This is an archive of past discussions with User:Mattdaviesfsic. 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.
Just FYI, railscot.co.uk / railbrit.co.uk were subject to a discussion recently. It was agreed (and thus I reluctantly complied) that while the sites are definitely unreliable sources, they didn't do any harm as external links. So that's what I have been doing. Periodically I have a bash at removing any link to those sites used as a reference but leave external links intact. The odd editor has reacted by reinstating a deleted reference as an EL and I haven't objected. Hope that helps. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I wrote an article on Sky Lease Cargo Flight 4854. It was a significant commercial aviation accident which a lot of people have heard of. There is an article about incidents of that airline and I wanted to add to that. I've worked really hard on it. Could you please accept it. It's not just a news article; it's a detailed recount with images. Please sir! Captain N334AA (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi, it would be great to accept it - and well done on creating it - but it just needs a few more references, that's all. I'd say focus on the bits which aren't currently cited. See under the "Aircraft and Flight" section, and the end of the "Investigation" section. Perhaps carry out a Google search and click on the "News" tab, which might reveal some other secondary sources. The length of it is okay, but it just needs a bit more citing. I'm happy to judge it again even in a couple of days if you let me know (perhaps come back to my talk page again when you've worked on it), but I would say it's close to being accepted. If you need any more help, let me know. Hope that helps. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
D-Orbit draft declined
Hi, You declined Draft:D-orbit draft again. Can I ask if you looked at the talk page where I put in some work assessing the article reference quality to help the next reviewer. I am still thinking that this is getting coverage in space news media and it isn't all just regurgitated press releases. It received EU funding, has gone on to have actual products. Space tugs are a very new market so to have launched 8 OTVs makes D-Orbit a significant player in this new market. The article is probably far from ideal, but that seems a separate issue from whether there should be an article. I don't want to waste time trying to improving it if it won't ever get approved. Any tips/suggestions other than putting in an AfC before resubmitting it? C-randles (talk) 15:55, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi C-randles, thanks for the message. No, I didn't see the talk page originally. I might double back on myself here and say that I'm not sure, looking at it again, that the number of references is the problem, perhaps it may just need a little bit of expansion. I think - perhaps - that the lead may be a little too long to summarise the article; that is, the History section is fine, but maybe a little more expansion to the other sections (or add new ones!), and then I'd be happy to accept it. I hope that helps? - and apologies for my u-turn! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Plane incident
Hi Matt. I was the reviewer that originally declined Draft:Sky Lease Cargo Flight 4854. The author has added more references and I think it now meets WP:GNG. WP:ONEEVENT doesn't apply, because that's about people known only for one event. I don't think WP:NOTNEWS applies, because this is not a recent event - it took place in 2018. I am minded to move it to mainspace, but wanted to confer with you first. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to appear on mine...? Do you have a link? (Maybe I turned it off!) Only complaint I know of is when it doesn't abide by WP:COLAS - doesn't seem to like asterisks very much! I do forget quite often though! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
No worries! Yeah the COLAS thing is one of the few flaws, but it's so handy overall that I'm willing to accept occasionally needing to do a spot of clean-up after using it. XAM2175(T)17:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Diving in for a second... What I like is when you reply it automatically subscribes you to a section. That gives you notifications about any reply even if the talk page isn't in your watch list - something that can be useful sometimes. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Very true, the subscription feature is an extremely convenient one too – especially for multiple-topic pages like the drama boards that would be utterly torturous to watchlist. XAM2175(T)17:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Sources for the article Jesus
I've left your reversion, but added a comment on the Talk page. I believe the issue of sourcing is important, and I'd be happy if you could take up the thread. Achar Sva (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
The source: Tessin, Georg: Verbände und Truppen der deutschen Wehrmacht und Waffen-SS im Zweiten Weltkrieg 1939-1945. Bd. 1: Die Landstreitkräfte - Waffengattungen – Gesamtübersicht, Osnabrück 1979 Bd. 17: Register der Namensverbände, Volkssturm / Hitlerjugend / Verbündete. Osnabrück 2002
Is a register of all units of the land forces of the Wehrmacht including Volkssturm units and therefore a quite good and reliable academic source.In a register it does not really make sense to put a page number for every entry in. Dravos100 (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Ah, apologies, found it. The article uses only one source for the whole list, which doesn't automatically make it valid. The article certainly needs more secondary citations to demonstrate it has notability for WP. Hope that helps? Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 21:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
See the comment I left on the page: This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are: in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject), reliable, secondary, [and] independent of the subject. Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
eBPF draft
Hi Matthew, thanks a lot for your review and the feedback, very appreciated! You are right that bringing up Linux kernel in the first sentence is too specific and confusing for getting initial context as a reader. I've removed that part from the intro as it is a bit less relevant. The main point is that it's a technology for running sandboxed programs in operating systems. Let me know if that looks better to you in the draft or if more rework is required. Jasonbar3121 (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi, thanks. Looks good, and thanks for removing it. One thing I didn't notice at first was that a lot (if not all) of the references are before the punctuation, rather than after them - see MOS:CITEPUNCT. I'm aware it's a really mundane task, and am currently looking to see if there is something automated which could do it, but it is a Manual of Style thing, sorry. But it will almost certainly be accepted after that. Good work, and let me know when you've finished! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Serendipitous that you reviewed this page on her 80th b'day. Thanks for taking a look. I don't have the research skills in this area to find all the info, but I have made another attempt. Some of the earlier career positions in particular are hard to find (I have emailed). Carolyn has also made legal history on at least 3 occasions but I am not sure how to find this either. Her work is seminary in Australia, and she certainly stuck her head up to contest important human rights issues. I was hoping that with publication this page could be added to by a community that had better access to research within health and law, thus getting an important human on to Wikipedia. Bcritical (talk) 08:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi Bcritical, thanks for getting in touch. Thanks for your work since my review. I might hasten to add that, if you wished the page get some wider help, you could post some notices to some of the relevant WikiProjects, which are on the talk page (although you might know that already). If something can't be referenced, it probably shouldn't be there, so when it comes to be submitted again, anything left unsourced should probably be removed to get a higher chance of being accepted. Hope that helps, and well done on your hard work. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 08:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Mattdaviesfsic Awesome. I put the links for the WP that appear on the talk page, what is the preferred way to post notices? I can remove the un-sourced material (although this can be found on the University site as part of the CV, I can easily link to that). I really appreciate your feedback and encouragement. Bcritical (talk) 09:28, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
There's not really a specified policy as such, but just something along the lines of "Hi, if anyone wants to help get this article [with a link] moved to mainspace, feel free to add some references and information so it can be accepted" (or words to that effect). Hope that helps, and good luck! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 09:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Draft:Atlas of the Languages of Iran
Hello,
Thanks for your comment on my draft article. I added more academic resources and cleaned up the text (please let me know if it needs more cleaning). I believe publishing this article is very important because there are a number of pages on Wikipedia such as Gilan, Shahr-e Kord, Isfahan, and Kurdistan province which are using the information from this online atlas (under their "languages" section) without referring to it properly. It means that this online atlas can be a great resource for Wikipedia editors when writing or editing articles about Iran's provinces and minority languages spoken in this country.
Regarding the references and sources, I noticed that other Wikipedia articles with same topics such as glottolog's list of references only contain links to the original website. However, I spent some time to go over existing articles which have been written about the topic and discussed this online atlas and added them to the list of references. I hope that it works this time.
Thanks for reading this and I appreciate your further comments. Tara Azin (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
You know my drafted article, London Buses Route 189. I have sourced each piece with sufficient reliability and amounts and resubmitted it, if it gets denied could you explain an example of a good source for it? Hi3d 2 (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
I think (and this is my own personal view, other editors will certainly disagree) that not every London bus route is notable. The notability criteria for bus routes is non-existent, but it would really vary from article-to-article. Personally, I would say the only certainly notable route would be the X26 (due to its length, the custom buses used, etc etc). However, each route (IMO) would need a good number of sources (many of which don't anyway) to prove that they are necessarily notable.
I'm aware this wasn't the answer you were hoping for, but good coverage in at least a few places (and not just route extensions or transfers between operators) would prove it to be notable.
I would say newspapers/articles would probably be your best bet, to see what the local thoughts on the route are, rather than WP:FANCRUFT things, such as extensions/operators/bus types etc. That Fancruft article may be useful to know how it can establish notability.
Again, I'm acutely aware this wasn't the answer you wanted, but at the end of the day there's no hard and fast rules for these sorts of articles. Good luck on the draft work though! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
The reviewers' talk page is the best place to ask for help or advice. You might like to watchlist this page, and you are encouraged to take part in any discussion that comes up.
You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions. There is also a project userbox. If you haven't done so already, please consider adding your name to the list of participants.
Several of our members monitor Wikipedia's help IRC channel, and you are welcome to join in to ask Wikipedia-related questions.
The IRC channel #wikipedia-en-afcconnect is used occasionally for internal discussion regarding the Articles for creation process, and also serves as a recent changes feed, displaying all edits made in the Articles for creation namespace.
The help desk is the place where new editors can ask questions about their submissions. You are welcome to help in answering their questions.
Just a heads-up that some of your edits with ARA, such as this one, might fall within the scope of WP:COSMETICBOT. From reading the tool's docs I can't see anything that I disapprove of it doing, but I thought I'd mention it in case you had plans to start fixing great swathes of articles :) Cheers. XAM2175(T)21:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
That's fine, but the policy covers edits that don't affect the final appearance of the rendered page in article space as well – so the edit at the DLR article I linked to above would be covered by that because all it did was remove some spaces from citation templates. There wouldn't be any problem though if substantive visible changes, such as those noted at MOS:PUNCT, were being performed as part of the same edit. XAM2175(T)21:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm the one who puts all those white spaces into references when I create them, and I always will. Nice to know I'm creating work to keep idiots some people busy :) 10mmsocket (talk) 23:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
I also put spaces (only single spaces, which I don't think are usually called "white spaces") into references and have been doing so for many years. It doesn't affect the final appearance but I find it makes editing a lot easier. Alarics (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi. First, thank you for your work on the project. I don't think we've ever interacted before, but I appreciate you and all you do. You approved this at AfC recently, were you aware of the UPE/COI issue with it? The article creator has a clear COI/UPE conflict. Onel5969TT me23:03, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
I saw the submittor's (is that the right word?) talk page, and I saw your COI comment, but I'm uncertain what basis you made it on, as I didn't find any evidence of that. Either way, the article looked okay for mainspace with (from memory) everything or almost everything sourced. If I did make a mistake there, let me know. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 08:21, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your valuable comments on my manuscript. Would you recommend placing it as a section in this page on "Proteomics" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proteomics
Yes, you could do. I would recommend putting a note at Talk:Proteomics to see what other editors think and where it could be put in the article, because anything past GCSE science I haven't got a clue! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Draft: Nevernight submissions questions
What can I do to make better sources? What exactly qualifies as a reliable source on Wikipedia? I have seen articles with sources for websites like the one I used, so what can count and what sources would you recommend? Maxxymrice (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I would make sure that you abide by Wikipedia:Reliable sources most of all. Things like IMDB, for example, are not reliable. The best thing you can do is a Google search, and check its reliability. So, for example, an article in almost any good newspaper with a review of the novel would be great.
If you wanted to remove a source, then you can go into the visual editor and click on the source, then press the Delete key.
Hey! While I agree the draft has some issues, generally AfC is not in the business of declining drafts for the kind of quality issues that would not have us considering deleting a created article. The fundamental standard is whether you think it would survive AfD. Some people also decline articles for obvious NPOV or other similar UPE/COI issues, but for a problem like the lead being bad I'd accept and drop a comment on the author's/page's talk page.
Skimming through some of your other declines, I'm seeing similar issues with some of your other custom declines - good advice, but not issues for which I would decline an article. (Examples: MOS issues, prose problems that do not interfere with legibility, lacking an infobox, missing information that would be useful to have, etc) Rusalkii (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for letting me know @Rusalkii: - I think I'm trying to leave comments on submissions more now, rather than declining straight, which is what I did at first! Thx again. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 05:34, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi, my decline wasn't based on the idea that that ref isn't reliable/independent; the article still lacks inline references in many of the sections, which is why it was declined. When more inline citations are added, then it could be accepted. Hope that helps. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 11:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Maybe the additional references I made to his international career can change your mind.
Can you please tell me what can be done in terms of references for the article to be approved? Dušan has written opinion piece articles and gave interviews for all of the relevant media in Montenegro, and has appeared in international ones (like Bella Caledonia and The Wire by Progressive International). Other than that, I can put references for videos where he appears with notable figures such as Noam Chomsky, Yanis Varoufakis, Ann Pettifor and others, but it's on YouTube.
I'd try to find independent sources talking about him and his work (although, as it's not my area of expertise, I can only recommend a good Google search!). As it stands, there's a few different bits which are unsourced (like the birth date, for example), and if you do happen to find new sources to expand the article, I would recommend subheadings to give it some structure. Hope that helps. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 11:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi Matt, thanks for reviewing my submission and your feedback (and Happy New Year!). There are lots of other sources from the mainstream media that fit the criteria you outlined but I didn't use them because the nature of the articles etc wasn't relevant to the 'biographical' info for James and I was trying to keep the page strictly biographical and not in any way promotional sounding. There are features in US Weekly and the Daily Star that fit the notability criteria for example but not for reasons that contain any biographical information that is useful in creating an impartial entry. Some of the info I used (birth date etc) was taken from his autobiography which is in book form and so I wasn't sure how to cite that as a source. There is a ton more information I could add but in trying to stay within the criteria, I have tried to keep it strictly relevant to direct biographical essentials but I'm sure that once the page is up, other contributors will add further details. What should I do? Thanks again Matt, I hope you are well. Planck321 (talk) 14:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Planck321:. To cite a book, see Wikipedia:Citing sources#Books to cite his autobiography. If you would like to get the assistance of some other editors who may be able to help, you may wish to post a notice telling others about the draft at the Biography and Music WikiProjects. I hope that helps answer your main questions; let me know if you have any other questions. Happy New Year to you too! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 14:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello Mattdaviesfsic! I see that you've recently started to review AfC submissions, which is great. However, I'm kind of worried by your decline of this draft (created by Hastyr15 but almost entirely rewritten by me). Your stated reason is "topic not yet shown to meet general notability guidelines", but this is not accurate. As our guideline on notability says,
Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. [...] The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article.
Going merely by the existence of reliable sources, the four papers exclusively devoted to the Asclepius (Lucentini 2004, Mahé 2004, Parri 2004, and Parri 2011), even apart from the introduction to the scholarly translation by Copenhaver 1992 published by CUP and the coverage in Ebeling 2007 as cited in the article, leave absolutely no doubt that the subject meets WP:GNG.
In your comment on the draft you rightly say that the article should be expanded based on the sources named in the 'secondary literature' section. As it stands, it's a very basic stub, while the subject could easily take up a mid-sized article. But being a stub is emphatically not a valid reason to decline a draft. The core purpose of AfC, according to WP:AFCPURPOSE, is
to identify which submissions will be deleted and which won't. Articles that will probably survive a listing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion should be accepted. Articles that will probably not survive should be declined. Issues that do not affect the likelihood of success at AFD (e.g., halo effects like formatting) should not be considered when making this fundamental calculation.
As you may know, discussions at AfD almost exclusively revolve around notability. I personally do not agree with this standard (in my view lack of reliable sourcing or lack of neutral point of view in the existing article prose should also be a valid deletion argument in some cases), but that's what it is. Since notability is beyond question here, concerns that would carry no weight at AfD like the draft being too stubby should not be taken into account at AfC.
I don't know, maybe you just weren't able to parse the Italian and French titles of the papers easily enough to quickly recognize that they are entirely devoted to the Asclepius? (I see that you review drafts at a high rate, which may not be the best idea.) But just in case that your main decline reason was that you thought the draft too stubby, I would like to ask you to not only reconsider your review of this draft, but also the reviews of other drafts which you may have declined for the same (incorrect) reason. AfC is not an easy job, and I'm really glad that you took this up, but given the fact that it directly affects newcomers this is one of the areas in the project where it is most important to get it right.
Thanks for getting in touch, Apaugasma. You're right in saying that perhaps some (although probably not too many) of my declines are for stubs on the basis that they could probably be expanded, and I've started to lower my expectations a bit now, seeing that originally they were - perhaps - far too high! Based off this, and your very correct assumption that it would likely pass at AfD, do feel free to resubmit and I would be happy to accept it (with my comment remaining that it could easily be expanded, because I do believe that is true - just that it's not the cause for a decline!)
As for high expectations with regard to the quality of Wikipedia articles, I hear you. As an academic I took me a long time to adjust to this too. Perhaps it may be somewhat of a consolation that standards have enormously risen in the last 20 years (in 2003 most articles were entirely unsourced an most no one even made a fuss about that), and that they are likely to continue rising. I'm fairly sure that Wikipedia will one day be what you and I would like it to be, but it will probably take another 20 years! ☿ Apaugasma (talk☉)16:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Draft: Trevor Lee (Musician)
Hi there! Thank you for your feedback. I've made changes and resubmitted it. Please let me know if there is anything else I need to do. Thank you! Rabbit365 (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Just accepted - well done, and congratulations, @Rabbit365:! One suggestion that you might want to do is give a source for the birth date for verifiability (only a minor thing, though). Well done once again! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 17:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for getting in touch. Jesus is a Featured Article, so everything in it needs to be sourced and so on. I would say perhaps give a short quote from the book which sums up the author's view in a few words/sentences, and add a citation. I would recommend looking at the article you linked to for ideas of sources which you could use, in case it has any quotes there or anything like that. Hope that helps. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Sure! Let me test it on you first, then :) How about this:
I think some editors might recommend removing the "Nature"-praised[1] work section, but you can just leave it in for now as I'm not sure that's a big issue, otherwise it seems a little bit of WP:NPOV.
Don't try and reinstate it (or you'll find yourself in a sticky situation!), but go to the talk page, make the case for the source, and see what other editors think. If it's decided not to have it in, don't be disheartened (even he said it was a clsoe one!). Unfortunately I can't answer for every editor on WP! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 19:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello Matt, nice to meet you, hope you are doing well.
I wanted to ask you, if possible, if you could give me a feedback on the Draft:Davide Lo Surdo for have an idea if it’s corrected right and followed the notability criteria.
It’s added the award winning and much more.
If you can tell me also how to improve it, i will be grateful to you.
Thank you so much and best wishes to you 91.80.15.199 (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi, apart from the discography section needing sources, I can't see anything which needs sourcing or anything, so it would probably be okay to submit after that. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 04:49, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Templates for Station Editing
Thanks for your assist on Draft:Cramel (Hebrew book series). I was taking a look at your station pages and noticed you've made extensive contributions. I've noticed some pages use templates such as: Template:Aberdeen_stations or Template:Aberdeen Railway while others don't use templates but have tables I have a few questions, which are mostly related to templates, which I feel like you may be well equipped to answer because of your exposure to these pages:
In general, should pages about a station include a template/diagram of the railway/nearby stops, or should only the railway (collection of all stations) have a template (like the parent page of all the stations)?
For lines that have too many stops, how is the length of the section or number of stops chosen for templates like the ones I linked to?
Similar to my first bullet: If the templates have the ability to be used on more than one page, should they be able to take parameters to note which stop is being highlighted?
Hi @Relspas: is there a particular station in question? To answer your questions otherwise:
There's not hard and fast rule about that; I would say it would depend on the station (KXSP compared to Thornton Abbey railway station, for example!)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume you're talking about distance between stops on the template? If so, it's not a geographically-accurate diagram, it's only schematic (i.e., as long as the layout is right, that's all that real matters!) Distances can be as vastly out of proportion as you need (but not want) them to be.
There's not really "parameters" in the same way as a table, in a template, but if it's about a railway line (rather than a single station) then it can be put on multiple pages.
The more-complete explanation of point 3: templates are especially made to be used on multiple pages, and even multiple times on the same page. It's their entire reason for existing; you make a template and maintain it rather than having have to maintain lots of separate instances across the entire encyclopaedia. Additionally, templates do have parameters, while tables have none. However, it's not usually necessary to highlight the topic in diagram or navbox templates because Wikipedia's default behaviour is to format in bold text any link that points to the same page on which the link is placed. For example, this is an ordinary link to this very page – User talk:Mattdaviesfsic – but it's autoformatted without me having to do anything. XAM2175(T)12:39, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Qianodus draft article
Dear Mattdaviesfsic,
My submission describing the extinct genus Qianodus (Draft:Qianodus) has been rejected due to insufficient referencing. I will flesh out the 'Media coverage' and 'Reviews' sections of the article as per your comments, but would want to know if I also need to add more citations to the main body of the text.
Hi @Plamsome: thanks for your message. I would recommend having one inline citation for every paragraph (or sentence if you're able). The external links (per WP guidelines) also need to be removed, or put in a separate section). Hope that helps, and look forward to seeing it being accepted soon! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 13:36, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Article for creation "Hasan of Basra"
Hello, Mattdaviesfsic. What do you mean the article is "lost unsourced"? I have cited scholars of folklore, like Ulrich Marzolph, Richard McGillivray Dawkins, the ATU folktale catalogue itself - the reference work for classifying folktales; articles of Enzyklopädie des Märchens (a German-language solid reference for folklore) and Fabula (an international journal on the study of folklore), and cited variants published by the Russian Academy of Sciences (Nauka).KHR FolkMyth (talk) 12:33, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi, this seems to be a typo! Meant to say "LOTS unsourced", not lost. That is, a number of sentences or paragraphs were unsourced when I reviewed it. If this can be rectified, then it will have a good chance of being accepted. Hope that helps clear up any confusion. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 13:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello again. I think there is some kind of mistake: The Summary of the main tale is indeed long (a long version of the tale has 130 pages!), its references are cited at the end of the section. The section "Mazin of Khorassan" is also a variant; due to its length, I've decided to put the references at the end of the section, instead of writing it every other paragraph. If the lack of references in the large sections are the problem, then I will rectify it. KHR FolkMyth (talk) 15:03, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I see what you mean. I won't review it this time around, but I understand; looking at it again with a fresh pair of eyes - in a sense - it's summarised as much as possible, to an extent!
Apologies for the error, and let me say that it probably will be accepted next time at AfC, whenever you resubmit. Happy editing, and thanks for kindly letting me know of my errors! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. I do feel a bit more relieved. If you can check my editing history, my focus is mostly on folktales - of course, using always the best scholarship.
I suppose you could argue that the draft is WP:CRYSTAL, but I'd say there is a high likelihood that news about the series will come out this year, and the date for 2024 has already been announced. So for now, I'd say it should stay as a draft. If I see anything more about the series this year, I'll be sure to update the draft with new information. --Historyday01 (talk) 19:11, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Article for creation Draft:2022–23 AEK B.C. season
Hi. I think you should reconsider your actions against this article. The article has many sources from the official clubs, and sport competitions webpages (i.e., check the boxscore links under each game, it redirects you to the official webpage of the federation or competition.). Thanks. King of the Q (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Okay, let's quickly list the sections which have no sources:
Again, you are wrong mate! Did you even bother to check the boxscore links under, for example, the friendly games sector? Same rule applies for each of the above mentioned sections of this article! Do you want me to take the refs out of the boxscore and add them next to the result or what? Honestly, I don't get it. It cannot be done otherwise. These boxscore links are the only reliable sources that can be found online and are, as said in my previous msg, derived from the official webpages of the Greek Basketball League, the FIBA Basketball Champions League etc. So.....??? King of the Q (talk) 20:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Ah, hidden! See, if they were styled as a [1] or similar I wouldn't have thought it was some random link! These do really need to be formatted properly, though, per WP:ELRC, and if they could be unhidden in some form that would be a lot better; say, placed at the end of a row or something like that. Although, some of the other Wiki tables (e.g., the Greek League/results by round etc) don't have any references, so my point stands for them. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 20:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Ok, as per you last sentence update, I have added links under every single table! Check it please! Also, I will try to place the boxscore links as proper references next to the fixture number or the game result (bare in mind, it won't look good). Similar articles, created by me or other wikipedia editors, reference games in the boxscore link way. Thanks, and sorry if I've been a bit rude. I've been trying to make people see the "hidden boxscore links" for ages. King of the Q (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, that edit is perfect. If all the other sections were like that, it would almost certainly be accepted. Let me know when you do resubmit and I would be happy to bring it into mainspace. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Ok thanks! I have added all the references of played games, in all the sections of the article, in a [1] format (boxscore links are not deleted), and I have resubmitted the article for publication as a permanent link. Safe! King of the Q (talk) 21:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Draft:Main_Directorate_of_Deep-Sea_Research
Hello! You declined Draft:Main_Directorate_of_Deep-Sea_Research. I would like to have some more specific comments on how to improve the article. I know quite well the principles of Wikipedia. I think that I have found sources that show that GUGI exists and is relevant. Due to secrecy, it could be difficult to find more information. Per W (talk) 05:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
I mean, it would probably be accepted by another editor if you did resubmit (I have higher standards than others!), but it would only be a stub article as it's quite short. If any of the sources mention something about it which isn't already there, you may wish to put that in as well; other than that (and Google searches, etc), there's not a lot I can suggest. As you say, the nature of it means it would be difficult to expand the article further too much. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 06:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Good that you have high standards! I did some smaller things and resubmitted it. Yes, it is only a stub, hopefully a decent one. Per W (talk) 07:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
EUKI review
Thank you for your review and the tips! I have added some more sources and hope this will work :) All the best from Berlin, Julia Euki j (talk) 09:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for your feedback! I've made changes you suggested. What do you think at this point about the draft? Is there anything else that still needs to be fixed? Thank you very much again! ;) Roberta Patrizio (talk) 10:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi, once the other companies section is sourced, then it could probably be accepted. As I said above, I don't dabble in new articles much so someone else will probably review it. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 11:02, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Regarding your comments
Hi Mattdaviesfsic,
Thank you for your time to read my article (Death of Mohammad Eghbal Naibzahi). You mentioned that I haven't used reliable sources to support my claims, but most of my references have been used in other published wikipedia articles. In the following, I list the wikipedia articles or other reliable documents that have used the same references (with the same order).
Hope you reconsider my article. I can change the particle references that you think are not reliable or upon your request I can add more references to support my claims. Please let me know.
Hi, unfortunately I can't find this particular in my review log (see here). Could you send me a link to the page, please, so I can check what I have written? Thanks Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 13:39, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi, thanks. Lots of the Background/Death/Burial sections are unsourced, which led me to decline the article. To be accepted a lot more will need to be sourced (see WP:VNT). Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 13:57, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Request on 16:14:32, 11 January 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Walnuthillstreet
Hi Matt thanks for reviewing my post on TOm Musca, writer and filmmaker, who was co-writer on the award-winning film Stand and Deliver among many others, you rejected it for ....Mostly unsourced speculation .. what else would i need to add to edit this to your satisfaction, the flim is listed int he Library of Congress and Musca has been written about for writing other films including Tortilla Soup. His co-writer and frequent collaborator Ramon Menendez has a wikipedia page, and cites many of the same sources. Please advise, i would love to edit this to the team's satisfaction
Hi, thanks for getting in touch. I would suggest a few things:
Unbolden-ing the headings (for Manual of Style reasons), and removing External Links from the article body (e.g., "Formerly Cool" in the lead section; anything which appears with an arrow after it)
Make sure everything is sourced: if you can't find - or don't have - a source for it, it shouldn't be there. For example, a source for everything in the filmography section.
After you've finished, feel free to resubmit and another editor can have a look (given that I don't tend to dabble in more recent submissions too much).
Thank you for reviewing my article!
Unfortunately, I cannot understand the Reason for the rejection. Every single statement is backed up with sufficient sources. Which statements needs more sources?
The Eduction ist sourced with this page (CDU Hessen)
and the Information in the lead Text are all sourced in the CV and Education.
Furthermore, I can't understand why the CV shouldn't be encycloptically relevant.
Also I removed the external link now.
What else can I improve so that the article is approved?
Thanks again! GalataG23 (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for getting in touch. A CV cannot, in any sense, be a reliable source because it is purely a promotional source. The claims made in the article need to be verified by reliable, secondary sources (i.e., not a CV - that is a primary source), with inline citations (the numbers in the box, basically) - the reader cannot be expected to try and figure out where things come from. Also - in the Visual Editor, you can reuse a citation by clicking on the citation button and clicking Reuse, which you may find helpful.
Do feel free to resubmit at any time, and an editor will take a fresh look at it for you.
Mattdaviesfsic Hello, thank you for reviewing my drafts, I noticed that it is in the drafts of the article that some participants without sources or with weak sources are very strictly considered, they are loaded into the main space where they are not even allowed to be sent to drafts strange. After that, I realized one thing is better to immediately load into the main space. Firstly, there is no need to wait; in the first place, many narrative sources are suitable. Even other members protect them from deletion. I just unknowingly added articles there. There are many more sources in my articles than in these, for example, and others. Товболатов (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
I'll admit I'm not sure what you mean in your second comment. Some reviewers do hold far lower standards than myself, granted. The Nazran conflict article, for example, I probably wouldn't have accepted in its current state. Unfortunately AfC has no hard-and-fast rules, it's very much based on an editor's opinion. If you do want to move it straight into mainspace feel free, I have no objections to that personally. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Hey, I have added the references for most of the TV/Film rows that you requested. Hopefully, TV guide and Apple TV are acceptable, but some of them are difficult to find a reference for since I can't use IMDb as a reference. I no longer has a subscription to newspapers.com but if this is an issue then I will renew my subscription and try to dig some up on the archived channel listings. Thank you - very excited to be getting closer to getting this published. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Patrick_O%27Bryan12.202.229.50 (talk) 07:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Ok, I just resubmitted it. I found references for all that I think will suffice except for one (No Holds Barred) *fingers crossed* -- He's in the credits for the film, but I couldn't find anything outside of sites like IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, FilmAffinity that acknowledges it. I will gladly remove it if you'd like. 2603:8080:7200:A0FA:8493:8470:514F:6E7D (talk) 12:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your feedback on this page. I have addressed all of your comments, with the exception of "- Inline ref's should ideally be in the table;" as I am unsure what I should do about this.
Could you clarify what references should be in the table of the Laureates? Thank you for your time and efforts. DrDoxey (talk) 10:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your help, I have added inline ref's for each line of the table and resubmitted the draft. DrDoxey (talk) 16:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Sound Corporation of America
As regards why the two terms are in ALL CAPS, it is as it was written in the quoted source, and was formatted as such in the source material. As a professional magazine and newspaper designer (Think Magazine, The Prague Post), I assure you, this usage is correct. I will refer you to All_caps page on Wikipedia: "All caps may be used for emphasis (for a word or phrase). They are commonly seen in legal documents, the titles on book covers, in advertisements and in newspaper headlines." See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_capsJeffreebenet (talk) 11:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Lurking on the talk page and disagreeing with you. The all caps page you refer to is not Wikipedia policy or style. See MOS:ALLCAPS, which clearly state that ALL CAPS should be avoided. What is it about the text that you are discussing that goes against what is stated at MOS:ALLCAPS? 10mmsocket (talk) 11:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Draft:National Institute of Oceanography and Applied Geophysics
I removed some links form the body as you suggested. I also explicited that the article is a translation from Wikipedia IT. I also cut part the text without reliable sources indicated. Do you think it's gonna be ok now?
hi @Mattdaviesfsic:I hope you are doing well. I know the waiting list is long and I read you are gradually leaving your activity but I resubmitted the article a couple of month ago and since you were my last editor I'm wondering if you could take a fresh look on it , thank you so much, @MarinadalessaMarinadalessa (talk) 10:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your worthy assessment.
Thank you for your worthy assessment. My article about Continental Rally was already reviewed and corrected. I wonder if you'll like to look at it once again. Grateful. Psiconexion (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the edits. However, most of the "Challenges" remain unsourced - do you think you can find, say, a source verifying each of them? The first paragraph of the Juries section also needs a source (shouldn't be too hard, me thinks, with those "big names"!), the award section needs some sources (particularly for the table), and the committee section may need sources. If you can't find a source for it, it's probably best to just cut it from the draft.
I see you declined my article, but you provided no reason as to why. What else can I do? I included all the information I can find AlexMehtidis (talk) 00:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi AlexMehtidis, thanks for contacting me. The draft (when I looked at it) lacked some contextual information (for the lay reader, as it were), but I think your edits this morning have corrected that. However, one thing I would suggest - looking at it again - is just to make sure that the "Specification" section has at least one source (this can be done like the section above, with "Data from...". It will probably be reviewed by someone else at some point, as I don't tend to review new articles that much. Hope that helps, and well done! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 06:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Greetings, Mattdaviesfsic!
The documents that are referenced support all of the statements in the draft. Could you specify which claims are unsupported? Is there a need for a translation of each of the sources or what exactly is the problem? German, Lithuanian and Polish Wikipedia all use these sources. I added an english medical page about the book.
Greetings and happy new year! Żubr Kresowy (talk) 22:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi Żubr Kresowy, thanks for getting in touch. Ideally, each sentence (or about every couple of lines) should have an inline citation to support it. The first section, for example, only has 1 inline reference, where it should have, say, 3 or 4 (at least, there's not limit; apart from WP:CITEBOMB!). The legacy section you can probably leave alone, but you may want to source the birth/death dates in the infobox as well; that would be very helpful. Hope that helps, and look forward to seeing it resubmitted! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 05:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your work on this article. I would say that the Medical Career section needs a couple more references (for the first and last paragraphs, at least), and then it could be accepted. Great work! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 08:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi. You accepted this from AfC last week. Were you aware of the UPE/COI concerns? If so, fine, but if not, it should probably be moved back to draft until the editor follows the instructions at WP:UPE or WP:COI. Oh, and btw, thanks for your efforts over at AfC. Onel5969TT me12:11, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, missed your reply (I didn't get pinged) - There were clear indications of COI/UPE. NPP reviewers don't post what those clues are online, since we don't want to give UPE/COI editors hints at how to evade detection. Just so you're aware, I'm not very good at spotting UPE/COI (there are other NPPers who are absolutely fantastic at it), so when I draftify something for that, it's pretty blatant. Along those same lines, just came across Sergio Mims with the same issue. Usually, drafts should stay in draftspace until the UPE/COI issue is addressed, but that's just general procedure, not policy. Onel5969TT me12:48, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Cool, thanks for letting me know, Onel5969. I didn't see much in the way of, say, promotional language (etc etc etc) so felt it was fine to go to mainspace, same with Sergio Mims. If you disagree with anything (including other ones I've accepted), feel free to move it back, of course. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 12:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
In the future, I will move them back, not because of any lack on your part, but simply due to the UPE/COI concerns. WP is getting inundated with them and it's frustrating. If you ever want to know what that clue is, email me and I'll let you know off-wiki. Onel5969TT me12:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi there! A quick question about the rejection of this article. Is your concern that the engine is not notable (which the boilerplate rejection message would suggest), or that the Aircraft Engine Historical Society website is not a reliable source? I won't be able to address the issue without knowing in more detail what the problem is. Thanks. Tevildo (talk) 16:23, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll see what I can find. Most of our aero engine articles only have the techincal specs and a list of aircraft, but this is a wider issue that might need addressing elsewhere. Tevildo (talk) 20:27, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
OK, I've given you all three. Have a read of WP:NPR if that's something you want to get involved in. As for rollback and reviewer, here's the standard template; any questions, you know where I am:
The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection enabled is located at Special:StablePages. You may find the following pages useful to review:
Hi Mattdaviesfsic, thanks for your comments about the page I have been working on. You mentioned "#Biography largely unsourced; External links need removing from Article body." What can I do to improve the draft? The links are quick informative (I understood tha some of them should be updated to fullfill the external links policy). Any suggestions for me before resubmitting an updated (hopefully better) version? Thanks in advance! Pontet21 (talk) 10:41, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
No, that's grand, I just wanted to be certain. If the source actually confirms 2021–2022 as the build year range I can also remove the circa qualification it's got at the moment. XAM2175(T)12:47, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles which do not satisfy the criteria
Hi, you recently declined a draft article on Dutch mathematician/statistician Piet Groeneboom, on the grounds that it did not satisfy any of the list of criteria for notability for an academic. I think it is easy to edit the draft so that at least three criteria are well and soundly satisfied, so no problem there, and the criteria seem pretty reasonable.
But I then took a look at the Wikipedia lists of living Dutch statisticians, and of living Dutch mathematicians, and I found half a dozen or more which very clearly do not satisfy any one of the criteria. They just have a miniscule academic CV with references to one or two publications, no argument for the notability of those publications. I suppose that these articles can be nominated for deletion. Can you give me some advice how to do that?
(Lurker) The easiest way is to go for non-controversial deletion proposal. See WP:PROD - essentially you put a proposed deletion notice on the page and as a courtesy inform the article creator. If you are using Twinkle it can handle all this for you. If nobody disagrees with your nomination (e.g. because nobody cares about the article) it will become eligible for deletion after seven days. If for any reason the notice is removed - and anyone can do that - then, if you still believe it should be deleted you will need to go through the WP:AFD route. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
I did some research into Piet Groeneboom’s work. Academic notability is confirmed by a glance at his citation scores on Google scholar. He has 11 papers with three figure citation counts. The top scoring paper is cited 900+ times. Add his elected fellowship of the international organisations IMS and ISI, and that he has been an invited Wald Lecturer (said to be the highest honour there is in the world of mathematical statistics). Add a reference to his interview in the top journal “Statistical Science” (that’s also a sure sign of notability). Mention his many PhD students including Marloes Maathuis (who also has a Wikipedia page). He currently works in science outreach, through a column he writes for the quarterly news magazine of the Dutch Mathematical Society. Would this tip the balance, do you think? Richard Gill (talk) 05:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi Richard, as per WP:NPROF, notability isn't defined by how much they've written, so the 11 papers probably wouldn't help to establish notability, although they can be used in - say - a separate publications section if you wanted to (or something like that). The others could be useful (with, rather obviously, inline citations), and I think they would be helpful. I'd be happy to take another look when you've added these things if you want. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 08:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. An argument based on citation scores was used by another editor (the creator of the page) to oppose my proposed deletion of the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nico_Nagelkerke "three papers with three digit citation numbers". I agree that one must explain what impact those papers did have on science. I'll keep you informed. Richard Gill (talk) 08:12, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Are any of the often-cited papers written about by notable/reliable third parties, e.g. major newspapers or scientific publications? That coverage would certainly add weight to his notability. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
The citations are scientific citations. I guess you mean citations by scientists in other fields. In particular: featuring notably in major survey papers about new methodology in biostatistics. 217.103.210.248 (talk) 10:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Do you not have enough understanding to compare a cited reference and the text. If you think casting sectin of this draft is unsourced, and there is IMDb as a ref. is also present, (as per your rejection statement) then please consult to a good physician.🙂
Where you noticed the IMDb as a source in the draft. Would you bother to look again at the draft??? — Preceding undated comment added 15:56, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Dear Mattdaviesfsic,
I have removed the unsources material (later life) and added references for the start and finish of his career. I plan on adding the additional comments as soon as I can find the appropriate references. I am surprised by your comment on the Falklands War section being "Untidy"?. I used a similar format to an existing article (of Thomas's boss and that was acceptable to Wikipedia), and dividing the text into shorter chronological ordered sections which had the important dates as a subtitle seems quite correct and TIDY, so I am at a miss as what to do to this other than remove the dates (even though this format was accepted elsewhere in Wikipedia. This article is about a underappreciated war hero who was awarded one of the United Kingdom's highest decorations for gallant and distinguished service but won't be published because of his achievements in chronological order with the dates of his exceptional military actions. I have removed the dates in order to "tidy" the article and I would therefore respectfully ask you to re review the article and consider it for publication and rectify this "Injustice" of recognising this person's achievements. Navygirl82 (talk) 12:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply] Navygirl82 (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi Navygirl82, thanks for contacting me. Thanks for sourcing the early life section. I am, however, unsure that "untidy" was quite the right word to use, apologies for that - but I do believe that the dates are, perhaps, unnecessary. It's not, of course, a major point - and I would be happy for you to resubmit it when you like - but I do still feel they are more than necessary (the second one's section starts with the date in the first sentence anyway, for example). As I say, feel free to resubmit, and it would probably be accepted anyway. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 21:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Draft: Sehyr Mirza
Dear Mattdaviesfsic, I'm sorry to know that you're going through depression and I hope things get better for you soon. Thank you for volunteering to make WikiPedia a more inclusive space. I had submitted a draft for the Pakistani journalist and author, Sehyr Mirza that you had declined. I'm not an expert but I gave plenty of independent references that included international press coverage, which you can check again. I think progressive voices of women from countries like Pakistan deserve space here and there are plenty of references about this author, whose first book has just come out. Please help me in improving this article so that it can find space here. Many thanks. NumBream (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi NumBream, thanks for contacting me. If I'm right in thinking, I declined it because the article is not clear on why she's notable: if I did accept it (and theoretically, I could), it would definitely be a stub-y article. Thus I wanted to encourage you to pursue it a little further in terms of expansion (say, sections on Early life, biography, publications, etc) which would get it to at least a start level. I hope that helps, and if you want any more guidance, feel free to ask. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 06:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Dwanyewest: It's okay and it would probably be accepted, but it would only be a stub article (not necessarily anything bad with that, though). Thanks for adding some more sources. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 10:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for approving a few days ago the AfC submission for knowledge falsification. Shortly after approval, another user moved the article out of main and back into draft category. Probably because some editorial comments from the first round of reviews were left behind (and they were fully addressed). I have removed these comments. Could you please move it back to main? I tried doing it myself, but apparently the Wikipedia system doesn't allow my user to do that. I am new here. The link is now here: Draft:Knowledge falsification
Hi Polrro, I would encourage you to ask Eagleash to understand the reasons why it was put back into draft space. At the time of me accepting it, from what I can remember everything looked broadly good enough for mainspace - thus you'll be better off asking them.
Hello :) So, as @Eagleash responded on his talk page, he has given the green light for you to move back the knowledge falsification entry into main if you are able. The reason for him to move it back into draft space, it seems, was something with the script used to move it into main for the first time. As a new user, I am very thankful for your help in this. Furthermore, I look forward to collaborating with you again in Wikipedia at some point in the future.
Draft:List of teams to overcome 2–0 series deficits
What would need to be fixed for the page to be accepted if resubmitted?
I feel that this page should exist, since overcoming a 2-0 deficit in a best of 5 has the same requirements and difficulties as overcoming a 3-1 deficit in a best of 7, in which an article exists for the latter. 131.247.224.21 (talk) 00:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
I have no idea what the article refers to, looking at the lead - what do you mean by a "deficit" and a "reverse sweep"? The lead doesn't even mention in what sports it would be applicable. The lead doesn't clearly introduce the topic of the article. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 05:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
I would suggest, then, that the lead be expanded like in the 3-1 page, or a background section to do this. Either way, the lead as it stands has very little context like the others. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 06:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Draft: Sai Praneeth Burrah
Dear Mattdaviesfsic,
Sai Praneeth B aka Andhra Pradesh Weatherman is highly notable in India. He is having more than 5 lakh followers in all social media and he is famous for giving weather updates. Regarding Notability I have provided enough resources. Please tell me what is lagging behind. I have covered most of the details.
There are now 8 references in the text, some from internationally independent sources. Is this enough to have the rejected draft judged again and being acceptable.
Smi953 (talk) 14:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Dear Sir,
thank you for the fair dismissal points. However, by now I adhered to those points. Sentence starters were made more different, and the text more fluent in general. The table also was converted to an infobox. Can you kindly take a look before another official review? Vaisnys1963 (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
My name is Naief Yehya, I'm writing about the article about my work that you reviewed and rejected. The author of the article is my adult daughter, Isabel Yehya, who is a cultural critic. This was her first submission to the Wikipedia. I only read it when it was a draft, so I had no input in it. I can say that in terms of the information provided is completely accurate, there are no judgement values or opinions. I would like to know what does she have to do in order to make it publishable.
Thank you in advance.
Due to the conflict of interest involved, and the general lack of references for a lot of the material, I have rejected it. I would suggest that, if you can find a non-COI person to work on it, fair enough, but as I said in the message a week and a half ago, things need to be verified (which, when I reviewed it, they mostly weren't). Hope that helps. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 16:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Mattdaviesfsic. 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.
