Please review the article and please suggest where corrections are needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agnikunju (talk • contribs) 11:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The standard of English in the submission is quite poor, the sentences are not cohesive and many don't make any sense. Also, the submission is full of flowery peacock terms designed to promote or show-off the subject. It needs to be fundamentally rewritten by someone with a professional command of the English language. Pol430 talk to me 15:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I was surprised to find this article rejected as having insufficient references. I decided to include the references as links in the body of the material so it has a nice, clean look. For example, please click on the citations for Doreen Steidle's nominations as High Commissioner to Singapore and/or Consul General to Hong Kong. If for stylistic reasons you would rather that I created a separate reference section I will do so but I think the information is well-substantiated. Could you please take another look and advise?

Thanks, ChellymostChellymost (talk) 14:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the way we do references. Please take a look at WP:REFBEGIN for further help.--ukexpat (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not insert external links into the body text - External links must go in a seprate External links list below the References section. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the references and a few other minor problems. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/concord prison outreach Submission name (my name) Wfingerle

Greetings: I'm saddened after so much work that my article is not approved. I don't know where to begin, there is so many format rules I don't understand.

Can anyone help me with some specifics - so I can obtain approval for this important article? Thanks so much!!! Wfingerle (talk) 14:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wfingerle, I've looked over your submission and I have to say I'm surprised at the reviewer's decline rationale. The formatting issues are minor (I've fixed most of them and in any case, this not a valid decline rationale) and the submission is full of inline citations. I've gone ahead and created the article for you. Pol430 talk to me 15:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to create a wiki for a new academic journal and am having problems responding to reviewer requests for independent sources. I'm not sure what other independent sources are really possible for academic journals because they're not the sort of objects that receive much public attention or commentary...unless there is a scandal like at AJOB (https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/American_Journal_of_Bioethics). Similarly if you look at the Journal of Medical Ethics (https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Journal_of_Medical_Ethics) or Bioethics (https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Bioethics_(journal)) for example, the sources are all from the editors or publishers.

In the meantime, I've added direct links those websites that are indexing or archiving the journal content, which confirms the existence and credibility of the journal.

BrynwjBrynwj (talk) 15:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The journal may well exist and be credible, but is it notable? To establish notability, Wikipedia requires significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Unfortunately many academic journals have problems with this hurdle, but while other problematic articles may exist, that's no excuse to create more - each submission must stand on its own merits. Since this journal is very new, I don't think it's notable enough for an article of its own yet. Huon (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am ready to resubmit my page but need to "put the categories back", I'm told, before moving the page to the article space.

I'm not sure what this means or how to do this. Please help?

Thank you.

Neil Singer (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is at User:Neil Singer/sandbox. Don't worry about categories just yet. To submit it for review add {{subst:Submit}} to the top and save.--ukexpat (talk) 15:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Hi Neil, I've submitted the article for review on your behalf. It is now located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Clicktopurchase. Pol430 talk to me 15:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mabdul,

you declined my submission Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Laravel. The sources are not reliable. There are two sources, Web Designer and Geek Gumbo. Just one source is not reliable or both ?

Ch. Aubrée. 10 May 2013

Geek Gumbo is a blog with no indication of editorial oversight; that's not a reliable source. Web Designer looks reliable to me, but a single reliable source is not enough to establish that Laravel is notable. Huon (talk) 20:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you. Ch. Aubrée. 13 May 2013 —Preceding undated comment added 16:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article for creation Gameplay of The Sims 3 is reviewed. Cite the follow:

1. Lack of Reliable Sources
2. Content exists on original page (see note below for details)

The Sims 3 was nominated for Good Article status but failed to make grade. As par reviewer request, this is a spin-off to the main article The Sims 3. I need help on citing reliable sources and make the article more stand-alone article than a repeat content. I might be new to the site regardless to January 2006 sign up date. I am still learning how to add and revise on this site. Thanks. Sundogs ^{talk page sandbox} 21:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read WP:42, WP:RS, and also compared against the existing (very extensive) list of Good video games articles at WP:GA? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]