Why is it indicated in the creation title of afscet "rench Society" and not "French Society" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pb64F (talk • contribs) 04:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because the editor who moved the page made a typo or, more likely, a copy&paste error. The missing "d" in "and" was copied from your own introduction. Fixed. Huon (talk) 05:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Draft removed.]

That was a copy of your draft. How may we help you with that? Huon (talk) 06:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Would like to ask for some inputs why my article in not approved.

Thanks,

Sprho (talk) 08:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on IRC, that draft doesn't cite any reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as articles about the fraternity published in newspapers or reputable magazines. We require significant coverage in such sources both to allow our readers to verify the draft's content and to establish that the fraternity is notable in the first place. Huon (talk) 09:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In fact the whole thing needs to be completely rewritten to look read like an encyclopedia article. At the moment it's no more than a disjointed stream of consciousness.--ukexpat (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I had this entry declined because it 'sounded like an essay and not an encyclopedia entry' as well as using primary sources (ie. original research). Huh? I'm a science journalist, and I thought that primary sources were your best ones. I wrote this entry off a research paper published by the University concerned, because this is ground-breaking research. The paper has been picked up by the press and there are a number of newspaper and web articles written about it... are these the kind of sources you want? (Although I must say some of these articles have really got the wrong end of the stick). This is quite a difficult concept to explain in lay language as it is highly technical. I have read my entry several times, and I am not sure how I can rewrite it to sound more like an encyclopedia - do you mind telling me what is RIGHT with it, so that I can correct the wrong bits? Thanks so much - I write a lot about science and technology, and would like to become a regular contributor of new science, but it seems I have fallen at the first hurdle! Niki Moore (talk) 10:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources are prone to bias, and as we have learned from, say, cold fusion, a university's announcements are hardly the best sources on ground-breaking research. News reports would indeed be better sources, but the best sources on science topics are, of course, peer-reviewed papers published in scholarly journals (that's what I'd call a research paper; what you cite mostly is the equivalent of press releases, with one possible exception and a few broken links). Huon (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, if somebody can help me to finish the article "Alexandre Egorov". Greetings, Sav86md (talk) 10:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That draft needs inline citations to clarify which of the sources supports which of the draft's statements. The draft's tone is also problematic. For example: He creates a fairy tale about a timeless world, without conflicts between good and bad - a story expressing the desire for excellence. That's not the neutral, factual tone we aim for, and it conveys very little information. Huon (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is obvious nonsense by a bored vandal, but I didn't know what to do with it except tag it for speedy deletion to save everybody some time. Question: is there a special tag/warning for situations like these, or is a CSD tag okay?  Yintan  12:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen the draft, but CSD obviously way OK. Huon (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks.  Yintan  21:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have submitted an article and one weak time for verification is given to me. now can i close the window and thenhow will i know if it is verified — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.125.14 (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You will have to check that page; you will also receive a notification at the talk page of the IP address (or account) you used to write the draft, but since that's not your current IP address I doubt that'll be of much help. Reviews take about two weeks right now.

In regard to: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Katherine Lorenz

I'm writing to confirm that the aforementioned submission is in queue for review. If not, please advise on recommended next steps. I look forward to hearing more.

Kindly,

KatebackstageKatebackstage (talk) 18:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't yet, but if you click the "click here" link in the grey box at the top of the page, it will be added to the queue.--ukexpat (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my article for submission, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John Darwin, I find that the proposed body is moved to the 'Talk' page as opposed to the 'Project page'. Should I move the text to the latter or is the talk page the appropriate place for it--as long as it's impending approval? -- And Rew 20:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is where it is supposed to be. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused because the article for creation I wrote has two inconsistent messages.

The first reads in part, "Article not currently submitted for review."

The second, third, and fourth, reads in part, "Review waiting. This may take over a week. The Articles for creation process is very highly backlogged. Please be patient. There are 1228 submissions waiting for review."

I submitted the piece for review a little more than a week ago.

KM8oh8 (talk) 20:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "review waiting" messages are correct, the "not currently submitted" message was outdated. I removed it. Due to the backlog it may take another week or so until the draft is reviewed. Huon (talk) 23:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]