Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 February 22

= February 22 =

01:37:38, 22 February 2017 review of submission by Baronesslestrange
Hello,

I am trying to substantially update the page for the Electoral Integrity Project. All information currently available has been maintained but additional information about the project and its work has been added. After failing once before to edit the page successfully I used the sandbox as advised. I wanted to make sure however that I have followed the correct process for a significant update to a page as there is a note that is appearing that indicates that the system has picked up that there is a page of the same name and has created an alert to this effect. Could you advise? I'm aware the review process will take some time, thank you for your work!

Baronesslestrange (talk) 01:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, Baroness. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.  As you have noted, the subject of your draft already exists as an article in Main space, at Electoral Integrity Project.  If you feel that you have new material that would be useful additions to the article, feel free to edit the existing article.  And if you have any questions about that material, feel free to engage with the article's editors on its Talk page.  But as for your draft, it will not be accepted for publication, precisely because the subject already has an existing article.  I hope this response has been helpful.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Because your original edit to Electoral Integrity Project was reverted, it was wise to draft your proposed changes in your sandbox (or at Draft:Electoral Integrity Project). Rather than submitting the draft to Articles for creation, however, announce on Talk:Electoral Integrity Project that you propose replacing the content of the article with the content of the draft, and why. Notify editors likely to be interested, such as the one who reverted your earlier change, and the creator of the article. If, after a week, consensus supports making the change, or no one objects, then proceed.


 * This is more or less the same procedure as for merging, but somewhat simpler because so long as you are the only substantive contributor to the draft, there is no need to preserve the draft's edit history.


 * One observation: the draft relies heavily on non-independent sources, things written by the director of the project. The footnotes cite only one other organization and one other author. It may seem as though inside sources would be the most accurate ones, but Wikipedia isn't interested so much in what an organization says about itself (that is what the organization's web site is for), but rather in what third parties say about it. The bulk of any article should come from reliable sources independent of the organization. In the draft, references to The Washington Post, Huffington Post, The News & Observer, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and Vox have disappeared, which is disturbing. Perhaps it's just a reference formatting problem, but take another pass at the draft and make sure you aren't dispensing with outside viewpoints. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

08:24:34, 22 February 2017 review of submission by Hutcheedingo
Hutcheedingo (talk) 08:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

My article has been up for review for over 5 weeks now. Is there anything I can do to make a change to this?
 * Hello, Hutchee. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.  As I post this, there are still about 20 submission in the queue ahead of yours.  Although I cannot give a precise date, your submission will probably be looked at within the next day or two.  Thank you for your patience.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

09:37:55, 22 February 2017 review of submission by AndyScott
What has happened to the photos of John Francis Kavanagh's sculptures from Walthamstow Town Hall? They were there last night but now only one shows up. One of the main objectives of the page was to illustrate some of his best work. AndyScott (talk) 09:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi . This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. Because your question is about an existing article, it is outside of our scope.
 * The article history shows that an editor reduced the number of images in the article with the edit summary "have set up and linked to a Commons Category; inappropriate use of gallery of his work". It seems they believed the large number of images did not comply with Wikipedia's image use policy. It sounds like they meant to create a category on Wikimedia Commons for the excess photos, and link to them from the article using a Commons category template, but I don't see those things. When you have a question about an edit, the best place to start is usually by asking on the editor's talk page. If that doesn't work you can start a discussion on the article talk page about how many images are appropriate. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

11:14:49, 22 February 2017 review of submission by 69.116.251.127
69.116.251.127 (talk) 11:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC) Thank you for taking the time to look at my article again. The subject is notable for several reasons which are related. The research, the founding of a hospital. The many appointed positions in his field. He is also mentioned in texts as being a personal physician to several famous opera stars. It was his career as a while that was notable. The references to each fact are listed. The timing of the research is also significant in relation to a timeline of medicine. Hoping it will be accepted. I will keep editing. Thanks again. 69.116.251.127 (talk)|
 * Please read the comments left by reviewers at the top of your draft that start with Symbol opinion vote.svg Comment:.  JTP (talk • contribs) 14:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

12:35:03, 22 February 2017 review of submission by 216.104.200.54
I would like to know the main reasons why my article are declined, I give references that prove my article that it's authentic. I also link the book names to their original book published. I know know what I can do again, please just tell me what miss to my article so I can add it. Thank you
 * for the reason explained on the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

15:51:00, 22 February 2017 review of submission by 216.104.200.54
216.104.200.54 (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC) Good evening and hope everything is well. I would like to know why my article is not review? now I go to the third day


 * Hello anon. Your draft was declined, twice in fact, because the subject of the draft does not appear to meet our standards for notability. If the authors only experience is publishing stories on Wattpad then they will probably have to wait to get their own Wikipedia article until after their work has been published by traditional outlets, and received outside attention, such as reviews in major publications. Timothy Joseph Wood  16:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

18:26:29, 22 February 2017 review of submission by JCWing
There are two citations I left in from Shelton's blogs for context only. All other citations that remain are published references and independent interviewer or reviewer links. Is there something else I need to do? There are a lot of articles about Shelton out there. I've linked only those that have verifiable addresses from other article writers. JCWing (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, JC. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.  I see that a reviewer has already responded to your question, by placing a new comment near the top of your draft.  If we can be of any further assistance, please let us know.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

20:34:28, 22 February 2017 review of submission by Makonnen hanna
Greetings. Please let me know what I am doing wrong in this submission and how to improve it. THANK YOU
 * Hello . Before anything else, if you have a connection to the topic you're writing about, it's important that you follow the instructions on your talk page to declare that connection.


 * The topic has possibilities, but the first half dozen sources raise concerns. The first is a letter to the editor written by Blake (not independent). Such a source can't be used to state "was the first Black journalist on British TV". At best it supports "Blake says she was the first Black journalist on British TV". She says she "made headlines in British newspapers" for this. If so, it's those newspaper articles that should be used as sources for the fact, or better yet, later academic studies that mention the fact. The second source is also written by Blake (not independent), then come two blogs (not reliable), a publisher bio (not independent), and chat-bout.net, which on the surface looks like another blog. To show notability, the draft needs independent, reliable, secondary sources, and the bulk of the draft should be based on such sources, with non-independent sources used only to fill in non-controversial details.


 * Beyond that, the draft doesn't look or sound like good articles in the encyclopedia. You may find Writing better articles and the Manual of Style useful. Also browse featured biographies to see how Wikipedia's policies and guidelines have been applied. Some specific examples:
 * After the first mention, refer to the subject only by surname, "Blake" if "Barbara Blake" is her common name.
 * Divide the content into sections, Template:Biography has a suggested structure.
 * Avoid unnecessary capitalization and use italics for names of major works like television programs, books, and films. ALL CAPS IS ESPECIALLY JARRING.
 * Create a proper lead section, see Manual of Style/Lead section.
 * Use internal links to connect to existing articles that will enhance readers' understanding of Blake (see WP:Linking). For instance, they may need more information about Independent Opposition Senator or United Nations Peace Medal to appreciate her accomplishments. If Wikipedia has no further information about Empress Menen Awards or the Rastafari Youth Initiative Council, then weigh whether they're important enough to mention in an encyclopedia biography.
 * Consider a standard format for references (see Referencing for beginners), and avoid external links within the body text.
 * Anyone can edit Wikipedia, but writing a new article isn't easy. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)