|
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewer help/2014 1
Please take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#Review of User:Mastercraftsmen9317/sandbox. IMHO such comments from a reviewer violate WP:CIVIL and WP:BITE. A few weeks ago I had to correct this reviewer for giving bad advice. Editors who wish to do AfC reviews need to be able to communicate properly with draft writers. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- I concur, that's an example of rudeness that's out of line. – Quadell (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- Technically correct, but wrong tone to be taking. Have you followed the first step in Conduct Dispute Resolution in trying to engage the user on their talk page? It might improve their disposition (but based on their other commentary I doubt it). Hasteur (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- @Jéské Couriano: so that he knows he's being discussed. Just in case he cares :)
- There's also this rather similarly phrased comment a while ago, for which he was asked not to WP:BITE the newbies by (if I remember right) User:Ritchie333 immediately afterwards.
- On a more positive note, there's quite a lot of politely and thoughtfully worded replies like this one, and also an example of a polite but (in my opinion) slightly misleading reply here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi again,
I declined Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Marcan Entertainment in mid-December, originally because the language was promotional and because I didn't believe that notability had been established. The author edited the submission to address the tone and has been diligently trying to properly demonstrate notability - the dialog is on my talk page -- but I still don't think the company meets the criteria for WP:CORP. Can someone else take a look at it? Maybe I'm wrong. Thanks in advance. Julie JSFarman (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Addendum - I suspected that the editor had an undiscclosed COI, but I just re-read his/her comments on my talk page, and it's pretty clear that he/she does.
- Endorse decline, though not for the reason you'd expect. Once we strip away the bulk listings (Listing of every single release and artists) we're left with a very small blurb about a publishing company that doesn't explain why it qualifies for inclusion under CORP/MUSIC rationalles. Notability is not inhereted from the artists or albums that they've published. Hasteur (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, Hasteur (talk). In the 10 minutes that it took me to write the above, the author left me another message telling me I was wrong. I've been polite, encouraging, and detailed in my responses -- but I'm afraid I'll lose my ability to be WP:CIVIL soon. {He/she has resubmitted the article - I will not be re-reviewing it!) Thanks again. JSFarman (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
I am new to AfC and didn't realise when I declined "Joseph 1" that the {afc cleared} template was for copyvios, attack pages, and suchlike. How can I undo placing the tag without unaccepting the submission? Thanks, and sorry!
Cogito-Ergo-Sum (14) (talk) 02:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- I restored the submitter's text by copying it from the revision right before your decline and pasting it into the page, and removing the {{afc cleared}} that your edit added. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you so much, and I am so sorry about the whole situation! Cogito-Ergo-Sum (14) (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I have just declined this draft as unsourced, I also posted a comment about the highly promotional style of the text. Upon further reflection I feel it may be too spammy to be kept so if anyone would like to second-guess my assessment please feel free to whack it with the G11 Speedy stick. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- I left a comment which will hopefully deter anyone who wants to promote this person from writing about him in the near future. Even if he is notable, any article about him will soon become a highly-Google-ranked page with information which casts him in a very negative light. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I need assistance from a German-speaking Wikipedian on this article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Threat Matrix (fire service). It's well written and not terrible sourced (I think it's notable), but the refs are in German. Could someone verify? Thanks, theonesean 17:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- I've also been looking at this and I also don't speak German. I'm finding more English references under "Threat vulnerability matrix", but I'm not sure that's referring to the same thing. ~KvnG 15:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- (At first: I also did some changes/corrections in this article) I'm trainer (instructor?) at a German fire brigade (Mannheim) and also editor of the German equivalent Gefahrenmatrix ( my page at WP.de ). The article is consistent to the german references. deJiver (talk to me) 17:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
User Space to Main Space -> User name is being included in the scripted move
AfC templates on this one got mangled and I can't figure out what's going on. I would appreciate help cleaning this up. ~KvnG 22:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks! ~KvnG 23:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I've added some additional references to demonstrate notability and I am prepared to accept this article but I thought a bit of discussion might be useful first.
I'm surprised to see so much work done on this article apparently by AfC reviewers. My understanding is that we're permitted to accept crap articles on notable subjects. It seems we should let articles like this into mainspace where a larger number of editors has the opportunity to improve them. The only justification for declining such an article is if it is too crappy for AfD reviewers to see the merits of the subject. ~KvnG 18:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- It may be a matter of "pride." On one hand, if I am going to accept AND clean up the article, I'll probably do at least some of the cleanup before the move, just so I don't have my "name" on the move of something that is WP:BLOWITUP-worthy. On the other hand, "pride" goeth before the fall: If I decline and the article gets abandoned, everyone loses. If no reviewer is courageous enough to move it, it will stay in limbo until it's the oldest unreviewed article then someone will accept or decline it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- With the refs I added, I am prepared to accept it and will defend it in AfD if necessary. We must trust that notable subjects like this won't be abandoned. ~KvnG 03:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- I removed notes and controversial material and accepted the submission. ~KvnG 04:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Okay, what do we do with this? v2.js I've tried to get rid of it a couple of times, but nothing seems to work. I'm not sure where it belongs or if it should even be on Wikipedia, but it sure doesn't belong in Articles for creation.The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 02:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- Ignore it - scripts in user space aren't drafts despite any template or category (CAT:PEND is a category) appearing in them. If you want, contact Gryllida on his talk page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
File:BillMonroeCopiedforpublicationcopyrightedhari.jpg contains text, not an image. The text looks like it might be an attempt to create an article. To compound the confusion the name of the "file" contains "copyrighted". It has a review submission template, so what should be done about this? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- I requested that File:BillMonroeCopiedforpublicationcopyrightedhari.jpg be moved to User:Pierucci/BillMonroeCopiedforpublicationcopyrightedhari. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- I saw your technical move request. It turns out that the Move command won't move a File to another space, even for an admin. In any case the thing was previously deleted (in 2007) as a G12 copyright violation so I deleted it again. Maybe ask the user to try again. EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Just got a harassing note from an unhappy contributor. I left a warning, rather than what I wanted to say, which I said below, but just wanted to share!
- Why didnt you post that?!?!?!? It was real information and EVERYONE needs to know. Gosh Aggie you're so STUPID!!! I dont want you're opinion!!!! Look, this is important to me and most people so just shut up and do your job!!!
Why? It didn't meet any of the basic requirements for notability. No, everybody doesn't need to know. Stupid? I'm not the one with more than nine grammar, spelling and punctuation errors in 5 sentences. Shut up? This is a written conversation and I can assure you that my mouth never opened once! Job? Evidently they think that reviewers get paid for their contributions (Don't we wish!). You couldn't pay me enough to deal with people like this, but I do take satisfaction in preventing inane posts and entries from assaulting the public with misinformation and poor examples of the English language.
Oooo. They came back. Caution issued.
- Guess what?!?!? I'm back!!! Hey you suck!!!!! I dont like you aggie. Brooklyn and i r super happy together and we dont need you to involve yo-self in r luv life. Got it? SO please just screw off! K?
The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 15:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- I think Wikipedia:No personal attacks and [[Realworld:"Most people" means at least at least 3.6 billion people]] apply. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Incidentally, I think maybe about a quarter of new editors asking for help at the live help chat assume that Wikipedia "editors", reviewers etc., are paid staff. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Someone please take a look and review my declining of the submission on Sami H Elmansoury
- Ref 1 - Interview - Primary source
- Ref 2 - List - One name on a 15 page list of participants.
- Ref 3 - Profile of speaker - Marginal as related to subject
- Ref 4 - One sentence speaking at a middle school
- Ref 5 - Speaker at a dinner
- Ref 6 - List - Panel discussion member
- Ref 7 - List - One of a number of speakers on a list
- Ref 8 - Huffington Post profile - Regular contributor - Primary Source
- Ref 9 - Article by subject - Primary Source
- Ref 10 - One sentence quote from subject
- Ref 11 - One sentence quote from subject
- Ref 12 - Subject asking a question of Paul Rand - No support
- Ref 13 - Subject moderated discussion
- Ref 14 - One of 45 contributors to the book
- Ref 15 - One of 45 contributors to the book - One paragraph bio
- Ref 16 - One of 45 contributors to the book - not mentioned on page
- Ref 17 - One of 45 contributors to the book
- Ref 18 - One of many participants in a conference - Large paragraph written by subject - Primary Source.
- Ref 19 - List - One of many participants - No content - List
- Ref 20 - List - People on this list must have gone to Rutgers University and be of some renown.
I suppose they could be qualified for shear volume, but haven't found any significant indication of notability. I suspect that the article was written by the subject, though they claim not, but have not bothered to identify themselves. See SE on my Talkpage. The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 12:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- You've criticized sources for being primary. Primary source are useful in some cases. The real issue with these sources is that they're not WP:INDEPENDENT of the subject. A conference organizer, for instance is motivated to make the speakers they've invited look more notable than they may actually be.
- By my read, there are two sources (1 and 10) that potentially demonstrate notability. You need to decide whether these meet WP:RELIABLE and WP:SIGNIFICANT criterias respectively. Some reviewers would not consider two sources to meet the requirement for coverage in multiple source. At AfD, two quality sources is enough. I personally don't think the quality is there for these sources. The large number of crap sources is not particularly useful to readers and is certainly not going to help in an AfD discussion. ~KvnG 20:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- Ref 1 - Interview - Primary source
- If the source is reliable, the fact that someone to took the time to do the interview is evidence of notability.
- Ref 2 - List - One name on a 15 page list of participants.
- Not significant coverage
- Ref 3 - Profile of speaker - Marginal as related to subject
- Not an independent source
- Ref 4 - One sentence speaking at a middle school
- Middle school is not a reliable source
- Ref 5 - Speaker at a dinner
- Not reliable or independent
- Ref 6 - List - Panel discussion member
- Not reliable or independent
- Ref 7 - List - One of a number of speakers on a list
- Not reliable or independent
- Ref 8 - Huffington Post profile - Regular contributor - Primary Source
- Coverage by employer is not independent
- Ref 9 - Article by subject - Primary Source
- We need sources about the subject not by the subject
- Ref 10 - One sentence quote from subject
- A paragraph about the subject in a 4 paragraph piece is potentially useful
- Ref 11 - One sentence quote from subject
- I find two quotes. The subject is being used a source for this story but the story is not at all about him.
- Ref 12 - Subject asking a question of Paul Rand - No support
- Being a member of the media doesn't automatically qualify you as notable. You must be covered by the media.
- Ref 13 - Subject moderated discussion
- Being a member of the media doesn't automatically qualify you as notable. You must be covered by the media.
- Ref 14 - One of 45 contributors to the book
- Ref 15 - One of 45 contributors to the book - One paragraph bio
- Ref 16 - One of 45 contributors to the book - not mentioned on page
- Ref 17 - One of 45 contributors to the book
- We need sources about the subject not by the subject
- Ref 18 - One of many participants in a conference - Large paragraph written by subject - Primary Source.
- Not independent
- Ref 19 - List - One of many participants - No content - List
- Not independent
- Ref 20 - List - People on this list must have gone to Rutgers University and be of some renown.
- Not reliable
- Thanks very much for taking the time to review KvnG. You pretty much confirmed what I thought. I 'knew' the same things you said, but didn't use the best verbiage for it! The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk)
I would like to have my article on Variable Cyper Coordinates moved from a userspace, private article to a main space public article since it has been approved please. Devinbeahm (talk) 14:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- Please post your question to the Help Desk. This page is for reviewers to get help from each other. BTW I removed the templates and links from your post that made no sense. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Most of the cited sources in Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/River Shimanto Ultramarathon are in Japanese, they need to be checked for notability. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- WikiProject Japan or another relevant WikiProject may be able to help. Google Translate *may* be useful. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 14:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I was going to accept this article, but when I pulled up the reviewer tools a notice came up saying it had been deleted three times in the past month for either no meaningful content or for unambiguous advertising. Could someone else take a look at it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Don_Peachey Thanks! valereee (talk) 13:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- Those speedy deletion reasons do not apply to the draft you're reviewing, so they're irrelevant.
- However, I find it very hard to consider notability to have been established by the horrible mish-mash of very poor sources, badly formatted sources, one-line mentions, and links to advertisements for the band's performances, that have been provided in the current draft. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, it's a mishmash, but election to the Polka Hall of Fame is verified. Maybe I'll see if I can improve the sources myself. Thanks! valereee (talk) 14:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, valereee, when you see that other drafts about a topic have been deleted, it's a red flag to look particularly closely at the submission. Bringing it here for more eyes was a good idea. Demiurge1000 is right, though, sometimes badly written drafts are deleted and then someone writes a much superior one - and occasionally, the deleted drafts are about a totally different person. Another option is to ask an admin to compare the deleted draft to the one you are reviewing, because if it's just the same, it can be speedy-deleted as recreation of deleted content. This would be the thing to do if you see that a large draft was created with one or two edits, meaning that it may not have been substantially improved since deletion. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Would it make sense to reword the Decline notice at bit, to help set expectations? I think it might help with the submitter's reaction to let them know that few articles are actually accepted on the first submission. And that reading the referenced material and seeking help greatly improves the chances of acceptance.The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 12:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- Seems like a good idea but it means first time declines will need to use a different template from subsequent ones, that would need quite a bit of clever coding. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
This is a notable topic. The article has problems and has been rejected several times and is slowly improving. I think this is an example of a submission that we need to accept and allow the chance to improve in mainspace. ~KvnG 02:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- As an alternative to immediate promotion, consider canvassing for help in relevant WikiProjects. The bottom line: Sometimes it's better for Wikipedia to NOT have an article about a notable topic than to have an article that's in sad shape. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- Aside from our fancy text box in at accept form, where's a good place to find the right WikiProject(s). Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Directory is not very easy to use. ~KvnG 17:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- I find the whole WikiProject Council setup to be pretty useless. Just by looking at the text one can see that it's about software used for ship designing thus suitable WikiProjects are WP:WikiProject Software, WP:WikiProject Ships and WP:WikiProject Engineering - the only tool needed to figure it out is ordinary common sense. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:49, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I've declined Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Dara_Greenwald because the article now exists in mainspace (even though it didn't when the AfC draft was created 10 days ago). I've recommended that the author merge some changes into mainspace (for instance there's an infobox, etc). But is there anything else we do in these cases? Thanks! Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 13:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- If you are willing to lose your 3 edits of April 27, 2013, you can ask that the history of the AFC submission up through the last April 17 be merged into that of Dara Greenwald. Once that is done, you can put a note on the Talk page inviting editors to merge the content of the last April 17 version into the current article, or you could merge it yourself. See Template:Histmerge and Wikipedia:History merge for instructions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Was I too hard on the editor of Draft:International Tourism Partnership? Please read his talk page, the previous reviewers' actions, and the deletion log of International Tourism Partnership before replying. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- Diagnosis seems correct: "This topic may meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines or its guidelines for companies and organizations. However, it's obvious that the primary editor of this submission has a conflict of interest and he is unable to get past that COI to put "Wikipedia first." Do we have any process for marking potentially notable topics along with their references? This organization appears to have been previously known as the "International Hotel Environmental Initiative" (based on mentions in academic papers which date it to the 1990's), changed names around in 2001. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what should be done with Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Castle (season 1), but it's been pending unedited for about a month. Currently Castle (season 1) redirects to a List of Castle episodes. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 12:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- Discussions on Talk:List of Castle episodes and its archive page resulted in the existing Castle (season 1) page being turned into a redirect. Turning it back into an article without a new discussion would be disruptive. In this particular case, I would say put a note on it saying that the user is welcome to start a discussion on Talk:List of Castle episodes then decline the submission Include a link to the edit history of Castle (season 1) as the content that is there may be in part better than that in the submission. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Got it, thanks! Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 13:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Need a third eye for Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ronnie Woo - it's the oldest item in the list. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Even though Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Time correction has been turned down and the editor has been told that it will never be accepted, he is still actively working on it. He is also using links to it as references in an article he has published on an external source: http://www.science20.com/upstart_biostatistician/blog/time_correction_lc_and_principal_quantum_number-131551
Are we becoming an alternate source of publication here? Should the article be deleted? StarryGrandma (talk)
The question is whether it should be user-fied or deleted. Either way, WP:MFD is the place to discuss this. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC) Given the recommendation to WP:MERGE across several existing articles, I recommend an MFD where the desired outcome is courtesy blank the content and leave the AFC templates and a link to the last non-blank version and a link to MFD discussion, and a note saying that un-blanking is grounds for being blocked with the expectation that it will be G13'd after 6 months. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the information. I'm taking it up with the editor on his talk page first, suggesting that he work on the material elsewhere than Wikipedia. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- Please do note that the article is complete and utter nonsense. This user is wasting a colossal amount of time here. Can't the entire thing just be deleted? - DVdm (talk) 18:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- Of course it is, in the long tradition of self-published relativity enterprises, but deflection often works. StarryGrandma (talk) 05:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
May I please remind reviewers to check the links in the messages they place on users' talk pages. There is, I understand, a shortcoming in the helper script, in that AFC drafts in user sandboxes are not correctly linked in the box of the standard notification on user talk pages. Until this technical issue is resolved, could reviewers please check the links in their messages, & correct them accordingly, as these erroneous links can easily confuse new contributors. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
The submission Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pattenrai!! ~ Minami no Shima no Mizu Monogatari has only Japanese sources, someone able to verify them should review it. This is one of the drafts currently in the "Very old" category so some urgency is appreciated. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I've chosen to work on this category that gets refilled overnight. There are 13 submissions it it that are beyond me today. WHo fancies whipping through 13 awkward ones and zapping it to zero today? Fiddle Faddle 19:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't whip it to zero, but I got through five. I'll get back to it later. (I'll work on this category whenever I can.) Julie JSFarman (talk) 22:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- To me this is a fun category to work on. It picks up those that slip through the cracks. MY ambition is to get it to zero, but I have not succeeded yet. Welcome to the backstop! Fiddle Faddle 13:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Please would an experienced editor look at the procedural mess that is Carpe Fulgur, where an editor has chosen to copy and paste the AfC version to main namespace, thus breaking the history and attribution of edits, something that is important not to break. We now have Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carpe Fulgur which I created in the genuine belief that the entity is non notable.
I have no interest in whether the article is kept at AfD, deleted, accepted for main space from AfC or declined, but am interested in making sure that the process ends correctly, whatever that end may be.
Obviously it would have been preferable that the editor who copied and pasted from Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Carpe Fulgur had simply accepted it in order to keep attribution (etc) intact. Fiddle Faddle 14:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- Personally, I wouldn't do any more to it at the moment. As you point out at AfD, if it is kept a history merge would be the best option. If it is deleted there is no problem. Having said that, the history section looks like copy and paste to me, no idea from where, I'm on an iPad and checking such things on a tablet is a total pain. I'd suggest checking it for copyright violations if you have not already done so. If the whole article is CV then it can be speedied under G12, as can the AfC submission. In such an eventuality the AfD discussion could be speedy closed. Just some thoughts... Bellerophon talk to me 22:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I get this message: Moving Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/UC CEISMIC Canterbury Earthquakes Digital Archive to UC CEISMIC Canterbury Earthquakes Digital Archive and nothing else.
The article is imperfect in that it has inline URLS and I was accepting it with this caveat, but it got stuck. Can't see why. Expert, please! Fiddle Faddle 12:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Please do not accept articles with so many inline exlinks - they should be fixed before accepting. I'm going to do so now. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Fair. Fiddle Faddle 13:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- I have cleaned it up to a reasonable standard - but the script indeed seems to be broken. Has anyone successfully accepted any article in the last hour or so? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- I had this problem once with the old script and it turned out to be a title blacklist problem because of too many capital letters in the the title. Don't know if that's the case here. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Almost certainly as Anne says. Titles with two words in caps seem to trigger it. Either re-title it or get an admin/account creator/template editor to perform the page move. I'd do it for you, but my hat seems to have fallen off. Bellerophon talk to me 22:07, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- This really needs to be fixed - the draft is stuck in limbo now for a whole week! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- I couldn't find any instructions on how to do this, so I just tried a regular move and it worked. However, that bypassed the handy AfC accept section that adds Wikiprojects. —Anne Delong (talk) 11:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
So Çağdaş_Çetinkaya brought a question to my mind. It was nominated for G13, and then "rescued" from G13 by being submitted by someone other than the author. As it stands right now, I would lean toward decline for notability reasons, only one source is biographical and it seems like it might be affiliated with the subject. Should that submission reset the G13 clock, even though it hasn't been improved at all in the G13 time interval? Gigs (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- Hello, Gigs. Any edit resets the clock for the HasteurBot, since it can't analyze the edits. However, an editor could still nominate it manually under db-g13, and if an administrator agreed that it hadn't been improved for over six months it would likely be deleted. However, if an editor has shown enough interest to submit it, to save an undelete request it may be a good idea to make contact and see if s/he plans to improve it. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- I declined this article earlier today, and noted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Çağdaş Çetinkaya in my comment. I know these appear when we review, but I wanted editors who can see the deleted version to have prior awareness. At present the article is poor at best! Do we speedy delete it as recreated material previously deleted at AfD under circumstances such as this, or do we let the AfC process run its course to eventual death of the article from boredom? Fiddle Faddle 19:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- This draft was created three hours after the mainspace article was deleted. I looked at the deleted article, and it is pretty well identical to the delete text. It really should have been re-deleted under G4 as soon as it was created, but our AfC tools weren't as well developed then for detecting this sort of thing back then. It shouldn't be deleted under G13, because that is "refundable". I see no reason not to delete it now. Do you want to do the honours, or would you like me to do it? —Anne Delong (talk) 20:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- The multiple awards made me think that the person was notable, so (not being the author) I resubmitted the article. I reached this conclusion before I learned about the prior AfD. I wish someone with an interest in Turkish literature could look at the article, but I don't feel very strongly one way or another about the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- Not faulting your actions at all Eastmain. I didn't know about the AfD either because I never got as far as mashing any of the reviewer tool buttons that would have brought it to my attention. My question was more of an abstract question about whether it could still fall into G13. Gigs (talk) 21:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Anne Delong: please go right ahead. You seem to have the extra bit that lets you go directly to the outcome, I can only nominate. Fiddle Faddle 22:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- Eastmain, according to the deletion discussion, the article has been deleted multiple times on the Turkish Wikipedia, so I think we are on fairly safe ground here. The title has also been create-protected. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- Gigs, About your original question: There are a lot of old drafts that shouldn't be deleted under db-g13, because they could never be "refunded". Refunding blank pages and test edits, for example, is a waste of time, because an editor could just start a new page. Copyvios and attack pages are two more examples. Copy-paste fragments should either be historymerged or deleted under g6 (housekeeping), because the article has already been created. These last three really shouldn't wait six months to be dealt with; maybe sometime in the future we'll have enough volunteers to look through the declined submissions sooner, but right now it's the best we can do. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yep. Though I'm not sure there is consensus to immediately G4 drafts, extending the concept that userification of something from AfD can't be immediately G4ed. This case might be exceptional since it had been recreated so many times. Gigs (talk) 16:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Well, the by the time they are G13 eligible, they haven't been improved for six months, so that can't be called "immediately". —Anne Delong (talk) 17:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Is this a portal? Any ideas how to handle it? Draft:Wikipedia:GLAM/American Folk Art Museum MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- I would say it's an attempt to start a WikiProject. —Anne Delong (talk) 10:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- I reported it at the Help Desk and TheRedPenOfDoom has notified the WP:GLAM project. Maybe someone there will handle it. —Anne Delong (talk) 11:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
We have a COI editor who is taking infinite trouble to create a massive OR piece that appears either to be her work, or is intended to bolster and grant notability to her work.
While I realise that she can waste her time in any way she wishes, I am also mindful that even the Draft: namespace is not intended to be an editor's own website. I have done my best in an AFC Comment, but that is being ignored. The eventual outcome is likely to be one very disenchanted editor and Wikipedia losing reputation in their eyes, despite the situation being of their own construction.
Please would a diplomatic and experienced editor seek dialogue with the editor with a view to encouraging them to understand what is required for this article, assuming it will ever form an acceptable article? Fiddle Faddle 19:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- The issue as been raised at WT:WikiProject Feminism#The Patriarchal Code but has not received much response there - except for myself and one other editor. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- It is likely that there is no interest there because it is, well, not at all interesting, except as the spectator sport of watching a train wreck. I am not feeling charitable today so any further attempt I make at interaction with this editor is likely to be rather more direct than one might wish. Do you fancy trying to engage her? Fiddle Faddle 22:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- I failed to take my own advice, and left them a comment at the Feminism project. Fiddle Faddle 22:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- I really wish the actual members of WikiProject Feminism would address her issue - she might listen to others who "speak her jargon" as I get a feeling she is disregarding advice from editors she knows or believes are male. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:49, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- Pretty sure many members of that WikiProject are male too. Gigs (talk) 15:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- There's a talk page now on this draft - is it time to start using it? —Anne Delong (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- The draft has been nominated for deletion - Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:The Patriarchal Code -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- You beat me to the draw. I was just coming to say that I have made an out of process deletion nomination and to invite comments there for retention or deletion. Fiddle Faddle 16:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I would like further eyes on my review and 'decline' of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Silent Vigil at Duke University. For me this was a difficult decision and I may not be correct. I gave detail in the comments. I now intend to stand back from the article, and not review it a further time. I see the route forward as folk either agreeing with my review, perhaps commenting further at the draft article itself, or resubmitting it (under the original reviewer's name) and accepting it. I have no issue with being correct or incorrect, I just have a feeling that this requires further experienced eyes. Fiddle Faddle 08:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Hey Fiddle I agree that it would be good to break up the references. I looked around a bit and found what appears to be secondary literature (added). If you think that the text itself is reasonable (I didn't assess that), I'd say it's better off in mainspace with more eyes. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 09:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- @Jodi.a.schneider: I would be more than happy if you or others chose to accept the article. The text is reasonable, my concern was the referencing. Against acceptance, almost any text can be reasonable, if you follow me. This is why I brought it here
 Fiddle Faddle 09:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, published as The Silent Vigil at Duke University, and added a link to your comments from the talk page. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 12:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- An excellent outcome for WIkipedia. Thank you. Fiddle Faddle 13:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
We need a speaker or reader of (probably) urdu, please to check the references and review it Fiddle Faddle 18:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
It may be that I've been looking at this for too long, but I can't figure out whether or not to accept this article. I removed as much of the spin as I could, but I'm afraid that the article may still read like propaganda for a political campaign. There are solid references, and there's no obvious hype, but I've lost perspective. Can someone else take a look? This is a "very old" submission. Thanks, Julie JSFarman (talk) 03:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 Done Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 22:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Notability looks ok for Draft:Kennedy Odede but it feels a bit promotional/sensationalist. Seems like a bit of editing could help that, unless somebody wants to push it out as is? Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 07:42, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Very notable Cherokee illustrator, page needs some editing (integrating references, fact-checking), if anybody's up for it. Author also started a mainspace draft Murv Jacob which has some content on the talk page, so speedily getting this publishable would avoid further confusion. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm seeing a bunch of drafts just in the last 24 hours about the Wisconsin town of Oconomowoc. My guess is it's some kind of school program to get people to learn to edit or something, but the problem is 75% of them have chosen topics that don't meet WP:N, like the high school girls' lacrosse team. I've left messages on the Talk pages of the ones I've caught asking that they, their teacher or coordinator or whatever, swing by WP:Teahouse to get some broad advice there for their effort, so we can maybe help them pick topics easier to prove WP:N on. Here are a few examples:
MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- Turns out it is indeed a school project, and the teacher User talk:Nkschueller66 is in contact with me. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
It has always seemed to me that this category was one to use to catch oddities, and it appears to have done so. Three articles have appeared in it today, moved there from elsewhere, all by the same editor.
As far as I can make out these have all been moved form the main namespace, but the same ditor, and with no obvious rationale for th emove save only this editor's decision to move them to Draft:
The articles affected are:
I am about to raise this on that editor's talk page, and notify them that I have posted it here. I raise it here because the editor is JustBerry, who has a recent history of some peculiar edits in AFC and who was asked to stand back from the project, I believe.
Comments from JustBerry are appropriate here. There may have been some sort of consensus somewhere, but it is not on the talk page of the articles concerned, and it feels like "Move on a whim" Fiddle Faddle 07:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- I see that JustBerry is currently under a 31 hour block for disruptive editing. I have reverted their edits in these articles. Fiddle Faddle 07:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Could a passing reviewer cast a look in the direction of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Anthracite Coal Mining in Pennsylvania? I think that "History of..." articles are generally encyclopedic, and I think this submission may be good for mainspace under the title "History of anthracite coal mining in Pennsylvania". This submission was declined once before for being too essay-like, but the author made an extensive effort to resolve that. The reviewer noted the lack of footnotes, but what they didn't see was the fact that the author used traditional parenthetical inline citations, rather than <ref> tags. Parenthetical citations are an acceptable form of inline citation. The article is underlinked, but that can be solved fairly easily through general editing. Thoughts? Mz7 (talk) 18:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- Hey Mz7, there could be more interior citations (parenthetical or otherwise). But I think that could be solved by general editing. The sources look extensive and on-point and the topic is a good one; the only question remaining (to me) is whether the sources say and support what the article says. I have a good feeling they do, so it would be reasonable to push this out after a bit of spot checking. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- Sounds good! I'll place the submission under review and look into the sources tomorrow. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- Woot, I see it's Done! Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 09:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I've been scratching my head for 45 minutes about what to do with Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/World’s 1st Breastfeeding Support Project Using Google Glass. Clearly the currently suggested title is a non-starter, but no two of the many news sources calls the trial the same thing. Even the two organisers disagree whether the trial has a name. The trials seem to have attracted international news coverage over several months. Anyone care to suggest the best solution? Sionk (talk) 22:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
This one has some shady misbehavior, it was given multiple declines and some extensive comments, and then today blanked for copyvio. The original submitter (an IP) then reverted the Decline, and then modified an AFC reviewer's prior comment, see dif, changing:
- "The same problems still persist. Zach Vega (talk to me) 20:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)" version
to this:
- "It has some grammatical errors, please edit it, otherwise the article ok. Zach Vega (talk to me) 20:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)"
Can we lock this draft, salt Uttam Gupta, and take whatever other appropriate measures against this persistent and apparently unethical editor? MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- Salting Uttam Gupta is not supported by the protection policy as that page has not been subject to persistent recreation. The IP possibly reverted Joe Decker out of frustration, and change Zach's comment in an attempt to communicate. While your revert was absolutely correct, I don't see a pressing need to do anything else with him/her unless they continue to disrupt. Bellerophon talk to me 09:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- Possibly out of frustration, partially perhaps because they feel it's easier to change the article when it's not blanked.
- I'm having a similar problem and am more than a bit frustrated at Draft:Eliane_Laffont with a similar issue. I think I've finally gotten a conversation started with the author there on her talk page, so perhaps that will eventually settle out. --j⚛e deckertalk 13:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I've just finished fundamentally re-writing User:AndrewCharalambous/sandbox to a point where I think it's acceptable. I've resubmitted it for review as I'd like another set of eyes on it; in case I've missed anything. Bellerophon talk to me 16:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Solid. I saw the previous draft - great rewrite. I'll accept it unless you want to do the honors. Julie JSFarman (talk) 19:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Even better - it's already been accepted. JSFarman (talk) 19:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
A reviewer who can read Russian is requested to verify the relevant sources cited in Draft:Aida Garifullina, please check both the reliability and the content of the sources. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
A reviewer able to read Italian is needed to review Draft:ISTAO - Istituto Adriano Olivetti Ancona. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Is this the work of a troll or is it really possible that the submitter does not understand the decline comment? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:11, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- You may well be right, but it is perhaps worth directing them to WP:WIZ and WP:FIRST to exhaust those possibilities. Bellerophon talk to me 17:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I feel like shouting at ~90% of submitters "Are you deliberately being obtuse or are you actually a genuine #₩&%£*$ moron?!?!" I'm going to try taking a day or two off from reviewing before I really do seriously insult a submitter by comparing their intellect to that of a petunia. I'd appreciate it if someone could look over my reviews of the last day or two as I might have left a few innapropriately sarcastic comments. Sorry folks, but I really need to go to bed now before I ruin my Wiki-reputation. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Your message above is filled with wisdom. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- We value petunias beyond rubies!
- What I want to know is why so many petunias submit blank pages! Maybe they need more fertiliser! Fiddle Faddle 08:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I obviously also was suffering from overtiredness because my own talk page discussion with the author was pointless and useless to them, though, at the time, I felt I was making sense.
The author objects mightily to the convention of leaving prior reviews on the article, too, so I wonder if someone might re-review the piece with new eyes, please.
Sometimes one goes on reviewing and conversing when one is too tired. Fiddle Faddle 08:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for seeking to have a fresh set of eyes on the discussion between us, Timtrent. You did not consider verifiable technologies and WP:CALC when reviewing the article, and indicated such in your talk page, while declaring that your decision could be arbitrary. I would appreciate it if you would remove your own review. Davidwr has looked at the article and made suggestions that are actionable, but unfortunately, he seems to also not be considering verifiable technologies and WP:CALC I will probably need to remove his comments as well, unless he addresses things in an actionable manner. Matthewhburch (talk) 02:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- @Matthewhburch: There is a point beyond which reviewers will run out of patience with your repeated removal of review history. The behaviour approaches vandalism, indeed some editors, myself included, find the insistence of yours on the removal of things you disagree with more than irksome. Have you told Davidwr that you have reverted his edit and removed his comment as well as my own?
- When and if this draft ever appears as an article you will need to be aware of WP:OWN. Fiddle Faddle 18:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- @Timtrent: I did inform Davidwr that his comments had been deleted, on his talk page, and thanked him for his contribution, because he did offer actionable advice. I acted on that advice, and addressed the concerns. He did not, however, review the article. Once I have addressed issues mentioned by reviewers or commentators, I will remove the review and comment references from the visible page so that future reviewers are not immediately influenced by prior reviews. This is what one should expect in a draft process. Suggestions are offered, prior versions are archived, actions are taken, and then the document is resubmitted. As you have mentioned before, the data is not gone, and a reviewer is more than welcome to examine the article history. As for Article ownership, until the draft is accepted, I am responsible for it. After it becomes an accepted article, there will surely be changes, and I will either agree or disagree with them. There is a different process for dealing with article changes. You specifically and clearly indicated in our discussion on your talk page that your review was arbitrary. I believe the fact that there is no rule to prevent article owners from deleting rejections and comments is a clear indication that Wikipedia accepts the same drafting process that the rest of the scientific community follows. I would say that arbitrary reviews are much closer to vandalism than removal of arbitrary reviews. Matthewhburch (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- @Matthewhburch: First, a procedural note: Although it may not have been written down it has been longstanding practice for years for AFC comments to remain on the page until the article is moved into the main encyclopedia. Not every common practice has to be written down as a rule. What Timtrent (aka Fiddle Faddle) said about reviewers running out of patience is very true - you are strongly advised to focus on improving your article, not bucking long-established, albeit not-well-documented processes. Second, I may not have "accepted" or "declined" the submission, but constructive comments seasoned editors should be taken seriously. If it helps, I may start summarily declining any submission by you every time I make a comment, with a custom-decline reason of "Procedural decline without prejudice against immediate acceptance by another reviewer. The reason for this decline is that the submitter seems to take comments made by people who actually accept or decline a submission more seriously than comments made by editors who abstain from accepting or declining." By I won't do that because that would be WP:POINTy and disruptive. As for comments on the actual submission, if I have time to look at it in the next few days, I'll post any comments I have on the submission page or its talk page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- Addendum: Regarding WP:CALC, that is meant to cover math that is obvious to an average reader either by inspection or by simple use of a calculator. If a typical reader wouldn't say "well, duh, of course that's correct" then WP:CALC doesn't really apply. For example, the statement "gas mileage is miles driven divided by gallons used. If you drive 300 miles on 10 gallons, your vehicle is getting 30 mpg" falls under WP:CALC. However, less obvious math does not, even if it is mathematically sound. For example, Pi cites references when discussing ways to calculate Pi's value to a desired level of precision, even though to some people the calculations are obviously correct. Leaving out the references would leave the page vulnerable to having an {{Original research}} template placed on it. Your submission's math isn't obvious enough to qualify for WP:CALC. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- @Davidwr:I would imagine that a community like Wiki is defined by rules, not by arbitrary decisions, or by threats like the one you made above. As noted above, the people who put the rules together obviously understood the real world draft process, and expected us all to follow it. You reject it or comment on a draft, I address the concerns, then I resubmit the draft. If you do not submit addressable concerns, then the comments and/or rejections are eliminated, and the article is resubmitted. I have clearly demonstrated a willingness to work with anyone who makes actual, constructive criticism.
- Addendum: About that WP:CALC. It's amazing that you refer to fuel efficiency in your response since the routinely calculable data in my article says that one method of propulsion uses 12,600kg of fuel, while another uses 2,745,985,471,433kg of the same fuel to do the same amount of work. That's a little bit routine and obvious. Even more so than your own example. Matthewhburch (talk) 04:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- Regarding the repeated removal of AFC comments, I think that the principles outlined in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines (particularly Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection.") apply. Just because the discussion isn't happening on a "talk" page doesn't mean that this guideline, or the spirit of it, doesn't apply. However, the fact as of earlier today you were unaware of such rules indicates that we haven't publicized them enough. I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Time to codify long-standing practice of restoring removed AFC templates? recommending that a notice not to remove old "afc submission declines" and "afc comments" be placed in the AFC submission template itself. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 06:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- The rule, and it is a rule, about not refactoring other people's comments on talk pages applies completely in the way the WP:AFC scheme was designed, because it worked on a talk page. Recently we have opened up the Draft: namespace, and simply have not codified the rule to work there, because we considered that sensible editors would recognise that the comments declining their submissions were precisely as important as the acceptance. Now we find an editor who decided for himself when he considers he has corrected his article and removes the messages and we thus discover we need to codify it formally. It takes all sorts. I very much approve of the concept of "Procedural decline without prejudice against immediate acceptance by another reviewer. The reason for this decline is that the submitter seems to take comments made by people who actually accept or decline a submission more seriously than comments made by editors who abstain from accepting or declining."
- Wikipedia does not work the way you want iy to work, or you think it ought to work. It works the way the community decides it should work. Work with it and things flow amazingly well. Work against it and things become harder. That is the way of the Wikipedia world. Fiddle Faddle 08:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- I have requested assistance from WP:WikiProject Spaceflight. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I'm glad to see this issue has been raised at AfC Reviewer Help for discussion, but considering three experienced AfC reviewers have rejected the article and two very experienced editors have given patient advice at the Teahouse, can we really all be wrong?! Sionk (talk) 14:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- When an article drafter arrives at AFC with their mind already made up to take an adverserial approach to reviewers, the reviewers are entitled to refuse to review the submission. We don't get paid enough to have to tolerate the abuse. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- I admit to finding this editor adversarial and thus abusive. I seem to have ben called a vandal, something I find not to my taste. If he co-operates then I see no problem in continuing to review his article. He has stated at the Teahouse in the thread where he was also taken to task for removing prior reviews, though, that nothing is published about it. Thus it is not notable. Enough time has been wasted on this article. He should read WP:ACADEME to start to understand why WIkipedia and the world he may be used to are remarkably different. Fiddle Faddle 17:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I do not think it is of the author's making. Material is duplicated and reduplicated in the article and it seems to be as they submit the article.
Relatively often we see material duplicated around a review pending box, sufficiently often for me to wonder of something is broken in the submission mechanism. Fiddle Faddle 22:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'm fairly sure based on the sequence of edits by the author and the spacing in between some of them that it was the editor's doing that resulted in the duplication. I've noticed myself that "Show preview" has been acting funky the last couple days and I'm going to go out on a limb and say that since show preview probably didn't work, the author copied the content, afraid they were going to "loose" it, pasted it back in. Show preview still didn't work so they just hit save and hoped for the best. The show preview feature being intermittent should probably be brought up on VPT, but I'm just not up to it at the moment and due to the intermittent nature of it, I've no idea how to recreate it or explain it so any report wouldn't be all that helpful at this point. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 00:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not familiar with the NBA draft. Draft:Jordan_Clarkson looks to me to be a WP:TOOSOON. It is about a player who has "declared" for the NBA draft. Does this mean that he doesn't yet meet WP:NHOOPS as he has put himself forward but hasn't been selected yet? Rankersbo (talk) 08:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
A reviewer who can speak mathematics is needed for this one, please Fiddle Faddle 12:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- Ask at WT:WikiProject Mathematics. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- Done Fiddle Faddle 08:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Sports expert, please. Is this club acceptable? The article is not yet ready to accept, but a definitive comment there on its acceptability in macro terms would be useful to we reviewers not wise in the ways of this sport. Fiddle Faddle 11:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- Best ask the Football Wikiproject for an opinion. BTW I asked the submitter at the help desk to clearly indicate which of the two drafts they are working on so that the other can be removed, but so far have not had a response. Unfortunately it's an IP so chances are that a post to User Talk would be useless. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- Done (asked for help) Fiddle Faddle 08:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- Not notable. The agreed cut-off point for English football club notability is playing at level 10 of the football pyramid (the club in question plays at level 11), or having played in the FA Cup, FA Trophy or FA Vase (which this one hasn't). Number 57 09:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- Very many thanks. Fiddle Faddle 09:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Fails WikiProject notability. Would need to establish notability through the WP:GNG - this means sources! I cannot definitevly comment as I have not reviewed all sources pertaining to the club. Note, the The club website doesn't count, nor do press releases about results etc. Only reliable secondary sources I can find relate to one event (BBC, Metro) which is rather incidental and sensational coverage and doesn't really establish notability of the organisation. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 09:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- Very many thanks. Fiddle Faddle 09:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Looks like a good 50 drafts or more today are "Username/sandbox", more than we usually see. Did something change in the submission process which makes folks even less inclined to include a title?
Seriously, I've complained about this for over a year now, untitled articles sap reviewer time and make it harder to prioritize which articles to review for a given reviewer's expertise. I'd really like to see some mod in the coding to do a "your draft is not yet submitted, you must choose a title" step to put the onus back on the drafters. MatthewVanitas (talk) 07:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I have been standing so close to the OTRS process on this article that I am no longer uninvolved, despite having not actually even looked in any detail at the text or references. I will not review it again.
As far as I can tell the article is a verbatim copy of a report commissioned by the owner of the building. I have gleaned this from my talk page, the author's talk page and email correspondence. As such the article is a large tract of original research, except where verified by references.
Having said that it can be argued that this is an independent piece of research from a heritage specialist (whose pedigree is unknown to me), and is worthwhile material. Indeed, one could argue it is material that Wikipedia "should have".
I have now stopped my involvement in reviewing the article having submitted, myself, the OTRS request, by forwarding an email from the heritage specialist (to me) and a copy of her report. If and when the OTRS validation comes through I will add it to the draft. I have told the (Wikipedia) author that I will help him, but cannot review it further. He is new to the ways of WIkipedia. Please, if you are going to slay his firstborn child (oops, this draft) do it with kindness and thought for his feelings.
Since Wikipedia is a gazetteer and it is a significant building I see a strong argument for an article. I am simply unsure whether it ought to be this article, and my judgment on this topic is now flawed because I am involved. Fiddle Faddle 17:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- It is held pending OTRS permissions but otherwise looks "good enough" to promote. It needs cleanup for Wikipedia style/formatting, changing the tone from an academic tone to an encyclopedic tone, and possibly other issues that we can fix. The author needs to improve the references, many of which say nothing more than "Held by current owners of the Mansion House". That type of reference is fine for certain types of academic works but not for Wikipedia. This change can be done pre- or post-move. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I need help with getting Draft:Lynn Chadwick into mainspace. It is a far better article than the existing Lynn Chadwick mainspace page. Merging would be pointless because there is nothing worth keeping in the existing mainspace article that needs to be merged into the draft (except perhaps a few templates). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- The original article was created by Theroadislong years ago. Why didn't Chadwick01 contribute to the existing article? WP:G6 doesn't apply so the existing article would have to go to AfD to make room. I couldn't vote support in good conscience so I'd tell the author to contribute to the existing article. They could post on the talk page to warn about their pending wholesale rewrite and then paste it all in. Chris Troutman (talk) 09:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- We're not supposed to make newbie draft writers perform such technical complexities - that's what we're here for. I'll figure something out. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- It is plainly absolutely wrong to move an article from AfC because you like it more than the existing article, Lynn Chadwick. Incorporate any additional info into the existing article. One would suspect, from the user name, that the creator of the new article has a COI, so I don't see any reason for Roger (Dodger67)'s unilateral actions.
- Apologies, I meant to explain my revertion here, but had multiple windows open on my PC and forgot to save my comments on this thread! Sionk (talk) 11:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- What I was busy with until you came along and disrupted the process was to WP:MERGE the Draft and the existing article (to a new title with disambiguator) and then convert the undisambiguated page title into a disambiguation page for the three different articles with similar titles. It is not a simple "replace one article with another - just because I like it" - content from both pages is included in the new article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- I can't see any evidence of a "merge". An existing (basic but reasonable) article had an edit history going back 6 years. Blanking that article and (1) making it into a disambiguation page (which really isn't required) (2) moving an AfC draft to an inappropriately named duplicate article, is not a merger in any sense of the word. If there was any case for a merge you would merge the content of the new draft into the existing article, retaining the edit history. Sionk (talk) 11:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- @Sionk - How do we fix this? Do we delete the various redundant redirects/disambiguations etc. - restore the Draft to how it was before I moved it - and then do a Merge from scratch by moving content from the Draft to the 6-year-old existing article? Is a history merge required? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- Without wanting to sound facetious, I'd say revert everything you did earlier, including moving the new article back to Draft status. As Chris troutman says above, the new editor can expand the existing article (even if that more or less equates to pasting large parts of the new content over the existing article). There's no need for a disambiguation page (the third person listed there isn't called Lynn and has been nom'd for deletion anyway). Lynn Chadwick seems to be a major 20th century artist who would easily lay claim to the undisambiguated title. Sionk (talk) 17:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- Considering you agree a merger is a good idea in some form, I'm going to resurrect the pre-existing article and propose a merger from the new article to it. There may be a whiff of COI (and promotion of certain texts) but it would be a shame to lose some of the useful work the author has put into the new article. Sionk (talk) 21:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'd rather leave it to you as I don't have the tools to move over redirects, history merge, etc. Sorry about the tangle I made. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Can someone figure out why this sandbox is stuck in Category:Pending AfC submissions in userspace. The Draft page it redirects to has been declined so it's not pending either. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing it there now, but poke me if you still are. In general, if you see things like this, try purging the redirect in question. There are all sorts of complexities about categories instantiated by templates that play poorly with caching. Sometimes it's the Job queue, sometimes it's something deeper. --j⚛e deckertalk 13:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I can't work out why my page was rejected. I would like to understand so I can address any errors or issues. Please help. Thank you.
Annetteh1 (talk) 16:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hello, Annetteh1. The RootMetrics page seems to be in already in mainspace. Wikipedia can't have two articles about one topic. If you want to make changes, just go to the mainspace article and make them there (in a neutral way, with references to reliable sources, of course, and in your own words). —Anne Delong (talk) 17:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Anne, I just saw that the page is in the main space, although with comments at the top. I am going to try to work on those in the next few weeks. If you have any specific advice to address the first comment (in particular) - I would really appreciate it. Thanks.
17:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annetteh1 (talk • contribs)
- Well there does seem to be some "adspeak". Words like "insight" - do you mean information and analysis? and "consumer experience" - obviously the company doesn't record my joy or sorrow, so say what it really does record specifically rather than using buzzwords. And so on. Hmm... having given advice, can I now label myself a "thought leader"? —Anne Delong (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
A user has privately asked me to review their draft for an article about Paul Pacifico. The draft is located at User:Musicfanlondon/paulpacifico. The article has been created before, AfDed, and deleted for notability concerns (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Pacifico). To the creator's benefit, the AfD was over a year ago and not very many people commented on it. The draft that the user created contains a fair share of primary sources (which contribute only weakly to notability) and secondary sources (but most only mention a quote by Pacifico). I'd like a second opinion on the way forward here. A small part of me can see an argument for notability. In addition to the AllStars, Pacifico is the financial director of Featured Artists' Coalition, a position he earned after the AfD and has garnered some coverage within 2014 (MusicWeek The Independent BBC). Per WP:BASIC, if the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. Thoughts? Mz7 (talk) 17:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- This does not look promising. I bring up all the sources browser tabs and search each for Pacifico. More than half of them can be eliminated for not mentioning the subject (they may be a fine reference for establishing a fact in the article but the don't help establish notability of the subject). There's a bunch more you can eliminate as not being reliable either because they're an all-inclusive database (no editorial control) or they're not independent (e.g. written by the subject). What you're left with in this case is a few articles where Paul Pacifico is quoted talking about one of his projects. This may help establish notability for the projects he's talking about but it does not do much to establish notability for Paul Pacifico. ~KvnG 18:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- You could always be aggressive ;) and go with the "accept it at AfC if it stands a 50% chance of surviving AfD". The previous AfD seems a bit irrelevant now that rock solid sources like BBC (not their Newsbeat drivel section) and the Independent consider the subject to be an important expert talking about some topic or other that they find especially newsworthy. On the flip side of course, he is basically just rent-a-quote in both items so it doesn't prove notability. The MusicWeek thing is of even less value; it's saying some event is happening, with a blurb. So, why not put it into mainspace and await (or if you prefer, initiate) the 2nd AfD, without caring which way it goes. Personally, I wouldn't even bother !voting - notability not proven by sources supplied, but I don't have time to search in depth for more. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- user:Demiurge1000 seems to have the same take on the sources and notability as I. It would have a 50% chance of surviving AfD if it had two marginal sources. Our assessment is that all the sources are south of marginal. It is not appropriate to speculatively accept such a weak submission. ~KvnG 20:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you both. Mz7 (talk) 00:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
The draft Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nelly Kaplan was sent to MFD, where the discussion has closed as Merge into Nelly Kaplan. The closing admin has asked me to do the deed but unfortunately the last time I tried to do such a merge I messed up rather badly so I'm passing the buck on to whoever will accept the task. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- Anyone? Please. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- I'll put it on my list but probably won't get to it for some number of months. ~KvnG 15:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- Done I've had a go at it, but have no idea how to flag the source draft as having been merged. All the information is now in the target article. Fiddle Faddle 13:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- I finished it up. Thanks! —Anne Delong (talk) 21:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I appear to have lost this discussion with user:czarkoff. AfC submissions generally come from editors with limited experience who are unlikely to be able to meet these high standards. Seems like the only way for a flawed article on a notable topic to see the light of day is for an AfC reviewer to make the necessary improvements. Is this how AfC is intended to work? ~KvnG 04:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- Not exactly. The problem with that draft is that there aren't many independent sources about the subject. Journalists just don't write about dbf file format, despite how ubiquitous those files are. If you were trying to write an article about vegetable peelers you'd run into the same problem. Everyone has one, nobody feels a need to write about it. Previous declines of this draft aren't misguided in that they are correctly evaluating the criteria. It's not a reflection on you or Czarkoff that the draft has floundered. I'm curious why you bothered to send a draft through AfC when you don't have to. I don't see anyone nominating this article for deletion though AfC hesitates to accept it.
- Often the flawed drafts brought to AfC by editors with limited experience has more to do with non-notable subjects than with lackluster editing. AfC's standards are meant to protect the quality of the project not to frustrate editors. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- @Chris troutman: I strongly support KvnG's move – I myself mostly drag my articles through AfC just to make sure that I don't misjudge subject's notability and WP:NOT conformance.
- @Kvng: Normally I fix all problems that can be fixed with editing in articles I pass. In this case I did not do so, because I don't see how this draft can be accepted. It is overly detailed in technicalities, and lacks encyclopedic core. I don't see any reason why the format needs to have a separate article. Furthermore, we already have the format covered in Dbase § File formats, and the coverage may be improved there with higher community involvement level.
- In fact, I think that possibility of creating article via WP:SPLIT itself should be one of quick fail criteria for AfC reviewing process. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 10:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, this is not my draft. I am an active AfC reviewer but I haven't ever used AfC to create an article. I don't remember how I initially got involved with this submission.
- @Chris troutman: the news is not the only source of reliable citations. There were a lot of independent books and technical articles written about dBASE back in the day and many of them covered the .dbf format in detail. There are technical writers and technical journalists that cover this stuff. That's how we have articles on all kinds of file formats.
- I think the refs in the draft are adequate to demonstrate significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. user:czarkoff initially told the author of this draft that it did not have a "snowball's chance in hell" of surviving AfD. I spend time just about every week on technical topics at AfD and I strongly disagree.
- We need to get on the same page about this because the primary acceptance criteria for AfC submissions is that they be "likely to survive AfD." Likely is generally interpreted to mean greater than 50% chance. ~KvnG 14:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- We already had this discussion at draft talk:.dbf: there is only one reliable independent source there, which is definitely less then "multiple", even if latter is taken for synonym of "two". And even then this draft has a long way to pass WP:NOTMANUAL. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- OK, sorry if I was looping. Since I'm confident this will survive AfD, I'll improve this a bit, bypass AfC and move this to mainspace when I get a chance. ~KvnG 14:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Given the "stalemate" about notability, and the very long time it's been here at AFC I think it may be acceptable to kick this chick out of the Draft-space nest and let it take it's chances out in the wilds of Main-space. If it gets deleted at AFD, so be it, but I have a feeling it might actually survive in some form or another - even if merged into another article. It could even serve as a "source" for improving the currently almost unreferenced DBase#File formats section. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I am useless with Wikitables. I'm not that good with graphic design either. This draft has substantial potential but looks awful. I have no idea how to suggest a better layout to the author, but know for sure it needs one. Ok, the first priority is good referencing, but it looks, smells, and feels notable. Is anyone able to help out with layout or layout suggestions, please, so that, with good referencing added, it is pretty much going to sail through? Fiddle Faddle 13:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- There are two separate article drafts on that page - they need to be split. Then we can look at layout solutions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- The editor added the upper after I criticised the lower. I think any guidance at this stage will help the draft move forward. Care to have a go, twin styles notwithstanding? Fiddle Faddle 18:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not at all sure if a cut-and-paste split would be acceptable so I'd rather an admin with the necessary tools to preserve the edit history did the split. As far as editing/formatting such large tables are concerned please don't look at me - I copy other people's tables and then modify them, so I'm not even close to being even a wannabe table wizard! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- I suspect a split isn;t needed. I think it's an old version of the same article.
- I copy other tables too! Fiddle Faddle 11:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- The top format is definitely superior to the lower one. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed. But can it be better still? Are you able to engage with the author and guide him, by any chance? He wants to get thsi right and knowns it is a long process. The references are a further large obstacle. Fiddle Faddle 12:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Why are we spending time on formatting and design in AfC? If you believe the raw content satisfies AfC requirements, the article should be approved. You can add a tag or a note on the talk page requesting help from other editors with tables and layout. The article is much more likely to get that sort of attention in namespace than it is in draft. ~KvnG 20:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Because I deem it likely that the poor formatting, content notwithstanding, will get it nominated for deletion successfully, and our role is to guide folk beyond that hurdle. Fiddle Faddle 21:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- There are still two entirely distinct articles about two different tv documentary series on that page. One is History of Warfare and the other is History's Turning Points the draft page absolutely must be split before either article can be accepted into mainspace. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Evaluating formatting or even organization is not an AfC reviewer's job. Bad formatting (or organization) is clearly not a valid reason support deletion at AfD. There is no hurdle to get over here. It is fine for a reviewer to take the initiative to improve formatting or tag issues before approving. I don't think it is appropriate for a reviewer to withhold approval waiting for the author to improve formatting. ~KvnG 02:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- Problem - Draft:History's Turning Points already exists as a redirect to Draft:History of Warfare so it will require admin tools to separate the two drafts onto their own pages. As soon as that is done both can be accepted into mainspace. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- I have just done the split and submitted Draft:History's Turning Points on behalf of User:Privatesteverogers then I immediately declined it as unsourced. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I reviewed Draft:G.R._Kare_College_of_Law some time ago but recently the author of the article wrote to me on my talk page asking that I elaborate on how she could improve her article. I honestly could not remember the article, and had not looked at it since my original review but her request prompted me to go to the page again. Once I went to look at the page I noticed that the previous review I'd left had been deleted from the page. I was just curious if I should revert that removal or if removing previous declined submission templates is ok. Thanks. David Condrey (talk) 08:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Hi David Condrey. There's been a pretty strong consensus in the past that previous declines should be left on the page as long as the article was going through the AfC process. If the editor is still making improvements she likely will submit again, and the submit button is in the decline template. However, if you do replace them, it's a good idea to explain why on her talk page to avoid a possible edit war. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, they should stay to help other reviewers. If an article has been previously declined, I want to know when why and what improvements have been made to the submission following each decline. An edit war doesn't start until the second revert so I usually just undo the deletion and explain why in the edit summary (e.g. "Please retain review history until final approval"). ~KvnG 16:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the tip. I've gone ahead and made the revert using the message recommended by User:Kvng. Thanks. David Condrey (talk) 20:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I started getting involved in this wikiproject but have been reluctant because every time I start doing some reviews it seems that the vast majority of articles are blatant self-promotion and it's just not interesting. Does anybody else share similar opinion? I'm tempted to suggest that Wikimedia create an entire new Wiki site like WikiDirectory and try to push all of these self promotional articles to that wiki rather than the constant influx of people trying to post self-promotional articles here. David Condrey (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Don't be discouraged. Amongst the manure is a wonderfully rich seam of potentially great material. I do wonder why we "allow" COI stuff to go forward, but, since we do, I simply critique it to seek to achieve very high standards. I wish the quality in general were higher, but some of it is truly excellent. Please lose the reluctance, David Condrey. If you go to the oldest submissions the quality is much better, but they are harder to review. Remember, for every one draft you review the backlog is lowered by one. We need that right now, and, ideally, in the oldest submissions first. Come and enhoy doing a job with no end and no thanks. It's fun! Fiddle Faddle 20:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, this project would be a lot more fun for me if there weren't so many submission about marginally notable people and companies. You're welcome to scan titles or search and review only stuff that looks interesting to you. Also if you review older submissions, you may find more mature material that's ready to be accepted. ~KvnG 16:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Feel like doing a cleanup/rewrite? Here are two articles that could use a good edit -- they've been bounced back to creators multiple times and notability is ok on both, just needs some content review.
Both music related, in very different areas. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 14:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- @Jodi.a.schneider: If they pass our notability criteria, something I trust your judgement on, why not accept them and let the community enhance them? I find music related articles to be outside my current competence, or I'd take a look myself. Fiddle Faddle 14:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- @Timtrent: It's a reasonable question, but they're promotional in subtle ways that disturb me & I don't want to go unnoticed in mainspace... Somebody else could certainly approve them but I'm not willing to, in their current state, at this moment. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 15:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- I have accepted these. Cleanup contributions still welcome, of course. ~KvnG 15:44, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I am a witness to a large map of the united states that was an original copy from the year 1852. This map could be described as a political map designating the towns and cities primarily east of the Mississippi as well as an extremely detailed map of not only tribal nations commonly known today but many distinct bands of human beings forgotten in the pages of history. unfortunately this map was destroyed in a fire. since then I have wondered if there could be any where another print or original of its kind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.163.197.187 (talk) 23:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- I think there must be a better forum to post this at on Wikipedia. Does anyone have any ideas to help our new friend 98? Fiddle Faddle 15:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- The Wikipedia:Reference desk can probably help. ~KvnG 15:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I am all at sea with this one. I can't either accept or decline it. I;ve left some comments on it, but it needs someone wise in the topic to be the arbiter of acceptance or not. Fiddle Faddle 19:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 Declined Rank political posturing. Senators write a bill that hasn't yet been passed, let alone signed. Partisans label bill with "Employer Tax Carve Out" and the politburo writes a Wikipedia article to sell the concept? Easy fail. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. You seem to have local knowledge that I do not have. I was only looking at it from article quality because that is all the perspective I have. Fiddle Faddle 21:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
The script loads a black "Loading banner" but the rest does not follow. Articles are Draft:Cytokine-induced killer cells and Draft:GOQii. Each of these has no submission date, which may be the problem. Fiddle Faddle 21:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I recently reviewed Draft:Cancer Society of New Zealand and the review text isn't showing up as I expected. Waht have I done wrong? Stuartyeates (talk) 01:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Fixed it. Did you use the script or do a manual decline. There needed to be a 3= in front of the comment. If the script left it out that is bad news. Rankersbo (talk) 13:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I am a new Articles for Creation reviewer. When reviewing and accepting Salvatore Stabile, using AfC Helper Script, I forgot to tick the "Biography" box. Does this mean the process was incomplete and needs attention?
Does anyone want to look at other articles I have reviewed to ensure that I have been doing things right? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- The process was completed but didn't have some of the extra behind-the-scenes data usually attached to biographies. But, it looks like Waacstats added that 12 November. ~KvnG 13:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I see lots of articles with the company name in the lead made into a link to the website of the company. This seems a bit too common for so many people tom come up with the same idea. Is it just more obious than I think or is there something somewhere telling people that this is the thing to do. Rankersbo (talk) 09:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know where they're getting this idea. It is something that can be fixed once the article is in mainspace. ~KvnG 13:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to accept this draft but the script says it is create protected and I need to request unprotection. I'm not sure where to request unprotection. ~KvnG 14:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi! Just came back to help out on this backlog, after taking a hiatus for several months. I just declined an article: Draft:Mark Labberton. It was the first time I declined an article for copyright violations. I used Earwig's copyvio detector, and it came up 66.5% positive. When I looked at the samples, it indeed looked like large sections had been cut and paste. Can someone review what I did and make sure I did it correctly and let me know? Thanks, I appreciate the direction. Onel5969 (talk) 23:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
This draft looks promising. Unfortunately all of the refs are offline and I don't have access. I've done some online searches to try and assess credibility and I've found nothing really. Any suggestions? ~KvnG 15:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
|
