This is an archive of past discussions with User:DoubleGrazing. 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.
Thank you for cleaning up my article and pointing out some issues! I appreciate it.
It took me some time and some back-and-forth, but thanks to the help of the kind people of Live WikiHelp, I was able to understand what was wrong with my previous submission. I just resubmitted my draft with, this time, only articles that provide significant in-depth coverage of the person, from reliable sources which were independent of him! I included links when they were available and made sure to avoid any online listings, interviews of the subject, or articles that were too short... You can also see that the press available about the subject is in multiple languages, emphasizing the international notability of the subject. By the way, there is a significant amount of press available about the subject online, and I only chose a handful of articles that I thought would be most relevant. I can provide more if need be.
Please feel free to let me know if anything is still off. I also reformatted the links properly to avoid any "bare URLs".
Again, thank you for your help with all this!
Best,
Nick
Hi there,
Hope this finds you well. Just wanted to let you know that I edited the article with the comments you gave me along with other reviewers. Some people on the live chat said it looked good now. I understand that any AFC reviewer can check it out but just wanted to let you know to see if you can take a look. I submitted it several days ago. Hopefully, it's suitable for everyone. Thanks again for your help throughout this process.
I am sorry to bug you again with that. I just saw that you told another person below that if nobody has reviewed their submission after a few days, they could ping you. I know there are a lot of pending submissions but since you checked mine some 25 days ago, I thought maybe you could take a look at it again. I really tried to make sure all of your comments, along with the other reviewer, were addressed. Please let me know!
Hi @Akinola777: you don't need to do anything other than wait for the draft to be reviewed. There are c. 300 drafts awaiting review, so it could take another while. If nobody has done it in the next few days, ping me and I'll review it myself. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Brighten A Day Draft
Thanks for your message on my Talk page and for your comments on the Draft:Brighten A Day page! The three main sources to verify notability would be:
Okay thanks @Juyster: I don't have WaPo subscription, and the CBS clip doesn't play for some reason, but I'll pop those into the draft comments for someone else to check out. Best, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
@انیماتورهای ایرانی: well, no, I won't approve it. Firstly, you haven't yet submitted it for review. And if you had, I would have to decline it, because it's not referenced properly, and there's no indication that this person is notable (among many other things wrong with it). Please continue working on the draft, and when ready, submit it for review as per usual. Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
For authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals in determining notability, the following criteria apply and are met by McCamant in all elements, when only one is sufficient:
The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews; [McCamant was co-designer of the first cohousing community in the United States, a significant contribution. She also wrote the first book on cohousing in the United States, once more a significant contribution.]
The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. [McCamant has won the World Habitat Award from the United Nations, denoting significant critical attention.]
For any biography, the following criteria apply and two are met by McCamant:
The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times; [McCamant has won the World Habitat Award from the United Nations.] or
The person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary (e.g. the Dictionary of National Biography). [Could not find one at this time.]
Thus, of seven combined additional criteria by which a creative person's biography may be deemed notable, McCamant meets six of them. As such, I ask that you reconsider your decision.
Hi @JonnyHawkes: thanks for your message. While I appreciate your (entirely rational and sensible, and also well structured — thank you!) arguments in favour of this draft, I think you're being rather generous in interpreting the various criteria.
Specifically on the point of co-housing, on which much of this revolves, it's clear from the draft and the sources cited that she did not originate the concept, but instead 'discovered' it in Denmark and imported into the USA.
With regards to the World Habitat Award, I did wonder whether that might meet one of the notability criteria. However, when I read the entry on the award website, it didsn't actually mention McCamant, therefore I concluded she hadn't received the award in a personal capacity, and if the project was the actual recipient, what her actual involvement in it was.
As for the point about Durrett having his article, this is the so-called WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument which, while seemingly persuasive, actually isn't. (And having now looked at the Durrett article again, I think notability is far from certain in that one, also.)
So in conclusion, I think I will stick with my opinion, but I can offer this: if you resubmit the draft, and should it come up before me again, I will give it a miss and let another reviewer take a view instead; that way you'll get the benefit of a second (or rather third) opinion. Hope that's okay. Best, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 04:44, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for reviewing my article on Abdullah Al Mandous
Thank you very much for your valuable input. I really appreciate the time and efforts you put into reviewing my article. I have revised the page based on your comments and added independent sources including Khaleej Times and Saudi Gazette newspapers. Regarding the Zawya website, it is a news portal owned by Thomson Reuters here in the UAE whereas the Emirates News Agency (WAM) is the official news agency of the UAE, so I kept them because most of the stories and articles published about Al Mandous (the subject of my Wikipedia bio) are available in Arabic only. So, I am planning to create an Arabic version of the bio as well since he has significant coverage in Arabic media and he is also a prolific Arabic writer on topics related to rain enhancement and climate modification. As you advised I have also removed the part about his personal life due to the lack of sources. Stay safe & kind regards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohamedajaleel (talk • contribs) Draft:Abdulla Al Mandous
Do you have a COI with any page that you have edited or intend to edit?
From a policy-ish perspective, do you think that all editors should be asked this question? If yes, when? On registration? On autoconfirmation? On page creation?
Do you think that all editors, even those who state no COIs, should make that statement in a defined place, such as the top of their userpage? SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:59, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi @SmokeyJoe: thanks for dropping by. I don't know if every editor should be expressly asked about COI, but it probably should be raised with all editors, especially new ones who may not be aware of the issue. What I tend to do is, if I come across a new article or draft where I smell a possible problem (say, a SPA writing about a borderline-notable business), I will routinely question that; not in an accusatory way, but to flag up the issue. I do that on the user's talk page, rather than the article/draft talk page, because I'm not asking whether any editor has a COI regarding that article, I'm asking whether that editor has a COI regarding that or any other article. Not saying that's the (only) right way to do it, I'm saying that's how I tend to do it. If I don't get a timely response to my query, or if the COI is fairly obvious, I may then also post a suitable tag on the article/draft (or in this case, I added an AfC comment to that effect, something which you clearly didn't think was correct or appropriate). Does this answer your questions? Cheers, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Andi Kovel page
Draft:Andi Kovel
Hi! I’m trying to figure out how to get this Andi Kovel page published, and you rejected it earlier in the year due to there not being enough supporting references and links to legitimize it all. It was updated with all of that fixed, and it’s just been sitting dormant now for months… I’m wondering if you could help me get it published? Or help me figure out what’s wrong with it still and how to move it forward? Thanks a lot. Russlowe (talk) 16:20, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Russlowe: so just to clarify, I declined (not rejected, which means the end of the road for the draft; decline only means it needs to be improved before being submitted again) this draft one month ago. Since then, nothing has been done to it, and more to the point, it hasn't been resubmitted for review, meaning it's not currently even in the review pool. You need to make whatever edits are needed to bring it up to publishing standards, and then click the blue 'Resubmit' button to request another review (which can take anything from hours to weeks). HTH, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
I just accepted this. The effective criterion for visual artists is the presence of works in the permaent collection of major museums. See WP:CREATIVE. How strictly we rely on the GNG in practice varies in different fields, and if it is likely to get accepted, that's good enough to pass. DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Draft:Rohana_Ulluwishewa
Draft:Rohana_Ulluwishewa
Hi DoubleGrazing, Thanks for the talk page comment, but did you read all the articles referenced on the page? if you read so You will see all the appropriate links to the article. I have seen so many articles without even properly cited and still published. if you search the name you may get more information about the notability too. Wikiya007 (talk) 08:11, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
@Wikiya007: I actually did read all the articles (apart from the non-English one), yes. Only one meets the standards laid down in the WP:GNG notability guidelines, and one is not enough. Primary sources don't count. And I also tried to search, but found nothing more or better.
With regards to other articles having insufficient references (the so-called WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument), that is a reason to improve those articles, not to create more poorly-referenced ones.
@Wikiya007: as I mentioned when I declined the draft, this person must be shown to be notable either by the general WP:GNG notability criteria, or the specific WP:PROF one. Study those guidelines, and find sources that satisfy either or both sets of requirements. But to answer your question, it's the Stuff article that I consider to be the only one meeting the GNG standard. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:47, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello.
before 2020 Olympics, I had created a draft for Ariake West Canal in Tokyo only because it is the place where the Olympic and Paralympic Committees put the cauldron of the Olympic Flame. as I do not speak well Japanese, I have just found the existing article in Japanese (easily) and translated it into English. But when submited, you have declined the draft because it was not completed. Of course, this canal is not a very important part of Tokyo, and you will find few info of it in English, but to describe a city, I think it is important that this kind of place will be described on WP.
Kiitos (I like very much Finland and Finnish people, since my very firts travel there in 1983).--Arorae (talk) 22:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Arorae: just to be clear, I declined the draft because the sources cited were not sufficient to demonstrate that the subject is notable. I can see that you've resubmitted the draft, but it looks like the sources are the same as before, ie. nothing has changed in that respect. I could simply decline this again, but I won't do that; I will let someone else review it instead, perhaps they find it acceptable. While waiting for that, you may wish to try and find more sources that meet the criteria described in WP:GNG, to improve the draft's chances. Best, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
fyi, another admin accepted it, quite rightly in my opinion--geographical features have their own requirements and interpretation. One of this importance would be very unlikely to be deleted in mainspace. The requirement or accepting an article, is that it is likely to be accepted in mainspace, not that it would be certain to--and in judging that , it is necessary for us to use the criteria of what actually happens at AfD, not what we think should happen the way we ourselves personally would interpret the rules. . AFC is meant to get articles improved, not get them perfect, and, of course, to remove the promotional junk. DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
September 2021 at Women in Red
Women in Red| September 2021, Volume 7, Issue 9, Numbers 184, 188, 204, 205, 207, 208
Communicating with wikipedia mods/admins/evaluators/users
Hi,
apologies if I wrote on the wrong page. I think I've figured out there's a separate user page which only you would post on to the talk page here where people post questions or have discussion instead of a simple chat reply everywhere else on the internet. Here's my question: am I supposed to always go to a specific talk page to have a conversation with someone, or does adding the DoubleGrazing alert them of a question somewhere else - or am I supposed to use this signature on my talk page (or an articles page) and you add a reply there?
Thank you for you feedback Victor (talk) 16:23, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi @TheGremlin: the rule of thumb is, if you want to talk about an article etc., do it on the article talk page. If you want to talk to a user, do it on the user's talk page.
One exception to this is, if there's already a discussion going on, continue it where it is, don't split it into new locations. In that case, if you want to reply or otherwise alert a particular user, use the 'ping' or reply-to function (see template:ping), that way they'll get notified.
The only time you don't need to ping someone is if you're talking on their user page, because they get an automatic talk-page-notification for that.
Hello, DoubleGrazing. I need a little help from you and I would be very thankful for that. I've trimmed the article and have removed all the clutter and promotional tone of article in a bid to make it neutral. I am happy if you can further make it neutral by making any kind of changes that make it acceptable. I have re-submitted the article (Draft:Arnergy) and will be waiting for your review. Thanks. Fernande Bonhomme (talk) 14:08, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Congratulations from WikiProject Articles for Creation!
The Articles for Creation Barnstar & The Teamwork Barnstar
I've noticed your good work on creating many articles about Finnish topics! I'm not requesting any articles here, but I'll say that there's quite a bit of a gap when it comes to Finnish rail accidents on the English Wikipedia. So if you have some extra energy and interest, these could be good article ideas: fi:Turengin junaturma (39 deaths, worst rail accident), fi:Kuurilan junaturma (26 deaths, worst peace-time rail accident). --Eurooppa (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Hey @Eurooppa: thanks for your message. Funny you should say that — a while ago I already got started on one (Kausala, 1916), but backed off as I realised I may have a distant COI and didn't feel like dealing with it. But yeah, these seem interesting, I'll defo have a look-see. (Pinging also @Konryusui: who has this thing about choo-choos.) Cheers, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:19, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
@Eurooppa: I'd definitely jump on this prompt if things weren't as hectic as they've been for me lately ;_; I'll see what I can do once I'm able to put more effort towards editing again though! Konryusui (talk) 18:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Review Request
Hi DoubleGrazing, the article Draft:Mohammed Aqra has been improved, more reference has been added including one on one interviews with very credible media. Could you kindly review the changes as in my opinion the article qualifies to be published on the mainstream and the reason given initially for a rejection no longer exists and the subject is not just passing mention. Thanks for your effort. Robschnell (talk) 15:09, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Draft Article on Indian Railway Signalling
@DoubleGrazing, i have revised the draft where i have tried to comply with all your observations. Please have a look and advise if it is suitable for resubmission. Thanks and regards.LoveAll (talk). 12:20, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello DoubleGrazing. Could you please do a sources evaluation -- like this one -- for the draft about Christopher Leonard? This could be done at the talk page of the draft. I'm not an expert in the topic, and I think that such feedback could help the draft author. (Note that I have no conflict of interest in this and came across the draft by picking a random submission.). --Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 11:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021
New Page Review queue September 2021
Hello DoubleGrazing,
Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.
Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.
At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.
There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.
Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
That's just you stating she has a possible conflict of interest. I can't find anywhere that she's said she has one. Why do you think she has one? Nothing in her edits even hints at it outside of this being the only one of two articles she's edited (and even that's not necessarily a good indicator). All she's done is create the article, and make a single edit to another article. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
@Nihonjoe: Sorry, not quite sure what your point is... I'm not accusing this editor of a COI, nor have I said they have one; I'm querying the possibility — and yes, it is definitely a possibility, given that this is the only article they've created, and one of very few they've edited. I've also not said there's an investigation or anything, if that's how you're choosing to interpret my reference to "pending query".
Can I also just point out that I did approve the draft, so it's not like I rejected it on the basis of a possible COI.
Anyway, if you're satisfied that the tag isn't needed, you're perfectly at liberty to remove it, no need to check in with me; especially you being an admin and all. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:32, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the earlier review of this (back in August).
I have added sources for most of the prize winners in the last 10 years, please advise if these are sufficient quality.
Also, the summary of the award, its purpose and when it was established basically has come from the mwp.org website. I've found secondary sources (e.g. current citation [3], but I suspect they have taken their information from the same primary source. Are the citations now of sufficient quality/independence to now publish the draft?
You left some comments on my page for Maria Gloria Dominguez. I'm not sure why the sources are not reliable sources. Could you clarify to me what I need to do to get the page approved?
