Feedback from 196.0.46.130 (9 January 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from 196.0.46.130 (9 January 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Mujeeb Rahman Gudalur

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from Steve Millar (13 January 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Steve Millar (talk) 09:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Feedback from 75.200.86.86 (15 January 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process? yes, you say sean rigby does not exist. Well, watch the credits on Endeavor and note that Sean Rigby is, in reality, a cop who assists Endeavor!

Feedback from 108.23.17.11 (22 January 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from 2602:304:CF81:F10:F823:144:4AA0:90EA (22 January 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Kyuurimomi is a Japanese pickle salad, popular with ma!-- Answer next to the asterisks below the questions. You need not answer all of them. -->

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Mujeeb Rahman Gudalur

ny Japanese, and Japanese Americans. Often eaten in the summer.

Feedback from 164.100.149.86 (29 January 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

I'd like to suggest an article on a Christian rock band called Redolent from Tamenglong (India). They're also in reverbnation.com/redolent and facebook.com/redolent, In.

Feedback from 81.149.131.228 (30 January 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

I have been managing my own 'Death wish' through a technique I developed called Death meditation, which even after nearly 30 years, I still find an effective way to deal with my preference to be dead than living.

I wanted to write an article to advise others of this technique, as everyone I have taught it to has found it useful, not just myself.

The way your encyclopedia works requires my 'Death meditation' to be reported or cited in other varifiable media. It looks as if I will need to find another way of advising people about this useful alternative to suicide.

Feedback from 81.149.131.228 (30 January 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

I have tried to request a new page be made for 'Death meditation' as I have found it very useful in managing my 'Death wish' rather than acts of suicide.

'Death meditation' is a technique I developed myself when I was 9years old and it helps me to get to sleep without medication or acts of actual suicide.

Due to this being my own creation I have no citings on other media sources as yet, even my own therapists have been astounded when I have told them about it.

Since it can easily be understood and used by anyone, I thought that I would try to put it on Wikipedia, as many others may find it useful for managing their own stress levels, either in conjunction with prescribed medications or by itself.

The idea is that you concentrate on dying...

   ...pick whatever method you want to try and concentrate/ meditate on it. This is best done when laying down comfortably.

Methods that have worked well for myself and others include being shot in the stomache (ala 'reservoir dogs'), blood loss from a different source (perhaps vampire attack or severe injury) and lethal injection.

Once you have decided on your chosen method, try to ignore any imagine pain (meditation can make such things quite real) and concentrate on the other physiological effects that would occur.

By meditating on the drop in blood pressure, reduced heart rate and slowing of your breathing, you can convince yourself that you are loosing consciousness to the point of falling asleep.

You can write this up differently if you want to, I just know that others may find this very useful as an alternative to acts of suicide or taking medication to sleep.

Sincerely

Lukas Green c/o Spectrum centre 6-8 Greenland street Camden London Nw1 0nd

Feedback from O2L84U (31 January 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from Ramyakr (2 February 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from Novelismo (4 February 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from Hkandy (7 February 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?

Yes

How quickly was your submission reviewed?

Quickly the first time, A couple of weeks for the second.

Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Yes. 1) To avoid discouraging potential contributors, and thus keep Wikipedia growing, it would be good to rephrase the unaccepted message more politely and in a way that encourages improvements. Now it says "Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time." It would be better if it was " "Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Thank you for your contribution. Unfortunately, it needs some more work before it can be accepted."

2) To reduce the number of rejections, and therefore the workload of checking re-submissions, a checklist of minimum standards could be shown when creating a new page and before submitting a new page for review. If possible this could be partly filled in automatically; e.g. the software could check to see if there were any references in the article.

Feedback from Taemaya (10 February 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from John Cuthbert 221 (11 February 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from 69.242.216.250 (15 February 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

no but to tear this web page down.

Feedback from 99.235.40.145 (17 February 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?

yes.

How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from 73.25.188.195 (20 February 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from Raj prem4u (26 February 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from 117.103.90.97 (26 February 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?yes
How quickly was your submission reviewed?so fast
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process? maybe

Feedback from 109.153.118.229 (26 February 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from Nimantharaj (9 March 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

The review process helped a lot to improve the article. It would have been a great support for the writer if the comments were more specific (eg. One comment was to avoid peacock terms; it would have been extremely helpful if the reviewer could point out few such cases in the draft). Anyway I would lie to thank the reviewers a lot for their voluntary work.

Feedback from 122.169.224.84 (13 March 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

122.169.224.84 (talk) 14:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[1]

Feedback from 194.247.250.157 (16 March 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear? NO!!!!!1
How quickly was your submission reviewed? NOT ATALL !!!!!!!!
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process? YES LET US MAKE A WIKIPEDIA PAGE NOW !!!!!!1

you are all IDIOTS we are AMAZING AND SHOULD HAVE A WIKIPEDIA PAGEḒẮḎḊḅạấẻḩḩ

Feedback from KTucker (18 March 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from 146.166.251.34 (19 March 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

No i did not not fast enough faster wifi

Feedback from 14.141.23.154 (20 March 2015)

Does a description related to an object need 'Full Stop'/period at end of the description text.

Feedback from Stephen Truscott (22 March 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?

Yes, a very efficient process

Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Stephen Truscott (talk) 00:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Feedback from Maybelline Ooi (26 March 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from Clement Soj (28 March 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from Clenent Soj (28 March 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from 72.200.126.233 (31 March 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from Hyperspacecodeblog (1 April 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from 205.213.104.125 (10 April 2015) bearberry9999@yahoo.com

Did you find the instructions clear?NO
How quickly was your submission reviewed?NOT AT ALL
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from Paulway29 (12 April 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from 205.235.52.30 (13 April 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

get money

Feedback from 203.33.109.217 (20 April 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from Emilyata (22 April 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from Aricooperdavis (25 April 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from IrishHist (27 April 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from Koictarsamuel (27 April 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?

yes

How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from 216.166.170.156 (5 May 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from 15live42day76 (16 May 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from Yahia.Mokhtar (24 May 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Thanks

Feedback from Grenetta mckinstry (25 May 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?


How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from 111.93.16.164 (26 May 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from Jetrev27 (26 May 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from Sasheendranvinam (26 May 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?

yes

How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

I want to follow up your feedback

Feedback from 92.233.189.126 (1 June 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from Remotelysensed (10 June 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

With this text (Stalin Statue (Berlin)I had two problems I could not solve:

1. The photo with Stalin's ear is too large. How can I get it smaller than "thumb" -- which is the approach I always use unless I make a "gallery". I tried to find the answer, but it all seemed incredibly complicated and I chickened out. How about some simple command that doesn't require us to be image processing experts? like "smaller image" or "larger image" and you yourselves can put in the algorithm some reasonable values that will surely take care of most cases for us dummies.

2. There is a lot of unwanted space before the indented quote in my entry. There is none at all in the input version. How can I then get rid of it?

Many thanks in advance for any help. --Remotelysensed (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Feedback from 103.230.6.14 (12 June 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?

yes

How quickly was your submission reviewed?

very good

Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

no

Feedback from 2601:192:8100:9A15:60A3:BF1E:751C:2FA5 (18 June 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from 163.6.211.81 (22 June 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?

yes

How quickly was your submission reviewed?

very

Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

better members/more

WSC CUP

Did you find the instructions clear?

No

How quickly was your submission reviewed?

Ni

Do you have an suggestions to improve the process?

No

Feedback from QueenHarmonysqueenators (28 June 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from VTflatlander (7 July 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

VTflatlander (talk) 23:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Feedback from Rayneet (11 July 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Then the template for inserting citations was helpful but still needed correcting by the editor.

I think that I would need a "wiki for dummies" kind of page that sets out all the important steps to create a simple article. More advanced and experienced writers could go from there to all the other links.

Feedback from 1.38.22.135 (12 July 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?

yes

How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from 196.46.246.180 (13 July 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

clear, but not pleasing. i just wanted the cost of erecting a petrolchemical plant

Feedback from 184.96.253.23 (17 July 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

no

Feedback from Williamahendric (22 July 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?

Yes

How quickly was your submission reviewed?

Reviewed within 10mints

Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

No as of now.

Feedback from 104.243.163.68 (23 July 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from Sportsnation213 (23 July 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?

yes

How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from Sanford1504 (26 July 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?

No. And I'd appreciate some specific clarification about which sources you find troubling on the page for Toby Lerner Ansin. Sanford1504 (talk) 16:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)Sanford1504

How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from 2A03:2880:2130:CFF7:FACE:B00C:0:1 (27 July 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from 197.31.217.120 (6 August 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?

yes all clear

How quickly was your submission reviewed?

fast

Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

no but just telling them about my life

Feedback from 203.111.224.250 (6 August 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?

Please create an aricle about the braising pot/pan. Thank you.

How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from 24.44.196.20 (10 August 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?

Yes

How quickly was your submission reviewed?

Yes

Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Yes

Feedback from Remo1120 (13 August 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from 103.51.138.249 (16 August 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

a) http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/puja-e-marts-last-rites-packages-online-replaces-the-pundit/article1-1373333.aspx b) http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/Modernisation-of-commercial-business-of-organsing-last-rites/articleshow/12919338.cms

Feedback from Ggluzz00 (20 August 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from Silkroader (31 August 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Should have set up the talk page sooner.

Needed: a simple wizard that explains things whenever a word is clicked And then returns to the spot where the click occurred. For people like me. Silkroader (talk) 04:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC) 31/8/15

Feedback from Cardwell13 (5 September 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from TCVCJ (7 September 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from Ventus55 (15 September 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
Yes, I encountered it, saw it had not been edited for 6 months, and chose to submit it. It meets the basic requirements: clear notability, no promotionalism, and no evidence of copyvio. It needs further work of course, but that can best be done in mainspace where others can see it also. Nobody owns a draft any more than they do an article, and all contributions are licensed irrevocably. The appropriate tag here is ((underconstruction)) but the usual interpretation is that it's good for a few days only, not the six months this had been there.
But, Ventus55 (talk · contribs), next time, I'll just remind you. I was just so glad to see a decent article among all the junk that makes up the usual drafts ! DGG ( talk ) 22:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Feedback from 212.77.204.115 (26 September 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from Parkywiki (26 September 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?

Yes

How quickly was your submission reviewed?

First rejection was speedy, although it took a further 16 days after I had simply separated out the primary and secondary sources and resubmitted the article for it to be accepted, which was a little frustrating. However I found the process helpful, and somewhat better than starting an article which gets taken over whilst still incomplete by those keen to discuss non-notability and speedy deletion.

Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

I would recommend encouraging everyone who submits a WP:AfC to state what further enhancements they plan to make or add once the article has been approved. There is no point in 'busting a gut' to refine content if the entire article has the potential to be rejected on the grounds of neet meeting WP:Notability, but being able to indicate what further modifications the originator wants to make could be helpful for both creator and editor. Putting two new articles for consideration in this way, rather than simply creating them both from scratch in mainspace as I have done before was, I think, a helpful process to me. It also made me appreciate the superb efforts of everyone involved in considering and giving feedback to article creators.Parkywiki (talk) 20:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Feedback from KravitzSchwarz (27 September 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Toward this end, an additional paragraph was added defining, more specifically the significance of the seminal research done by the subject. In the process, additional links were added. Shortly thereafter, a qualifier appeared at the top of the page indicating that the article "needs additional citations for verification-" whereas, the article had been accepted unconditionally (initially). At that point, I had no idea what the comment was referring to, as there are references galore and links at every stage of the article. Additional references are available to verify the authenticity of the subject. I've included some below, but my sense is that this is not what you want to appear in the article. If I'm wrong about that, please let me know:

There are a number of websites that track how many times an article is cited in a research journal, including Researchgate, MathsciNet and Zbmath.org. It’s not possible to discern whether the citings are duplicative, but according to Researchgate http://www.researchgate.net/publication/227163406_Lifting_smooth_homotopies_of_orbit_spaces, the article entitled Lifting homotopies from orbit spaces is cited in 151 journal articles and Schwarz ‘s work is cited in 985 journal articles overall http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gerald_Schwarz. According to the website MathSciNet, http://ams.rice.edu.resources.library.brandeis.edu/mathscinet/mrcit/individual.html?mrauthid=157450&seeall, the article Lifting homotopies from orbit spaces is cited in 84 journal articles and Schwarz is cited 507 times by 373 authors overall. And, according to the website Zbmath https://zbmath.org/?q=an:0449.57009, the article entitled Lifting homotopies from orbit spaces is cited in 40 journal articles.

Additionally, on page 12 of the publication Fieldnotes, Fields Institute in Mathematical Science, Campbell and Wehlau write of Schwarz, “His seminal work Lifting smooth homotopies of orbit space in IHES marks the beginning of his interest in algebraic groups. He recognized that the solution of the homotopy/isotopy lifting problem required algebraic groups.”

In closing, please note that the comment questioning the subject's authenticity is a bit disconcerting, as it calls into question the legitimacy of his credentials. So, my "priority recommendations" are: (1) Please give more targeted feedback on what you're looking for, as generalized feedback can be quite confusing; and, (2) If the feedback provided is unwarranted, or once the request has been satisfied, please please please delete the statement with the huge question mark that reads: Please help by adding reliable sources... harmful. (i.e., in this case: verification of a subject's credentials) that appears at the the top of the article. I recognize that this statement may serve as a disclaimer for the website. If so, perhaps stating something to the effect that It's impossible to verify submissions...., would serve the same purpose. Thank you very much for this opportunity! Best Wishes

Feedback from 86.145.105.39 (29 September 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?

Not very much

How quickly was your submission reviewed?

Not yet. BAD !!!!!!!!!!!

Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Bad clarity. should be more interactive. Signed, Westdoggys

Feedback from SatishBabusenan (9 October 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from 2601:1C0:4101:4C74:1145:7224:9DF6:DC03 (13 October 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from Dibashthapa (15 October 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from 27.251.13.250 (22 October 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from SuperMarioMan (22 November 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

I found it time consuming.

Feedback from 109.157.82.227 (3 November 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from Mrr2015 (4 November 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from 182.74.163.110 (5 November 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from 120.59.231.26 (12 November 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from 108.220.169.88 (16 November 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from BEN-AMI SHULMAN (17 November 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?

Yes & will address them asap....

How quickly was your submission reviewed?

Impressively done....

Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Accessible one-to-one assistance made a difference for this beginner writer with the wiki procedures.... I would attend future sessions for my projects-

BEN-AMI SHULMAN (talk) 13:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Feedback from Husimalik (3 December 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

no

Front

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from Abhishek Pujari (9 December 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Abhishek Pujari (talk) 07:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Feedback from 2.105.30.130 (17 December 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?

No

How quickly was your submission reviewed?

I didn't get my questions sloved.

Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Yes a lot but I don't have time to.

Feedback from Prabhjot Kaur Gosal (27 December 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from Cnkaufmann (27 December 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear? Yes
How quickly was your submission reviewed? Fast, same day.
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process? What process? A second person somehow approved my article without my corrections.

First, Robert McClenon informed me of the reference errors yesterday and stated that once I've corrected them the article should be ok for submission. Then, SwisterTwister informs me the next morning that the article was accepted, and I haven't made the error corrections yet. Why? This makes no sense.

Feedback from 197.157.245.7 (28 December 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from Indika fernando (30 December 2015)

Did you find the instructions clear?
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
  1. ^ →→≠≠