Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2018 May 1

= May 1 =

Request on 14:20:18, 1 May 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Mileslong123
I keep getting this entry knocked back and i'm not sure why. All the information is factual and independently referenced. I have seen other articles such as Microsoft, Apple and tried to follow those formats. What changes do i need to make? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Mileslong123 (talk) 14:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Mileslong123 - See the comments of reviewer User:Theroadislong. The issue is mostly with tone, which is promotional.  Are you working for Symbiant?  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

No but it's a company i know a lot about because my brother use to work there. I am using them to cut my teeth on becoming an editor. They alway say write about what you know. So i'm just learning the ropes so to speak. Once i understand what to do and how this works i can move on to more complex subjects. I really appreciate your help. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mileslong123 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

16:14:03, 1 May 2018 review of submission by Nujiro
I think this process could be simplified by creating "Templates" which could be designed with the correct format all-ready built in. A lot of time and energy could be saved. As well as Wiki having more content contributed. 1 size fits all may not work but if 3-4 general categories with layouts where sources/references/photos etc. could just be dropped in at a suitable resolution would be great. Also-perhaps the format/template could have the text remain in RED....until the article is approved, once approved the instructions in RED could be dropped. Also i'm new to Wiki, and am struggling to get an article completed for approval, I just had my imagery deleted, without someone asking me if I owned it or not before doing so. I filled out the generated form, and attested to my ownership, and after figuring out how to get images up they were cut. I don't understand why the safeguard, then overiding your own process by making assumptions after the fact.Nujiro (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Nujiro (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't believe this will work, even with a "3-4 sizes fit all" kind of process, as there are hundreds of different general topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to discuss simplifying the AfC process from a reviewee's standpoint, perhaps you would like to discuss this at WP:VPR or WT:AFC?  JTP (talk • contribs) 02:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I would like to but i'm too new to this (Wikipedia) I can only tell you that if the process is to improve, it needs outside help. Not a criticism of volunteers, or staff. But when you are in a state of constantly putting out fires you do the normal thing, try to put out the fire, instead of preventing the fire. This is a massive project, with unknown factors. The unknown needs to be reduced until it is manageable. Outside person can come in and be brutal, and cut out things that need to go. What is startling me is the number of complaints about destructive persons undoing others work. As hard as it is to something approved, and i'm seeing now that I may never have that happen...the thought of some nitwit, with nothing else to do ruining one's achievement, 5 minutes later is disturbing. The same scrutiny for their deconstruction of approved articles, should be applied if at all. In fact I will suggest something, i know i'm new....maybe there's something like it in existence...kill the re-editing and only allow a rebuttal or challenge to articles in question, but on their own page. Nujiro (talk) 02:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)