July 13

• Mrngcuegee (talk · contribs)
  • No draft specified!

Dear JCC / Help Desk, Thank you for your reply and information. There are significantly more individual notable sources added to the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Shrewsbury_International_School_Hong_Kong. Please review again at your convenience. Yours, Mrngcuegee Mrngcuegee (talk) 10:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrngcuegee: Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Right now, there are about 800 submissions in the queue ahead of yours. I expect that it will be some three weeks before a reviewer gets a chance to take another look at it. Thank you for your patience. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• EloDinglasan (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Philippine Nuclear Research Institute (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

EloDinglasan (talk) 12:50, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I am Elo Dinglasan, one of the people working on the PNRI wikipedia article draft.

Our first sandbox was speedily deleted, with one of the reasons being a CoI. However, we're not at all endorsed by the PNRI. We're doing this for a class project, and we chose the PNRI because we wanted to help alleviate the stigma towards nuclear research here in the Philippines. If it is for a class project, would that still merit a CoI?

Another problem I think we may have is that though the language (I would like to think) is far more neutral than our first attempt, I'm wondering if the form itself might seem too promotional. Are there subtopics in the article that do not fit in the encyclopedic form?

Thank you for your time, I hope to hear from you soon. :)

@

WP:Tutorial, which will provide the basics on producing an article with an acceptable appearance. I was also troubled by your citation style, in which the footnotes provide only the author name and page number. The reader then has to search through a lengthy list of sources to find the relevant one. Although this is not a prohibited method of citation (I use it myself when there is a small number of sources), it is problematic here. This can be addressed by using the {{sfn}} template, which provides links from the "short" reference to the full listing.

But the problems go deeper than the mere appearance of the draft. The organization of the material appears chaotic and far too much of it wanders off the main topic. Specifically, there is too much discussion of the science itself, when the main topic should be the Institute. And much of that science is presented with language that will be understood only by specialists in the field. As just one example, can we really expect the average reader to know, or even care, about the "phase identification of a crystalline material"? This kind of technical detail really has no place in the article. And another major problem is the great reliance on "primary" sources. Pretty much all of your references are either to the Institute's web site or to publications of the Institute or to governmental documents concerning the Institute. Compare this with an article such as United States Atomic Energy Commission, which shows a good deal of evidence that the organization has been discussed in detail by sources unrelated to the Commission. In your case, this might be a problem (i.e., getting in-depth discussion by non-related reliable sources), but it is a problem shared by a lot of our articles on government agencies and institutes. The authors of those articles usually address the problem by adopting a "less is more" approach. You can do that here -- describe the Institute (in broad terms), mention the Executive Orders under which it operates, and specify the operational sub-divisions (with a very brief layman's description of what they do). This approach is likely to produce an article that visitors to Wikipedia will actually want to read.

And finally, an article on the Philippine Nuclear Research Institute already exists and so, for this reason alone, your draft will never be accepted for publication. Instead, feel free to expand the existing article with the material that you've created (after, I hope, taking my comments here into consideration). Good luck with the process. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask.

NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Hiteshy2h (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Mohammed Vakil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hiteshy2h (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hiteshy2h: Hello, Hiteshy. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the delay in response. Did you have a specific question? NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Karibsouders (talk · contribs)
  • No draft specified!

First, thank you for reaching out to me. I am requesting assistance because my edits keep being declined and I don't know why. Who decides what materiel's don't constitute proper sources? I also have the following message at the top of the page: This article reads like a press release or a news article and/or is entirely based on routine coverage. Please expand this article with properly sourced content to meet Wikipedia's quality standards, event notability guideline, and/or encyclopedic content policy. (July 2017)

Thanks!! Kari

Karibsouders (talk) 15:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This is in reference to
  WP:COI is a concern; perhaps the article's creator is merely a fan. My suggestion is that Karibsouders refrain from editing and allow experienced and objective users to review and amend the article. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Vlaurentius (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Maurits Roland Falkenreck (v. Falken-Reck) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would like to know how to place a picture. The picture I am placing is rights free and for some reason the comment of wikipedia is that wikipedia is not sure if it can be placed last but not least I want to place a grid on the right side with basic information on the inventor/person. How do I select a grid in which I can place birth, birth place, occupation etc.. VL 16:32, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@

WP:Referencing for beginners.

I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:18, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• AlexW0005 (talk · contribs)
  • User:AlexW0005/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I submitted an article about Larry Sharpe (politician) he is referenced in other wiki articles and I wanted to create a biographical article explaining who he is, he has run in high profile races like for vice-president US and currently for Governor of new york city. but im being blocked due to our notability standards for politicians, and im usure what exactly I need to add to my article to get past that.

AlexW0005 (talk) 17:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

reliable

sources that discuss Sharpe in some detail? Multiple paragraphs per source, at least? Not blogs, not press releases or stories that are based on PRs, not Q&A interviews, not anything by Sharpe himself or his close affiliates, not directory listings or passing mentions. If there are, these could be used and cited in the draft.

Some sugestions:

• The first paragraph of the "Early Life and Career" of the draft is unsourced, sounds rather promotional, and is not really relevant in my view. It might be better removed.
• As per
  WP:DOB
  exact birth dates for living people should usually not be included, and never if unsourced.
• Refer to the subject by his last name alone after the first sentence of the article: Always "Sharpe" never "Larry".
• Don't use "currently", use a specific date ("as of March 2017"). Consider how the text would read if approved and then not edited for 5 years. What would "currently" then mean? This isn't a news story, but an encyclopedia article.
• Don't use "it is said" or "rumored" or the like unless you can say who is saying it, and cite a source.

I hope this is helpful, for other articles if not for this one. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]