Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
CategoryList (sorting)
ApplyBy subject
Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog

Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

  • This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
  • Do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page.
  • Watch out for scammers! If someone contacts you saying that they can get your draft published for payment, they are trying to scam you. Report such attempts here.
Ask a new question
Please check back often for answers.
Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

June 16


06:59, 16 June 2024 review of submission by David.G.82.21


Dear reviewers,

Thank you for taking the time to review and provide feedback on the article. I have re-edited the content to align with the suggestions, ensuring a neutral and encyclopedic tone. The updated context now highlights the achievements of various players, such as Raoni Medina and Jordan Matthews, who have each secured the top scorer position multiple times in different seasons. The fact that Alejandro Maroto is the all-time top goal scorer is presented as part of the overall statistics, consistent with the way top goal scorers are featured in other Wikipedia articles about football or basketball. His picture in the main frame follows this established practice.

Additionally, regarding the feedback about unverifiable information, the main references are the official NFL and NFS websites, where the goal statistics can be checked. Please let me know if there are any other changes you would like me to make. I appreciate your time and constructive feedback.

Kind regards, David David.G.82.21 (talk) 06:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

The draft looks to me like original research. The paragraphs of text (which are generally the most important part of a Wikipedia article) are almost unsourced. You would need some reliable source which discuss specifically the subject (in the title) - not just Futsal, or the leagues, or clubs, or players. ColinFine (talk) 17:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

09:01, 16 June 2024 review of submission by Khawar2003


I just published my article on said topic but it's showing some kind of error. Kindly check it so that I may upload it. Thanks Khawar2003 (talk) 09:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Khawar2003: the only thing I can find in your contribution history (that hasn't been deleted) is   Courtesy link: Draft:Electromagnetic interference on Modern day communication systems – is that what you mean? It hasn't been submitted yet. And in any case, it's not in English, so wouldn't be accepted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Khawar2003: I don't see that it's showing any error. If you tell us exactly what you see, and why you think it's an error, someone may be able to help you. However, I have seen two problems. Firstly, you have posted three copies of the same page, two as drafts and one as a user page. There is no benefit at all in having more than one copy of a page, and it can cause problems, as making it difficult for editors to keep track of changes. I have therefore deleted two of the copies, leaving Draft:Electromagnetic interference on Modern day communication systems in place. Secondly, the pages you have posted have been written in Urdu, but this is the English language Wikipedia and all contributions should be in English. You may like to contribute to Urdu Wikipedia. JBW (talk) 10:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks a bunch for your time and help. I'll do what you said and inform you if my problem has been resolved or not. (talk) 05:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Just created an urdu Wikipedia page and published my very first article. Thanks again @DoubleGrazing, you are a life saver. Looking forward to work under your guidance and continue sharing my knowledge with the world and edit some stuff. Thanks again (talk) 05:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

10:12, 16 June 2024 review of submission by Countystat


Hi - I had a new draft article and it seems to has disappeared and been redirected.

Please can you help?

Re below is what it shows - where/how can I assess the Draft:Dave Conlon (football coach) - I was trying to have this as a page. Thank you in advance

Stockport County F.C.[edit]

Article Talk Read Edit View history Watch From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Draft:Dave Conlon (football coach)) Countystat (talk) 10:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Countystat it seems the article was turned into a redirect by SafariScribe with this edit. Since the draft was already accepted, this is no longer an AfC matter. I'd recommend asking at the Teahouse or the Help Desk. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talkcontribs) 10:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the reply Countystat (talk) 10:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Inre redirected that article because it is presumably notable and quite likely to pass an AFD. However, when an article need more improvement or not yet for a standalone article, we redirect. I have anyway, restored the article and tagged it for improvements. @Countystat, remember any other editor can draftify it at any time or redirect back. Thanks! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 10:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. Countystat (talk) 10:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

15:28, 16 June 2024 review of submission by Viv moira


He is known and well-integrated in the occult scene (e.g. contact to DuQuette, Sanders, etc.). All sources are secondary, some even published academical. What else could I do? Maybe I used the wrong category. Viv moira (talk) 15:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

16:11, 16 June 2024 review of submission by HCR24


Help with WP:NPROF HCR24 (talk) 16:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I received a comment from an editor that my draft of H. Glenn Penny might meet WP:NPROF, if I "remove the primary sources or ones directly connected to the article. (See WP:PRIMARYSOURCES, and WP:SIRS)."
Am still new here, can you please advise which sources I would have to remove from the draft of article for the article to be accepted?
Help much appreciated. Thank you! HCR24 (talk) 16:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
The earlier version of the article was sourced with references too close to the subject. However, it has been published to mainspace. Incase you plan on writing articles, e.g an academic, and author, always find well written reviews of the book they had written. Cheers! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 21:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

17:00, 16 June 2024 review of submission by MintSpiral


This submission was denied despite meeting sufficient notability guidelines, which I confirmed in live support. The reviewer has not provided any further information regarding the reason. At a minimum, 1, 2, 5 and 11 of WP:MN are satisfied. MintSpiral (talk) 17:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Courtesy ping @SafariScribe Qcne (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
The sources are not reliable as they seems like advert. I have move the article to mainspace with consideration of the charts. @MintSpiral, you may now add reliable source to the "Early life and career" section to verify the contents desirable of citation. Thanks @Qcne for the courtesy ping. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 19:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

18:56, 16 June 2024 review of submission by Li-reg


Hello, my draft (Draft:Yeshayahu Folman) is still waiting for a review and I would love help with it... Thank you! Li-reg (talk) 18:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Li-reg, as stated the review process may take three months or more, as this is a volunteer process and drafts are reviewed in no particular order. There are 3,300 drafts waiting to be reviewed.
I'll note there are a couple of statements in your draft without in-line citations i.e. his education and the personal life section. Qcne (talk) 19:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Qcne: Subject is deceased, and this doesn't seem like the sort to have BLP protections extended to two years postmortem. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

June 17


01:23, 17 June 2024 review of submission by Electric design


Dear Wikipedia,

I would like to create an English version of the following page.

I have made repeated revisions following your instructions, but it was ultimately rejected.

How can I post an English version on Wikipedia in the future?

I just want to post an English translation of an existing Japanese page.

Thank you in advance. Electric design (talk) 01:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please see translation. If the ja-wiki article is sourced to the standard that is a non-negotiable requirement for new articles in en-wiki, then you may translate it. Most existing articles in most versions of Wikipedia (including many older articles in en-wiki, by the way) are not sourced to that level, and simply translating them will not generate something which is acceptable in en-wiki. ColinFine (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

08:31, 17 June 2024 review of submission by


Subject: Request for Reconsideration and Support for Metrix Pakistan Wikipedia Draft Page

Dear Wikipedia Team,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to request your reconsideration and support for the Metrix Pakistan Wikipedia draft page, which was recently rejected. I understand that the page may not have met the necessary criteria at the time, but I would like to bring to your attention that Metrix Pakistan is a reputable organization doing remarkable work in Pakistan.

We plan to add more comprehensive information to the page, including details about their projects, achievements, and impact on the community. We believe that Metrix Pakistan's contributions warrant a Wikipedia page, and we would like to request your assistance in making that possible.

Please consider changing the status of the draft page and providing guidance on how we can improve it to meet Wikipedia's standards. We appreciate your time and support in promoting valuable content and recognizing deserving organizations like Metrix Pakistan.

Thank you for your consideration. (talk) 08:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please tell us who "we" is. If you represent this organization, that must be disclosed, please see WP:COI and WP:PAID. Note that the reputability and work of the organization is not relevant as far as we are concerned, we are only concerned with if the organization receives significant coverage in independent reliable sources, coverage that doesn't just document its existence and activities, but goes into detail about how the sources see it as important/significant/influential as an organization, how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization.
Rejection typically means that the draft will not be considered further. If you can fundamentally change the draft to address the concerns of reviewers, you should first appeal to the last reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 08:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Also see WP:NOBLE. 331dot (talk) 08:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Metrix Pakistan Wikipedia page that I created, which was recently declined, Although I understand the decision, I'm eager to enhance the page and showcase the organization's remarkable achievements. Going forward, I plan to add more detailed information, and I would greatly appreciate your guidance and support in this process. Could you kindly reconsider the page's status and provide feedback on how to improve it to meet Wikipedia's standards? I'm committed to creating a comprehensive and accurate page that highlights Metrix Pakistan's valuable contributions. Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your response. (talk) 09:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please don't make a duplicate thread; please edit this existing thread, and respond to my post above. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Assuming you're Thekhyberboypk, please log in when editing, as already previously pointed out. And please make the COI disclosure that you said you had made, but which I still can't find anywhere. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for your message. I apologize for not logging in when editing, and I will make sure to do so going forward.Regarding the Conflict of Interest (COI) disclosure, I understand the requirement and hereby disclose that I have a connection with Metrix Pakistan. I, Thekhyberboypk, have a vested interest in the content of this page as a volunteer for Metrix Pakistan Thekhyberboypk (talk) 10:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thekhyberboypk (talk) 10:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Thekhyberboypk: yes, thank you, you said that already before. However, this needs to be stated either on your user page, or on the talk page of every article and draft to which the COI relates, or both. This thread will be archived in a matter of days, and in any case no one is likely to come here looking for the disclosure. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

A comment on your references: the five-sentence draft has 35 references all placed at the end of the draft. That is not how referencing should be done, and more references does not equal better referencing. There's a brief explanation of this in the sections "Relevance" and "Copies" on this page of advice. --bonadea contributions talk 09:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

12:59, 17 June 2024 review of submission by Chibuzookoro


Please why hasn't my draft been reviewed?

Chibuzookoro (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Chibuzookoro please be patient. Like the template says, This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,280 pending submissions waiting for review.. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talkcontribs) 13:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

13:39, 17 June 2024 review of submission by 2600:1700:4811:5F0:B463:EEAB:2F9C:1F5C


I am totally okay with my article being declined. However, the comment says that I can continue to edit the article on Tesla, Inc, but that article is off limits for public editing. Is it possible to open up that article for editing? Thanks! 2600:1700:4811:5F0:B463:EEAB:2F9C:1F5C (talk) 13:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Tesla, Inc. article is indefinitely semi-protected, meaning only autoconfirmed users can edit it. You can use the {{edit semi-protected}} template on the article's talk page, and someone will make the edits on your behalf. Alternatively, you can create an account and wait until you're autoconfirmed (10 edits and 4 days). '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talkcontribs) 13:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

16:30, 17 June 2024 review of submission by Uohabacasu



The draft article for Hassan Nisar Haripur was recently declined due to concerns about the references not meeting the notability guidelines. However, the sources mentioned in the article are from reputable newspapers in Pakistan, including Dawn and The Tribune, which are considered the most prestigious papers in the country.

Could clarification be provided on why these sources were not considered sufficient to establish notability? What specific issues are present with the references, and how can they be improved to meet Wikipedia's standards?

What steps need to be taken to address the concerns raised by the reviewer and resubmit the article? Uohabacasu (talk) 16:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm assuming it's not a coincidence that we have at the same time drafts being submitted on Metrix Pakistan and its founder. How did you pick this particular subject to write about, @Uohabacasu? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
The subject of Hassan Nisar Haripur was selected for encyclopedic coverage based on available sources and potential notability. Per Wikipedia's guidelines, any person, organization, or topic may be the subject of a Wikipedia article if it has been covered in reliable sources. The draft article was created to provide a neutral and verifiable summary of the subject, using information available in published sources Uohabacasu (talk) 16:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Uohabacasu: okay, thanks for explaining to me how Wikipedia works. That didn't really answer my question, though. Of all the imaginable topics that "may be the subject of a Wikipedia article", how did you choose this particular one? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
The implication that there may be a conflict of interest or ulterior motive in choosing this topic is unfounded. The creation of a Wikipedia article on Hassan Nisar Haripur is solely based on the availability of credible sources and the subject's potential notability. As a contributor, the goal is to provide accurate and reliable information, adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. The selection of this topic is not influenced by personal connections or biases, but rather a genuine interest in sharing verifiable knowledge with the public. Uohabacasu (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Uohabacasu: You have already disclosed that you have a connection to Hassan Nisar Haripur. You might not realise that this does give you a potential conflict of interest, so please familiarise yourself with the Conflict of Interest guidelines.
Please do not create new threads on this help board or elsewhere to ask for a new review. Discussions are difgicult to follow if they are duplicated in several places, and the administrators' noticeboard is not for asking about draft reviews. --bonadea contributions talk 09:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

16:37, 17 June 2024 review of submission by Tedleisenring


does this article have a chance of being published? if not ; should I delete it Tedleisenring (talk) 16:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

With no references it has zero chance of being acceptable. Theroadislong (talk) 16:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Tedleisenring: I'd say it has no chance of being published, given that (among other things) it has been rejected.
It would have been automatically deleted in a couple of weeks' time, had you not edited it today. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Tedleisenring: No sources, no article, no debate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

16:54, 17 June 2024 review of submission by Hinterking


How can I improve the Article Hinterking (talk) 16:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

How can I improve the Article to have a space please Hinterking (talk) 16:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

You have no usable sources. This is not acceptable.Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Writing an article without first finding sources that meet the criteria in golden rule is like building a house without first surveying the site or checking local building regulations. The house will almost certainly fall down, or you will be required to make such large changes that you might as well demolish in and start again.
Please read BACKWARDS. ColinFine (talk) 20:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

22:11, 17 June 2024 review of submission by DarthDajic


Your system made a fault in identifying that the corresponding article is in Croatian i.e. hr.wikipedia while the corresponding article is in Serbian on sr. wikipedia. We are kindly asking you to correct this fault and find the reason why the confusion happened as we would like to avoid potential problems in future searching of the article, DarthDajic (talk) 22:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@DarthDajic: That template has been there since the first edit on the page. Odds are that something you did in the Wizard caused it to misidentify the source language. You can easily modify the template yourself, replacing "hr" with "sr". —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 22:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

June 18


05:56, 18 June 2024 review of submission by Odishajagarana


What is <ref> used for in Wikipedia? Odishajagarana (talk) 05:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Odishajagarana: it's a wikicode markup element that creates a footnote, see H:FOOT.
For general editing questions like this, please use the Teahouse or Help desk.
And please don't use Wikipedia to promote your YT channel, that's a fast-track route to getting blocked. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

08:23, 18 June 2024 review of submission by WarriorYt43


Hello. I have worked on this draft for months. I believe it is complete and ready to be submitted. However, the reviewer has rejected it twice, and I feel this is unjust. I would appreciate it if someone could fairly review the draft and help me improve it. Thanks! WarriorYt43 (talk) 08:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

WarriorYt43 The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft submission process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.
I see no errors in process by the reviewer, and I can't disagree with their assessment. 331dot (talk) 08:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
My bad for the wording mistake. What should I do now? WarriorYt43 (talk) 08:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
You need to address the issues before re-submitting and note that content like "He comes from a family with a significant military background and brings over 19 years of experience from his military service, where he served in various roles." confers zero notability. Theroadislong (talk) 08:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

08:57, 18 June 2024 review of submission by Uohabacasu


A formal request for review is being made regarding the draft article for Hassan Nisar Haripur, a highly accomplished Pakistani entrepreneur, YouTuber, and philanthropist. Despite overwhelming evidence of notability, the article has been inexplicably rejected multiple times by Saqib, without clear justification.

Hassan Nisar Haripur's achievements and coverage in reputable sources unequivocally demonstrate his notability:

- Award-winning entrepreneur - Featured in top Pakistani publications, including The Dawn and The Tribune Wikipedia's policy on award-winning individuals explicitly states that they are eligible for a Wikipedia page (WP:NATIONALAWARD) . The provided sources meet the highest standards of credibility, reliability, and relevance.

It is perplexing that Saqib has repeatedly rejected the draft, despite the clear evidence of notability. A thorough review of the article and references is requested to assess whether it meets the necessary criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. The current situation raises concerns about the consistency and fairness of Wikipedia's review process. Uohabacasu (talk) 08:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Draft:Hassan Nisar Haripur has been declined three times and now rejected, the topic is simply not notable. Theroadislong (talk) 09:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Uohabacasu: There is no evidence of notability in the draft. None. There is now a source evaluation at Draft talk:Hassan Nisar Haripur to explain this, and I'm afraid you simply have to accept that it's the end of the road for that draft at this time. --bonadea contributions talk 13:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

10:45, 18 June 2024 review of submission by Nirmalraja


I would need help to submit the page Nirmalraja (talk) 10:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Nirmalraja: how do you mean? You've managed to submit it four times already.
Also, you need to be more specific than that. What help do you require?
As general advice, you must address the reasons for the previous declines before resubmitting, as this is otherwise running the risk of outright rejection. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

10:59, 18 June 2024 review of submission by 2A02:8109:3B40:3AC8:DC6D:41AF:3A5:8878


Can you move that page to the article namespace? 2A02:8109:3B40:3AC8:DC6D:41AF:3A5:8878 (talk) 10:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

No it has been declined three times and now finally rejected. Theroadislong (talk) 11:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
When will you move that page to the article namespace? 2A02:8109:3B40:3AC8:DC6D:41AF:3A5:8878 (talk) 11:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Which bit of "rejected" do you find difficult? This draft provides zero evidence of notability, and fails even the most basic verifiability tests. Therefore the answer to your question is – never. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I find some bit of "rejected" difficult. 2A02:8109:3B40:3AC8:DC6D:41AF:3A5:8878 (talk) 12:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Literally all your sources are - specifically its homepage, its user forums, and its wiki. These aren't acceptable sources under any circumstance (all have a connexion to subject and the forum and wiki have no editorial oversight as well). The notes left by the reviewers call out the sources as lacking, and you ignored them. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

14:39, 18 June 2024 review of submission by ElmStreetsLastBrat


The comment left on my draft is perplexing. Several of the sources I cited were magazines, Ms. Gregory's law practice website, and others. She is an actress, so it makes sense to have an IMDb page listed as a source. Her appearances on "The Last Drive-In" and the music video for the band Restless Heart are on YouTube. Often those are reliable sources because she is on screen in "The Last Drive-In" episode, which was a streaming series and she is a featured actress in the Restless Heart music video. ElmStreetsLastBrat (talk) 14:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@ElmStreetsLastBrat: IMDb and YouTube are user-generated and therefore not considered reliable, and Amazon is just a retailer. These collectively account for half the citations in your draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@ElmStreetsLastBrat: Allow me to welcome your draft to primetime by pointing out why it's getting declined.
  • "[Gregory] was born in Fort Worth, Texas in 1963." - Source? (If you're about to say "The source is at the end of the paragraph!" that doesn't cut it - the source for this claim must be at the end of the sentence containing the claim.)
  • "While in high school, she participated in drama and acting." - Source?
  • "After graduating in 1981, she married and had a daughter." - Source?
  • "She studied acting at The Film Actor's Studio, the KD Studio, and North Lake Junior College." - The source cited here does not support any of these three claims. You need sources that explicitly name the acting schools she studied at.
  • "Gregory has also appeared in several music videos, most notably in the music video for the song The Bluest Eyes in Texas by Restless Heart in 1988." - The first source is just an Internet Archive compilation of Femme Fatale issues; if you're citing a specific article in a specific issue you need to use {{cite magazine}} and fill in the last, first, work, date, title, and pages parameters. The second source is YouTube, which we can only cite if (1) the video was produced by an outlet we would ordinarily consider to have editorial control and fact-checking and (2) uploaded to that outlet's verified channel. Music videos are never acceptable sources.
  • "In 1988 Gregory met Joe Bob Briggs and began working on the wildly popular television series Joe Bob's Drive-In Theater from 1988 to 1995." - Source? This is also promotional.
  • "From 1991-2000, Gregory reprised her role of "Honey the Mail Girl" on MonsterVision." - The source here is Joe Bob Briggs' own website and can't be considered usable for notability here (connexion to subject). You need to find a better, more independent, source or remove this claim.
  • "She was also interviewed for the magazine Indianapolis Monthly in December 2000." - The source here is effectively 404-compliant. You need to cite the hardcopy of the magazine in the same fashion as I described for Femme Fatale above. I will note that interviews are generally not usable for notability (connexion to subject).
  • "She discussed her television work with Bloom Magazine in their August/September 2012 issue." - This reference is incomplete (missing pages and author).
  • "[...]Gregory was awarded a full scholarship from Southern Methodist University and graduated with a degree in Business Administration in 1997[...]" - The source here is the law firm's website, which is useless for notability (connexion to subject). You need a better source for this, ideally a news article discussing her life.
  • "[...]and a Master's degree in International Relations and Diplomacy from Schiller International University in London, England." - Source?
  • "Gregory moved to Bloomington, Indiana in 1999 to attend law school at Indiana University." - Source? (Even if it's mentioned by a source you used earlier, that source must be cited here as well.)
  • "Gregory is the author of 37 books, including the "Horror Flix Will Never Die" series as well as several journals and coloring books." - We don't cite Amazon (online storefront). Her publisher(s) would be a better source here.
  • "She is also writing a screenplay that features a strong female leading character." - This is so vacuous as to be meaningless, but it is properly sourced.
  • The "Convention Appearances" section should likely be removed unless there is something actually noteworthy about those appearances. Celebrities stop by cons, particularly bigger ones, all the time.
  • We don't cite AppleTV or Plex (Streaming services). You'd want to find sources that critique her performances on those programmes.
Does this help? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

17:07, 18 June 2024 review of submission by TAD JASPER


Hi. My article was rejected for lack of reliable resources. I believe I have many...can you help me understand what articles are unreliable? Thanks! TAD JASPER (talk) 17:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your draft was declined, not rejected, which means it may still be improved and resubmitted.
It's hard to tell because your citations are all bare URLs, which means that they contain the optional, least important part (a link, if the reference happens to be online) and omits the important parts (title, author, publisher, date) which facilitate judging their usefulness.
But it looks to me as if many of them are from galleries and exhibitions which have displayed her work, which means that they are not independent: this is as important a property of sources as reliability.
Note that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 20:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

21:47, 18 June 2024 review of submission by AleksandraKot94


Issue with Approval of My Article Submission

Dear Wikipedia Team,

I hope this message finds you well.

I am writing to seek assistance regarding an issue I have encountered with the approval process for an article I submitted to the English Wikipedia. The article, Adam Black (polish photographer), was submitted on 18th of June and has not yet been approved.

Despite following all the guidelines and ensuring that the article meets Wikipedia's standards for verifiability, neutrality, and notability, it appears to be facing some obstacles in the review process. I have carefully cited reliable sources and adhered to the formatting and content guidelines, but I am unsure what specific issues are preventing its approval.

Could you please provide me with detailed feedback on what needs to be improved or corrected in the article? Any guidance or suggestions you can offer would be greatly appreciated, as I am committed to ensuring that the content meets Wikipedia’s standards and can be beneficial to its readers.

Thank you for your time and assistance.

Best regards,

Natalia Izydorczyk

AleksandraKot94 (talk) 21:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
  Courtesy link: User:AleksandraKot94/sandbox --ColinFine (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
You have cited no sources at all for the main part of the article. This is unacceptable in an article about a living person.
On a quick look, you have cited no independent sources for all the lists of awards: without independent sources, how can a reader tell whether these are of any significance?
Like most people who try the challenging task of creating an article before they have spent any significant time learning what Wikipedia is about, you have produced something that is only superficially like a Wikipedia article. It does not observe the core principals of verifiability, independent sources, or neutral point of view, and it does nothing to establish that the subject meets the criteria of notability, without which an article is not possible.
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 22:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
So what are these independent sources, because in my opinion I added only independent sources. These are external websites, completely independent of the person the article is about. AleksandraKot94 (talk) 13:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Please also indicate places in the article that are not neutral, because I do not know what neutrality you are talking about. The article contains only facts, but if something is written not neutrally, please indicate specific places in the article and clarify it. AleksandraKot94 (talk) 13:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@AleksandraKot94: the User:AleksandraKot94/sandbox draft has been deleted as promotional. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

23:30, 18 June 2024 review of submission by 0iet0


I cannot understand why this draft was rejected, Can I appeal the decision? Can another editor look at this draft and offer an opinion. Contrary to what is said about this draft, it is completely objective. All of the information has been collected from legitimate published sources, both hard copy and digital, all sourced by foot notes. Please read it again carefully and tell me specifically which lines or parts are unacceptable 0iet0 (talk) 23:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@0iet0: Vast swathes of your draft are completely unsourced. EVERY claim that could POTENTIALLY be challenged by a reasonable person MUST be referenced to a strong third-party source independent of the subject that corroborates the claim or, failing that, outright removed. This is not negotiable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 02:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@0iet0: First: the draft was declined and not rejected – that distinction is important, because a rejected draft cannot be re-submitted, but a declined draft has a "resubmit" button so you can submit it for another review when you feel that it is ready for that. It looks like you removed a lot of unsourced content after Jéské Couriano's comment. Thank you for doing that. However, the "Notable works" section is still not written in a neutral tone. A lot of the detail could be removed there. --bonadea contributions talk 10:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

June 19


07:45, 19 June 2024 review of submission by Abbas Sajwani


We are trying to upload the content for the Wikipedia article, but we are facing problems such as it is not getting approved. can you please help us to know the process as we can upload the content.

Abbas Sajwani (talk) 07:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Your sandbox has no content so there is nothing to review? Theroadislong (talk) 07:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
They just moved it to mainspace; I've responded by kicking it back to their userspace. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 08:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Who is "we"? Only a single person should have exclusive access to your account. 331dot (talk) 08:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

09:21, 19 June 2024 review of submission by 2409:4060:108:7DC2:3C2D:8311:3C2E:8EDF


Why is this page deleted? There is so much information on Google about this, even a Knowledge Panel. 2409:4060:108:7DC2:3C2D:8311:3C2E:8EDF (talk) 09:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think you mean rejected, not deleted. It was deleted for the reason indicated "Knowledge Panels" are automatically generated and the existence of one does not confer notability on a topic. 331dot (talk) 09:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sir, so as notability can i add imdb, crunchbase and google play books links? what should i add to prevent it from getting rejected sir? 2409:4060:108:7DC2:3C2D:8311:3C2E:8EDF (talk) 09:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
It has been rejected already, there is nothing to be done to "prevent" that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
IMDb and Crunchbase are both worthless sources full stop (no editorial oversight) and Google Play is no better than those (online storefront). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

09:32, 19 June 2024 review of submission by Vivian0617


Dear Wikipedia Editors,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to inquire about the recent decline of my submission to create a Wikipedia article for Chen Lijun, a prominent Yue opera performer currently well-known in China.

I have submitted basic information for the article, but unfortunately, it was declined. Could you please provide me with the specific reasons for the decline? Additionally, I would appreciate guidance on how I can improve the submission to meet Wikipedia's standards for acceptance.

Furthermore, regarding references, may I inquire whether it is acceptable to use Chinese sources instead of English ones? As there is limited information available in English about this aspect of Chinese traditional culture, I believe using Chinese sources would provide the most accurate and comprehensive coverage.

Thank you very much for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your response and guidance on how to proceed with the creation of Chen Lijun's Wikipedia article.

Best regards, Vivian Vivian0617 (talk) 09:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Vivian0617: the draft was declined because it provides no evidence that the subject is notable. A single source is not enough to establish notability, especially when it only provides a passing mention of the subject, and doesn't seem to verify any of the (very limited) information in the draft.
And yes, non-English sources are acceptable, as long as they meet the usual requirements in terms of reliability, independence of the subject, etc. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for your response! I would like to ask if Wikipedia's different language versions share the same content repository? I recently noticed that the entry I wanted to add already exists in the Chinese version. If I simply add English language to this Chinese version, will it automatically translate into an English version? Will non-Chinese speakers be able to see it as well? Additionally, since I didn't create this Chinese version, am I eligible to add information to it (with references provided)? Thank you! Vivian0617 (talk) 05:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Vivian0617: each language version of Wikipedia is an entirely separate project. Each has its own rules and requirements for what can be published, and being published in one version in no way guarantees that publication in another version is possible, at all or at least without substantive modification. From this it also follows that the articles in different language versions on the same topic may have widely varying contents.
There is no facility for automatically translating articles, this is done manually by individual editors. If you wish to translate from a language other than English for publication in the English-language Wikipedia, please see WP:HOWTRANS for advice. Note especially the requirement to attribute the original article as the source. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Vivian0617: the article has been declined purely because it's so short, it doesn't show why she is notable - if she is discussed in multiple sources, this helps. Non-English sources are perfectly acceptable, however makes it more difficult to review. Mdann52 (talk) 09:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for your response! I would like to ask if Wikipedia's different language versions share the same content repository? I recently noticed that the entry I wanted to add already exists in the Chinese version. If I simply add English language to this Chinese version, will it automatically translate into an English version? Will non-Chinese speakers be able to see it as well? Additionally, since I didn't create this Chinese version, am I eligible to add information to it (with references provided)? Thank you! Vivian0617 (talk) 05:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
(Answered above.) DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

09:53, 19 June 2024 review of submission by Kamil grundy39712132


I'm new to making articles and if you could tell me how to improve on it that would be great

Kamil grundy39712132 (talk) 09:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Articles are based on significant coverage in reliable independent published sources, your draft has none and it has been rejected, there is nothing else you can do. Theroadislong (talk) 09:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

10:04, 19 June 2024 review of submission by Pushpendra singh gurjar 27


Why the submission has been declined, please mention reasons, I will fix those in the draft Pushpendra singh gurjar 27 (talk) 10:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Pushpendra singh gurjar 27: the decline was in error, and has been undone; the draft is back to pending review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks @DoubleGrazing for quick response Pushpendra singh gurjar 27 (talk) 10:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Most of the sources related to this village are not available over internet, Is there any other type of reference/source that can be helpful for approval? Pushpendra singh gurjar 27 (talk) 10:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Pushpendra singh gurjar 27: We accept offline sources, if enough information is provided to look the source up in an archive. (For newspapers and magazines we need the publication name, publication edition (e.g. 1 Jan 1923), article title, article byline, and the page(s) the article can be found on; for books we need title, author, publisher, year of publication, page(s) being cited, and either the ISBN or OCLC#.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your response @Jéské Couriano, Currently there is no information is available in books or any authorised source. The only authenticity is the village public or some government organised activities like census and elections results. Pushpendra singh gurjar 27 (talk) 16:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

10:35, 19 June 2024 review of submission by Woobab



Thanks for reviewing my draft so quickly. I've removed one arguably unreliable reference from the citations, I'm wondering if you could point out which other ones are unsuitable for this draft. Also, please clarify if the rejection was due to a specific unreliable reference or that there were simply not enough references. Note that I did refer to the first party official site as that reflects the most accurate information about location and times.

Thank you,

Woobab Woobab (talk) 10:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Pinging reviewer @Jamiebuba. I think this draft is fine for acceptance now. Coachella Valley Independent is a smaller local publication, but it have been cited by others before. The Lineups section is without sources though (just put one at the top of the section). And on a side note I don't think the last sentence of the first paragraph is necessary. Ca talk to me! 12:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I really appreciate the feedback. I've added more details, such as authors and publication names into the references as well as adding more relevant sources. I wasn't sure what constituted sources for the lineup so I've included published articles from sources such as Consequence of Sound and Stereogum alongside listings (let me know if this counts as 'social media' sources and is incorrect for this usage, I can remove them). I do agree with your statement, I've drastically reduced the lengthiness of that sentence, as that information is more or less redundant with the lineups section. Thanks again! I'll probably go ahead and submit it now. Woobab (talk) 17:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Much better in the current version and thanks @Ca. Jamiebuba (talk) 07:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I recommend resubmitting, though more sources would be a plus. 👍 Ca talk to me! 12:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

10:55, 19 June 2024 review of submission by Pushpendra singh gurjar 27


Most of the sources related to this village are not available over internet, Is there any other type of reference/source that can be helpful for approval? Pushpendra singh gurjar 27 (talk) 10:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sources don't have to be online books, newspapers magazines etc are fine, just cite where you got the information from. Theroadislong (talk) 11:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I have updated the sources please check @Theroadislong Pushpendra singh gurjar 27 (talk) 12:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sorry but you have NOT updated the sources, "Oldest Village Residents Name: Baba Rajendra Prasad(Retired government school teacher), Baba Chandan Singh" and "verified by villagers" are absolutely NOT reliable published sources. Theroadislong (talk) 12:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

12:28, 19 June 2024 review of submission by Rupashegal


suggest me Rupashegal (talk) 12:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

The draft was thoroughly promotional and has been deleted. Please see WP:PROMO, WP:COI, and WP:PAID(as you have a clear financial interest as the founder) 331dot (talk) 12:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Rupashegal: this draft was deleted as promotional. I suggest you don't try that again. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

13:34, 19 June 2024 review of submission by Zermuggleflizbot


why. it is valid. Zermuggleflizbot (talk) 13:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Zermuggleflizbot Wikipedia is not a database of what random people on Twitter say. Qcne (talk) 13:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

15:56, 19 June 2024 review of submission by Jerrychuang1


I got this response after the review of my submission This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. However, I believe this article is very neural and it only describe some facts about the organization Jerrychuang1 (talk) 15:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Jerrychuang1: The fact the draft got deleted as blatant and irreparable advertizing/promotion seems to say otherwise. What is your connexion to Rexgear? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
A friend of mine knows the owner of this place and I couldn't find it online, so I volunteered to write one wiki article for them Jerrychuang1 (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I would suggest finding three good sources to base the article off of first, then summarise what those sources say, with no editorialising or extrapolation. You're not writing an advert for the company, you're writing an encyclopaedia article for readers who do not like articles advertizing to them. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
What if I ask someone else to write it for them and see if the company wants to pay for them. Will this submission be accepted? Jerrychuang1 (talk) 17:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Unless it meets WP:NCOMPANY, doubtful. There's a reason AFC provides {{Find sources}} in drafts; also, what Jéské said about WP:THREE; also, any paid editing (which is otherwise discouraged) must be disclosed. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 21:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Re-signing for ping @Jerrychuang1:Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

17:17, 19 June 2024 review of submission by Mamun RNN


Hello Sir,

I have submitted a new article on behalf of Washington University of Science and Technology (WUST). Unfortunately, the request has been declined. Could you please let me know how to resubmit the article? Thank you for your guidance.

Thank you. Mamun RNN (talk) 17:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Mamun RNN: it has been more than declined, it has been rejected, which means the end of the road for this draft. What's more, it has been deemed overtly promotional, and is pending speedy deletion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
And editor blocked for spamming Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

18:51, 19 June 2024 review of submission by


Hello - Mohit Joshi is the CEO of Tech Mahindra and an Aviva Board Member. We are not sure why his Wikipedia page is getting rejected. Please can you help set it up? (talk) 18:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Merely being the CEO of Tech Mahindra confers zero notability? Who is "we", accounts are strictly single person use only. Theroadislong (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
If you want to "set up a page", you should do that somewhere else. This is an encyclopedia composed of articles. 331dot (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I suggest you read WP:BOSS. ColinFine (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

19:42, 19 June 2024 review of submission by Faketuxedo


Are the sources in my article sufficient and reliable? Is there anything to modify or change? Grammar is still a work in progress. Faketuxedo (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

What many of them are not, is Independent. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
This is par for the course for new editors who try the challenging task of creating a new article before they have spent much time learning about how Wikipedia works. I always advise spending a few weeks or months editing existing articles and learning about fundamental concepts such as verifiability, neutral point of view and notability before even trying it. ColinFine (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

19:46, 19 June 2024 review of submission by Duosdebs01


I corrected many errors on this article. Can you accept my submission now? Duosdebs01 (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Zero improvement of the rejected draft, I suggest you find another topic to edit. Theroadislong (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

22:22, 19 June 2024 review of submission by Gwydd


Don't know what you want guys. I gave you 5 reliable and well know books and a historic newspaper article. Gwydd (talk) 22:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Gwydd We want one article with one subject, not three articles in one. Shirley G. Kingsleymay warrant an article. The River Plate Aviation Company may warrant an article. British flying-boats does not, with this content.
You have written a magazine piece, an essay, not an encyclopaedia article. We need flat, dull-but-worthy prose, purely factual, summarising in your own words without close paraphrasing what others have said about the topic from significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Concur with Timtrent. This looks like a great magazine article, but not good for Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia. Try a blog, perhaps? Cremastra (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

June 20


05:57, 20 June 2024 review of submission by HolyPango69420


Idk why it wont go through

HolyPango69420 (talk) 05:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@HolyPango69420: Your draft is wholly unsourced. Even as a stub, this is not acceptable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

06:05, 20 June 2024 review of submission by Nareshjoshi12


if there is any problems in this article please let me know, this article is about my shop. Nareshjoshi12 (talk) 06:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Nareshjoshi12: you mustn't try to use Wikipedia to advertise your shop, that is a blockable offence. Your draft has been rejected and is awaiting speedy deletion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
It’s just for people who want to know about my shop, this is not any kind of advertisement or anything this is just for knowledge for people Nareshjoshi12 (talk) 06:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Nareshjoshi12: it is 100% pure and blatant advertising; you even give your contact details and exhort people to "Visit us to explore our exquisite collection"! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Okay so this is count as an advertisement? Nareshjoshi12 (talk) 06:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Emphatically, yes.
Please don't start new threads here. If you have something to add, please add to this section. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Okay thank You for letting me know this, if you have any idea how can upload article about my shop please tell me. Nareshjoshi12 (talk) 06:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Nareshjoshi12: you don't seem to hear what I'm telling you, but I'll try once more: Wikipedia is not marketing channel for your business, or anything else for that matter. Stop trying to promote your shop, or you will get yourself blocked. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

06:16, 20 June 2024 review of submission by Iqacpu


My article has been declined because of inadequacy of reliable sources. I am writing an article for the first time. So, I will need guidance and help. All the references mentioned were quite reliable. I would like to revise the article and resubmit. Kindly intimate how should I proceed so that it meets the requirements of Wikipedia. I may mention that the subject is a well known author/ writer in this part of the country and there have been many references to him in various sources. Thanks Iqacpu (talk) 06:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Iqacpu: articles on living people (WP:BLP) have particularly strict referencing requirements, with pretty much every statement needing to be supported by an inline citation to a reliable source. Your draft has seven paragraphs (excepting the lists of works), and only one of these has citations.
Also, I wouldn't say that "All the references mentioned were quite reliable": Twitter isn't, and Amazon is just a retailer. (Which means that even the one paragraph that is referenced, is actually referenced with useless sources.)
And yes, you are welcome to revise the article and resubmit; that is indeed what 'decline' (as opposed to outright 'reject') means. Please proceed to reference the draft comprehensively using appropriate sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

08:18, 20 June 2024 review of submission by Vivian0617


Hello,there, I recently submitted an article for the creation of a Wikipedia entry on Chen Lijun, a renowned Chinese Yue opera performer. Unfortunately, the submission was declined, and I am seeking advice on how to improve it to meet Wikipedia’s standards.

Could you please provide specific feedback on what areas need improvement? I am eager to ensure that the article meets all necessary criteria.

Additionally, I would like to inquire about the use of Chinese sources for references in the article. Given the traditional nature of Yue opera, there is a limited amount of information available in English. Would it be acceptable to cite reputable Chinese sources to substantiate the content of the article?

Thank you very much for your assistance. I look forward to your guidance.

Regads, Vivian Vivian0617 (talk) 08:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Vivian0617: you asked this question yesterday, and it was answered; please see those answers. Also, please don't start a new thread, if you have additional questions just add them to the existing one. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

10:36, 20 June 2024 review of submission by


Why was my post rejected. (talk) 10:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Because Wikipedia is not a marketing channel for you or anyone/anything else. And in any case, this is not written as a viable article draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

12:06, 20 June 2024 review of submission by Stormy44


I would like to query why Draft:Grangetown Boys Club was rejected because even the previous version was of a similar or greater standard to other recently promoted clubs such as Alnwick Town A.F.C. & Darlington Town F.C. who currently have Wikipedia pages. At the moment Grangetown Boys Club are the only Northern League team without a Wikipedia page. Further edits have been made to add more external sources which should hopefully be sufficient to meet the minimum criteria. Stormy44 (talk) 12:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Stormy44: sports clubs don't have any inherent, automatic 'right' to have an article published. Like any other organisation, they need to demonstrate notability per the WP:ORG guideline. As for any other clubs having articles, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

15:06, 20 June 2024 review of submission by Trafalgar54


I entered again data for the Wikipedia page "Roberto Giovanni Carbone". All data can be traced back or found on Google USA or other search engines. I have included over 50 primary and secondary external quotes. I confirm that what is written corresponds to the truth and is of great international scientific value. These merits are recognized by the UK, Australia, USA, Canada, Germany, Spain and the Scandinavian States. I confirm. Trafalgar54 (talk) 15:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Trafalgar54: I'm not quite sure what you're saying, exactly, or why, but just to note that this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. If evidence of notability has come to light which wasn't considered before, you may appeal the rejection directly to the rejecting reviewer. Bear in mind, though, that saying evidence can be "found on Google" is insufficient; it is not our responsibility to carry out notability research, the draft must contain all the necessary evidence within it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
The page was rejected on June 1st. I can then make the corrections and make the Wikipedia page suitable. In fact, according to Wikipedia rules I have the possibility to review and correct the page within 6 months, under penalty of cancellation. So I find what you say unfair and against Wikipedia rules. Trafalgar54 (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Trafalgar54: The only thing you're managing to confirm is that you haven't read any of the criticisms by the reviewers, which led to the draft rejection. We don't cite Commons (circular reference; Commons is a sister project). We don't cite ResearchGate (no editorial oversight). We don't cite Amazon (online storefront). Government documents and websites are useless for notability by dint of being government documents and websites. Your sources are all misattributed to the subject of the article. Your article is undersourced. If you cannot or will not heed what I just wrote, then you are better off finding somewhere else to write this. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Wikicommons is part of the Wikimedia Project and therefore belongs to Wikipedia. If Wikicommons is reliable, then Wikipedia is also a reliable source.
As for ResearchGate, the page was created not directly by Dr. Carbone, but by third parties, reporting Dr. Carbone's numerous publications. Furthermore, government sites are trusted and the basis of our Democracies.
Regarding the undersourcing of the page, I would like more information from you. Trafalgar54 (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
You're correct about Wikipedia: as it is user-generated, it is not regarded as reliable. Any article which conforms to Wikipedia's current standards for sourcing (many older articles will not) will cite reliable sources for everything stated in it; so the thing to do is to obtain those sources, check what they say, and cite them if appropriate. Citing the Wikipedia article is lazy as well as unacceptable.
As for Research Gate, it doesn't matter who created the content: as there is no editorial oversight, it is (effectively) user generated, and its content cannot be relied on.
Governments sites are trusted, but (in the relevant cases) they are generally not independent.
The majority of the sources for an article, and all the sources which are being adduced to establish notability, must meet all three requirements in golden rule: reliably published (by a body with a reputation for editorial oversight), independent of the subject (and of any associates of the subject), and containing significant coverage of the subject, not just a mention.
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 17:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Dr. Carbone's scientific data are reported independently by international scientific ranking agencies (e.g. Forbes) by scientific publishing and by the committees of international scientific societies (e.g., American College of Chest Physicians, American Thoracic Society, Royal Society Medicine). So they are not influenced by Dr. Carbone.
Regarding Research gate, Semantic Scholar, Frontiers, Cureus, Journal Clinical Medicine, Lancet, etc... They are not subject to any conditioning by Dr. Carbone. All these scientific groups decide on merit and professional qualities whether or not to cite an author. The same happens for other high-level authors such as Peter J. Barnes (Head of the National Lung and Heart Disease Department - Imperial College, where Carbone worked and appointed Assistant Professor in 2003) I found similar examples in other authors where scientific groups previously reported are also present on Dr. Carbone's Wikipedia page. Furthermore, I believe that according to the rules of Wikipedia, dependent on Wikidata, it cannot and must not block page updates after just 20 days, I understand that corrections can be made within 6 months of the last rejection. Regarding the States and Governments you mentioned, I would kindly point out that freedom of the press and freedom of speech are inalienable rights of their Constitutions from which to draw an example. Wikipedia is open to scholars of high scientific caliber such as Dr. Carbone and must not be polluted by inexperienced people. The United Kingdom is a great example of how to govern ourselves. Ars gratia artis. I confirm. Trafalgar54 (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Trafalgar54 none of the nonsense you have written above has any bearing on the fact your draft was rejected and will not be considered further. If you believe the draft has fundamentally changed since the rejection and now meets our notability guidelines, please reach out to the rejecting reviewer. Qcne (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
A preliminary Google + WP:Library lookthrough implies that Carbone happens to fail WP:NACADEMIC at press time. Another chance may come a few years from now (from the looks of the previous comments and the draft's decent structure/writing), but for the time being, I concur with @Twinkle1990 (who rejected the topic at AFC).
To @Trafalgar54: If you want to continue working on this page, try saving the text on your system and consider posting it on a personal blog/site or another wiki that will accommodate it. Wish things turned out in your favour, but sorry we couldn't be of any more help. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 22:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Trafalgar54: Pettifogging with an argument that can charitably be called an elitist non-sequitur at best and wilful and blatant disregard at worst does not help you a whit. Start listening to what we're trying to say instead of spouting off a bunch of drivel that betrays your continued refusal to read what we're saying and ending it with "I confirm" like you're a sovereign citizen contesting a traffic ticket. All you're doing is convincing people that you probably should not be editing Wikipedia. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
In conclusion, I have just four words. And they are "Wikipedia is not WP:PROMO". I stand by the rejection. Twinkle1990 (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

16:43, 20 June 2024 review of submission by Alexisfiglar


I am trying to figure out how to cite sources. Alexisfiglar (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Alexisfiglar: this draft has been rejected and is awaiting speedy deletion. But for future reference, see WP:REFB for advice on referencing in general, and WP:ILC on using inline citations specifically. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
WHY IS IT BEING REJECTED WHEN I'M STILL TRYING TO FINISH IT Alexisfiglar (talk) 16:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
The content is VERY poorly written and unsourced "She is the tiniest in the family at 5’2”. Which is said to be the reason she started singing her heart out at the early age of three, a girl has to be heard!" is laughably unsuitable. Theroadislong (talk) 16:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Alexisfiglar: please don't shout.
You submitted it for review. That is you saying you're finished editing; you can't really then turn around and say you're still trying to finish it. If you're not done with it, don't submit it.
You're welcome to contest the deletion by commenting on the draft talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
lmao whoever you are, you're rude. this is my first time doing this and I'm trying to make a bio for an artist I'm representing. The "poorly written" wording was from her website itself. That is specifically what she said. I'm not changing that just because you think it's poorly written. YOU are laughably unsuitable. Alexisfiglar (talk) 16:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Alexisfiglar: no personal attacks, please.
And you clearly have a conflict of interest, which needs to be disclosed; see WP:PAID.
Please also note that Wikipedia is not a marketing channel for you to promote someone you're "representing". -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted content. Theroadislong (talk) 16:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
sorry. sorry I don't know all the wikipedia rules lol. Alexisfiglar (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
(Blocked) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

17:00, 20 June 2024 review of submission by NorthMD


I am looking help with draft about writing about the medical faculty of Vilnius University in Lithuania. NorthMD (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Courtesy link: Draft:English version of VU MF
@NorthMD: can you be more specific, what help do you need? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I have couple of questions regarding different things. First questions regarding the references; which level publications and sources are considered suitable when writing information page about faculty, sub-unit of university?
Secondly, how can I add link to wikidata object. As the article I am writing links to object: Q2596025 NorthMD (talk) 17:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
References from the university are (almost) irrelevant. Your article needs to be substantially - almost completely - based on such independent sources. If you have no such sources, there is literally nothing which you can validly put into your draft.
You are in the same situation as hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of people who think that, because Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that anybody can edit, they can just create a new article without spending any time learning the necessary skills. Anybody can play tennis, but would you enter a major championship when you had just picked up a tennis racket for the first time?
I always advise new editors to spend several weeks or months learning how Wikipedia works before they even think of writing a new article. When they understand fundamental principles such as verifiability, the golden rule, neutral point of view, and notability, then is the time to read your first article, and give it a try. ColinFine (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@NorthMD: for notability per WP:ORG, we need to see significant coverage, directly of the subject, in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent. Your draft only cites close primary sources.
Just so you're aware, while universities usually are notable, individual faculties/departments/schools etc. usually aren't. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Does the place I am writing stand for notability per WP:ORG. I know the place I am writing about has the Wikidatat identifier: Q2596025
Also the the institution play important role for medicine not just in Lithuania but in the whole eastern-europe. Especially the contributions to medical findings done there. NorthMD (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

18:57, 20 June 2024 review of submission by Flexer21


hello i requesting your assistance for making Reema diddee Dhawan biography page but due to some technical problem I cannot fulfil please help . Flexer21 (talk) 18:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Flexer21: there's no "technical problem"; it's that there isn't the slightest evidence that this person is notable in Wikipedia terms. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
so right now what i can do Flexer21 (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Unfortunately, @Flexer21 if the topic isn't notable under Wikipedia's standards, then you can't have an article. Sorry. Cremastra (talk) 21:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

20:51, 20 June 2024 review of submission by Melmann


Hello all. I'm hoping to attract some more feedback for the page in question. I am very conflicted regarding this page; on one hand it is a dedicated and high quality work that is clearly made in good faith, on the other, there are some fundamental concern I've outline on the talk page. Any input would be appreciated. Melmann 20:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Melmann: I certainly share your concern about OR, esp. given how much of the content (in particular in the early part of the draft) is unreferenced.
This also reads like an essay to me, not like an encyclopaedia article.
My biggest concern, however, is that it combines a number of loosely connected subjects under one title, rather than the usual 'one subject, one title' approach. Yes, I know we do have list articles which also do that, but with its meaty content (at 125kB, and with no fewer than 268 cites!) this goes well beyond a typical list, IMO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

22:43, 20 June 2024 review of submission by Mahbarakat2018



My article submission for "Rology" was recently declined with feedback stating that it reads more like an advertisement and lacks multiple published sources that are in-depth, reliable, secondary, and strictly independent of the subject. I've made revisions to address these concerns, and I would like some guidance to ensure my article meets Wikipedia's standards.

Here are the changes I've implemented:

Neutral Tone: Revised the language to remove promotional tone and ensure a neutral point of view. References: Included a wider range of references from independent and reliable sources such as FDA Database, Disrupt Africa, Arab News, MIT Solve, WHO, Forbes, Medical Device Network, and Diagnostic Imaging. Detailed Information: Added more detailed information about Rology's history, services, impact, and partnerships based on verifiable facts.

Could you please review the revised draft below and provide specific feedback on how to further improve it to meet Wikipedia's guidelines? Your assistance would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you!


Rology is an FDA-cleared. AI-assisted teleradiology platform founded in 2017, and headquartered in Cairo, Egypt, with offices in Kenya and Saudi Arabia. It aims to address the shortage of radiologists and improve the accessibility and quality of radiological services, particularly in the Middle East and Africa (MEA) region

History and Development

Rology was established to bridge the gap between the demand for radiology services and the limited supply of qualified radiologists. By leveraging artificial intelligence (AI) and a network of subspecialized radiologists, Rology says it provides timely and accurate radiology reports to healthcare providers. In 2023, Rology secured the FDA 510(k) clearance for its teleradiology platform, marking it as the first AI-assisted teleradiology platform to receive such approval, according to Rology's analysis.

Services and Features

Rology's platform facilitates the electronic transmission of medical images such as X-rays, CT scans, and MRIs for interpretation by radiologists worldwide based on their licenses. Key features of the platform include:

Automated Workflow: Automatic upload and routing of medical images, reducing the workload on general radiologists and speeding up the diagnostic process. AI Matching: The platform uses AI to match each case with the most suitable available radiologist based on subspecialty and availability. DICOM Viewer: Rology developed a zero-footprint AI-assisted DICOM Viewer and reporting tool to be used by radiologists to interpret the scans. Quality Assurance: The platform incorporates AI-based tools for computer-aided detection, and automated reporting and review, enhancing diagnostic accuracy and reducing turnaround times.

Impact and Reach

Rology said it has served over 150 healthcare providers across 9 countries, and delivered radiology reports for over 657,832 patients till October 2023. The platform benefits underserved areas, with a substantial portion of scans catering to primary care settings and low-income demographics.

Partnerships and Collaborations

Rology has formed strategic partnerships to enhance its offerings and expand its reach. In 2023, it acquired Arkan United, a Saudi-licensed teleradiology provider, and secured an investment from the Philips Foundation to support its mission of democratizing access to healthcare.

References "FDA 510(k) Clearance - K231385" (PDF). FDA Database. September 20, 2023. "Egyptian e-health startup Rology closes pre-Series A funding round". Disrupt Africa. April 19, 2022.

"Rology brings innovative teleradiology solutions to Saudi Arabia". Arab News. June 17, 2023.

"HEALTH IN FRAGILE CONTEXTS CHALLENGE - Rology - MIT-Solve". MIT-Solve. September 6, 2023.

"WHO Database: Rology". WHO. June 30, 2022.

"How Can AI Help More People Access Radiology In Kenya And Egypt?". Forbes. Feb 14, 2024.

"Rology secures FDA 510(k) clearance for teleradiology platform". Medical Device Network. October 5, 2023.

"Rology Earns the First FDA Clearance for a 2-sided and On-demand Teleradiology Platform". Rology. October 2, 2023.

"Health startup Rology raises undisclosed pre-series A funding + Kemitt launches B2B marketplace". Enterprise. 14 April 2022.

"FDA Clears Emerging AI-Enabled Teleradiology Platform". Diagnostic Imaging. October 4, 2023.

"Rology - Solver Spotlight". MIT-Solve. September 22, 2023.

"Philips Foundation sets out plans to ramp up collaboration with social entrepreneurs". Philips Foundation. November 9, 2023. Mahbarakat2018 (talk) 22:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Mahbarakat2018 Hi, it is best not to post your questions in more than one place. As indicated at the Teahouse, is part of this written by artificial intelligenece? GoldRomean (talk) 00:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
It just improved the writing of some sentences. Mahbarakat2018 (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

June 21


03:10, 21 June 2024 review of submission by CyberIntel33


I was asked to draft a page to be linked to Mr. Rawlins’ section (Final years) on this page: I modeled the page after the approved and published page for Mr. Rawlins’ successor, who is linked at the end of the Final years section:

After an early rejection saying the subject was not of sufficient significance, many more sources/citations were added, and that objection seemed to be resolved. The draft has since been cut down considerably in response to further reviewer feedback, but there are inline citations from 10+ different sources, that go well beyond passing mentions. Now somehow we’re back to the significance objection. Mr. Moore was deemed sufficiently significant with fewer cited sources, and some of those questionable. Please advise why we’ve hit this blocker again and how we can overcome it?

Thank you!!!

Please CyberIntel33 (talk) 03:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@CyberIntel33: this draft has been rejected (several weeks ago), and will therefore not be considered further. The sources do not establish that the person is notable enough in Wikipedia terms. A third of the citations are to a book published by his employer, which is clearly not independent, and most of the rest seem to be routine business reporting.
You say you were "asked to draft a page" – asked by whom? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for the fast reply. The request came from a former Union Planters colleague of Mr. Rawlins. CyberIntel33 (talk) 14:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@CyberIntel33: Jackson W. Moore predates the drafting process entirely and was never drafted or "approved" in any fashion (first edit Oct. 05, 2008). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for the fast reply.
Wasn’t the Jackson W. Moore page submitted for publishing approval prior to being published? I don’t understand why the same notability standards would not have applied. CyberIntel33 (talk) 13:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@CyberIntel33: the Moore article was published in 2008. Back then, Wikipedia was more interested in getting articles created. Notability and referencing requirements became the focus much later. And yes, even old articles should meet today's standards, but with nearly 7m articles in the system, it will take a long time to work through all of them, if indeed that can ever be achieved. For now, the best we can probably do is make sure that any new article is compliant, while dealing with any blatant problems in older articles, as and when we become aware of them.
You didn't answer my question, who was it who asked you to draft this? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@CyberIntel33: The drafting process as we know it today - including reviewing drafts - didn't begin coming into existence until 2011. The article on Moore predates that by roughly three years, when Wikipedia operated more under a "publish and be damned" ethos where standards were not so rigourously enforced. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

03:23, 21 June 2024 review of submission by Blakedes2


Hello, i am requesting some assistance with my draft here, in regards to ResearchGate, is this not a verifiable source and if its not, is it possible I can remove this and add another source or do i need to rewrite my draft from the ground up?

Thanks in advace! Blakedes2 (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Blakedes2: ResearchGate is a bit like Google Books, in that it hosts all sorts of content, from entirely reliable to complete rubbish; therefore you need to evaluate individually the specific content you're talking about. The fact that it will happily host rubbish, however, tends to mean that it is the preferred choice of publishers of said rubbish; hence its somewhat dubious reputation. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Oh ok. Thanks again. Blakedes2 (talk) 06:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

04:39, 21 June 2024 review of submission by ManTheCat


This draft got rejected because it the subject lacked notability. From what I can gather it was lacking in independent secondary sources from this page ( The draft has 11 references total and 7 of them are reviews of the subject’s written work. I assumed those qualify as independent secondary sources. Please let me know if I am mistaken or if I need to add/remove any sources. Any help would be greatly appreciated. This is my first draft article. Thanks. ManTheCat (talk) 04:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@ManTheCat: book reviews might make the book(s) notable, but not necessarily the author, unless they also include significant coverage of them; notability is not inherited. Interviews are not independent or secondary, as they are the subject talking about themselves. Goodreads and YouTube are user-generated, and not generally reliable. Not sure what there is left after that? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Okay, thanks. Really appreciate the information. I figured the Goodreads, YouTube and interviews would be primary. Just figured I had enough reviews to count as secondary. Makes sense now. ManTheCat (talk) 05:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

07:35, 21 June 2024 review of submission by Meena1998


Hi, I just wanted to know how an article can be tagged as its sounds like an advertisement, I need to sort out my writing style, My recent article got declined because of this even though I tried my best to keep it as simple and neutral as possible, please point out with an example so that i can improve my writing and provide as edits as possible for wikipedia! Meena1998 (talk) 07:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Meena1998: I have just answered this question at the Teahouse, please don't ask the same thing in multiple venues.
Also, please respond to the conflict-of-interest query I've posted on your talk page. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Meena1998 First, if you work for this company, that must be disclosed, see conflict of interest and paid editing.
Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about a company and what it does. Wikipedia articles about companies must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Awards (especially niche industry awards) contribute nothing towards notability unless the awards themselves merit articles(such as Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award or Tony Award). Investigations of a company, especially ones that don't result in charges or punishment against the company, don't usually do that, especially if all the sources say is "they were investigated and nothing was found". 331dot (talk) 07:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

10:12, 21 June 2024 review of submission by Ysultankpg


Could you please let me know how I can enhance this to ensure it gets approved? Also, what are the specific requirements for getting a Wiki page approved? Ysultankpg (talk) 10:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Ysultankpg: this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Please read our autobiography policy WP:AUTOBIO, which explains why you shouldn't be writing about yourself at all. If you want to tell the world about yourself, find some other platform, such as LinkedIn. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
There's a reason userpages are bundled into MediaWiki; on WP, though, you're allowed to express yourself in the context of your activity/goals hereon. Anything beyond that is best left for other avenues or wiki hosts. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 21:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

14:27, 21 June 2024 review of submission by Bdicoccosix


I thought that I had a good list of reliable sources for this page. Just wondered if I could get more specific feedback. Bdicoccosix (talk) 14:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Bdicoccosix: Refer to my /Decode subppage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
Since half your sources are behind a pay/registration wall of some sort, I can't really give you a good assessment due to not being able to access them. But two of the rest aren't usable, and the last is potentially usable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you! Bdicoccosix (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
As a reminder, Gale pages are available at WP:Library--the catch being that they're only available for longstanding accounts with 500+ edits. As an ally, I might take a look for myself soon enough. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 18:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Good news: The Inc. "case study" cited in this draft (via Gale) passes WP:SIGCOV! I'll leave it up to others to get the next two that satisfy WP:THREE.
By the way, this page should be retitled Green Hills Farms once it's approved. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 01:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

18:33, 21 June 2024 review of submission by Slgrandson


This G13 rehab candidate, which has doubled as the guinea pig for my new AFC queue, may need a little help re: this Instagram announcement post from the band's official account. Instagram isn't usually considered usable, but this instance might fall into the "acceptable" category. Before I move ahead soon, remind me if I'm right or wrong here. (Filing on behalf of original draft creator CWvN (talk · contribs).) Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 18:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

18:38, 21 June 2024 review of submission by Humanitarianpeople



My article was declined although I had references from the BBC, BirminghamLive and BirminghamWorld. Please help me with how to overcome this problem. Humanitarianpeople (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I restored the decline message- it must remain on the draft even if you rewrite it. You have not summarized what independent reliable sources say about him. 331dot (talk) 19:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

19:07, 21 June 2024 review of submission by Sasseren


Is there a resource that can help me write this? I've included a significant number of resources but they all get declined as not "significant." This person has written several books and their project's have won notable awards but Wikipedia does not accept the association's website listing and the articles I've included that mention them have been rejected. I've reduced the entry to just the bare minimum and it is still rejected. I'd appreciate advice. Thank you. Sasseren (talk) 19:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sasseren You wrote that he is "known for his contributions to high-tech campuses". By whom? For what? Wikipedia doesn't want a mere listing of what he does and his accomplishments. Any article about him needs to summarize independent reliable sources with significant coverage of him. "Significant coverage" goes beyond just telling what he does, and goes into detail about what the sources sees as significant about him. If you had such sources, he would seem to be notable, but notability does not guarantee an article- there must be independent sources to summarize. If those don't exist, there can be no article about him.
I'm wondering, is there a particular reason that you are writing about this person? 331dot (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

20:25, 21 June 2024 review of submission by IDorbian


So for the draft of Sunbury Press to be accepted, it would have to be written about in major or notable media outlets--instead of passing or casual references? IDorbian (talk) 20:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

That's correct, @IDorbian. We require significant coverage. Qcne (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

20:48, 21 June 2024 review of submission by Citysetonthehill



Please can you kindly highlight the specific references that are deemed not to be reliable in this draft to enable us make necessary amendments where required.

Many Thanks. Citysetonthehill (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Who is "us"? Only a single person should have exclusive access to your account.
You have much unsourced information, I think that's the main issue. 331dot (talk) 20:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

June 22


07:21, 22 June 2024 review of submission by Belleandpoppy


When will my wikipage be reviewed? Its been a while since i submitted it. Belleandpoppy (talk) 07:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

The relevant criteria are WP:NAUTHOR and WP:NACADEMIC you need to establish how she passes one of them and "she lives in the beautiful beach side village of Bundeena" is hardly neutral tone. Theroadislong (talk) 07:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Belleandpoppy, you'll notice that at the top of your draft there's a notice reading in part "This may take 4 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,321 pending submissions waiting for review." Often drafts that are an easy "accept" or "decline" get reviewed quickly, because it doesn't take long to look through them. So your best bet for shortening the wait time is to make it an easy review.
Having a look at your draft, I would strongly suggest you spend some of the waiting time looking for some better sources. You can keep editing it while it waits for review, and the reviewer will just look at what's on the draft when they first see it. Remember that you need sources that have significant coverage of the subject, in reliable sources, that are independent of the subject in order to establish that O'Brien is notable by Wikipedia standards. With that in mind, looking over your current references, here is how they measure up in terms of proving notability:
-anything hosted by an institution she is affiliated with cannot be used; it's not independent (refs 1, 2)
-anything written by O'Brien cannot be used; it's not independent (refs 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15)
-interviews cannot be used for notability, only to establish basic uncontroversial facts about her (for example her birthday, partner's name, etc) (ref 5)
-references must contain significant coverage of the subject, as in the article/book/etc must be about her and not a petition (ref 5)
-articles citing work she has written, but not speaking about her as a person, cannot be used (ref 9)
Ref 10 might be usable, but it's behind a paywall so I can't review it. Hopefully you can compare it with the others and get an idea of whether it will be a solid reference.
In summary, you might have one reference that can be used; you need at least three that meet the golden rule to have any chance of proving notability. As an Aussie myself, I am always thrilled when people want to add articles about fellow Aussies, so please do not take this as an effort to dissuade you. I want you to have the opportunity to find the kind of sources Wikipedia needs so that this article can be published. If you find more sources and aren't sure whether they're reliable, you're welcome to comment on my talk page and we'll have a look together. Good luck with your search and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 05:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

10:24, 22 June 2024 review of submission by


I'm hoping you can help me with this article on chemsit Harry Lister Riley. The person here I have tried to add a biographical page for here, linking to your existing article on the chemical process "Riley Oxidation" named after him died in the 1980s before the days of wide use of the internet and consequently there is not much of a digital footprint for him. The details I have found come in part from an entry in a 1972 edition of Who's Who, and earlier local Yorkshire newspaper cuttings I've got hard copies of from the 1940s and 50s. Is there any way to reference these? (talk) 10:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, sources do not need to be online. Please see referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 11:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Note that we need a minimum amount of information for offline cites, and we use specific templates for citing them:
  • Periodicals use {{cite news}} or {{cite magazine}} and require the publication name, edition (e.g. 1 Jan 1924), article name, article byline, and the pages the article is on.
  • Books use {{cite book}} and require the title, author, publisher, year of publication, page(s) being cited, and either the ISBN or the OCLC#.
Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

14:43, 22 June 2024 review of submission by NDLaity89


how to find a version of wikipedia in french ? NDLaity89 (talk) 14:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

NDLaity89 go to 331dot (talk) 14:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

16:55, 22 June 2024 review of submission by Rainbobrain


Hi, I was wondering why my submission was denied. The company I own and run is the source for the information. The company is explicitly dedicated to the study of this phenomenon. Rainbobrain (talk) 16:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Rainbobrain: this draft was declined for the reason given in the decline notice, namely that it is not referenced. You may well be an expert in this subject matter, but even then, we don't want to hear what you know about it, but rather what reliable published sources have said. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Rainbobrain: I would also not edit in this topic as a new editor. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Rainbobrain what do you mean by "The company I own and run is the source for the information."?
That statement clearly confirms WP:COI which you haven't yet declared. Please go through WP:COI and WP:UPE. Twinkle1990 (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 21:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

17:21, 22 June 2024 review of submission by


He is an important Bangladeshi journalist, lyricist, dramatist and actor about whom this article is written. People constantly want to know information about Shamim Hossen. So I want Wikipedia to have an article about this person. I want your advice in this regard. thank you (talk) 17:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I can't assess almost all of your sources (language barrier). I will, however, note that anything he writes, says, films, commissions, semaphores, interpretive-dances, etc. is useless for notability (connexion to subject). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Well, I have moved on the draft for a quick check. But what I have found is the subject is not even borderline notable. You have just done WP:REFBOMB on the draft with same ref in multiple claims that failed verified claims. Kindly go through WP:NMUSIC and WP:REFB. I am well aware about Bangladeshi media. Most of them use to publish with payment. Should I provide evidence? For your check here is one [1] and check for the paid article section. Twinkle1990 (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

18:34, 22 June 2024 review of submission by Kharavela Deva


To perfect the references area by using variable and reliable sources. Kharavela Deva (talk) 18:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Courtesy link: Draft:Anuvadi Svara StartGrammarTime (talk) 05:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

19:37, 22 June 2024 review of submission by Uglykidboe


Hi I am new to Wikipedia, and started to edit recently. I was asked to replace my references with independent reliable references in my draft. I believe I did that, can you please verify my draft: Appreciate the help Thanks Uglykidboe (talk) 19:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Uglykidboe: if you believe you have sufficiently addressed the reasons for the decline, then please resubmit your draft, that way you will get another review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

19:47, 22 June 2024 review of submission by Faisalpkavil


Kindly inform what I need to do to accept this submission. Faisalpkavil (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Left 'm my standard deletion notice. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

June 23


00:30, 23 June 2024 review of submission by Belleandpoppy


I asked recently when my wikipage would be reviewed as it has been two months since I submitted it. I would be grateful to receive a response to this question. Belleandpoppy (talk) 00:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Belleandpoppy: for the record, you most recently submitted this draft on May 13; it is now June 23. As it says on top of the page, reviews may take 4 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,310 pending submissions. It is impossible to answer your question, as this depends on when a reviewer picks up your draft – could be today, could be weeks from now. Please be patient. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

01:00, 23 June 2024 review of submission by Rijomamo


Dear Wikipedia team, I am writing to inform you that my recent article submission to Articles for Creation has undergone a review process. Unfortunately, I regret to inform you that it has not been accepted at this time. The reason provided by your team for the rejection was as follows: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." I would like to inquire about the specific requirements for reliable sources that are necessary for the acceptance of my article. I have included inline citations with links to the official websites of the relevant companies, where the information in the article is stated. Additionally, I have provided links to websites that showcase interviews with the person the article is about, and other relevant sources. Despite these efforts, it appears that the article still fell short of meeting the necessary criteria. I would greatly appreciate it if you could provide further guidance on what exactly needs to be addressed in order to meet the requirements for article acceptance. I am eager to make the necessary revisions and resubmit the article for reconsideration. Thank you in advance for your assistance. I look forward to your response. Yours sincerely,


P.S. What criteria are used for acceptance? Are there alternative sources that I can use? Any suggestions to improve source credibility?

Rijomamo (talk) 01:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Rijomamo: Every claim that could potentially be challenged by a reasonable person MUST be cited to an in-depth, independent-of-the-subject source that explicitly corroborates the claim or, failing that, removed wholesale. This is not negotiable, and slapping a source at the end of the paragraph is not enough. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Rijomamo: And after actually scanning the draft rather than skimming it, I have tagged it for speedy deletion as blatant promotion. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi @Rijomamo! You might not have spotted it, but the words 'reliable sources' in your decline notices are a link to a lot of information about the kind of sources you're looking for. We often sum it up as WP:42 or the golden rule: you are looking for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. You are trying to establish that this person is notable by Wikipedia's standards, which don't always match what you might think makes someone notable. So let's have a quick look at your current draft.
First, you'll need to learn about how to do citations. Once you've found some reliable sources, read through referencing for beginners before adding any to your draft. You must get this right so that people reading the article can verify your sources and be sure that you're accurately recording what the sources say. Since you are writing about a living person, you also must read WP:BLP, the rules for articles on living people. If you don't follow those rules, parts or all of your article will be removed very quickly.
Okay, now we're finally onto the sources! Here's what you have:
-Refs 1, 2, 7, 10, 11 are promotional and appear to have been written by Martinez or his publicity team, so they cannot be used (not independent)
-Ref 3 is a list of credits, which cannot be used (not significant coverage)
-Ref 4 is an interview, which cannot be used for notability; you can only use interviews for basic biographical facts like his birthday (not independent). This citation is also completely wrong, because at the moment it's saying that Martinez wrote the article, which he did not.
-Refs 5, 6 are images of diplomas, which cannot be used (not significant coverage and probably not something you want everyone on the internet to see in any case)
-Ref 8 is a list of people, which cannot be used (not significant coverage)
-Ref 9 doesn't mention Martinez at all
-All the rest of the references are pages about other artists altogether, and are absolutely useless
Unfortunately, you have no reliable sources.
As a last note, it seems to me that your username suggests you might be Ricardo Jose Martinez Mora. If that is in fact you, I'd like to direct you towards the autobiography policy. Please read it carefully, and also read through why an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. You'll also want to read the conflict of interest page and follow the instructions to declare your conflict of interest.
I hope that's helped you; if you choose to continue with either this draft or joining the wider Wikipedia community to work on other articles, I wish you happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 06:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi StartGrammarTime, thank you for your response. I'm clarifying some point though. I understand everything you said regarding the first part of your reply; however, there are a couple of things you should know in order to have a clearer picture.
Ref.4 I think you're mistaken. At any moment it's sayin "Martinez wrote the article". It is literally an interview supporting the claims.
Ref 5 and 6 are specific support of the claim they come from. The only way is to show the diplomas from the website the were originated.
Ref.8 isn't just a list of people, Ricardo is in that list but there is no direct link to him, rather it has to be scrolled and search but he is in there, again, as a support of the claim of sponsorship from that brand which is very relevant in the musician's world.
Ref.9 Effectively doesn't mention the person because it doesn't have an artist section. However, it's mentioned within the Hartke citation that Hartke owns Michael Kelly and in fact, in the Hartke citation it says specifically that the person uses "Michael Kelly Basses".
The ref. 10 and 11 in fact were written by the companies referring in the citation and rather than promotion, the citations are intended to support the statement where they come from which is the fact that those companies promote the person and that's significant achievement in the musician's world (I don't know if you are aware of that).
The other references were intended to support the fact that Ricardo indeed participated in those recordings that certainly were recipients of the awards it's stated they won.
The rest of the information you pin point is accurate regarding the articles and section you suggest to read. I just pointed out these points specifically that I think you should know. Rijomamo (talk) 07:32, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Rijomamo: My responces:
Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 08:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

04:08, 23 June 2024 review of submission by Spongebobguy2


I tried to style it after the "List of unofficial Sonic the Hedgehog media" but the fail the submission I've made sure to use sources known as reliable by wikipidia and picked well known fan media am I still to broad with my sources and selection? Spongebobguy2 (talk) 04:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

05:22, 23 June 2024 review of submission by Akachukwu Vitalis


I am seeking guidance in ensuring that the article is formatted correctly and that all sources are cited accurately. Akachukwu Vitalis (talk) 05:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Akachukwu Vitalis please read WP:CITE. Twinkle1990 (talk) 07:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

07:47, 23 June 2024 review of submission by Rullanjar


The article I submitted is the same one I wrote for another website ( Do I still need to revise it? Rullanjar (talk) 07:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rullanjar Fixed your link to go to the correct location. 331dot (talk) 07:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
You cannot simply copy word for word text that you wrote elsewhere to here, this is a copyright violation(even if you are the writer) unless the text was explicitly released with a licence allowing its reuse by anyone for any purpose with attribution(which your text was not). Original text is preferred anyway- text that summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about the (in this case) musical group, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musical group. 331dot (talk) 08:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
(Or, in simpler terms, we can't use text that was published under all-rights-reserved standard copyright because it is fundamentally incompatible with Wikipedia's copyright licencing.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 09:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

12:08, 23 June 2024 review of submission by Nakhungu Mukopi


i need reasons why my article was rejected for submission

Nakhungu Mukopi (talk) 12:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Nakhungu Mukopi because it is pure spam and will be deleted soon. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talkcontribs) 12:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
what do you mean it's pure spam? Nakhungu Mukopi (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
The submission is littered with promotional text like Committed to developing local talent, she has a keen eye for recognizing and fostering potential to benefit her business empire and the Kenyan economy. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talkcontribs) 12:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for your feedback , so what would you recommend instead for it to be published? Nakhungu Mukopi (talk) 12:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Nakhungu Mukopi: this draft will not be published, it will be deleted. If you wish to write a new draft about this person, you need to do so by summarising (in your own words, but without any additional 'spin' or embellishment) what independent and reliable secondary sources have said about her. This draft cites no such sources (or in fact, any sources at all). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
  1. Find places where people with no connection with the subject have chosen, off their own bat, to write about the subject at some length and been published in reliable places. Ignore anything written, published or commissioned by the subject or their associates, and anything based on an interview or press release.
  2. Forget everything you personally know about the subject.
  3. Write a summary of what those sources say about the subject, citing the sources appropriately.
ColinFine (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

13:20, 23 June 2024 review of submission by TheNuggeteer


I got my draft rejected for non-notability, but I dont think this is non-notable/non-reliable, is this topic reliable/notable or not? TheNuggeteer (talk) 13:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your draft has not been rejected (which would mean the end of the process) but declined. The decline notice is not saying that the party is non-notable, but says that the draft does not yet cite adequate sources to establish that it is notable in the special sense used by Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 21:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

13:24, 23 June 2024 review of submission by


shut it you have no advice over me (talk) 13:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

So why did you ask a question here? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talkcontribs) 13:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
-CaseOh (talk) 13:37, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Is this neccessary? TheNuggeteer (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Huh? TheNuggeteer (talk) 13:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
idk lol. just my C O U N T R Y (talk) 13:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sadly, as a geofiction guru myself, I've long learned the hard way too: Worldbuilding is frowned upon across WP (even in userspace); see also WP:FAKEARTICLE. There are different other avenues to discuss/showcase your creation--Reddit, StackExchange, Cartographers' Guild, your own blog (if you do have one), maybe a Miraheze wiki of your own (like I already have)...the list goes on. Should you come back in July (when your block expires), we encourage you to take up editing pages on real-world places and subjects, and creating material that adheres to WP:Notability and WP:Reliable sources. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 02:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

14:31, 23 June 2024 review of submission by Pentpark2019


Hello, this page was recently rejected. I was curious to get more thoughts on the sources I had provided on the talk page Draft talk:Arthur L Aidala. Any help is appreciated. I have already declared my conflict of interest at my user page. Pentpark2019 (talk) 14:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Pentpark2019 The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft submission process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that a draft may be resubmitted.
The draft does little more than document his media appearances. A Wikipedia article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. "Significant coverage" is that which goes beyond merely documenting facts about the person, it goes into detail about what the source says is important/significant/influential about the person. Has Mr. Aidala had a particular influence on the legal field? Created new legal theories or strategies? Argued notable cases before SCOTUS? Things like that. Merely appearing on TV does not confer notability. 331dot (talk) 15:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
What is the general nature of your conflict of interest? 331dot (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

16:37, 23 June 2024 review of submission by Sudheer Mattaparthi


My Wikipedia article( was not approved. Could you please tell me what changes are needed to get it approved? Sudheer Mattaparthi (talk) 16:37, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

You need to provide sources for ALL the information not just the census figures. Theroadislong (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Using "beautiful village" in the very first sentence alone won't cut it per WP:PUFFERY, either. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 00:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

20:15, 23 June 2024 review of submission by Nicholas Cusanus


I am trying to create a new article, but it keeps on being rejected. The last time because of unreliable sources. The page (on a university professor) contains sources and references to university and publisher’s pages, so I am not quite sure what the reviewer could possible mean, because it was not specified. How to move forward? Every time I change something, I have to wait for months for a new version to be reviewed.