Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/PSM International I do not understand why I cannot submit my article. I continue to save my article and then the next screen says is it NOT ready for submission. Please help me with this problem. Jacobdemand (talk) 01:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You did submit the article, but you had a typo in your </ref> tags which led to almost all of the article being interpreted as one large footnote and thus not being displayed properly. I've fixed that; the draft is now submitted for review. However, I doubt the sources suffice to establish that this company is notable. That website looks like a company selling PSM International's products, not quite the kind of reliable independent source Wikipedia content should be based on. Huon (talk) 04:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have been trying to get the article on Aniruddha Knight published on Wikipedia. Based on the review feedback, I have been able to include the required references and inline citations - the last edit was on April 29. However, the final edited piece appears to be still pending review, with no comments, if any, on the changes made. Any help getting the article published is much appreciated.Anita Nandini (talk) 02:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The draft hadn't been resubmitted; I have now done so. I've also tidied up the references; see WP:Referencing for beginners on how to easily add nicely-formatted footnotes. However, the draft's tone still is rather promotional; for example, "young Aniruddha’s childhood was an endless round of dancing" is flowery prose that conveys no relevant information - certainly none that's not redundant to the next sentence. Huon (talk) 04:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ntu129 (talk) 05:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)Ntu129:- it is submitted that i was trying to create article on cow protection in India.https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Cow_Protection_in_India.Upon submission of this article , i was told that a article titled cow protection moment is already existing http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Cow_protection_movement. But there are following issues that this article addreses:- -part ofHindu politics. there are several such categories.[reply]

i want to create an article for cow protection in India. this will INCLUDE the article ofcow protection movement within sub heading. or a separate article for cow protection in in(region wise or religion wise) can be created. please check me in case i am wrong. Ntu129 (talk) 05:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)Ntu 129.[reply]

I suggest that you WP:MOVE the existing article Cow protection movement to a new title Cow protection and then retain all of the existing information about the movement, under a sub-heading, but also add other sub-headings under which you would put information about other aspects of cow protection. This is likely to be an uncontroversial move because it is a relatively little known topic.

I must declare a conflict of interest here due to the existence of Beef Wellington (please do not click that link if you do not approve of images of parts of cows in food products), but regardless of that, this is a worthy topic for improvement and I wish you all the best in your efforts. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Nielsmorling/International Society for Forensic Genetics.

The information concerns a non-profit scientific society. Could you please give a short explanation of why the information is considered advertisement and what should be excluded? It would also be helpful if you could point to a description in Wikipedia of another scientific society that you find acceptable.

Best wishes,

Niels Morling, MD DMSc Professor of Forensic Genetics Director and chairman of the Department of Forensic Medicine Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen 11 Frederik V's Vej, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark Tel: +45 35 32 61 15; Fax: +45 35 32 62 70 E-mail: niels.morling@sund.ku.dk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nielsmorling (talk • contribs) 07:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main problem is that your submission does not contain any references independent of the society at all.

Here are two other entries on Wikipedia about scientific societies, both of them rated as Good Articles: Royal Society and International Association for Plant Taxonomy. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 15:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rutan & Tucker This article has been updated and re-submitted for about 10 days. Can you tell me if changes are made and it's re-submitted, does it move down on the list. The first two times it went for review, response was received quickly. I know there is a backlog but want to make sure that I did re-submit this properly. Thank you. Bilder4u (talk) 07:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)Bilder4u[reply]

You can make changes without needing to re-submit it again; the reviewer will review it in the condition it's in when they get to it.

Most of us don't review in any particular order, so there is no particular advantage or disadvantage in being in any particular position on "the list" anyway. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We do however give priority to the oldest submissions. Only the date it was submitted determines it's position in the queue so you are welcome to continue editing. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daphne Wright

I have some questions with reference to the above article which I created and have been subsequently editing according to some of the issues that have been raised surrounding the article. Although I feel I have made quite significant changes to the article, the article is still tagged with quite a few problems and I would like to know how I can improve the article further.

- I have added what I thought would be a suitable lead but the article is still tagged as not having a lead, could somebody please indicate what I may need to edit in order to ensure that I have created a suitable lead?

- I have tried to make the article as neutral as possible, however the article is still tagged as possibly promoting the subject and that there could be a dispute with regards to its neutrality. Could somebody please indicate the specific parts of the article that may need editing, and whether the problem is to do with the content or language or both?

- How can I prevent this article from being an orphan. I cannot seem to find another Wikipedia article that mentions the subject that the article is about, if this is the case is there another way that I can rectify the problem of the article being an orphan?

Thank you very much for your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frithstreet (talk • contribs) 15:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Such notices don't remove themselves. I have gotten rid of the obviously resolved "missing lead" template, but for the "neutrality" and "promotion" templates it may be better to ask the person who added them to take a look; you can reach her at User talk:SarahStierch. I'd say that we shouldn't use Wright's biographical statement to describe her work, but some third-party sources such as art critics. Also, we should get rid of those external links to gallery websites which don't discuss Wright at all, and turn the others either into references (if they are reliable third-party sources or are just used for uncontroversial, non-promotional details such as, say, her birthdate) or external links; external links should not be in the article text proper. See WP:EL and especially WP:ELNO. If no third-party sources report on those exhibitions, they're probably not all that significant anyway.

The "orphan" issue is more difficult; maybe Wright's hometown article has a "notable residents" section where she could be added? If we have articles on the awards she has won, there might be a list of winners, but I don't think we do. Other than that I currently doh't have an idea of how to resolve this, and I'd just leave the tag. Huon (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

An article I've prepared for submission has one comment, referring to several sources within the article:

"Wikipedia cannot be used as a source. Wikfr (talk) 00:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)"

This makes some sense, given the malleable nature of wikipedia articles, but I thought I'd ask - is this absolutely true?

Best, Alessandra Alessandra Ghini (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The more complete phrasing is "Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source". And you need reliable sources to support the facts in your article. You can, of course, wikilink to other Wikipedia articles within your article submission. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 15:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am just a bit confused as to why this article got declined. The reasoning was that the article did not show clear subject's notability, however when i previously tried to create this post the reason was that there was not an article online directly relating to Todd Anderson being a NASCAR crew chief. I found an article after he changed jobs explicitly speaking about Todd Anderson moving teams to be the crew chief of this new team and the article is only about him but i got declined again. Any help is much appreciated.

Christophe81 (ca76775) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christophe81 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The submission still only has one source. WP:VRS indicates a requirement for multiple independent reliable sources, each having significant coverage of the subject. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i have a question why my request for an article was declined — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightingrod123 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was declined because it doesn't cite any reliable third-party sources such as articles in newspapers or reputable magazines. All Wikipedia content should be based on such sources, and the topic must have received significant coverage to be considered notable enough for an article. Huon (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on citing the page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Muhlenberg Greene Architects with verifiable references, but how do I consolidate references? I am using several articles multiple times, but all of the citations are showing up at the bottom. It would be better if I could number each citation, and then reference only that number. Am I doing this wrong? Thank you! LvanS (talk) 19:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Referencing for beginners#Same reference used more than once. basically, you once "name" the reference like this: <ref name="ReadingEagle1954">{{cite news|...}}</ref> Afterwards you can refer to the same source again with this code:<ref name="ReadingEagle1954" /> Don't forget the slash at the end, or things will get misinterpreted badly! (The "..." in my code example of course is just a shorthand for all the citation template's parameters.) Huon (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think.

Hi,

I am brand new to Wikipedia and I think I already might have messed it up. I wrote a article on Dr. Roksana Bahramitash in the sandbox, realized after the fact that it is not the correct place but followed the link where it says "If you are writing an article, and are ready to request its creation, click here." I did so, did not change anything in the text box, and clicked saved page. I got the yellow "review waiting" box. I am just unclear on what has happened to my review and if it was correctly submitted or not (I have it saved with code so I can easily re-create the article). I also attempted to submit the article from the sandbox which seemed to be successful, but I shouldn't have been able to from what I understand. Any feedback you could give me would be great!

Amegdel (talk) 21:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)Amegdel[reply]

You have accidentally removed the submission template with a subsequent edit; I re-added it. I've also moved the draft to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Roksana Bahramitash, the preferred location for drafts awaiting review. Huon (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]