Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/feedback/Archive 13

Feedback from 196.0.46.130 (9 January 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * YES I DID


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * SO SLOWLY


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * MAKE SURE TO UPDATE ALL THE

Feedback from 196.0.46.130 (9 January 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * NO


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * VERY SLOW


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * JUST IMPROVE

Mujeeb Rahman Gudalur

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * Yes


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * 1 day


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

Feedback from Steve Millar (13 January 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * I think so :)


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * It was rejected, that took a few days as I recall, so I did no more work on it - and then it was later accepted (which I only discovered later) so I might do more on it now.


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * Not particularly - though as a relatively infrequent (and thus inexperienced) contributor I do find it time-consuming to pick my way through the processes.

Steve Millar (talk) 09:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Feedback from 75.200.86.86 (15 January 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process? yes, you say sean rigby does not exist. Well, watch the credits on Endeavor and note that Sean Rigby is, in reality, a cop who assists Endeavor!

Feedback from 108.23.17.11 (22 January 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * No


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * Yes. Make instructions PLAIN AND CLEAR. They are somewhat confusing as currently written.

Feedback from 2602:304:CF81:F10:F823:144:4AA0:90EA (22 January 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * Yes


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * Not submitted yet.

Kyuurimomi is a Japanese pickle salad, popular with ma!-- Answer next to the asterisks below the questions. You need not answer all of them. -->
 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * I want to suggest the Japanese word, Kyuurimomi, be included in Wikipedia.


 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * NO


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * VERY SLOW


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * JUST IMPROVE

Mujeeb Rahman Gudalur
ny Japanese, and Japanese Americans. Often eaten in the summer.

Feedback from 164.100.149.86 (29 January 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * Yes


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?

I'd like to suggest an article on a Christian rock band called Redolent from Tamenglong (India). They're also in reverbnation.com/redolent and facebook.com/redolent, In.
 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from 81.149.131.228 (30 January 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?

I have been managing my own 'Death wish' through a technique I developed called Death meditation, which even after nearly 30 years, I still find an effective way to deal with my preference to be dead than living.
 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

I wanted to write an article to advise others of this technique, as everyone I have taught it to has found it useful, not just myself.

The way your encyclopedia works requires my 'Death meditation' to be reported or cited in other varifiable media. It looks as if I will need to find another way of advising people about this useful alternative to suicide.

Feedback from 81.149.131.228 (30 January 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?

I have tried to request a new page be made for 'Death meditation' as I have found it very useful in managing my 'Death wish' rather than acts of suicide.
 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

'Death meditation' is a technique I developed myself when I was 9years old and it helps me to get to sleep without medication or acts of actual suicide.

Due to this being my own creation I have no citings on other media sources as yet, even my own therapists have been astounded when I have told them about it.

Since it can easily be understood and used by anyone, I thought that I would try to put it on Wikipedia, as many others may find it useful for managing their own stress levels, either in conjunction with prescribed medications or by itself.

The idea is that you concentrate on dying...   ...pick whatever method you want to try and concentrate/ meditate on it. This is best done when laying down comfortably.

Methods that have worked well for myself and others include being shot in the stomache (ala 'reservoir dogs'), blood loss from a different source (perhaps vampire attack or severe injury) and lethal injection.

Once you have decided on your chosen method, try to ignore any imagine pain (meditation can make such things quite real) and concentrate on the other physiological effects that would occur.

By meditating on the drop in blood pressure, reduced heart rate and slowing of your breathing, you can convince yourself that you are loosing consciousness to the point of falling asleep.

You can write this up differently if you want to, I just know that others may find this very useful as an alternative to acts of suicide or taking medication to sleep.

Sincerely

Lukas Green c/o Spectrum centre 6-8 Greenland street Camden London Nw1 0nd

Feedback from O2L84U (31 January 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * Somewhat. Grateful for all the help from reviewers, especially FeatherPluma who did a bunch of work and approved the post.


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * Faster than was predicted, which is always awesome.


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * Well I really respect the filtering process - maintains integrity of Wikipedia. Now I am going to try to edit the page that was approved because I think the notability angle was missed. It that ok? Again thanks FeatherPluma.

Feedback from Ramyakr (2 February 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * Yes.


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * Took quite some time, about 4 weeks.


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * I feel a lot of genuine articles are not accepted as they are recommended for deletion by people who do not belong to that regions nor can verify vernacular language citations. I feel there should be a way to allow people to submit source first and the source should be verified by people who can read/write that language, rate the quality of the source and then allow it for linking to article.

Feedback from Novelismo (4 February 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * ... somewhat.


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * ... quick - within a day?


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * this was the first time I first-posted an article; it was copied from the Wikipedia DE via google translate page, and then reformatted only very slightly. I'll look at it soon -- tomorrow or tonight when and if I have time -- to improve the article's internal linking to the named musicians and other venues noted in the article.  Also, when possible, I'll check the citations, but that will take longer since I don't own any of the referenced books. Novelismo (talk) 16:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC) Novelismo

Feedback from Hkandy (7 February 2015)
Yes
 * Did you find the instructions clear?

Quickly the first time, A couple of weeks for the second.
 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?

Yes. 1) To avoid discouraging potential contributors, and thus keep Wikipedia growing, it would be good to rephrase the unaccepted message more politely and in a way that encourages improvements. Now it says "Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time." It would be better if it was " "Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Thank you for your contribution. Unfortunately, it needs some more work before it can be accepted."
 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

2) To reduce the number of rejections, and therefore the workload of checking re-submissions, a checklist of minimum standards could be shown when creating a new page and before submitting a new page for review. If possible this could be partly filled in automatically; e.g. the software could check to see if there were any references in the article.

Feedback from Taemaya (10 February 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * Quite clear, but I am still adapting.


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * Fast, 2 hours maybe.


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * Yes, I felt bad with the speed deletion,of my first article, that it is the same that was submitted and accepted after. It would be better if it had been moved for draft folder or sandbox folder. I think wikipedia can lose a lot when someone try contribute in constructive way and a reviewer is aggressive with a speed deletion. The reviewers should before a speed deletion check if it really plagiarism, checking in wikipedia in others languages for google and checking if there are the same content in different blogs, because in my case, the article was a legend, and a legend can be tell in different ways but most often with same words, and more often they passes from father to son in oral contest, some are in books to refer others don't, those less elaborate aren't in book. So for a speed deletion I thing it would be done only after real checking.

Feedback from John Cuthbert 221 (11 February 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * Yes, I felt that the instructions were detailed and clear.


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * My submission was reviewed within 24hrs which was excellent service


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * I found the process worked very well.

Feedback from 69.242.216.250 (15 February 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * no you did not explain of specify your instructions.


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * slow as a snail.

no but to tear this web page down.
 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from 99.235.40.145 (17 February 2015)
yes.
 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * I want all of this to get it fix soon because I want to know filmography or shows or drama and also, their awards and nomination.

Feedback from 73.25.188.195 (20 February 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * NO.


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * yes. not so many links ...

Feedback from Raj prem4u (26 February 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * yes


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * i will do my best for submission


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from 117.103.90.97 (26 February 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?yes


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?so fast


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

Feedback from 109.153.118.229 (26 February 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * no, the English is really difficult to understand and read. shorter sentences and write as you'd speak to a person and explain the topic.


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from Nimantharaj (9 March 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?

The review process helped a lot to improve the article. It would have been a great support for the writer if the comments were more specific (eg. One comment was to avoid peacock terms; it would have been extremely helpful if the reviewer could point out few such cases in the draft). Anyway I would lie to thank the reviewers a lot for their voluntary work.
 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from 122.169.224.84 (13 March 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * no


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * no results

122.169.224.84 (talk) 14:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * u shld in ur informations

Feedback from 194.247.250.157 (16 March 2015)
ḭ


 * Did you find the instructions clear? NO!!!!!1


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed? NOT ATALL !!!!!!!!

you are all IDIOTS we are AMAZING AND SHOULD HAVE A WIKIPEDIA PAGEḒẮḎḊḅạấẻḩḩ
 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process? YES LET US MAKE A WIKIPEDIA PAGE NOW !!!!!!1

Feedback from KTucker (18 March 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * Yes


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * In good time.


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * When an article is nominated for deletion, automate the notification of watchers who have notifications turned on. The page I created was previously deleted and I discovered this process by chance (would have preferred a notification by e-mail). Just after my page was (re)created, a related page I worked on in tandem was nominated for deletion. This time, I was notified on my talk page (which is great :-). I would hope that all watchers were notified (at least those with notifications turned on). - K (talk) 01:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Feedback from 146.166.251.34 (19 March 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?

No i did not not fast enough faster wifi
 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from 14.141.23.154 (20 March 2015)
Does a description related to an object need 'Full Stop'/period at end of the description text.

Feedback from Stephen Truscott (22 March 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * Yes

Yes, a very efficient process
 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?

Stephen Truscott (talk) 00:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from Maybelline Ooi (26 March 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * Yes the instructions were clear on how to publish an article but it requires some effort at reading them and complying to the rules. Nevertheless, support that I obtained from the Wikipedia community helped me along. I enjoyed the process of getting feedbacks and improving on my work.


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * Some took much longer like a few weeks but some was rather quick, like within a few days.


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * I feel that perhaps more could be done to encourage people to return and contribute to the Wikipedia community. Such as introducing some community for new editors to learn from the experience of experienced editors.

Feedback from Clement Soj (28 March 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * Yes


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * About 8 minutes


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from Clenent Soj (28 March 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * Yes


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * About 8 minutes


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * Tagging photoes to an artickle

Feedback from 72.200.126.233 (31 March 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * No


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * 210 days later


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * Do your job. -.-

Feedback from Hyperspacecodeblog (1 April 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * Yes


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * Fast


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * It's Awesome

Feedback from 205.213.104.125 (10 April 2015) bearberry9999@yahoo.com

 * 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,  state the rules first,  then allow or disallow patrons to add a page.  Thank you.    It is a page about the paintings available for viewing at Wix.com under the title  richardpriganpaintings  supposedly.   They are funny comics (not for sale) that kids ages 4 to 94 quite often consider amusing.

Feedback from Paulway29 (12 April 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * yes


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from 205.235.52.30 (13 April 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?

get money
 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from 203.33.109.217 (20 April 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * yes, very clear


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * very quick


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * no I did not

Feedback from Emilyata (22 April 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * No


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * Long


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

Feedback from Aricooperdavis (25 April 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * Clear and simple


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * Within a week


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * No, thank you, I was very impressed, and I appreciated the human touch of having a real user accept the article and provide a forum for advice.

Feedback from IrishHist (27 April 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * Yes


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * Within hours


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from Koictarsamuel (27 April 2015)
yes
 * Did you find the instructions clear?


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from 216.166.170.156 (5 May 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * no no at all it was very confusing


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * i don't know


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * make it less confusing please that will be very helpful.

Feedback from 15live42day76 (16 May 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * no


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * ok


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * yes help me with your site I'm Dyslexic and need help

Feedback from Yahia.Mokhtar (24 May 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * Very clear, excellent and encouraging with guidance to improve more.


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * Super! less than 24 hours


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * Ideal! Do not have any suggestions at the moment. Everything is on its proper place.

Thanks

Feedback from Grenetta mckinstry (25 May 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * too confusing. Just give the person a page to fill out. Read it. Then accept or reject. Simple.! Not complicated.


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from 111.93.16.164 (26 May 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * Yes... Very well made and explained. Thank you.


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from Jetrev27 (26 May 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * Some of it, yes. I still can not seem to get a grasp on how to add categories. I tried several times but I was sadly, unsuccessful. Also, how can I post a photo?


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * Keep up the great work, guys!

Feedback from Sasheendranvinam (26 May 2015)
yes
 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * instantly

I want to follow up your feedback
 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from 92.233.189.126 (1 June 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * no


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * a year


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

Feedback from Remotelysensed (10 June 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * yes


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * remarkably fast -- how in the world do you accomplish that!!


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * How about letting us ask a concrete question that we had and could not solve when drafting that particular text? Actually, that's why I tried the sandbox approach (I have already created several articles for Wikipedia, besides editing hundreds.)

With this text (Stalin Statue (Berlin)I had two problems I could not solve:

1. The photo with Stalin's ear is too large. How can I get it smaller than "thumb" -- which is the approach I always use unless I make a "gallery". I tried to find the answer, but it all seemed incredibly complicated and I chickened out. How about some simple command that doesn't require us to be image processing experts? like "smaller image" or "larger image" and you yourselves can put in the algorithm some reasonable values that will surely take care of most cases for us dummies.

2. There is a lot of unwanted space before the indented quote in my entry. There is none at all in the input version. How can I then get rid of it?

Many thanks in advance for any help. --Remotelysensed (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Feedback from 103.230.6.14 (12 June 2015)
yes very good no
 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from 2601:192:8100:9A15:60A3:BF1E:751C:2FA5 (18 June 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * Pretty much. Fairly straightforward.


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * Fairly quickly I suppose.


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * Well, I guess you could always be a bit more direct in what you're trying to get out of people.

Feedback from 163.6.211.81 (22 June 2015)
yes
 * Did you find the instructions clear?

very
 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?

better members/more
 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

WSC CUP
No Ni No
 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * Do you have an suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from QueenHarmonysqueenators (28 June 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * Yes


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * About 5 min


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * Let people finish the whole thing without moving on

Feedback from VTflatlander (7 July 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * Somewhat confusing as how to use various templates. I had better luck cutting and pasting from existing articles.


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * The review process took over 5 weeks.

VTflatlander (talk) 23:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * I reviewed reponses to quite a few draft articles while creating mine. It seems some editors are good at leaving helpful comments while others basically say, "You're wasting my time."

Feedback from Rayneet (11 July 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * Yes, the editor's instructions were clear and helpful.


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * The first time it took about five - six weeks but on the second submission after I'd made corrections it was accepted almost immediately. I want to thank LaMona for the excellent editing that she provided.

Then the template for inserting citations was helpful but still needed correcting by the editor.
 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * Generally, I would say that the process of locating information on how to proceed with all the requirements of creating an acceptable article is NOT user-friendly. I continually got lost in too much information. I don't even know how to contact the editor to say thank you.

I think that I would need a "wiki for dummies" kind of page that sets out all the important steps to create a simple article. More advanced and experienced writers could go from there to all the other links.

Feedback from 1.38.22.135 (12 July 2015)
yes
 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * 1 year


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * make it more clear

Feedback from 196.46.246.180 (13 July 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?

clear, but not pleasing. i just wanted the cost of erecting a petrolchemical plant
 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from 184.96.253.23 (17 July 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * no


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * 2 hours

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

Feedback from Williamahendric (22 July 2015)
Yes Reviewed within 10mints No as of now.
 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from 104.243.163.68 (23 July 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * Yes


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * Fast


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

Feedback from Sportsnation213 (23 July 2015)
yes
 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * yes
 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * fast!


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * not yet!

Feedback from Sanford1504 (26 July 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?

No. And I'd appreciate some specific clarification about which sources you find troubling on the page for Toby Lerner Ansin. Sanford1504 (talk) 16:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)Sanford1504


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * In a reasonable amount of time. Sanford1504 (talk) 16:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)Sanford1504


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * I wish there had been a single, direct link to the reviewer so I could respond more efficiently and accurately. Sanford1504 (talk) 16:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)Sanford1504

Feedback from 2A03:2880:2130:CFF7:FACE:B00C:0:1 (27 July 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * not really.


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * it is so fast.


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * Yes, I want everyone here was admit the reality.

Feedback from 197.31.217.120 (6 August 2015)
yes all clear fast no but just telling them about my life
 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from 203.111.224.250 (6 August 2015)
Please create an aricle about the braising pot/pan. Thank you.
 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from 24.44.196.20 (10 August 2015)
Yes Yes Yes
 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from Remo1120 (13 August 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * yes, but not much clearly


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * good


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

Feedback from 103.51.138.249 (16 August 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * A bit


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * Just submitted. Too early to comment

a) http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/puja-e-marts-last-rites-packages-online-replaces-the-pundit/article1-1373333.aspx b) http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/Modernisation-of-commercial-business-of-organsing-last-rites/articleshow/12919338.cms
 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * Yes. I wanted to share some links on the topic suggested :'Benarus - last rites'. There are some articles and it talks of some websites too, for this topic. These links are as follows :

Feedback from Ggluzz00 (20 August 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * I find it interesting that I am a "nobody" until a f-ing computer gives its "approval" that I am "worthy to be written about". This is buffalo chips in my book. Who the hell is going to have a computer dictate whether or not they are "somebody"?  Freud didn't have the "approval" of a damned computer to tell him he was "worthy"!  He simply lived a type of life to bring him into fame and public scrutiny.  I will not rely on a computer to dictate my "value" as a human life.


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from Silkroader (31 August 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * reasonable


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * 1 week -- very encouraging!

Should have set up the talk page sooner.
 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * Trying to get correct content and not allow ambiguity is my main time-consumer. Not your problem -- mine.

Needed: a simple wizard that explains things whenever a word is clicked And then returns to the spot where the click occurred. For people like me. Silkroader (talk) 04:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC) 31/8/15

Feedback from Cardwell13 (5 September 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * No


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


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

Feedback from TCVCJ (7 September 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * I'm still having trouble with instructions - seems there are different ones for each procedure! However, I believe I'm getting a bit better at interpreting them!  "Practice makes perfect?"TCVCJ (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * Seems first review comes pretty quickly - still don't understand why so many different reviewers (many of them with differing opinions) review the same article.TCVCJ (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * You've lumped my article on a memorial to fallen miners with the mining industry - can't fathom that. It seems to me it should be integrated into historical/memorial/monuments/markers. I could find absolutely nothing in the mining industry examples that remotely related to a memorial.TCVCJ (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Feedback from Ventus55 (15 September 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * ?? Ventus55 (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * Too early for the article Joachim Bauer !Ventus55 (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * It was not me submitting this article. It was User:DGG who moved the draft into the article room, without asking me previously. As an experienced user I'm aware how and when to move an article. Please avoid to do so again and do not move drafts out of my user area. In the German Wikipedia we have a sign called "Building site" which signals other users, that ana article is a draft under construction. Please let me know the equivalent in the English Wikipedia? Thanks a lot for your help.Ventus55 (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I encountered it, saw it had not been edited for 6 months, and chose to submit it. It meets the basic requirements: clear notability,  no promotionalism, and no evidence of copyvio. It needs further work of course, but that can best be done in mainspace where others can see it also.    Nobody owns a draft any more than they do an article, and all contributions are licensed irrevocably.  The appropriate tag here is  but the usual interpretation is that it's good for a few days only, not the six months this had been there.
 * But,, next time, I'll just remind you. I was just so glad to see a decent article among all the junk that makes up the usual drafts !   DGG ( talk ) 22:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Feedback from 212.77.204.115 (26 September 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * Yes it's quite clear but still felt needed to learn more.


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * Still no idea


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * Not at all I am still in learning phase for this

Feedback from Parkywiki (26 September 2015)
Yes First rejection was speedy, although it took a further 16 days after I had simply separated out the primary and secondary sources and resubmitted the article for it to be accepted, which was a little frustrating. However I found the process helpful, and somewhat better than starting an article which gets taken over whilst still incomplete by those keen to discuss non-notability and speedy deletion.
 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?

I would recommend encouraging everyone who submits a WP:AfC to state what further enhancements they plan to make or add once the article has been approved. There is no point in 'busting a gut' to refine content if the entire article has the potential to be rejected on the grounds of neet meeting WP:Notability, but being able to indicate what further modifications the originator wants to make could be helpful for both creator and editor. Putting two new articles for consideration in this way, rather than simply creating them both from scratch in mainspace as I have done before was, I think, a helpful process to me. It also made me appreciate the superb efforts of everyone involved in considering and giving feedback to article creators.Parkywiki (talk) 20:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from KravitzSchwarz (27 September 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * The editing process was confusing (for me), thus many more "edits" resulted from my trying to figure out how to insert/link references, insert pictures, etc. It would have been far easier, had there been an interaction template with set-by-step prompts.


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * Remarkably so, although the reviews appear inconsistent, i.e., some reviews reversing others.


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * The article was accepted unconditionally with a note saying that the subject definitely meets Wikipedia professional criteria, or some such thing. Then, unbeknownst to me (... until a week, or two later), a qualifier was added that stated more verification was needed.  Agree, and tried to clarify-  given the constraints of explaining the significance of a "real" (theoretical) mathematician's"" work.

Toward this end, an additional paragraph was added defining, more specifically the significance of the seminal research done by the subject. In the process, additional links were added. Shortly thereafter, a qualifier appeared at the top of the page indicating that the article "needs additional citations for verification-" whereas, the article had been accepted unconditionally (initially). At that point, I had no idea what the comment was referring to, as there are references galore and links at every stage of the article. Additional references are available to verify the authenticity of the subject. I've included some below, but my sense is that this is not what you want to appear in the article. If I'm wrong about that, please let me know:

''There are a number of websites that track how many times an article is cited in a research journal, including Researchgate, MathsciNet and Zbmath.org. It’s not possible to discern whether the citings are duplicative, but according to Researchgate http://www.researchgate.net/publication/227163406_Lifting_smooth_homotopies_of_orbit_spaces, the article entitled Lifting homotopies from orbit spaces is cited in 151 journal articles and Schwarz ‘s work is cited in 985 journal articles overall http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gerald_Schwarz. According to the website MathSciNet, http://ams.rice.edu.resources.library.brandeis.edu/mathscinet/mrcit/individual.html?mrauthid=157450&seeall, the article Lifting homotopies from orbit spaces is cited in 84 journal articles and Schwarz is cited 507 times by 373 authors overall. And, according to the website Zbmath https://zbmath.org/?q=an:0449.57009, the article entitled Lifting homotopies from orbit spaces is cited in 40 journal articles.

Additionally, on page 12 of the publication Fieldnotes, Fields Institute in Mathematical Science, Campbell and Wehlau write of Schwarz, “His seminal work Lifting smooth homotopies of orbit space in IHES marks the beginning of his interest in algebraic groups. He recognized that the solution of the homotopy/isotopy lifting problem required algebraic groups.” ''

In closing, please note that the comment questioning the subject's authenticity is a bit disconcerting, as it calls into question the legitimacy of his credentials. So, my "priority recommendations" are: (1) Please give more targeted feedback on what you're looking for, as generalized feedback can be quite confusing;  and, (2) If the feedback provided is unwarranted, or once the request has been satisfied, please please please delete the statement with the huge question mark that reads: Please help by adding reliable sources... harmful. (i.e., in this case: verification of a subject's credentials) that appears at the the top of the article. I recognize that this statement may serve as a disclaimer for the website. If so, perhaps stating something to the effect that It's impossible to verify submissions....,  would serve the same purpose. Thank you very much for this opportunity! Best Wishes

Feedback from 86.145.105.39 (29 September 2015)
Not very much Not yet. BAD !!!!!!!!!!! Bad clarity. should be more interactive. Signed, Westdoggys
 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from SatishBabusenan (9 October 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * Yes


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * 3 weeks


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * When I tried to add a poster of my film to the page, it didn't show up on 'Show Preview'. So I am not sure if there has been an editing mistake.

Feedback from 2601:1C0:4101:4C74:1145:7224:9DF6:DC03 (13 October 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * No, I was directed away from creating an article


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * Hasn't been reviewed


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * No, it's impossible.

Feedback from Dibashthapa (15 October 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * yes


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * fast


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

Feedback from 27.251.13.250 (22 October 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * Yes, but.....


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * I was not able to submit anything!


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * Why can't I make my name appear on a page?

Feedback from SuperMarioMan (22 November 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?

I found it time consuming.
 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from 109.157.82.227 (3 November 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * Yes


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * 0.6278964 seconds exactly


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * Be less awesome. You're making me feel bad! :D

Feedback from Mrr2015 (4 November 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * Questions about basic coding were easily answered by looking at existing articles. I initially felt my reviewer's reasons for rejection were vague; however in figuring it out I both significantly improved the article and learned more about Wikipedia.


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * Entirely within reasonable expectations. No complaints.


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * Is there a simple generic "stub" article that authors could start with as a framework? One that would have title, sections, text, links to other Wikipedia entries, and properly written inline references containing links to sources? That would have made things a little quicker for me, but I couldn't find one.

Feedback from 182.74.163.110 (5 November 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * Yes, the information is very clear and useful also.


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * there is submission from my side till yet.


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * Yes, There should be some option through which I can introduce me to the rest, and share the experience of mine and qualities.

Feedback from 120.59.231.26 (12 November 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * yes


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * please add option we can put website option for companies

Feedback from 108.220.169.88 (16 November 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * Yes


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * Did not have it reviewed.


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

Feedback from BEN-AMI SHULMAN (17 November 2015)
Yes & will address them asap....
 * Did you find the instructions clear?

Impressively done....
 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?

Accessible one-to-one assistance made a difference for this beginner writer with the wiki procedures.... I would attend future sessions for my projects- BEN-AMI SHULMAN (talk) 13:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from Husimalik (3 December 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * yes


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * very quick

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

Front

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * Yes


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * 5 min


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

Feedback from Abhishek Pujari (9 December 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * Yes, the instructions were crystal clear.


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * My submission was reviewed within an hour. That is quite impressive.

Abhishek Pujari (talk) 07:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * While creating a new article, I would love to get more suggestions on how to edit pages and add links. Also, few links to useful templates might also help a bit. Thank you!

Feedback from 2.105.30.130 (17 December 2015)
No I didn't get my questions sloved. Yes a lot but I don't have time to.
 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from Prabhjot Kaur Gosal (27 December 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * Yes, the reviewer was very clear with the instructions. Thank you for the help!


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * within 24 hours!


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * Not at this time.

Feedback from Cnkaufmann (27 December 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear? Yes


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed? Fast, same day.

First, Robert McClenon informed me of the reference errors yesterday and stated that once I've corrected them the article should be ok for submission. Then, SwisterTwister informs me the next morning that the article was accepted, and I haven't made the error corrections yet. Why? This makes no sense.
 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process? What process? A second person somehow approved my article without my corrections.

Feedback from 197.157.245.7 (28 December 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * Yes


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * Instantly


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * How do I upload articles?

Feedback from Indika fernando (30 December 2015)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * yes


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?