? That is hardly the case. To effectively make this point, an educator would point a student to the plan itself. I ask that, with perhaps this better understanding of the plan, and noting that we do use secondary sources that comment on the plan and reference its content as well as its transformation over time, you reconsider your rejection of the article. If you still feel that we have not provided an article sufficient to meet Wikipedia standards, would you please point me to a Wikipedia article that 'covers all aspects' of its topic. I have not yet found one, and I've read hundreds of Wikipedia articles. Thank you! ~William O'Daly"

Wodaly (talk) 16:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, User:Wodaly. I'm sorry that you misunderstood, but as the editor, you should submit the article for additional review. Reviews go into a queue and no reviewer is "responsible" for the articles they review - that remains with the editor or writer of the article. You should include the primary sources in an "external links" section (or additional reading, your choice), and look for secondary sources to use as references. It's not a matter of dropping the primary sources, just of putting them in the proper place in the article, and also of fulfilling the requirement that secondary sources be provided as references to fulfill the notability requirements WP:N. Once you have done what you consider to be sufficient edits to the article, click on the "resubmit" button. Most likely a different reviewer will "catch" it. Expect that the draft review process will be iterative, with each step taking you closer to having a quality article that meets the Wikipedia policies for notability. LaMona (talk) 19:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

19:29:09, 13 July 2016 review of submission by 38.96.208.3
38.96.208.3 (talk) 19:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Jamica = DNA = Family tree Vacation = Jamaci Beach = best love ever


 * Sorry, I can't figure out what this is about. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)