Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 February 16

= February 16 =

01:53:00, 16 February 2017 review of submission by Seanhubert
Seanhubert (talk) 01:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC) I just can't seem to get my pictures loaded up from:. File:Https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Maria-Ratkova with musicians(10).jpg Maria Ratkova Russian Mezzo in Rome>

I've tried everything and these are original unused pictures. is it becuase the article is in draft review form?
 * Hello, Sean. No, it wasn't because the page is a draft.  The problem was incorrect coding.  If we can be of any further assistance, please let us know.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

14:45:13, 16 February 2017 review of draft by Chief Justice JTR
I'm working on a biographical page for Mountjoy Bayly, the second Sergeant-at-Arms for the US Senate. I'm not sure how to format the sidebar that should contain all of the biographical information (birth, death, parentage, siblings etc.). Could you please advise me on how to format the sidebar, or direct me to the appropriate page?

Thanks Chief Justice JTR (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC) Chief Justice JTR (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey Chief Justice JTR. See Template:Infobox person. Just copy and paste the markup at the top of the draft and fill in the equal signs (e.g.  etc.). Anything left blank the template will simply ignore.  Timothy Joseph Wood  14:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Sweet! Thanks, I really appreciate it. Chief Justice JTR (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

17:11:00, 16 February 2017 review of submission by 77.139.182.222
It's been more than two weeks since i asked for this article to be reviewed and still no answer.

77.139.182.222 (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, IP address. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.  As I post this, there are about 200 submissions in the queue ahead of your submission.  Although it is not possible to give an exact date, it looks like it will take about another week before a reviewer looks at your submission.  Thank you for your patience.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

17:21:46, 16 February 2017 review of draft by Topcipher
Is this good enough for me to submit for Article creation? I have exhaustively added all the external references and the right citations, ensuring that the language does not resemble that of advertisement (not that Google would in any way benefit from this as my attempt is purely and simply to shed light on the technology that once existed and quite possibly could either return or be shut down forever). Thanks. TopCipher 17:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, Top. Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia.  In one sense, your draft is "good enough" to submit for consideration.  But whether or not it gets accepted for publication is an altogether different question.  For what it's worth, I wouldn't accept it, because it provides little more than what one would find in a product's brochure.  I recognize that you've written the draft in a neutral tone and, thus, have avoided the problems seen in many other submissions here.  But I still don't see how that's enough to render the subject worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.  Then again, other reviewers might have different opinions and you are certainly free to submit the draft and see how the reviewer feels about it.  I hope this response has been helpful.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for helping with your inputs. Truly appreciate the efforts and your insights over my language (about it being non-promotional). I am facing issues on other articles and so I'm working hard over making it better. TopCipher 05:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This query has been resolved and the article has been accepted for creation. Thanks TopCipher 05:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

17:53:17, 16 February 2017 review of submission by SaraSears
Hi, my submission was declined due to This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Would someone be able to help me in figuring out what to add to make the page correct?

Thank you! SaraSears (talk) 17:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, Sara. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.  Your draft needs the same thing that would be required of any article on a company -- a demonstration that the company has received in-depth coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the company.  So far, you haven't made that demonstration.  Has the company been the subject of an article in the Wall Street Journal or the Harvard Business Review?  Or any other reliable business publication?  If the answer is "no", then it is unlikely that your draft will be accepted for publication here.  I hope this response has been helpful.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

22:17:27, 16 February 2017 review of submission by Mgenzac
Mgenzac (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC) Hello. I have added third party references regarding the subject's research and contributions. I am enthusiastic that this might be sufficient. Thank you for all your help. Do you think it may be  adequate ? Thank you!!! Mgenzac (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Our apologies for the delay in response. Later today, I'll leave some new comments on your draft.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you once again for your help. The subject's notability is not just the research article, however it was published in 4 separate journals. It is also the timing of the research that is important. The subject had multiple appointed professional positions that are not attained by many in the field and was also the founder of a hospital. The career as a whole is significant and remarkable. I will continue to edit it. Thanks --Mgenzac (talk) 12:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)