Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewer help/2015 1

Confusing statement in decline template
I have just declined User:Sirerick5255/sandbox as blank. The decline template has a false misleading statement at the bottom that the page has been resubmitted to be reviewed again. I have been absent here over the last few months so I may have missed out on some recent updates to decline templates. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * A WP:PURGE will fix that. If you notice it happening on a regular basis, let me know so I can investigate. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Both "not submitted" and "submitted"
I'm new to this, and I've run into some articles that are both "not submitted for review" (gray box) and "review waiting" (yellow-ish box). e.g.. Should I go ahead and review these? Should I pay attention to the gray box? Thanks, LaMona (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, you should review those. I deployed a fix to keep that from happening in most cases a while ago, but it looks like there are some edge cases where it still happens. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Figured it was a bug; will dutifully ignore. LaMona (talk) 16:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Completely Stumped by Draft:Hashtag WhyIStayed/WhyILeft
First I thought it was WP:NOT. Then a neologism. Then I thought that the notability was temporary. Now I'm completely stumped. Can someone take a look at it? It's been at AfC for a while. (I'm trying to get through very old submissions.) Thanks, Julie JSFarman (talk) 00:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Julie, it seems to me that this article is more about the fallout from the Rice controversy than about the hashtag. I would merge/redirect it to the Domestic violence page, adding anything there that isn't already included, and with a mention on the Ray Rice page - something like: discussion of this on Twitter led to the first use of the #whyIstayed hash tag. The tag itself, IMO, doesn't merit a page. LaMona (talk) 21:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * There is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources (WP:GOLDEN RULE) so it is a notable topic and eligible for inclusion in the encyclopedia. It would be a welcome addition with a potential incoming wikilink from Hashtag. If someone thinks that the material is better merged as suggested by, for instance, that can always be discussed and executed once the submission is in mainspace. Submissions should only be rejected with mergeto reason if they do not meet requirements for a stand-alone article. ~KvnG 00:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks to both of you for the input. I just did an edit and accepted the article based on the coverage.JSFarman (talk) 01:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

User-space and Draft-space mess - admin help may be needed
Please see User:ChriCom/The Nate Butler Studio and Draft:The Nate Butler Studio. After the original userspace draft was moved to draft-space the user disabled the redirect, restored the userspace draft and continued to work on it - leaving an inferior text languishing in Draft-space. Do we delete the current (but older) draft-space page and again move the user-space page to draft-space or do we surrender to the perverse ingenuity of a so-called newbie (a user who knows how to disable a redirect and recover an earlier version of a page from history is no newbie) and simply review the user-space draft where it is and let the Draft-space version eventually slip away into the G13 bottomless pit? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Looks like this has again been moved to Draft:The Nate Butler Studio. There's a chance the same thing will happen again. ~KvnG 19:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure who is claiming to be a newbie, or where. ChriCom has been editing since 2008, with a somewhat unusual seven year gap in their contributions. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

What to do with Draft:Geospatial Summary of the High Peaks/Summits of the Juneau Icefield
Draft:Geospatial Summary of the High Peaks/Summits of the Juneau Icefield looks to be a huge amount of work and might qualify as a list. However almost all its references are just sections of maps. So should this be accepted as a list article or merge to Juneau Icefield, or decline it as non-notable? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Named geographic features are notable so that decline would be invalid, but the draft "intro" speaks of a series of WP articles so it seems to me that the author intends to subdivide the current page content into several separate pages. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there are loose ends here. There is also a request for review. There are lots of articles on similar topics (List of peaks on the British Columbia–Alberta border, List of peaks in Himachal Pradesh, List of mountains in Norway by prominence) so this is a welcome contribution. I think the answer has to be to accept. Hopefully the author and volunteers at WP:MOUNTAINS can finish it up. Kvng (talk) 23:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

What does GFOO stand for?
After reviewing a draft, there is a link to continue to the next "GFOO submission". I've figured out that it links to a random 0-day-old draft, but I can't figure out for the life of me what GFOO is supposed to stand for. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE ) 20:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

PAGE''' ]]) 03:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * My guess is Great Firehose Of Ordure which is a phrase I used once, but have no idea if it was original. I know others used Crap instead of Ordure. Fiddle   Faddle  22:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I learned a new word today. --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|'''TALK

Talen Energy
Please examine this recently accepted draft (accepted by me). I was tempted to accept it and then AfD it in one move, but decided to wait for someone else to take the lead on that. I believe it is borderline acceptable, so accepted it, despite the organisation 'not yet existing', since there is media coverage and some form of notability has been established. I have just declined a PROD on it since I believe it merits discussion rather than (relatively) summary deletion. In any AfD I will remain neutral.

I have no issue with my having made a mistake in accepting it. I accepted it in order to let more eyes than AFC reviewers decide its fate. Fiddle  Faddle  07:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * This is very likely to survive AfD given the quality of the sources. 's PROD reason ("This company does not even exist. "Talen Energy is a proposed new electric generation company". It isn't sufficiently notable to be considered encyclopedic content if it doesn't exist yet.") does not appreciate that even if the company is not notable, the merger clearly is. --Kvng (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * This is, in part, why I declined the PROD. All deletion discussions are unpredictable, of course. It ought to survive one, but that depends on the cast of thousands. Fiddle   Faddle  21:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Has the merger occurred yet, Kvng? If so, maybe the article should be about that. If not, if the merger isn't even been approved, media coverage doesn't establish notability, due to recentism. There are also manifest issues about POV pushing, as the creation of this company, Talen Energy, is contingent upon U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and U.S. Dept. of Justice review and approval, as well as several other organizations. I am an enthusiastic proponent of nuclear energy, and have no idea if Talen will help or hurt that. However, it involves major lawmaking activity, and will involve large financial transactions either way, so I want to understand what the rush is to create this article. Maybe write an article about the merger, THEN breakout a separate Talen article once, or if, approval is granted?--FeralOink (talk) 03:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The merger has been approved and the prospect of a merger is notable. Go ahead and discuss this further on the article's talk page or make some WP:BOLD edits or nominate for deletion. I agree, it is helpful to wait for things to settle out before creating an article. But failure to be patient is not in itself a cause for deletion or AfC rejection. --Kvng (talk) 04:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Template demigod needed
Userspace draft detects which namespace it's in and does not present at the head of Draft: articles. User sandbox doesn't do that. Please will someone who understands these things give the second template the bells and whistles associated with the first? We want templates that do not present as userspace drafts in the Draft: space. It's a small change conceptually. Fiddle  Faddle  19:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC) PAGE ]]) 20:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC) PAGE ]]) 21:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * User sandbox already detects if its not in user space and presents an error message (see Draft:Sandbox for an example). Are you saying that it should just silently hide itself with no error message? --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|'''TALK
 * Correct. It should hide itself away. Fiddle   Faddle  20:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I mocked that up in the template sandbox here. I'll leave it to you to propose the change. --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|'''TALK


 * ✅ here. Very many thanks Fiddle   Faddle  22:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

GFOO CV
I'm having a relaxing time(!) at present working in GFOO and finding a vast number of copyvios. Is there a sensible way of pushing (say) Coren Search Bot to look at GFOO drafts as a matter of priority? Would it need a consensus to do it? Fiddle  Faddle  16:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Why do we have two different preload templates for the Help Desk?
I've noticed recently that, depending on whether an editor clicks on the help desk link from an article or a message on the talk page, that they are given two different preloaded templates. The first template, Afc_decline/HD_preload, preloads: == Request on for assistance on AfC submission by  ==

~

The second, AFC_submission/declined/HD_preload, preloads

== review of submission by  ==

~

Even the section titles that they create at WP:AFCH are different, with some calling it a "request for assistance", while others are just titled "review of submission". Is there any reason that one of these preload templates shouldn't be redirected to the other? Is there one that we would prefer to use (preferably the one that causes the least confusion and blank questions)? --Ahecht (TALK PAGE ) 15:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

CV decline template faulty
Please see thsi item where the tomato failed to display the source of the copyvio. I suspect the = signs. source is http://www.ecssr.com/ECSSR/appmanager/portal/ecssr?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=profilesPage&_nfls=false&_event=CustomEventViewPro&prfId=%2FProfile%2FProfiles_0036.xml&lang=en  Fiddle   Faddle  11:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC) PAGE''' ]]) 01:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * . As you suspected, it was the equals sign in URL causing the problems. I modified the divbox call in Afc decline to avoid this problem in the future. --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|'''TALK


 * As you can see, Autocorrect and I are not getting on! "Tomato" eh? ~giggles~ Thanks for fixing the small red fruit!  Fiddle   Faddle  17:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

John Mollison article
I started an article about John Mollison in my sandbox, and would like to know if more experienced editors believe it's notable. I have lots more I can add but before I spend too much time, thought I'd request a review. Thanks, Samf4u (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * As of now, none of the citations in the draft are reliable. You must include citations that satisfy the WP:GOLDEN RULE to demonstrate notability. ~Kvng (talk) 02:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

We're in danger of breaking the 1,000 barrier
Many of us stopped while waiting for the AFCH script to be unbroken. It's back running well.

Please will we all have a one day push to process the backlog that is building? It would be a shame to burst through the 1,000 submissions barrier.

A plea, though. Please concentrate on the hardest ones, the oldest. This is not the time to relax in the GFOO area. Fiddle  Faddle  10:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Still a problem. I Just found half a dozen quick wins in the oldest populated category, though. There are some intractable ones in there, I fear. Since I try not to review a draft more than once I'm avoiding those. Fiddle   Faddle  09:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Unspeakable efficiencies at AFC
We have reduced, hugely, the number of blank submissions in the past 12 months by dint of modification of the simplest things in the submission arena to remove the submit button from blanks. Go us!

We still get a huge number of pointless, trivial test submissions and self puffery in a single line submissions. And the common thread seems to be that thing we may not say. So, because I can name Voldemort, I will say that the majority of these have names originating for the Asian Sub-Continent. Now put the racist label away. I am equally based against every segment of society, you included.

It strikes me that we do not do enough to help those for whom English, while used regularly in their lives, is not a first language. I am assuming that this may be the issue, since it is obviously not clear that we do not want anyone's resumé, home address, "is a marvellous cricketer", material, and that we only want drafts that stand a chance of being beaten into shape as real, viable articles. I am pretty sure (0.7 probability) that this is likely to be a language issue, though there may be a cultural issue alongside it.

I would like to encourage "these people" to become excellent editors, but our first task is to tell them that their cherished life story is inappropriate. So, the floor is yours. What should we do? Are there any quick wins (as we did with that submission template)? Fiddle  Faddle  15:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * @User:Timtrent - The problem runs much deeper than a poor mastery of English. I don't think you were around at the time of the horror disaster epic that was the India Education Program. That was a disaster that no Hollywood (or Bollywood) writer could beat. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I chose restraint, but I recall the aftermath. Fiddle   Faddle  16:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Worrying
Hello there! A bit along the lines from Fiddle above...I've been trying as best as I can to keep reviewing constantly and avoiding the backlog from spiralling out of control. However, I've been surprised by a current tendency. I came back from an extended vacation a short while ago (I certainly needed it!), and I've encountered countless examples of inexperienced reviewing. Just today I've accepted over 5 submissions which were absurdly rejected on notability grounds when there was clearly more than enough coverage available. Often times reviewing comes down to checking major issues and making a decision from that quick evaluation, but I found that precise decision is extremely tilted towards declining. It is not our job to decide whether articles should be on the encyclopaedia; our job is to determine whether the article is in good condition to come out of an MfD 50% of the time. An article does not require excellent referencing, nor excellent language, nor excellent information, it just needs to be decent enough to stand a chance. We need to tag them for clean-up as appropriate and move along. In declining articles like maniacs, we're creating a vicious cycle that's detrimental to Wikipedia's growth. Please keep in mind our mission when reviewing and think more about the article's potential than the article's current state. Not to mention that in most cases, simply being bold and making a few tweaks can be enough for it to survive a deletion discussion. If the article is blatantly useless, be clear about it; but if the article's outcome is ambiguous, make sure you guide the submitter through improving it, contact any relevant WikiProjects and perhaps come back later.

I don't know if this is happening because people are just not taking the time to check for references or what, but I can't let this one go unnoticed. Just yesterday I cleaned up one of DGG's famous "second chances" and it's now a gleaming new article. Am I the only one? Throw me a bone here! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC) PAGE''' ]]) 17:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * the reviewing guidelines say "Article submissions that are likely to survive", 50 percent isn't mentioned --nonsense ferret  22:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I hold drafts to a marginally higher standard. I make a call on a 60% probability to survive an AfD. I suspect I am not alone. I do it on the basis that the iterative review process is far easier on a new editor than defending in an AfD, so the higher bar is helpful to editor retention overall. In a review, I ask for the moon, though, knowing that it is unlikely to be achieved. I also make judgement calls where I view the draft as borderline and unlikely to be improved as a draft, and promote it, often with an "Acceptance" section on the talk page. Often my call has been useful for the development of the article.
 * Some of the quick wins I referred to above were first time reviews! I imagine one of the mediawiki foibles let the draft slip through to the older category.
 * I confess to relaxing at times in the GFOO area, and find a whole slew of self puffery. Sometimes I even get the Puffmeister blustering on my talk page. I have one right now.
 * If I 'like' a draft I'll take it and shake it myself, too. Its pretty rare. And I need an author who is willing to work with me. Fiddle   Faddle  22:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The difference is there are several editors involved in an AfD, not just one. I didn't want this to turn into sabre-rattling; I meant it as a call for greater care and due dilligence. We shouldn't ask for the moon. That's up for the community to determine; we're just the gatekeepers to that community. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 23:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that a 50% or 60% chance of survival is well received by the larger Wikipedia community. Just look at Dodger67's failed RfA, where one of the major oppose reasons was that more than 5% of the articles he approved from AfC ended up being deleted. --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|'''TALK


 * I am relatively new to the AfC community, and so I am trying to review only easy submissions that are obviously promotional, COPYVIO or not notable. All the same, if anyone disagrees with any of my reviews, please call me out on it. I want to get AfC reviewing right, especially considering it is many new editors' first interaction with others on Wikipedia. Thanks for all the hard work you guys and gals do, and I hope to hone my skills and join in reviewing the tough calls in due time! wia (talk) 20:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of Dodger's RfA, but that's simply ridiculous! If only they had a clue about AfC... FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

This has highlighted all the reasons I will never consider being an admin. What a lot of hassle to go through just to be given a bucket, mop and some cleaning products. Let's all carry on and do our best to approve and encourage good new articles, making fewer mistakes and asking for no accolades. We do seem to have a lack of good admins. I use as evidence the amazing number of  s l o w  closing AfDs, and the slow attention to CSDs, UAA, etc. The entire edifice seems to be run be a dedicated few, hampered by the rest. Fiddle  Faddle  14:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * My RFA was indeed a horrible experience. What hurt most was that it was was highly experienced admins who made a big issue of my "high AFC failure rate". People I used to respect as role models showed zero understanding of the purpose of AFC and a dismally poor grasp of elementary arithmetic as well, then they used their ignorance as a stick to beat me. It took me many months to get back to contributing to WP at a rate comparable to before the RFA. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The only thing to take personally on Wikipedia is praise. Everything else is the misbegotten opinions of people you would never associate with in real life. But the background noise made by these people does confirm that you are doing something right. Fiddle   Faddle  15:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ha ha! Indeed, people I would "never associate with in real life" sounds about right! Keep calm and carry on, eh? FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Tolerance and intolerance in the history of protestantism
Please may I have new eyes on this draft. Have I got my thoughts right here, please? If so please add a comment to the draft adding your thoughts. If not please do the same with your corrections. Fiddle  Faddle  19:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * @User:Timtrent, I've asked WP:WikiProject Christianity to assist. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have just trouted WikiProject Christianity for ignoring the request for assistance posted several weeks ago. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Speedy delete
How do I mark pages for deletion here? e.g. Draft:Hacking_Is_Not_Crime_Its_An_Art. Is it the same proposed deletion tag as elsewhere? thx LaMona (talk) 11:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * @LaMona Yes it's the same, but keep in mind that the "A#" Speedy criteria are not applicable to drafts. I see the one you linked got whacked by G11. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Improving AFC by some sort of topic pre-sorting
In a discussion here I have been asked by if there might be a way of pre-sorting the submissions into topic areas. I interpret his question as wider than the one he posed to me there. If we could pre-sort then we might encourage more specialist editors to trawl through the submissions to improve the acceptance process.

I've asked him to drop by here to expand on his thoughts. I am not at all sure how this would be able to be done, but I feel the idea has great merit and is worth some head scratching. Fiddle  Faddle  07:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes that would be excellent. We could have reviewers do a rough pass, deleting obvious trash, keeping obviously good content, and than just tagging by subject matter those in the middle. We could than sort the AFC submissions by subject matter those who would be interested in going through borderline cases within a specific topic area may get involved. I know I would. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 07:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * By the way this list of copyright concerns allows sorting by Wikiproject so all we need is a similar mechanism.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 07:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The way we currently do it to a limited extent is when we tag a draft with a relevant WikiProject banner with the "class=Draft" parameter. Unfortunately many Projects have still not set their article assessment systems to recognize Draft-class and many of those that have done so are still ignoring their "registered" drafts anyway.
 * I think adapting WP:Stub sorting to Drafts could also help. We can simply copy over the entire set of Stub templates and categories and replace "Stub" with "Draft". Even the icons can be adapted by superimposing a pencil over the stub icon.
 * But all this depends on members of subject projects taking an active interest in AFC and Drafts - by adding "assist new editors to create drafts within our subject area" to their mission statements/to-do lists. It would also help if at least a few experienced members of subject area projects would become registered AFC reviewers too and become familiar with the workflow and practices here (e.g. I'm a member of the following subject area WikiProjects; Disability, South Africa, Aviation, Agriculture, Military History and Amateur radio.) The hard core of AFC reviewers tend to be Wikignomes - specialists in Wikipedia's methods and standards - rather than expert in particular subject areas. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:Doc James how many of the twelve current Category:Draft-Class medicine articles have you looked at yet?
 * We need to add "Tag with relevant WikiProject banners" to the AFC workflow, so that is becomes a routine action, instead of the occasional exception. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Might there be a way of creating some sort of quick auto-categorisation such as category:Possible medical draft that is acknowledged to be approximate, and would let specialist editors do a rapid trawl through that category? I do not envisage sub-dividing that by date, it would be a set of gross categories.
 * That would be somewhat quicker than the manual intervention of adding a project banner, though would not replace it. There are scripting implications here in any case. I'd like the script to be able to apply project banners to drafts as well as to accepted articles. If the category idea has appeal that would also need to be script managed so it might be corrected when necessary. Fiddle   Faddle  08:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks had not see that category but have reviewed a few of those. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 08:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec)@User:Doc James thereby illustrating my point perfectly. WikiProject Medicine is one of the Projects that has ignored the existence of drafts in it's assessment system - WP:WikiProject Medicine/Assessment. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Would be happy to have it added if you know how to do this. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 08:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:Doc James Unfortunately it requires some script writing skill to implement, a skill I do not have. Some gobbledygook code called the "class mask" must be edited. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec)The AFC script would indeed need to be adapted to allow Project tagging to happen separately from the Acceptance routine - btw, the Script does not recognize pre-existing banners, when accepting it adds duplicates. I have been arguing for the broader implementation and acceptance of the "class=Draft" parameter for many months, but I've had considerable resistance from other editors who simply do not grok the implications - or are simply knee-jerk AFC haters (yes there are many of them around). Implementation and correct handling of the "class=Draft" parameter by WikiProjects is still on an individual project basis, many still have not even noticed that Draft-space exists! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Having a "draft" class sounds like a good idea. Has does one typical archive them once dealt with? For example this one is someone just copying and pasting from our article on mood disorder. Is there an archiving process or can I simply delete?  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 08:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:Doc James the stale draft Draft:Mood disorder would have been eligible for G13 Speedy deletion in just a few weeks, but the fact that you have just edited it has postponed that deletion by six months. In terms of G13 drafts at AFC that have not been worked on for six months are deleted - unless someone choses to rescue it. However in this case, as it is a mostly an un-attributed copy of an existing article, it is actually a copyvio, so I've just stuck a G12 notice on it. Drafts at AFC have one of two fates - they are accepted and moved to mainspace or they are deleted, either quickly if they meet Speedy criteria or as stale drafts under G13 after 6 months of no active editing by a human (bot edits don't count). Drafts that are never submitted to AFC can exist indefinitely as there is no mechanism to clear them out, however I doubt many of them ever get a project banner. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Perfect deleted it as a copyright violation. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 09:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The draft=class implementation issue is something I've pushed at a number of venues, but it's been met with apathy and lack of understanding - this old VPP discussion is typical. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There appears to be fairly decent support for the idea. Probably not enough people knew about the discussion. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 10:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

AFCH Script adaptation
Currently the Review script includes a step for adding WikiProject banners as part of the Accept routine. I have just taken a good hard look at our Workflow and realised that the Banner adding step should also be included in the Decline routine, with the Class parameter set to "Draft". At the same time the Accept routine needs to be adapted to recognise when such banners already exist, then instead of creating a duplicate banner it would only update the Class paramater. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

And/or there could be a separate gadget for adding and editing WP banners. I know I could really use one. :/ — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 11:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

PAGE''' ]]) 14:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As well as being able to add a banner when declining, it would also be useful to be able to add one when commenting. I very often look at a Draft and don't feel able to decline it or accept it, but think to myself, "I wonder if this topic is notable or not, probably a specialist in the field would have a better idea as to whether it is". Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And in addition to declining and commenting, sorting should be an option when doing a "cleanup", to give a quick way for a reviewer to sort a draft that requires expertise that they don't have without having to leave a comment (and giving a quick way to move on to another draft). --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|'''TALK
 * In that case make project tagging a separate process with it's own button, like clean and comment, but also keep it as a sub process of accept, because at that point such banners become neccessary, particularly for BLPs; and as mentioned above, allow the accept process to detect existing banners and just update the class parameters. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * There's been a lot of previous discussion of the desire for some means to classify submissions by topic. If a WP banner were added to a draft, is there a way to get a list of all drafts associated with a particular WP? ~Kvng (talk) 21:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * They're here: Category:Draft-Class_articles. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 22:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting. The first one of those I looked at had a shedload of banners but had never been submitted. 22:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

What now?
So are we going to do anything about this or will this conversation simply slip away into the archive? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC) PAGE''' ]]) 14:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * We still need to hear from User: APerson and/or User:Theopolisme on the feasibility of implementing WikiProject tagging into the AFCH script, and on whether they have the time/inclination to do it. I don't think there's any real objection to placing the tags on the drafts, just discussion on how exactly it would be implemented and what the workflow would be. --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|'''TALK
 * The other half is to do something about the integration of "class=Draft" into the article classification and handling systems of WikiProjects. The ultimate objective being to get subject specialists to help review relevant drafts. User:Doc James, perhaps you have some ideas? -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * How hard is it to add? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The tricky part is convincing the guardians of the default classification system that adding Draft class across the board to all Wikiprojects is a "Good ThingTM" - probably by repeating the failed proposal at VPP that I linked above. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This discussion explains some of the technicalities involved - most of it is gobbledygook to me! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for taking so long to respond here! Regarding the feasability of WikiProject tagging in AFCH, it's definitely possible. Adding a new "action" to the script might take a bit of time for me - Theopolisme would accomplish it faster - so I'm putting together a script on testwiki to manage WikiProject banners on draft talk pages. I hope that would work as an interim solution before we get it into the main script. APerson (talk!) 01:46, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Have you hugged a fellow reviewer today?
It's depressing how easy it is to lose a reviewer, more depressing still when they were a good one, and yet more depressing when one can't actually remember their name. Wikipedia is so transient.

We protect new editors. WP:BITE is often bandied about. But who protects the reviewers? The most recent one we lost was battling to keep the backlog down. Their loss is probably directly responsible for a 300 submission rise in backlog, perhaps more. We can't afford to lose reviewers. Just the general workload causes burnout. This one left because they took an experienced editor's criticism too personally. They are still working. just not here.

I'm pretty tired myself. I've just been poking about in the difficult drafts at the coalface of the oldest. A few were quick wins, regrettably to push back. A few let me accept them. Still more I don't feel competent to review. Times like this the Great Firehose of ordure is refreshing! I just have to be careful not to swallow!

I don't do enough to appreciate other reviewers and their work. A few kittens and puppies to each would do no harm, even perhaps especially, if we don't understand why they review in a different way from us. I have reviewers with whom I disagree, and they and I tell each other so. What we don't do often enough, if at all, is to praise each other. How about you? Have you hugged a fellow reviewer today? Fiddle  Faddle  14:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge your words, and agree fully. We all need a break from time to time, even though we might feel the need to continue. Becoming a good reviewer truly requires a lot of time and dedication, which often goes unappreciated. That's part of how it's intended to be. A kitten never causes harm, however! Cheers, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Sub-standard reviews
Please see WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk and WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. The declines both draft authors are asking about were, IMHO, not correct. I have taken a look at a few more of the reviewer's other declines and noticed multiple incidents of sub-standard reviewing. I have pinged both usernames (User:Elee and User:Accents - the editor changed username a short while ago) with requests to explain the declines, but so far no response has been forthcoming. User:Elee does technically qualify as a reviewer in terms of time and edit count, but he/she is not following the criteria set out in the reviewing instructions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with those reviews. The latter I commented on, stating that a Polish-fluent reviewer might help us determine the artist's notability; the former is clearly notable and will be copy edited by myself and accepted shortly. Perhaps a talk page message is in order (they might not know how pings work or whatever). Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I find it a bit hard to believe that an editor active since 2010 doesn't understand pings - sorry but my AGF doesn't stretch that far! A look at User talk:Elee shows what I consider to be an unhelpful dismissive attitude to newbie editors asking for clarification after having their draft declined by this reviewer. Simply brushing off such requests by referring them to the "live chat help" is IMHO not acceptable. If a reviewer is not willing to "own" their reviews then they should not be reviewing here. Reviewing is only one leg of AFC's purpose, guiding beginners is the other. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Notification of this discussion posted to the user's talk page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi (as well as ) - I just wanted to let you two know I see this now, but wasn't notified until you let me know on my talk page, which invoked the appropriate email notification. I would've let you know that I'd had seen these if pings issued email notifications as well! I haven't been active for the past few days due to RL work, but will address these concerns most likely after COB EST. Cheers, E. Lee (talk) 16:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi again all,
 * To start off, I apologize for not having seen the pings. I don't usually do Wikimedia related activities until the afternoon, and I haven't been active the past day or two. I didn't browse Wikipedia until now, and would not have seen your pings until then. When I saw the email generated by MediaWiki for talk page changes, I quickly saw this, and logged in at work to let you know that I received the page.
 * In regards to how long I've been on Wikipedia, I hope you reconsider WP:AGF in this case. If you take a closer look at my contributions, you'll have seen that I took a large wikibreak since then until now (school is a full time obligation after all!). I've started again this summer because Wikimedia is one of my favorite sites, and I already have several real life friends on Wikipedia.
 * At their recommendation on easing back in, it was suggested that I help with WP:AfC! Seeing the large backlog instantly convinced me to help somehow. I read WP:AFCR several times, installed the wonderful script of course, and got started. I got some wonderful one-on-one handholding and WP:3O on  and other personal channels, and after several articles, felt sufficiently comfortable to start going through articles on my own.
 * Regarding User talk:Elee - I recommended to those editors that they seek help (preferably via live chat since) because I did not want to bog them down. That is, I knew I'd be busy for the next couple of days, and did not want them to expect help and guidance from me when I knew I wouldn't be able to provide it soon. I've helped AfC editors already on IRC (on  (where else  ) and in private messages) and worked directly with them to address reviewer concerns (mine or otherwise). From having seen great success being helped and giving help there, I knew they'd receive the help they'd need and more.
 * I give guidance only if I know I can see them through the end. This normally is the case - as for these two requests I punted, or skipped, them because I wouldn't have been able to help them until this weekend. We're behind on a deadline but figured I can skip lunch today to address these concerns before heading back in since I've had a good breakfast.
 * Since it appears to be that there are concerns about my reviews, I'd love to spend time with you (by chat since we'd be able to talk in real-time on drafts) to make sure I'm reviewing drafts to the best of my ability. If you're available to do that, let's do it!
 * Now in regards to those two drafts. For the time being, I'm going to recuse myself from them because of these concerns. If this is not wanted, let me know - it appears to be already got to the Ronald Appleton article, so I'd work hand in hand with the other draft.
 * In regards to Ronald Appleton I believe I declined it because of the Posts Held section. I'm not going to go diff hunting right now, but if memory serves correctly that section was just a list of the posts held - I believe I suggested either turning that into a nice table with brief information about each or a paragraph. While I could've done that myself and approved it, I'd rather have had the editor do it since they'd know more about the subject and could've decided what would be best for the article. If that was fixed, then the article for sure would be great!
 * In regards to Draft:Paulina Pospieszalska - I declined on notability because the the only notable reference was the onet.pl web portal article. One of the references was supposed to be about an award but the link did not mention the person and was at the root of the website - a quick web search did not turn anything up (except for the draft of course!). There was also a charity that the person started, and the article did reference their site, to reference that they started the site and to retrieve a celebrity quote - that is, on the site itself. There was no independent information about them, and so would've brought up WP:RS concerns. This would've brought the article to 2 or so reliable references - not good!
 * Hopefully I've addressed everything here - if this is not the case or you have more questions, please do let me know. If it is time critical, please, email or ping my talk page so I get a notification, and I'll get it as soon as I can. Cheers, E. Lee (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Draft:(S.G.) Sinnicks and musician notability criteria #7
I'm confident that Draft:(S.G.) Sinnicks does not meet any notability criteria except perhaps criteria #7 of WP:MUSICBIO. That criteria says, "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city ..." I'm having trouble wrapping my head around that wording.

Sinnicks is not one of the most prominent representatives of folk rock in the world. Nor is he the most prominent musician in the city of Hamilton, Ontario. The draft presents evidence (local awards in 2009, 2012, and 2013) that Sinnicks was the most prominent folk rock musician in the city of Hamilton. Is it the intention of criteria #7 that such a compounding of style and city should satisfy the criteria? I would appreciate advice from other reviewers. Worldbruce (talk) 19:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is. I mean, he has maybe 3 mentions in a local newspaper with a circulation of 100k. If we were considering criterion #7 specifically, how can you be certain such mentions were enough to make him "the most prominent folk rock musician" in Hamilton (which by the way is quite a small city)? Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Not enough coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO in a verifiable way. ~Kvng (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Sub-standard reviews again
A look at the help page will show that sub-standard reviews resulting in invalid declines are becoming a problem again. I do not want to openly name the reviewers who, through inexperience and unfamiliarity with the specific standards and criteria of reviewing, are unfortunately declining articles that are in fact acceptable. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The reverse is also true. Substandard acceptances are as bad, perhaps worse, because they also result in challenges. Draft:Singapore Tyler Print Institute is one such that I have ensured has been returned to the Draft: namespace. Fiddle   Faddle  11:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Do we have a program for formally reviewing reviews? I know this has happened during our drives, but we haven't done one of those for a while. If meta reviews were part of a regular program they would probably be more productive than calling reviewers out on our project talk pages. To keep this project sustainable, we need to think about mentoring both authors and reviewers. ~Kvng (talk) 23:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * We do have a problematic reviewer, see WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. What should we do about it? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * This is about User:LaMona. I did mention the linked discussion on their talk page, but for whatever reason they chose not to comment there. However, looking at other discussions on LaMona's talkpage, they do seem to respond thoughtfully and in detail to Draft submitters who query their reviews. This seems to indicate to me that perhaps their reviewing is not seriously problematic. Unless we have more examples of bad reviews they have done. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I apologize for that review. I didn't know that form of citation was acceptable. I am a bit of a citation fanatic, and often spend considerable time improving the citations on proposed articles. I also work closely with many submitters to help them get their articles into shape, so I haven't done a great quantity of articles. I doubt if I was rude to that person -- I usually write lengthy comments on how to improve the article. I am new to AfC and am still learning. However, as you can see from my talk page, I've gotten some articles through that would have been in the AfC loop for many rounds by working closely with the submitters. I won't make that mistake again. LaMona (talk) 14:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I also have to say that the article creator was on his first article, and took great offense that "she" didn't approve it. Sorry to bring this up, but I can't help but see some distinct sexism here based on what was perceived as a female user name. The statement (probably in retribution, but mostly to prove that I am wrong) that I answer with "I'm done" etc. was a totally wrong interpretation of what I've said to users. I am also disappointed that one such comment from a new user would lead to a discussion here about someone who has significant edits, and I do hope that there are no assumptions being made based on the perceived gender of my user name. I have never before seen a single "why didn't my article get approved" question lead to a discussion like this one. We all make the occasional mistake.  LaMona (talk) 17:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I hate it when we get a premature acceptance where the referencing is so poor and full of WP:BOMBARD that it conceals what might be a notable item. I've been watching the progress of one through AFC for a while and was considering adding a comment to it when it was accepted. The issue is that it is now at AFD, the only real place for it, and is thus likely to be deleted rather than pushed back to the Draft: namespace, and thus, when and if it is actually verified to be notable, will have a rough ride getting accepted. I am not about to name it. This is an example of a general issue.

I could have moved it back to Draft: as a bold move, but felt that, at least in this case, a full discussion was merited. Indeed, if we did it by ballot it would be honours even right now.

What disturbs me is the carte blanche acceptance of references that are press releases by the reviewer who accepted it. We are better than that, surely? If we cannot recognise PR material at 50 paces then what are we doing reviewing drafts? We do the contributing editor a huge disservice by accepting work likely to be deleted or discussed for deletion at once.

To heap coals onto the fire, the contributing editor is a self declared COI editor, an employee of the org. With the COI rules they will now find it hard to make corrections without being accused, not unreasonably, of editing where they have a conflict of interest.

How did this acceptance help Wikipedia or that editor? Fiddle  Faddle  08:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I feel the need to mention that the article accepted incorrectly is SHINE Medical Technologies, and that the editing history of the accepting editor showed yesterday when I checked, that this was the sole use of the AFC Helper Script in their last 1,000 edits. I feel the could do with advice on the things to check for when accepting drafts. I have tried on their talk page, and been rebuffed. I have asked them not to review drafts further until they learn their trade. Depressingly, they are an experienced editor, and really ought to understand referencing.  Fiddle   Faddle  21:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Acoustics of the violin
There are no links to the sources in this draft. I've seen some drafts which are similar to this one. I can't reject them for that reason but also I can't accept them, so I leave them for another reviewer. I want to know what we do with these type of drafts. Thanks Supdiop ( Talk 🔹 Contribs ) 23:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You just need to be sure that there is enough information so someone can verify the information from the sources. In this case some of the refs are pretty sketchy, esp. 3 Internet “Speed of Sound in Materials”. I don't think AfC reviewers are responsible for deep verification. We should assume good faith on the author's part and if that turns out to be a horrible assumption it wouldn't be the first time we had a little mess in mainspace that needed to be cleaned up.


 * Incidentally, I've found a shortcut for this specific submission. It looks like it would be best to merge this material into Basic physics of the violin - acoustics is a branch of physics. ~Kvng (talk) 23:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Supdiop ( Talk 🔹 Contribs ) 05:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think that'd be such a good idea. The article's contents are severely deficient to be considered prime material for mainspace. Most of it is already covered, in good quality might I add, in Violin, Violin construction and mechanics, and String instrument. This is not even considering the dodgy, how-to unreferenced nature of most of the statements made in the draft, such as "Have an added salt in the wood to improve the play of the violin" or "The tests must always be done using the Yamaha speaker". I reckon MfD corresponds here. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 23:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I think suggesting the author improve a mainspace article is less WP:BITEy than deleting their draft. ~Kvng (talk) 14:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Given the apparent quality of the draft he submitted, I'd rather they abstained from editing violin-related articles until they are better qualified as judged by the pertinent WikiProject. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Netop Remote Control reject
It has been improved by the author over the course of 4 seemingly cursory rejections ( is the only reviewer offering a comment). As it currently stands, I believe it meets acceptance criteria. ~Kvng (talk) 14:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The only time the word "solution(s)" should appear in an article is if the topic is chemicals or mathematics. The rest of the time it is simply marketing jargon. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

WOW
Many congratulations to those who have been beavering away to lower the backlog to manageable proportions! Please do not stop. Your workrate is astounding and I think the quality is high, too. I've seen a pretty high acceptance rate of new material, as well. Go you!!!! Fiddle  Faddle  12:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We're back in the green! I wonder who this is... FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If you can find out please give them each a barrister. Ha! Autocorrect hates "Barnstar" Give them one of those as well. I've doe a fair few, but I declare myself exempt from barnstarrage over this. Fiddle   Faddle  16:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Template:AFC_statistics shows a lot of recent activity especially by and . Kudos!
 * Anyone at loose ends is welcome to visit Category:AfC_postponed_G13 and rescue abandoned AfC submissions. These have been pre-screened so a high percentage are potentially salvageable. ~Kvng (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * So we help take one list down and you give us another with 3,000 on it? Hahaha. Also, in reviewing the G13 ones, if we feel it's pretty obvious that it can go ahead and be deleted should we just remove the postpone G13 template? Sulfurboy (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No good deed goes unpunished. Well done! now get back to work... :) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've been leaving AfC comments on drafts or subjects I deem unworthy and also removing AfC postpone G13 from ones I consider hopeless. To my knowledge, we don't have a well established/documented process for these drafts so feel free to raise any other questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation. Thanks for the help. ~Kvng (talk) 17:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Holy dooley! I don't think I've ever seen the box blue! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Draft: Gabriel Boric
I disagree with User:Sulfurboy's decline of this article on notability grounds. According to WP:POLITICIAN, a politician is notable if he is or has been a member of a national or sub-national legislature. Boric belongs to the Chamber of Deputies of Chile, which is the lower house of its legislature. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks as if another editor already approved the article. Sorry for the confusion. Sulfurboy (talk) 02:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Third opinion needed
Could anyone provide a third opinion here? See User_talk:Sulfurboy and User_talk:FoCuSandLeArN for additional reference. Thank you, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that he is notable - the coverage is signficiant. It needs an edit to sound less like a resume, but I would accept the article. JSFarman (talk) 05:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ but marked for cleanup. I noted it as a borderline acceptance on the talk page. There are times when a wider community than reviewers needs to take look. Should it be marked for deletion I will remain neutral.  Fiddle   Faddle  08:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I just edited the article and removed the templates. I understand the hesitation re: his notability, but we need to consider that journalism is competitive, and writers and editors don't generally receive editorial coverage in unaffiliated publications. That Michael Elliott has been the subject of any articles at all is an indication of his notability. (The article can still be expanded!) JSFarman (talk) 17:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This shows, simply, that it is sometimes valuable to accept those we consider to be borderline. The community usually knows better than the individual reviewers. Fiddle   Faddle  10:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

A discussion regarding a potential new reviewer
You are invited to offer opinions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Participants. Fiddle  Faddle  13:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

General Questions
I understand that this desk is primarily for specific questions by reviewers. However, can it also be used for general questions by reviewers? I see that there are some general questions that may be quick-fail tests, having to do with general or specific notability, verifiability, adequate sourcing, and encyclopedic tone. My first question has to do with articles that need heavy copy-editing. If there is a quick-fail, such as a lack of notability, then am I correct that the reviewer should decline the article for that reason, but should also note that copy-editing is needed? If an article needs heavy copy-editing, but is otherwise an encyclopedic article, my assumption is that the review may reasonably accept the article but tag it. Is that agreed?

Sometimes an article has been submitted multiple times and has not been improved significantly. I have seen a few articles where a reviewer said that they were considering speedying the draft. How proper is that? How should the line be drawn between the right to keep a poor draft in draft space that is not improving and the burden on the reviewers that the repeated resubmissions pose? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I sometimes copyedit one needing it myself, but usually note the need in a comment.
 * It is rare to consider speedy deletion without actually proposing it, but it can be a valid tool to draw the contributing editor's attention to the fact that it will go nowhere if they continue as they are Fiddle   Faddle  10:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Need for copyediting in itself is not a valid reason to decline. The author may not have copyediting talent. There are copyeditors available help with this but not until the article is accepted.
 * The only thing required to keep a draft in draft space is for someone to edit it every 6 months. Resubmission without improvement may be about reviewer error, about refusing to take no for an answer or other frustration. There are authors who abuse the system by resubmitting numerous times without improvement. Reviewers are not obliged to take any action against this. You're welcome to start a separate discussion on this talk page regarding specific cases. ~Kvng (talk) 23:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. As I thought.  Whether to copy-edit the article myself or to tag it for copy-edit depends on how much it needs copy-editing.  If the article doesn't pass notability or reads like an advertisement, I will add to my comments that the article also needs copy-editing.  (Unfortunately, declines are more common than accepts.  Editors whose articles are declined more than once really should take the advice to go to the Teahouse for advice.  They could instead go to the Help Desk, where they would get the same advice, but usually less tactfully.) Robert McClenon (talk) 21:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Billy "Trey" Goodwin
I recently declined the aforementioned submission. Somehow a tag was placed indicating it was awaiting review. However, I'm not sure about why the person originally tagged the page and I don't know why it would be created in such a weird location. Is there any further action to be taken? Perhaps it has to be deleted? The Average Wikipedian (talk) 09:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I tagged the article for speedy deletion. Since it is in draft space, the A codes don't apply, so I had to use the custom rationale that it was an empty draft submission with no content.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Copyvio
Is Earwig down or is it just me? FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  23:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It appears to be working again. Disregard. FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  23:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Another Clinton controversies?
Draft:New York Times controversies. FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  16:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I see this has been moved by someone I've never seen here before. Does nobody object to this? FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  16:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Class Assessment
I was recently asked when I assessed an article at Start-Class whether this meant that the article was likely to be deleted, and I took that question to the WP:Teahouse/Questions, and was told, as I thought, that Start-Class is good enough to retain an article, but that most articles that get through AFC are likely to be C-Class. What do the reviewers here think? Is a Start-Class assessment deprecated because it risks having the article deleted? My assumption, as I was told, is that Start-Class is good enough, although most accepted articles are C-Class (and a few are B-Class). (The inclusion of GA and FA on the pick list is a misfeature of the way the pick list works. An article cannot be GA or FA without a review beyond AFC review.)  However, my real comment today is that I accepted an article although I assessed it at Stub-Class. It was one paragraph, but it qualified as notable under WP:NFOOTY because the footballer had played, and still plays, in a team in a premier league that is listed in the class of fully professional association football leagues supported by the WikiProject. So occasionally an article may really require acceptance even if it is Stub-Class. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * We don't delete articles at WP:AFD or WP:PROD without valid reason. A stub or start rating is definitely not a valid reason for deletion. It is probably not a good idea to accept an unreferenced stub, but AfC acceptance criteria (and AfD deletion criteria) isn't as much about the quality of the submission as it is about the notability of the subject. I encourage AfC reviewers to observe or participate in AfD discussions to get a feel for what is WP:LIKELY to be deleted as this is our primary guiding metric for AfC acceptance. ~Kvng (talk) 23:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I second what Kvng said. "A stub or start rating is definitely not a valid reason for deletion". What we can talk about is numbers or statistics, and it is very likely that stub articles are deleted in greated proportion given that to obtain a Start class classification or better we look for certain features which mean that the subject of the article is notable and the article quality is superior. That by itself, if applied properly should almost guarantee an article's future on Wikipedia. The only caveat is of course we all make mistakes, and several articles have gone that way and been subsequently deleted, of particular note a few hoaxes which managed to stay for a few years, either after AfC or NPP. The best way to counter this is consulting fellow editors or the pertinent WikiProjects before reaching any conclusion. As due diligence it is good practise to at least ask for a couple of sources before accepting an article. If you have the extra time, you can often quickly find them yourself if you want to speed things up. Hope that helps, FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  18:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Stubs without sources are likely to be deleted. There should be evidence included in the submission that the WP:GOLDEN RULE is met before the submission is accepted. Evidence almost always takes the form of at least two citations. ~Kvng (talk) 20:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There are stubs and then there are stubs. Some very notable subjects have started as unreferenced stubs; evidence of notability is not always explicitly noted through referencing. I would never accept one myself without first adding a few, because I've seen AfDs firsthand. The golden rule is a rule of thumb. If the submitter shows no sign of improving an article, one can sometimes take matters into one's hands in service of the encyclopaedia. FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  21:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My take on AfC is that it is a good idea to get the article as far along as possible while you've got the creator's time and attention. I admit that I may sometimes push for improvements that are not strictly required, but getting an article into good shape means that you've got a decent article in main space that may still be useful in a month when the creator has moved on to something else. I also think that AfC is an educational process, and not much is learned from creating a stub-class article. To me AfC is as much about mentoring new editors as it is about keeping dreck out of WP. That doesn't mean that stubs are never ok. It's all a judgment call. LaMona (talk) 19:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I see and appreciate your good intentions but you're definitely doing your own reading of AfC purpose and policy here. If reviewers stray too far from policy, it creates frustration in the form of moving goalposts for authors. The other side of the coin where an author is educated and a high quality article is produced from AfC out of the gate is a lot of reasonable drafts abandoned by authors that assume after a rejection that the bar is too high for them to to clear. ~Kvng (talk) 20:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And that, old chum, is one of the main issues with AfC. As long as there's human judgement involved, things will never be clear-cut. We have to balance accepting mediocre articles about notable topics with rejecting good drafts about non-notable subjects. As long as AfC isn't NPP we will be stuck in limbo. Most of what we do when reviewing isn't policy, it's sound judgement (only true policies we deal with are no copyvio, no original research, etc.). AfC was created partly in hope that new editors would receive much needed feedback. If you ask me I'd without a doubt say AfC shouldn't exist in its present form. I'd TNT the whole thing and supplement NPP with an improved feedback mechanism and instate a "buffer" space for drafts which are rejected yet carry potential. That would be in itself patrolled by an exclusive new project run by very experienced and dedicated editors (and G13 would be extended to cover those drafts). All of us would be patrolling new pages instead of hanging here. One can only dream, eh? FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  22:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's correct that most articles accepted will be at C class, either. About 90% of the articles I accept, I rate as Start class, and less than 5% of them get deleted. The bar for C class should be relatively high, for example I recently accepted Strain rate imaging as C-class, that's about 2000 words, well formatted and written, with forty academic sources cited and a couple of illustrations. I didn't consider rating it as B-class because for such a specialist topic that should be down to the WikiProject concerned. An article accepted as Start class could quite happily be 400 words and eight sources and a single picture, no chance of getting deleted, eligible for Did you know? on the Main Page, but not providing sufficient coverage for C-class. I almost never accept an article as B-class.


 * Draft submitters are told the class given to their Draft when it's accepted, and they very often take this as an incitement to improve it further, or a concern that it's not good enough yet. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I dunno who gave that assessment of AfC at the Teahouse (about most articles being C-class). I think I've ever seen maybe one or two B-class articles at AfC. Yeah, the point of the initial assessment at AfC is to provide an article's status at a point in time so that future edits have some sort of bearing. FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  13:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I have a slightly different take on this issue. IMHO keeping a draft "in quarantine" here when it is already better than Stub or Start is unfair to the submitting editor and harmful to the AFC process. We are supposed to "kick the chicks out of the nest" as soon as they reach the minimum standard, keeping them longer than necessary contributes to the periodic backlogs and also to the anti-AFC hostility that exists in the wider WP community. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Indeed. "Better drowned than duffers if not duffers won't drown", as Commander Walker would say. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Nicely put. Mainspace is infinitely more convenient, but the onus of failed (deleted) AfDs is on us reviewers. FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  16:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Opinions needed
I declined this more than a month ago, then realised my decline reason wasn't etirely accurate. What do you guys/gals reckon should be done? Should contents be merged to any of the daughter companies' articles or should the parent company have its own article created via this draft? See Editor_assistance/Requests for a bit more background info. Thank you, FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  18:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the submission meets the applicable AfC criteria. I would accept it. If reorganization is appropriate, that can be worked out in mainspace over time. ~Kvng (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the assessment. I'll go ahead and accept it and wish for the best. I think proper attribution to the fact all these companies are somehow related is needed, but that's beyond me. Cheers, FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  16:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * What about Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland? FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  18:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Psychology of eating meat
I'm perplexed by this one. It's only a day old, so it's not like it's been sitting around or that any action is urgently needed, but I'm curious about what you all think. (It's well cited, but is it an essay?) Thanks! Julie   JSFarman (talk) 15:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This recent RfC comes to mind instantly. I wouldn't know what to comment, honestly. FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  17:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I'm enlightened.  Not going to review the article, but edified. JSFarman (talk) 00:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Very strange indeed. The entire article - and even the premise on which it is based - seems to be an attempt to "other" meat eating, so that vegans can feel less like the freaky wierdos that mainstream omnivorous society sees them as. It Pathologizes meat eating to justify veganism. Mainstream NPOV it ain't! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Precisely. FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  22:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In retrospect, of course. (I come from a family of vegans...my perspective was off.)  Glad I at least knew not to review the article.   Thanks for the feedback.  JSFarman (talk) 15:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Raul
Could someone speedy delete this? The Average Wikipedian (talk) 14:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What about Draft:Alex Gilbert? See Editor_assistance/Requests. FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  17:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Tagged it with a customised G4 speedy rationale. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  19:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Palam Kalyanasundaram
Hi, could someone please check Draft:Palam Kalyanasundaram for me? I declined it yesterday after finding some rather convincing reasons in an AfD (see the draft page). The user has contacted me on my talk page and said that it has been improved since then, but I would like a second opinion on the current state of the page. Thanks, Myname is not dave (talk/contribs) 15:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * there are fundamental problems with the claims made about this subject. All of the problems discussed in detail in the AfDs remain, the IBC awards are vanity awards. Although some newspapers did print articles about the subject, many of the facts in them seem to be sourced from social media and are demonstrably untrue. -- ℕ  ℱ  16:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Mainspace article stuck in a Pending category
The article Lords of Xulima is stuck in Category:Pending AfC submissions in article space even though there is no AFC template (or even a part of one) on the page. Purging has no effect. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The problem has been solved, I have no idea how. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Awadam
This has been declined repeatedly for quite a long span of time. However, two references, one of which should reliable, is quite good for village articles. A lot of these articles pop up with no clear indication of notability whatsoever yet most survive as stub articles for long periods of time. Had the draft been put into mainspace directly without going through AFC I think it would not have been speedied, PRODed or AFDed. Otherwise, we would have a lot of work to do clearing up these articles on non-notable geographical locations. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 13:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * IMO, it should be accepted because villages and some geographical articles are not necessarily required to show notability. A single reliable source is enough to verify the info. Cheers Supdiop ( T 🔹 C ) 17:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * All populated places with a distinct legally recognized identity are notable, so an officially named village qualifies for an article. In line with WP:NGEO all the article needs to show is that it does (or did) exist and has a distinct recognized identity. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

We can do better
The AFH Helpdesk is being bombarded with questions about referencing. Many of these questions could be avoided if only we would add helpful comments when we leave a review. Sometimes one just cannot, but usually one can. I have a list I use at User:Timtrent/Reviewing which changes from time to time as I improve them, but seems to make sense. I'm happy to take suggestions on improvements, too

Please can we take a moment more to do an even better job? It will save Help Desk time and save new editors at least some perplexity. Fiddle  Faddle  10:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps WP:REFB could be improved using some of User:Timtrent's abovementioned reviewing text. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I was wondering if someone who knows how might offer some or all of the things I use, modified by consensus, as suggestions via the script. I'm not wedded to the wording. The segments are in continuous development as I learn better, and i doubt they are anywhere near perfect. Obviously it requires discussion. Fiddle   Faddle  20:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * User:Wikiisawesome/So you want to be an AFC reviewer essay is for new AFC reviewers. It contains many useful points. Supdiop ( T 🔹 C ) 21:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Indeed it does, though I think it is on a somewhat different theme. I had not seen it before and am better for reading it. Fiddle   Faddle  21:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * What is the problem with bombarding the help desk? Isn't the help desk where we want budding editors to go for help? Do we think AfC reviewers can do a better job helping? Is there not enough manpower at the helpdesk? Is there extra manpower at AfC? ~Kvng (talk) 10:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The issue is just that, bombarding it. If we see a very common question, always due the same answer, then we need to do better to help people not to need to ask the question. One of the things we need to do is to try our hardest to pre-handle the common questions so that the new editors start to understand more without the need to ask. Sometimes the answers to common questions can become snarky. We snark because we have seen the question often, but we forget that the questioner has asked it for the first time. I have been known to snark myself in answer to common questions, something I try to guard against. Fiddle   Faddle  10:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I see your point. A terse decline can set in motion unnecessary work and frustration for everyone. ~Kvng (talk) 15:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Local newspapers - guidelines?
There are many articles for local newspapers (see Newspapers published in Somerset) that do not meet GNG or WP:NEWSPAPER. Is there a particular guideline that covers these? What I see mainly are stubs and also many unreferenced or nearly unreferenced articles. Yet, like inhabited places and schools, these seem to have some inherent usefulness in WP. LaMona (talk) 14:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:Pending AfC submissions in article space
I often check this. Today I found several articles stuck there for no reason. They have been accepted via the script, so I am more than a little perplexed. Pinging and  who both have accepted drafts in there in case they have a clue. Fiddle  Faddle  12:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I've noticed this and think it may be something from the accepting process as I've also seen it in the usual Pending category. SwisterTwister   talk  17:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That is very weird. None of them have the template on them! FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  19:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It appears to be random. I had one happen to me. I made a trivial edit to it and it was removed from the category.I suspect this is a gremlin in MediaWiki, not in anything we are doing. I'd appreciate confirmation or otherwise from someone who can be sure. If it's an actual bug it does need reporting. Fiddle   Faddle  16:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I went through the list and null edited them all. They all went. Fiddle   Faddle  10:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

When to request revdel?
Hi all, when dealing with copyright infringement cases, what do you do when there are perhaps one or two sentences that are a blatant copyright infringement? The reviewing instructions specify that "In no event should you simply decline and leave the copyright violation sitting in the page history". My reading of this is that all articles with copyright infringements not meeting the CSD criteria should have the infringing page history revdeled. However, I haven't seen this done in practice when there are only a few sentences with copyright issues. (To be fair, I haven't been around for too long, so maybe I've just missed such instances.) If, say, there is one closely paragraphed sentence, do you request revdel of all the infringing page history? I thought I'd seek clarification on AfC practice here so as to ensure I'm doing it right henceforward. Thanks, /wia   /tlk   /cntrb  14:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * As a reviewer, I feel responsible to either blank the submission and nominate for speedy deletion (blatant and extensive copy-paste) or delete the offending material then accept or decline (for non-CV reasons) (non-blatant limited close paraphrasing). I personally don't feel responsible for deleting potential CV from the page history. In general, there's a lot I don't feel responsible for here at WP. I'm OK with not doing everything policy suggests but definitely try to avoid doing anything policy prohibits. ~Kvng (talk) 20:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Following up on this, does anyone know whether there is a way to see articles declined by reason? If it were possible to see a list or category of articles declined for copyright violations, then one could systematically go through them and request revdels for any copyright problems. Does anyone know if such a feature or ability exists? /wia   /tlk  02:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Partially answered my own question; there's Category:AfC submissions declined as copyright violations. But it only contains 51 articles. Why so few? /wia   /tlk  02:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Weird Listing of Very Old Submission
In the category of Very Old Submissions, there is one article draft, and it doesn't belong there. It is Draft:Medical Objects. I moved it from a user sandbox to draft space on 12 November. Its history shows that it was created on 12 November 2015. However, it is one of twelve articles in the category of AFC submissions from 4 April 2014. In editing the raw text, I see that there are two versions of a string that appears to be a timestamp, each of them beginning 20140402063506. My question is why is the article, which is new, in this category? Is the string generated by a script? Is there a bug in the script? Should I take this question to Village pump (technical)? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * At the foot of the first version newly created is this line:, and that is your culprit. It is the editor who has placed the line there. I imagine they preserved the entire text from a prior attempt and pasted it in to the new article.
 * In cases such as this the history tab is your friend. Fiddle   Faddle  10:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Do we have template reviewing instructions
Hello all, we've been getting some template draft submissions that I'm really not sure what to do with (cf. Draft:Template:tl5, Draft:Template:divmbox, Draft:Template:BlockedIcon). Do we have a set of codified template reviewing rules? /wia  /tlk  02:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Mark Stanley - lighting designer
Draft:Mark_Stanley_(Designer) - This person appears to be at the top of his field, designing lighting for major Ballet and Opera programs, but it's not the kind of work that gets written up independently. The article mainly lists his credits in performance announcements, and he does get mentioned in a few reviews. He doesn't seem to meet wp:academic either. Can anyone think of other criteria that might be used? LaMona (talk) 21:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I tried to review that draft a few days ago and got stuck. There is a variety of coverage although not from the most desirable of sources. At first, I thought WP:CREATIVE might be the right standard, but then again that tends to cover people who are at the forefront of their craft or art, not those who work behind the scenes like lighting designers. I'm curious to see what consensus is on this issue too. /wia   /tlk  22:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have not looked at the draft recently, so offer thoughts unhindered by any detailed knowledge of it.
 * Where there is good trade press coverage we can consider that to be RS, assuming it to be significant. My view is that our judgement of sources also depends upon context.
 * Theatre (etc) press covering his work ought to be sufficient. Fiddle   Faddle  22:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Depends on what you mean by "coverage" -- he gets listed as lighting designer, but the only sources that are more than a name check are not independent (e.g. the ballet company he works for). Yet he seems to hold a top position in his field. However, I can't quite slot him into WP:CREATIVE. I may just accept it and see what happens. I'll communicate with the editor of the entry first, though, to see if we can't find a few good sources. LaMona (talk) 18:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Human resource management?
We've been getting quite a few drafts about human resource management lately. (See User:Gayle_Ren/sandbox, Draft:Six Functions of Human Resource Management, and User:Shanty wally/sandbox; there are more too.) Does anyone know if this is for a college project, or is there something else going on? /wia  /tlk  14:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Reviewing Masterclass
I'm not vain enough to believe I can hold one. However, I believe that we, all of us, have the ability to hold one to help all of us review even better. I'm starting off by saying that not only do we do pretty well, we seem to be doing ok on the backlog.

What we have is a pool of awesome volunteers who give of their time freely and review to the best of our individual ability. What I'd like to se is a really good sharing of our individual abilities with each of us. None of us is old enough and ugly enough to stop learning. And I have an idea.

Back in the day when we ran backlog drives we gained points for reviewing other folks' reviews and we lost points if our own reviews were substandard. We don't need a backlog drive, but would we benefit from a Quis custodiet ipsos custodes drive, perhaps monthly, to review reviews while continuing to review actively. Barnstars to be awarded on a positive to negative points ratio of our own devising? The idea is to get better and better, to help new reviewers get really good really fast, and to have fun. Fiddle  Faddle  16:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I like this idea. I welcome feedback on my reviews and I think it would be a good way to grow as a reviewer. A more standardized way of doing so would be well received. I also wonder whether it would be useful to include something about the elements of a good review at WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions. (It could discuss how reviews should explain the current problem, how it can be fixed, where the author can look for more information on the subject, and how far along the draft is?)
 * I've been hanging out on IRC lately and there have been a few users who seem confused by the AfC process—their draft is declined for a specific reason, they fix that issue and resubmit, it gets declined for another reason, ad nauseum. I've found myself running into this problem when declining for copyright issues. A copyright issue is grounds for a quick-fail decline, but nonetheless it might not be helpful for the author to see only "you've copied from the above website" without also getting feedback on the draft's substantive merits. Obviously we can't make each review our magnum opus; enumerating every single possible issue with each draft would be a gargantuan task. But surely a balance must be struck. I think my reviews might need a bit more meat on the bones, so I will endeavour to do this. /wia   /tlk  17:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Reminder: Check history
I've just encountered an article, Draft:Tom Cridland, that has been reviewed a number of times. The history shows that the editor creating this is User:tpjcridland. It would be a good idea to check histories, especially on a first review, to catch potential COIs and to notify the editors immediately, before they go through a number of edits. It also helps the other reviewers to know that the COI exists. Many first time editors are unaware of the COI rules, so they aren't being deceptive, just uninformed. I've often encountered COIs on a third or fourth review - but it seems only fair to inform editors immediately so they can understand their position, especially the prohibition on editing in main space. LaMona (talk) 18:10, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Good thoughts. Also an early copyvio check, please. I have found them three or four reviews in. We catch them in the end, of course. Fiddle   Faddle  18:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Try to stick to the flowchart at Reviewing Instructions - though "check for possible COI"is not actually mentioned there. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

NMUSIC check please
Does Draft:David Ward pass WP:NMUSIC yet? I am not sufficiently familiar with the topic area to judge the independence and reliability of some of the sources. The Guardian is a mainstream newspaper so it's a good one, drownedinsound.com looks like it might pass but I'm not at all sure about theallseeingeye.com. Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Decline template glitch
Please see this permalink where word-wrap has failed in the decline box. Compare this with the editor's talk page where it has not.

I have not seen this failure before, and have used this method often. It may be the template or may be a characteristic of the draft itself.

I have no idea how one might solve this, and ask for others to help. Fiddle  Faddle  10:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Interpretive discussion regarding autobiographies
I have opened a discussion relating to proper autobiographical submission procedures at Wikipedia talk:Autobiography, to which you are all welcome to contribute! Thanks, /wia   /tlk  15:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Education
After bumping into several education projects, good and not so good, I have started this Request for Comment to try to make the education programme even better. You are most cordially invited to participate. Fiddle  Faddle  14:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for those who have commented. There are many more reviewers, doubtless each with different opinions. This is a major opportunity to voice them. Sometimes there is a chance to steer the ship. This will be one of them if sufficient folk make a difference.
 * I am not at all concerned about "my" proposal there. It is for discussion and may succeed or fail, precisely as it should. I am concerned that more folk need to chime in thoughtfully and then to work on driving a consensus towards whatever seems the best outcome. Fiddle   Faddle  09:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Help - remove redirect
I'm trying to accept the article for Draft:University_of_Hertfordshire_Press but there is a redirect by that name that points to University_of_Hertfordshire. I don't know how to remove the redirect (and instructions on redirects didn't answer this particular question). Thanks. LaMona (talk) 17:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe an administrator has to delete University of Hertfordshire Press so that the the draft can be moved to that target. I'm not sure that you can just WP:G6 the redirect; in the past I think people have asked an administrator to delete it so that the draft can be moved accordingly. /wia   /tlk  17:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a simple routine G6 speedy deletion, no discussion needed - that's just a waste of time. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I did not know this; thank you! /wia   /tlk  19:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm still not sure what I should do when I encounter this situation -- just ran into another one. Pls advise. LaMona (talk) 03:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Edit the redirect page, and place on the top. You probably don't wan the administrator to move the draft for you, otherwise the rest of the AFC actions will not be performed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Please see Draft:Akhtar Raza Khan
I have noted the contributing editor abusing a reviewer and have placed the draft under review, noting as an AFC Comment that I have done so and why. I wish to throw my actions open to wider scrutiny. I believe in acting and then being transparent about what I have done. Fiddle  Faddle  17:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * That issue is now solved. Peace has broken out. Fiddle   Faddle  17:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)