Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/feedback/Archive 16

Feedback from Patpatrick (13 January 2018)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * The instructions are clear to follow and easy.


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * It was very quick and efficient


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * Just because an editor does not have knowledge on a particular topic should note just make new articles for deletion. is really annoying and needs to be looked at. Editors should be unbiased.

Feedback from Internetangel (17 January 2018)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * Yes


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * 33 days


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

Feedback from Springer54 (18 January 2018)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * it was not easy for me


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * only one day


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from 205.152.51.2 (19 January 2018)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?

Thanks for accepting the article before the season started. I'm sure someone is working on the companion page for the women's team, the Orlando Pride. Orlando City B is not going to field a team this year.
 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from Kusi David Toh (4 February 2018)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * Yes I found some clear and with further questions you clarified me on what to do. Thank you for approving my article


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * It took approximately a month and half


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * for the moment, no. But I wish you guide me on how to insert images or pictures.
 * ✅ Replied on user talk page. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Feedback from GreyGreenWhy (9 February 2018)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * Yes to the extent that I used them, but the teahouse experts did most of the template things.


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * Very quickly, under 1 month from submission.

GreyGreenWhy (talk) 20:57, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * Feedback on how to improve article when accepted maybe.

Feedback from Yrarendar (17 February 2018)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * Yes


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * Good turnaround time


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * No - KJP1 was extremely helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yrarendar (talk • contribs) 06:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Feedback from The-landmark (20 February 2018)

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


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * Around 8 weeks


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * It seems to work well and once into it reasonably straightforward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The-landmark (talk • contribs) 19:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Feedback from Rafaelsantino (26 February 2018)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * i´m still learning about the reliable sources


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * 60 days its ok you have more than 2600 articles to review :-)

--Rafaelsantino (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from Jakebroadhurst (5 March 2018)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * Yes


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * Seemed pretty quick


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * no. Just big gratitude! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakebroadhurst (talk • contribs) 17:09, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Feedback from Yourmistake (15 March 2018)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * yes


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * actually little late because one same article already created after my submission.

Yourmistake (talk) 09:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * yes please delete one of the article Abhrahaminte Santhathikal Abrahaminte Santhathikal
 * ✅ Duplicate article deleted. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Feedback from Raricrod (22 March 2018)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * I really thank you for the help!!!!!!--Raricrod (talk) 13:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Feedback from ASCAndrea (5 April 2018)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * yes!


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * Within a day.


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * I find the citation process cumbersome. It would be good to have immediate instructions as the citations help solidify the content of the submission.  Thank you!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASCAndrea (talk • contribs) 06:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Query answered on user talk page. jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Feedback from Yesterdaysfire (6 April 2018)
I can't find the link to the article anywhere? I'm not sure it's been published.. Not very quickly! But, I know how hard it is! There are tons of articles in review!
 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?

I suppose follow up as best as possible? I can't find the link to the article anywhere? I'm not sure it's been published.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yesterdaysfire (talk • contribs) 00:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * ✅ Query answered on talk page. jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Feedback from 202.83.36.225 (12 April 2018)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * I believe it took only a few hours to consider my draft


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * I have added an image file to creative commons, now looking for updating it to the article page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.83.36.225 (talk) 19:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Replied on talk page but if you could let me know your account name/the name of the page it'd be a massive help. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Feedback from Musicgriot (13 April 2018)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * I find the spirit of the questions clear but I'm not technically sure how to respond back.


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * I think its' been about a month.


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * Not necessarily. I just don't understand the deletion criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicgriot (talk • contribs) 13:02, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Answered on talk page. jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:43, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Feedback from Literarum fan (12 May 2018)
Not at all! My submission received some comments and declined. Then I contacted the reviewer and answered his comments. He then accepted the submission. But quickly another reviewer rejected my submission!
 * Did you find the instructions clear?

After about one week.
 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?

There should be one reviewer in charge. Different reviewers with different subjective views just waste our own and their own time and redirect us to multiple directions. Thus, I ask you to reconsider my submission. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Literarum fan (talk • contribs) 12:02, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * The draft is awaiting review. Also- the same reviewer accepted the page before moving it back to draftspace. jcc (tea and biscuits) 12:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Kudpung a respected Admin, raised some issues I had missed. The draft needs more work. Legacypac (talk) 13:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Feedback from Irapliss (13 May 2018)
i find impossible to create a biography article- please help quickly enough, thanks Thank you for changing a category of the article "Isaac Itkind". Would highly appreciate instructions to create a Biography article Thank you ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irapliss (talk • contribs) 15:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * I removed the category living person Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Feedback from Mdrozdowski (18 May 2018)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * Yes


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * Very quickly. Thank you for the timely review - much appreciated.


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * None.

Feedback from JameswoodSK (28 May 2018)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * Yes.


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * Better than I expected! I thought it might be weeks, but was only a couple of days.

JameswoodSK (talk) 03:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * None.

Feedback from Karny.rubin (28 May 2018)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?no


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?two-three weeks


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process? to get help
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karny.rubin (talk • contribs) 17:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Feedback from Shibin kvarghese (4 June 2018)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * yes, but some clarity missing, lot of information there,  struggling to find necessary one


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * Normal


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * Please make more presentable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shibin kvarghese (talk • contribs) 14:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Feedback from Jenhawk777 (8 June 2018)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * Yes, and extremely helpful. I learned a lot.


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * My submission was reviewed three times before acceptance and each one was done in a timely manner.


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * No--even with two rejections before acceptance, I would say this was a good experience. My reviewer User:Jjjjjjdddddd made all the difference.  They made sure I got the instruction I needed, took the time necessary to help me, were clear, positive and focused on improving both my submission and Wikipedia, and really, could not have been a better more helpful reviewer.  This was my first article, and I am very thankful this editor was my first experience with this process!

Feedback from Smacleod2 (13 June 2018)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * Yes, very helpful.


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * Quick turnaround, just a couple of days


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * No, it was quite helpful. Thanks to the editors for all their help! Cheers. Smacleod2 (talk) 12:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC)Smacleod2

Feedback from 151.239.252.124 (16 June 2018)
Yes Below 24h NO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.239.252.124 (talk) 13:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from 97.83.238.189 (1 July 2018)

 * Did you find the instructions clear? no


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


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process? If you're going to say that my submission was 100% negative and crap, at least give an excerpt so I can remember what I wrote. My recollection was that I posted an extremely short piece just to suggest that this subject be included in Wikipedia. I wasn't trying to do a hatchet job, but without at least an excerpt, I don't know what your specific problem was with my submission. Your rejection and threat of banning certainly had a chilling effect on submitting anything in the future, and confirms the "boy's club" and "clique" and "cabal" and "secretive" descriptions I've found of your editorial "staff."
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.238.189 (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Feedback from Pmuehlen (5 July 2018)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * Very quickly, surprisingly so


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * No, however I do have questions.

The article is class C, meaning that it "it may have some gaps or missing elements; need editing for clarity, balance, or flow; or contain policy violations, such as bias or original research. Articles on fictional topics are likely to be marked as C-Class if they are written from an in-universe perspective. It is most likely that C-Class articles have a reasonable encyclopedic style."

Since the information is biographical, it is, by definition, not fictional. There seems to be no issue with citation, so it appears to come down to clarity, balance, or flow, or policy violation. Is there an issue of bias, perhaps? I have tried to eliminate bias by sourcing practically everything and not using subjective language, i.e., no opinions are being expressed, except those of others coming from published reviews. I chose actually, not to quote reviews, precisely because they might be considered biased and selective. The objective was to put out an artist's life-time career that the world might have an interest in, especially in light of some cultural issues of general interest provoked by her work.

Is this where I need some input? Thank you. Pmuehlen (talk) 13:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Feedback from Irapliss (6 July 2018)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * Not at all! Please, help me to add a category for the article. While creating an article "Isaac Itkind" I asked for assistance because I could not find a template with a category "Biography". Therefore, an article became "uncategorized". I tried to add a category "biography" and add pictures, but apparently I can not change a tamplate now and could not figure out how to add pictures. thank you


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * quickly enough


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * yes, to make instructions user-friendly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irapliss (talk • contribs) 02:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Feedback from 173.20.155.123 (24 August 2018)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * yup


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * pretty fast


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * nope — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.20.155.123 (talk) 00:02, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Feedback from DeQuinceyMalden (27 September 2018)

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


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * Promptly


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * A diagram on the page preceding an invitation to submit, something - like a flow chart, laying out the site architecture and the people within it. A simple link to each content block of the architecture. Avoid the assumption that contributors, perhaps from the arts, won't be fazed by acres of symbolic language; computer wizards are too fond of this kind of complexity, complexity and inaccessability for its own sake.

E.G. Is this a talk page - if 'yes', I have to end with tildes. If not (I've simply been asked for feedback) I could simply click a 'submit' button as in other sites. But, no, I have a 'publish changes ' option. What changes? I haven't made any changes to anything.If it's a 'project page' then I don't have to sign with tildes (?)

Already we have a simple concept drowning in ambguity (not actually the kind of thing any real editor enjoys or would encourage). In the process of trying to be exhaustive the participant is exhausted.....ad victoribus spolia.

Now, let's see; do I publish changes? No, there are no changes. Do I sign with tildes? No, this is not a 'talk page'...I suppose the 'change' is that there was a blank page and now...there isn't ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeQuinceyMalden (talk • contribs) 09:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Feedback from Yakshaver (28 October 2018)
Yes.I appreciated the advice, and the links with instructions from reviewers were very good.(Referencing is not an easy thing, even though I am an academic...) Initial submission took a while (maybe 6 weeks?). But then, once I fixed the references (which were the problem for the initial decline), then it only took less than 24 hours for the article to be approved. Not sure. I guess I would appreciate any advice on this article, and how to improve it - it will help not just with this one, but for the future. I will go to the talk sections.
 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

regards yakshaver

Feedback from 68.103.78.155 (2 November 2018)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * Yes


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * Because I added a Reference


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * Next Month When I Add a coaching And Some London Games will be released soon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.103.78.155 (talk) 15:25, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Feedback from Answ3rback227 (3 November 2018)
Yes Reasonably fast This was my first effort. I felt my subject was going to be acceptable. Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Answ3rback227 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from Yakshaver (4 November 2018)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * Yes.


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * The initial submission to my first article took about 6 weeks


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * Not sure. Publishing articles for Wikipedia is a relatively complex process. I understand the need for integrity and some level of standardisation in referencing standards etc. Not sure what to suggest right now, but I will think about it, and if something useful comes up, I will share. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yakshaver (talk • contribs) 11:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Feedback from AndyB (6 November 2018)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * Not at the start, but as soon as I had personal contact with the reviewer it moved very quickly.


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * The process toook just a few days.


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * Yes: when an article is declined with just one or two standard 'boilerplate' feedback comments (templates?) it can be mystifying to the author.

- "Reads like an advertisement" - really? what exactly does that mean when nothing is being sold and nothing is being promoted?

- "Inadequate references" - which ones? why?

Referring the author to the standard pages on how to write your first article (and so on) is not really helpful. I have been working as an academic for more than 30 years and (like most working professionals) I believe I know exactly what is meant by "verifiable" and "independent". If I reviewed my students' work like this I would soon have no students and no tenure ... but we are not trying to emulate academic work here (are we?). We now face the key question: how much effort *should* be or *could* be put into the review process? It seems to me that at least *highlighting* is needed to draw the authors attention to the references (or portions of the text) that are seen as problematic. Or a two stage process? In my most recent case (the first time I found myself in the review process in more than ten years' contributing) the reviewer was generous enough to make an email address available, and one simple email exchange (and some work on the part of the reviewer) sorted things out. I guess I might have been lucky? AndyB (talk) 08:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this, Andy. A lot of efforts have been focused on standardising review standards, and a change has been made which ensures all new reviewers are vetted beforehand. I'm not sure if you're aware, but to supplement the advice of the specific reviewer, the Help desk is also available where if you ask, expert reviewers can give specific detailed feedback. I think that another big part of this is making sure once resubmitted, a draft is checked by someone other than the original reviewer. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:57, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Feedback from Vrpothina (20 November 2018)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * yes


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * it took almost two months


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrpothina (talk • contribs) 08:12, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Feedback from 216.8.174.79 (23 November 2018)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * Yes!


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * Promptly enough.


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * No, I do not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.8.174.79 (talk) 05:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Feedback from WJDB (24 November 2018)
Yes.
 * Did you find the instructions clear?

A few weeks.
 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?

No - very happy. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WJDB (talk • contribs) 11:46, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from Saray sin (6 December 2018)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?

How to insert His Excellency Pan Sorasak picture? Please see the sample as attached. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saray sin (talk • contribs) 09:56, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * See Help:Introduction to images with Wiki Markup/1. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:05, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Feedback from Technohead1980 (24 December 2018)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?

There has been a spate of admin nominating articles about musicians for deletion that clearly fit the criteria of being notable. I suggest that people familiarise themselves more with the second point of WP:MUSICBIO Technohead1980 (talk) 15:09, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from Hu Nhu (29 December 2018)

 * Did you find the instructions clear?
 * Yes.


 * How quickly was your submission reviewed?
 * The submissions were reviewed within 3 weeks or less.


 * Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
 * Some, like me, may find it a little discouraging when their article--which they've worked on so diligently--is rejected. One reviewer did encourage me to re-write a particular, specific section. I did so.  I appreciated his encouragement very much. Perhaps that encouragement might be employed by others.


 * One article I wrote was initially rejected for close paraphrasing. I was directed to the appropriate policy page and studied the examples.  I thought I was within acceptable practices, but as several editors on this particular article agreed that I needed to re-write it, I understand my writing was not acceptable. What would have assisted me would have been an example re-written sentence.  If I had a firm sense of what they were looking for, it would have helped.


 * Several editors responded to my work. It was very good to hear from them all.  I do plan further writing of new articles.Hu Nhu (talk) 17:31, 29 December 2018 (UTC)