User talk:Calliopejen1/AFC overhaul
Latest comment: 3 years ago by TryKid in topic Some Thoughts
Some Thoughts
editHi Calliopejen1, I how would you feel about some kind of template that allows editors to approve parts of the draft and decline others, and create a method to build up the article, like in these examples.
David Smith
editDavid Smith is a British businessman and futurist who is CEO of Smith Scientific Ltd, a world-leading innovation company making cutting-edge AI technology based on cloud-based blockchains and data-mining. He was born in Manchester and completed a PhD at the University of Edinburgh.
References
edit- www.forbes.com/online-only-articles/smith-scientific/
- http://linkedin.com/ln/David-Smith/
- http://www.smithscientific.com/about-us.html
- http://www.bbc.co.uk/the-new-AI-technology-building-the-future
Review
edit| Notability |  The subject doesn't have adequate claim to notability as a businessperson WP:COMPANY or an academic WP:NPROF.
| |
| Writing style | The article is written in a promotional tone
| |
| Individual Sources | ||
| 1 | Forbes | Forbes Contributors are not subject to the same editorial oversight as Forbes magazine and are not reliable for establishing notabiliy for companies, see WP:FORBESCON.
|
| 2 | The subject's linkedin profile is not independent of the subject.
| |
| 3 | Smith Scientific | The subject's company website is not independent of the subject.
|
| 4 | BBC | Although the BBC is generally a reliable source, the subject only has a small passing mention in this article
|
| Overall Comments | ||
| This article is unlikely to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. There is nothing in the article or any of the sources to suggest that the subject is notable. | ||
John Davies
editJohn Davies is an English footballer who plays as left-back for Coventry City. He played his debut in a League One fixture against Sunderland on 15 September 2020.
References
editReview
edit| Notability |  As he has played in professional matches in the football league he likely meets the notability criteria WP:NFOOTY.
| |
| Writing style | The article is neutral and in an appropriate tone
| |
| Individual Sources | ||
| 1 | The tweet is from an unknown individual and therefore is not reliable as a source.
| |
| 2 | Coventry City | The source is not independent of the subject and therefore can't be used to establish notability
|
| Overall Comments | ||
| This article needs some additional sources, but some should be able to be found. Try searching for news articles from reliable publishers that have covered the club and their recent matches | ||
- I like this format too. Creating tables is hard on mobile, source assessment and notability assessment could be easily done in plain format too. Example review—
- Decline: source assessment (below) shows and a Google search doesn't bring up anything suggesting notability. Fails WP:NCORP.
- Sources assessment:
- BBC: travial mention only.
- LinkedIn: social media, not independent.
- Forbes: WP:FORBESCON, not reliable.
- A review like this would only be one of the several votes on the "AfC nomination"; others can dispute the result of one reviewer's assesment and conduct their own and vote against, or agree and vote same or just vote anyway they like.
- On Calliopejen1's question (on the AFC overhaul page), if a draft is rejected and the nominator disputes, I don't think we would need a DRV like process. They can just move it to mainspace themselves (or if they don't the access to do it, ask someone else who agrees with their view) and let the wider community decide on an AfD. If no one else agrees with their view that draft is ready for mainspace, that's a consensus on it's own. Regards, TryKid [dubious – discuss] 10:51, 20 September 2020 (UTC)