Sogras

Hello,

Regarding your request for help with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Zinovia_Dushkova

Thank you for your contribution. It's a great article, written in a detailed and informative manner. A great narrative. Awesome piece of work. I found it very interesting to discover this author thanks to your review.

On Wikipedia, however, you'll generally find reviewing editors with high level of skepticism and scrutiny, especially when the subject is related to metaphysics and esoteric topics. What they expect from an article is to be written in a concise encyclopedic manner, focusing on the possibly most neutral review of the very key facts about the subject in question.

In my opinion, your article qualifies for the main space, but it must be shortened.

You may try to exclude some of the details on this stage, leaving only the most neutral and most significant facts, and possibly include some independent critical (negative reviews for balance?) information (if you can find it).

After doing that, you may post your request for help in restoring the article to the main space here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests

Regards, Nazar (talk) 09:14, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Nazar, Thank you very much for your comments. I will try to reformat the article during the next weeks. Sogras (talk) 17:18, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Advertisement

Hi sogras, why was it considered an advertisement. scope_creep (talk) 13:37, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Scope_creep, thank you for your reply to my request. I don't know why it has been tagged as an ad (I'm new here). User Nazar explained to me that articles on such a topic are perceived with skepticism by reviewers, and advised me to find critical information for balance. I managed to find such information and added it to the appropriate section. I've also added the "Teachings and ideas" section which I noticed in the articles about Eckhart Tolle and Gary Zukav. Sogras (talk) 13:56, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Right can you resubmit it for review. scope_creep (talk) 14:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Zinovia Dushkova has been accepted

Zinovia Dushkova, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

scope_creep (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Work to be done

Hi Sogras, can you please add the rest of the book is, the most notable ones anyway, as many as possible. Also can you add the |trans-title= tag to the refs, and put the English translation on the references, so that we know what they say. English is paramount on here. I have also asked a copy editor to look at it, at WP:Wikiproject biography. There is no education section as such. The universities are not linked. Why is that? scope_creep (talk) 14:45, 29 August 2018 (UTC) The sections, Hierarchy of Light to Equal rights for men and women can come out as they are not references, and not directly about the lady. According to this, [1] there is a significant number of awards. Please list then, and reference. The 20 Years of Gagauzia" Medal, reference is dead. Hope that helps, and is a good start.

If the The Teaching of the Heart is notable enough for its own article, then the sections with no references may be migrated to it. scope_creep (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much for all your comments, Scope_creep.

Before creating this article, I read existing articles about other authors in this genre on Wikipedia and, since I did not find the "Education" section as being worthy for its own section, I did not include it. Of course, it is possible to separate educational information.

As for awards, I thought that only significant ones should be added. For example, Wikipedia has questions to Nautilus Book Awards, but, after my research, I found that the appropriate imprints of all the "Big Five" publishers submit their books to them (they would not do this, if the award were insignificant in their eyes). This is why I mentioned it. The medal "20 years of Gagauzia" was established by Gagauzian People's Assembly, which makes it a kind of governmental award that I thought was worthy for inclusion (reference for this award is not dead, it is an informational periodic publication of this autonomous region). I will certainly add all other awards to the appropriate section.

All titles for the subsections in the "Teachings" section are my own inventions in order to ease the experience of reading, so that it is possible to see main points of Dushkova's ideas at a glance. In the PhD dissertation which is the source for the whole section (unless another reference added) there is no division into subsections, but the text simply goes on and on with their analysis. If titles for subsections cannot be provided based on the main idea expounded in its text and if such an action is qualified as "original research", then all the titles of the subsections in the in the "Teachings" section should be removed and the text should be merged.

I will try to add title translations for sources by the end of today. Should I add the English translations for the titles of periodic publications as well? For example, Sotsial'na psikhologiya [Social Psychology]. Or only for article and book titles?

Thanks again for your help. Sogras (talk) 16:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

It may be the case the the awards section is not needed. The Nautilus Book Awards article looks solid, with a bio listing? It hard to tell to if it is notable even with a big article. You need to differentiate education from early life. There is never an explicit education section, unless the article is huge. The life section is a fair size and could do with splitting. If you planing to expand to FA?. Take this out: Thanks to her deeply religious grandmother, Facts only. Having read it three or 4 times the The Teaching of the Heart needs its own article. scope_creep (talk) 16:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Had look at the Nautilus Book Awards, Dushkova links to then on here own site, so need to go in, as it is encyclopedicscope_creep (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I've added translations for source titles, created the "Education" section, and restored categories which were removed when the article was moved to draft. I've also moved the info about Nautilus to the "Awards" section. Sogras (talk) 19:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I can certainly create an article dedicated to The Teaching of the Heart. However, currently I'm not sure how to do this and what rules I should follow. For example, this page Be Here Now (book) contains the summary of the book's sections. But I cannot understand what has served as a source for that information? It seems that editors themselves write this. Another significant problem is whether The Teaching of the Heart is notable enough in the eyes of Wikipedia to have its own page, because it might take a few weeks to create its article and then it might be simply nominated for deletion due to the lack of notability. Sogras (talk) 20:56, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sogras, got your message. The only tell, if the book is notable, is if there coverage that satisfies WP:SIGCOV and enough WP:Secondary sources. Regardingthat point, the central section needs to good references. If there is not provides, then it will need to go. Good work on the refs! Still need more books, particularly the most brilliant ones, with the best work. Hope that helps.

New Speedy Deletion of "Mooji"

Hello Sogras, I noticed that a while back you gave feedback on the deletion nomination of the page "Mooji". It ended up being deleted. I was given permission to draftify it and fix the issues. It is now back in mainspace, but it was nominated for speedy deletion despite having over 10 new third party sources to show that Mooji is a notable person. I would be happy if you could take a look and give any feedback you may have. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mooji Thanks so much for any input you may have. Sumantra1 (talk) 19:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Sumantra1, I'm sorry to hear that Mooji's page is again nominated for deletion. In my opinion, the problem is that the article is still based on primary sources, not secondary ones. You have added a lot of interviews with him, but these are primary sources. See: Wikipedia:Interviews and Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources. You need to find more secondary sources in order to meet the notability criteria. Why haven't you added this source? Sogras (talk) 01:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

• Sumantra1, there is also a book review in Publishers Weekly which you probably can use somehow for the "Teachings" section: [1]. Sogras (talk) 02:01, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Sogras, thank you for the feedback! It is very helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumantra1 (talk • contribs) 10:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC)