Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2016 June 28

= June 28 =

09:37:20, 28 June 2016 review of submission by 203.186.212.98
Hello, I drafted a profile for my client on Wiki one month ago. And I have provided enough reference for fact check. However, the status is still in reviewing. May I know what should I do to shorten the approval period?


 * It has been about three and a half weeks since the draft's latest review. With the current backlog, you can expect to wait another week or two for the next. If, when the draft is next reviewed, 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. Is it clear where all of the draft's content came from? Does the bulk of the draft come from arms length independent sources, with only a minor part of it based on written by the organisation itself? --Worldbruce (talk) 13:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

10:04:17, 28 June 2016 review of submission by Veronika Eriksson
Veronika Eriksson (talk) 10:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

10:36:56, 28 June 2016 review of submission by Veronika Eriksson
I don´t know why my text wasn´t accepted. I don´t know where it is right now. How can I just make i appear in wiki? How har can this be? Please....? Veronika Eriksson (talk) 10:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi . The text you submitted is in your sandbox: User:Veronika Eriksson/sandbox. As explained in the answer to your question on 19 June, it was not accepted because (1) it is only a sentence fragment, (2) it appears to be in Swedish, and English Wikipedia can only accept articles written in English, and (3) because the submission makes no claim that the subject is significant or meets the notability criteria for inclusion in an encyclopedia. It also cites no sources and appears to be auto-biographical. You may use your user page to say a few words about yourself and your Wikipedia editing, but Wikipedia is not for advertising, public relations, or self-promotion. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

11:08:41, 28 June 2016 review of submission by Ina Matronics
Hello there again, I have been aksing a lot of times, but no one had answered until now. I have improved the article that was declined for submission. It is connected to other wikipedia pages. It has reliable links, from other websites and online pages, other than the official website of the company in question - Matronics. In the article, it has alsoan article from a newspaper, published online.

So, if you can help me with suggestions what am I still missing, so the articles get suitable for wikipedia ?? I would appreciate the help! Thanks in advanced !


 * Hi . The draft is in the pool of submissions to be reviewed. With the current backlog, the wait time is about a month. Use the time to review all the links you've been directed to - on your talk page and on the draft - and apply the information in them to improve the draft as much as you can. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

15:42:48, 28 June 2016 review of submission by Brachney
Friends,

On June 25, 2016 I submitted my first article for consideration. The topic is Belief Perseverance (BP), and you can see the submission, and the reason it was declined, here:   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Belief_perseverance

It was declined because it’s written more like an essay than an entry in an encyclopedia

The reviewer, Omni Flame, later suggested that I incorporate the article into the Confirmation Bias (CP) article, making it part of the Confirmation Bias entry. I feel CB and BP are distinct, though overlapping. I feel moreover that not having a BP entry in Wikipedia is a glaring omission. So, here is my request. I don’t know yet how to make entries more encyclopedic. Can someone help me revise this draft to conform to the guidelines? Better still, is anyone interested in taking this project over or collaborating so that this important psychological concept finally receive its own, belated, entry?

Thank you, Brachney Brachney (talk) 15:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Brachney, the best place to find someone to collaborate with you is at WP:WikiProject Psychology. That's where the topic spcialists hang out, so drop a request on the Talk page there. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

16:59:12, 28 June 2016 review of submission by Dcataneo
I understand that the queue for submissions is substantial. Cathy Luciano Harasta (sports columnist) has her birthday on July 1st

Might there be a way to expedite the approval of this submission?

Thank you kindly, Daniel Cataneo

Dcataneo (talk) 16:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * No. The three things written by Harasta and the Cinderella story that doesn't mention her do nothing to establish notability. I haven't looked at the book, but even if it's an independent, reliable source, there's no way the draft would ever be approved with only one such source. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)