Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 October 11

= October 11 =

01:17:52, 11 October 2017 review of submission by Adarrah
I have had no follow up from the response to me on Oct 7

Adarrah (talk) 01:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

15:22:50, 11 October 2017 review of submission by Lehradhurkot

 * NOTE: Comments left on draft, October 17, 2017. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

16:17:25, 11 October 2017 review of submission by Adarrah
I have had no follow up to your response of Oct 7, in which you stated that you would respond in greater detail in a day or so. Where do I stand with my submission?

Adarrah (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

18:12:18, 11 October 2017 review of submission by Drakside
What are some good reliable resources that a Wikipedia page should have to be accepted. Please give me some reliable resources not just three or four. Thanks in advance.

Drakside (talk) 18:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 * If your aim is to get Draft:Jan Doblado accepted as an article, three or four good reliable sources should be enough. Why do you ask for more? Anyway, I've tried looking for reliable independent sources with in-depth discussion of Doblado, and failed to find any at all. Maybe there aren't any. Maproom (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

18:30:28, 11 October 2017 review of submission by Adarrah
If you check your files you'll see that on Oct 7 I had a brief reply but was told that a full reply would occur in a day or so. But there has been no follow up on this. So where does my submission now stand?

Adarrah (talk) 18:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I guess that the editor who hoped to help you,, has been busy with other things. What's the urgency? Maproom (talk) 20:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Adarrah. It would appear the user that you were speaking to is busy. We are after all, real people. I have had a look at the article; but my lack of knowledge (Or indeed zero knowledge) on adventuring leaves me slightly behind on what would be suitable. The comment that was left with the last review was: Their own works cannot be considered as independent references for them. We need more reliable sources independent of the subject for this to pass user:Jupitus Smart 03:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC).


 * I see you have since added more references, which is good. It's a shame from my end that they are all written citations; as I cannot verify the strength of the sources (If they are simply a mention, or more); but a more experienced Wikipedia member might well be able to do such a thing. My suggestion would be, that as you have edited the referencing, it may be worth resubmitting your article; as you may be more successful on this occasion. I would also suggest that the article needs tidying up (An info box, and links to other articles); before it should be made as a page on Wikipedia for real. It may also be beneficial to edit your references so that they are in a good standing, using cite tags.


 * I hope this helps, I am no experienced user; but I feel as though a new reviewer might be more forgiving with the new sources of info. I understand that this may seem urgent; but in the grand scheme of the wiki, it needs to be done correctly. With Thanks - Lee Vilenski(talk) 11:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Apologies, Adarrah, I've been quite busy in the last two days with other articles. I've done some basic formatting of your draft, added hyperlinks to several of the sources so they can be verified, and left you some more advice at Draft talk:Helen and Frank Schreider. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 18:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)