Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2016 November 29

= November 29 =

Hi,

I have posted one article related to shaze luxury retail pvt. ltd but its is not getting approved and its showing error G11. How to make approve my company article in WikiPedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayshree26 (talk • contribs) 07:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, Jayshree. Your article has already been deleted twice, for reasons that have been given to you on your talk page.  Before submitting your article a third time, you might want to read our introduction to writing articles, which is at WP:Your first article.  Also, if you intend to write again about your company, you might find the advice at WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY to be helpful.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 08:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

15:17:32, 29 November 2016 review of submission by Aborgate
I don't understand SisterTwister's comment that sources are missing for sections #1 an #2. If you mean the first group of paragraphs and the section group of paragraphs, they are "well" footnoted, I thought. What more is needed?Aborgate (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Aborgate (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm afraid your idea of "well footnoted" does not come close to the standard required here. The first section, "Brief personal history", a fairly long section running to several hundred words, has only one footnote, the second section "Encounter with Harold E. Palmer", significantly longer than the first, has only two footnotes. In fact the entire draft is very thinly referenced. An article of that length (about 20kB) would normally have anywhere from 50 to 100 footnotes, basically every substantive claim needs a reference. By way of example I have placed "cite needed" tags in the first two sections at the points where a reader might reasonably expect a footnote. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The structure of the article could do with improvement. As a biography it should basically be arranged chronologically. Currently the narrative jumps around in time quite a lot, resulting in redundant repetition of information in various sections. See WP:MOSBIO for guidance. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

21:57:43, 29 November 2016 review of submission by Michaeltsantini
Please accept my changes to progressive creationism. I am very knowledgeable of the subject. Thank you. Dr. Michael T Santini

Michaeltsantini (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello again, Michael. As was noted in our earlier response, you need to discuss your changes with the other editors who work on that article.  And the place to have that discussion is on the Talk page for that article.  I took a look at the edit history for the article in question, Progressive creationism, and saw that you are engaged in an edit war with those other editors.  This is something that is extremely discouraged -- you might consider studying the information and advice given at WP:Edit warring.  I hope this response was helpful.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

22:06:28, 29 November 2016 review of submission by Omotecho
Will it do any help and claim that this draft is translated and edited from sv:Philo_Ikonya? I am also thinking of adding the draft as a chapter in International Cities of Refuge Network but not as a single article. Would it be cheating to do so? The article for that Network is a stub. Of course, I am aware that I would need help and improve citations as well as grammar in the writing before adding it as a chapter for an existing article.

I submitted the rejected draft in line with Africa debug-athon / Women in Red Africa (never mind the postcard they offer). Any advice you could share me please? Appreciate your kind attention,

Omotecho (talk) 22:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)