User talk:333-blue/Archive 14

Hey

Hey 333-blue. I was unsure where to reply about this, we have looked the article over and unsure where the spelling mistakes are you have mentioned. there was a few grammar issues but I cannot see anything else. Im going to fix the grammar issues but I cant seen the mistakes you are talking about. Thanks

08:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)Azura81 (talk)

What article? 333-blue 08:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Hi

it was this one : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nasty_P

Ive checked over the spelling myself and with spellcheck. Have amended the grammar and the mistakes

Thanks 333-blue

Azura81 (talk) 09:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "Business Ventures" section's sub-sections, and you forgot some periods. 333-blue

I have checked over the Business Ventures section, if by periods you mean punctuation (fullstops) I have input these.

I have had my article checked over by previous wiki editors who have confirmed everything was ok now to move forward.

All spelling and grammar has been corrected, if I have missed anything I apologise with regards to this as I am unsure where the mistakes are.

thanks for taking time to look over my article 333-blue I really appreciate it :)

thanks

Azura81 (talk) 09:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The wrong one:

Business Ventures

Soul Biscuits 2002-2007 Soul Biscuits is a creation of Nasty P and was a hip-hop and funk night that ran once a month from 2002 to 2007 at Cabaret Voltaire. Soul Biscuits hosted breakdance events and MC battles and was a showcase for local talent such as Scottish electronic music producer Hudson Mohawke (then DJ Itchy)[22] The club night was host to some of Britain's creative hip hop figures like Roots Manuva, Skinnyman [23] MC Profisee and Killa Keller to name a few, some of which Nasty P later went on to work with.

I Love Hip Hop 2011- Present I Love Hip Hop has been running every Tuesday since 2011 in Edinburgh's well known Bongo Club [5] The club is ran by Nasty P alongside his business partner. I Love Hip Hop brings live Hip Hop performances and guest appearances.

The correct one, all corrected things are replaced by bold texts:

Business Ventures

Soul Biscuits 2002–2007 Soul Biscuits is a creation of Nasty P and was a hip-hop and funk night that ran once a month from 2002 to 2007 at Cabaret Voltaire. Soul Biscuits hosted breakdance events and MC battles and was a showcase for local talent such as Scottish electronic music producer Hudson Mohawke (then DJ Itchy)[22] The club night was host to some of Britain's creative hip hop figures like Roots Manuva, Skinnyman [23] MC Profisee and Killa Keller to name a few, some of which Nasty P later went on to work with.

I Love Hip Hop 2011–present I Love Hip Hop has been running every Tuesday since 2011 in Edinburgh's well known Bongo Club.[5] The club is ran by Nasty P alongside his business partner. I Love Hip Hop brings live Hip Hop performances and guest appearances.


Hi

I have corrected the two mistakes you have advised me of. Thank you again 333-blue

really appreciate your help with this.

Thanks :)

Azura81 (talk) 10:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Hi,

you have marked this comment : Comment: Ther are still mor eroors 333-blue

I have looked over this several times and also had someone else check it and cannot see anymore errors? You highlighted two to me which I fixed. I am unsure where the other errors are as we cannot see these.

I would appreciate if you could bring these to my attention. Thanks again

Azura81 (talk) 10:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The main one is to put "-" into "–", except for word connections, though. 333-blue 10:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 333-blue

I have amended these mistakes now. Can you confirm if that is all now and can it move forward?

Thank you so much for helping me :)

Azura81 (talk) 10:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the sub-section headings, check out the TOC on the top of the page to be sure to fix them. 333-blue 12:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have now amended these to fall inline with other artist pages (see hector bizerk) Thank you for your help with all of this 333-blue, I appreciate you helping me and going out your way to do so. thank you. :) Azura81 (talk) 08:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you add more references in the Disography section?

Logo and Artwork

You forgot the period again.

Album artwork created by Sandy Carson

333-blue 08:53, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I am having difficulty understanding what you mean. You have said I have forgot the period in the artwork section, do you mean what period in time this artwork was for ? what album?

Also you have said I need references for Discography? The discography is for listing album names and titles of the songs.

Actually, links of albums are OK. 333-blue 11:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have been trying to make this page for a while now as you can see, can you please advise me of all the errors that I need to fix so that I can do this in one go rather than coming back and forth with you ?

I have had it confirmed by another wiki editor that this would be ok now as I have all the references etc and some more than other people that have been accepted.

thanks again 333-blue :)

very much appreciated

Azura81 (talk) 08:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed that period by myself. 333-blue 11:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the discography section, can you add links (which said "references" before). 333-blue 11:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Im sorry, I do not understand what you mean by adding links? links to what ? When I look at other producers/artists discography's they do not have links

I do not understand what you mean with (which said "references" before).

I do appreciate your help, so please bare with me when I try to understand and fix these. :)

thank you so much :)

Azura81 (talk) 11:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are references in the discography section of this article: Diana Garnet. 333-blue 11:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I can see references however I am unable to see what they say as they are not in english. Can you please advise what they are referencing as on looking at other artists they do not have references

can you please advise why I need these when other pages do not ? and if I really do need them can you maybe give me an example in english what they must reference?

I have been trying so hard to get this page up and its really making me upset.

I hope you can help

thank you x :) Azura81 (talk) 11:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I checked this page : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Harper there are no references here

so I'm unsure why I need these

Azura81 (talk) 11:53, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Example 1: Julia Lashae. 333-blue 11:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Example 2: Grace Mitchell, though only one of her albums. 333-blue 12:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Example 3: Verse Simmonds, though without any albums. 333-blue 12:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, so links to where the albums are available so if on Itunes, or bandcamp?

thank you :) Azura81 (talk) 12:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's what I meant before. 333-blue 12:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hi Hi 333-blue

I have now made these changes and included the references, I really appreciate you providing me with examples so thank you for that. I really hope now that this can move forward and be accepted, you have no idea how greatful and excited and happy I would be, this would actually make my year !!! :) thank you for helping me

Azura81 (talk) 16:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flute circle

Hi 333-blue. *Thanks* for the ultra-quick review of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Flute_circle and the feedback! As you can tell, I'm a pretty novice editor, especially at new articles ... but working toward adding useful content. Actually thought I would have a week or so to spiff up that article (because of the "we are backlogged doing reviews" message) and was surprised at your fast response. I'll be spiffing it up and will resubmit soon. ClintGoss (talk) 11:58, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Banu

Bringing into your attention that the draft you accepted as Marie Banu was declined by the previous reviewer (resulting in an edit conflict). Their opinion was that the article fails WP:MINREF. I notice heaps of other problems, too. Do you think this article is up to standard? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:26, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 333-blue. I'm afraid that article should never have been accepted, and further problems were caused by moving it and the talk page directly from the editor' main user page and user talk page leaving cross-namespace redirects. I've rectified some of that confusion. However, I'm going to the Administrator's Noticeboard to see if we can get that article moved back to draft space without having to go through an AfD. I have left comments at Talk:Marie Banu to this effect and why I think it was a very poor decision to accept this article. Voceditenore (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

12:07:04, 6 March 2016 review of submission by Vikash rajendran



HI 333-blue Thank u for reviewed supreme sundar Draft, I have attached link that is actually comes under "Significant coverage" only. [addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material.] Actually mentionsin the links arnoe t actually a passing mention. one more thing, he is a well known action director in tamil film industry. he did more than 50 films. please explain what i do, or otherwise help me to do proper.

thank you

Declined CSD G3 nomination

I declined your nomination of Ivy Pepper as pure vandalism. Labeling something as vandalism requires you to have information on intent–there must be bad intent involved that you can discern; a deliberate motivation to harm. It is not a label that should be used just because content added is poorly written or unsuitable but lacks the bad faith element. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

15:42:25, 6 March 2016 review of submission by Ravanax999


Hi, First...thank you!...keeping the standards of attribution on Wiki is my goal as well as yours. I believe I have found an additional third-party source and I have replaced Footnote 1 with it...the source is the Internet Movie Data Base http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1169564/bio.. Perhaps it is possible that this source, together with the Washington Post citation will be significant. Again, thank you for your guidance.

15:52:58, 6 March 2016 review of submission by Ravanax999


Hi...I also have included a citation from google scholar... also... two references in Highbeam.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravanax999 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC) again, many thanks for your help. and finally...I am quite sure this source is not third party, there is a photograph of the event on the composer's website. Again, not an objective source..just thought I'd let you know I found an image nevertheless (on this oage.. http://mauryyeston.com/works) Ravanax999 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravanax999 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Hi Ravanax999. Please see Help:Referencing for beginners and especially its subsection at Information to include. What you have right now are bare URLs not providing transparent attribution to the sources. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About the declination of Draft:U.S. Route 287 in Colorado

I don't understand the reasoning behind why you declined this draft. The reason why it would be sufficient to have an article like this one is because it has a junction list (which all U.S. road articles must contain via subarticles or within the article itself), and a spot in the WikiProject itself. It just has to be notable enough to become an article. And if you're wondering why "the page already exists", that "page" is actually a redirect. And if it doesn't "look" notable enough, remember that there is a place for Stub-class articles for a reason! HeatIsCool (talk) 19:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

12:48:53, 7 March 2016 review of submission by Meddy007


Hello 333-blue, Hope you are well. I would like to know any reasons that you found in the article that may be viewed as advertisement. I have resubmitted the article about Diamond Trust Bank Tanzania 4 times and after making numerous changes it is unfortunately still declined. Diamond Trust Bank actually has wikipedia pages as a group (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_Trust_Bank_Group) and also for Uganda (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_Trust_Bank_%28Uganda%29). I was hoping to write one for Tanzania where the bank also operates. If you compare their pages and what I have written, their pages perhaps portray more advertisement appeal than what I have submitted.

Please assist as what specifically that the article may have given you that impression of advertisement.

Speedy tagging

I have just seen that on the 29th of January you tagged Sudhir Memorial Institute Liluah for speedy deletion under WP:A7 despite A7 explicitly excluding educational institutions. Is there an exception here? AusLondonder (talk) 03:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of International Tennis Federation

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article International Tennis Federation 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 Saskoiler -- Saskoiler (talk) 23:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Humphryes

I don't really understand how this person meets WP:BIO guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiny beets (talk • contribs) 01:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of International Tennis Federation

The article International Tennis Federation you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:International Tennis Federation for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Saskoiler -- Saskoiler (talk) 07:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft/AfC for Elizabeth McIntosh

Hello 333-blue, I am doing some clean up from the WP:A+F articles, and just worked on the Draft:Elizabeth McIntosh (artist) which you had previously declined. I added WP:RS to two major permanent collections which very clearly establish notability. In addition I wikified things. Please review. Thanks. --Theredproject (talk) 18:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't even RFC. 333-blue 00:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

09:18:42, 15 March 2016 review of submission by Simula Simula



As far as I understand the article was rejected by 333-blue because Hans Petter Langtangens Authorship had no refs. "Comment: No refs about his authorship. 333-blue 23:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)" I am a bit confused about how I should document Hans Petter Langtangens Authorship in order to comply with the review comemnts of both LaMona and 333-blue?

When I wrote the first draft LaMona rejected the article because "He meets the criteria for wp:Academics, so the article can be approved. Before that, though, his own writings should not be used as references. Instead, put those in a separate section called "Writings" or "Bibliography", and give full citations but do not use the "ref". "

I tried to comply with this, but now it seems that the article is rejected because I followed LaMonas advise by not using his own writings as reference and move the references to Hans Petter Langtangens books/articles under the heading "Writings".

Could you please give me some advice on how to solve this matter, as I am a bit confused?

For the record, the info under Authorship can be documented by the following articles/books listed under the "Writings" section: "Langtangen’s early research focused on numerical methods, in particular finite element methods and preconditioning for incompressible viscous flow and flow through porous media."

    • REFERS TO: WRITINGS> Selected articles in journals> Langtangen, H. P.; Mardal, K.-A.; Winther, R. (2002). "Numerical methods for incompressible viscous flow". Advances in Water Resources (Elsevier) 25 (8): 1125–1146. doi:10.1016/S0309-1708(02)00052-0. Retrieved 2002-12-31.**

"During the early and mid 1990s, Langtangen pioneered and developed Diffpack, a general C++ software library for the finite element solution of partial differential equations. Diffpack was the first object-oriented library of its kind and was widely used for more than two decades."

    • REFERENCE: Diffpack is refered to earlier in the article, and in addition under WRITINGS>BOOKS>Books

i) Bruaseth, A. M. & Langtangen, H. P. (1997). "Chapter 4: A comprehensive set of tools for solving partial differential equations; Diffpack". In Dæhlen, M. & Tveito, A. Numerical Methods and Software Tools in Industrial Mathematics. Birkhauser. pp. 61–90. ISBN 978-1-4612-7367-7. ii) Langtangen, Hans Petter (2003). Computational partial differential equations: numerical methods and Diffpack programming (1st ed.). Springer. ISBN 978-3-540-43416-0.**

"Since 2000, Langtangen has been well known for his involvement in modernizing computer science and engineering education, and also with the use of Python in scientific computing. He is the author of a number of influential textbooks on the subject of scientific computing and numerical methods including: Computational partial differential equations: numerical methods and Diffpack programming; Python scripting for computational science; and A primer on scientific programming with Python."

    • REFERENCE: WRITINGS>BOOKS

i) Langtangen, Hans Petter (2003). Computational partial differential equations: numerical methods and Diffpack programming (1st ed.). Springer. ISBN 978-3-540-43416-0. ii)Langtangen, Hans Petter (2008). Python scripting for computational science (1st ed.). Springer. ISBN 978-3-540-73915-9. iii) Langtangen, Hans Petter (2014). A Primer on Scientific Programming with Python (4 ed.). Springer. ISBN 978-3-642-54958-8.**

"Since 2007, Langtangen has driven a large research activity on computational modelling of physiological flow, including modelling and simulation of cerebral blood flow in the context of aneurysm rupture and modelling and simulation of cerebrospinal fluid flow in the spinal canal and spinal cord in the context of various neuropathologies."

    • REFERENCE: The first sentence of the article refers to him being "the Director of the <link>Centre for Biomedical Computing</link to the centers webpage>, a Norwegian Center of Excellence hosted by <link>Simula Research Laboratory.[1]</link to Simula Research laboratory>"

The journal articles listed under "WRITINGS>Selected articles in Journals> i)Linge, S.; Haughton, V.; Løvgren, A. E.; Mardal, K.-A.; Langtangen, H. P. (2010). "CSF Flow Dynamics at the Cranio-Vertebral Junction Studied With an Idealized Model of the Subarachnoid Space and Computational Flow Analysis". American Journal of Neuroradiology (Baltimore, Williams & Wilkins) 31 (1): 185—192. doi:10.3174/ajnr.A1766. Retrieved 2009-09-03. ii) Valen-Sendstad, K.; Mardal, K.-A.; Mortensen, M.; Reif, B. A. P.; Langtangen, H. P. (2011). "Direct Numerical Simulation of Transitional Flow in a Patient–Specific Intracranial Aneurysm". Journal of Biomechanics (Elsevier) 44 (16): 2826—2832. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2011.08.015. Retrieved 2011-09-19. also refer to this research.

To conclude: I am not sure how to proceed to comply with the comments of both LaMona and 333-blue in order to get the article approved. I could need some help to point me in the right direction on this matter, or if you could consider a re-rewiew (without the need for further edits) based on the information given above.

I would be grateful for any advice you could give on this matter, as I am fairly new to writing Wikipedia articles.

Simula Simula (talk) 09:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Yimingbao

Someone has asked for clarification of your position on your MFD. Specifically, "Is there a reason to delete this anymore? Are you requesting the hiding of the edit itself?" Meters (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

15:51:59, 16 March 2016 review of submission by Rahnae22


This is my first article on Wikipedia. I am just looking for more a more specific critique. I have a book (though she's not the sole subject), 3 journal articles, and a handful of websites. I've seen wiki articles with much less than that.

What additional types of sources would make the subject notable enough?

If I removed some content that isn't well supported, would that help? What content would that be?

If she is not notable in and of herself, why?

04:08:34, 18 March 2016 review of submission by Jtamad


I'm not necessarily requesting a re-review at this time. Might be better to see how the event develops. I'll repost to you what I left on the help desk page.

Thanks for the review. Actually, I'm not surprised that it was rejected. You're right, it doesn't meet notability guidelines. This might be an exceptional case however. I leave it to you to decide. I created a page last year on the Darfur yellow fever outbreak in 2012, which was overlooked at the time, probably because of low media coverage. I haven't determined what the media coverage was when it started, but it was eventually covered more extensively including this article in NYT. In the Darfur outbreak, there were 171 deaths over the course of about a year [correction: over about 5 months] In Angola, the ongoing outbreak has killed over 250 in about 3 months so far. It has attracted little media attention, despite the fact that a case has been reported from a returning traveler in China, which is the first case ever recorded of yellow fever in Asia in history (I think), which to me is notable, but that's POV. Why yellow fever has never appeared in Asia, despite the ubiquitous presence of the vector, A aegyptii, has puzzled experts. An outbreak in Asia would be the biggest epidemic disaster ever, on a scale with the influenza outbreak in 1918.

As far as reliable sources, the primary source is not the usual news media, but it is highly reliable. ProMED-mail is an email reporting system developed by leading virologists and physicians and other experts. It's partly a secondary source, but also primary in that the moderator's provide expert commentary on media reports and other sources of information. It may deserve special mention on the reliable sources guidelines for medicine. In the absence of media coverage, I think it serves as a reliable source, and otherwise, it certainly supplements reliable media sources. juanTamad (talk) 07:26, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks notable to me. Outbreak of a major infectious disease with a high mortality. Referenced both by the CDC and the WHO. I am inclined to pass it. Will give 333 a bit of time and then will post live if no further concerns.
Imagine if "250 deaths were reported and the epidemic was continuing to spread" in the United States? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It looks OK, but 3 websites are too less, as with 14 refs in the article. Drafting has to be perfect, or just create another article in the main namespace. 333-blue 03:55, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I sorry I do not understand what you mean. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 01:15:45, 23 March 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Jrbwalk


User333-blue: I am very new. You have critiqued my page and said that it did not follow Wikipedia Manual of Style. If you have time, could you tell me what one thing stood out most? I am very open to learning, and from here will go on to study more.

Thank you. Jrbwalk (talk) 01:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)jrbwalk[reply]


Jrbwalk (talk) 01:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You used the "{{quote}}" template without "}}" at the end, this is one of the examples. 333-blue 04:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
333-blue- If the one thing that stood out the most was the closing brackets of a template, why not just add them yourself? If there are more reasons to reject this article, and the author is asking, in my opinion, you have an obligation to explain and justify why the article did not pass AfC. Unfortunately this is a bit reminiscent of the GAR issues we discussed in the past...--Godot13 (talk) 07:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know that I can fix it, but I don't actually know what the nominator thinks, I don't know where to end it. Sorry. 333-blue 07:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:13:20, 23 March 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Jrbwalk


I fixed a blockquote that I did not end with All "{{" seem to have matching "}}", but I will check again. Is there more I can do?

Jrbwalk (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:30:34, 23 March 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Jrbwalk


Oops...I fixed an ending blockquote. I couldn't find a double{ that did not have an ending double { Jrbwalk (talk) 20:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've submitted, hope that you can get a comment by more experienced reviewers, I don't have many experiences. 333-blue 00:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why on earth would you submit it again? I pointed out a lot of things to be fixed and none have been addressed yet. I suggest you undo the submission. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Decline it, I just ask for advices as the author. The author can get more improvements from more experienced reviewers. 333-blue 05:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Milos Raonic GA review

Hi, just want to let you know that I have asked editor Prhartcom for his opinion on your review of the Milos Raonic article at Talk:Milos Raonic/GA1 (nominated by Saskoiler). The reason for doing so is that, in my opinion, this GA review is inadequate in terms of quality and thoroughness. There have been other GA reviews done by you which have been the topic of discussion regarding their quality (e.g. 1, 2, 3) and I'm not seeing a lot of improvement in this latest review. For a GA assessment to be meaningful it is vital that the review is performed at a sufficient quality level. In this particular review it is not evident that a number of the good article criteria have been evaluated at all (2c, 2d, 3a, 6a and 6b) and for the criteria that have been evaluated the feedback is generally very superficial. It is admirable that you want to help Wikipedia forward by performing GA reviews but adding a GA seal of quality to an article should only be done on the basis of a sound review. Back in January editor BlueMoonset gave you some constructive advice including "that you find a mentor to go over any future reviews before finalizing them". I would like to add my support to this advice.--Wolbo (talk) 00:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

333-blue, your attitude is to be admired and I believe your willingness to contribute to the encyclopedia is genuine. However, as Wolbo has stated, there is evidence of a less-than-stellar grasp of Wikipedia policy, guidelines, the Manual of Style, and the GA criteria in your reviewing style, and there is much room for you to acquire more competence at your quite admirable willingness to help cut down on the GAR backlog. I strongly suggest you work with a good article mentor next time as they would be glad to assist you in your next review in order to help you acquire a higher quality standard to the GA icon, which I believe is your goal anyway. Don't take this too hard; you are miles ahead of many and I have no doubt that if you take this advice, you will learn to succeed. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bay of Plenty Volcanix

Hi. Thank you for patrolling new pages. I have deleted a page that you tagged with the wrong CSD-A7 criterion. This page was quite clearly not about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble. In fact it was about a womens' rugby team. Having reviewed your editing history and the comments by other users, I do not believe you are sufficiently experienced to be reviewing pages at WP:AfC, or patrolling pages at WP:NPP. If your reviewing continues to be so inaccurate, you will be asked to refrain from doing maibtenance tasks until you have sufficient knowledge and experience gained through adding uncontroversial content. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I pushed the incorrect button. 333-blue 08:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ST john's lacrosse

what is MOS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackAmerican (talk • contribs) 20:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOS, manual of style. 333-blue 00:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

13:39:01, 27 March 2016 review of submission by WanderingJosh


Thanks for reviewing this draft and providing feedback.

This current version includes multiple independent, reliable, published sources - including NASDAQ documents and references from peer-reviewed scientific journals.

The information is all verifiable (I think the footnotes section is longer than the actual article!).

And I believe the subject in notable: Universal Flu Vaccines are mentioned in other Wikipedia articles; these represent a recognised public health issue (500,000 annual flu deaths!); and have the potential to up-end the $3billion annual seasonal flu vaccine market. Many teams are pursuing a universal flu vaccine. According to verifiable and reliable sources, BiondVax's vaccine is the most advanced (Phase 2 clinical trials, whereas most others aren't yet at the clinical stage).

Therefore, I hope the reviewer will agree that this revised draft meets Wikipedia's policies! Of course, if you feel it doesn't, I would be grateful for additional feedback. Thank you! WanderingJosh (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

00:04:25, 29 March 2016 review of submission by Mattwingett


Hello, please can you tell me which terms in this piece are "peacock" terms? I genuinely thought that I had written this in a neutral voice, so don't know where to go from here.

As far as I can see, nothing I have written is inaccurate. For example, I state that she is the first and most famous professional mermaid not because I am artificially inflating her notability, but BECAUSE I was asked to provide evidence of notability. These are third party opinions from reliable sources, not my own opinions.

These statements are evidence of her notability, not adjuncts to it. Your guidance would be appreciated.

Thank you,

Matt Wingett

Request on 13:56:39, 29 March 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by T.kalamakis


Hi,

Thank you for reviewing my submission. Is it possible to give me a more detailed feedback regarding "Not meet ilc"?

I mean what is wrong? They are not enough, you found that are not eligible, not placed in a correct way?

They all are references from accredited sources.

Many thanks in advance,

Best,

Thodoris

T.kalamakis (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not meet the minimum in-line citation requirements is the ilc. 333-blue 23:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thank you for your reply. Is it possible to let me know which are the minimum in-line citation requirements in order to be able to improve my draft? As i read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Inline_citation there isn't a minimum amount of citations. Also every source i have included is credible - some of them are from the biggest b2b magazines in the gambling industry.

Many thanks again,

Thodoris — Preceding unsigned comment added by T.kalamakis (talk • contribs) 06:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

09:57:06, 30 March 2016 review of submission by M.Nishant



Hi, I have simplified my article <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Housejoy> and have reworked the advertising (peacock) style of writing. I have also supplied sufficient (i believe) amount of references and citations to my article. Can you please guide me where do we need the change in the style of writing? I am a bit confused because I have seen many other articles with far less references and with poor language getting approved. Will appreciate a feedback.

Regards, M.Nishant (talk) 09:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:58:20, 30 March 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Mrmundliya


Hello, Our company is currently quite young but there is substantial interest in our services and our product. This was the reason why we wanted to have an article feature on Wikipedia. We did try to keep the article as unbiased as possible and we understand the reason for the article's exclusion, so we would like to know whether the article would be included if we declared it as a part-advertised article.

Mrmundliya (talk) 12:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Almanac of American Philanthropy

Hi there: I just saw that The Almanac of American Philanthropy has been created. A couple of days ago I saw the draft AFC and created Almanac of American Philanthropy. I didn't know what the proper protocol was in terms of the AFC, so I didn't do anything to alert other users that I'd created the article. My bad, I see. What do you think we should do about the two existing articles? Redirect one to the other perhaps? Thanks for your help. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I did go ahead and redirect the newer article to the older one. Let me know if that was the wrong move. Thanks! Safehaven86 (talk) 15:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article went through the AFC is The Almanac of American Philanthropy. 333-blue 23:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

16:15:54, 30 March 2016 review of submission by Andysidley


Was just wondering whether 3 more references help make the article legitimate, two of which are reviews of the film, the other is an interview. Andysidley (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)Andrew[reply]

Request on 16:40:40, 1 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Ssinyakov


Why have you deleted this article? It was not using any copyrighted material. I have used a part of personal account posted on our community's website with permission of the site owners.

Please restore the article. A number of folks helped with this effort to get this page on Wikipedia, which none of the editors make any easier by using convoluted canned responses. Be a bit more sensitive to the work of other contributors.

We just added new sources, as requested by previous reviewers. Ssinyakov (talk) 16:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

04:29:22, 2 April 2016 review of submission by Joffra


The notability of the article has been questioned.


The article relates to a US Army transport ship, which is listed on Wikipedia as such. Presumably that gives it some status. However, Wikipedia has no information about the ship at all other than to have listed its name. Nor is other information apparently readily available about it, judged by a Google search. I expect that information about it would be of interest to those researching certain US army personnel. I would not have thought that such information would be less notable than other information on Wikipedia. The source of the information is the autobiography of the ship's chief engineer. Joffra (talk) 04:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

08:54:12, 3 April 2016 review of submission by Englishshaun


Thanks for taking the time to look at my draft article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jerry_Pasley_aka_Two_Tonys. Since your reason for declining the article is different to the first one given; I'm curious to find out exactly which lines you feel give the article the wrong tone and detract from the overall neutrality of the piece? It would also be useful to know if the resubmitted version sufficiently addresses the previous reasons for declining in re. notability and references.

Any help would be very much appreciated. Englishshaun (talk) 08:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]