Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 April 15
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < April 14 | << Mar | April | May >> | April 16 > |
| Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages. |
April 15
edit06:37:01, 15 April 2017 Observation against a review of submission by Bkpsusmitaa
edit- Bkpsusmitaa (talk · contribs)
Why is only one voluntary reviewer, SwisterTwister monitoring my draft article, vOICe? As soon as I posted a helpme post in the talk page of the article Draft_talk:VOICe, he posted his reply, which is not acceptable. I have myself enhanced some articles that existed in wikipedia but were without any references, for example, only recently, Spin Trapping.
Are there no other editors who could peruse the draft, which I keep embellishing, and make it into an article?
It is not about satisfying my ego, my animal need to be heard or recognised, but I consider it as very important and my pride to be able to report a groundbreaking research to the wikipedians!
Bkpsusmitaa (talk) 06:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- Bkpsusmitaa: you submitted the draft for review, and it was rejected by Robert McClenon. You improved it and resubmitted it; and after only two days (remarkably fast, considering the length of the queue), it was reviewed again, by SwisterTwister. You have since improved it further, and it is once more in the queue. No-one is "monitoring" it, and no-one has a duty to monitor it.
- Despite SwisterTwister's rapid reviewing of your article, you accused him of "foot-dragging". He replied politely, and after only 17 minutes. Why do you consider that "not acceptable"? He has no more duty to help you with the draft than any of thousands of other volunteer editors. Maproom (talk) 08:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- Reply from Bkpsusmitaa:
- The moot point is that I could have converted the draft into an article myself, but desisted from doing it, because of my empathy and moral support for the editors. Actually, no duty (rather, responsibility) was expected of SwisterTwister.
- Only 17 min delayed review is not foot-dragging, continual denial for nearly two weeks, and again posting a negative reply within 17 min is; appears as if the reviewer waited for posting a denial.
- I acknowledge Sw...Tw...'s quick reviewing, but not my being limited by one particular volunteer editor who preferentially expects a lot of significant sourcing, when I (specifically mentioned earlier) myself have added all the references to a zero referenced article only recently.
- I do have an observation to make against the preferential monitoring of one particular poster, while other un-referenced / un-sourced articles lie unnoticed for a long time. Bkpsusmitaa (talk) 09:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- You aren't limited to "one particular volunteer editor". Each time your draft is reviewed, you are likely (but not guaranteed) to get a different reviewer. Your draft has so far been reviewed twice, by different reviewers.
- From Bkpsusmitaa: No, twice by Robert_McClenon in the beginning, but thrice by Sw.Tw., that too, for an extended period of time. That's what irks me! Which is why I posted my observation here!
- BTW, why don't you check for yourself whether the said article (rather, technology) has enough significant sourcing?! Such verification only requires common sense. Then we wouldn't have to engage on repetitive exchanges! And do remember to ping me.
- I don't know who you mean by "one particular poster" (Bkpsusmitaa: That would be 'me'). We are all volunteers. Some of us chose to monitor things, some choose to review articles, some choose to correct spelling mistakes. We have no duties. In particular SwisterTwister has no duty to review, or even look at, the draft again (Bkpsusmitaa: But he still was there! The dates and reviews are themselves evidences!). Maproom (talk) 13:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- You aren't limited to "one particular volunteer editor". Each time your draft is reviewed, you are likely (but not guaranteed) to get a different reviewer. Your draft has so far been reviewed twice, by different reviewers.
Reply - In terms of your concerns regarding sourcing and the appearance of unsourced articles on Wikipedia, I would recommend reading Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, which among other things, will explain why policies such as Wikipedia:Reliable sources is followed by reviewers here despite the existence of unsourced articles elsewhere. I would also comment that it appears that the "Reaction" section within your draft appears to be promotionally driven. Isingness (talk) 22:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
10:53:06, 15 April 2017 review of submission by Ijvascvisualarts
edit
Why this article was declined?
It is all about a new kind of technique drawn on paper by finger nails called Finger Nail Art. A dissertation on this work submitted in the department of Fine Arts at Aligarh Muslim University and Kurukshetra University, India.
This art was shown in many exhibition.
Kindly approve the article.
Thanks.. Ijvascvisualarts (talk) 10:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- Hello, Ivasc. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Surely you must have seen that your submission was blank and that this was the reason for its being declined. I looked a little deeper and found that you had introduced some coding errors that caused the draft to appear blank. Those errors are now corrected and the full text of your draft can be seen. Feel free to re-submit the draft when you feel it is ready for review. Before doing so, however, you might want to take a look at WP:CITE and WP:Referencing for beginners. In its current form, your draft falls far short of our referencing requirements. It is unlikely to be accepted for publication unless you can demonstrate that the subject has received in-depth coverage from reliable sources that are independent of him, and you must make that demonstration by using proper referencing. I also note that the entire tone of your draft causes it to appear more like an essay than a neutrally-worded encyclopedia article. Finally, the layout of the material fails many aspects of our Manual of Style, especially the requirement for using headers. In all, you probable should work through our WP:Tutorial, which will introduce you to the basic techniques that are used here at Wikipedia to craft acceptable articles. You also might want to take a look at some of our better-quality articles on visual artists such as Caspar David Friedrich and Daisy Jugadai Napaltjarri, which will give you some idea of what a properly-formatted article looks like. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 12:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)