User talk:Sulfurboy/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
22:21:48, 5 August 2015 review of submission by Rmark1030
On the topic of the draft for an article User:Rmark/Alberto Gómez Gómez, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Alberto_G%C3%B3mez_G%C3%B3mez).
The recommendations were 1) use footnote citations. 2) reduce the size of included pictures.
There were footnote citations to begin with, but, in good faith I guessed that the problem might be that there weren't enough of them. So I doubled the number of citations -- trying to guess what might have seemed contentious and supplying the appropriate references. That didn't satisfy, apparently (except that my picture file reductions must have been acceptable because it wasn't repeated as an suggestion).
It's unclear what it is (or isn't) about my citations that fail to meet Wikipedia standard. I've pored over the various illustrations that Wikipedia offers on this topic and believe that I'm following the rules. My sources are (for the most part) prominent newspapers from Bogotá, Medellín and Cali, Colombia as well as a few from the Daytona Beach News Journal. All sources directly support the points and/or contain the quotes used in this article. Admittedly one or two citations stem from a social media source, but they are where direct, disinterested third party quotes were made, the only source to draw from and easily verifiable -- with the only caveat being that one has to scroll down, in one instance, or to allow a video segment play itself to completion in another instance. Also, admittedly a great deal of the source material is written or spoken in Spanish -- but then, the artist referred is Colombiano by birth.
Please advise. Thank you. ˜˜˜˜
16:57:10, 3 August 2015 review of submission by Bobowikibobo
- Bobowikibobo (talk · contribs)
Bobowikibobo (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Sulfurboy: There’s something about the footnotes that I’m not getting. I studied the tutorials, and thought I fixed the problem. I also checked out some other articles of the same kind for a model. My idea was to move all the reference information to the footnotes: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Norbert_Francis&redirect=no Help me out so I can find a solution to this last hurdle. I realize that there are a number of different methods to use, as long as the one I use is consistent throughout the article. Is there still an inconsistency that I haven’t noticed? Thanks, Bobowikibobo ˜˜˜˜
- Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Referencing_for_beginners, if that doesn't help I would advise checking with the tearoom. A link to it can be found on your talk page. I'm admitally awful with formatting references myself. Sulfurboy (talk) 23:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
21:10:45, 3 August 2015 review of submission by Stevez81
Hello, Can you please help me in figuring out which part of this resembles an advertisement. I've taken out all opinion, sited everything and kept it objective. Any direction is greatly appreciated!!! Thanks again! Steve
05:16:59, 4 August 2015 review of submission by FarhanRoots1
- FarhanRoots1 (talk · contribs)
FarhanRoots1 (talk) 05:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Sulfurboy,
We have recently tried to get a profile registered with Wikipedia which has been declined by you. We are struggling hard to understand the idea of not imposing any peacock words and avoid incorporating anything which is not upto wikipedia mark. We have also reviewed the links provided by you to better understand the encyclopedic content, however, we are still not able to revise our profile content. It has been declined once again.
Dear Sulfurboy, would you be able to specify what exactly we have to re-write in the given content? We would be grateful if you could refer to our content and highlight the points in the profile.
We look forward to hearing an affirmative response from you.
Best,
Hi Sulfurboy,
Its the Web Developer and a Content Writer. We are working with Mr. Walid Mushtaq as his team and trying to develop his Wikipedia profile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FarhanRoots1 (talk • contribs) 05:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
08:45:13, 5 August 2015 review of submission by MaralOfZeitun
Dear Sulfurboy, Can you advise me of how to edit the citations you saw as incorrect? Thank you
MaralOfZeitun (talk) 08:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC) MaralOfZeitun (talk) 08:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Initial feedback on Sacred Attention Therapy article
Hello Sulfurboy,
Thank you for your review of the article "Sacred Attention Therapy" (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Sacred_Attention_Therapy&redirect=no). The feedback you left for me was as follows:
"This submission provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter. Please see the guide to writing better articles for information on how to better format your submission."
When you say "This submission provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter," what does that mean, specifically? Can you be more specific with your help/guidance?
I have reviewed the guide to writing better articles and see much of what is offered there incorporated in my article. So I'm not sure where I am not following these guidelines.
Any, more specific guidance/help you can provide will be helpful. While I am new to Wikipedia, I did watch some tutorials, researched my article a lot, and spent time reviewing what might be deemed good articles...all before drafting my article in sandbox.
Thank you, Sulfurboy, for your continued assistance.
Sincerely,
Robert
- What is meant is that a layreader unfamiliar with the subject can see the article and understand what it is about. Thanks. Sulfurboy (talk) 00:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you Sulfurboy taking the time to respond to my message. Can you provide any suggestion for how to provide appropriate 'context?' I have followed the link to 'context' you previously provided and the guidelines do not provide me with any direction to take. Are you suggesting, for example, that I provide more background in the introductory section? Or does something else need to be changed in the article to provide 'context?' — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobMeagherSAT (talk • contribs) 01:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Resubmission of Sypro_Management_Limited
Hi Sulfurboy,
I've followed your last few bits of advice, removed the irrelevant referenced and sourced another couple of relevant and notable ones
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sypro_Management_Limited
Let me know if there's anything else that needs changing.
Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.86.38 (talk) 15:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- I will wait for another editor to review it, since I looked at it the last two times. Thanks. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
--
Hi Sulfurboy, I have removed all external links from the article altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.86.38 (talk) 08:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
10:17:00, 6 August 2015 review of submission by LittleMishaps
Hello
You have recently declined an article I submitted for Modo - Circus with Purpose on the grounds that it wasn't written in the formal tone of an encyclopaedia article and was potentially one sided and wasn't referenced properly. I have reread the article but I'm still struggling to change it.
Could you please let me know which bits of the article are the problem? Or give me example paragraphs or write something so I can see how it should be written? I'm a big supporter of Modo and I think having a Wikipedia page would benefit the company quite a lot so any help or advice you can give would be wonderful.
I look forward to hearing from you
LittleMishaps (talk) 10:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
10:57:00, 6 August 2015 review of submission by ahurvitz2
Ahurvitz2 (talk) Dear Sulfurboy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Roberta_Grossman
Thank you for your comments and corrections over the past few months as I write my draft.
On August 5, 2015 you left a note: "Comment: It should be noted that the page creator has stated they are being advised by Grossman on how to create the page. Sulfurboy (talk) 23:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)"
I am writing the page and using only sources that are factual and objective. Grossman is not advising me.
As a matter of fact, I am trying to edit the page to make it as neutral as possible.
I hope that my latest draft will pass inspection.Ahurvitz2 (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- You state right here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk#16:51:54.2C_5_August_2015_review_of_submission_by_Ahurvitz2 that you are working with them? Kind of silly to lie about this when it's on record. Sulfurboy (talk) 23:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
New listing for The Caring Neighbors Network 501(C)3 Charity
Hi -
Do you have any idea when this will be reviewed? We are being considered for a grant but they would like to see the organization listed. Seems odd but that's what they asked us.
Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawn P Adamo, CPA (talk • contribs) 17:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, but that's not a very good reason, and if a grant-granting agency asks for a Wikipedia article, they don't know very well what Wikipedia is all about and how it works. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:21, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- Shawn P Adamo, CPA, I think Sulfurboy, who's looked at hundreds of articles, will agree that Draft:Shawn P Adamo is not ready for primetime, to put it mildly. In addition, you probably wanted to create Draft:The Caring Neighbors Network or something like that. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, you did--well, that's going to have to be declined. An award in the advertising supplement of a local paper (dailyrecord.com--click at your own risk, Sulfurboy, it crashed Firefox) is not a reason for notability. Drmies (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- Drmies is on point here. Thank you for pointing these things out. Sulfurboy (talk) 23:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- Hey Sulfurboy, I see these things go by on Recent Changes and sometimes I just butt in. Feel free to tell me to butt out--I do this because you got a lot on your plate for which, by the way, we should all be grateful. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- No, I very much appreciate it Drmies, especially because my work schedule is strange and I'm sometimes away from the computer for days. Please always feel free to comment on anything on my talk page.
- Hey Sulfurboy, I see these things go by on Recent Changes and sometimes I just butt in. Feel free to tell me to butt out--I do this because you got a lot on your plate for which, by the way, we should all be grateful. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- Drmies is on point here. Thank you for pointing these things out. Sulfurboy (talk) 23:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, you did--well, that's going to have to be declined. An award in the advertising supplement of a local paper (dailyrecord.com--click at your own risk, Sulfurboy, it crashed Firefox) is not a reason for notability. Drmies (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
A cheeseburger for you!
|
A snack for when you're away from the computer. I'm making enchiladas with roasted vegetables and a creamy poblano sauce, but there's no icon for that (I kind of invented them, I think). Have whatever you like, and know that your work here is greatly appreciated. Drmies (talk) 00:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC) |
Danielle Barnett - Submission Declined
Hello,
I have recently had the same decline message from my previous message because of my reference isn't adequate for notoriety for the person I am talking about. I have used at least one reference from the golden rule? can you explain why I have been declined again and possibly help me? I am new to this.
Best regards,
Trevor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iconic Sound (talk • contribs) 10:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
17:29:10, 7 August 2015 review of submission by Geetam123
Hey! I have been trying to upload this page ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Asia_Initiatives )for a couple of months now and have been rejected a few times already. This last time, the article submitted had been pruned substantially from the earlier versions and every line had a reference. Would it be possible to know which specific line triggered the reject? Or which portions are acceptable, so that we can work on that as a guideline. Thanks!
08:24:51, 7 August 2015 review of submission by Pastor Southie
Pastor Southie 08:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
This page had been manipulated and edited so many times, that I was alerted of this and this is the 4th time! Wiki had protected the original contents... Afterwards, others from other countries could "add to" but could not take away. Too many people were "claiming themselves as founders and when I returned, it was so corrupted that which Wiki had protected the original contents was "hijacked" at some point; for the last time this was edited and finally protected by Wiki was actually in 2006 - I do apologize from earlier about the date when I had to clean up the entire page for the 3rd time. This page is very old in Wiki....
Hi Sulfurboy,
Thanks for the comments on the draft of Janus Pannonius Grand Prize for Poetry. The article was indeed copied from an outside source but the user who copied it has the permission of the original author, Mr. Géza Szőcs, who sent an e-mail to permissions-en[at]wikimedia.org stating that he releases it under Creative Commons licence. Can you please help this article get approved? Thanks. – Alensha talk 10:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
17:26:41, 7 August 2015 review of submission by Geetam123
Hey! I have been trying to upload this page for a couple of months now and have been rejected a few times already. This last time, the article submitted had been pruned substantially from the earlier versions and every line had a reference. Would it be possible to know which specific line triggered the reject? Or which portions are acceptable, so that we can work on that as a guideline. Thanks!
21:00:58, 7 August 2015 review of submission by Ewert333
I just wanted to verify that I modified the content and fixed the press release links. The new links are all legitimate sources external from Clearfield and was just hoping to see if you could give it another glance over.
Thanks for the edits
Hi Sulfurboy - Thanks for your review of this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Media_School. I added inline citations. Please let me know if there are other changes that I can make to improve the page. Thanks! TurtleClaw9 (talk) 02:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
15:32:29, 9 August 2015 review of submission by Galileo IV
- Galileo IV (talk · contribs)
An excellent reliable, verifiable and notable reference has been given (the first in the list of References), but the submission was rejected.
Interestingly there is no external reference, nothing at all, for similar medical societies in Europe and the US ( e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Thoracic_Society ), yet those submissions were accepted.
This made no sense, until I read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias
Asian medical society with notability reference - rejected. Anglophone medical societies without notability reference - accepted.
Further attempts would be futile and therefore I will not resubmit this article. Galileo IV (talk) 15:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Canoe_Journey_to_Renew_the_Two_Row_Wampum_Treaty
I've added section headings as suggested, and a new background paragraph with new footnotes, to improve the encyclopedic style. I believe the text is now neutral, and contains no lingering peacock terms. Thanks for your continued help with this. Gorgenkor (talk) 16:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, left the heading off my comment above -- it relates to this article, which you reviewed last week. Thanks! Gorgenkor (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Excuse me, but your vague comments are not constructive. You obviously need to do a lot of research in this matter before making further comments.
The issue involves a quilt that very few have seen. Despite this, there are many who will falsely assume that they know all there is to know about his quilt based on feeble research.
What is being neglected here is not the quilt, or its history but the CODE this is present on the quilt in plain view- that is if you know how to read it.There is book about this quilt and the history of those who made it. This information is very scarce. There are those who will say what code? If you are one of those, then you will need to read this book to educate yourself about this.
The book demonstrates very clearly how to read the code on this quilt.
There is a learning curve in understanding this material. If you have trouble understanding this written in plain English, then get some help. Hey,I can't read the book for you!
There is very little evidence to support any theory regarding either the existence or non-existence of a quilt code for the underground railroad. This quilt places a rare, authentic physical model of this code in front of everyone to examine and analyze. That is why we currently have a move afoot to place this very exceptional 130 year old quilt in the African American Museum opening in 2016 at the Smithsonian Institute. There is a gross deficit in our understanding of these principles. This will quite simply allow for further study. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JEAllen101 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- happening to drop by, JEAllen101, perhaps I can assist with this. It will be much easier to show notability after the quilt has been accepted for this exhibition. From what you say, you;re trying to write the article as part of a campaign to get it accepted, but we do not do. In any case, WP does not do WP:Original research -- this sort of material should really be referenced to academic articles, not populatr books. As you yourself say, there's quite a long running dispute & I think there's quite a literature available. DGG ( talk ) 03:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to DGG for your comment. You seem to have a better grasp of the subject than Surfboy, who needs to spend considerable time educating himself about this issue. African American history does not fit analysis that prescribed set parameters defined by popular media or academia. It takes a mew paradigm to understand this quilt phenomenon.
It is time to get busy. The bottom line is that Wikipedia has pages of content about the underground Railroad Quilt code that are deficient, in need of revision. Expertise is lacking, references have been made to articles that promote an irrational point of view, do not hold up to critical analysis.
Updated factual data now available. (I can't read the book for you!) The African American historical legacy does not fit prescribed set of parameters defined by popular media or academia. It takes a mew paradigm to understand this quilt phenomenon. There seems to be an overload of material that SEEMS to argue against the code, but in fact these arguments presented are quite feeble.
The better approach is to accept that not enough data exist to make an yes or no decision about this phenomenon's existence. All we have on the Wikipedia's page is the opinions of a bunch of blowhards who have no data to back themselves up.
The most difficult statement for anyone in America to say is "I don't know"
Some of those offering expertise in this matter on the Wikipedia's page are better off taking this stance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JEAllen101 (talk • contribs) 22:47, August 10, 2015 (UTC)
My Draft is again declined
- Rajcurator (talk · contribs)
Hi Sulfurboy, my draft is again declined after mentioning reliable sources. I request you to inform me of which provided source (mentioned in my draft) is reliable as per Wikipedia. Do I need to modify the title of my draft to comply with mentioned sources? Any other information which helps me to comply it with Wikipedia's norms.
universities
Despite its faultd, I accepted Draft:British School of Fashion. All degree granting schools are notable. To be sure, tenthy or thirty years ago such institutions were trade schools and did not grant formal degrees, especially in the UK, but now they do. DGG ( talk ) 03:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- Sounds good and thanks for helping to comment on a few things on my talk page while I was gone. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- I wikified the article some but I agree that it's acceptable. :) SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
07:13:26, 10 August 2015 review of submission by Sarah13BM
Sarah13BM (talk) 07:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC) Hi. I wrote an article for our Bank and it has just been rejected for references and notability robusteness. This is irrelevant given my article is finely referenced and the content noteworthy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sarah13BM/sandbox. Thanks
Hi Sulfurboy, Thanks so much for reviewing my submission and giving your suggestion. Could you please tell me if the items under the References should be only linked within Wikipadia? I'm learning Hard.:-) 1001Bookworm (talk) 11:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
12:46:40, 10 August 2015 review of submission by NABolalek
NABolalek (talk) 12:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Sulferboy,
I have listed all of the sources for a submission on an article about Andy Babiuk in the references that support all of the information I have listed. If you look they come for reliable sources like CNN, the NY Times, Rolling Stone, PBS, Billboard and more. There are over 50. I don't know how else to make it a more reliable source. We are following what Wikipedia is asking. Can you please talk a look? Thank you!!
Hi Sulfurboy! Back on July 7, you declined to submit Draft:Peyton Meyer (note: authored by another editor). Well, I've reworked that draft with material I had independently worked up in my Userspace, and I was wondering if you could take a look at it now. I was discussing this with another editor, and we both think it's probably not quite "there" yet – I think it now clears WP:A7 pretty easily, and is on the borderline in terms of WP:NACTOR (maybe just a credit or two short of clearing...). Anyway, take a look, and let me know what you think. Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Draft:Sergei_Lemberg
Hi Sulfurboy – Thank you for taking the time to review my submission. I wanted to let you know that I shortened the content and modified the citations. I have resubmitted. If you wouldn’t mind, could you please review it again and let me know if there are other ways I could improve the page? Thanks so much! SergLem (talk) 17:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Sulfurboy,
I've done some improvement on the draft and will submit it. Could you check it if it's right? Thanks so much for your time.
1001Bookworm (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Page you accepted was deleted
Hi Sulfurboy, I logged onto Wikipedia today and noticed that the page David Richter that I created and you advised me on how to cleanup and edit was redirected. The user Ahecht only explanation was "I doubt this article would pass at WP:AfD, as the references are all non-independent sources or interviews or non-significant coverage such as routing notifications of hirings and directory listings". I can undo the edit he made, but I wanted to ask for your advice before I did that or started a controversy. He is a notable person- the CEO of a large company, and most of my sources are from magazines and news clippings, which I was under the impression are notable. Can you advice me on what to do? Thank you Keelsh01 (talk) 13:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Request on 19:49:46, 10 August 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Markhelusnonexistas
I was wondering if my article draft - coldharbourstores - has been re-reviewed, after seeing that there was a duplicate page?
Markhelusnonexistas (talk) 19:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC) Markhelusnonexistas (talk) 19:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
19:50:16, 10 August 2015 review of submission by Iceprincess95
Hi,
I was just wondering what issues I have not addressed yet and what I should do to help ameliorate these problems.
Thanks for your help!
Iceprincess95 (talk) 19:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Iceprincess95 (talk) 19:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Carlos Vicioso, I recently submitted my article about my father Abelardo Vicioso, a Dominican writer, and I already included all the references that you required, 34 reliable references, and still no answer. Is it still in process of reviewing? Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carvic65 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
00:55:43, 11 August 2015 review of submission by Melissathebarber
Hi there,
I'm not requesting a re-review yet, but I wondered if I could get more specific feedback from you about what I could do to improve my draft article on Eli Stutsman. When I wrote it, I worked especially hard to write from a neutral point of view and source the information I was contributing. I have a feeling it might be the first paragraph and bullet points which follow that might be part of the issue, but if/when you have time please let me know if you have pointers for what I could do to improve the article. If you'd prefer, I could seek help from the Teahouse instead (I know you must be busy reviewing the many many articles which are contributed every day), but I thought I'd check in with you first.
Thanks in advance, Melissa
Melissathebarber (talk) 00:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
On References for PAC Cuba draft - Agosto 2015
Hello! I am sorry for my mistakes. I am new to Wikipedia world. But it is difficult to find references for the topic I am writing about -PAC Cuba- because: 1-) the group is quite young, 2-)it is run by volunteers with no support from the goverment -and so for the Cuban media that are highly officialist. It is only possible to find references to PAC in no oficial media -as web pages- and/or blog. However the work that this group has done so far -and that potentially can do- is so important for Cuba that I really believe it is worthy to report its existance in Wikipedia. PAC is the first group in its kind in Cuba, a country where for many years spontaneous or non-official associations were forbidden, and where animal welfare is not a priority.
I want to point that Wikipedia has pages for similar groups that have also used web pages links as references. Not that I am defending what is wrong, this is not the best way, I know, but sometimes there is not another. For example -among others: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Pack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chance_Animal_Rescue_Society
I deleted some references in my article. Anyway, I appreciate your comments a lot!
Best,
Valia Rodriguez
- We do not use other pages that have been accepted as examples of what can be accepted. We follow policy which was linked to you in the decline. If you have issues with the other pages mentioned, feel free to tag them or nominate them for deletion. We need reliable, secondary coverage to show notability. If these sources do not yet exist because a program is too young, then the page is not notable enough at this time to warrant an article. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- I do understand your point. I also understand that those rules are the only way to keep Wikipedia as a trustable source. And No, I do not have issues with those pages I mentionned before. Actually I found them very useful even if the references were -probably- not completely unbiased. I will try to improve my article. Best, Valia
AFC Sifter Award
_Sieve,_Flour_Sifter.JPG) |
Slakr's AFC Sifter Award For your extensive work in sifting through Articles for Creation, I hereby award you your very own set of sifters to help sift through the shiftiest submissions shifted into the queue on your shift. :P Keep up the great work. =) Cheers, --slakr\ talk / 05:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC) |
10:33:56, 11 August 2015 review of submission by 109.226.23.42
109.226.23.42 (talk) 10:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
Can you pls help me improve our article so it is aligned with the guidelines ? I have tried to follow them , but unfortunately the submission is declined again , so I need some help..
Thanks,
Orit /Appnext
10:37:11, 11 August 2015 review of submission by 109.226.23.42
109.226.23.42 (talk) 10:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
Can you pls help me improve our article so it is aligned with the guidelines ? I have tried to follow them , but unfortunately the submission is declined again , so I need some help..
Thanks,
Orit /Appnext
Link to the article :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Appnext
10:46:16, 11 August 2015 review of submission by Henok.yisakal
Hello Sulfurboy. I have recently submitted my article for review and found out it has been declined. I have made some editing and and also took my time and added many reliable references that are available online. So, can you please help me out here. Thanks!
Henok.yisakal (talk) 10:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
17:45:38, 11 August 2015 review of submission by Jnishimoura
- Jnishimoura (talk · contribs)
Jnishimoura (talk) 17:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback Sulfurboy. I am working on it ! Could you give me a couple of examples of how I should have my footnotes delineated?
Thank you,
Jackie
- Sure, you can look to Elon Musk a wiki page about another CEO. Obviously, you won't have as long of an article or as many sources, but that should show you the proper formatting and how we also like to see a citation after each claim to be able to confirm it, please keep in mind you can use the same source to support multiple claims in an article if need be. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
AfC acceptance
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lo Mein (book). It is a good idea with book articles to always check WorldCat. DGG ( talk ) 22:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you
Hi Sulfurboy, thanks for your time to review my article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Immunization_Technical_Support_Unit_(ITSU) few days back. I have re-written the article with the help of helpdesk team on IRC, it will be great if you can review my article and suggest if this is good to go. TIA, Prashant.chitkara (talk) 13:52, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Original Barnstar |
| re: "accepted" Alfred G. Gerteiny article, now in Talk. Thanks Sulfurboy and I Dream Of horse for your high and tough standards. i've learned a lot and hope to contribute to Wikipedia in the future.August 11 2015. Chasehillary (talk) 02:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC) |
Request on 04:17:47, 12 August 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Svarg23
Hi , I have sited the references . But still my post is rejected . Why is it so ? Svarg23 (talk) 04:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
15:18:56, 12 August 2015 review of submission by MaeDarla
MaeDarla (talk) 15:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC) Greetings, Sulfurboy -
Thank you for your review of my article. I appreciate your time and your response to my submission.
The citations I used were from Internet Retailer Magazine (a verifiable and reliable online publication) and Advertising Age (a global online magazine of marketing and media news which is also verifiable and reliable). I have updated the citations within my article to reflect the publication authors and dates of each citation. My hopes are that the updated, more complete citations will placate the requirements.
I do have a question regarding the addition of a company panel on the top right portion of the page. I will continue looking for information on Wikipedia for inclusion of this information.
I will resubmit for your consideration. Thank you.
Warm regards, MaeDarla (talk) 15:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)MaeDarla
Request on 21:12:43, 12 August 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by AndrewCorser
- AndrewCorser (talk · contribs)
SulfurBoy, you have repeated WorldBruce's assertion (why is it, by the way, that you aren't willing to talk to the world as who you are? I am Andrew Corser from Cornwall in the UK, and don't need to hide behind some nom d'ordinateur!) that "notability" is the issue regarding Mary Spiller.
Could I draw both of your attentions to:
1. The Oxford Times says: “Miss Havergal's regime was tough but thorough and the gardening school (1932-1971) produced several famous lady alumnae including Mary Spiller (who has trained huge numbers of gardeners in Oxfordshire).” I suggest this expresses “notability” - or perhaps you don't consider “famous ladies” to be notable? This is an independent, secondary source – whether you consider the Oxford Times as reliable may be up to question, but it answers WorldBruce's “one good source” jibe!!
2. WorldBruce says "The other BBC page only says Mary was the first woman to present Gardener's World." So, apparently, it is not significant that Mary was the first female presenter on the BBC TV's Gardener's World. At the time (1980 - 35 years ago: do either of you remember the prevailing culture at the time?) there was concern amongst the producers of the programme about having a woman in what had been a traditionally male role. Of course, there is little chance of finding any independent reliable secondary evidence of this. Again, it happens to be something to do with the success/progress of women - I hope this is not a problem for you to take on board. It is clear to me that this is something of note (viewing figures of Gardeners World were 2 million plus in the UK - not quite "Coronation Street" figures, but a significant figure for a "niche" subject).
3. There is another reference early on in the article to Shirley du Boulay's book. Mary appears in this book about the gardens of 12 expert gardeners. The chapter about Mary rubs shoulders with chapters about Alan Titchmarsh, Percy Thrower and Geoffrey Smith (and 9 other eminent and notable gardeners). In the world of gardening, this rates as notability in my book!
That's 3 references. Then there is the BBC TV programme:
WorldBruce says "The BBC apples piece doesn't mention Spiller at all." No, the snippet from the whole programme doesn't. Elsewhere, the programme does say a lot about Mary. So how does Wikipedia cope with this? I have a [pirate] copy of the programme, but it isn't currently available on BBC iPlayer...so is this independent secondary source not relevant because you can't view it?
And, of course, Mary "was awarded the RHA Associateship of Honour in July 2008 [13] [14]" - this is an honour limited to only 100 living gardeners in the UK. I wonder why she was awarded this by the Royal Horticultural Society if Mary Spiller isn't notable?
Now, if you can explain your assertions about notability, I would be interested - and if you retain your views that Mary Spiller is not shown to be notable by these multiple independent sources, then your influence within Wikipedia suggests that Jimmy Wales' idea has become shallow and obsessed with only the Interweb era.
Andrew Corser
AndrewCorser (talk) 21:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
WestRock Company
I've edited the above page to address what I believe to be the reviewers' concerns, but:
- if its predecessors Rock-Tenn and MWV were both notable, I would like to understand why the company formed by the merger of the two is not notable. WR is #271 in the S&P 500 and WP covers many smaller companies than that
- maybe early July was a bit soon to create this article, but it's now mid-August
- the article will grow as the company continues in business. I found one acquisition it's made already, and there will no doubt be more events in the near future Chrismorey (talk) 23:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Request on 13:58:33, 13 August 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Latimeria bg
- Latimeria bg (talk · contribs)
Hi Sulfurboy,
I am writing here to ask for help concerning the Drug2Gene article. It was declined for a second time, each time failing to adequately show the subject's notability with advise to improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable and is clearly evidencing why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
I've read the instructions for notability, verifiability, info about secondary reliable sources. However, I don't understand what is not right with the referencing and what is lacking. I have given seven independent sources referencing, one of them is directly quoted in the article text: "Drug2Gene [29], the currently most comprehensive meta-database, may provide a first point of reference for most types of queries" (Glaab, Enrico (20 June 2015). "Building a virtual ligand screening pipeline using free software: a survey". Briefings in Bioinformatics. doi:10.1093/bib/bbv037. ISSN 1467-5463. PMID 2609405), another one is showed as using a Drug2Gene entry in the research (the patent). All the rest evidence Drug2Gene as worth mentioning in the context of drug-target public resources.
Is there sth wrong in the way information is presented, or the way references are presented, or they are just not enough to prove notability? What does the current article draft need to become worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia?
Thank you very much in advance!
Latimeria bg (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Request on 14:01:00, 13 August 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Latimeria bg
- Latimeria bg (talk · contribs)
Hi Sulfurboy,
I am writing here to ask for help concerning the Drug2Gene article. It was declined for a second time, each time failing to adequately show the subject's notability with advise to improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable and is clearly evidencing why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
I've read the instructions for notability, verifiability, info about secondary reliable sources. However, I don't understand what is not right with the referencing and what is lacking. I have given seven independent sources referencing, one of them is directly quoted in the article text: "Drug2Gene [29], the currently most comprehensive meta-database, may provide a first point of reference for most types of queries" (Glaab, Enrico (20 June 2015). "Building a virtual ligand screening pipeline using free software: a survey". Briefings in Bioinformatics. doi:10.1093/bib/bbv037. ISSN 1467-5463. PMID 2609405), another one is showed as using a Drug2Gene entry in the research (the patent). All the rest evidence Drug2Gene as worth mentioning in the context of drug-target public resources.
Is there sth wrong in the way information is presented, or the way references are presented, or they are just not enough to prove notability? What does the current article draft need to become worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia?
Thank you very much in advance!
Latimeria bg (talk) 14:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Latimeria bg (talk) 14:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Request on 14:44:31, 13 August 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by LeahVanRooy
- LeahVanRooy (talk · contribs)
Hi Sulfurboy,
This is in reference to the 4imprint article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LeahVanRooy/sandbox
Thank you so much for your review of our article and the links you shared. I am hoping you might be able to provide me with some additional feedback on the kinds of references you would find valuable. Do you see the weakness in the number of third-party sources, the type of third-party sources or the content within the third-party sources? (Or, is it something else entirely?) If you can provide some additional guidance, we will make edits to the page. I look forward to your feedback.
Many, many thanks, in advance, for your assistance. LeahVanRooy (talk) 14:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)Leah Van Rooy
LeahVanRooy (talk) 14:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
23:16:33, 13 August 2015 review of submission by Runciecwc
Runciecwc (talk) 23:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Thanks for your insightful comment on my article. Please can you check my article to know if it is fine based Wiki guidelines before i send it for review. ThanksRunciecwc (talk) 23:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
04:59:00, 14 August 2015 review of submission by Svarg23
Hi , I have attached the reference links for news , online sites etc. But still the request is declined for my post " VINEETH MANUEL C" . Can you please tell me the reason and how should I improve that.
17:00:57, 14 August 2015 review of submission by Birdplaneexpert
Thank for the opportunity to request a re-review of the California Dance Institute article. I would like to offer three reasons for reconsideration. First, I have added the documented comments of a nationally noted neuroscientist, Dr. Adele Diamond, who has taken specific note of the benefits that California Dance Institute brings to students. Further, I would politely ask you to take a second look at the original references in the article; you referred to them as local coverage, however they were all nationally known publications or web sites. Finally, I would ask that consideration be given to the fact that CDI's two affiliates, National Dance Institute and National Dance Institute of New Mexico, each have their own, stand-alone articles on Wikipedia. I thank you for reconsidering.
Birdplaneexpert (talk) 17:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Request on 18:44:02, 14 August 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by DanielCarlTaylor
I request further explanation as to why my article on Simons Foundation was denied. I have three points.
Simons Foundation is now a major player -- the foundation has two billion in assets and from the news media seems likely to be getting more. A foundation of this size needs an objective forum in Wikipedia--otherwise we will be getting only their PR or news articles off the web
Simons Foundation is different from Mr James Simons. His Wiki entry is all about him as a mathematician. Even what it has about him as a philanthropist does not include key activities that the foundation does--their giving in Autism and Life Sciences alone if more than half their giving and, while sort of noted on Mr Simons page, is not developed. I wrote the article because I was researching a project in Life Sciences and discovered that the Simons Foundation was an important player, something I would not have found by coming through Wiki
If Wiki's policy is to connect via people -- then the connection should be (best I can tell) through Marilyn Simons who has been president since the beginning not through Mr Simons
Let me say that I wrote this because I stumbled into the fact that there was a Wiki gap and was trying to respond to the idea of developing Wikis when there is a gap. I do not work for this foundation in any way. Indeed, I learned about them through doing research and the more I learn, the more extraordinary I find them to be. Few foundations are using their scientific approach in grant making. They deserve a separate presence I believe.
I am happy to comply with the requests made by "The Average Wikipedian" and to remove the Annual Reports -- I found them useful in preparing my Wiki entry, also now that my energies are worked up I can dig for other types of citations rather than the sources I went to in drafting my proposed entry.
Please advise -- I need your help -- Thanks DanielCarlTaylor
DanielCarlTaylor (talk) 18:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Request on 20:57:35, 14 August 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Magnus1958
- Magnus1958 (talk · contribs)
{{SAFESUBST:Void|
Magnus1958 (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)