Hi.

Re: Review of Wikipedia:Articles for creation/iNANiMATE OBjECTS

Has this been declined again (as at 07.12.12)?

Or is it still waiting review?

If it has been declined, I'm having trouble finding any information as to why it has been declined.

Thanks You.

Don

(Donpercy (talk) 04:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]

You never resubmitted it. The decline template gives instructions on how to do that, when you are ready. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OH! SO I haven't resubmitted it since 27 of November (despite thinking I had....?)

Is that correct?

(Thanks, Don)

(Donpercy (talk) 04:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Review of Wikipedia:Articles for creation/iNANiMATE OBjECTS

Hi.

Re: Review of Wikipedia:Articles for creation/iNANiMATE OBjECTS

Has this been declined again (as at 07.12.12)?

Or is it still waiting review?

If it has been declined, I'm having trouble finding any information as to why it has been declined.

Thanks You.

Don

(Donpercy (talk) 04:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC))

   You never resubmitted it. The decline template gives instructions on how to do that, when you are ready. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC) 

Oh, actually, my mistake. You have resubmitted it (I didn't notice the new submission banners below your article). It simply hasn't been gotten to yet as the backlog on reviewing submissions stretches back just over two weeks. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC) Don[reply]

(Donpercy (talk) 04:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]

RE: Review of Wikipedia:Articles for creation/iNANiMATE OBjECTS

Hi

I'm pretty sure that I've resubmitted this now.

(...by entering the 'click here' in the box that reads: "You are encouraged to make improvements by clicking on the "Edit" tab at the top of this page. When you are ready to resubmit, click here.")

Can you please confirm that this page has been resubmitted today?

Thanks.

Don

(Donpercy (talk) 05:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]

As Someguy1221 said above, you did coorectly resubmit the draft, but there's currently a massive backlog of almost 1,600 unreviewed submissions, and it may take some time until it gets reviewed again. Please be patient.

However, at a glance the draft still seems to be heavily based on primary sources: The Foster Film Festival website on the Foster Film Festival, the World of Comedy Film Festival website on the World of Comedy Film Festival, and so on. Wikipedia content should be based on secondary sources such as newspaper articles. Huon (talk) 11:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having made the page I have box on the top that says "Article not currently submitted for review" and a box at the bottom that says "This submission is waiting to be reviewed". Which is it??? http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Arthur_F_Hebard

70.185.123.13 (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is submitted for review, the "not currently submitted" message is a relic that should be removed by a bot. Since the bot sometimes is a little slow, I have removed it for you.

However, the article currently only cites primary sources: One of Hebard's own papers and his university website. Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper articles or independent reviews of his work published in scholarly journals. Basically, we don't need the paper where Hebard published his important discovery so much as someone else crediting him with the discovery. Furthermore, major parts of the draft's content aren't supported by any sources at all. For example, neither source mentions the James C. McGroddy Prize for New Materials or Hebard's ten patents. Thus, the draft would probably currently fail a review because its content is not verifiable from the given sources. Huon (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]