Hi there, I seem to have 3 or 4 identical drafts in for review ! (and don't know how they doubled up ?... the weird thing is that on each one is says at the top "Not Submitted for Review" whilst at the bottom of the page it says "Submitted for Review " may take a week ....Have I submitted correctly ? many thanks, Nigel (Nigelspawton (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

That's not a problem. By the way, have you copy and pasted this information? Frmo either a website or a word document? Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 15:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am planning on editing and resubmitting the article referenced above [Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Underground (Boston)], and it would be very helpful if I could get some more specific comments from the reviewer who declined it. It's unclear to me whether the problem of "not adequately supported by reliable sources" means (a)he/she didn't like the sources I referenced (print articles from the 1980s that mostly are not accessible online--I have scans, printouts I could easily provide, though); or (b), there are ideas, events, etc. mentioned in the entry that he/she wants to have a reference for? If there was a problem, I expected to get more specific feedback so I could adjust accordingly.

I was also hoping to have the same reviewer look at the revision when I resubmit--seems to make sense and it would probably save time for everyone.

Thanks!

paulsherman13 Paulsherman13 (talk) 15:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a message at the reviewer's talk page notifying them of this question.

The problem is definitely not the lack of online availability of 1980s newspapers - offline sources such as those are entirely acceptable. However, I'd say that the draft contains quite a bit of unsourced and inappropriate information, starting right with the second sentence: Whether the list of emerging acts hosted by the club is "impressive" or not is pure opinion, and it should not only be sourced, but attributed to that source. I doubt Vice is reliable, and it certainly doesn't mention People in Stores, Wild Stares, CCCPTV and Dangerous Birds in connection with the Underground, nor does it call Propeller Records "artsy" or "idiosyncratic". In fact, I'd say the draft's tone is a worse problem than the sources (or lack thereof). But the unspecified "vintage newspaper ads and gig flyers" cited for the "notable acts" (most of which apparently aren't notable enough for Wikipedia articles of their own) definitely are not the reliable, independent sources Wikipedia content should be based on. (By the way, "Lyres" doesn't link to a band.)

Usually a random reviewer will look at a draft after re-submission, not necessarily the same one. It might be better to get more independent feedback on an article; a second reviewer may notice issues the first one missed (or, conversely, may disagree with the issues the first one saw). Besides, keeping tabs on all pages they reviewed would bloat reviewers' watchlists. Huon (talk) 18:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah the one source from vice is questanble plus like Huon said unsourced and inappropriate information, starting right with the second sentence: Whether the list of emerging acts hosted by the club is "impressive" or not is pure opinion, and it should not only be sourced, but attributed to that source. etc etc. You are welcome to work on it and resubmit it and like Huon else will look at it after u resubmit it and they will say yes or no to it at that time.Oo7565 (talk) 18:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]