Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 March 23

= March 23 =

06:04:01, 23 March 2017 review of submission by Rdev5
Need to revert draft back to my sandbox for further editing (i.e. cancel submission for review). Please advise.

Rdev5 (talk) 06:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, there's no need to move it, just work on it where it is, that's what draft-space is for. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Gotcha, thanks. But just to clarify: the page is currently in draft-space because I submitted it for review. As such, I don't actually want it to get moved to article space unintentionally as there are still edits to make. I'm under the impression that even if left in your sandbox for a month, no one's really going to see or do anything with it until it gets submitted for review I'd prefer not to be in a "pending move to article space" state until I have more time to edit and resubmit. Please advise.


 * You can leave a draft in draft-space without submitting it for review. Reviewers are overworked as it is, just trying to keep up with the drafts that get submitted to them – they certainly don't go looking for unsubmitted drafts and reviewing them regardless.
 * A reason to prefer keeping it in draft space, rather than moving it to your sandbox, is that other editors may help you to improve it while it's in draft space, but will generally regard it as "rude" to edit the contents of someone else's sandbox. Maproom (talk) 12:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I've made a pro forma "decline" of your submission, thus removing it from the list of drafts waiting for review. You can add it back to the list by clicking on the "Resubmit" button near the top of your draft.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

13:35:36, 23 March 2017 review of submission by Maria Grimana
Maria Grimana (talk) 13:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

MAURIZIO PELLEGRIN page

Hello,

on March 10th NewYorkActuary gave me good advices on how to improve my page that was previously declined. I followed his/her advices. Can a reviewer let me know if she/he thinks that the page looks acceptable now? Is there anything else I should work on? thank you so much in advance for your help! all the best, Maria GrimanaMaria Grimana (talk) 13:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello again, Maria. Later today, I'll leave a comment on your draft.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

16:22:07, 23 March 2017 review of submission by Larsonite
16:22:07, 23 March 2017 review of submission by Larsonite

I am trying to figure out why my sources are not considered notable or trustworthy when I sited the largest most read publication in the technology world (engadget, techcrunch, PCmag, MacWorld. I also sited original (OEM) websites that are most credible for the devices and inventions mentioned on the article.

Thanks for the help.


 * Hi, the problem is really very simple, the only referenced sources that even mention Coaction Consulting is the company's own website. The article is (falsely) claiming that the subject received awards that were actually given to other companies. Your sources must actually discuss "Coaction Consulting" in significant depth and detail (see WP:CORP and WP:CORPDEPTH) but you have failed to provide even one passing mention. The current references are of no value at all. Do some real research and start over - if you can find actual sources. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)