• Thepres1s Stuff (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Progressbar95 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I updated things, and I bet that other pages here have around 1 million downloads yet you reject Progressbar95 for being "not notable" Also, references has been fixed. Thepres1s Stuff (talk) 02:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has a single reference to progressbar95.fandom.comhttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Progressbar95_Wiki that is NOT a reliable independent source and the draft was correctly rejected. Theroadislong (talk) 10:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi so basically I tried writing a bit on the latest EP by S. Tankian and it got rejected Honestly there isn't a whole lot of stuff about the EP online, so I'm kinda bummed on what I could add to it now I took the same structure as the previous EP, Elasticity, but significantly fewer sources are available for this one ... TheÆtherPlayer (talk) 09:42, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Bilwal20 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Osman Gani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Bilwal20 (talk) 10:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bilwal20 You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about someone- please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 10:56, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bilwal20 Please edit this existing section, instead of creating additional sections. 331dot (talk) 11:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Waheeddehaw (talk · contribs)
  • User:Waheeddehaw/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Waheeddehaw (talk) 14:45, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Waheeddehaw You don't ask a question, but a test edit will not be accepted as an article. 331dot (talk) 14:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• HayaSim (talk · contribs)

Hello, I want to now why the page is refused as Pierrick Pédron in one of the most important Sax player and has a solid career. Thank you very much. Haya

HayaSim (talk) 16:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HayaSim I've fixed the link for you- we don't need the whole url. The reason for the decline was given by the reviewer at the top of your draft. Do you have a specific question about it? 331dot (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• GreenEli (talk · contribs)

I have been working on a draft for this article over the past few months, basically tearing it down to the bones left by its original creator and editors, and building it back up again into a more accurate and neutral article on its subject.

I've submitted it for AfC, as I think its details are ready, but I believe I've left an issue with the layout, having unintentionally created a second reference section with a reference to an external link that does not mention the subject herself (rather, her great grandfather). My understanding is that references should directly mention an article's subject, so it didn't qualify for inclusion in the article body. But I didn't want to simply leave out this reference, or the external link from which it came, as I think it's important to her ancestry. As such, I removed the reference from where it originally lay in the article body, placed it on the external link, but that also created this second reference section (which I named in the meantime, until someone with knowledge about how such a reference should appear corrects its placement/appearance). Can anyone let me know whether or not this needs to be changed, and, if it does, how to do that (or, if it's not too much trouble, make the change yourself)?

There is also a script warning that appears when I check Preview in Edit source, from some script left over from the previous editors. I'm not well-versed enough to pick that out and fix it.

Apologies if this should have been asked in the Teahouse instead. Wasn't sure about where it was better to inquire.

Thank you, GreenEli (talk) 16:39, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @GreenEli, take a look at the changes I made. Does that address your concern or did I misunderstand? Feel free to reach out to me on my talk page. S0091 (talk) 19:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you for fixing that @S0091,

I think that works well! I like the "Further reading" heading, and that the layout looks more appropriate now.

Any idea on the script warning? The warning says "Script warning: One or more {-{cite news}-} templates (I added the dashes to stop the code from appearing in my text here) have maintenance messages; messages may be hidden (help)." It only seems to appear when I do Show preview, but I figure that it must be important if it's showing up.

Thanks, again, for the help! GreenEli (talk) 13:31, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenEli I don't know about the errors. You can ask at the Teahouse though. S0091 (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]