User talk:DoubleGrazing/Archive 9

I saw your review of Draft:John Conacher Harrison

Great catch!

I've worked out a list of what we might do when we find a copyvio, and hope that you will find it useful. I also hope you are not my grandmother and I am not teaching you to suck eggs! I've just been through that draft brutally, also requesting a cv-revdel. That cleanup task that we were asked to do on WT:AFC caught my imagination

I'm not making any criticism, express or implied. I'm just wondering if you want to play! Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 19:25, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey @Timtrent, thanks for dropping by.

I am indeed your grandmother, but please keep this between us.

As it happens, I am also in need of a crash course on egg-sucking of this particular kind, so your message is most timely. Yesterday I found a copyvio (here), deleted the offending content, and requested revdel. Then I came across this John Harrison draft, but didn't delete anything because it wasn't quite as clear-cut (potentially several violated sources), so I just declined it and asked the submitter to clean it up. This left me feeling uneasy, knowing that I hadn't done my job quite right, but I cavalierly brushed such feelings aside and moved on to the next draft. It did, however, make me realise that either the procedure for dealing with possible copyvios isn't as clear as it should be, and/or I don't know the correct procedure well enough (almost certainly the latter), so I made a mental note to look into this. And here you are now with your very useful crib sheet, as if having read my mind. :) Thank you. I will certainly bookmark that, as I will no doubt need to resort to it later.

I'm still not clear on how to deal with 'messy' copyvios (multiple sources, close paraphrasing, etc.) but I'll work on that.

Cheers, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Multiple sources is just a bit of a slog, esp since the revdel thing only lets you add three of them and this one had in excess of four. I almost speedied it!

Close paraphrasing is damnably hard to identify. I htink, once identified, we probably treat it as if it were a full copyvio, but change the brutal redaction notice to "close paraphrasing"

Since you arę my grandmother I just need one more of those and two living grandfathers so I can present myself with all of you alive and apply for my pension! Any missing grandparents and no pension. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 23:15, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Timtrent the other three may also be lurking here under various aliases; just keep asking everyone you come across. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:16, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I shall have to do just that! Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 17:21, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Discography

Hi DoubleGrazing, Thanks for your advice, it was hard for me to find all his productions, but i have cutted lot of them to leave only the most notable items as you suggested me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigAe286 (talk • contribs) 05:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Boston Postdoctoral Association - thanks for the tip!

Hey, thanks for the comment! Very helpful! 159.2.38.68 (talk) 15:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Ernest Droese

Hi, Double Grazing, thank you very much for your notice. Sorry, it's my first article - I don't know, what you mean: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources". Esp. I have noted some articles from specialist encyclopedias and now also an external link. As far as I can see these are reliable sources. There is no book about Droese. There is still source material in Birmingham and Berlin. Should I note this as well? Please, can you help me? Thank you and kind regards, Xantrilum — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xantrilum (talk • contribs) 20:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Xantrilum: thanks for stopping by. I don't know if you read the entire decline message including my comment, but just to repeat, this draft was declined for two reasons:

1. There is only one source being cited, only once, as a reference, supporting the statement that he translated parts of the Bible. Before that there are two paragraphs, and after that at least one, without a single citation. Every material statement must be supported by referencing — for example, where are the dates and places of birth and death coming from; what is the source where you found those details? Cite it. (See WP:REFB for advice.)
2. Nothing and nobody is inherently notable; this must be established by showing that other (reliable and independent) sources have covered the subject in sufficient extent and detail, what's known as 'significant coverage', and this must have been in multiple sources (usually considered to be at least two, but ideally three or more). (See WP:GNG for more.) And yes, you list possible sources in the sections 'Further reading', 'Sources' and 'External links', but we don't know what those sources say and whether they are enough to establish notability.

There are also other issues with this article, but for now I didn't see much point in listing them until the above two reasons for declining have been addressed, although I am happy to do so later. HTH, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Lisa Winter

I just took a shot at cleaning up and referencing that draft. I'm pretty sure that everything is sourced now, and I have three different independent sources that are significant coverage, as well as a few more with mentions to support some other facts. If you have time, I'd appreciate a quick glance, and any feedback you can provide. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey @ScottishFinnishRadish: you've done a great job improving that draft; I'll go and accept it now. :) Cheers, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. Sorry to bother you about it, but I figured you'd reviewed it recently enough to still be familiar with it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:45, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish — no bother at all, happy to help. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

If you find yourself with a bit more time to re-review one, I took a whack at Draft:Peninah Kabenge. Four in-depth, independent articles, one in-depth but not-so-independent, and her Woman and Sports trophy from the International Olympic Committee ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:12, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I actually moved this to mainspace myself. Thanks for the assistance with Lisa Winter. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Request Your Help in Improving Draft:Qentelli

Hello! Thank you for your interest in helping my draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Qentelli. I have added a new link to the page. Please let me know if it is neutral and notable as a link. Your help would be helpful. Thank you

https://telanganatoday.com/qentelli-to-hire-700-people-for-hyderabad-centre-aims-for-1-billion-valuation — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaruthiSharma1234 (talk • contribs) 07:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @MaruthiSharma1234: this is just my opinion, and whoever next reviews this draft may take a different view of course, but I don't think the article you've linked adds anything in terms of notability. Routine business reporting, along the lines of 'opened a new office' or 'appointed someone' or 'looking to expand' etc., usually originates from the company's marketing and publicity department, and often gets picked up by local press as-is without any fact-checking or other journalistic contribution. In this case, the article is moreover based on an interview, and as this essay explains, interviews can be problematic in a number of ways, and can usually be regarded as primary sources.

I think it's also worth mentioning that it is the quality, not quantity, of sources that matter: already a few solid ones can establish notability, whereas even a large number of weak ones cannot. And if you keep adding more and more weak sources, you will eventually get into the area of WP:REFBOMBING which can actually count against the article. So my advice would be not to add more sources that don't contribute towards notability; the draft already has quite enough of those.

HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Exo Dj

Hi, I appreciated the advice given and I edited the discography as suggested. Later I wrote here, but I saw that I have not received any response, compared to other treads opened after mine. That's why i'm trying to write again. Sorry to bother you about it, but I wanted to ask you if now you can approve the page. Thanks BigAe286 (talk) 13:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @DoubleGrazing, thanks for answering me.

I am attaching here the 3 strongest sources you asked:

1. https://www.rollingstone.it/musica/news-musica/lillo-e-materazzi-alle-prese-con-ultimo-giorno/308267/

2. https://www.inter.it/it/news/2020/01/10/light-show-inter-atalanta.html

3. https://www.gazzetta.it/Sportlife/Musica/04-04-2016/exo-fine-mondo-brano-uscita-150112232301.shtml

extra: https://genius.com/artists/Exo-dj - https://www.discogs.com/it/artist/6425351-Exo-20

Thanks for your help

BigAe286 (talk) 20:18, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Question from Bikashparajuli (12:25, 20 March 2022)

Hello, I have come up with a few very good personalities in the areas of Science, Technology and Space. They have contributed 20, 30, and even 40 years of their life in developing technologies. But they have always been shadowed because they are counted as workers for some big agencies/companies. I believe that they have given enough to society and we have a right to learn about them.

Can I make some pages about these people and write about them, about their contributions and lives? --Bikashparajuli (talk) 12:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Bikashparajuli: thanks for your message. You don't need anyone's permission, and certainly not mine, to create articles, as long as you abide by all the rules (of which there are many).

I would strongly recommend that you follow the instructions at WP:FIRST, and use the article creation wizard which makes it easy for you to submit your draft for pre-publication review.

I would further advice you to create just one article first, and only attempt another one once the first one has been accepted, as you will inevitably learn quite a lot the first time around, and this way you avoid making the same mistakes repeatedly. Good luck, and have fun editing!

Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Robilant+Voena new submission

Hi DoubleGrazing, I just saw that you did not approve the new voice I have drafted. First, I would like to thank you for your precious feedback: I will try to implement the modifications you suggested and resubmit the voice. I would also like to stress that Robilant+Voena is one of the major commercial art galleries in Europe, and it has always been open to the public to visit and enjoy beautiful artworks. The gallery deals in significant works of art – some of which are museum-quality paintings and sculptures; I truly believe it would constitute an important contribution to Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrea1861 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Andrea1861 — I hope you find what I'm about to say helpful; it is certainly intended like that. I declined this draft because the notability of the subject had not been established. Notability is one of the most important concepts on Wikipedia; in fact, it is pretty much the thing that determines whether a subject justifies having its own article, or not. Notability has nothing to do with 'importance' etc., at least not directly — it is simply a question of what others (reliable and independent sources) have said about the subject. This gallery could be the biggest, oldest, most famous or most beautiful in the world, but if no one had written a book or articles or made a TV documentary etc. about it, it would probably not get its own article. And conversely, even if it was a relatively minor gallery, but had been featured extensively in the media (and by that I mean, in publications which are reliable and independent, not ones that merely accept press releases and make them look like 'journalism') it could easily justify an article. Granted, those two things tend to go hand-in-hand to some extent, the most famous gallery is likely to have been the subject of plenty of press coverage etc., but even then it is the press coverage, not the 'fame', which matters. I would advise you to look at the general notability guideline at WP:GNG and understand it well, because at least 9 out of 10 drafts that are declined fall short of meeting that. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi DoubleGrazing, thank you for your extensive reply. I understood the concept of notability and now I resubmitted the article with many more sources like FT, NYT, La Repubblica, Korea Herald all major reliable independent and well respected newspapers including links to other Wikipedia pages were the gallery is mentioned. Best, Andrea Andrea1861 (talk) 14:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Fariman Jabbarzadeh

Dear DoubleGrazing, I have edited the draft as suggested by you, including listing more reliable sources and more references, and removing social media from references. Being Fariman an Iranian singer based in Iran, the most of the articles and tv services are in Persian though, a language that I can understand, of course. For your easiness, you can use Google Translate or I can provide translations of them for verifying the information that they contain. I have also shortened the text by removing information not supported by sources. I have removed the external links from body texts, and left links only to Wikipedia pages. I have also removed the list of articles, as they are of no use if not used to support relevant information in the article. Finally I have removed social media from references. However, you should know that in Iran everything is mostly published on Instagram, being it the only non-filtered international social medium in the country. So it is difficult for me to find the same information elsewhere. Finally, I am happy to add any further information or edit the draft further, if necessary. As it is my first draft on Wikipedia, I hope you can support my endeavour. Cheers,Yaroslava Romanova (talk) 07:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaroslava Romanova (talk • contribs) 19:35, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Dear @DoubleGrazing, have you had the chance to read my comment above and review my latest edits? If you could do so and evaluate my endeavour, that would be of great help to me as a beginner editor. Thank you for your time and patience. Signed by @Yaroslava Romanova Yaroslava Romanova (talk) 09:34, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

April Editathons from Women in Red

Women in Red Apr 2022, Vol 8, Issue 4, Nos 214, 217, 226, 227, 228 Online events: New: Gender studies | French overseas territories New Contest (Apr/May/Jun): Translation contest Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman Other ways to participate: Encourage someone to become a WiR member this month by registering in the box at the top of our main page. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Draft:MTBVAC

I saw your review regarcing Draft:MTBVAC and I think that I have already solved following your instructions.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlfMendLos (talk • contribs) 13:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Draft: Blanche Brenton Carey

Hi DoubleGrazing, Thank you for your feedback on this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Blanche_Brenton_Carey. I have updated it with extra references which hopefully provides the necessary reliable resources. Please could you have a quick review to see if I've missed something out. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhirak.camel (talk • contribs) 15:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Draft:INA-Saphir

Thank you DoubleGrazing for reviewing Draft:INA-Saphir and spotting the lack of reliable secondary sources. Would you mind reviewing again and confirming whether the added secondary sources and changes made go in the right direction and are sufficient for accepting it ? Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhchenot (talk • contribs) 15:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 49

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 49, January – February 2022

• New library collections
• Blog post published detailing technical improvements

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Joe Crangle

I added more sources for Draft:Joseph_F._Crangle including the NY Times and JFK Presidential library for material. I certainly believe he's a notable figure but I am not from the area. My real goal here is to provide enough material that Crangle's article gets to stub status so that someone who is from the area feels welcome to take it over. Evackost (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Your review of Draft:Simon Ryan (Australian Businessman)

Hey DoubleGrazing (talk) I saw your notes on the Symon Ryan page. Please see my replies below. -- Andreabbo (talk) 12:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC+11)

• Comment: Notability requires significant coverage (of the subject, not of indirectly related matters) in multiple independent, reliable, secondary sources. This excludes interviews, routine business reporting based on company press releases, etc. None of the sources cited meet the criteria required to establish notability.
  All information provided come from authoritative press news websites and should be considered relevant and accurate. I'm happy to add some more independent, reliable, secondary sources. Andreabbo (talk) 12:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC+11)
  Furthermore, too much of the content is unsupported by referencing; for example, the sections 'Early life' and 'Personal life' are entirely unreferenced, which directly violates of the rules regarding living people in WP:BLP, as well as raising the question where is that information coming from?
  -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:28, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm happy to remove the information that is not supported, specifically the sections 'Early life' and 'Personal life'. Is it enough? Thx Andreabbo (talk) 12:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC+11)

• Comment: We don't refer to people by first name only, but by full name, last name only, or personal pronoun. Please correct accordingly. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

This has been fixed :) Andreabbo (talk) 12:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC+11)

• Comment: The article uses both Symon and Simon — which is it? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry mate, my bad. I wrongly called the page misspelling the name. Should I create a new page, or is it possible to change the slug, and the title? Thanks for the support Andreabbo (talk) 12:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC+11)

Hi @Andreabbo: thanks for your message.

• To establish notability, it's not enough that the sources cited are "authoritative" etc.; they must also provide significant coverage of the subject. In other words, these sources must have written about the person at some length, not just mentioned him in passing, or written what he himself has said. If you can add such sources, that will deal with the notability issue.
• As you suggest, removing any content that isn't supported by a reliable source will in turn deal with the referencing issue.
• I've now moved the page to Simon (instead of Symon).

Best, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @DoubleGrazing: thanks for your replies.

• To establish notability, it's not enough that the sources cited are "authoritative" etc.; they must also provide significant coverage of the subject. In other words, these sources must have written about the person at some length, not just mentioned him in passing, or written what he himself has said. If you can add such sources, that will deal with the notability issue.

I understand, I've found this extra resource, https://www.bandt.com.au/ex-dentsu-boss-simon-ryan-returns-with-his-own-sorrell-inspired-digital-agency/. Should be enough to get all info needed for the page? Thanks

• As you suggest, removing any content that isn't supported by a reliable source will in turn deal with the referencing issue.

As recommended, I removed the 2 sections that had not enough proof. I hope that's enough.

• I've now moved the page to Simon (instead of Symon).

Thanks mate, appreciate it.

Best, --Andreabbo (talk) 11:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC+11)

Draft:Mae Louise Miller

Hello: You reviewed my draft, Draft:Mae Louise Miller. Thank you! You suggested three edits (changing the death date, removing the non-existent image, and making sure there are no copyvio problems). I have edited the article to fix each problem. Here is the current copyvio link. Please let me know if any further edits are required to move the article to mainspace! (I cannot upload a new image until the article is in mainspace.) SocDoneLeft (talk) 01:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi DoubleGrazing, just wanted to follow up again about this! :) SocDoneLeft (talk) 04:19, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi DoubleGrazing, just trying to follow up one more time! SocDoneLeft (talk) 20:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Why did you deleted my Wikipedia page? What's wrong with you?

I did exactly when I watch the video of youtube of how can I create my Wikipedia page. Undelete and unblock my Wikipedia page NOW!!!! Or I will report you and deleted your Wikipedia page. You either undelete my Wikipedia page or I will delete your Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthonypontek1 (talk • contribs) 07:04, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Anthonypontek1: I don't particularly want to engage with someone whose opening gambit is a threat, but I'll say this in case it helps you better understand how Wikipedia works: I didn't delete anything; I have no such powers, as I'm not an admin. I reviewed your sandbox page which you had submitted via the AfC (Articles for Creation) process, and rejected it, because it was not appropriate for Wikipedia. I then requested that an admin deletes the rejected draft, which they did. For the same reason (of not being an admin) I'm not able to restore your draft, either; or rather, I wouldn't be, even if I wanted to. You can take this up with the admin who deleted the draft, if you wish. Hope this helps, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Nourhane

Dear DoubleGrazing, When I first submitted my draft of the Nourhane article, the reviewer "Styyx" noted that there were adequate references but no inline citations. I therefore added the inline citations and resubmitted. Nourhane was a famous actress and singer in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s who suddenly put an end to her career. The references link to her songs, her films, articles and a book she is mentioned in. This is unearthed heritage and it is important. At any rate, the initial reviewer thought the references were adequate and that the article lacked inline citations, I have therefore amended that. thank you for your efforts, sincerely, May Kassem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MayKassem (talk • contribs) 12:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi @MayKassem — thanks for your message; a few things in response:

1. Styyx said no such thing (that I can see at least); they merely tagged the draft with the {{no footnotes}} template, which says the "article includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations". Nowhere in there does it state that the reference are "adequate". In any case, arguing about that is rather academic, given this the references are so demonstrably inadequate.
2. No matter how "famous" this person was, they must satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria to warrant an article. If they are as famous as you say, then presumably you'll have no trouble finding suitable and adequate sources to demonstrate that. In this context it's also worth clarifying a key aspect of Wikipedia: this site does not exist to boost someone's "unearthed heritage", but to repeat and reflect what is already known and said in reliable sources about that someone and their heritage. In other words, Wikipedia is never the first source to report something.
3. You may wish to bear in mind that all pages, including user talk pages, are public, and anyone can see everything you write. So, while you are of course at liberty to say what you want about me, before you go and complain about my AfC review on Styyx's talk page, you might ask yourself if you would also be comfortable saying all that directly to me. Just something to think about.

And finally, please sign your comments (either type four tildes, or click on the 'signature and timestamp' button above the edit window) on all talk pages, so that others know who you are. Thank you.

Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I am aware my comment was public, and was asking for advice. I could not longer find Styyx's remarks - thank you for citing it for me here. At any rate, to me "article includes a list of references, related reading or external links but its sources remain unclear BECAUSE it lacks inline citations" meant that the references were adequate but that inline citations were lacking. Since Styyx seemed to have valued my contribution to Wikipedia, I thought Styyx could point me on how to proceed as I have listed all the references there are on the internet. The wikipedia article I am creating consolidates the online references found on Nourhane. There are many offline references. In print, on film, microfilm, in numerous television and cinema archives - which may not be digitized. MayKassem (talk) 14:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@MayKassem:

1. The reason you couldn't find the maintenance template Styyx had placed is because you yourself removed it, saying you had "fixed the issue".
2. With respect, you were doing a bit more than just "asking for advice" on Styyx's talk page. "DoubleGrazing has since reviewed it and found that there were no adequate references. He started criticizing the page at 10 am, and just rejected it. I just turned on my computer and found three or four messages from him. Am I at the mercy of certain reviewers' personal opinions?" (emphases added). Seems to me more like attacking my AfC performance than asking for advice.
3. Offline sources are acceptable, as long as they otherwise meet the criteria (independent, reliable), and are published (ie. not private correspondence or family archives, etc.). They must also be verifiable, meaning that others should be able to refer to the same sources and ascertain that they support the statements made in the Wikipedia article. This means also that you must provide sufficient details for the source to be reliably and accurately identified.

-- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

that's why I modified it to "I find this 'reviewing' process to be subjective..." EX. Styyx thought I only needed inline citations and DoubleGrazing thinks I don't have adequate references. seems subjective to me... MayKassem (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I also did not understand why I was not given the time to amend: You made your critique and then rejected the article within hours. MayKassem (talk) 14:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@MayKassem: that's how the AfC process works — when you think your draft is ready to publish, you submit it for review; the reviewer takes a view on it, and if they don't think it's ready, they decline it, which is what I did. It's then up to you to improve it, until such time as you feel it can be resubmitted. We have nearly 3,000 drafts in the backlog waiting to be reviewed, we cannot give "time to amend" to each one while keeping them in the queue, because some editors can take weeks or months before they get around to responding, and the backlog would just keep growing and growing. That's why we decline drafts that need to be declined, so that we can move on to the next draft.

Moreover (and you may not want to hear this, but I'll say it anyway), you are now arguing over procedures and policies the wording on templates, none of which either you or I have much influence over. Meanwhile your draft has been declined. Surely your energies would probably be better spent trying to improve that? FWIW, I can say that as things stand, you have a lot of work to do before the draft can be published.

-- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:56, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Also - the references refer to articles/songs/films which support my article - as one other contributor wrote you above, you can Google translate in order to understand the content of these articles - be they in French or Arabic. MayKassem (talk) 14:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For your many contributions... Keep it rolling like this Volten001 ☎ 15:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Northwest or North West

Great catch. I was going to say it does not matter. I live in Northwest Georgia- Dalton to be precise and so have used American English etc. Googling that for anything to do with the UK gives North West. So since the article is about the UK I suggest you are correct and page should be moved to North West. Also, electrification is a noun so no capitals for a British English article is perfectly fine GRALISTAIR (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@GRALISTAIR — okay, I'll put it to North West England electrification schemes, then. Can always be moved, if needed, and of course you're welcome to create redirs pointing to that, if you want to play it extra safe. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:21, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Olga Markes (Doronina)

Hi DoubleGrazing, thanks for reviewing the draft and leaving your notes! I have attended to your comment about clarifying the name of the person, I hope it is not confusing now, could you check please? As for the sources, I added more of them, including from published books' databases, audio streaming providers, official journals of higher educational institutions, an article on Forbes Women. I also believe that the nature of these sources speaks to the notability of the person. Could you please check the updated version and let me know if you think the draft is ready for resubmission? I would appreciate any further guidance. Thanks! Moonman313 (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)