Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/feedback/Archive 12

Feedback from Kmceleny (2 January 2014)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * the instruction where clear though not visual as button on the moonless site where not fitted correctly


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * my submission did not get a review as the wizard determined that my article could be a conflict or interest, even though non of the information I was going to provide is opinionated, there for cant be taken as a conflict of interest.


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * yes, let people apply articles and have a third part decide if the information provided is conflict of interest. So much information has been turned down all because it has a POSSIBILITY to be a conflict of interest, and even if this is so, other can edit the information to stop this.

Feedback from Vaaltje (16 January 2014)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * I have several photographs that are clear for common use however I uploaded them previously and did not understand what kind of specific document(s) you are requiring to prove this. Most of the photos I took myself with one exception where I have verbal agreement to use. You have already deleted the jpegs from the W Commons and I am unable to override your system to re-upload (as you suggest to do); I continue to get the same error message that the file has been deleted because there is not enough 'proof' that the copyright is common. Please let me know how to remedy this. I have examined all of the pages where you discuss this and I cannot make sense out of what you are asking for. Can you please tell me how I can: 1) override your system and re-upload the jpegs that were deleted; 2) provide the exact documentation that you require. 3) get the photos back up and connected to a live page.  Thank you in advance, Vaaltje

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vaaltje#File_tagging_File:Randall_Schmit_2012.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Randall_SCHMIT,_The_Visitation,_1988.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1

Feedback from 2.96.250.179 (19 January 2014)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * no


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * it wasn't

No Wikipedia is rubbish and stop asking my eleven year old daughter for money
 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from Giant Green Snake (22 January 2014)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * Yes


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * It was rereviewed in an hour.


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * There is a lot of information to process. There must be a way to learn the process with more ease, but I do not know how.

Feedback from 209.68.120.202 (24 January 2014)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * no


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * not at all


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * yes make it faster. please

Feedback from 2600:1013:B01E:C131:6899:AA25:A477:1440 (27 January 2014)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?

thanks
 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from Observer55 (30 January 2014)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * yes


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * very


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * i very much appreciate the work of the editors, think they did an excellent job.

Feedback from 122.59.190.41 (15 February 2014)
I'm going to die soon, and I simply wanted to write a short article about my life, but Wikipedia will not allow me to do that. I intended using nothing but facts that could be verified elsewhere. However, apparently, you have decided to tar me with a brush - one that paints the worst of people instead of the best. You make the presumption that people are unable to differentiate between fact and fiction about their own lives. (conflict of interests?!).

I have decided to leave my fortune to another organisation instead, having found something nasty lurking at the heart of wikipedia. A system that allows the negative aspects of human behaviour to define the manner in which the positive ones can be presented and/or portrayed. This is in the same vein as ceding to a terrorist's demands, by changing one's society radically as to mitigate the terrorists affect, but as a side-effect causing the denizens of one's society to have to live as if under a despot's rule. Terrorism won.

Wikipedia appears to be acting under the same 'belief system' and this is both shameful and disappointing. As I fast approach my last hours of existence, I am saddened to find that the world I leave is a worse place than the one upon which I started.

p.s. I DO NOT irrevocably agree to release my contribution. I am offering feedback only, I am NOT providing you with words which you can present publicly.

I revoke all such privilege and wish it to be known that I DO NOT WANT THIS OR ANYTHING I HAVE EVER WRITTEN TO BE USED BY WIKIPEDIA. By clicking the 'Save page' button, I do NOT give you any form of ownership or rights of use of the sentences I have provide above. I have forwarded a copy of this to my lawyer whom will prosecute you to the full extent allowable by law if you (Wikipedia) use these words/sentences in a manner that is publicly accessible or viewable.

Feedback from 97.85.131.226 (19 February 2014)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * no I did not


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * really fast


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * I wanna write a paraghraph

Feedback from DuaneCampbell1 (24 February 2014)
No
 * Did you find the instructions clear?

Quickly, but with not helpful feedback.
 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?

The talk help process was very good.
 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Many of the directions, for example, how to reach the editor who made a decision, are almost impossible to follow. They assume a great deal of background knowledge of navigating within the system.

Some of the responses were very helpful. The problems were navigating through issues. like how to respond to queries, etc. For example, I have a small request on linking to an article recently posted. It would assist navigation. However, I can't figure out how to get to the appropriate place.

Thank you for the work that you do. 20:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)20:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)~ Duane Campbell

Feedback from Aks2103 (25 February 2014)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * Yes


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * Very fair Time


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * No

Feedback from 182.185.27.17 (27 February 2014)
no
 * Did you find the instructions clear?

never
 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?

hundreds
 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from 41.206.11.183 (5 March 2014)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?

well, am at watch to seeing the week 1 subjects for treatening: am Jesmion
 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from 142.33.30.131 (5 March 2014)
NOT AT ALL I COULDN"T EVEN SUBMIT IT!I WAS TRYING TO MAKE A PAGE ON PYRAMID NUMBERS! GET THE HELL OUT OF HERE AND GET BETTER WORKERS!
 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from Wuerzele (6 March 2014)
ok
 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * ?? never took me to editing area


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * wizard stopped after notability- tried it twice--Wuerzele (talk) 18:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Feedback from Tito john (9 March 2014)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * No. For example, I did not realize until reading the message I received today that Articles for Creation is different from creating an article as a logged-in user.


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * I don't remember, but it was within a couple of weeks. It was reviewed at least twice, because I tried to modify it to meet the requirements. And here is where my biggest complaint lies. I chatted on IRC with several people who said they thought the citations were adequate and the subject met the notability test. But every time I submitted the article, it was rejected. Frankly, I had given up on the process; I have come across several articles on other people who have had roughly similar diplomatic careers and are similarly notable (Richard Burt, for example -- the difference being that he is an American) that seem to be much more thinly documented than my article, but were approved.


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * I think the emphasis on secondary sources may have been taken to extr!-- Answer next to the asterisks below the questions. You need not answer all -->

The instructions were clear and easy to follow, even for an inexperienced member of the Wiki community like me. However, the Article wizard could be improved by giving clearer guidelines on what a notable subject is and how to tell if the subject someone wants to write about is notable enough.

Thank you, sincerely, Book and Horse Lover

Feedback from Hadodohd (19 November 2013)
emes. I understand the reasoning, but I find it hard to understand why the Web site of an organization is not an adequate source for confirming a person's position in that organization. Tito john (talk) 12:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

== Feedback from (16-03-2014)  ==


 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * yes


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * very quickly

iam suggesting full mechanism to the dilapidated cause by blockages, example, Jesmion was blocked by Stwalkerster for disrupt edit, since year 2013, that resulted Jesmion's inability to writing test and comment in 'oer' lessons,  over-long suspension could lead to vulnerability, and the learner deciding to drop, because not every student have faith to endure torturing, like Jesmion, Thanks  41.203.65.171 (talk) 07:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * yes,

¢¢I think that your work is great


 * Did you find the instructions clear?


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from 94.13.224.102 (20 March 2014)

 * Did you find the instructions clear? No, I did not your bum of a website keeps stalling !!!


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed? It hasn't been yet and i submitted it 2 weeks ago!!!!

Why does this website crash so much????????????
 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process? Yes let us write what ever we want plus there are so many reasons I won't ever use wikipedia EVER again !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Feedback from 94.13.224.102 (20 March 2014)

 * Did you find the instructions clear? No, I did not your bum of a website keeps stalling !!!


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed? It hasn't been yet and i submitted it 2 weeks ago!!!!

Why does this website crash so much????????????
 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process? Yes let us write what ever we want plus there are so many reasons I won't ever use wikipedia EVER again !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Feedback from Ev2geny (22 March 2014)

 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

I think something goes wrong with AfC Helper script, which is seemed to be used to automatically fix certain errors. Specifically this script removes line breaks in the list of the named references, this in turn renders the list of named references unreadable for human in Wiki mark-up language.

One can see what I mean, if one checks the |differences between 2 versions of my article, before and after clean up.

I hope somebody will be able to look at thisEv2geny (talk) 10:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Feedback from 41.190.4.71 (23 March 2014)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * yes


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * very quickly

i have discovered some wikipedians being angry about some who uses wikipedia as fundraising organization, some were unhappy and said, that her daughter of eleven year of age was asked to bring money, but i mean how do the wikipedian's staffs got their pay, if not well arrenged, it's likely they would be begging money, but wikipedia staffs would have been sponsoring by the organizations, companies and governments, and if they don't have any of these, that's mean they would be begging for money, and it doesnt sound nice for our staffs begging money for maintenance and feeding, to avoid molestation, am suggesting to 'p2pu' sponsorers to please do some thing to better 'p2pu' staffs and some other maintenances, am Jesmion:  41.190.4.71 (talk) 10:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * yes

Feedback from Rattyexaltations (28 March 2014)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * No way! Confused the hell out of me. And my progress reports had three different, contradictory messages on it - refused submission at the top (I resubmitted, but it stayed at the top), pending submissions below that. That is REALLY counter-intuitive.


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * 13 days.


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * I'd like to, but I should have taken notes - 13 days ago is a long time for my memory. Certainly the instructions aren't clear at all, and the instructions being written in "markup" type language (like this window) is confusing for people who have knowledge in an area, want to submit, but know nothing about Wikipedia writing and don't have time to learn - which is my case. It makes it less accessible to experts who want to contribute to the awesomeness of Wikipedia, but are users. All of the helpfiles and etc. are jargon to the point of being incomprehensible shibboleths. (This is not a knock on Wikipedia - it is the most amazing thing ever, it could be just more easily accessible for potential submitters. Really, I have NO IDEA what the hell you guys are talking about, I had to go to third party videos on YouTube or Wordpress to find out how to do this.. and I still got it wrong, apparently.)

Feedback from 62.228.79.101 (2 April 2014)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * Yes


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * Pending

Such a warning would be enough to deter most from exploiting your services.
 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * Maybe a black list of sorts, something like a wall of shame or a 1 year ban for further submissions.

Feedback from 50.11.57.189 (8 April 2014)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * Yes


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * N/A


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * YES-

Feedback from 62.122.136.244 (16 April 2014)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * yes


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * i dont know

no
 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from 62.122.136.244 (16 April 2014)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * yes


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * i dont know

no
 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from Pantsios (6 May 2014)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?

How can my wikipedia articles be copyrighted i dont want other people editing my articles !Please
 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from 82.7.3.15 (8 May 2014)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * i found the instructions clear but it didn't let me write about that person.


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * not quickly at all.


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * actually make sense and let me write because I didn't seem to do anything on it.

Feedback from 213.104.217.73 (15 May 2014)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * yes i did find them clear


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * as soon as i clicked the button


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * you should just let us post the bloody article >:(

Feedback from 2601:D:3D00:94B:91D4:515:848C:ADC5 (15 May 2014)
no
 * Did you find the instructions clear?

not fast
 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?

yes alot of things
 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from 110.20.243.197 (22 May 2014)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * Broadly, yes. However, I was unable to attract any directions or second eyeballs for the article (to tell me if it was an ok submission) in the live chat recommended.


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * It was reviewed 35 days after I submitted it.


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * Wait times need to be improved, and I would have appreciated some extra eyeballs to tell me if it would likely be accepted (or if not, what I could do to improve its chances) earlier. By the time it got reviewed, I'd almost forgotten about the article.

Feedback from EleriWall (30 May 2014)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * Probably not since included in the message that the page was accepted it said that as a logged-in user I can create articles myself!


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * Over a 6 weeks


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * Make instructions on how to create a new wikipedia page more obvious, since I've totally managed to miss something important and i'm fairly into this sort of stuff.

Feedback from Kalkpmg (2 June 2014)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * instructions are actually quite easy


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * the review process unfortunately needs more monitoring...at times it feels like a bunch of chefs trying to repair a car...so good reviewers, however, no knowledge on the subject matter...with a lot of opinions....


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * need to make the rejection process a bit more specific in terms of reasons...most of the time it opinion based, and different users' opinions vary...so one will reject it for a specific reason, and when it rectified, another will reject it for too much of it...get quite frustrating...

Feedback from Sucheta Raikar (9 June 2014)
applies to, the user could come up with faster turnarounds.
 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * Yes. But I feel instructions could be made more precise. For example, if it's made explicitly clear which line(s) the comment
 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * Very Promptly


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * Different editors have given contrasting comments on a few occasions. I was earlier told to include references as footnotes, when I did the needful, I was told to cite them. Some editors are more forgiving, others are squarely dismissive.

Feedback from Danie Roy (11 June 2014)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * Yes the instruction were very clear. I had a great support throughout the process.


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * Within 2 weeks, which is very good.


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * I don't have any suggestions for now. I think it works very well and we can find all the informations and the support we need easily. Thank you very much everyone.Danie Roy (talk) 13:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Feedback from MarkThree (13 June 2014)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * Yes and No as a newcomer trying to do my best to follow instructions with many new Buzz words I had some trouble following instructions. Your help was important.


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * reasonably well, as an author you expect instant results, but I was well satisfied.

to the newcomer instruction language is very difficult; any way you can simplify would benefit the writer. Reviewers time would be reduced if the writer could meet requiremnts on the first pass. New writers by definition do not have enough experience in meeting the requirements, and yes the requiremnts are necessary. the people who have helped me were great and thoughtful, but for exanple I am lost on how to get back and thank them for their support. No I do not have suggestions on how to improve the process, only suggestion is as the new writer takes each step, someone should  follow each step closely to see where it has problems-not easy.
 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from 176.61.94.204 (15 June 2014)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * Yes Very Clear


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * I did not submit


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * No I liked it as it is

Feedback from JARacino (30 June 2014)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * Yes, wikipedia editors and sites are wonderful, covering a variety of different kinds of content.


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * I was pleased with the process in 2012, and it was a wonderful kickoff for an academic who teaches in areas such as Community integration and Family support. Keep the links on my email yet today.


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * I work with very broad audiences which include people with MDs, PhDs, Masters, Associate, Bachelors, and high school degrees. So ranking work in the field of family support as a C is not very helpful (conceptual level that is not in across fields from psychology, social work, categorical disabilities, special education, therapists and rehabilitation, psychiatrists, endocrinologists, family support coordinators, institutional and criminal justice personnel, villages in India), etc...


 * Push in those areas toward parent-professionals and then disjuncture with "behavioral medicine" or "brain injury" and communities. Need a professional community support level, and community services research level which goes through health services research, etc..

JARacino (talk) 20:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)JARacinoJARacino (talk) 20:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Feedback from Esther413 (4 July 2014)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?

This was unsuccessful. there are no directions or advancement to take me to the place where I am able to create my subject. This is very unprecise and a complete waste of time. It has not helped at all.
 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from Silandcoreng (8 July 2014)
yes very quickly: my article was first rejected and then improved by the experienced wikipedier, and then it was published. Couple of weeks in all. I found very helpful your invitation to the teahouse, saying not to be discouraged by the first rejection. These kind of things can help beginners a lot. Thanks
 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from 213.205.236.125 (13 July 2014)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * YES


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * N/A


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * The musician/song category is pretty restrictive - opportunity to include bands that stayed together for a long time (eg 20+ years) and supported recording artists without actually recording themselves, perhaps?

Feedback from 81.228.223.36 (15 July 2014)
Yes very clear
 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * about 3 weeks. But it was during summer so it didn't take that long.


 * Nope :)

Feedback from Sleap (17 July 2014)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * Yes, right up until the end where I was dropped at a very confusing page on Neologism. I was expecting a page/stub to be generated for me. What on earth did it do instead???


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from 174.23.204.21 (28 July 2014)

 * Did you find the instructions clear? no


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from CuteTeam (29 July 2014)
Good
 * Did you find the instructions clear?


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from Love the sun (29 July 2014)
Yes
 * Did you find the instructions clear?

Corrections not reviewed yet from yesterday.
 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?

NOT SURE WHY THIS STILL APPEARS; I HAVE DONE ALL POSSIBLE TO PROVIDED DIRECT LINKS. This article needs more links to other articles to help integrate it into the encyclopedia. Please help improve this article by adding links that are relevant to the context within the existing text. (July 2014)'
 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from Nupur2000 (14 August 2014)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?

thank you so much..
 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from Southhindimovies (17 August 2014)
Yes Good Yes
 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from Blanco pagina (17 August 2014)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * More or less.


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * Within 2 or 3 weeks each time. However, I strongly disagreed with the reasons for rejections. The citations were accurate and should have been accepted as proving this person's notability.


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * This entry was targeted for extremely strange editing. The last draft that I submitted had numerous references for each assertion. These have ALL been removed by some editor, and now the entry says it needs citations. I am not going to put them in again just to have them removed again. I put a lot of work into this article and it's all been trashed. Just now I added wiki links for Kathy Valentine and Jesse Sublett which had also been removed.

Feedback from Drew Can (15 September 2014)

 * Did you find the instructions clear? Yes... reasonably clear and I was able to construct and submit my first page.

prompted me to vastly improve the page). I hope it will continue to be accepted.
 * How quickly was your submission reviewed? It seems my page was reviewed within a week and rejected.... and then it was accepted about 9 months later (which was encouraging and


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from 103.245.101.198 (27 September 2014)
sort of did not understand whther it was reviewed No idea.
 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

i wnated to search for meaning of the verb/adj.- articulate - in english, but couldn't locate, so your help is required. i think i still don't know exactly how to go about this word search

Feedback from Eagleash (30 September 2014)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * Yes


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * 21 days


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * No

Feedback from Savanieres (6 October 2014)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * Yes


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * Very quickly. 2 days actually


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * Nope, thanks

Feedback from Gaarmyvet (6 October 2014)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * Yes


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * About 50 days.


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * While I was waiting, I looked at other articles. While I won't claim that mine is perfect, some were so poorly constructed as to have no references. Possibly a bot (I don't know how to write one) could be created to automatically reject un-referenced articles.

-- Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  18:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Feedback from Maherkr (29 October 2014)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * No.


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * Within two days.


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * It wasn't clear that I even needed to go through the article review process as a logged-in user. That should be clearer. But more importantly, the message you sent notifying me that my article was accepted didn't make me feel good to have contributed it, proud to have written my first article, happy be a Wikimedian, or excited to work on it more. In fact, it was pretty discouraging.

Feedback from Ndstead (3 November 2014)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * Yes


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * Quickly


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * It's difficult if, like me, you're a computer dummy. Thanks for your help.

Feedback from 49.244.241.33 (6 November 2014)
Yes
 * Did you find the instructions clear?


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * fast


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * no

Feedback from Olamikhx (14 November 2014)
Yes, very clear and instructive too Took sometime, but it worth waiting for as the first decline forced me to review my article and get more verifiable references none for now, I'm satisfied with the current process
 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from NancyJeanGF (22 November 2014)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * Yes


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * About two months


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * More feedback on my Talk page.

NancyJeanGF (talk) 19:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Feedback from AmarnathManju (23 November 2014)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * The instructions were excellent!


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * It was reviewed immediately - I was absolutely surprised!


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * No, not really. In fact, l liked the idea that I was also updated via e-mail re the status of my article.

Feedback from 83.145.42.27 (25 November 2014)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?

hi I have a question! how did the (owner) of wiki create it? I mean did he/she write like 100 articles and then wiki became popular? dare wikipedia please notice this message!
 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from Andrew Stanley 1999 (25 November 2014)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * Yes


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * no

Feedback from ZaphodsCatwalk (15 December 2014)
No. Wanted to create article directly but did not see option for doing that.
 * Did you find the instructions clear?

Very. Possibly too much so: it appears that the editor who reviewed my submission did not bother to read it.
 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?

Yes. Dial back the "shoot 'em all and let the devil sort the mess" approach of automatically grading all new articles "Start" class. (The method taken by the gentleman who approved my request.) That's probably efficient for many new submissions, but it's demotivating toward new editors who put extensive work into drafts before submitting an article for creation. Really want to encourage diversity in editor pool? Try recognizing merit of contributions.
 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from 41.220.69.120 (16 December 2014)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * yes


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * very quickly

jesmion
 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * unblock blocked wikipedians

Feedback from Wyvern4859 (27 December 2014)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * No

After further revision etc, subsequent review (yellow card) was one or two weeks. Further patrol review - I did not realise it had been released as draft in the public domain from 8 Nov 14 until late Nov 14.
 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * Initial review (red card) was very quick (a matter of days)

I think my submission was only accepted because the Wiki-community rallied round and redrafted my original submission and amendments into a more acceptable format. I and my former fellow pupils are eternally grateful for this essential help as there is now some small record of our former school for our offspring to refer to in our dotage. May I also take this opportunity of apologising for inadvertently not thanking people for their help the Wiki- comm
 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * As a 71 year old Wiki-novice, I found the Wiki Man Machine Interface difficult to follow.

Feedback from Yndesai (30 December 2014)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * Yes


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * 3 days to first review and 19 days for re-review.


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * Suggest to have process where reviews of resubmission can be speedier.