So about the fringe theories noticeboardEdit

How long does it usually take for a post to gain traction? It seems to be taking a while, part of me suspects that it's due to a lack of expert eyes that can appraise it. Alyarin9000 (talk) 01:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Alyarin9000, tbh, I don't have a ton of experience with WP:FTN, but I think that most threads last about a week or so? There's a bot that automatically archives threads if they haven't been to responded to for about that long. It also might be that we just get additional people contributing to the RfC, without responding to your thread, which seems to have already happened w/ the new comment response. —Wingedserif (talk) 11:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Are we actually 'allowed' to reply to a comment in a poll? It feels like that's a good way to get very quickly cluttered. As for the noticeboard, if it goes a week without a response, I guess we repost or? I'm tempted to 'assume the best', but that may be jumping to conclusions.
I still do feel this is urgent. If SENS is not a fringe theory, and has significant support as a strategy (but debate as to if it will just cure a disease or literally allow significant increases in human lifespan), an overly negative page could influence their funding situation etc. I know it delayed me researching aging myself, only returning to it by chance after reading a large number of supporting papers - though I may well have inevitably gotten there myself, when a lecturer of mine (with no links to SENS) begged us to read Hallmarks! Alyarin9000 (talk) 19:18, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
The poll part of threads is usually just to make clear what each user's basic position is. You could reply directly, but I think it'd be better to make an addition in the "Discussion" section and ping the person you're replying to with Template:Reply to. It is possible to repost threads, but it might just be that there isn't too much interest; it's hard to say. Finally, about urgency, jsyk, that's something that Wikipedia doesn't deal too well with—the preference to wait for reliable sources to crop up makes WP inherently conservative re: deadlines. Not that it doesn't come up, but it can be hard to sway users by that rationale alone. If you want to read more, WP:NODEADLINE talks a bit about this, and WP:NOTLEAD &/or Wikipedia:RECENTISM are often cited in those discussions. —Wingedserif (talk) 20:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Wingedserif The admin who replied is obviously emotionally compromised. No matter how many citations a paper gets, he'll still consider it fringe? Does he even HEAR himself? We obviously aren't getting any reasonable opposition here... Alyarin9000 (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Alyarin9000, yeah, I'm not sure what their deal is, other than that I've seen them post often on that noticeboard and in a similar tone. I'm hoping that Hipal will elaborate on their point... —Wingedserif (talk) 16:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
My concern is OR. I doubt I'll have time to dive to the dispute in a time frame that would help. --Hipal (talk) 16:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Hipal The amount of OR you need to do to come to my conclusion is effectively biology's equivalent of routine calculations - which is excluded from WP:OR. Misfolded proteins often aggregate, that's an undisputed fact - so saying aggregated proteins are the problem is the same as saying misfolded protein are the problem. Same with the other points. It's not like i'm highlighting specific signalling pathways here. Alyarin9000 (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

So Wingedserif - there doesn't seem to be any reasonable opposition to the reclassification of SENS as non-fringe. Hipal only suggests OR as a concern, but that issue has been countered with no reply for a full week. Even the definition of Fringe on the wiki states "the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field." - SENS obviously doesn't depart significantly from Hallmarks, there is only a fairly innocuous difference which would lead to Hallmarks proponents using a slightly broader range of therapeutics. With this in mind, I would like to suggest that we finalize the transition to non-fringe and then reappraise the article in that context - emphasizing the increased relative authority of Hallmarks. Alyarin9000 (talk) 21:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Alyarin9000! So, I have to say that I remain unconvinced (see my recent reply in the thread); the reason I mentioned requesting WP:Closure is that we can get an uninvolved admin to neutrally state the result of the RfC. Since I've written a lot across many pages, I don't think I should close the discussion and the result is complicated enough that asking a 3rd party to interpret seems like a good idea to me. —Wingedserif (talk) 23:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
The issue is that the RfC completely changes depending on if Fringe designation remains. As far as your ultimatum, it does seem pedantic - SENS states the same things as Hallmarks, which is widely accepted. I can probably show the backing of various highly respected investors in the biotechnology space, if they would be considered enough? From memory, there are a few who are outspoken in support of SENS projects. Alyarin9000 (talk) 00:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm not trying to issue an ultimatum: I'm letting you know what I think is necessary for the article to meet Wikipedia's standards for verification and reliable sources—and I'm not alone in my interpretation. I recognize that I'm not an uninvolved party in this, which is why I think a formal closure process would be best. —Wingedserif (talk) 02:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Maybe I said a few harsh words in the article, but it's been boiling over. I'll say that any closure of the RfC should definitely take into account the question of if it's even fringe in the first place, and emphasize that - if not, it just isn't going to be a fair shake. I'm glad that I managed to convince you that it is at least in fierce debate, but I can promise you that the basis of SENS isn't the sticking point - the sticking point is if they'll do what they are hoping to within a few decades, rather than a few centuries or millenia. I don't know what else I can say other than the evidence - good evidence - that i've provided so far. Their citation counts are impressive, their theories are panning out in pre-clinical data. By the end of the decade the FDA will have drugs approved based on SENS-based technologies, and a drug class they were the first to propose is about to have its first approval for the treatment of a genetic disease causing degenerative blindness - but I suspect if this isn't resolved here, they'll remain considered as fringe until a project they directly funded ends up finalizing human trials. If they remain fringe after that, i don't know what to say. Wingedserif Alyarin9000 (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
I absolutely hear your frustration, Alyarin9000, and believe me, I've spent enough time now looking for sources on this: 2005 is looking farther and farther away, as the last time there was a decisive statement on SENS by the biogerontology community. But I just haven't found anything that strongly repudiates that statement yet (by my view).
About your concern on a topic's fringe status being determined partially by journalists, etc, I understand as well—it's just that... Wikipedia, as a tertiary source, is actually very conservative about what can count as being "known". I was doing an Edit-a-thon on community gardens/activist collectives the other month, and most I couldn't say anything about because the only sources on them I could find are self-published blogs! This is something that, as far as I know, has changed since the early wiki days when any kind of edit was welcome. It's also why I mentioned the WP:There is no deadline essay above: I think the best course is to wait for the sources (just to explain where I'm coming from).
Edit: I should also say: if there are particular, sourced changes that you want to make to the SENS article, it is still (and will always be) possible to do that. The RfC is only to determine whether the text under "Scientific controversies" should (all or mostly) be deleted. We could, slowly, work on the section together, to arrive at a better representation. —Wingedserif (talk) 18:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
I'd be happy to work with you on that Wingedserif - thank you. Alyarin9000 (talk) 18:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
OK! I'm not sure what the best order would be, w/ the RfC still ongoing, but I have a few more sources to add from my recent searches. I'll put in the closure request sometime midweek and then maybe make a few edits to the main text (or you could go first, if you like?) —Wingedserif (talk) 18:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
I'll wait for the RfC to close, after that i'll make a few edits once the review is complete. Feel free to go before that, of course! Alyarin9000 (talk) 19:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
OK; it looks like the range of time it takes RfCs to close can be very wide—it could be days or months. I'll read around about the rules for editing while one is ongoing; I think we should be fine making content edits, as long as we don't delete the section. I don't know if you have the SENS page watchlisted, but I'll ping you when I make the first edit in a couple days. —Wingedserif (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Ok then! Thank you! Alyarin9000 (talk) 19:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
By the way, you may find this interesting to get an understanding of the wider view of the field. I guess... This kinda backs your interpretation of 'questionable science'. A field of research at war. Wingedserif Alyarin9000 (talk) 14:17, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
ooo, interesting source. Just from my skim, the bottom of Fig. 2 does show a fairly neat divide over the question of whether aging could ever be reversed or postponed dramatically. Since it doesn't mention SENS, it'll be more contextual information for explaining the field's consensus, but it looks useful at that. —Wingedserif (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
@Alyarin9000:, you probably watchlist the SENS page, but this is just to let you know that I've requested a closure at WP:ANC and started some minor edits to the page. I haven't started w/ sources yet, I've just been rearranging what's already there into what I think is a better structure. —Wingedserif (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
@Wingedserif: Ok, thanks for the update! Alyarin9000 (talk) 03:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Annunciation (Masolino) moved to draftspaceEdit

An article you recently created, Annunciation (Masolino), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 TT me 14:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Annunciation (Masolino) has been acceptedEdit

Annunciation (Masolino), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Hoary (talk) 05:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Edward Mitchell BannisterEdit

Your recent contributions at the Bannister article are noted--I wrote a piece about him for publication, which will come out later this year. Cheers! 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! It was a really fun article to write. There was almost nothing about his Boston days, or meaningful commentary on his art, when I started, and I was surprised how much I could find on it. I'd love to read the article when it comes out :DDD —Wingedserif (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Notwithstanding my anonymity, I may let you know. I found an excellent reference, which you may have used, a monograph from a show in the 1990s, I believe. It's since been deleted from my phone, alas. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Ah, fair. An interesting challenge, that would be a lot of redactions 🤔. Either way, I'm glad to know my work on the wiki article helped. If it was the Kenkebala House book, that single source was the most helpful of all the rest I found—I was contemplating finding the author's dissertation IRL, which is also on Bannister, but it proved too difficult mid-pandemic :/ —Wingedserif (talk) 17:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, that was the reference. A very good artist and an admirable, thoughtful man. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Why I am the one who done "edit war" in the tree planting article?Edit

Someone put some baseless accusations in the article without saying anything about it in the talk page(in fact it is his one and only contribution in wikipedia and I removed it after I posted a new section in the talk page that refute the baseless propaganda I removed from the article. And nobody had anything meaningful to say in defense of the propaganda I removed from the article. You can't just treat something as a source just because it was written in a book, Susan Nathan is nothing but a writer and have zero reliability when it comes to claims about the intentions of the Israeli government, and her claims simply doesn't make sense. If someone should have been accused of war editing is the one user(Bahudhara) who tried to put those baseless propaganda back into the article without giving any good reasoning for his decision.--ThunderheadX (talk) 01:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I notified you of edit warring, because you altered pages, including reversions, when it is very clear that you do not have the WP:Consensus to do so. I was looking particularly at this diff where you were reverted and instead of going to the Talk page, you changed it back. And that's after a Talk page thread where other editors said they thought the section you keep removing was worthwhile. I would suggest familiarizing yourself with WP:BRD and WP:3RR (which you nearly crossed) and continuing the conversation on the article talk page before making further changes. So you know, if a user is a WP:Single-purpose account, that doesn't mean their contributions are automatically subject to removal. The work was reliably sourced, which is why it stayed. You could start by explaining more about why you think those sources are not reliable. Good luck! —Wingedserif (talk) 04:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Only one editor(other than the one who originally added those ridiculous accusations in the article 7 years ago) thought that this propaganda should stay in the article and he/she didn't waited for any consensus just like the one who originally added those nonsense in the article. Why they can add things without any consensus but not me?. Its not like the one who added this propaganda was a user with special authority or something like that(It was a completely new user), So why you think the rules about consensus doesn't apply to him/her?.
And I already explained exactly why the "sources" provided have zero reliability, didn't you saw what I wrote in the talk page? I responded to the one who tried to return this propaganda to the article and he had nothing to say in response to what I said to him and he didn't answered questions like how some writer is a reliable source when it comes to the intentions of the Israeli government. I also explained why those accusations simply doesn't make sense. Why to maintain an entire forest to "erase traces for Arab presence" if you can just bulldoze some small buildings?, how does it make any sense?. You can't just treat anyone as a reliable source just because he/she published an OPINION in a book. Those kind of "sources" aren't more reliable than me or any other random person.
BTW sorry for the late reply, I am still getting used to the fact that you don't get notifications when someone write a reply to you--ThunderheadX (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
No worries about the delay, there's WP:NODEADLINE :D. I tagged your talk page because the diff I posted was a reversion to a reversion, 20 minutes after the fact. I just wanted to warn you that that kind of aggressive editing isn't looked kindly upon. So you know, Wikipedia editors do have a looot of arguments and discussions about what sources are reliable and why at WP:Reliable Sources Noticeboard, with general community consensus for sources that are used a lot at WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources.
Because of Wikipedia's biases, academic sources are considered, generally, the most reliable and the highest standard, so it will be an uphill battle to argue against one. If you can find information about the unreliability of a specific article/publication/author at either of those links, that will help your argument or if you find a specific reliable source that says that source is unreliable. Hope that helps. —Wingedserif (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
You are ignoring my point. How a writer is an "academic source" for the intention of some government?. This isn't an "academic source" nor a reliable source, you just consider this as such because you go by a shallow definition for a "reliable source" and consider everything that was written in a physical book as an "academic source". You can't just blindly add things to an article just because they were written in a book and without considering the reliability of the actual person who wrote those things. I can write a book that says that the city of Los Angeles were built for preventing China and Russia from expanding into the west coast of north America, will you consider this as a "reliable source" and add this nonsense in the article about Los Angeles?. In both the case of the tree planting article and the SENS article you didn't participated in the discussion nor had anything to say about what I said in the talk page. --ThunderheadX (talk) 14:47, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
You have sidestepped the fact that, yes, you did edit war, which is a violation of Wikipedia's community agreements regardless of good faith attempts to edit the article. I simply notified you and tried to be helpful. That is all. —Wingedserif (talk) 00:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


Hi! If you warn a vandal with a template, make sure you substitute it (eg {{subst:uw-vandal1}} instead of {{uw-vandal1}}). Also, if an IP has been blocked recently, it's usually safe to report them straight to WP:AIV. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll make sure to! I keep forgetting in the heat of the moment (u_u;) —Wingedserif (talk) 15:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

What is going on with you just coming to articles I edit and remove everything I done?Edit

I am talking about the "Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence" article. It doesn't look like you even saw the talk page of this article. The whole talk page in the SENS article is full with sources I provide to counter those claims in the "controversy" section and there was no any objection left and I edited the article after I saw nobody is opposing my arguments and sources. --ThunderheadX (talk) 22:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I did read the talk page. Two editors explained why your sources were inadequate for removing that section. You replied with a wall of text that, to be honest, I didn't find convincing. Simply because you were the last one left in the conversation doesn't mean that you won the argument. The other editors had asked why any discussion of controversy should be removed, and your citations stated that SENS might one day produce results—they're two different ideas. Furthermore, SENS has appeared in previous WP:Fringe noticeboard threads, in [1], [2], and [3], suggesting that for the article to display proper WP:DUE weight to sources, a not-entirely-positive article is merited.
If you'd like, we could ask the previous editors for their opinion again (on the article talk page) or make a request for comment. I will say that, per WP:CRITS, sections only about criticism are sometimes removed, but since the section documents two distinct, protracted publicized controversies, those seem like they deserve WP:WEIGHT to me.—Wingedserif (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
It doesn't look like you really read the discussion, especially since you just called my reply to them a "wall of text" instead of actually paying attention to what I said. Why don't you try to participate in the discussion in the talk page of the article instead of just reverting my edit and dismissing my arguments as "a wall of text"?. You should read the Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Avoid_over-emphasizing_single_studies,_particularly_in_vitro_or_animal_studies article and see that there is nothing that say that in-vitro research is "inadequate", it just tell the editor to be aware that the results of the research might not be applicable to humans. In-vitro research is more than enough when it comes to contradicting baseless statements about how SENS goals are "fantasy rather than science". Why those out-dated statements from 16 years ago should be taken more seriously than the other scientific statements in the sources I provided(not the in-vitro research ones) that says otherwise?. You regard a random person as a reliable source for the intentions of a government but in-vitro research and other recent scientific opinions is not enough for you. You really need to reconsider the way you think about reliable sources. --ThunderheadX (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
I recommend being more concise in your messages, as it makes it more difficult for other editors to engage with your points. Other editors explained on that talk page why in-vitro research is not considered adequate as a reliable medical source. The section you cited recommends the heavy contextualization and careful use of in-vitro studies, that they are inadequate for making claims on their own. I clearly am participating in conversation, as you messaged me here. —Wingedserif (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
I am concise, you just don't want to read and think about what I say. You say you are participating in the conversation but completely ignore what I said. I said that it doesn't matter if it is an in-vitro research because it is enough for refuting the speculations and opinions mentioned in the "criticism" part of the article. There is nothing in WP:MEDRS that say that in-vitro research(or in-vivo research on animals like this is "not considered adequate as a reliable medical source", and according to this article the "criticism" in the SENS article should be supported by meta analysis but it obviously doesn't. There is nothing that say that in-vitro research is less reliable than some baseless opinions like those presented in the "criticism" part. You completely ignore the WP:MEDRS when it comes to anything else in the article. You are also forgetting that I am not just proving that SENS goals are possible but I am also proving that the scientific community acknowledge the possibility of rejuvenation and support research about treating aging as a disease unlike what the article said. According to your logic, no disease should be considered as treatable until you prove it with clinical trials, this is obviously not what the WP:MEDRS article said or implied in any way, you just interpret it that way in this case because of your personal opinions about what is a "disease" and what is not.--ThunderheadX (talk) 18:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
You just regard one source as more reliable than another by using some rules on one side only. you take the part about in-vitro research in one article, give it some interpretations according to your will, and then apply it to one source despite the fact that according to the WP:MEDRS article the sources behind the "criticism" in the SENS article aren't even considered as sources. --ThunderheadX (talk) 19:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
My arguments are on the SENS talk page and, in my view, you have not responded to them convincingly. I do not think continuing this conversation here will help either of us. I will likely open an RFC soon so more editors can weigh in. —Wingedserif (talk) 04:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Your arguments have nothing to do with what I am saying or the "criticism" in the article. You just conclude that the sources I provided doesn't imply that SENS itself is able to help curing aging and it isn't just wrong it also have nothing to do with the subject here. --ThunderheadX (talk) 12:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I thought I'd reply here as it wasn't mentioned but it's important: In-vitro studies are commonly promoted on WP, but cannot be confused with in-vivo. The same applies for studies with mice that cannot be used to support claims about effects on humans. WP:MEDRS is important to support biomedical claims, but WP:PARITY is allowed for criticism. Reliable independent sources reporting on success and outcomes would be a good thing to update the current criticism. Criticism doesn't become outdated only because an affiliate claims success in a new paper. Moreover, independent sources without a conflict of interest tend to be more impartial thus useful to cover the topic. Wikipedia not being a journal, obscure research where application and success hasn't surfaced publicly is less important. Wikipedia is also not a platform to seek funding or a venue to work and advance science, only to report, ideally from the point of view of independent sources. Articles that are only based on primary or closely affiliated sources tend to get deleted, since third party independent sources are then lacking, indicating a lack of notability (WP:GNG, WP:SPS, WP:PRIMARY, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH). So the existing independent criticism is also a clue that the topic received some attention and may be notable... —PaleoNeonate – 12:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Rollback grantedEdit

Hi Wingedserif. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have temporarily enabled rollback on your account until {{{expiry}}}. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war.
  • If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
  • Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Go Phightins! 01:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)


Hey, I just wanted to say thanks for doing all the hard work to merge the Mosaic theory pages together! It has not gone unnoticed and I appreciate you doing that as it seemed like a thorny (but totally necessary) task! DocFreeman24 (talk) 02:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Glad to! It was my first merge, so I was nervous to get it right, but I think it's looking a lot better w/ all of them combined. Still some rough places where the tiles fit together, but I'm gonna take a break from it for a couple days and come back w/ fresh eyes 😅 —Wingedserif (talk) 15:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Edward Mitchell BannisterEdit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Edward Mitchell Bannister you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.   This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Alan Islas -- Alan Islas (talk) 14:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Edward Mitchell BannisterEdit

The article Edward Mitchell Bannister you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold  . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Edward Mitchell Bannister for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Alan Islas -- Alan Islas (talk) 10:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Edward Mitchell BannisterEdit

The article Edward Mitchell Bannister you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Edward Mitchell Bannister for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Alan Islas -- Alan Islas (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Featured Article Candidate mentorEdit

I don't know what the process is other than that it exists, as I've never done it. But I know someone who does: Johannes Schade is working to reach FA standard on an article that I did the GA review for.

Johannes, would you care to share your experiences to date? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Dear Wingedserif. John Maynard Friedman did the GA for the article "Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty", a 17th century Irish nobleman and soldier, that I nominated. Having passed GA, I wanted to tackle the next step: FA. Looking around I found that it is recommended for first-time FA nominators to take a mentor, which can be chosen from a list found at WP:FAM. I chose Gog the Mild. He told me to submit the article first for a Military History (MH) A-Class review, which I did. I am still busy with it. In your case, MH does of course not apply. So I cannot really help you with FA as I have never reached that stage. I find that in A-Class, reviewers demand far more citations and shout Original Research! (WP:OR) or Synthesis! (WP:SYNTH) quite quickly (see,_1st_Earl_of_Clancarty). I would think that this also applies to FA. Johannes Schade (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Johannes Schade, for sharing your experience of the A-Class review. Looking over it, I can see what you mean about the bar for OR/SYNTH being very high; I'll probably comb through the Edward M. Bannister page to look for problematic sections. —Wingedserif (talk) 17:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Another art-related FAC under reviewEdit

I was notified of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Thankful Poor/archive1 in another talk page and it occurred to me that you might like to be a fly-on-the-wall--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll take a look! —Wingedserif (talk) 17:53, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Edward M. BannisterEdit

Hi. Had a read through the Bannister article and was very impressed. First time nominators at FAC are encouraged to hold a PR review beforehand, so the page can get a comb over before and so that their nom doesn't get bogged down in MOS etc issues. Let me know if that happens, and will comment and maybe do the source review in advance. Meanwhile am making light copyedits, which you are free to revert at will. Ceoil (talk) 23:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ceoil: Thanks for taking a look and for the edits! I'm currently mid-PR for my translation of Lithuanian Crusade. Once that's over, I'll put E.M. Bannister up, and then let you know when it seems ready for FAC. —Wingedserif (talk) 16:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Careful enough?Edit

Just scanning through the article Lithuanian Crusade I came across two edits which made me wonder how carefully you were editing.

I suppose that "at the sam time" is just a simple typo, but still wonder why you didn't see it upon reviewing before clicking publish.

But then I find a sentence I seriously doubt is what you meant to type.

Despite his great advantage in the short term, Polish king Jagiełło did pursue a decisive, swift coup against the Order, which gave them the time to defend their remaining positions.

That sentence does not make much sense, unless there was supposed to be a "not" somewhere within?

I think you should go back, now that a couple weeks have gone by, and carefully review all those changes you made in March. Shenme (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Shenme: Thank you for pointing out those errors. After spending days translating the majority of that article, I will return to it at my own pace. Please make any improvements you see fit. —Wingedserif (talk) 00:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Notes from Below moved to draftspaceEdit

An article you recently created, Notes from Below, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Edward Mitchell BannisterEdit

 On 29 April 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Edward Mitchell Bannister, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that when Edward Mitchell Bannister won a first prize for painting at the 1876 Philadelphia Centennial, officials tried to rescind the award upon realizing he was African-American? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Edward Mitchell Bannister. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Edward Mitchell Bannister), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Tribunale speciale per la difesa dello Stato (1926–1943) moved to draftspaceEdit

An article you recently created, Tribunale speciale per la difesa dello Stato (1926–1943), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)