Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 January 9

= January 9 =

02:09:39, 9 January 2020 review of submission by Monmouth1946
I would like to have the article reviewed. I think I have done most everything correctly.. Justnot sure of it. Thanking you in advance for your help.

Monmouth1946 (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , What draft do you refer to? I took a look the Tommy Roberts (sports broadcaster) article, but that is not a draft. Is that what your referred to? Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes..That is the article. What can I do to make it better? ... And what page is it on? Should it be moved to draft page? And how if so. Thank YouMonmouth1946 (talk) 11:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Tommy Roberts (sports broadcaster) is no longer a draft. You can continue to improve it in the article space where it already is. If you need further help with the article you can ask at The Teahouse. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

11:33:23, 9 January 2020 review of submission by MNSH Saikia
MNSH Saikia (talk) 11:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Do you have a specific question? The subject does not have sourcing required for an article. Looks like you resubmitted it without adding any, so there's nothing else we can do here. — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 14:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

14:07:22, 9 January 2020 review of draft by Thomas Stanka
Hi, I'm translating an article on the german photographer Hein Gorny to english and I have troubles publishing my translated article because of citition issues, I would like to know which lines or citations are the errored ones and what I need to change to get through the reviewing process. Thank you for your time and work, kind regards Thomas Stanka. Thomas Stanka (talk) 14:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)


 * See Help:Footnotes. In short, it is not clear where the text in the article is coming from, so you need to attach the correct citations where the content can be verified. There are already a couple citations like that, but these need to be placed for pretty much everything. — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 14:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

14:43:53, 9 January 2020 review of draft by Mikezenanko
How can I delete my current Sandbox and start over? Mikezenanko (talk) 14:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)


 * - hi there, you'd included the "nowiki" tags used to let it be shown to you, so your db-self wasn't actually happening. I've fixed it for you, so hopefully should now occur. In your actual user sandbox, you can do the same if you wish, but you might as well just blank the content. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Request on 16:28:29, 9 January 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by TJQx83928
My question is regarding the quotation of US Federal Government reports, documents, brochures, and memorandum. My understanding is that, under section 105 of the Copyright Act, such works are not entitled to domestic copyright protection under U.S. law and are therefore in the public domain. As such, am I able to quote lines from a government document in a wikipedia article? Am I able to quote verbatim what a line or passage from such reports if the item is properly cited and if a general, re-worded summary is inappropriate for the context

TJQx83928 (talk) 16:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi . You are broadly correct. See Public domain resources for more information. If you use any text verbatim, it is wise to use an attribution template to avoid confusion, see Template messages/Sources of articles for a list. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

18:19:36, 9 January 2020 review of submission by MNSH Saikia
MNSH Saikia (talk) 18:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , This seems to be perhaps autobiographical, which is strongly discouraged. Regardless, it was rejected because you did not improve it between submissions. That meant to me that you could find no other sources. Lack of sourcing is the main issue here, and I suspect that the subject is simply not notable enough to be in Wikipedia. Unless someone has several quality news articles written about them, they generally cannot be covered. YouTube and personal websites do not count as sources. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

18:45:22, 9 January 2020 review of draft by Techhistorians
Hey, 10 days ago my article was rejected seconds within submitting it for review despite the fact that I provided more than 20 citations, and several internal WP crosslinks to substantiate notability and truthfulness. . I contested the rejection immediately giving valid arguments for the publication. I did that both on the draft page as well ask on the talk page of the reviewer. I didn't get any personal response form the reviewer but it seems he/she updated the page now: it states it has been rejected and it is under re-review at the same time which I find confusing. I am not sure now whether the article is permanently rejected or it is indeed in re-review and I don't have to worry until I receive a notification.

Please advise,

Techhistorians (talk) 18:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The draft was declined, which gives you the option to improve and resubmit it (not rejected, which does not offer a way to resubmit it) on 28 December 2019, for reading like an advertisement. No reviewer has touched it since. You resubmitted it without changes the following day in this edit, and have subsequently made some changes. So it is currently in the pool to be re-reviewed, a fairly normal state of affairs. Articles for creation is an iterative process. The current backlog is 3-4 months, so you can anticipate a second review by around April.


 * Generally speaking, writing a new article about an extant company, particularly a unicorn or other startup company, is an unwise choice of first topic, as such drafts have a very low probability of ever being accepted for publication. If you're interested in writing about tech history, you would be better off improving an existing article about tech that hit its prime long enough ago (20 years or so) that historical scholarship has since been produced on the subject. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

18:49:55, 9 January 2020 review of draft by Vvong519
Vvong519 (talk) 18:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , The draft is overly promotional, using peacocking terms and generally reading like an ad. You need better references, of higher quality as well. Please also see easy referencing for how to properly use and format references inline. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)