• Collins Mtika (talk · contribs)
  • Ian Cockerill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Ian Cockerill (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please could you advise if I have correctly submitted the article "Ian Cockerill" for creation review. I first submitted it on 31 July 2017, then by mistake I re-submitted it on 19 August 2017. The line below the draft article now shows two submission dates. Did the second submission for review cancel out the first submission? Thank you for your assistance Collins M Mtika

Collins Mtika (talk) 08:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Collins Mtika. The draft is in the pool and likely will be reviewed within the week. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Worldbruce (talk)

Hi Worldbruce. Thank you for your comment. The article has been reveiwed now and unfortunately rejected for reasons "sources not reliable" which surprised me as sources include links to The Wall Street Journal, The Guardian (UK), The Daily Telegraph (UK) and other highly reliable publications in South Africa such as Mail & Guardian etc. I am now off to check the reviewer's comments again and see what I can do to tidy up the sources.

Thanks again. Best wishes Collins Mtika (talk)

• Jenyajc (talk · contribs)
  • Luminar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Luminar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hey guys,

I'm trying to get this article reviewed for about half a year now. https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Draft:Luminar As you can see from the edits history, I've updated it several times according to the reviewer's notes, each time adding necessary and removing unnecessary parts. But after the last edits, where I was asked to "add more reviews", now it has been marked for "speedy deletion" for promotional tone, as I understand. I've almost given up in my efforts to make it meet Wiki criteria, since the last suggestion from reviewer seems to be in conflict with "speedy deletion" criteria.

Please help me to understand how I need to edit it so it is published.

Thanks

Hi Jenyajc. The draft has been deleted, so I can't see it to comment on it. The two reviews recorded on User talk:Jenyajc, from July, suggest that the topic may not be appropriate for Wikipedia (most companies and products are not suitable for the encyclopedia). If that's the case, no amount of editing will fix the problem. If you're interested in improving Wikipedia, there are millions of other ways to do so, see Wikipedia:Community portal. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Worldbruce, thanks for checking my situation. The point is, that I've fixed all the issues that reviewers were pointing at, in particular - the promotional tone (1st fix), the lack of informaty (2nd fix), and the additional amount of reviews (3rd fix). I don't 100% sure that the article did go under the "may not be appropriate for Wikipedia" condition, since none of the last two reviewers didn't say anything like that exactly. Moreover, the reason the article was marked for "speedy deletion" and eventually deleted, was "promotional and advertising" - the reasons that were not mentioned by two last reviewers, and which I fixed in the first edit. I've done everything I was asked for. It does seem to me now that every reviewer has his own opinion on the matter of notability/tone, and in my case, they are different.

Don't get me wrong, I understand that there's plenty of similar cases all over the Wikipedia. But the amount of efforts and time I've put on it to see it deleted in the end is extremely demotivating for me as a newbie.

Thanks! Jenyajc (talk) 19:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Orangegeum (talk · contribs)
  • Christina Malman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Christina Malman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have just had my first article rejected for the second time at review stage. I had thought I had made necessary corrections having checked the articles recommended by the first reviewer, but have clearly missed something as the second reviewer says "Please fix the formatting links for this to be accepted". I'd be very grateful if someone could tell me specifically what I need to change as I'm inexperienced with this. With many thanks in anticipation. Orangegeum (talk) 15:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Orangegeum. What are you trying to communicate with the big, bracketed, hyperlinked numbers like the one at the end of the lead sentence?

Christina Malman (2 Dec 1912 - 14 Jan 1959) was an artist and illustrator, best known for her work for The New Yorker magazine [1]

It is formatted a bit like a reference, except it isn't a superscript. Clicking it doesn't take one to a numbered reference at the bottom of the page, and the home page of The New Yorker doesn't support any part of the sentence to which it is attached (other than the fact that The New Yorker exists, which isn't really in question). So why is it there?

In some cases, like "included Consumer Reports [[2]]" you've used a link to Wikipedia. If you meant it as an internal link (hey reader, you might be interested in Wikipedia's article on the subject I just mentioned), the correct way to format it using the source editor is included ''[[Consumer Reports]]'', which renders as "included Consumer Reports". If you meant it as a reference (hey reader, the proof of what I wrote can be found by following this link) then understand that Wikipedia, being user-generated, is not a reliable source and should not be used as a reference.

For each of the big, bracketed, hyperlinked numbers: convert it into a reference by using <ref></ref> tags as you have with the small, hyperlinked numbers in superscripts; convert it into an internal link by using pairs of square brackets; or remove it.

It may help to study some of Wikipedia's best articles as examples. Other helpful reading includes:

• Help:Referencing for beginners
• Wikipedia:Inline citations
• Wikipedia:Linking
• Wikipedia:External links

--Worldbruce (talk) 17:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Maclafornia925 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Montana Montana Montana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

i have made several changes to this article - took out apostrophe to form a plural

information in the infobox took out citation use the {{cite web}} template and as many of its parameters as are applicable when forming your citations.discography sections are formatted the first names of children edited ---

This is the best place to discuss this submission, Maclafornia925. I'm glad you posted here.

One thing we need to clear up is what you think the eventual title of this article should be: Lovie Johnson, Pezzy Montana, or Montanta Montana Montana. There's no need to change the name of the draft, but it should be clear to the accepting reviewer what the final page name should be.

Since I was the last reviewer and I declined the submission based on notability considerations, perhaps it would be best if you explained - based on your understanding of WP:NMUSIC - which facts or references meet one or more of the criteria. I may have missed something. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Whispering (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Onlyprinceofnc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Well this is awkward, I went to check the user's talk page like I normally do after a decline and found out the user has been blocked for advertizing. Now, do I just leave the draft as is and let the bots tag it for deletion in six months or could I tag it for a speedy of some sort? Whispering 22:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

People do sometimes appeal their blocks successfully, and musical artists sometimes have a big breakout after toiling away in obscurity, so I'd say the best practice is to just let the draft age out in the normal process. Someone may also come along who wants to improve it. While that may seem rare for drafts, I just saw it happen today where someone was trying to create a new article, then discovered there was an existing draft in better shape. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice. Whispering 05:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]