Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 May 29

= May 29 =

07:46:35, 29 May 2017 review of submission by Louib1986
this is a real film project with a world famous director please upload it

here are the links to reputable sources i cant add please help

https://au.tv.yahoo.com/the-morning-show/video/watch/34781006/from-the-small-to-big-screen-with-holly-brisley/

https://www.facebook.com/142838319073466/photos/a.755545311136094.1073741826.142838319073466/1413429935347625/?type=3&theater


 * Hi . Wikipedia is a trailing medium, in that it covers topics that have garnered significant attention by independent reliable sources over a period of time. Wikipedia is not the place to "get the word out" about anything. Films often aren't widely written about until after they are released; I suggest you wait until then. And if you have a personal connection to the film or the people making it, don't write about the film here, leave the topic for someone uninvolved. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

12:22:40, 29 May 2017 review of submission by Zsomko
I would like to find out what do I have to do to get my paper accepted. I have mentioned a bunch of good references, and eliminated the thoughts which I provided to enhance understanding as the previous reviewer said that it was a personal voice. Now what?

Zsomko (talk) 12:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, Zsomko. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.  Our apologies for the great delay in response.  I took a look at your submission and found that I agree with the two persons who reviewed it.  It does, indeed, read like an essay.  The only source that actually treats "peer effects" as a topic in its own right is the one that you've relegated to an External Link.  And that source discusses the topic solely within the broader topic of adolescent psychology.  And yet, your essay cites examples from the disparate fields of general health and the arts.  The only bases for doing this appear to be (i) you personally believe that these disparate fields are related in some fashion and (ii) you've found a few sources that use the word "peer" in their discussions of those fields.  I don't see how these tenuous connections can lead to a broad-based encyclopedia article.  Instead, I think that some of your material would find a better home in the Peers section of our article on adolescence.  I hope this response has been helpful.  If you have any questions, feel free to ask.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

13:09:41, 29 May 2017 review of draft by Potholehotline
i fear i did something wrong as the 2 footnotes in the draft didn't generate anything in the references section Potholehotline (talk) 13:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, Pothole. Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia.  The problem was that you didn't place the references within the " " tags.  See WP:REFB for more detail and note that you can also use the "Cite your sources" button at the bottom of the edit window to have them added automatically (but you must click that button before, not after, you add the reference).  I fixed both of your footnotes for you and, while doing so, I took the liberty of re-formatting the first one using the cite web template.  Giving references in the form of "bare URLs" runs afoul of WP:CITE, because it fails to provide essential bibliographic detail such as who wrote an article and when/where it was published.  The citation template simplifies the process of collecting and presenting that essential information.  I left the second reference for you to do but, if you have any questions, feel free to ask.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:37, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

20:59:25, 29 May 2017 review of submission by 120.17.29.249
120.17.29.249 (talk) 20:59, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, IP address. Our apologies for the delay in response.  Did you have a specific question?  NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)