Hello and thank you for helping me with this article for submission. I fixed all the cites and references which were the only things I was told were issues for the article to be approved. Today, someone else said it sounds like an advertisement. So, I removed anything that may lead anyone to think that. Please take a look at the submission and tell me what to do. I've worked very hard at this page and want to get it accepted. I need to know what exactly to do to to satisfy the review board. Thank you, 301man (talk) 00:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've given some advice at my talk page. Huon (talk) 01:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have added citations to http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/SpaceTEC_National_Resource_Center_for_Aerospace_Technical_Education in response to an issue with notability. How do I notify those who filed the declination of the article? AMKJR 01:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The draft is already submitted for another review. However, most of your sources are primary sources, not third-party sources such as articles in newspapers or reputable trade magazines. Press releases are not considered reliable. Huon (talk) 03:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you help me to clear the submission up. You keep refusing because of references. Please can you clarify if its the way the reference are displayed and written or if the reference are not good enough. We have provided proof that he has won all the titles and he holds the records and am confused at the present time with what is exactly wrong with the page.

You also keep refering to the image but i have removed all images from the page to ensure this does not get refused again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Benchpressking (talk • contribs)

The last message about an image was on your talkpage in April this year. That relates to the image (now deleted), and is nothing to do with this article submission.

The article submission currently has a great many problems. However, what it's been rejected for so far is for failing to meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Inline citation which says that "Contentious material, whether negative, positive, or neutral, about living persons" must have an inline citation. I would say that claims like "Regarded by many as the best pound for pound Bench Presser the country has ever produced, Mike claimed nine World Titles" are contentious. You can read about how to add inline citations at Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners.

Another problem you have is that phrasing like 'With gritty "Eye of the Tiger" determination, Mike proved his mettle and bounced back following a period of gruelling rehabilitation and physio. The Bench Press King was back' is not neutral and encyclopedic.

A third problem you have is that of the references you have provided, some of them are not independent of Mike Joseph, and the rest do not appear to provide significant coverage of him.

The good news? If everything listed about his career achievements is true, he's probably notable enough for there to be a Wikipedia article about him.

You may also wish to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia, I'm not disputing your decision to decline the article on Paul Ygartua. However, at this time, it may not be possible to provide any more reliable sources for this article as it stands. The books and websites provided are, I believe, the most informative and accurate on the details they support. However, before we drop it, if you believe there is some way of editing the article down that will allow it to be accepted please supply a short example. Sincerely, Paintedbike Paintedbike (talk) 08:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the article already is too short on information, not too long. Most of it is merely a list of works. There's nothing on his style or the critical reception. Huon (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's very helpful. Thank you. Paintedbike Paintedbike (talk) 15:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Unfortunately my submission of Automatic Systems article has been rejected because of references problems. Actually, my references are extracted from newspapers, specialist magazines and objective articles. When I decided to create this article, I used the wikipedia article KABA GROUP, which is a company operating in the same sector than Automatic Systems, as a model to make sure I won't make any mistake. Then, what am I supposed to change if I want to publish my article? Thank you for your help

Press releases from their collaborators are not reliable sources, especially not for such claims as "aknowledged as the world leader in secure entrance lanes and speedgates" (also, the link is broken and gives a 404 error). The Security Specifiers article was obviously written by Automated Systems themselves ("At Automatic Systems, we know..."). Bolloré is their owner. Those obviously are not independent sources. The "Key figueres" and "History" sections are mostly unsourced.

Not every other Wikipedia article out there is a good example to follow. You may want to have a look at our Good articles for how an article should look. Huon (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I'd like to know what I need to improve on/fix in order for my article to be published. Thank you.

Miss Pappas (talk) 09:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need much better sources. Many of your current ones are blogs, which are not considered reliable. Are there any articles in major newspapers about this company? Huon (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, We have submitted an article for Praj Industries. It was earlier rejected in February because the language used was thought to be marketing oriented. We have since made changes to the content and resubmitted the same, but now we are getting a message that This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. The references we have used include reputed publications such as Crisil, Forbes and Outlook India. Please let me know how we should go about getting the article accepted. One section I think may be causing an issue is Awards and Recognition. We can remove this altogether if it helps the article submission. I have also written to the reviewer, SL93, but haven't heard back from him, yet.

Jagdisha (talk) 10:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most of your sections don't cite any sources at all, including the "history" and "business divisions" sections. Where does that content come from? And many of your sources are primary sources such as the Praj Foundation's own website on their philanthropy. I've told you so before. Huon (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have since added more sources for the content, but now we have a new rejection message saying that the article reads like an advertisement. If you could help me with any one sentence with regards to how it should read to get accepted, I will then rewrite the whole article in a similar tone. Your help would be greatly appreciated.

Jagdisha (talk) 14:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is much better, but two of your most heavily-used sources are Praj Industry's director report and a press release, sources written by Praj itself. The "awards" section is almost exclusively based on primary sources such as the websites of the organizations bestowing those awards - it would be much more impressive if others had taken note of those awards - say, newspaper articles.

The draft is also rather full of buzzwords. For example, unless they are consultants or chemists, they don't sell "solutions". And what's the difference between "Praj manufactures equipment" and "Praj supplies equipment manufacturing services", except wordiness? Huon (talk) 01:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When I first submitted the article it was declined because of the tone. I tried to fix it and deleted all the information that made it sound like a "marketing brochure". However, the reviewer stated:" The good news is that your submission does seem to have a wide range of independent reliable sources, so proving notability of the organisation should not be a problem. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)" And now, after being submitted for the second time it's declined again, and this reviewer stated: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified." Can you please tell me what should I change in order to make it proper for Wikipedia, because I find the arguments contradictory. Thanks. (Ruzhica (talk) 12:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you for your patience and perseverance. This seems to be an error on the part of the most recent reviewer, because I simply cannot imagine how the Indiana Gazette, Syracuse Herald Journal, Santa Fe New Mexican, Madison Wisconsin State Journal, Kerrville Daily Times, Newsweek Magazine, and Chicago Tribune, are somehow all unreliable sources. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think, though, that you have yet achieved a neutral encyclopedic tone. Encyclopedia articles do not address the reader in the second person ("you" and "your"). Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Arthur goes shopping, can you please review my article, because I did everything you suggested and yet the reviewer Techatology keeps declining it for unreliable sources. Thanks, (Ruzhica (talk) 13:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Some of it is still written in the second person. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I declined this on June 6. The author recently posted on my talk page asking for another review. My concern last month was that the topic covered here is is too close to existing articles to warrant creating a brand new article.

I'm tied up this week and can't give a proper re-review. I and I'm sure the author would be grateful if someone else, preferably someone with some subject-matter knowledge, would re-review it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-submitted the draft, which should see it re-reviewed shortly. However, at a glance I fully agree with your assessment: The article can't decide what it's supposed to be about, and it's redundant to existing articles anyway. Huon (talk) 15:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, The article was recently rejected. I placed a note on the reviewer's talk-page but didn't receive a reply. Can anyone elaborate on what needs to be improved in this article. The reason given was that this article sounds like an essay, but WP:NOTESSAY talks about original research. This article isn't original research or a personal essay. It only presents what is given in the source. Any help in improving this article would be much appreciated. Thanks, Rahul Jain (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd call it a content fork from our main Jainism and Hinduism articles. If specific aspects of Jainism have been influenced by Hinduism, that should probably be explained in the main Jainism article. Huon (talk) 23:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But we have articles such as Buddhism and Jainism, Buddhism and Hinduism‎, Hinduism and Sikhism, Islam and Jainism etc. Can't the article "Jainism and Hinduism" created on the same lines? Rahul Jain (talk) 03:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It can, but even while many of those drafts are tagged for problems of various kinds, the draft is not up to their standards. There's next to no information on the historical interaction between the religions. Almost all of your content is from a single source, and your summary of that source has lost much in terms of clarity. If you want to write an article on this topic, you should find more sources, and you should clearly separate it into sections on the historical relations and the comparative theology. The article currently is written almost entirely from a Jainist perspective, not surprising when the sources are Jainism, The Jaina Path Of Purification and The Jains. Are there no works on comparative religion that explicitly set out to compare the two? Huon (talk) 01:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I created an article on architect John Vinci. It says it is not yet submitted for review. I did press Save and thought it was submitted. The edit page says to submit when ready, and I am ready, but can't figure out how to actually get it in the queue for review.

Please advise.

Thank you!

Suehax

Suehax (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had submitted the draft for you but it was already declined due to insufficient sources. Your lone reference is a recording of Vinci's personal account; that's not an independent source. Once you have added better sources you can re-submit it via the blue "Resubmit" button in the "Submission declined" message box. Huon (talk) 23:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to make edits and re-submit the following: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Richard Alba

I have tried to re-submit it twice but nothing happens and then the changes are lost. I would appreciate any guidance. Thanks very much.

Marthawking (talk) 18:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)Martha King[reply]

I'm not sure I see the problem. The draft is correctly submitted for review. What changes are lost? Did you make sure to save your edits before submitting the draft? Huon (talk) 23:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My question pertains to the most recent rejection of my article. I am not sure on how to proceed so it is time to ask for help. Thank you in advance.

Submission declined on 6 July 2013 by Nathan2055 (talk). This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject. Declined by Nathan2055 2 days ago. Last edited by Nathan2055 2 days ago. Reviewer: Inform author.

cflint1634Cflint1634 (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That draft is very short on sources, and the given sources don't say what they're cited for. For example, the source for the "early life" section doesn't discuss Flint's high school at all. So that information is not verifiable. Nathan2055's review also expresses concerns whether Flint is notable enough for an encyclopedia article in the first place. That too could be resolved by adding more reliable sources. Huon (talk) 23:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HI,

While I understand the comments of the reviewer about my article, I am perplexed as to why someone who is mentioned on a number of wikipedia pages (eg http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Coast_(TV_series) or http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Nickelodeon_(UK_and_Ireland)#Former_presenters) doesn't warrant a page, where as many of the other people mentioned in the same context (e.g. James Gilbey -http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/James_Gilbey or http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Paul_Barnett_(producer) both merit a page while both have fewer external references).

It's obvious that people who work behind the scenes on TV get fewer reviews than those who are in front of the screen, yet their work is no less important to the work created.

With reference to shows like Coast (which transformed the broadcasting landscape in the UK) it seems that the people who set the style, wrote the script and created the format should be recognised by wikipedia.

I'll do my best to find some more articles about Oliver Clark, but in the mean time, it would be great if you could re-consider the decision in light of the clear inconsistencies in the decisions regarding inclusion.

Kind regards

Angela.

Other insufficiently sourced articles may exist, but that's no excuse to create more - each submission must stand on its own merits. Almost all your sources are press releases; those are not considered reliable. Huon (talk) 23:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why press releases from the BBC (i assume you've heard of them) are treated the same as those by a two bit self-promoter. Also is it not odd that someone mentioned in Wikipedia is not considered notable enough to be included in Wikipedia.

Yes, we've heard of the BBC. Many of us, myself included, are British. Anyway, press releases are not considered independent of the subject, so they're not good references. Where the press release is hosted (such as on the BBC website) does not affect this. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 10:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - I understand that, however as you may understand people behind the camera contribute significantly to the outcome of any given work, yet often receive no credit for the work they do (other than in credits or press-releases). That doesn't speak to their notability, just to the particular predilection of newspaper and magazine editors. The fact that the output of such people alone is not enough to afford them notability is testament to the fallibility of wikipedia, and is a weakness not a strength. Surely if a television programme (eg Coast) is notable enough to appear on wikipedia, then the people who created it should also be notable enough, after all the show is merely an expression of their creativity, and could not have existed without them.

Given that it is a matter of public record (as recorded in newspapers, on the BBC website and in wikipedia!) that Oliver Clark was the director of the first (and three subsequent) episodes of Coast, can you let me know exactly what it is that I have to write to convince you of his notability?

On Wikipedia, the general notability guideline is defined by whether third-party reliable sources have discussed the subject in-depth. So, actually, it does speak to their notability if they've never been discussed. Since you appear to have quite a few misconceptions about the way that Wikipedia works, I suggest you read WP:N. Once you've done that, someone else can answer any questions you may have. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 18:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: The fact that the output of such people alone is not enough to afford them notability is testament to the fallibility of wikipedia - this is not a failing of Wikipedia, this is a "failing" of media and academia in general, if you so wish to label it. If news media, trade journals, academic writers, etc. did more writeups on behind-the-scenes technicians, then Wikipedia would reflect that coverage. As a WP:tertiary source, Wikipedia cannot "reflect" coverage which does not yet exist, no matter how much one believes that in a just world such coverage would exist. Get media or academics to cover more media technicians, and we will undoubtedly be able to have more articles about them. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The end result of all this is that wikipedia becomes the world as viewed by Journalists. It's a strange definition of an encyclopaedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badangela (talk • contribs) 10:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that's the real world for you. The population at large decide that certain topics are more important than others and Wikipedia has to reflect that. It can't dictate trends, it just responds to them. That's why My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic fandom is a well cited article, while Major William Caulfeild is a stub tagged as requiring attention for four years. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

may have been a cookie issue but I'm not sure. Symptoms are, unlike promised, I'm still getting the "not submitted for review" box on the proposed article.

Pretty big fuss about a single (albeit necessary) redirect, though.

Repeat rationale: The current state of WP induces lack of clarity as aviation language generally uses "bank turn" (as seen in all aviation related articles) while (as to date) WP is only having "banked turn" and not resolving (redirecting) it to "banked turn".

Hence,

#REDIRECT "Banked Turn" 

is my proposed article content for "Bank Turn".

TIA for processing this, 217.81.177.111 (talk) 22:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The presence of "not submitted for review" where it shouldn't be, is normally a bug, and can be ignored if a "submitted for review" box also appears. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really create Redirects for simple typos? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not completely understand the policies regarding redirects, but it is my understanding that they can be created for things like this, where it is thought to be common that people might enter the other text as a search query. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have a dedicated sub-project for redirect requests, WP:AFC/R. However, the fact that the article's claim that "bank turn" is a common alternative name is tagged as needing a citation doesn't inspire confidence. Huon (talk) 01:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]