Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 March 26

= March 26 =

Rajeev Kathpalia
The deletion of the autobiographical article Rajeev Kathpalia is currently under discussion at Articles for deletion/Rajeev Kathpalia. As a mainspace article, the AFC system is not the right place to get assistance, but the WP:Teahouse is a good place for beginner editors to get help. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

20:18:37, 26 March 2017 review of submission by Neilchristopher100
My page has been declined as the reviewer noted the sources are unreliable. I have included articles and pieces from National mainstream newspapers (New Zealand Herald and La Stampa in Italy), as well as articles from internationally recognised Dance journals and international press such as the Telegraph in London, the National Business Review and the Ministry for Cunture and Heritage, all refer to Mr Ventriglias work directly related to this article, and are third party independent sources not related to the subject himself. I have also referenced websites like the Royal Academy of Dance, Maggio Danza, Royal New Zealand Ballet and Dance Lines.

I have removed the Bold links (as requested by the reviewer), and I am hoping to get some further guidance on what constitutes a reliable source, or indeed if there are particular references I've made that are unreliable. I thought perhaps it was the awards that were not verifiable.

Thank you, any help is appreciated before I resubmit for approval.

Neilchristopher100 (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi . I saw four sources referenced. The first was the Italian Wikipedia, which is user-generated, and thus not a reliable source. The second was Royal New Zealand Ballet. It is reliable, but as Ventriglia's employer, is not independent, so it does not help establish notability. The other two were dead links.


 * I've turned the first into an inter-language link, which is allowed, but does not verify the statement or help establish notability. I repaired the two dead links, which were malformed. The one to Royal Academy of Dance is reliable, but does not contribute to notability because there is not a significant depth of independent information there. I'm unfamiliar with Danza & Danza. If it's a well-respected magazine it's likely a reliable source, but the url you've supplied is just its home page, which says nothing about Ventriglia. We want the address of a webpage that says Ventriglia won "Best Director of the Year" in 2012 for his work at MaggioDanza.


 * With regard to the other sources listed in your question, I suspect you're confusing references with external links. See "Referencing for beginners" for how to cite sources. To turn an external link into a reference, you'll essentially move it from the external links section to immediately after the statement it supports and enclose it in opening and closing ref tags. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the advice. . I've update the page and I think I've understood the references. I'd appreciate a quick peer review of the page before submitting. Thanks again --Neilchristopher100 (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I see that the draft now has many more references, and many fewer external links, all of which is a good thing. That's about as much of a review as you'll get without actually submitting the draft. There are close to 1000 other drafts awaiting review, and this help desk isn't a way to jump the queue. It's taking about a month for drafts to be reviewed right now. I've dropped a standard Welcome Wagon package on your talk page. It contains a score of links, each of which in turn links to many more policies, guidelines, and essays. After you submit your draft, continue improving it by studying those links. It may also be helpful to study some of Wikipedia's best articles. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

22:23:28, 26 March 2017 review of submission by 2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:AB
I have written hundreds of Wikipedia articles, all through AfC now that IP  users can't create them, but I have never waited so long, over a month, for a draft to be reviewed. In fact, it usually only takes a few days. Now I submitted an article I was still working on, Ian S. E. Carmichael, and it was moved faster than I can blink. Although I am an experienced editor, I still thought AfCs were worked on in some date order.

I had questions about the Schmalholz article, also, that I could not get answered. Like Ice-Q, most of the sources are about his stage name, and that is what the article fame is about, and I would like the article there, IN-Q, but could not figure out how to do it. I asked around, but got no good answer. How do I do this?

Is this a regular occurrence, waiting over a month, and is there some reason my articles haven't been waiting this long, and this one did, while a later article flew through?

I write mostly science biographies, plant viruses, and paleontology articles, half the time I ask for project help, and I write minor celebrity articles, usually singers, but I am working on improving slam poetry articles overall on Wikipedia.

Yes, be patient, but this is a long time. No, I don't want an account.

Thanks, --2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:AB (talk) 22:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC) 2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:AB (talk) 22:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC) If


 * It is not especially unusual to wait a month for a review. Many reviewers work the drafts that have been in the pool the longest, others prefer to work the most recently submitted. If your question is how to change the name of a draft, that's called moving a page and it's one of a number of things IP editors are not allowed to do. If the draft is accepted, the accepting reviewer will use a title they believe best follows titling guidelines. If you disagree with the title they choose, you may then request a move to a different title. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * (ec)I sometimes spend quite some time checking newly submitted drafts. It is possible to decline many submissions at first glance in terms of the "Quick Fail" criteria. In a few (rare) cases it is possible to immediately accept the draft, because the writer has sufficient experience and knowledge of WP's standards to produce an acceptable article without the assistance of reviewers - or has figured out that getting such help is best done before clicking the "Submit" button. The rest of the potentially viable, but not immediately acceptable, submissions I would usually move to Draft-space and do some "automagical" cleanup then leave for later "in-depth review" - sometimes I'd post a request for assistance at a relevant WikiProject if the topic is highly technical and needs a topic specialists knowledge. That's how the obviously hopeless and obviously acceptable get pulled out of the queue early, while the rest end up waiting longer, some for a subject specialist reviewer. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. Your answer below does not. But, yes, I see that many are obvious first dismissals, that clears quite a few. Many of the topic ones seem easy, although I see a deletion process coming up for some. It's still annoying to have one sit for two hours and another for six weeks. I used to write more celebrity articles, though, and now pretty much stick to scientist bios. --2601:648:8503:4467:C160:6162:7443:F334 (talk) 21:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, so how come every article submitted on that date has been addressed except for this one? Is there something wrong with my draft itself? --2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:BC (talk) 08:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * That is of no significance at all, it's random chance that it is the last pending one from that date. It is currently one of 113 drafts in Category:AfC pending submissions by age/3 weeks ago - after the "20 days" category all the remaining pending drafts are lumped together in "three weeks", "four weeks" and "very old" categories. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)