Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/feedback/Archive5

Feedback from 114.161.229.100 (7 January 2010)

Did you find the instructions clear ?

• Yes, but it didn't ask me to do the reference coding.

How quickly was your submission reviewed ?

• It took several days.

Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

• After I did the reference coding, the article was quickly approved. You might suggest that if contributors know how to code the references, that doing so will speed up the approval process.114.161.229.100 (talk) 01:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. We certainly don't require use of the complicated citation templates in order for the article to be accepted, although you are probably right that a professional-looking submission will be accepted quicker. I would be worried about scaring people away if we suggested they used footnotes ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I suspect the delay is partly due to New Year's Day, as well. And certainly "complicated citation templates" is not a requirement. We have a tool that can automatically generate those as long as the links are in footnotes. Timotheus Canens (talk) 12:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Feedback from Gwipaw (26 April 2010)

Did you find the instructions clear ?

• With the help of Chzz, it was outstanding.

How quickly was your submission reviewed ?

• Within the time frame as noted.

Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

• Online chat with Chzz was most helpful.

Feedback from Griswoldmerih (22 May 2010)

Hi: Thanks for accepting my article about Samuel Griswold, but I realized that I made a mistake about his death yera. It should be 1867 not 1870. I am very new at Wikipedia and I don't have any clue how I can change the death year. Would you please help me on this matter. Thank you, Merih Griswold

Did you find the instructions clear ?

How quickly was your submission reviewed ?

Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

I see you have now worked out how to edit the article. Thanks. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Feedback from Griswoldmerih (22 May 2010)

Hi: Thanks for all kind of help. I made a test search on GOOGLE and write Samuel Griswold Wikipedia, but it didn't bring the article. When I write Samuel_Griswold wikipedia in the google box it comes. Why does't it come without "underscore" sign?

Thanks for your kind assistance.

Merih

Did you find the instructions clear ?

• Moderately clear even for an impatient person like me.

How quickly was your submission reviewed ?

Very quick-I am thankful.

Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

• Not now... maybe later.

Feedback from Raj6644 (3 July 2010)

First of all i thank the entire Wikipedia Team for the opportunity offered to me write a article.

Did you find the instructions clear ?

• Yeah its pretty Clear

How quickly was your submission reviewed ?

• In two to three days

Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

• When New User search for Help on using advanced features like Templates, Chart & Tables, there is no proper search result. It can be linked to Article Creation with options for Basic User & Advanced Users.
  

More over i'm happy with B-class rating for the effort i have put on my article. I have added & improved article. How can i achieve A-Class rating for my article. Thank you.
Raj6644 (talk) 05:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Feedback from 68.106.193.194 (9 July 2010)

Did you find the instructions clear ?

• The wizard is straight forward before you get to the AfC part. It then gets a little unclear. Also when my submission was put on hold I did not know if I was supposed to put it back in for it to be reassessed.

How quickly was your submission reviewed ?

• It was put on hold rather quickly put after that it took a long time for it to be accepted, therefore my question above.

Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

• Quicken the process from hold to accepted.
• Change the wording in the hold dialog to make it more clear.
• Get more users to participate in the project, so it clears a backlog quicker.

I do have one question. Can I as an IP user assess these and put them on hold or reject them? That is what it seems like from the reviewing instructions. I would probroly just not be able to accept the responses. 68.106.193.194 (talk) 11:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. Accepting them would be impossible because unregistered users can't move pages. Technically I suppose you could reject them and put them on hold, but I would strongly encourage you to register an account if you'd like to help. That way, there is a consistent talk page to get hold of you if anyone has a query. I'll take a look at the "hold" dialog to see if it can be improved (or it's Template:AFC submission/onhold if you want to have a go). — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay thanks, 68.106.193.194 (talk) 12:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Feedback from Solaricon (22 July 2010)

Did you find the instructions clear ?

• I used the Article Wizard because I thought being my first article, it would improve my chances of not missing out anything important. The instructions were clear, with the caveat about the options for creating the article which you will see under suggestions below.

How quickly was your submission reviewed ?

• My submission was reviewed fairly promptly - but then ended up being put on Hold for what I thought were incorrect reasons, before another reviewer kindly overrode the Hold and moved the article as written into the live area of Wikipedia

Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

• Yes - the options for creating the article did not make it clear enough to me that registered users did not need to use the AfC process, which I now realise was created for non-registered users wishing to create Wiki articles. (Having said that, I felt happy to have my work reviewed by others before going Live with my first article......I might still have chosen the course I did anyway, so this is just a minor niggle!)

Feedback from Mahsa.rafa (25 July 2010)

Did you find the instructions clear ?

• Yes and no, thw wizard was great but at the end I was confused and I didn't know what to do with reference list and AFC process.

How quickly was your submission reviewed ?

• almost a week

Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

• I didn't see anywhere that I do not need to wait for the AFC process and my first article is stil in Pending status!

Feedback from 71.139.15.76 (4 August 2010)

Did you find the instructions clear ?

• They were a bit heavy and should be simplified.

How quickly was your submission reviewed ?

• It took a week.

Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

• I've done referencing before, but this process just asked for a list of sources instead of denoting which sources covered which statements. Then the article was asked not to list sources as this process had instructed to do.

Feedback from Simontu16 (19 August 2010)

Did you find the instructions clear ?

• Yes, they were pretty easy to follow. Some of the coding stuff was a bit complicated, but nothing that could not be figured out by looking at other articles.

The wizard was pretty well done, walked through the whole process in a painless way.

How quickly was your submission reviewed ?

• Three days. And that is ok since you have lots of submissions.

Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

• Just more simplified coding instructions.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Simontu16 (talk • contribs)

Hi, thanks for your feedback. Could you explain what you mean by "coding instructions"? Do you mean like how to create links or references? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Here is an example. I was not sure how the references show up or how to code references. It turns out I had to do ==References reflist|2 (I have removed the coding so it would show up here). A page for newbies that lays out "here are the main elements you'll need to have and here is how to code them". That would help. But I was able to look at many other articles and figure it out so it is not a impossible hurdle. Thank you.

I have created such a page WP:AFCRE. I hope it helps. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 14:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Feedback from Bonnie0718 (14 September 2010)

Did you find the instructions clear ?

• Fairly so. I am very new to this process and just learning the rules and the ropes. And I thought publishing using the APA stylebook was rough 20+ years ago when I wrote my dissertation! My biggest challenge was the time factor (I didn't have much)... It's tough to write in an encyclopedic style when one is passionate about the subject...

How quickly was your submission reviewed ?

• Quite so, despite heavy volume! I was very happy for all the considered help provided by fetchcomms and happysailor. Fetchcomms especially took the time to provide quality, thoughtful changes to help me to the "finish line." Someday,when I figure out how to send them proper thanks (with a cookie or a brownie or something), I will!

Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

• The livechat was interesting/difficult to me, having never participated in a chat room before. It was a pleasant surprise that folks had a sense of humor and were willing to work 'on the fly' with a novice. These people are extremely good at what they do.

Feedback from Cwestllc (7 October 2010)

Did you find the instructions clear ?

• A little bit daunting for an initial user, but, not totally out of learning reach. Without your chat support team's help it would not have been possible. I was very new to this process and was not in anyway familiar with the process of submitting material to Wikipedia. While there are a lot of support pages and material to go through, the format was foreign. Particularly, on the talk pages. Still not certain on their purpose or usage. What is the wait time for using the talk pages to communicate? Who are we communicating with when using the talk pages? Will using them delay the submission of our articles in the allotted time given for resubmission?

How quickly was your submission reviewed ?

• The submission process was quick, however, the errors weren't clear. Without chatting with support it would have taken time to figure them out. The time constraints to get the article to final specification made the process far more challenging.

Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

• The error messages could be clearer. For example when you decline an article, outlining the reasons more specifically would be helpful. A.) Needs more references B.) References provided do not substantiate your claim C.) Too wordy and written in the wrong tone. Summary: See help page article titled "guide to such and such" or click here for chat assistance and further detailed instructions pertaining to your recent submission. You may resubmit after all steps are completed.

Chat window could be larger for those who may be sight impaired.

Final Note: The outcome is more rewarding than the challenges it took to get the article to your specifications. I look forward to viewing this article submission live on Wikipedia. Thank you, for this opportunity.

Thanks for the feedback, we do not have control over the Chat because it is a 3rd Party site, however we will take into consideration the other suggestions. Thank you.  JoeGazz  ▲  14:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Feedback from Orestesg2 (9 November 2010)

Did you find the instructions clear ?

• Yes.

How quickly was your submission reviewed ?

• It was quick and very efficient.

Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

• I have one question which could also be a suggestion: Do some articles stay permanently in the stub category? For example, if the article is short and has a content which is interesting but the content is already presented in a concise and precise manner. Do these articles move eventually from the stub category to another category or do they stay permanently in the stub category?

Feedback from 27.57.165.19 (9 December 2010)

Did you find the instructions clear ?

• Partly, but can be improved.

How quickly was your submission reviewed ?

• Quick enough.

Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

• The process is quite good, but many newcomers may find confusing. This may be because they may have hard time to find things that they want. If the process can be more streamlined for everyone it will be both welcome and desirable.

Feedback from 27.57.165.19 (9 December 2010)

Did you find the instructions clear ?

• Yes

How quickly was your submission reviewed ?

• It was done quickly. Thanks for that.

Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

• Continue to improve the process to ease the burden on editors without user account. Also, regarding registering an account, I have seen many of my friend say/suggest not to do so. Because they say that their edits were unnecessarily reverted if they edited when logged-in. Why is this so? Can you people track what is being done by others? Please pay attention to such issues so that others might find using wiki usefull overall. Thanks.

Feedback from 98.151.53.27 (17 December 2010)

Did you find the instructions clear ?

How quickly was your submission reviewed ?

Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

• Yes! The name of article for Robert Glitter is wrong! The correct name for this person is Robert GITTLER! Please change the title of the article to last name spelled Gittler.98.151.53.27 (talk) 06:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Feedback from Ano-User (24 December 2010)

Did you find the instructions clear ?

• The instructions overall were clear, but I was a bit confused on how to fill out the documentation.

How quickly was your submission reviewed ?

• Fairly quickly, within 24 hours.

Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

• Give instructions on the Articles for creation page for better understanding of documentation.

Feedback from Natwexler (24 December 2010)

Did you find the instructions clear ?

• No. I had several problems. My submission was declined, but it was almost impossible to find out the reasons it was declined. I tried the "live help" feature, but no one alive was there at the time. When I finally figured out that the problem was that my submission lacked inline citations, I spent an hour or more adding them, but--although I thought I had followed the directions exactly--when I clicked the "Read" button, the footnotes failed to appear. My submission was declined again, presumably because of the lack of footnotes. When, a couple of weeks later, I finally decided to take another stab at getting the footnotes to appear, I discovered that the submission had now been accepted. This time the 14 footnotes appeared, but the "References," instead of appearing as references, appeared as additional footnotes, even though there were no numbered footnotes past 14 in the text. With some outside help I was able to fix that, but

How quickly was your submission reviewed ?

• Pretty quickly -- within a day or two, I think.

Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

• Yes. Please make your instructions clearer, and make it easier to figure out the reasons a submission has been declined. E.g., instead of just saying a submission has been declined "for the reasons cited," or whatever the formulation was -- and then leaving it to the author to try to track down the reasons, which is not easy -- why not just GIVE the reasons in the message to the author?