Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2018 September 21

= September 21 =

03:08:04, 21 September 2018 review of draft by Morisco50
I don't see the where is the problem! If ou can show me where/ Thank you Morisco50 (talk) 03:08, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi You need to add reliable sources as inline citations for all the information in the article. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 08:53, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

09:57:20, 21 September 2018 review of draft by Chrisc
I have added what references I can to the very brief article. The problem is that this is a completely new term and published by the Royal Society having been reviewed by them through their very stringent processes. You can be sure that the Royal Society would not have published something without very careful review so how can this be published on Wikipedia? What more can I do without infringing the copyright of the original paper which I am the author by the way. Your advice would be much appreciated.

Chrisc (talk) 09:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Wikipedia policy dictates the use of multiple sources, as a new concept it is not suitable for Wikipedia until two or more other reliable organisations write about or report on it. Also words should be added to wiktionary and not Wikipedia. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 6:41 pm, Today (UTC+8)

Greetings and see comments below


 * Since you are the author the source author and associated with Royal Society that means you have a conflict of interest (COI) here. Wikipedia strongly discourage an editor with conflict of interest to edit/create content of the effect article. In addition you need to disclosure your COI on your user page and article talk page.
 * The subject of the article needs to pass the notability requirements from Wikipedia to merit a page in main space where the content of the article needs to be supported by independent (secondary sources), reliable sources for verification where by the sources talk about the subject in length and in dept. We usually require 3 of reliable, independent sources where by the subject would demonstrate meeting the notability guidelines. As you have use the original sources/ paper, sources affiliated with the subject, press releases, home page, user generated sites, interviews and etc are considered primary sources NOT independent and not reliable and can NOT be used to demonstrate the reliability of the subject. If the subject is notable, other people would write above it and it would be sourced easily. I afraid it is WP:TOOSOON and it would need to wait until such term is well used and media would write about before the article could be published.  Thank you.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 10:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

16:00:42, 21 September 2018 review of draft by Sculture65
Hi I need help to quickly review the article as soon as possible, because that the competition for this show has already began, and this draft has not been reviewed yet. I previously saw the article was reviewed, but later moved to draft space by error. Please help! Thanks. (Sculture65 (talk) 16:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC))

Sculture65 (talk) 16:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The draft has been approved by and moved to the article area. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 17:11, 21 September 2018 (UTC)