I've rewritten the entry for the Ukrainian Hydrometeorological Center and added few links. The entry is now waiting a review. Could you please do the review?
This is a page about the national meteorological and Ukrainian government organization. Sinestro (talk) 14:42, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
""" All of the sources appear to be passing mentions. I can't read the Verkhovna Rada source due to language issues, however we do need multiple sources, and all we have now is (possibly) one source.
I'm flabbergasted about this decision.
First of all, Ukrainian Hydrometeorological Center on the citation 3: Ukraine -> Institutional Information -> All Information -> Part 1 (NMS Mandate and Planning) -> 1.1 Title of the National Meteorological or Hydrometeorological Service (NMS): Ukrainian Hydrometeorological Center
World Meteorological Organization (WMO) is a specialized agency of the United Nations. This reference alone should suffice, in my opinion. I decline to accept that Wikipedia doesn't accept UN as a credible source.
I accept that this mention was hard to find. Here, the Ukrainian Hydrometeorological Center is mentioned at the United Nations website:
@Sinestro: The decline was not about notability. Instead, it was about the fact that the sources only had passing mentions, that is, they did not mention the organisation enough to establish notability. This is better explained in WP:SIGCOV. I'll have a look at the sources you have provided shortly. JML1148(talk | contribs)07:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sinestro: I've had a look through the sources that you have provided, and I'm not certain. The sources fail WP:SIGCOV mostly because they are either passing mentions or are related to the subject - either written by the centre, are reports of which the centre is a source for, or written by partners of it (e.g. the Finnish sources). However, because of the Verkhovna Rada and Earthdoc sources, I'm not to the point that I would accept it, but not to the point that I would decline. I think a more experienced editor would be in a better place to review it. I can advise you to find additional sourcing (preferably news reports) and add it to the article, along with the sources you have linked above. JML1148(talk | contribs)11:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
:::@JML1148: thank you for your explanations. I still fail to understand the criteria. Would you consider this source significant, independent, Reliable and secondary?
Why do you consider articles from the Finnish Meteorological Institute a partner? What is the definition of the partnership: apart from having "meteorology" in the name?
Here is my application of the four criteria from WP:NCORP:
significant? - yes, it contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth. There are several articles that talk about UHMC
independent? - yes, it is completely independent of the article subject. it is an independent source, located in another western country, Finland.
Reliable? - yes, it meets the standard for being a reliable source. it is a respected institution, with many articles and mentions online.
secondary - yes, it has no connection to UHMC.
By the same merit, WMO publications also correspond these four criteria. There are a number of the ukrainian sources that talk about Ukrainian Meteorological Center. It is not forbidden to cite non-English articles, but I haven't included them. As a last resort argument, when I open a list of List_of_meteorology_institutions, literally half of them have only one or two references, why apply different standards to this article? I believe it correspond now the minimum criteria, and I'm sure once this article is published it will be improved by other people. Sinestro (talk) 13:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sinestro: If there are Ukrainian sources, certainly add them to the article. I wouldn't be surprised if they are a better quality in terms of independence than the English-language sources. I think you need to expand the article using the sources you have found, and submit it. Regarding other meteorology institutions, there may be some articles that don't meet out notability guidelines. I'll look into that. JML1148(talk | contribs)23:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article subject has received two major awards in Australian music (cited) and released many albums (cited by publication). Also holds an academic post. Notability is thereby established I suggest. Walton22 (talk) 02:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added more notability to lede. Australian musician collaborating with esteemed USA drummer receives favourable review in UK magazine. Walton22 (talk) 02:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Walton22: I'm not convinced. WP:GNG requires multiple sources that meet its criteria, of which we have one that is tenuous. It's a review of an album that he created with other people. Ideally, we'd have 2-3 reliable sources that address Barry himself, and not his music. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 02:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Walton22: Thank you for the additional sources. I think there is a pretty good amount of sourcing, however I could see people objecting to that, so I'll leave it to another reviewer to have a look at it. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 03:25, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Walton22: I'm not sure what's objectionable still. Tbh, I can't credit "Ideally, we'd have 2-3 reliable sources that address Barry himself, and not his music." Why not his music? Details of his personal life are surely not required? I can't see that a review in Jazzwise magazine is "tenuous' (read their WP entry) and I fail to see why "created with other people" is a downside, particularly when they're notable themselves as in Eric Harland. Walton22 (talk) 03:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Walton22: Of the sources that are independent, one is an interview (fails WP:SIGCOV) and the others are reviews that give no biographical detail. The SMH review is also pretty short. I am unsure, so I am handing it to another reviewer. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 03:45, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi JML1148. Just a quick note to remind you that according to WP:DRAFTIFY you should not move pages to draftspace if there is an assertion that the page belongs in mainspace from another editor, in this case a contested PROD. The correct course of action at that point is to take the article to AfD. Thanks for all your hard work at NPP. – Joe (talk) 11:57, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
New Pages Patrol newsletter June 2023
Hello JML1148,
New Page Review queue April to June 2023
Backlog
Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to Hey man im josh who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by Meena and Greyzxq with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.
Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.
WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of Sam, Jason and Susana, and also some patches from Jon, has been hard at work updating PageTriage. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at WT:NPPR when we are ready for beta testers.
Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.
You can review the AFC workflow at WP:AFCR. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that draftspace is optional, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.
Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own SNG? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is WP:ARTIST 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).
Reminders
Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
A little commentary re: a comment you made at ANI.
In my opinion, the people who really do the concept of fraternities right are the historically Black fraternities and sororities, particularly the sororities. Most "mainline" fraternity members don't stay very active or connected to their organizations after graduating, but members of the historically Black organizations do, which leads them to have a network available in the post-college years. In the lead-up to the inauguration of Joe Biden, media coverage mentioned that Kamala Harris is a member of Alpha Kappa Alpha.
I went to a professional development workshop a few years ago. The non-Black women did not really talk about whether they had joined sororities in college; the Black women did. It was instant bonding for the women who were members of the same sorority; if they were from different sororities, there was occasionally friendly rivalry, but really it was still mutual respect and being part of the overall organization.
And that's why I say they do it right: they embody being not just social organizations for the college years but service organizations for the college years and beyond. —C.Fred (talk) 11:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
New pages patrol needs your help!
New pages awaiting review as of June 30th, 2023.
Hello JML1148,
The New Page Patrol team is sending you this impromptu message to inform you of a steeply rising backlog of articles needing review. If you have any extra time to spare, please consider reviewing one or two articles each day to help lower the backlog. You can start reviewing by visiting Special:NewPagesFeed. Thank you very much for your help.
The third round of the 2023 WikiCup has come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round had at least 175 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:
Iazyges, with 560 points from a high-scoring featured article on Tiberius III.
Contestants achieved 11 featured articles, 2 featured lists, 47 good articles, 72 featured or good article reviews, over 100 DYKs and 40 ITN appearances. As always, any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Kosovo report: CEE Spring Campaign 2023, Albania and Kosovo
Netherlands report: A new book, new Wikipedia articles, videos and further images on Africa
New Zealand report: Report on the Society for the Preservation of Natural History Collections Conference 2023 and Auckland suburb updates
Philippines report: GLAM outreach activity at University of Nueva Caceres: Digitization, workshops and proofread-a-thons as future collaboration
Poland report: GLAM-Wiki workshops for the Czartoryski Library; Work on the GLAM-Wiki Project Page Continues; End of Internship within the "Praktykuj w Kulturze" Program
Hello. You recently closed this RfC about using the 5% rule. The question was specifically about using it for parliamentary elections (rather than presidential elections, which there is consensus for). Would you be able to clarify your close to expressly point out it applies to parliamentary elections only, rather than undoing a previous consensus for its use in presidential elections. Cheers, Number5712:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ShaEddi: Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Your creation of this product means you have a conflict of interest. You are strongly discouraged from writing an article with a conflict of interest. If you decide to do so, you must declare it on your user page and abide by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, specifically the one on spam. THis is the main reason that your first draft on your user page was speedily deleted. JML1148(talk | contribs)03:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@LibStar: Very interesting (and also somewhat sad) read. Thanks for the heads up. I had hoped that MaxnaCarta would be able to finally turn around Jack's disruptive conduct, but to see them denounce him in such strong terms is sad. JML1148(talk | contribs)04:29, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
August 2023 Good Article Nominations backlog drive
