This is an archive of past discussions with User:Rusalkii. 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.
I understand it was rejected because "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject."
I listed 9 independent, non-trivial and peer-reviewed references (I can probably provide more, I assumed that this would be sufficient) here.
Could you help me understand why the article was rejected?
Do I need to enter those references somewhere, i.e. inside the article?
Do you disagree with the references being more than in-passing mentions?
@TilmannZ: Those sources look good to me. And yeah, when we review articles, we look at just what's cited in the article itself. If you can add a couple of those to the article, I'll happily accept it. Rusalkii (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
@Rusalkii: Could you review the article again? I resubmitted it but it ended up with someone else. If you prefer I could also discuss this with the other reviewer...? TilmannZ (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
@TilmannZ hmm, that's definitely harsher on that draft than I would have been. I don't see what Slywriter means by "ad" at all. I haven't carefully reviewed the sources, so possibly they're picking up on something I missed and you should ask them about that part. Rusalkii (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
@Rusalkii: Thanks, I will check with Slywriter. For the future, if a reviewer asks for a resubmission to him/her, how can I resubmit to that reviewer? There didn't seem to be an option to do that, or maybe I overlooked it? TilmannZ (talk) 09:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
@Junuzsalihi99, I don't know why you deleted the previous version of this question with my answer. As I said, I don't feel like I can review this draft properly right now, though the sources do look a lot better than the ones from the version I'd declined earlier. It's in the queue, so when a reviewer who feels up for it sees it you'll get a review, though there are a lot of drafts waiting right now so that may take a while. If you want to get more feedback, you might want to ask at the AfC help desk or the WP:TEAHOUSE. Rusalkii (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
James Anyike submission
I need to know if I am close or far from presenting an appropriate submission of this contribution? What, specifically, am I doing wrong? Thank you. Populartruth (talk) 13:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
@Populartruth your current submission is completely unsourced, which means that I and anyone else reading it has no idea where you got your information. Everything on Wikipedia must be verifiable, so that it's easy for readers to check for themselves that the information is correct and they understand why they should trust it. You might want to take a look at WP:REFB for more information on citing sources for new editors. Rusalkii (talk) 04:53, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
My article on Charles Christopher Poney Gueizelar
Hi Rusalkii,
I know that you have rejected my article because there is no reference to a source. The reason I have not added any reference is that there is basically no reference to this person even though he is a historic figure. Therefore all I have written is my own research and interviews I have had with people in Vypin. This article is intended to draw attention to this person.
Plesae advise what I can do to publish this in Wiki?
kind Regards
Geoff — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cranenbg (talk • contribs) 04:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
@Cranenbg unfortunately, if the information isn't published anywhere then we can't have it on Wikipedia. As I said to the person right above your question, readers need to be able to verify for themselves that the information is correct. WP:NOT TRUTH lays this out in a lot more detail. Rusalkii (talk) 04:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Rusalkii/Archives/2022. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hello,
I sent you an email. If it is against your policy to review, I understand. Thank you so much!
Hi @Sensiboi93: I (and most editors) prefer to keep communication on-wiki unless there's something inherently private about it.
To answer the question in your email, a C grade for a new draft is actually quite good, so you don't need to worry that you did something wrong. This isn't school where "C" is almost failing. I can't say I have concrete advice, really, your sourcing looks solid and there are no major issues with the prose/obvious gaps. I mostly didn't assess it higher because I don't know enough about the subject to evaluate whether this was good coverage or not. Rusalkii (talk) 00:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
You gave me this barnstar just as my AfC work was starting to drop off, so I feel a little sheepish about accepting your kind words, but thank you nevertheless! Rusalkii (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
@MaitreyaVaruna, that's much better than when I looked at it, but it seems like other reviewers think the sources aren't enough yet. Does the Turkish version of the article have more sources? That might be a good place to look. Rusalkii (talk) 19:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
This is the first time this has happened when I have used this source, and, I believe this may have been because of a wrong link being used. Also note this source is a downloadable PDF. 123waawaaaa (talk) 14:31, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
@123waawaaaa I can't download the pdf or find the source with the information given. To verify the information, it should be possible for reviewers to check the sources. Could you please try to fix the links so that the next reviewer can properly assess the article? Rusalkii (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello Rusalkii! Just wanted to see what had happened with the review of Draft:Kakiniit! Seems like something had happened on your end. The banner told me to wait 12 hours and it's nearly been 24 so I just wanted to check up with you and see if everything's okay! Ornithoptera (talk) 04:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
@Ornithoptera accepted, thank you for the reminder. There was a redirect in the way, so I needed to wait for it to be deleted, and forgot to check on it this morning. Great article as usual! Rusalkii (talk) 04:06, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your help! I really appreciate the fast response! Hope you have a wonderful day and it was really nice working with you! Ornithoptera (talk) 04:06, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Aware of Swastika
Hi Rusalkii,
I am aware of the swastika article, and have actually done that already, seen here. However, I felt that there very much still should have been a separate article for the hakenkreuz in particular, and that my piece addressed each of the concerns more uniquely (and better) in a separate article. Please consider allowing for it to be published as its own article. Thank you. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥19:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
@Th78blue I'm really not seeing anything in Draft:Hakenkreuz (Hooked Cross) which isn't already in the main article. I could see creating a redirect to that section of the swastika article from Hakenkreuz, or writing an article with more detail specifically about the movement to reclaim the swastika and have the Nazi symbol be referred to as the Kaenkreuz. As it stands, though, I don't see enough new material for a stand-alone article. Rusalkii (talk) 19:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
There are several new sources and material from Thomas Wilson too, that said, I am fairly new to a re-direct. How would that work? A re-direct from Hakenkreuz to Swastika would not really make sense or be appropriate. It would be like a having a re-direct from a stop sign to traffic light. I don't think having those as one article would make sense. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥19:27, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
As for your analogy -- it seems to me this more like Odal (rune) or Fasces, likewise ancient symbols copted by the Nazis. We don't have different pages for the different meanings, because they're just different uses of the same symbol. Rusalkii (talk) 00:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi, yes, please make the re-direct for me if you don't mind, though I still think that is very much a half-measure or inapposite to the Odal rune or Fasces as a comparison. Why? Because in the case of the hakenkreuz/swastika, there very much is still a modern day use of the swastika both in name and aesthetic appearance as a symbol by hundreds of millions of people across the East, with no association to the hakenkreuz. This distinction is deserving of more than a simple re-direct in my view, given the purpose of the encyclopedia to keep a global audience in mind. Sure, wiki EN-1 focuses on an English speaking audience, but nevertheless still considers these varying global usages (or is supposed to I believe). Thanks! ♥Th78blue (talk)♥00:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
It looks like the Hakenkreuz redirect already exists, no need for anything new on either of our parts. If you still think the article should be split, maybe look for consensus on the swastika talk page? Rusalkii (talk) 00:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
The redirect should point to the sub-section titled, 'Swastika as distinct from hakenkreuz debate', I need to figure out how to fix a current redirect, but in the meantime, could you help with that? Thanks! ♥Th78blue (talk)♥17:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Done. To fix a redirect, you just change the content of the link after #REDIRECT to wherever you want it to point, like so:
Hi! You recently declined my Laconiko page saying that it reads like an advertisement and isn’t neutral. Can you please show me an example of where I did this? I honestly can’t figure out what info sounds like an ad, probably because I tried to write it strictly as informational.
You also said that the sources needed to be notable and not written by the source. All of the articles I referenced are 3 party sources like Olive Oil Times and Forbes, so I would love a little clarity there too please!
"decided to take their father’s work to the next level" is not a neutral phrasing. The awards section is phrased neturally but anything that is just a list of "and then they won this award" with no other content reads like an attempt to make it look good, even if that wasn't the intention. There's a subtler note in the rest of the article that reads a little like ad copy in tone, but that isn't a huge deal and fixing the first two things I mentioned should be enough to resolve my issue.
Your sources are okay, sorry, that is a template message that gets sent in full whenever we decline something as promotional in tone and the second part is not applicable in this case. Rusalkii (talk) 03:14, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, @Gerda Arendt. Frankly the piece sounds to me like half-heard air-raid sirens -- I didn't have the heart to listen for more than a couple minutes. The support was a given; I'm Russian (in the United States, thankfully) and find silence or false equivalence to be a fundamentally incorrect approach. We write about what happens -- if that seems to create bias, then, well, that says something, doesn't it?
(Of course as always it is more complicated than that, and the biases of editors especially when systematic are important to take into account, but that's where individual judgment comes in, and NPOV is already a criteria.) Rusalkii (talk) 00:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Regarding Draft: Janu Sandhu and Draft: Jimmy Sandhu
In response to comment "As with the other twin, there is one instance of significant coverage (the CBC News peice) and one borderline (Omni). Are there any other sources? Rusalkii", yes there are other sources and instances of significant coverage which have been included as per your and Wikipedia guidelines. Can you please review? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.101.185.198 (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Question about references for Draft: Jim Mahoney (Educator)
Hi Rusalkii,
Just wondering if you could possibly expand on what types of references I need for this page? I included bios written by Ohio University, testaments on the subject's impact by non profit organizations, news article from an online Columbus, OH newspaper, references to the website of their publishers (Pearson education for example) for the various works they've written, and published articles mentioning the various awards and accolades they've won from the awarding agencies themselves. Any help would be appreciated!! Thanks so much. -red hawk mouse — Preceding unsigned comment added by Red Hawk Mouse (talk • contribs) 17:56, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
@Red Hawk Mouse anything by the subject or someone associated with them isn't independent, so the bios by their employer, pages on them by their publisher, interview by them, etc, aren't what we're looking for. the problem isn't that you aren't adequately documenting the stated facts, but that we need enough independent coverage of them to write a good neutral encyclopedic article. Rusalkii (talk) 18:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Ah I see. So references about the individual's bio like Ohio University are adequate (where else would you find a well documented bio), I just need to find many more sources that are completely dissociated with the individual. I understand that many of the sources I have are completely associated with the subject. Would news articles from other school districts (that this individual does not work for) discussing the impacts he made be a good addition and helpful for approval? Appreciate the assistance. Red Hawk Mouse (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
What I wish you'd fix is scolding people for edits they didn't even make. If you
can't finesse this technology, then get out of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.105.176.210 (talk) 01:58, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Since you're editing without logging in, we can't distinguish between you and anyone else at the same IP address, so you get talk page messages warning you about other people's edits. If you'd like to avoid this, you can make an account, but otherwise it's a technical limitation of the software. Rusalkii (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
thanks for reviewing my Draft:Umut Aral page and your productive feedback. I've added more info the biography section and revised awards and filmography sections. Looking forward to hear your thoughts. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aralumut (talk • contribs) 18:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Since you're editing without logging in, we can't distinguish between you and anyone else at the same IP address, so you get talk page messages warning you about other people's edits. If you'd like to avoid this, you can make an account, but otherwise it's a technical limitation of the software. I'm sorry you got a warning not intended for you! Rusalkii (talk) 14:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
