Hi James, I tried to follow your advices about my article on neuGRID. Could you please tell me if now the article can be accepted? Thank you very much. Wikipedia talk:Articles_for_creation/neuGRID Dariagen (talk) 08:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine. I will make a few changes (remove rewards, external links) and then put it through. Jamesx12345 (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much!

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Piergiorgio Colautti Hi Jamesx12345. Thank you for reviewing my page about Piergiorgio Colautt! It was my first submission and I tried to be as much accurate as possible. I would really appreciate your advice on how to make it better. Could you please elaborate on your comment: "I'm afraid refs to Wikipedia are not allowed. The text about his style needs to be toned down and independently sourced". I have removed false reference on the style following your comment, but I feel you meant more then that and hope that you could help me to understand it. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Piergiorgio Colautti Thanks in advance! Irinka spivak (talk) 30 May 2013 —Preceding undated comment added 06:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The references are probably OK, but unfortunately they are all Italian. Are you a native Italian speaker? It's just there are a few slightly odd turns of phrase. The english is mostly very good, but some sentences, like "More then that, he has been published as a proud author of the poems", are a bit ambiguous. Also, you could probably remove the long list of publications at the end, as I don't think it is necessary. Good article - it just needs a little cleanup. Jamesx12345 (talk) 19:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation! I have removed the list of publications and the links to Italian wikipedia (maybe it will be my next move to translated referenced articles to English). Also, I have rephrased a bit a couple of sentences as you pointed out. My native language is Russian, but Piergiorgio is Italian artist to the backbone. This is how he expresses himself in conversation and I just translated the phrase as accurate as possible to reflect what he actually said. I have resubmitted the article for the review. Hope it looks better now. Thanks again!

Irinka spivak (talk) 01 June 2013

Looks good now, so putting it through to mainspace. Jamesx12345 (talk) 15:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nikola Tesla may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I just picked up on my watchlist that you are preparing to do a GAN of Savile Row - that's great. I also picked up that you are converting long cites into short ones. Short cites are liked by some editors, and I understand that, but the long citation style is the standard style, and is one that is used within the article. Would you mind putting the citations back into the long style, per WP:CITEVAR. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Fair enough - I can just revert all my edits. There is still some cleanup required to some of them however, but I will do that in due course. Jamesx12345 (talk) 17:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think the anchor template is the best way to spilt this article up? I would personally change each anchor to a subheading to make it more readily readable.

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Silent Voices

Hello, may I ask what kind of independent sources does the page need to be approved? What kind of sources are considered relevant for a band? I've read the articles about it but there's not much when it comes to the specific problem, so I'm a little at loss. Thanks in advance! Heavvymetalqueen (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would need reliable and independent sources, as detailed here. Examples may include being featured in mainstream news sources and books. Essentially, the question is whether it is notable enough - it appears to be, given the results a web search finds. Consider including these refs: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] - as always, the more the merrier! Jamesx12345 (talk) 09:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ah, thank you! Just some proof that they exist then. I just wasn't sure since not many smaller band pages have this kind of details. Thanks for the help. I'll edit and resubmit, hopefully third time's the charm! Heavvymetalqueen (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted and created. It is now at Silent Voices (band), as there is also a film of the same name. Good work. Jamesx12345 (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jamesx12345 Thank you for reviewing the Plantify submission for a notability page. This is the first time I've tried creating something for Wiki and so, as you can see, I'm learning step by step. I've just dumbed down the page a 2nd time. If you were able to take a look as a previous reviewer I would be really most grateful for you advice. I guess you are very busy but if you do have time to take another look, and the inclination, I'd appreciate it. Many thanks DinghyR — Preceding unsigned comment added by DinghyR (talk • contribs) 14:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The tone is probably fine now, but some of the refs are not working (or not pointing to the right place, with 404 errors etc.) Using the cite web format would maybe make it look neater. My main concern, however, is that with 6 employees it might not be big enough for inclusion yet. If you have enough, but still selective, evidence of coverage, however, then it might merit inclusion. Jamesx12345 (talk) 14:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jamesx12345 - really helpful feedback. Will tidy this up as you have suggested and submit at a later date if more independent refs come through for this company. DinghyR, 3 June 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by DinghyR (talk • contribs) 09:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hi James. Thank you for looking at this page again and for creating. I will continue to try and improve it. I am trying to understand the cite web format. Lot to learn on wiki but interesting and keen to get to grips with it. Thanks again. DinghyR, 8 june 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by DinghyR (talk • contribs) 22:42, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, familiarize yourself with WP:CSD, and tag it with the appropriate template, rather than just putting {{delete}}. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 16:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted this article to make way for you to move the accepted AfC submission; but I left the talk page, which looks as though it would be relevant to the new article. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello James, Laura here. I'm wondering what exactly I can do to this post to make it acceptable? I've only presented facts, and have followed other successful pages by Architects. Any advice would be very, very greatly appreciated! Laura Laura Saviano (talk) 16:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Carol Ross Barney

Three main points, really. Firstly, the titles should be surrounded with pairs of equals signs, as on this page, and not capitalised. Secondly, it appears you have done a good deal of research, but all your links are languishing in a mass at the bottom of the page. They should be paired to specific points using the cite web template. Also, insert some wikilinks, like University of Illinois, and to other events like the Oklahoma City bombing, using a piped wikilink (like this bombing). Finally, some of the prose seems a little promotional, like "one of the highest honors the Institute bestows upon its members." It should be totally unbiased. Good work though - it just needs to be adapted to conform to Wikipedia conventions. Jamesx12345 (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jamal Mahjoub, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TLS (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing this page that I've been working on. I've done some additional edits and added a bunch of references. Can you give me specific feedback on that page that I can work on? Thanks. Hhwong (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Institute of Political Economy (Canada) Hi there,

You have declined submission for the article entitled 'Institute of Political Economy (Canada)' citing lack of 'independent sources and published sources' and 'reading like an advertisement'. I modeled this article on other approved articles about academic research institutes and at first glance see nothing wrong. Please review some of these similar articles I have used as references and let me know exactly where and how this new article diverges from what is acceptable and specifically how it should be improved:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_Economy_Research_Institute http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Paterson_School_of_International_Affairs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Ottawa's_Graduate_School_of_Public_and_International_Affairs

Speaking to sources, some of the listed sources are from the Institute itself, some from the University which hosts it, and one is book published independently of both the Institute and the University. That would seem to be more than enough to meet the sources requirement, especially when comparing this proposed article to most of the articles about other academic institutions.

Otherwise, I have made some changes so that the notability is more explicit and will otherwise be resubmitting the article for further review.

I'm afraid the criteria for AFC are quite high, and this article was very close. My real concern at the time was that all the article seemed to contain was programs on offer, with no reference to the history. Some phrases, like the "undisputed hub of political-economic thought in Canada", are would need extremely extensive referencing, where here there is none. If you could remove that sentence and add a ref or two, for example for the associations, I would be more than happy to promote it. Many thanks. Jamesx12345 (talk) 19:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James, thanks for the suggestion of merging the Tom Lovell page with the other Tom Lovell page .... I really don't know how to do this? It took me a week to get to grips with the article! ... Any tips? Thanks, Jen (in Edinburgh!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jensparkly (talk • contribs) 16:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pamela Olson promotional? If anything, it's a little questionable on notability, but it certainly doesn't read like an advert. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just felt that, considering its length, it doesn't contain much more than a list of her accomplishments and awards. It's not bad, considering some of what goes through AFC, but I just don't think it is that encyclopaedic. You could move it to the mainspace if you think I'm wrong, and I wouldn't mind (much), but I don't think it belongs in Wikipedia. Jamesx12345 (talk) 16:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish to withdraw from the review, the quickest and simplest way per procedure, is to remove the GA template from the talkpage. As you're going away tomorrow, it would be better to do this today. If you're busy, I can do this for you. I will look into your remaining concerns on the article, adjust it, and then renominate for someone else to pick up. This does happen, and it's nothing to worry about. The previous reviewer also had difficulty in deciding if it was a GA article and withdrew.

You made some perceptive comments in the review, so I think you will make a good reviewer. If you like, when you come back, I can walk you through a review or two. Generally, the smaller and more self-contained the topic, the easier is the review, because there are fewer issues to look at. For example, an article on a village church is going to be easier than an article on the Catholic Church! Sometimes reviewers for GA get confused with a Peer Review (where a reviewer will give their general opinion on the article without using a set of criteria), or a copy-edit (where reviewers focus on the prose, and don't check sources or look into the "broad coverage" aspect of the criteria), or a Featured Article review (particularly in the area of quality of prose). Prose for a Good Article needs to be clear and readable and free from basic grammar and spelling errors - but it does not need to be of professional quality. If the meaning is easily understood, then it meets GA criteria. There are guidelines to assist, though some are a little old and are of dubious value: Wikipedia:Good article criteria, Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles, Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not, Wikipedia:Guide for nominating good articles, User:Joopercoopers/Zen and the art of good reviewing, User:Ealdgyth/GA review cheatsheet. The most useful of those is Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not.

Let me know if you want me to close the GA review. And then when you come back, let me know if you want any assistance in doing another GA review. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 07:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi James! Thank you for reviewing my article. You declined it because there wasn't enough proof of me being a notable person, although I attached 13 references. Can you please tell me what else I could do to have my article accepted. Thank you Vanessa Brady 09:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanessa Brady (talk • contribs)

Hello James could you help me with my article about greg knight jenningsbet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vickyknight1105 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alexandre Sacha Putov (moved from user space) Why do you refuse my article? Have got the knowledge in Art? I don't think so — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coignard (talk • contribs) 13:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid the references are not at all clear. You need to have in-line refs for facts, not a "my proofs official now do your work please verify stop say me it is personnal source", whatever that is meant to say. The WP:MOS has all the guidance you could need. Many thanks. Jamesx12345 (talk) 14:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James, this decline was not for an appropriate reason. It explicitly states in the reviewing instructions that declining submissions for formatting issues is not acceptable. If it has formatting issues please work with the author to fix them or leave it for someone else to review. Pol430 talk to me 22:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I am trying to clear at least some of the backlog, so have declined a few where no effort has been made to make it clean and tidy in a fashion compliant with the MOS. Most often I have given specific advice, but here I have indeed been too abrupt. I will post a message on the submitter's talk page advising them what to do. Jamesx12345 (talk) 22:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for following up. Did you know there is Help:Introduction to the Manual of Style which is easier for new users to navigate if you need to explain basic article formatting issues to them? Also, Help:Introduction to referencing is quite useful. Pol430 talk to me 08:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi James, links fixed for the following article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/SA_Metal_Group Apologies for wasting your time. Please review and revert. Ilovescrap (talk) 08:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Delta Dental of New Jersey

The Delta Dental of New Jersey article that I submitted has was deleted before I was able to contest it. I'm happy to edit it to ensure it follows the guidelines, but some further insight from you would help, as the reasons cited all reference using reliable third party sources, which I have done throughout the article. All information included in the article is historically factual so I'm having a hard time figuring out which parts you feel have been presented as an advertisement. This has been a long process and I'm eager to finish it up so any feedback would be much appreciated. Thank you! Sgwwiki (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)SGWWiki[reply]

Thank you. I can see a lot of work has gone into it, and most of it is very good. My concerns were mainly about the focus on philanthropic efforts, and the use of phrases like "24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year." Whilst the charity work may be important to the company, and many sources may cover it, it looks a bit too positive to be entirely neutral in every regard. I have made a few other formatting changes as well. I would encourage you to write more on Wikipedia - you are a highly proficient writer, something that the community is short of. You might be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. Many thanks. Jamesx12345 (talk) 20:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. It is very helpful, and I see what you mean in certain places. I opened up the link to the formatting changes but I didn't see any changes. I must be missing something. I've made changes to the article per your advice. Before I delete any information regarding the philanthropic efforts, I think it is important to note that Delta Dental of New Jersey is NOT a for-profit commercial insurance carrier with shareholders. Rather, is is a not-for-profit dental service corporation, and as such, it is the organization's duty to invest in its community. Hopefully, with that knowledge, you can see why so much of the article focuses on philanthropic efforts. I appreciate any further insight you can offer to assist in enabling this article to be published. Sgwwiki (talk) 20:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi James, My article was declined due to lack of reliable sources. I was looking at the article page of a fellow education site Game Classroom and noticed their sources are very similar to mine. Math Game Time is a relatively new site and I am afraid that other sources I might come up with will also be qualified as "unreliable." Any suggestions? Please help. I would like to have my article live as soon as possible. Thank you.