Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2018 October 17

= October 17 =

Request on 09:10:32, 17 October 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Chennai Information Updater
Chennai Information Updater (talk) 09:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Improve the article which attention to the comments left on the draft by . &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

09:34:29, 17 October 2018 review of submission by Ted Ed 69
Ted Ed 69 (talk) 09:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Why was my article declined?


 * Apparently your article is a blatant hoax. I do see that Sport stacking is real, but the announcement that it will be 2020 Olympic sport is unfortunately a joke. The sports being added can be seen here and are Baseball/softball, karate, sports climbing, surfing, and skateboarding. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

11:10:37, 17 October 2018 review of draft by Farooqqammar12
my article en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dolmen_Malls is in review from 3 months how much time is take can you do it fast ...

Farooqqammar12 (talk) 11:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Approved. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 11:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

12:02:52, 17 October 2018 review of submission by Robhamburg89
Hi there,

many thanks for taking the time to review my submission for Red Points. I would be grateful if you could answer a few questions about my submission so that I can edit to be more in-line with Wikipedia's guidelines:

1. You said the article reads too much like an advertisement - could you tell me which parts of the article are like this? As I indicated I do work for Red Points but I still wrote the article from a neutral standpoint and used no promotional language that I can see. I compared it to Mark Monitor's Wikipedia page and I can see that there's is written in a similar style.

2. You've said that the referenced sources are not reliable and don't have enough coverage - could you tell me which ones these are? I thought that all of the ones I used that don't reference our own website's content or research were from reliable and reputable sources such as TechCrunch and Wired. Also Mark Monitor's references their own content and references other websites.

Best Regards Robert Hamburg Robhamburg89 (talk) 12:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The draft has been deleted as unambiguous advertising or promotion, this means there was little to no content in the draft that was not deemed promotional. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 12:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

13:48:42, 17 October 2018 review of draft by Nperez312
I have drafted a Wikipedia page that awaiting acceptance, and I was curious how I could put images on the page without violating copyrights. Nperez312 (talk) 13:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * If you can find any relevant images on Wikimedia commons then those can be used in the article. Images from other places on the internet are covered by copyright and can't be used. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 14:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

When I tried uploading a graph that I created on Excel, there was a prompt saying that it may not be available for Wiki Commons. How do I fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nperez312 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Go to Wikimedia Commons and upload it there. You want the commons:Special:UploadWizard. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 09:48, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

14:21:06, 17 October 2018 review of draft by YouRo2000
I've changed the article based on your recommendation, would you be so kind to review the changes? Robert 14:21, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * In most the world, domains are available all the time so I don't think the topic of 24 hour domains has a solid foundation. If this is a good topic it will be covered by reliable sources and there will be independent research on it. Otherwise it is simply original research and not suitable for an article here. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 15:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll go so far as to say this page is nonsense. I've seen very few domains with 24 or 24h in their names. It just makes no sense. Legacypac (talk) 06:51, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

22:56:59, 17 October 2018 review of submission by Monthnez
Is everything all right with this article? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:W%C5%82adys%C5%82aw_Cieszy%C5%84ski) What should I change? Monthnez (talk) 22:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It was not submitted so no one was looking at it. I've accepted the page. Good job. Legacypac (talk) 06:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The next thing I would do,, would be find articles to link Władysław Cieszyński to. Currently, it's what we call on Wikipedia an orphan. Bkissin (talk) 17:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

23:47:42, 17 October 2018 review of draft by BhargavaAnirudh7
I have edited my draft according to the reviewer's comment. It has been a month since the review. Is there a timeline for the next review? I would like to get my article on the wikipedia site soon. Thanks :)

BhargavaAnirudh7 (talk) 23:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I have reviewed it, you need considerably more references, focus on verifying all the parts of the article with inline citations. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 09:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)