I don't know how to tag you but you can restore your version back to how it was. Also thank you for making it more understanding on why you did the changes. Veganpurplefox (talk) 17:25, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Veganpurplefox, thank you kindly. The draft has been restored, the improvements made and it has been resubmitted for review. Please be patient. I am sure that as the subject's career grows, so will their article. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 18:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Dear Veganpurplefox, please be patient. All the clean up and inter-wikilinking is advisably handled only after the article is accepted, if and when it is. Please also note that repeated poor quality edits can get you banned or blocked from editing.
While Wikipedia welcomes new editors, it is important for them to thoroughly understand the rules that govern the encyclopaedia; please refer to the various help pages that several other editors and I have previously linked you to. In the meantime, I advise against drastically changing the shape and form the article is in right now even after it is accepted (if it is), until and unless you can reliably source all your claims and the subject receives WP:SIGCOV for the portion of their career or biography you wish to cover, and your claims are written in the correct WP:Tone and are WP:Neutral in language. I also encourage you to ask for help in editing your other drafts from more experienced editors on the articles' talk pages or at the Tea House.
I was told that Draft:Burning Men is a good draft and that i should submitted it, which i did and it is currently on review. I also look up reliable sources to edit on Wikipedia and use tea house everytime i have a question. I also know how to upload images but i dont know who are the photographers so they cant be added and it is very complicated to add the images. There is also multiple actors who doesnt have a Wikipedia pages that are named into Wikipedia articles so i dont understand why it takes him to be approved to be added on the series wiki page. I edit only if i have the right sources, including existing ones Veganpurplefox (talk) 19:57, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Veganpurplefox, thank you for your undertaking! It is highly appreciated and beneficial to the encyclopaedia that new editors are interested in the subjects they intend to edit, as you are! Thank you very much!
Dear Veganpurplefox, kindly add the names of the actors within the [[]], followed by a brief description of why they are notable and links to your sources proving their notability at the relevant sections of either of the two pages mentioned above, thank you. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks and your welcome! I don't live in the uk so i have no access to any magazines he appeared in but do you know if theres a way to access physical magazines that havent been out online to read? Cause he appeared in a lot of them Veganpurplefox (talk) 11:22, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
New pages help
Hi Spinster300. Thank you for your offer to help research and develop draft pages that have been submitted for review. On my Talk Page you suggested you would do this by going through the drafts mentioned there, however I think it would be more productive for you to go directly to the list of new draft pages submitted for review. Several of the draft pages mentioned on my Talk Page are fundamentally flawed for acceptance onto Wikipedia, and I would be concerned that you could be wasting your time trying to improve pages that simply will not be able to meet the relevant criteria, and attempting to do so could generate undesirable activity from authors who appear to be paid for creating pages and are not genuine editors. For this reason I am posting this here on your Talk Page rather than on mine. I trust you understand my reasoning. Cabrils (talk) 22:46, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Cabrils, I completely agree with you. I have already checked the Wikipedia:AfC sorting page, and I am quite glad that there are subsections in particular for Wikipedia:AfC sorting/Culture/Biography and especially Wikipedia:AfC sorting/Culture/Biography/Women. I might consider applying for reviewer right soon, but I am aware that experience at AfD is required, and generally I have stayed away from that vital WikiProject because the discussions can get pretty heated, and that is not my cup of tea.
In case you would be interested in taking a look, I have come across Draft:S.L. Shneiderman and Draft:Oladélé Ajiboyé Bamgboyé which have impressed my already; they require some major formatting and copyediting to get them up to our standards, but for articles establishing the notability of the subject using good sources, they qualify well. Even a simple WP:Before check and validating their works or works about them, not just in Google Books/Scholar but in WorldCat and in VIAF has come up well. Please let me know if you get the chance to review them anytime soon. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 10:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Dear Cabrils, thank you for the encouragement! I have applied for the AfC reviewer rights in the meantime. May I reach out if and when I have queries or need assistance?
Dear Drmies, oh my, thank you very much! Quite an honour I was not expecting to be a New Page Patroller; I merely wished to help out more at AfC! I hope to use my new found rights with utmost responsibility. Thank you and kindest regards, Spinster300 (talk) 12:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Ha, hold on: I assigned you "new page reviewer", which is what I thought you were talking about, and that's Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers, a useful tool; I see now that you were talking about a script, that I can't help you with. I'm sure Primefac will let you know soon. Anyway, you may find it helpful regardless. Thanks again for helping out with that article. Drmies (talk) 12:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Drmies, sorry about the confusion about the permission granted, that of New Page Reviewer. I can see that I can now review drafts as well, if I have the AfC Helper script activated in my settings; however please kindly revoke whichever rights you think I am not yet suitable for if granted by accident. Thank you very much, regardless. Kindest regards, Spinster300 (talk) 12:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Okay thank you, and thank you for your help in getting Ed Hayter an article, im sorry that not seeing sources from the perinital reliable source it wouldnt be approved and i was scared that being submitted again could be declined again like it was. Is it okay if i add his instagram in the external links now? Many other actors have it Veganpurplefox (talk) 10:57, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Veganpurplefox, generally social media is not advisable to add in external links, as per the WP:MOS. Many other actors may have it, but even those can eventually be removed. An external link to IMDb is sufficient for the moment. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 11:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks you i will do that. I can fox references and will try to improve other draft that way as well making the infobox as its something i know to do the right way. Ill read that before i make any other changes in articles as i noticed it is more complicated than i expected to be Veganpurplefox (talk) 11:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Veganpurplefox, in my research on the subject, I have come across both Ed and Edward being used interchangeably and almost the same number of times as each other. It would be wise to wait until there is an abundance of reliable sources giving preference to one form of his name for us to decide what the article title should be as per WP:COMMONNAME. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 12:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Dear Veganpurplefox, I would like to mention this now that you have brought it up – it is very IMPORTANT that you declare your WP:COI with this particular subject and any others you have submitted drafts for or plan to start drafts on, as it appears that you have one. You can leave a note on your User page or Talk page, and that should be sufficient. Please also kindly declare if you are being WP:Paid to edit. Not declaring either/or, will likely get you banned from editing and have any articles/drafts you submit speedily deleted. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 13:09, 26 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]
But again im just a fan of these actors and being autistic makes me hyperfocus on them and do everything involving them, i also own a fan account of him. But as i live in canada and him in london i am not a friend of him and neither paid for it Veganpurplefox (talk) 13:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am many interests and once I hyperfocus on a person or anything else, it's them and only them until its replaced with someone/something else and then go back to previous hyperfixations, but my interests stays the same and I still love other things such as parrots even if I'm not hyperfocus on them anymore Veganpurplefox (talk) 13:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Edward Hayter, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Dear Veganpurplefox, sections such as "Public image" need WP:SIGCOV which the subject clearly lacks for the time being. Their role, and the impact of that role on the overall culture or the industry needs to be significant, and reliable sources need to cover how significant it is. One or two news or press articles talking about how good/bad an actor was in this role or that role is not enough. Most articles will commonly introduce or mention something positive or negative about the subject they are talking about to provide some context for their readers. Our job is to cut through all of that and get to the point from an encyclopaedic perspective. I hope this makes it clear on how you should phrase your drafts going forward. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 14:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Dear Veganpurplefox, if another user is questioning the AfC approval, it is their right to do so. If the article survives a WP:Proposed deletion or at the WP:Articles for Deletion processes on its own merit, the name and role credit along with the citation I added will be included to the page of the TV show eventually. Inherently, no article is immune from being deleted; that is what makes Wikipedia so great and reliable in its standards. Yes, I have edited the article in the style and format consistent with our encyclopaedia and that is what had it approved as per WP:ANYBIO at AfC, but sadly no amount of editing can WP:MASK lack of notability and this subject is still very early in his career. The notability and the reliability of the sources cited needs to be agreed upon by consensus of other Wikipedians at all times, and not just at the time of deletion. So, please be patient in this regard and let the due process be completed. If MrOllie wishes to propose deletion, it is their right to do so. If the article survives, it survives – if it does not, it does not. In the meantime, kindly refrain from making any panicked edits or spamming users' talk pages. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 07:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Women in Red October 2023
Women in Red October 2023, Vol 9, Iss 10, Nos 251, 252, 284, 285, 286
When creating an article, check to see if there is an entry in the sister project Wikidata. If your subject is listed, the Wikidata information can be useful
Hello. Minor problem over at Clare Kenny: there are over a dozen inbound links from all the bands the AFD'd musician was in, and none for the artist. Also, the dab page currently only has one entry. Shall I unlink all the music articles? Are you planning to add another entry to the dab? Thanks, Wikishovel (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Wikishovel, my apologies for overlooking that detail; I was following the instructions as they were left in a comment on the draft before I accepted it. I did not realise that the musician's page had been deleted. Please kindly unlink those music articles, and we can probably move the Clare Kenny article back to the regular name form and introduce some links to the artist so that the article is no longer an orphan. Thank you very much for bringing this to my attention. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 21:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]
No problem at all, and easily fixed. All the music articles are unlinked now, and your suggestion of moving the artist article over the dab makes sense, thanks. Wikishovel (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing "highly promotional" about the tone. It simply states the facts, which have been backed up by the 16 legitimate news links. No product or service is being sold or promoted. Please site the specific promotional tone you claim. exists.
The claim that Shelley Herman's published book is only "celebrity anecdotes" is reductive and incorrect. The book is far more than that, but I would be flagged for a "highly promotional" tone for going into anymore detail.
Dear LosAngelesWriter, thank you for reaching out to me. Please understand that on Wikipedia, the prose has to be in a very certain format and tone. Yes, there are no products or services being sold, but the particular words being used to phrase a sentence can still indicate a promotional marketing speak or be written in a non-neutral tone that can be considered WP:Puffery. That is the main reason for the rejection of the article as it currently stands; the subject does seem to be notable and the sources seem to be quality sources.
Regarding her husband's article and the article on the other NBC page, please study the phrases used in those articles and you will see why yours cannot be accepted into the main space as it stands. And please refrain from citing other articles on Wikipedia for confirming what should or should not be in any other article – we have a whole policy about it; see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
I have some time today and so I will improve this article in whatever capacity I can. Please have a look then, before resubmitting it. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you for your response. Please cite any of these "particular words being used to phrase a sentence can still indicate a promotional marketing speak or be written in a non-neutral tone" in the Shelley Herman Wikipedia page.
I look forward to your response.
I took your advice and looked at the Wikipedia article about the other NBC page, Herbie J Pilato https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbie_J_Pilato, which includes several promotional phrases about Pilato's books such as: "everything and anything one could possibly want to know – and not want to know" and "Pilato's subject expertise" and "earns its definitive title hands down; even for those with only a casual interest, it proves more diverting than one might expect." LosAngelesWriter (talk) 22:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear LosAngelesWriter, I have made edits to the draft, and it now complies with our policies in its present form. Other, more experienced editors will eventually come along and expand it as new sources are published about the subject as her career progresses. Please feel free to resubmit that draft and I will accept it.
Regarding the other NBC page – the statements you are citing are direct quotes from reviewers of his work in reliable sources, and that is fine as per WP:QUOTE, as long as it is put into context and is not giving any undue weight (see WP:WEIGHT). The key difference here is formatting of the sentence – for example, the article's prose should NOT read something like: his book was considered "amazing and thrilling". This statement is non-neutral because it reads like an opinion, which is unacceptable. Instead, a neutral statement for that same quote would read like: [name of journalist] writing for [journal/newspaper/magazine] acclaimed the book as "amazing and thrilling". As an encyclopaedia, we are aiming to state the facts as they are and not derive any conclusions on our own. If the journalist and the source are notable with their own articles which can be wikilinked to, that will add even more credibility. I hope this example clears any queries you might have had.
About the statement of him being hired for his expertise for a movie, it weakly passes as a summary under our policy on close paraphrasing, but of course it can be improved – which I went ahead and did. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 07:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]
You declined the draft Monica Gagliano yesterday due to lack of sources and because it was written like an essay.
I just wanted to point out that under WP:NACADEMIC she met the criteria, being a former Fellow of the Australian Research Council so technically didn't need lots of secondary sources. WP:NACADEMIC often trips me up on that aspect, I always forget its different to the normal people criteria. Just something to watch out for!
Dear Qcne, thank you kindly for letting me know about this. While WP:NACADEMIC is quite the task to navigate, I had found the several citations of the subject's own work and the narrative style prose to be the main cause for concern.
However, I was confident the subject was notable and the draft would be improved and accepted eventually – and so, I am quite happy that the editor reached out on Teahouse and was able to get the help they needed. This process, after all, is the ultimate goal of our exercise here on Wikipedia.
Once again, thank you for letting me know, and please do not hesitate to reach out if a similar scenario occurs in the future; I would be most grateful for your help and insight. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 23:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Curious what you think about this one? I've cleaned up based on the previous reviewer's comments. They have a lot of coverage, particularly for one film. I couldn't find any bio material about them except here, which looks to be not secondary or independent. Filmforme (talk) 19:00, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Filmforme, thank you for writing in. From a quick WP:Before, the subject seems to be notable enough for a possible weak WP:ANYBIO and could manage to pass on a weak WP:Three, but I think the draft has a better chance if it is made into stub as there does not seem to be extensive coverage to justify the article's length at present. I will need to take a better look at the draft in detail tomorrow. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]
You recently declined my submission due to not having enough sources for Carlton Heard. I have supplemented the material with additional sources to strengthen the discussion on the subject. Should you have any recommendations for improvement, I would greatly appreciate your insights. Thanks!
Dear BlackSpace7, thank you for reaching out! The draft needs some work before it can be accepted into main space. The references also need to show that the subject satisfies all our notability guidelines. I shall take a look at improving it in some days. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 18:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks! Please update or let me know what updates should be made.
WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.
Thank you for your feedback on my submission. I wanted to let you know that I've made some adjustments to my submission based on your feedback regarding its tone, which didn't meet the encyclopaedic standards. I've also removed any unnecessary sources and made the information more succinct. If you have any further suggestions for improvement, I would welcome your insights. Kind regards, Plushwiki21 (talk) 10:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Plushwiki21, my apologies for replying back so late, I was away for a few days. I see that the article has been accepted already – Congratulations! The article reads clearer and more concise now. It will be expanded in due course as more sources on the subject come to light. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]
RB Kelly
Hi there! Thanks so much for your speedy review of my draft entry. I'm just a little confused at your comment "We need more reliable sources about the subject, not just reviews of the subject's work" as none of the sources are reviews of the author's work? I was hoping you could give me a steer on this - maybe I'm completely misinterpreting what the comment means! - as I'd really like to revise and resubmit this entry. Many thanks! Mareotis (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Filmforme, my apologies for not having gotten back to you about your draft, I have been travelling over the past few weeks. I just went through the changes you have made since you pinged me. The article seems okay now, and I see that you have moved it to main space. Please let me know if you wish for me to take a look at any other articles you are working on. I will try my best to respond in time. I return back to my routine in a few days. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 07:25, 17 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I have marked Dipesh Raj and Rajesh Pullarwar as unreviewed. How did they pass WP:GNG? I don't see any significant coverage. The sources used are mostly databases, interviews, and self-published selling profiles.
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|DreamRimmer}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Dear DreamRimmer, thank you for your message and kind review. I think I made these two stubs when I was on my travels and came across the subjects' exhibitions while in India over the summer. Given that they were a part of a significant exhibition or a part of the permanent collection at these notable galleries that I visited, I considered them to pass point 4 of WP:ARTIST and decided to start stubs on them based on the information I found on them at the expositions themselves, apart from whatever scarce materials I could find online.
Please feel free to draftify them in case you feel they are a case of WP:TOOSOON, however I am not sure if I will be able to improve them any time soon as I will be travelling again right after the holidays. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you! Kindest regards, Spinster300 (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]
I have marked Dipesh Raj and Rajesh Pullarwar as unreviewed. How did they pass WP:GNG? I don't see any significant coverage. The sources used are mostly databases, interviews, and self-published selling profiles.
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|DreamRimmer}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Voting for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023 is now open!
Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki . Cast your votes vote here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2023. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. Hawkeye7 (talk·contribs) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for participating in AfC November 2023 Backlog Drive
– robertsky (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean-Marie Rausch until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Dear BlakeIsHereStudios, thank you for this notice. I created this stub a while ago, and I am glad it has caught your attention for possible expansion or deletion. I will leave its fate to the ongoing AfD discussion. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 11:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Hi @Spinster300!
Thanks for reviewing the draft Draft:Józefa Bramowska submitted. However, I am surprised as to the reasons given for its rejection. The subject is notable and backed by reliable references. The "clean up" you mentioned, I believe, is a task you ought to have taken as part of your review process. It could have been more worthy not to attempt than the reasons given for its rejections. As a collaborative effort, others would have noticed areas for improvement and worked on the article. Regards. Atibrarian (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Please do not decline articles for NPOV in cases where there is no neutrality issues, such as you did at Draft:Józefa Bramowska. An article simply being poorly written is not non-neutrality, and is generally not a valid reason for declining unless it is so bad it is detrimental to the readability of the article. The draft establishes notability (WP:NPOL), is sufficiently cited (the ILC decline only applies to WP:BLPs), is neutral, and is readable, thus should be accepted. For comparison, Draft:Angelo C. Scott is a case where a quality decline (essay-like) is likely fine. Curbon7 (talk) 00:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Curbon7, thank you for your comment. I often struggle with choosing through the limited options of reasons for dealing with any draft. I will try my best to use the custom reason option to provide better context going forward. Interestingly, I had the Józefa Bramowska draft in my bookmarks as I wanted to work on improving it myself in the coming few days before accepting it into the mainspace. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 10:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]
If you had the article in your "bookmark" with the intent of "improving it" as claimed, then why the haste to decline? I will suggest you familiarize yourself with the AfC review process more for better understanding. Atibrarian (talk) 11:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Atibrarian, my sincerest apologies if my actions offended any of the other editors of the draft or other reviewers. It seemed sensible to me to vacate the draft from the AfC pending reviews log while its translation was improved and it was eventually brought over to the mainspace. And I see that you have cleaned up the draft already, thank you for that. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 11:31, 23 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Hello @Spinster300, thank you for leaving me a message about my draft submission (I created a new page about "Sandra Kobanovitch", french film director). I just tried to make it more "neutral" and less "peacock terms" and resubmited it now. Can you please tell me if that looks good for you? If there is still problems can you point them out? Thank you for your help. (By the way, I just translated the french version of the Wikipedia article, which seems already neutral to me but I made it ever more neutral now, I hope it's good). Calembourgs (talk) 11:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Calembourgs, after looking over your draft and seeing the article on the French Wikipedia (which has its own issues), I feel that some more work is needed – try and write the article from scratch instead of translating sentence by sentence from the French Wikipedia (which could lead to copyright issues); try finding very good sources as well (are there any articles in the news about her or her work?). Make it easily apparent as to why the subject is notable and deserves to have an article; see: WP:PYRAMID. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Dear @Spinster300, thanks for your valuable advice, I'll try to write the article again. On the other hand, all the passages are sourced from French press articles (Le Parisien, France 3, France Bleu, which are national media recognized in France), is this enough for the English version of Wikipedia? Everything mentioned in the article is supported by secondary sources (awards won, films made, etc.). Thank you again for your precious time. Calembourgs (talk) 18:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Calembourgs, these sources are perfectly fine – what is not apparent is why the subject and their career is notable. Merely having articles in these French papers (even if they are highly reputed) is not enough, since paid public relations and press exists. What is necessary (at least, in this case) to determine notability for the context of Wikipedia is the content of those press articles. Has the subject been associated with important productions, notable in and of themselves? Has the subject won any significant awards, which are again, notable in and of themselves?
In this subject's case, the articles are used to reference their childhood, which as saddening it is to read, does not make them notable. The three short films mentioned use references to talk about the films themselves – the first film premiering at Cannes has no relevance to her own notability, but would rightly fit in an article about the short film itself. Same goes for the second film, unless it the subject who won the award as its cinematographer. The subject's photography is likely what you could focus on, given that it won an award. Has the subject's photography been part of any major exhibitions in notable museums, biennales, galleries, etc., or been published via several journals or publications? Answering these questions will help us better determine this subject's notability for Wikipedia.
Yes, this clears things up ! Thank you so much for taking the time to detail your answer and the elements necessary for the notability of the subject. To answer you factually on what can make this subject interesting and "notable" for the encyclopedia (in my opinion):
• She then went on to make a film with actor Samy Naceri (who's pretty well known, beyond France, he has a Wikipedia page in over 30 languages I think - I didn't even know there were that many languages!). The film she directed won an award at a festival in Canada for its image quality, but it was the cinematographer who got the prize, not her, but it shows the quality of her film and her work as a director (she directs the cinematographer and dictates the artistic choices).
I don't know if all this is enough for your criteria here, if it isn't I understand and ask your forgiveness for taking up your precious time. Thank you again for your kind replies. Calembourgs (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Knight draft submission
Hello,
I was wondering if you might be able to direct me to which bits of prose read more like an essay than an encyclopaedia entry on the Charles Knight artist page that was recently rejected again. I’ve added more citations but am slightly at a loss in terms of tone as I thought I had kept it objective. Any specifics or direction would be so helpful, thank you! Matthewfoliverathotmaildotcom (talk) 11:06, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Matthewfoliverathotmaildotcom, I have improved the draft by making it a lot more concise and rewritten several paragraphs and sections that were too closely paraphrased from the sources which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Please add the citations needed and please add links to the newspaper obituaries if possible (print-only sources are fine, but more details, the better!). Feel free to resubmit the draft for review, and I shall accept it into mainspace. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]
I would like to ask why you have shortened the text of the Wikipedia entry "Carl Rechlin" so much. This article is based on the German Wikipedia entry https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Rechlin, the content of which has been checked in every detail.
Dear Rechlins, the English Wikipedia requires inline citations for all statements made within an article's body (this rule is stricter for biographies). These inline citations are missing for the article on the German Wikipedia. Please expand the English article if you are confidently able to verify all statements with inline citations. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Joseph-Laurent Malaine
Hello. I have seen that the article I created and you revised is now extremely short and, to me, quite uninteresting. I wanted to complete it, but now I dont know what I should do, especially as I don't quite agree with the little that's left of what I originally wrote. Can you please me advise me as to what I should now do ? Thanks. Rouncival (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Rouncival, the draft needed to be made more concise to pass the article review process, as the previous iterations of the draft were adding unnecessary sections and dividing up information that could be easily summarised in a single paragraph.
Please feel free to expand the current article into a full-fledged biographical article. Please remember to keep the text neutral, summarise from citations in your own words, and cite everything to verifiable and reliable sources. Several citations are already present on the stub for you to begin your work with – feel free to add material (suitable for an encyclopaedia) that can be sourced from those existing citations.
Dear Filmforme, I will take a look in the coming few days, if that is fine. May I also ask after your other couple of drafts that I had to unfortunately decline? Were their issues fixed? Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 13:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Yes that'll work, and I'm not sure if I've asked you about Draft:Suzana Norberg?
RE: Draft:Shaw Jones; I had included some more refs before submitting, but since the decline, I've only found a blog review for a new play they are in, and an interview that I don't think is significant or independent enough.
RE: Draft:Raye Richards; they recently won an icon award for the city they are from but I don't think it is a notable award, and I've yet to find a good source for that. I thought they would pass WP:NACTOR for "The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows" but I am not sure that significant roles matter if they don't also meet WP:GNG. I've read some say they only need to meet one, but I've been hesitant about it. Filmforme (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Spinster300 I also saw you declined Draft:Shannon Taylor (actress). I've had some other feedback on this one, but I'm still not sure I fully understand. Some of the citations are the same writer or publication, but it still looks to me like it meets WP:ANYBIO, though I've heard that regional emmys are not notable to count for "a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times" Filmforme (talk) 01:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Filmforme, I will take a look at these drafts and any others you are working on. Perhaps once we have gone over them, you might consider submitting them then? Drafts submitted without thorough work backlog the Articles for Creation project and reviewers have to spend a lot of time sorting and declining drafts that don't make the cut. I hope this is agreeable to you.
Please list out all the drafts you are working on in your next reply and we shall take a look at them step by step. If any of them are already submitted for review, not to worry – we shall clear them first. Thank you once again for your contributions to Wikipedia, especially the coverage of female actors.
May I suggest you look at another WikiProject called Women in Red? They have a redlist index specifically for actresses – this one. Our goal at that WikiProject is to better the coverage of women on Wikipedia. Several persons on the redlist merely need a translation from other languages to the English Wikipedia, for they almost all pass WP:GNG. That way, you will be able to contribute articles on actresses from all over the world and not just focus on North America, as that is another one of English Wikipedia's biases, geographically speaking.
@Spinster300 Thanks, I agree. I have several drafts I don't feel confident in resubmitting until I can address some issues brought up from the feedback I've received. But here's others I've submitted already:
Dear Filmforme, the Michael Lewis Foster draft was good to go. I will see how the others can be improved later today.
Regarding Women in Red, it would be wiser to create drafts initially. I am happy to review them for you and guide you with making them. Please note that the subjects, while notable according to the standards of other language Wikipedias, may not be notable according to the English Wikipedia. A good gauge that I use is to see if the subject's various credits or accolades have articles in the English Wikipedia. It is also worthwhile to do a simple search and check if the subject's name is redlinked or unlinked across several existing articles on the English Wikipedia as well.
I would also like you to note that the German, French, Italian, and Spanish Wikipedias in my experience have generally maintained a high quality of articles and sources that are easier to bring on to the English version.
It is also a good idea, when checking the WiR redlist indices, to see if the subject's Wikidata item has several library database entries from VIAF – what this indicates is that the subject's work has been either published widely in several countries (hence mandating a legal deposit) or considered important enough to be acquired by the music/film/television series departments or archives of various countries' national libraries/archives/museums – thus, putting up a very good case for notability. These database entries render on Wikipedia at the bottom of the article under the template "Authority control databases" and you will find them to be quite populated on most established actors', directors', screenwriters', and producers' biographies.
Hi, thanks for your work on these banners. Just a note that there is generally no purpose in adding |year=2024and293 because 293 is a 2024 event so it will automatically be categorised as such under that year. The |year= parameter is for cases where the exact meetup is not known. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Martin, my idea was to keep both: the drive and year. I plan to go back and tag all previous WiR articles of mine with their respective years of creation. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
No please don't! We can do this automatically using the template, if you wouldn't mind commenting at that link I gave above... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Spinster300, I have added and edited references on the draft article on artist Natalie Beridze that you have revised and declined for publishing. Please note that the page already exists in German language and the draft is addition in English. I have updated/edited references, and i believe the references ara comprehensively covering all points mentioned in the article, some other improvements were also made. I would be grateful you could revise the article once again. 31.146.234.210 (talk) 12:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, please note that the article still does not pass English Wikipedia's standard for a WP:BLP. Please also see WP:SUMMARY and WP:PYRAMID for a guide to writing style, and please keep the text WP:Neutral and avoid WP:Puffery. The article in German may pass the German Wikipedia's standards for quality of WP:Reliable Sources and satisfaction of inline citations, but it does not yet pass that of the English one. We need at least three very good quality reliable sources as per WP:THREE, or you may please demonstrate how the subject has received WP:SIGCOV. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Dear ElegantEgotist, there are still some issues with the draft. The biography and controversies section still need to rewritten in a more encyclopaedic tone. I am happy to make those changes for you, if you like. Please let me know. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 05:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
I would be very thankful if you did so, because English is not my first language, so I translated it almost verbatim from the Portuguese-language Wikipedia, where rules are much looser. Thanks a million for your input and feedback! ElegantEgotist (talk) 11:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear ElegantEgotist, I was researching the subject of your draft today when I just now noticed that you moved the draft to main space. While I encourage being WP:BOLD, I would strongly recommend sticking to the AfC process while you are a new editor. This article still needs a lot more work to pass the regular Articles for Creation process, and in the main space incomplete or poor articles are often the first ones nominated for deletion. I shall proceed to make my improvements on the article as it stands at present. Thank you and kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 18:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Dear ElegantEgotist, my sincerest apologies. I read the notification while on the fly. I see that your article was accepted by a fellow reviewer. My sincerest apologies, once again. Kindest regards, Spinster300 (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Absolute mess, unsourced, and includes text that seems to be written by a person close to article subject. If someone has a reason to save this, please do so by fixing the amount of issues present.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Dear AlphaBetaGammsh, thank you for this notification. I have restored the article to its last accurate version. I further do not wish to contest the deletion nomination, I am happy to let the community come to a conclusion on the topic. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 05:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
I just wanted to say thank you for taking the time to review the draft article I have been writing Draft:Max Mezo.
I have taken your notes and have tried to improve the article to the best of my ability. Although, I am very open and hoping that you could take another look at it and possibly make any adjustments you think are necessary to have it ready to be published. This is my first article and I've been working on it for quite awhile now. It has been fun learning more about the process and how wiki pages come to fruition.
Dear Limekiwi29, I just saw that the draft was declined acceptance once again. The notes left by the reviewer are quite useful. Please go through them as and when you can. In the meantime, could you possibly reply with at least three very reliable sources that demonstrate the notability of the subject? Once you send me those here, I can see how they can be worked in to the article. As it stands, submitting it again with no significant change to the draft will result in another decline. Thank you and kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 05:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Dear Limekiwi29, I have made several improvements to the draft. It needed to be condensed to just the basic facts. The sources are not the best and need to be improved. Some previously made statements need citations; see WP:BLP. If you can help with that, please do so. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Hi @Spinster300, Thank you for making the adjustments. I have gone in and added citations and rewrote some things according to your indications. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do to improve the draft. Cheers. Limekiwi29 (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Limekiwi29, thank you for your edits. Please note that, because of the lack of in-depth coverage of the subject, the draft will be treated as a WP:STUB, and thus it is recommended that the article be written in a WP:PYRAMID style of prose in its present state. The statement you have replaced about the subject's alma mater, would belong in a more in-depth summary style article, if we had the sources to cover it.
The community news citation could perhaps cite the suburb where the subject grew up, but I found no evidence that the streets the subject is a resident of as mentioned in the news article correspond with those of the suburb the subject grew up in from the suburb's own article. Is there any way you can clarify this?
The Facebook citation for the subject's birthdate is generally not recommended, unless it is common knowledge via a verifiable source or a post on a verified account (see WP:DOB). If the source cannot be verified, it is a safer bet to omit that information, as per WP:BLP guidelines.
Also, may I please confirm that you are not yourself the subject, or are in any way related to the subject of the article? In case you are, it is strongly recommended that you disclose this information. Please see WP:COI.
Please let me know if there is any other way you may have to improve this draft. At present, it is likely a case of WP:TOOSOON with only borderline notability. Please note that, you are welcome to provide offline sources, as long as they are verifiable by other editors who may have access to those offline, real world resources. Thank you and kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Dear @Spinster300, thank you for all the information, like I said I'm relatively new to article creation so I appreciate all the needed context.
For the community news article, I googled the intersection in Toronto to confirm it was in the beaches area.
The facebook I was unsure about, i saw other influencers and smaller pages did not have a cite for their birthday, for example Khaby Lame,Chiara Ferragni & Dixie D'Amelio. I couldn't find any other news sources where they say his exact birthday except for his facebook.
I am not Max or connected to him in any way, I'm a fan of his and have been a follower for many years.
Can you share examples of pages/sources that have been written for other up and coming influencers that would be considered notable for a wikipedia reference.
Dear Limekiwi29, thank you for the clarification that you are not connected to the subject. That being said, please take a look at WP:NPOV, since being a passionate fan or enthusiast about a subject (which is very welcome) can lead to some form of bias in the prose and article text which can be cumbersome to edit out. Thank you also for confirming that the intersection belongs to the suburb as mentioned in the news article. We can leave that bit in the article.
Regarding the birthdate citations for Lame, Ferragni, and D'Amelio – please notice that each of their biographies carries an "Authority control databases" template at the bottom of their respective articles.
Information in this template is populated by certain bibliographic data maintained by libraries, museums, universities, and other such highly reliable and resourceful institutions across the world. These institutions employ qualified librarians and cataloguers who will generally create a well researched and authoritative profile on various topics based on information they have collected from books, journals, movies, music, series, and several other media formats they are mandated to collect.
This authoritative data can possibly be considered "common knowledge" about certain aspects of a person's life; like their birthdate, birthplace, educational qualifications, former names, married names, pseudonyms or pen-names, and thus mentioned in the article without an explicit citation (although, one is encouraged whenever possible). It is easier to rely on and trust that these highly respected institutions will have done their due diligence to verify the facts before creating said authoritative profile. Of the names you listed, I give you the example of Lame, where his birthdate is mentioned in a reliable authoritative record as published and maintained by the National Library of France.
Alternatively, if the subject does not have any authoritative profiles with such institutions, like a many growing number of internet celebrities do, it is possible to cite their birthdate from the date harvested by most search engines like Google, from various fan sites (such as Famous Birthdays) who have probably taken the birthdate from a birthday post the celebrity made on their birthday on a verified and public social media account. In such an event, such harvested data on a search engine from such primary sources (the social media post) or other sources (Famous Birthdays) can be considered "common knowledge". However, it is important to note that fan sites such as Famous Birthdays are considered unreliable on Wikipedia if added directly, and the social media post is considered a primary source if added directly, and must be used with a fair amount of caution. Given the nature of Mezo's article being that of borderline notability of a living individual, it is best to omit the birthdate until it becomes common knowledge or can be reliably cited.
Regarding the Edward Hayter article, notability can be demonstrated in several ways, and Wikipedia usually has criteria and guidelines per topic. The most ideal way notability can be established for an actor is to demonstrate that they have played significant roles or have won significant awards. On Wikipedia, significance is often self-fulfilling. If the movie or show or award is significant enough, it will have an article of its own as it will have qualified notability criteria for each of those topics. In Hayter's case, he has portrayed a significant individual on a significant show, and another significant individual in a significant play at a significant theatre, and won a best actor award at a significant film festival, among other relevant things that add to his notability, albeit at the level of a stub article, which is likely to organically grow as his career progresses.
Reliable sources are generally needed to prove that these claims to notability are rooted in fact, and are not just a hoax or fiction. The reliability and verifiability of a source, and its nature (primary, secondary, etc.) are required when discussing the source itself. Take for example, the article on J. R. R. Tolkien. Large portions of his article are supported by his own letters, or biographies written by his children, all of which would be considered primary sources. But his article exists primarily because of his prominence and significance as an author of significant works. It is just that the most reliable manner in which several aspects of his life can be supported on a platform like Wikipedia is through those primary sources.
This in not to say that the fact or statement of notability that the source is meant to support does not matter, but it is within a specific context. Take for example, an individual being described as very generous and charitable by a very reliable, secondary source. This claim bears no significance in and of itself because of lack of detail, except to maybe summarise that said person "was remembered as a charitable person" in a long article; in a short article, this statement would not be immediately relevant to a reader and other editors may consider it an unencyclopaedic fact not worthy of mentioning as it bears no significance. If however, there is a primary source, say from a prominent charity, which has self published their annual report where this individual has been named as the primary patron or donor of a large sum, it can be used to demonstrate that this person was a significant philanthropist, adding to notability. If a large number of such sources and claims exist, a "philanthropy" or "charitable activities" section will even be added to the article of this person.
I apologise if this explanation is tediously long to read, but I hope this clarifies as to why Mezo's draft is still in its naissant stage, and his notability in and of itself needs to improve, regardless of the quality of sources added. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 12:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Women in Red March 2024
Women in Red| March 2024, Volume 10, Issue 3, Numbers 293, 294, 299, 300, 301
Good morning, @Spinster300! I'm very sorry if I'm abusing your patience, but I'd like to ask your help in yet another issue. Earlier I was working on another draft, Draft:Wendel Bezerra, but it got denied as well because, once again, Portuguese-language Wikipedia (from where I translated it) doesn't give us much to work with. As soon as you're unoccupied, would you try to work your magic on it as well, or is it unsalvageable as it is??
Dear ElegantEgotist, this particular draft will take some work; I am not quite sure about the notability of voice actors. I will see what I can do. The Portuguese version also has a notice to it, so it is not the most ideally helpful translation. I will try and see if reliable sources can be found. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Robin Vallacher
I think you accidentally hit the wrong review button, marking him with "not neutral" when there is nothing (for an academic) that is not neutral in that. I therefore have accepted it, but also tagged it with a need for more secondary sources. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Ldm1954, thank you for letting me know! I marked the draft as decline because of the prose being a little too promotional in tone for me – I have come across several well-written academic articles that have stated facts similar to this article with a lot more neutrality. Please address the issue of the article being an orphan, and I can see that there are some copyright violations in the page's content as well. Please address that too if you can, thank you. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 05:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
I strongly disagree with you about the copyright. Most of what is being marked is his books/references and that should not be. Dumb codes which classifying titles such as "Advanced Consortium on Cooperation, Conflict, and Complexity" as violations must be ignored as inappropriate.
Dear Ldm1954, my apologies. I meant the summary style of the prose of the stated facts about Vallacher's career. Of course, the titles of the works cannot be changed. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 12:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks for your feedback that the article needed to be written more neutrally before it was ready for mainspace. I've done a bit of a rewrite to make it look like less of a resume. Can you advise me if what I've done is adequate and whether I should resubmit it to AfC or in your opinion does it need more work? TarnishedPathtalk09:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear TarnishedPath, thank you for the changes you have made. The article reads a lot better and more neutral now. There are some reference formatting and prose issues that need to be fixed, and I shall do those later today. After that, we can accept the draft into mainspace. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 12:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Draft:Vladimir Levin (historian)
Hi Spinster300,
Thank you for your advice to rewrite the article more neutrally. Apparently, you have considered the mention that "the Index for Jewish Art is the biggest digital repository of Jewish art and material culture in the world" to be a judgmental statement. It is, however, an objective truth: there is no such another project, which collected so many documentation materials. Despite that, I have deleted this part not to provoke anyone. I think now the article contains no judgmental statements at all and is completely encyclopedic. I hope now it can be accepted for publication. CatherineOlesh (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear CatherineOlesh, thank you for writing in. The objective fact is not an issue, it is the manner in which it is written. We strive for WP:NPOV here on Wikipedia. I am happy to go through the draft and edit it further, if you are fine with that. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 12:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Dear @Spinster300, that would be great! Thank you! Maybe there's something, which reads not neutral, but I am already so used to this text that I don't see it. I would really appreciate your help. CatherineOlesh (talk) 12:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:Peter Wayne Lewis
Hello Spinster 300,
Thank you for your valuable feedback and taking the time to read this draft. As I am new to creating Wikipedia articles, I need all the constructive criticism I can gather. FYI, I'm going to carefully read WP:Writing Better Articles; WP:BECONCISE; your link to "not a publisher of personal essays;" and WP Avoiding Common Mistakes. I really do want to learn as much as I can about this style of writing, as I'm planning on writing more articles in the near and distant future. Additionally, I did see the Manual of Style (MoS), and I may selectively read parts of that one.
Thanks to your discussion regarding Ed Hayter, I now know that there's a list of requested articles out there.
I do have a question for you, however: after I make the corrections to this draft, will you be informed that it's ready to be re-reviewed when I re-submit it? That would be helpful on my part - to work with the same editor, rather than another random one. Is it possible to request the same reviewer for a draft?
Dear Karl8704, thank you for writing in. I am glad to know that you will be improving the draft and working on contributing more articles to Wikipedia. I would also request you to take a look at WP:WPWIR for interesting projects on the coverage of women in various fields on Wikipedia.
I am glad to know that my discussions with other draft writers has been helpful to you. You may also want to take a look at my detailed response to the creator of another draft here, about how no amount of editing can justify or fix inherent notability issues.
Unfortunately, I will not be directly informed of your resubmission unless the draft or article is directly on my Watchlist. Please feel free to ping me here once you have finished improving the draft. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 05:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Hi again Spinster300 - It's been over two months since I've worked on this draft, but "life" gets in the way occasionally, sometimes in back-to-back-to-back episodes... But now I'm back to working on this first draft. I've spent quite a bit of time reading many articles - "Inverted Pyramid" by Amy Schade, "How to create and manage a good lead section," "Notability," and perhaps another dozen articles. I've also read and mulled over other recently accepted articles, paying close attention to structure and style.
So I've taken up your offer and 'pinged' you to take a peek at this latest version. I'm looking forward to hearing what you think.
Hello Spinster, I do not quite understand what you mean by: Several sections of the article need to be rephrased or rewritten for the article to pass.
I am author of multiple full length articles on Czech Art (Mikuláš Medek, Adolf Hoffmeister, Theodor Pištěk, Zbyněk Sekal, Vladimír Janoušek, etc.) which were reviewed without any objections. Can you specify what should be "rephrased or rewritten"? Thanks. NoJin (talk) 12:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear NoJin, thank you for writing in. There are several statements within this draft that would be considered WP:Puffery; the subject is notable, and the draft will be accepted, but please take a look at making the language more dry and neutral, if possible. I am not sure about the writing style on any of your other biographies that you have contributed. In case there is puffery, it will be edited out eventually, if it has not already. Thank you for contributing important Czech artist biographies to the English Wikipedia! Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 16:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Dear Spinster300, I try to be as objective and neutral as possible, but the articles are about art. I don't do any "own research", but I draw on texts by art historians and curators, whose writing style is specific and quite different from descriptive texts on other topics. By the way - I don't understand why a text about Jan Mikulka, who is really important painter, award winning repeatedly in UK, arouses emotions, while the English Wikipedia tolerates a stub about the unknown regional Czech footballer Jan Mikula.--NoJin (talk) 23:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear NoJin, please note that on Wikipedia, we do not compare notability. We have a standard notability criteria, but that does not mean we compare one subject to another in the various aspects of their notability. Article length does not matter, either. What matters is whether the article content presented is encyclopaedic in nature or not.
Take the example of the footballer you have pointed out – the article is factual and to the point. There are no subjective descriptions anywhere. As compared to the Draft:Jan Mikulka, which has statements such as "which is the most prestigious competitive showcase of contemporary portraiture", "Since the artist works mostly on commission, we do not see his works very often on the open art market", "Mikulka can express the psychology of man, he can capture man in his complexity, as a human being charged with feelings and spiritual vibration", and many other statements which need to be removed entirely, or attributed as quotes from that specific author writing for that specific source about the subject or his work.
I am happy to clean up the draft for you if you like, but it needs to be made much more concise (see: WP:BECONCISE) and the prose needs to be written objectively, dryly, and as plainly as possible (see: WP:NPOV). Please feel free to reach out to me if you have any other questions. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 06:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Dear Spinster300 I understand the point of your remarks. Writtig article on Jan Mikulka was hampered by the lack of sources and I had used phrases from the English article by Mark Gisbourne perhaps excessively. I shall clean up the text and submit it for review. Thanks for your suggestions.--NoJin (talk) 14:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On 15 March 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Charles Knight (artist), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Charles Knight's wartime painting activities led to him being mistaken for a German spy? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Charles Knight (artist). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Charles Knight (artist)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Matthew Jordan Smith (Photographer): Specifics on what can be improved on article to get approval
Hi, Spinster300. Thank you for your review of my article on Matthew Jordan Smith (Photographer). Draft:Matthew Jordan Smith (Photographer) I see it was declined. In this submission of it, I added a lot more citations than the first submission (went from 3 to 16 sources). If possible, I would love to know which specific areas you feel need more citation or if there are sections you think I should just delete from the article so that it can be approved. Thank you so much for your time. Jennifer Bak (talk) 23:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Jennifer Bak, thank you for writing in. I am happy to help you improve your draft. Please give a read to WP:Writing better articles, if you can. Within your draft, no statement made or claim stated can be left unreferenced, as per the policy on biographies (see: WP:BLP). It is generally not acceptable to leave ends of sentences in paragraphs unreferenced, even if sentences within the paragraph have inline citations (see: WP:INLINE).
Several statements are also externally linked, which is not allowed. Please convert them to plain text or to wikilcnks to other articles or article sections within Wikipedia. If the source is reliable, you may use the current external link to cite the claim being made by the statement (see: WP:EL and WP:Link). Several statements in the draft as it stands at present can also be condensed and summarised more efficiently (see: WP:BECONCISE).
Please let me know if you face any issues while making these corrections and improvements, and I will be happy to chip in. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 18:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Hello, please have a look at WP:RS to determine whether a source you are using is reliable or not. On your draft, there are too many Rotten Tomato references, which in this type of article, is not accepted as a reliable source. Neither are podcasts, interviews, nor is Spotify. The subject is notable, but the references used to demonstrate said notability need to be better. The sources that do pass are The Debrief and The Washington Examiner. Please add another source that is of this calibre, so as to meet WP:THREE. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
I removed the references to CoastToCoast, Rotten Tomatoes, and TVGuide. For his appearances on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast, I added the links to James's two appearances directly from the JRE site. I left in the newspaper sources and added one or two more. Please let me know if there are other changes that need to be made and I will work on those. Thanks. 50.200.118.243 (talk) 04:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear MSatindia, thank you for writing in. The article is better written, but the issues as mentioned by earlier reviewers about the quality of the sources are not, however. Can you please list/link at least WP:THREE good sources from the article that talk about the subject in some depth, are intellectually independent from the subject (not interviews, and not from paid PR by the subject, or the companies), and are in reliable newspapers, journals, or books? That would be most helpful.
From a quick link check, there are a lot of interviews (considered primary sources), which is fine, as long as at least three good sources can verify the subject's notability requirements. I found these sources to be the nearest to what we mean by WP:RS (1, 2, and 3), but more such sources would be helpful. Several statements of the draft can also be made more concise and summarised better (see: WP:BECONCISE). Thank you and kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 12:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
@Spinster300Thanks for your revert, please see the following links
I hope this helps with notability criteria. I would also appreciate if you would like to make any edits in content to make the articles comply with wikipedia article standards. MSatindia (talk) 09:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear MSatindia, some of these sources are fine. There are also several prose issues in the draft as it stands which need to be fixed before it can be accepted. I will make those edits in the coming few days. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 05:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
@Spinster300 I really appreciate all of your work and time that goes into helping fellow wikipedians and understand that you might not have been able to revisit this article yet, would really appreciate you taking a look at it once you get sometime. Thanks MSatindia (talk) 05:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, this is regarding Draft: Sidharth Mishra.
I have followed whatever has been flagged by you(& the flagged in the previous comment by GSS). Kindly check as all the government official website link has been provided. Although contents are in pdf format. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 17:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear ThePerfectYellow, thank you for providing the required edits as requested. Please also try and write the prose of the article more neutrally, if possible. I am happy to edit your draft over the next few days, if that is fine with you. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 19:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you for your quick read and review. I will revise and attempt a more neutral, encyclopedic tone (which I thought I had approached, having removed all marketing/promotional language from my description of Mr. Longo's life & career and entrepreneurealism. Of course, the lingua franca of his industry is breathlessly promotional and ecstatic, so there's only so much I can do to make the "maestro of make-up" seem like a materials scientist.) Perhaps you could point to an example or two of the kind of diction and or rhetoric that is considered not-neutral? That would be very welcome!
Now, as to the issue of reliability, please know that my sources are 2000 + pages of tear sheets--actual pdf's of print journalism in newspapers and magazines that cover fashion, beauty, celebrity, entertainment and, yes, gossip. There was a time--not that long ago--when people used clipping services to keep track of their appearances in the press. Vincent was one of those. Now--I have cited 50 plus publications that are authoritative in their industry---such as Vogue, Elle, US Weekly, Hello, OK, InStyle, Town & Country, Make-up Artist Magazine, Houston Post, Cosmopolitan. etc.. In these publications, Vincent is often the subject, or even more frequently, one of the experts solicited for comment or advice. Because I no longer have University Research Library privileges, I am not able to cite J-stor, etc., or other digital sources that archive these print publications from the 80's, 90's and early 00's, but I understand that that was one of the tools available to editors like yourself? I mostly have HARD copies, as it were, which I naively thought would be a gold standard. I also have a spreadsheet of major magazine covers for which Vincent earned the make-up credit, but I’m not sure how to cite such professional success. We are awaiting digitization of the VHS recordings of his many regular broadcast TV appearances, otherwise, I’d have cited those, too! (The introductory clip from the Miss American Broadcast, produced by D. Trump and featuring Melania Knauss Trump as a fellow judge seated right next to Vincent—confirms this claim. Appalling proximity, but true.)
I fear that the issue complicating matters for Wikipedia and, perhaps, yourself as its representative editor, is that Vincent Longo is a Brand, as well as a man, and his brand derives from his talent, his friendships, his access, his celebrity, his philanthropy and the penumbra of luxury that surround his life’s work. I have attempted in this bio to document those interlocking aspects of his biography.
My belief--and I think it a widely held one-- (see the Lear Center at Annenburg, USC, for example) is that entertainment was one of the major developments of the 20th century and it sure seems to be cannibalizing the 21st. And so also is branding a major cultural/economic/political phenomenon that has impacted our world (for better and often for worse). The publications that I’m referencing are the media organs for entertainment, branding & celebrity culture, but you say they are unreliable. And yet, if an American History Professor taught a course about these topics and wrote an article about Vincent as an exemplar (reaching a couple of hundred people, rather than millions) that would be a more credible source, it seems.
On a related matter, I think you would be dismayed to read the contempt voiced by one of the editors who volunteers to answer questions and assist would be contributors (at Libera Chat, fyi)—and not just toward me, but to others whose comments were visible to me in our dialogue stream. I kept being "helped" by the same person, who scorned my work and ignorance, though I was able to request a different person to answer my questions about formatting. (I also retained an Upwork consultant and expert on Wikipedia formatting to assist me--since Wikipedia's automated approach is buggy and doesn't even include Magazines as a possible option). Please forgive me if I feel hostility toward myself as a paid writer and toward my subject.
As you may have read in my bio, I am a reasonably well published academic by training, but have worked primarily in movie marketing (and taught that subject at UCLA Film School) and as a documentary researcher and writer. (7 significant projects under my belt—I lecture on the subject at international organizations and was recently invited by PBS to address their in-house documentary makers.). My Ph.D is in English (UCSB). I do not consider myself a hack (nor do my clients) and my work on the history of film marketing has been "borrowed" for the wikipedia article on Andrew J. Kuehn (Andrew J. Kuehn) and also for the architect, Eileen Gray.
All of which is to say is that I would appreciate your consideration and some specific advice. I am working hard to get over the hurdles, but the explanation for why the wealth of references I have supplied are not sufficient is not one I find persuasive. (I dropped the NY Post from my citations, even though with regard to Page 6 Celebrity Gossip, they are as reliable as anyone. There appears to be no nuance here in assessing such organs of the media.) When a subject, like Vincent, has been the subject of scores of articles and profiles and mentioned hundreds of times in the publications of his industry--that also happen to be publications of MASS media circulation--I have to believe that he is notable and his inclusion in wikipedia relevant and deserved. I’m eager to make that happen. I welcome your assistance.
Dear Flgreene13, thank you for writing in, and thank you for your detailed explanation of your situation. I am sorry that you have had a tough time getting help on your draft; alas, Wikipedia is a volunteer project, and that has its positives and negatives. Thank you as well, for diligently disclosing paid editing for the subject of your draft. I am also happy to learn that your own authorship has proved to be a reliable source to articles on here.
If I may precisely get to the points of contention for why this draft does not yet make the cut – several sentences and paragraphs in this draft can be cut down and rewritten in a neutral and non-promotional tone of language. The draft as it reads is like a standard, glossy biography a publicist might submit to news agencies. This is not encyclopaedic, nor scientific. On Wikipedia, we need to write drily, plainly, and boringly. Stick to the facts and present them as they are, and let them speak for themselves. Wikipedia is highly concerned with how the notability of the subject is demonstrated within an article. (Please see: WP:NPOV, WP:TLDR, and WP:PUFFERY.)
The cited sources were flagged for the overuse of magazines, surely authoritative in their subject area, but have been known to be problematic for biographies of living people (which are subject to higher standards of editorial scrutiny on Wikipedia). Print-only and offline sources are perfectly fine as long as they have been cited in a manner that makes verifiability for another editor or reader as easy as possible. For most of the magazine sources, including the ISSN identifier would be most helpful; having cited page numbers and dates is helpful already, so thank you for that. From all the listed magazines in the draft as well as your message, please cite the MOST authoritative one (example, Vogue), if most of them repeat what the others have already said. (Please see: WP:BLP and WP:RS.)
After reading the draft, it does not become immediately apparent as to why this subject is notable. On Wikipedia, subjects cannot inherit notability simply by being related to or proximal to several celebrities and notable individuals; however, this frequently does lead to them more easily establishing their own notability. That is the case here: Longo is notable for several decades worth of work with prominent public figures, designers, magazines, photographers, and appearances on important talk shows. While this is mentioned in the lead paragraph of this draft, it is written too promotionally. It needs to be a lot more plain and factual, without any aforementioned puffery. The remainder of his career needs to be presented in a linear fashion, as with most biographies, and not in a sectional manner as it is now, which is more typical of CVs or résumés. (Please see: WP:GNG, WP:MOS, and WP:PYRAMID.)
I am happy to make the relevant cuts and edits for you in the coming few days, if you like. If time permits, please also read WP:Writing better articles, to get a better grasp on how Wikipedia absorbs and presents information in the articles it carries. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 19:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Dear Spinster300--
You have restored my faith, Lol, with this thoughtful and generous reply. I'm heading to the airport shortly, but will follow up Tuesday when back from Easter weekend. FYI, I modeled the presentation of Mr. Longo's Bio/page on that of Kevin Aucoin, his peer, friend and fellow leading make-up artist of the supermodel generation. I look forward to grappling with your advice and to benefiting from your offer of assistance.
Dear Flgreene13, please have a lovely Easter. We can work on the draft once you are back!
To quickly address your statement here – the articles on Kevin Aucoin as well as the previously mentioned Andrew J. Kuehn are both examples of biographies of deceased persons; they are both also mostly written neutrally and without any promotional language, and the balance of primary and secondary sources are cited carefully to the context of the stated fact. In such instances of biographies of deceased persons, there is more breathing room when editing, and to showcase a retrospective look on their life – a retrospective which has been established in routinely cited scholarly literature on the subject's life; Wikipedia writers can paraphrase to a degree, but cannot create their own retrospective, as this would come under WP:NOR. Even the tense of the prose will be simple past.
The subject of your draft is a living person, and thus more strict checks and conditions are in place to avoid slanderous claims, or vandalistic attacks, or leaking of private and sensitive information, as stated in WP:BLP. The tense of your draft will be in simple present where appropriate, simple past for events that have been established as completed in the subject's life, as well as present continuous and/or past continuous for events in their life that are ongoing or have been ongoing for a while. As you can see, in such an instance, establishing a retrospective and naming sections or subsections in the subject's life can become problematic or unnecessarily complicated. That's why, Wikipedia's standard, as stated in WP:MOS, is to write biographies which are linear; this is why Wikipedia articles read the way the do, something which even mainstream media has commented on.
Events that happen early in a person's life (generally, family background and circumstances of birth, education, and career beginnings) are presented at the start, and then the various aspects of their career are mentioned linearly (career growth, career establishment, career decline, retirement, etc.). Other ventures, if prominent enough (business establishments or charity), are given their own sections only if they are unambiguously and abundantly cited in reliable sources. Same goes for personal life (for marriages, relationships, and children), or media impact and public image, or endorsements, or controversies and legal issues, or awards and recognitions, etc. Otherwise, all these are mentioned in the linear manner, time period by time period, parallel to the subject's "main career", since the subject clearly had a significant career achievement the same year they started a company/charity or got married/divorced. Wikipedia has to present all facts of a person's life as plainly and neutrally as possible. And so, both negative and positive events will be mentioned, and neither are given any undue weight.
Furthermore, Wikipedia editors measure the quality of an article based on the standard established by Wikipedia's WP:MOS, and never compare between other articles of the same kind. So, comparisons to other article's are best avoided – if there is a problematic element in a draft that someone may state is identical to one on an existing and published article elsewhere, that problematic element will eventually be edited out from the published article by other editors, and it will have no bearing on the existence of said problematic element on the draft seeking acceptance. Wikipedia has a policy on this phenomenon: WP:WHATABOUTX.
Dear Spinster300, thank you for the explanation of formatting linearly vs. in sections, which now makes sense to me in terms of living and deceased subjects! I'm going to take another pass at editing for neutrality, before I will presume to accept your offer of editing assistance. One last question: I have many citations in paragraph one that are chiefly/solely there to prove that Vincent did actually work with the actors, politicians, celebrities, etc., that I claim he did. Those articles aren't always or even often about him, but in them, he is credited with make-up, make-overs, involvement and/or expertise, whether in the text of an article, or on the "on the cover" box on the table of contents-- even in fine-print on an editorial spread (sometimes written vertically on the side of the page). The "unhelpful" help editor told me I shouldn't be including any of it, but how do I balance that with the obligation to document every claim/assertion made? As you'll note, in later paragraphs, where citations are to articles about Vincent by name and/or prominently featuring Vincent's work, products, philanthropy or celebrity doings, I've augmented the citation information with relevant quotations about him. Much obliged in anticipation---fg Flgreene13 (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Spinster300--
I have just reformatted it (linearly), replaced what might be considered puffery with plain, just the facts, neutral language, and removed a duplication or three. I welcome any editing assistance you would be kind to offer at this point, prior to another re-submission. (I believe that's the way forward?). Thank you in anticipation. fg Flgreene13 (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Spinster300
I am gently pinging you to say I'd appreciate your review of the latest draft which, I believe, implements your advice given above. And, assuming I am so blessed, may I get some idea of likely time frame? Looking forward to your edit notes and the opportunity to resubmit once such notes are applied. Best---fg Flgreene13 (talk) 01:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Flgreene13, please find that the draft has been reworked as to meet Wikipedia's standards; a lot of puffery needed to be removed and a lot about the subject's career needed to be made more concise and neutral. The draft also required quite some work in terms of formatting and there is a citation that is still needed. Apart from that, it passes WP:GNG and thus has been accepted into main space. Please let me know if you have any further questions or queries. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 18:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you--I'm eager to see what you've done, but if accepted into the main space means what I think it does...!! Now, if I can only find your edits to the draft from the 22nd. To be continued-- Yours, fg Flgreene13 (talk) 15:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Spinster 300, You may have heard the old adage, "no good deed goes unpunished"? Well, I fear I may be repaying you in such manner, when I mention that a friend forwarded this wikipedia bio to our attention. Sir John (make-up artist) In it, you will see gratuitous promotional language and a list of celebrity/famous actor/personality clients, all content (with citations) that I was told were not permissible. Also, the section on VL's philanthropy was removed even though the party he threw was heralded in the leading style/celebrity publications on the planet. (That event was "the party of the year or decade" and yet, somehow it was deemed ineligible for inclusion. Would an editor have crossed out the Black & White Ball from Truman Capote's bio?) Perhaps you can hazard a guess as to the differential rules that seem to have been applied in these two cases? Queen B (Sir John's most famous client) is puissant, we understand, but we had no idea that she had such pull at Wikipedia. I look forward to your thoughts and, ideally, to the chance to update the bio. All my best--f Flgreene13 (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Spinster 300, might I trouble you further for consideration of this most recent note and inquiry above and for a response? Thanking you in anticipation. f Flgreene13 (talk) 17:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Flgreene13, thank you for your messages. I had composed a reply but I got busy in real life and missed on posting it. I have taken a look at the article you mentioned, and I have left the relevant maintenance templates for other editors better versed in biographies on beauty and fashion topics to take a look and revise it. In this case, Longo's biography is more inline with Wikipedia's policies than Sir John's. Please also note that actively finding and flagging articles of competitors or contemporaries of the subject you have proposed an article for is actively discouraged as negative canvassing on Wikipedia and can lead to several WP:UPE issues.
On the note of Capote's famous ball, please note that it has enough cultural significance to have had full books or several chapters within books written about it and has its standalone article on here for that same reason. On a similar note, I would like to point out in regards to celebrity parties – each year, the Vanity Fair afterparty of the Oscar's, the Met Gala, and the Cannes Film Festival are written about at length in the first half of each year's celebrity/pop culture media and news cycle. All of these events, while definitely socially significant, are not deemed entirely culturally significant, and hence very specific elements of either are covered on here.
For example: each year's Vanity Fair afterparty is not covered at all, but its concept is, but what is covered is each year's ceremony, and the concept of their pre-show with a note on each year's hosts which is the most relevant aspect of it, while the commentary on dresses and interviews and red carpet spectacles is generally not perceived as such.
While each Met Gala is also not covered in terms of the event's ongoings (who was invited, who wore what, who debuted that year, etc.) in a standalone article, its relevant exhibition is usually covered, while the concept is covered without any temporal relevance.
As for how the concept of the Cannes Film Festival is covered, so is that particular year's festival from the perspective of what the festival is really about, as compared to what the media pays more attention to: i.e., editors will choose to include a culturally/sociopolitically notable film or red carpet/event spectacle over a social media star's red carpet debut; even if the media will generally write, for example, a 100 articles about that social media star's debut (for more clicks due to name recognition amongst their primarily Western readership), as opposed to only 10 articles about that obscure but significant film/spectacle.
All of this is to say that, on Wikipedia, real-world events, the coverage of them, and the media sources themselves are weighed based on some logical nuance. Capote's ball had cultural significance, with it likely reviving that concept of such a party for decades to come, and hence the scope of sources about its significance. If you can demonstrate that Longo's party was equally as culturally significant, with media sources outside of the beauty and fashion industries covering its relevance and impact, I encourage you to add that in. Yes, while Vogue or Vanity Fair or Harper's Bazaar may be considered authoritative sources on beauty and fashion as citations on here, them reporting on such a party would be deemed as routine reporting.
We need sources from career sociologists or cultural anthropologists, or sources not regularly connected to the beauty or fashion or even pop culture industries to report on it; think New York Times, Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post covering it in some depth outside of their entertainment and society sections to establish significance. If such sources are missing, a simple sentence or a short paragraph neutrally covering the highlights within the overall article is enough to provide a general reader with context on Longo's activities during his career. Example: In *month and year*, Longo hosted *event* at *venue*. *So and so* were the guests of honour, while *1, 2, and 3 most important celebrity names at maximum* were in attendance. *Source and source* heralded it as *"the party of the year/whatever common descriptive was used by the sources"*. [Followed by a maximum of two citations of said sources covering all these facts.]
I hope this gives you more clarity on how our collaborative encyclopaedia functions, and my sincerest apologies for the delayed response. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you, Spinster300 for your (as usual) thoughtful and expansive response. Because my intentions and efforts have been immaculate of negative canvassing, I will not defend such a suspicion with regard to the article about S..J..., other than to say, what about "positive canvassing"? Since "x" was done elsewhere, I too wish to avail myself of such editorial liberty. [FYI, when I asked for guidance at the help page, an editor encouraged me to "flag" and rat out articles that seemed to be in contravention of Wikipedia policies regarding fame by association, so there's that contrary recommendation floating around among the editorialiate. But I ain't got time for snitching, nor the inclination.] More importantly, you have, I think, suggested a way to explore Longo's philanthropy (and its public manifestations) in a neutral, relevant and wiki-pedia sanctioned manner. I'll try, at least, to do so. Much obliged, as usual. Best--- 2603:8000:BE00:3301:8487:58D3:4CB8:DEF5 (talk) 22:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you are well, I have went through the draft created and was wondering if you could have a look at it before I submit it again. Any advise would be appreciated.
Dear DanielHicksAss, kindly do not submit the draft just as yet. We can work on it together and I am happy to accept it when it is ready. As it stands currently, a lot of the non-neutral and promotional fluff needs to be cut down or removed entirely. I am happy to make the improvements for you in the coming few days if you like. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 05:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
That works great thank you, if there is anything you would like me to do in the meantime please let me know & I look forward to seeing the changes and working with you to build this article up. Thank you for offering :)
Hello @Spinster300 Hope all is well. Just checking in. I believe there is about to be new news coming out very soon in regards to Gary. So hopefully some new sources that we can use to improve the article. DanielHicksAss (talk) 01:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear DanielHicksAss, the article has been fixed as per the standards required for inclusion on Wikipedia. All the problematic elements and sections have been removed. Since you are a connected editor of the subject, kindly request future additions and changes on the article's talk page and an experienced editor should make them for you. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 19:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.
Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.
Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.
It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!
2023 Awards
Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!
Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.
Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.
Hi @Spinster300, If you would remember you approved my article of Mewar-Malwa Conflict many days ago. After that I created another draft regarding some engagement between two Kingdoms. It was well sourced(according to me). I was sure that I would get result, as draft being accepted or declined in one or either two weeks but it has been over 5 weeks. My article is in draft space only. It is neither getting accepted nor getting declined.
Dear Rawn3012, thank you for reaching out. I am unfortunately a little busy in real life at the moment. Please approach any of the editors as listed on the Military history WikiProject. I am sure they will be more knowledgeable than I on an article of this nature. Happy editing! Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Women in Red June 2024
Women in Red | June 2024, Volume 10, Issue 6, Numbers 293, 294, 308, 309, 310
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Women in Religion have a monthly virtual edit-a-thon and the next session is December 2nd 4:00 - 5:00 p.m. CST. For Zoom meeting details, contact Dzingle1 or RosPost. Women in Red members are welcome to join the Zoom Meeting here
Tip of the month:
Think of rewarding contributors, especially newcomers, with a barnstar.
