User talk:Arthur goes shopping/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Arthur goes shopping, you are invited to the Teahouse

Teahouse logo

Hi Arthur goes shopping! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse
This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit history

Hi Arthur Goes Shopping, I saw that you reviewed my article on Trace DeMeyer and denied it. Do you have any suggestions on how I can better the article so that it can be created? I know the amount of source material is an issue. I also wanted to address your edit history, as it appears there isn't any. Seeing as you are new to Wikipedia, how was it that you were able to have access to reviewing articles for submission? Thanks. Ame283 (talk) 15:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Good morning Ame. I believe that these questions have been addressed at User talk:Ramaksoud2000#AFC and User talk:Vizjim#William S. Yellow Robe: Thank you!!, but if you have any further questions or need any help then please let me know. Thank you. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


William Jervis Livingstone

Dear Arthur goes shopping,

Firstly, thank you for reviewing the article I wrote on William Jervis Livingstone. However, I cannot agree that the C grade you gave it is correct.

The grading scheme typified a C grade article as, “The article… is still missing important content or contains much irrelevant material”, and “it may have some gaps or missing elements; need editing for clarity, balance, or flow; or contain policy violations, such as bias or original research.” Such an article is “useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study.”

To take these points in turn:

1. The article contains all the information on W J Livingstone available in reputable sources and nothing that is not relevant to his story.

2. I can see no gaps, missing elements or contain policy violations (e.g. bias or original research). On the contrary, the article attempts to show a range of views on Livingstone and its sources are fully documented. At to whether it needs editing for clarity, balance, or flow, this is a question of opinion, but if you think it applies, could you be specific?

3. I would say it does provide a complete picture for a detailed study, because it contains all the available and credible information on Livingstone in one place.

I should that I have both lived in Malawi and undertaken academic study of its colonial history. As a result, I have added significantly to a number of existing articles and written several new ones which I believe are of a high standard. I do however hope and expect that they will be graded correctly.

I would therefore be grateful if you would reconsider your review and give the article a more appropriate grading

Shscoulsdon (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Good morning Shscoulsdon, and many thanks for your message. I've never rated an AFC submission higher than C class at the time of creation. I have never lived in Malawi or undertaken academic study of its colonial history; my military career in the 19th century mainly took me to South Asia, the Iberian peninsula, and north-west Europe, and nowadays I specialise in retail therapy. I don't therefore feel able to provide a detailed review of the article in question. However, I see that you have gone ahead and rated it as B class; I have no objection to this. Alternatives for future articles might be to ask for a rating at Wikipedia:WikiProject History, or to nominate your articles at Wikipedia:Good article nominations and/or Wikipedia:Did you know. Thank you for your work improving Wikipedia's coverage of these topics. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

New York Film Academy Los Angeles Page

Hey Arthur,

I've made the required changes to the New York Film Academy Los Angeles page by adding an extra notable source as a reference but it's still automatically rejecting my proposed edits. Can you please take a look? Thanks so much for your help!

Marissa.lieberman (talk) 22:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Good afternoon Marissa. I'm not sure what you mean by "automatically rejecting my proposed edits". Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/New York Film Academy Los Angeles is currently submitted to be reviewed again after your recent changes - it may take a week or two for someone to get round to reviewing it. You might want to look into citation templates for formatting your references - like Template:Cite news for example - in order to make it clearer which publication is responsible for each source. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Hi, Arthur. This is the only way I could find to send you a message. This is regarding the uber-local food article you rejected. I would love to add more citations, but the term was just coined a few years ago, and the Berger paper I used is the only citation I could find that specifically talks about uber-local food. What can I do if there are simply a lack of valid sources?

Thanks, Sunnydaze72 Sunnydaze72 (talk) 03:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Good afternoon Sunnydaze72. The usual way to leave a message is to click "New section", then enter your section heading and message, then sign with four tildes like this ~~~~ at the end of your message, then enter an Edit Summary in the Edit Summary box, then save the page.
If only one source talks about the concept or term "uber-local food", then the term or concept may simply not be ready for its own separate article in Wikipedia yet. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

LoadStar Global Article

Hi Arthur,

I received notice that you denied my recent submission for an article on LoadStar. In the notice you cited three key items: 1) that press-releases from the company should not be cited; 2) paid-for content or blogs should not be cited; and 3) that cited articles should be about the topic.

With respect to #1, I have removed that citation. It was just to substantiate the services offered by the company, but it doesn't add any material value to article (other than substantiating that statement).

With respect to #2, I agree. I presume you are referring to citation #27. I have found another citation for that.

With respect to #3, I don't follow you. Every one of the 35+ citations are directly relevant to the article. Please clarify as necessary.

I have resubmitted the article after incorporating the feedback. If you have additional feedback, please try to make it as detailed/actionable as possible.

Thanks, Nick

Nickcova (talk) 21:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Really my comment was aimed at suggesting how to make it as easy as possible for a reviewer to establish that the subject of the article (i.e., the organisation Loadstar Global) is notable by Wikipedia's standards. Having thirty-five cited sources that are relevant to the topic of, say, security in international shipping, is less useful for this than to have eight cited sources that are about the topic of Loadstar Global. So for example I've just done a quick scan of the source "Seaports Struggle With Cargo Security" by Dark Reading, and it doesn't appear to mention Loadstar at all (I may be wrong on this, please point it out if so). It is key for a reviewer to be able to establish whether there are multiple independent reliable sources that talk about Loadstar in detail. If a reviewer has to read all thirty-five sources in order to discover that two, three, five, or ten of them actually discuss Loadstar (rather than topics related to Loadstar), the reviewer might give up before completing that reading. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Ruby McGregor-Smith

Thanks for getting back to me. I've left one more point for you on the Ruby McGregor-Smith Talk Page Best Vivj2012 (talk) 13:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Arthur

H Arthur,

As a gesture of thanks for your barnstar, I have done some work on cadazolid, an article you recently worked on. :) AshLin (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Excellent! The bats are truly awesome though. It reminds me of radio-operated doorbells and toy cars and communications devices and such sometimes having multiple user-selectable frequencies to avoid interference. Now it turns out that bats are just the same! Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Notability of Perry Smith(Major General)

Perry Smith(Major General) has a red link from an existing article on Operation Tailwind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Tailwind). Doesn't that suggest the man meets Wikipedia's notability criteria? Phillip Griffith (talk) 22:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

No, the existence of a red link does not suggest (nor prove) notability. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Articles for creation/Satyandra K. Gupta

Hi Reviewer, What was the reason for declining the article? Kaipakrishna (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The reason for declining the article was that the references provided were almost all written by Gupta, not written about him. Thus they were not independent. Article submissions require multiple independent reliable references with coverage of the subject. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Articles for creation/Great North 10K

Dear Arthur Goes Shopping,

You rejected my proposal for the Great North 10K, as it was not notable enough. However, I disagree, with the Great Run series all having pages except the Great North 10K

Yours sincerely,

Matty.007 (talk) 19:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Matty, thank you for letting me know. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Articles for creation/Dennis L. Kappen

Hello Arthur goes Shopping, Agreed that you have rejected the article but can you explain to me how to make this Industrial Designers page under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Canadian_industrial_designers similar to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julien_H%C3%A9bert Dekappitation (talk) 20:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. You should not make any pages like Julien Hébert because that article does not have any references at all. New article submissions require references showing the subject has been discussed in detail in multiple independent reliable sources.
An example of a recognised Good Article that is about an architect is Louis Laybourne Smith. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Fredrick D. Scott Article Submission

Arthur.... Thank you very much for the feedback provided. One of the most notable articles regarding Fredrick D. Scott's success was published by Ebony Magazine (May 2010). The article clearly details Scott's historic success (Youngest African American Hedge Fund Founder, at the time) and vision, all notable. Although not archived by Ebony Magazine, the article copy may be referenced from Scott's Press Kit (http://fredrickdscott.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Fredrick-D-Scott_Digital-Press-Kit_v21.pdf). We are hopeful that the revised information, and the article copy within the Press Kit will yield a positive result. Thank You Again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.125.41 (talk) 20:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Sources do not have to be available online in order to be cited as references. You should add the Ebony Magazine piece as a reference in your article submission, giving author name, the title of the piece, page number and all other available details. The link to the article copy could be provided merely as a convenience link. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

What do you suggest for Totally Taekwondo entry?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Totally_Tae_Kwon_Do

What do you suggest to make this entry compliant and publishable?

I appreciate any of your help.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike.e.swope (talk • contribs) 22:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

It needs citations to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject. I would also suggest trimming the existing references (there are currently more than fifty) to remove references that cite only the magazine itself. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:PROF

Please read my comment at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Diane Goldstein. On the one hand, in reviewing articles about professors, you need to be aware of the special notability criteria applicable, which are explicitly an alternative to the GNG. On the other, you need to be alert for material that reads as if it were repurposed from another source. DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello DGG, thank you for your advice. It hadn't occurred to me that being president of what describes itself as "an association of folklorists" would mean a person is automatically notable under the WP:PROF guideline, but I will keep this in mind for the future. However, in its state at the time I declined it, the article's only references were three that were not independent of the subject, and one that was not about the subject. Such references do not (cannot?) adequately establish the person's notability. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 18:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Ditto with John E. Jeuck. He holds a named chair at a major university, and that explicitly meets WP:PROF. No further checking is necessary, except to make sure it isnt copyvio. DGG ( talk ) 05:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
That's fine, I have not made any further checks. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alex Marshall

why did you decline this on the basis that the subject was anon-notable? He seems to be the author of several books from university presses, and if reviews can be found for them, he will clearly meet WP:author, &they should be fairly easy to find. (I think the submission reads like a copypaste from somewhere, so I am not simply accepting it--but I haven't found the source.) I am giving some focussed advice to the editor who submitted it. We need to give people appropriate reasons so they know how to improve the article. You can see what I said, at User talk:Rhcbiz. DGG ( talk ) 00:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi DGG. WP:AUTHOR specifically requires one of the following:
  1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
  2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
  3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
  4. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
My guess is that you are suggesting that being "the author of several books from university presses" means that either 3 or 4(c) are certain to be met, but I don't agree.
Aside from that, there is no "decline" option that points to WP:AUTHOR, and the option to add a custom "decline" message has been removed. I therefore chose the "decline" option for people, not just because the article is clearly about a person, but also because that decline template then both explains that adding citations to "secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject" will help, and also wikilinks to WP:VRS. Both of these are exactly what the article creator needs to know in order to further improve their article such that it could be approved.
I could instead have chosen the "submission is improperly sourced" decline reason, but I believe this would cause additional confusion because it implies there are no reliable sources provided at all (not true in this case) and I think it also does not link to WP:VRS and therefore is less useful for the article creator.
I do feel that the edit summaries provided by the AFC tool are misleading to the extent of being problematic, in that they imply an assertion by the reviewer that the subject is not notable. Such an assertion should not be implied; instead, what is being asserted is that the article as currently submitted does not evidence the subject's notability. These are two different things. I will ask the people responsible for the tool to make changes so that this is clearer for future reviews.
Thank you for your help and feedback with my reviews. Do you enjoy shopping? Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
On this specific point, the part you are not seeing, is "creating a significant work.". anything notable is significant. A notable book is one that has substantial reviews--NBOOK is very weak, weaker in fact than I would like. The last paragraph asserts significant criticism, though it has to be shown, as I told the editor. The author is therefore very likely to be notable, and it's a matter of getting the evidence.
But more generally: What is relevant to giving advice, is not whether something meets the apparent text of the written guideline, or the way one personally would interpret it, but whether or not the article is likely to be challenged and deleted. The way we actually interpret the notability rules can only be learned at AfD. The text of all the guidelines is very ambiguous if analyzed in detail, and it is possible to quibble about every word of them, but for most of them there is some degree of practical consensus there, and it has to be learned by observation and experience. What I said is the practical rule, as I have learned from 100s of similar discussions on authors. (The actual text of the rules are almost impossible to change, because one or two people will always raise stubborn objections to anything at all, but nonetheless practical decision are made fairly consistently). DGG ( talk ) 16:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


afc in general

You are correct that the way AfC is set up is very inefficient and not oriented to giving appropriate advice. The people who set it up are not likely to change it, and I thinl the complaints about it will end by getting it replaced altogether. It is therefore necessary to work around it, as is actually rather common at many place in WP. I'm going to explain the way I do it--what you do is up to you, but I do have many years of experience removing or improving unsatisfactory articles. In 7 years, I've removed about 15,000, and rescued maybe 1/10 the number.

I generally do not use any preformed rule at all, and just fill in the additional comments--I only use the prebuilt reasons when the article is not worth detailed consideration and the explanation given is adequate. This is fairly rare: what people need is focussed help about specifically what they should do , not general comments, or ones listing all the possibilities. Take a look at the comment I left on the user talk--that's the important part. I leave it on the user talk page, with only a summary on the article. The system should make this the easy default way, but it doesn't.

But the basic rule about AfC is given properly in the instructions: Deal with the most serious issues. The most serious issues are the ones that will cause deletion of the afc: which usually amount to some aspects of WP:NOT, copyvio and promotionalism. For very clear cases, there's not even the need to review--I go directly to placing a deletion tag. For a hopelessly non-encyclopedic autobio of a schoolchild, I usually use "test page," which avoids any sort of wording that sounds insulting. If done with Twinkle, it leaves an appropriate message on the user talk page. For WP:NOT the prebuilt reason is totally ambiguous, and says nothing exact.

Anything that reads like it is formally written, or in the tone of a press release, and is about a person or organization, has about 50% likelihood of being copyvio from their web site, amazon listing, or facebook. Google testing finds some of it, but it is also necessary to look at their website, and check not just the home page, but the "about us" and the "history". Many articles accepted from AfC or directly entered in the past have been in large part copyvio,

Promotionalism is much more damaging to the encyclopedia than borderline notability. I think you should be more demanding about promotionalism--you're concentrating only on references, but promotionalism is a reason for immediate rejection and possible immediate deletion. For example, I would never have accepted AppsBuilder in the condition it was in when you accepted it--I've now done some drastic editing to remove the typical duplication of content, description of every exposition they presented at, and the standard paragraph on how they founders happened to have come across their first venture capitalist. The signs of this sort of writing are, again, something that is learned by experience.

for notability, the question is whether there is any chance the subject is notable. For example Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Blazed Union. There's no point saying it needs better references. The thing to do is see if the book or the author is conceivably going to be notable. The author isn't in WP, so I checked WorldCat and find neither the author, title, or series. The message to send is that this is not remotely likely to notable, and why. I added it as a comment. similarly for Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Zakti Media Services.

If it is a question of adding references, I have found by experience that new eds. do not understand the sort of references are needed. I find it necessary to direct them specifically. for author or creative people or books or movies or products, the references are normally published reviews. For most other topics, they're magazine or newspaper articles.

And, generally, the way I look at it for myself, is that if someone comes to the talk p. to ask a question about what is needed, I probably should have explained more fully in the first place.

The best way to learn this is to write articles yourself, or at least make major efforts at improving them. I do not see how people can expect to know the difficulties editors face unless they have done substantial editing themselves. DGG ( talk ) 17:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Good catch

I want to express my appreciation for your astute catch on the McCann related articles, and especially for your very appropriate decision to also bring this to the BLP noticeboard for wider attention.. DGG ( talk ) 18:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks DGG. I was rather horrified at the blatant malice of the individual responsible, but also, more importantly, at how easily this sort of thing can slip through. (In fact it had already slipped through on the article about McCann's latest novel, which is being published this month.) I don't actually remember what made me suspicious. Possibly I was already about to accept the submission and was just skimming the references quickly to check everything was in order. Or possibly I am so used to seeing positively biased promotional submissions that a submission full of nothing but strangely out-of-context negative review snippets set off alarm bells.
You may wish to keep an eye on Template:Did you know nominations/Dancer (novel) as it may get approved/queued for the main page while I am not around, and I wouldn't want the malicious unregistered editor to repeat his antics while it's much more visible on the main page.
I had many thoughts on your feedback about Articles for Creation above, but have not yet had time to write them out. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Dancer (novel)

The DYK project (nominate) 10:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for the help :)

Gibwriter (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


Thank you Arthur Goes Shopping for suggesting the need for further references on my submitted article on William Aldrich. I will gather more material and references. KXF (talk) 14:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

new article Miriam Battista

Hi Arthur,

Many thanks for your help in cleaning up this article and getting it up to C-class! Would you have time to look at the new citations I just added for the obits of Russell Maloney and Lloyd Rosamond and make sure that they're correct? Also, is there anything that can be done about the Variety citations, which appear to require a subscription??Ailemadrah (talk) 00:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

EmpireEntertainment

Hi, I noticed that you had a problem with the article I submitted. I will go over the citations, but is there anything (any section) in particular that is problematic or seems unreliable? If you could let me know, that would be great! Thanks

Mayukog (talk) 16:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, and sorry for not replying sooner. There is no particular section of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Empire Entertainment; the problems with the entire article are described in the decline message at the top of the page. (Click the links in the message for more information about what is required.) Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Arthur goes shopping. You have new messages at Rohijarohija's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Homologous behaviors/Homology (psychology)

Hi Arthur goes shopping, Thanks for your response to my Articles-for-creation-help-plea; you rock. Thanks for the help! Dsmoore4 (talk) 15:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for helping out with my article on Suzanne Romaine, much appreciated! simontcope 08:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slim cop (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wise Care 365

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wise Care 365 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

rejected many times but the author do nothing to address the issues. submission is an advertisement of a software product (chat) techatology 09:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Would you please have a check at the following wiki page, which is about another similar software. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCleaner So, would you please indicate which part of my article seems like an advertisement? I can modify it according to your opinion. Thanks in advance!

And please check the webpage below, in the "product ranking" section at the left column, it ranks #2 in Maintenance & Optimization freeware, which can prove something of its notability, right? http://download.cnet.com/Wise-Care-365-Free/3000-18512_4-75744630.html Looking forward to your reply:)

Transparent Eyeball (talk) 09:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC) Hi Arthur, I tried to contact the user named "Techatology" but he/she is already blocked. Can you help me?Transparent Eyeball (talk) 06:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Unfortunately I don't consider information on download pages about the software they are offering for download, to be independent sources.
I have checked the CCleaner article. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 15:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Arthur goes shopping. You have new messages at [[User talk:Rohijarohija (talk) 02:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Rohijarohija|User talk:Rohijarohija (talk) 02:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Rohijarohija]].
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

N Mohamed Yahssir

Hi Arthur,

Just wanted to understand more on N Mohamed Yahssir's article. So sorry... i'm a feature writer in a movie magazine myself so i guess i didn't quite understand the wiki style of writing. :)

Please help with the article and advise how i can get it published.

I was invited as a member of the press to a movie screening for this gentleman's latest offering 'lost in paradise' - that's how i got to know about him.

subsequently covered him in my magazine as well.

when researching him, i realized there was nothing on wikipedia although he's been extensively covered in the singaporean media from as early as 2005.

funny you can't access those articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lvchenteley (talk • contribs) 05:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The tone of the article is much better after your recent changes. The required encyclopedic writing style is very dry and boring compared with the writing style required for film industry magazines :)
My not being able to access the articles is probably only because the anti-malware software here is, as I describe it, "hyper sensitive". Hopefully other reviewers won't have the same problems. Good luck! Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Scranton Gillette Communications, Inc.

Although you turned down this request for an article for creation, the user has already created the article, which I'm not at all happy about. He/she has admitted that he works for the company but says the intention is merely to provide information, not to advertise. Do you feel that the article, with a few changes that have been made by another user, now meets the criteria for inclusion?Deb (talk) 12:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know about this.
The article does not provide sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of the topic. Whether the topic itself is actually notable, I am not sure. Being a company that has been in continuous operation for more than a century probably suffices to ensure that the article is not eligible for speedy deletion under criterion WP:A7.
If you have time, you may wish to investigate whether significant other coverage of the topic exists; and if not, to nominate the article for deletion through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Articles for creation/Ebadur Rahman

Hi, thanks for the feedback, I am still not clear, why my article did not meet the minimum standard for inline citations. I think I have used the referencing templates accordingly. Please help me out, understanding a bit more about the problems of citations in my article, so that I can redo it. Thanks again!Khondokar kalachand (talk) 11:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The "Early life and Education" section still completely lacks any inline citations, and contains a large number of potentially controversial assertions which could be challenged. Also, you should not be using descriptions like "legendary" unless an indepenedent reliable source is cited which says that the thing mentioned is indeed legendary. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Arthur, I just reworked the early life section and the kept the information to a bare minimum...and this information is also culled from Ebadur rahman's writing. I have also omitted words like 'legendary' when there is no independent source to second my opinion.. i am resubmitting the article. Thanks for the suggestion!Khondokar kalachand (talk) 22:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Arthur goes shopping, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! GiantSnowman 14:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help

Propinquity (novel) - Your review Hi Arthur, You reviewed my article Propinquity (novel) – I've added/fixed references, and edited some of the quotes in the section "Reception" for length. In regard to the "similarities" section, it is derived from Propinquity's page on Amazon. However I have read both books and they seem to be accurate to me. So not original research, though verified by original research. I've resubmitted the article. --Anakowi (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The Heavenly Christmas Tree Review Hey Arthur, You recently declined my article on the short story "The Heavenly Christmas Tree" by Dostoyevsky. You said that I needed to explain its historical significance in order for it to be accepted. I did so adequately, but I can definitely add more. One comment I had is that many of the other pages for Dostoyevsky's short stories contain little to no information about their historical significance (example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Honest_Thief, which only has a synopsis). I realize that this doesn't in any way validate my article, but I really would like to understand what is needed, as my analysis and synopsis is much more helpful than the one that actually got published. Any help would be great!ChrisHeitzig (talk) 02:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Daniel Silver article

Dear Arthur, thanks for reviewing the article. I have some questions about the issue of notability. I agree with the fact that having articles written by the gallery in which the artist has exhibited is not an independent source. However having a show in public institutions as prestigious as the Camden Art Center (and many others in the article) should testify notability, since if you're not notable you won't exhibit there. I added references from Flash Art International and Artforum, which are among the most important contemporary art magazines in the world, I hope this will be enough. Out of curiosity: it's my first article so I am very inexperienced, but I don't understand why the article I wrote keeps being refused while the following have been accepted (they don't look that better referenced than mine): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Houseago http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enrico_David

Thanks for your help!

valentina3000Valentina3000 (talk) 01:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Valentina. The existence of poorly referenced articles is not a reason to create even more of them. I also do not agree about notability being proved by temporary appearance in particular institutions. (WP:ARTIST says someone is notable if their work "is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums" or "has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition", neither of which seem to be the case here.) The two references you added look to be significantly better, so it's possible the submission will now be accepted. I will leave that up to another reviewer to decide. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

A Barnstar for You!

The AFC Backlog Buster Barnstar

Congratulations, Arthur goes shopping! You're receiving The Working Man's Barnstar because you reviewed 101 articles during the recent AFC Backlog elimination drive! Thank you for you contributions to Wikipedia at-large and helping to keep the backlog down. We hope you continue reviewing submissions and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! Mdann52 (talk) 16:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Teahouse

Hi, sorry, I accidentally removed a post of yours at the Teahouse, my mouse is playing up a bit at the minute. I only realised when you re-added it. Sorry, Matty.007 14:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Matty, that's no problem. That page certainly does get busy! Arthur goes shopping (talk) 15:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Rachel K

Hello Arthur-

Thank you for the e-mail regarding my declined article submission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Rachel_K_%28Musician%29 I am going to reward it and add more reliable sources. I am here to learn, so please feel free to help me in anyway after I make the changes. You also said that Red Pepper (newspaper) is not a news paper, but it is according to their web site http://www.redpepper.co.ug/ Thank you --DeeAfrican (talk) 02:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello Arthur-

I made the changes to my new article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Rachel_K_%28Musician%29 and I wanted to see if you can please review it again and let me know your thought. thank you --DeeAfrican (talk) 04:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I am happy to allow another reviewer to review this.
I did not say Red Pepper was not a newspaper. I said it was not a reliable source for facts (especially potentially controversial ones) about a living person. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello Arthur- Thank you for your reply and thank you for allowing another reviewer to review my article, but since you're the one who declined it, I wanted to know if I addressed your concerns please. --DeeAfrican (talk) 22:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello Arthur-

Please take a look at my article again, I value your opinion, because you've done this many times, I added an infobox and I took out unreliable sources like the REDPEPPER/Matoke Nation and MP3 Round. lets finish what we've started, please.--DeeAfrican (talk) 04:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello Arthur- I don't understand... You declined my article days ago, I made all the changes you requested, but 3 days later you still have not go t back to me and let me know if I've done well or if I need to make some more changes.--DeeAfrican (talk) 03:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello DeeAfrican. I do not currently have internet access on Saturdays and Sundays anyway. The Articles for Creation process is currently backlogged; there are over 950 submissions waiting to be reviewed. Therefore it could take as much as one or two weeks for your submission to be reviewed again. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Murphy Rocks AfC

it seems to me a little unusual that you should have declined this article at this edit giving the explanation : "subject appears to be non notable." Surely you know that we consider all such named geographic features with a demonstrable existence notable. If you disagree, I look forward to the discussion at AfD. DGG ( talk ) 00:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks DGG, that edit was well over a month ago, but this is still very useful to know! I will keep it in mind when considering other article submissions about uninhabited lumps of rock. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Article submission for Alive & Well television series

Hi Arthur, I will be the first to admit I am lost and overwhelmed here. I read the notes on my declined submission and feel the show is certainly notable as one of the earlier series to focus on green, vegan and sustainable living. The host is well known and has been on many magazine covers, etc. I read the page about referencing and it read like NASA or greek to me, all the stuff about javas and codes and such. IMDB seems to be a valid reference for television series. If you have the time please explain to this newb in the simplest terms possible what I need to add or delete and I will do my best. Thanks again for your time. MusicMafia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicmafia (talk • contribs) 03:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Musicmafia. I'm sorry the referencing instructions are a little confusing. Really it is the result of trying to make things easier by having three different ways of doing it suitable for different people. So, if you try the "Using the refToolbar" section and it doesn't work, don't worry about trying to work out where to enable Javascript or whether it's Javascript that's the problem, just move on to the next section and try that instead. If "Using the refToolbar" does work for you, then great, use that and ignore the other sections. "Using the VisualEditor" to add references is not something I have done myself, but it's intended to be an easier way of editing Wikipedia for people who don't want to bother with, as you describe it, the "codes". Personally I use the method described in the "Manual referencing" section. But try all three - you can't break anything.
If the magazines that have featured the show's host on their covers also discuss the show itself in a reasonable level of detail, then all of those magazines would probably be perfect as sources to help prove the notability of the show. IMDB isn't a good source for that, because IMDB is not considered reliable, according to Wikipedia's standards.
You could also have a look at Wikipedia's Good Articles about television shows - try and find a similar show under "Other series" at Wikipedia:Good articles/Media and drama#Television, and take a look at it to see the sort of sources that such an article would use.
Hope this helps! Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Article for Creation/Florence Mildred White.

Hello,

I am disappointed that my article on Florence Mildred White was not accepted. Much of the police content is based on papers, letters and documents available to the public at the West Midlands Police Museum. I would be grateful if you could advise me that viewing and listing these documents as I have done infringes the original research principal.


TimothyWF (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes I feel that it does. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello again. I would like your advice as to where to go from here. I can precise the Article omitting the Museum documents but I feel that would detract from the writings. Like her contemporary Dorothy Peto (who has a Wiki Article) Mildred White was a very forceful woman. She enlisted the help of the Chief of Constabulary of the time in order to get a post reference. She had the Chief Constable of Birmingham writing her personal letters. She had correspondence with Whitehall directly about her pension. Not being able to put this in the Article I feel misses the point of showing her notability and her being who she was. Agreed they are a Primary source, but that is because no one else but the Museum Curator and me has seen the papers, although they are available for anyone to view. What would you advise please? Thanks.

Any advice? TimothyWF (talk) 16:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

TimothyWF (talk) 19:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John Worsley

Dear Arthur: Good afternoon, and thank you for taking time out to review and clear my article on John Worsley (artist). I appreciate your swift response, and the generosity of your kind assistance. I have taken note of your advice, and will endeavour to locate suitable points of reference. I represented a portfolio of John’s children's illustrations after his death, and I should be able to locate physical references for the more obscure volumes. --Danger Woman (talk) 17:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you from me also, but a search on John Worsley brings up the Lt-General only. Could you possibly put in a disambiguation link? - --Noyster (talk) 20:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I've put a hatnote on John Worsley so that people can go to John Worsley (artist) if that's what they're looking for. I'm also going to add both of them to Worsley (disambiguation). At some point, a proposal may be appropriate that the former Lieutenant General is not the primary topic for "John Worsley", thus we would instead have a disambiguation page and two disambiguated John Worsley articles. Like this; John Worsley (disambiguation), John Worsley (artist), and John Worsley (Lieutenant General). However, for now, we just have the two articles, one with a hatnote leading to the other.
Perhaps we should also nominate John Worsley (artist) for WP:DYK? Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Nominated at Template:Did you know nominations/John Worsley (artist). Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Citations for Mortgage Daily article

Hi,

I received a notice that my article had been rejected due to unsatisfactory citations. I'm confused about this since similar articles use even fewer citations that are less well known or official (such as the article about Mortgage News Daily, which only cites the site itself -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortgage_News_Daily).

What other kinds of citations do I need to complete the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HollyHimelright (talk • contribs) 20:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Holly! You can see a summary of the sort of citations required to prove notability of a topic by Wikipedia's standards at WP:VRS.
Thank you for alerting me to the issues with the existing article Mortgage News Daily. I have added two templates to this page indicating the problems. This article may be deleted if reliable secondary sources cannot be found.
When comparing with existing Wikipedia articles, it is best to look at Good or Featured articles as examples. You can find a variety of Good Articles relating to business and to publications at Wikipedia:Good articles/Social sciences and society. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for John Worsley (artist)

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The Navigator (Pocalyko novel)

Hello Arthur goes shopping. Thank you for your edits and moving my new article from AfC. Could I please ask you to review again and assist? I have added the jpeg graphic, but the graphic looks too large compared to other pages like this one, and I do not know how to re-size the jpeg appropriately on this page. Would you mind looking into it and fixing this? Thank you! SSHammond 19:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SSHammond (talk • contribs)

Fixed. The issue is that the infobox template does not require the square brackets or "File:". Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Article for Creation: Development Alternatives

Hi,

I just noticed that you have rejected http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Development_Alternatives_Group because it reads like an advertisement. Can you help me by pointing to specific areas that need to be corrected? I have been working in the development sector for a decade and have been trying to get some of the larger Indian NGOs on wikipedia as I noticed that the Indian community has not focused on them. This is my first article in the series as these guys are among the oldest and biggest.

Thanks a lot, Subirendra (talk) 10:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Subirendra. This is quite difficult to describe, but to a large extent it is the overall tone of the submission that is the problem. So for example, 'address the issues of sustainable development of institutional innovations, combining social and environmental objectives with business-like approaches, bringing together research and technology development establishing "practice to policy” connect' sounds like marketing jargon to me, it is not simple facts explaining to the ordinary reader what the organisation actually does.
More examples: "innovate and widely disseminate solutions", "major capacity", "empowering communities through strengthening people’s institutions", "closer to fulfilling the mission", "promises to be a milestone in a series of global multi-stakeholder consultation processes", "celebrated contributions", "highly successful and cost effective", "advanced learning and memory techniques", and so on. This sort of phrasing is particularly problematic when the statements are mostly not backed by an inline reference to an independent reliable source which has stated the fact in question.
Including a verbatim statement of both the "mission" and the "vision" is not really appropriate either.
You can look at Wikipedia's Good Articles (WP:GA) to see how others have written about organisations. An example is Baltimore Urban Debate League which does make mention of the aims of the organisation, but does so briefly and factually. That article does go rather too far in lauding the accomplishments of the organisation, but overall the tone is not too promotional, and the statements are largely well referenced. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for clarifying the points Arthur. Now that I have understood the issues, I will work on them and try to get some peer review on it too before submission :) Subirendra (talk) 15:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Andrew Stoltmann Article

I submitted an article describing Andrew Stoltmann see below. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Andrew_Stoltmann I would to understand the notoriety of this particular lawyer and why their article was approved? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jake_Zamansky_(lawyer) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.135.185.212 (talk) 15:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything in that article (or anywhere else) claiming that Zamansky is notorious.
The article about Zamansky was created in 2007 when (I believe) the Articles for Creation process did not exist. In addition, the editor creating the article did so from a registered Wikipedia account, which I believe anyone can still do without going through the Articles for Creation review process. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 15:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Ruby McGregor-Smith

Hi Arthur. There are a couple of facts missing from the Ruby McGregor-Smith article that I've included on the article Talk Page. Could you review these points and implement them on my behalf? I want to make sure that you agree with them before any changes are made. Thanks again for your help on the article so far. Vivj2012 (talk) 16:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I have now replied on the article's talk page. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 18:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Again. I was hoping you could review a minor change to Ruby Mcgregor-Smith's article that I've left on the article talk page. Many thanks Vivj2012 (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Backlog Elimination Drive

Dear Arthur goes shopping:

I notice that you have done a fair amount of reviewing at the Afc, so I am leaving you this announcement:

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from October 1st, 2013 – October 31st, 2013.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script is released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

There's a discussion going on about the drive at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/October 2013 Backlog Elimination Drive. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Article for submission

Hi Arthur, Thank you for your comments you left on my article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Tom_Davies_(author)) however I am struggling to know where to go with it now. I can show that the writer has published 18 books (they are all on Amazon) and there are reviews on various web pages but not sure where else to look. I have found 2 new web pages which mention things in gthe article already so i have added these as back up but any help would be greatly appreciated! I understand you must be very busy but hope you can point me in the right direction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerri mouse (talk • contribs) 18:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kerri. This is tricky. First of all, having written books does not make someone notable. Anyone can write a book and make it available on Amazon. Thus, anyone can write 18 books and put them on Amazon. That proves nothing.
To establish notability by Wikipedia's standards, you need the requirements described at WP:VRS which I hope you have already read as it is linked at the top of your submission. There is also WP:AUTHOR which says that an author is notable if "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews".
Now let's look at two of your sources on that basis. "Bono's mystical moment on the road with Merlyn the Magician" is a short article in a tabloid daily newspaper. That's not a great start, because such newspapers are not generally considered very reliable as sources. But it doesn't discount it completely as a source. Also the article, while it does not provide much detail about Davies, is entirely about him, his work, and its influence. So overall this is a passable source at best.
Second, the Librarians' Christian Fellowship review. This is fairly long and detailed, and discusses various aspects of Davies' work, career and life. It also appears to be independent, even though it provides a prominent link on where to buy the book. How reliable we should regard the LCF I'm not quite sure, but overall I would say this is a fairly good source. (Its balanced and non-promotional tone about his career is helpful here.)
I don't have access to the New Companion to the Literature of Wales, but discussion of Davies in it does prove that he is recognised in the Welsh literary world at least.
So perhaps your submission is already coming close to meeting the notability requirement WP:AUTHOR. (You should cite the Scotland on Sunday article as a reference too, if you can.)
However, even if it does, there is still a huge problem with all the uncited content and non-neutral wording in your submission. "now seen as one of the leading writers in Wales" - what reliable source said so? (Your wording implied it was not the New Companion.) "he received a standing ovation" - what reliable source said so? "a figure which was almost better than those who ever listened to Billy Graham" - what does this have to do with anything? "making him perhaps for a few years the only professional pilgrim in the land" - whose speculation is this? If it isn't from a reliable source then it shouldn't be in the article. "There he found his visions made flesh by a media..." - this and the countless other phrases like it are both too flowery for an encyclopedia, and too easily accepting of Davies' views as being correct. The article should neutrally summarise Davies' views, not expound them at length and try to persuade the reader of their accuracy and significance.
I've only created one article so far, but it too is on a literary topic related to an author from the British Isles - Dancer (novel). Do you see the difference in tone, neutrality, detail and sourcing?
I have asked User:Miss Bono, who I imagine is something of an expert on Bono, if she can help too. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I will. Miss Bono [zootalk] 11:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Lots to think about there and work on so thank you all for your help! I can see that I need to be much more objective and include more references. I really appreciate the help as this is all a bit bewildering! Thanks again! Kerri Mouse — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.39.124 (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Arthur - I have made quite a few changes and also found reviews from The Standard, times and Telegraph so these are now included. I have submitted for review but could you take a look in the meantime and let me know if I need to do more to get it through? As always, your help is much appreciated. Thanks again! Kerri Mouse —Preceding undated comment added 14:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

October 2013 Wikification Drive

This message was delivered on behalf of WikiProject Wikify. To stop receiving messages from WikiProject Wikify, remove your name from the recipients page. -- EdwardsBot (talk) 19:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thank you for the top on references needed for my new article. Now that I know what is wanted it will be easy enough to add it :-) Kslossner (talk) 18:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Articles for creation/Southern Crossing (film)

Re: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Southern Crossing (film). I've gone through and converted the list of references, along with relevant external links, to inline citations. I believe this article is now good to go. I'd move it to article space myself, but I didn't want to mess up any AfC processes. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Articles for creation/Subsentio

Hi, Arthur goes shopping, this is mokuri. A Wikipedia page drafted for Subsentio has been rejected 5 times by Wikipedia for inadequate references. I re-submitted the proposed page last night with 8 references, including articles written on the company. At the same time, I notice that many companies appear to have their Wikipedia pages approved with little or no references provided. One example spotted today: a new page for Guavus, a player in the big data analytics. I notice that the objective reference cited by Guavus is their website. That's an objective reference? Another company, a PR firm named Jaymie Scotto & Associates, uses references that include press release and links that go to 404 "page not found" error pages. If Wikipedia is so easy on this pair of companies -- and I'm sure I could find many more -- why is it so hard on Subsentio? I appreciate high standards and I don't mind tough editors - I happen to be one. In that vein Wikipedia should treat all candidates equally, and adhere to the same principles of objectivity that it touts. I look forward to your response. Best regards, mokuri. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mokuri (talk • contribs) 22:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mokuri. Could you provide a wikilink to the Guavus article? I cannot seem to find it.
The Jaymie Scotto & Associates article has a number of problems. These are noted in the templates at the top of the article, and they do indeed need fixing. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Articles for creation: Becca Albee

Please see revised article here. I added a book on the history of the riot grrrl movement that covers the subject of the article and citations from an art magazine with writers and editors. Let me know what you think. Thank you. Dougbremner (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Doug. I'm not really happy to approve it as it is right now. However, I will leave the review open and perhaps another reviewer will be OK with it. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Wiki articles for creation: Derek 'DJA' Allen

Thank you for the feedback you gave. I'll address those issues before my next submission. Esietukeme (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar
Thank you thank you thank you for approving the article (WeWi) I will keep at it in editing and adding more articles to come. Much appreciated! DSNR (talk) 00:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


A Barnstar for You!

The AFC Backlog Buster Barnstar

Congratulations, Arthur goes shopping! You're receiving the Tireless Contributor Barnstar because you reviewed 128 articles during the recent AFC Backlog elimination drive! Thank you for you contributions to Wikipedia at-large and helping to keep the backlog down. We hope you continue reviewing submissions and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! --Mdann52talk to me! 19:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC) 

‎

George Halley Article

Thank you for the editing/cleanup, it really does look much better. I have a question though, the notice of your edit came to me at my email address with a reference that put me on the Scottish George Halley, a deceased footballer from the early 20th Century. Do you know why this is? -Thanks.

--Eric Albert 15:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Semmes868 (talk • contribs)

Hello Eric. No, I am not sure why that is. The article George Halley is indeed about a Scottish footballer. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/George Halley is now a redirect to George Halley (couturier). Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ted Neward

Hi Arthur,

After getting rejected first time, I've added a couple of links which talk about the books the author has written. As you suggested, I have added the sources which are independent sources other than Amazon and O'reilly. I will take a little more time to put some more links. I just wanted to know, how much time do I have to resubmit the article again, before it gets cleaned/deleted? Akatyayan (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Normally, Artices for Creation submissions are only considered for deletion if they are not edited for six months. So you have quite a long time! Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Arthur.

Akatyayan (talk) 17:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikify: November Newsletter and December Drive

Delivered on behalf of WikiProject Wikify. To unsubscribe remove your username from this list. EdwardsBot (talk) 22:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Pension led funding page

Hi Arthur. I understand you approved the Pension led funding page which is an area of interest for me, so thanks for the editing. I have picked up on the Multiple Issues you highlighted and addressed the Orphan problem. There are now links via the SIPPs, Intellectual property, Small Self Administered Scheme,cash flow and pension pages.

I'm not sure how I can help with the copy editing issues. Could you advise on what might need to be done here?

Casius12 (talk) 14:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I have now removed both templates from the article. It seems the few copyedit issues with the article have already been solved by a couple of passing human editors and a bot. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 15:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thanks for welcoming new people! Your Friendly Neigborhood Wikipedian (talk) 15:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Revert on Boston Marathon bombings

Thanks for this edit, but it was plain vandalism and not just unsourced material. Best, Epicgenius (talk) 14:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi! How can you be sure of that? If the editor believed what he wrote to be true, then his edit would have been made in good faith. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Update regarding AfC backlog drive auto-updating with AFCBuddy

Manual updating of your Backlog Elimination Drive page is no longer necessary. The AFCBuddy bot is now automatically updating AfC reviews that are performed when using the Helper script. The bot-generated pages are located at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/December 2013 - January 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive/[Your user name].

Importantly, please note that any re-reviews you may have performed will need to be manually copied and pasted to the bot-generated pages. Thank you for participating in the drive. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Arthur goes shopping. You have new messages at Glaisher's talk page.
Message added 15:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 15:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brian David Dynlacht, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ciliary (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Erie Business Center

Thank you for your time reviewing this page, Arthur!

I am a bit confused, however. I have reviewed approved/live pages of a few similar schools, and I felt that my article more than surpassed them in terms of the notability being covered through good and external citations. For example;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Tech

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortis_Institute

Upon review and comparison, could you please elaborate as to what is missing from my submission?

Thank you! ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idoitfor (talk • contribs) 17:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Idoitfor, sorry for the delay in replying. Unfortunately we do not review articles for inclusion in Wikipedia based on comparison with other existing articles. Each article must stand on its own merits. The requirements to meet for your topic are Wikipedia:CORP and Wikipedia:GNG, as summarised at Wikipedia:VRS. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Arthur goes shopping

Hi Arthur goes shopping! I just wanted to say thank you for welcoming me and helping me a few months ago when I made my account and tried writing my first Wikipedia article. It turned out great and now I'm regularly contributing to other articles too. Thanks for making the world a better place. Have a nice day! Tedsanders (talk) 21:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

My article

Can someone help me? I'm not clear on why my submission was not accepted.Agenthjw (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Agenthjw. Your submission was rejected because its tone and wording were far too promotional to become an encyclopedia article. So for example sentences like "It is their mission to help collectors know that the items that they spend their hard earned money on are absolutely 100% authentic" are more suited to an advertising brochure than to an encyclopedia. The mission of the business is to make money. Additionally, claims like "close to a billion dollars were generated off of deals" need an inline citation to an independent reliable source. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Spore (agricultural publication)

I was very surprised that you rejected this article on the grounds that Spore is not notable. It has a circulation of 70,000, is very widely read and much appreciated in 79 ACP developing countries. As well, if this is not a notable publication then please tell me why the following magazines that appear in the Agricultural Magazine category are considered notable. I could just about accept the rejection of Spore if Wikipedia was being consistent but Spore is certainly more notable than any of the following and the article provides more information than is provided about any of the following.Hereford World, High Plains Journal, Small Farmer's Journal, Smallholder (magazine), Western Livestock Journal, The Western Producer. Thanks Roundtheworld (talk) 09:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Roundtheworld. I think the issue regarding consistency is adequately covered in the answer to your question at the Teahouse. It may be that the magazine is notable, but I couldn't see it clearly evidenced in the submission when I considered it. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Here is my reply to the Teahouse.
The problem I face is that there is clear evidence that Spore receives a lot of coverage but that that coverage is not necessarily something that should go in an article. From a brief Google, just to give you some idea: http://teeal.org/fr/node/2234 describes Spore as “ prestigious” while http://aru.ac.ug/component/content/article/8-application-deadline/103-aru-in-spore-magazine.html refers to it as “famous”. http://businessinnovationfacility.org/group/agribusiness/forum/topics/spore-online-magazine-for-agriculture-and-rural-development?xg_source=activity says it “is a great magazine for agricultural and rural development” It is featured by the World Meteorological Organization http://library.wmo.int/opac/index.php?lvl=publisher_see&id=297, and the International Institute for Water and Environmental Engineering http://documentation.2ie-edu.org/cdi2ie/opac_css/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=25340. Websites link to articles, e.g. http://ypard.net/resources/spore-magazine-issue-no-159-june-july-2012, http://news-agriculture.blogspot.it/2011/12/spore-magazine-issue-no-156-december.html and http://evergreenagriculture.net/growing-crops-under-canopy-spore-magazine. Organizations and media reproduce Spore articles, e.g. Africa Online http://www.afronline.org/?p=29228#more-29228 and http://www.belizepoultry.com/News/ViewNews/tabid/87/ArticleId/51/Poultry-Making-the-cut-SPORE-Magazine-No-164-June-July-2013.aspx although as the target audience is in developing countries these often still do not appear on the web. Another example is http://www.cityfarmer.info/2012/02/24/spore-magazine-urban-agriculture-city-farmers/ . Spore is listed on portals such as http://zunia.org/post/spore-the-bi-monthly-magazine-of-cta and http://tilz.tearfund.org/en/resources/publications/footsteps/footsteps_81-90/footsteps_89/resources/ A collection of back numbers is even maintained by a Ukrainian university http://collections.infocollections.org/ukedu/en/d/Jcta65e/5.html. So I think the above is a pretty convincing case for notability but it would be a very boring article that just listed a lot of web sites that reproduced articles. Thanks Roundtheworld (talk) 10:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC) Thanks Roundtheworld (talk) 09:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I have added content and resubmitted. Given that you admit above that the magazine may be notable and I think I've provided enough further evidence that it is I'd be grateful if you could fast track approval. I don't really want to wait another month. Thanks Roundtheworld (talk) 18:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but I think it's best if I let another reviewer make that decision. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I've asked a more experienced reviewer to take a look. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/PIQC Institute of Quality

Dear Arthur goes shopping,

At first, many thanks for reviewing my article. I have created an Article on "PIQC Institute of Quality" using Article Creation Wizard but it was declined. Please let me know how and where to improve so that my submission is accepted. Following is the link of that article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/PIQC_Institute_of_Quality (talk)Farhanshariff123 (talk) 11:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Farhan. Did you follow the links provided in the submission decline notice in the pink box at the top of the submission page? What ideas did they give you about the sort of sources that would be suitable as references for an encyclopedia page about a company? Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Re-Submission

Sir, I edited an article that was declined last week (Lansing Trade Group, LLC) and believe it is finally in acceptable shape. I am having trouble finding the button to re-submit it. Am I not allowed to re-submit it? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5ifthCitizen (talk • contribs) 15:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I think you had removed the decline template that had the blue resubmit button in it. I have now re-added two decline templates so it should be possible for you to resubmit it. If it still has problems, please let me know. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Aziz Nazan Qawwal article submission

Dear Editor I don't know why did you declined my submission. I think you found it nonverifiable. I am from India. My husband about whom my article is created was passed in 1992. at that time computer was not so common here in India, nor I was aware about the internet and its uses. I learnt to operate and surf on net just 3-4 years back. I don't have so many internet links to verify my claim but I have lots of publicity and other material printed in different news papers etc in the period, my husband was alive, if you want to see I can send it. thanking you yours sincerely Mumtaz Aziz Naza — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naza mumtaz (talk • contribs) 17:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

References do not have to be internet links; newspaper articles are entirely acceptable as references. See Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners to see how to properly reference sources, and Wikipedia:VRS to see what sort of sources are required. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear Editor I don't know why did you declined my submission. I think you found it nonverifiable. I am from India. My husband about whom my article is created was passed in 1992. at that time computer was not so common here in India, nor I was aware about the internet and its uses. I learnt to operate and surf on net just 3-4 years back. I don't have so many internet links to verify my claim but I have lots of publicity and other material printed in different news papers etc in the period, my husband was alive, if you want to see I can send it. I added some more links of pages related to my article, please see them too. thanking you yours sincerely Mumtaz Aziz Naza Naza mumtaz (talk) 15:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC) see this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_Rifles http://vahshatedil.wordpress.com/2010/05/30/an-attempted-translation-of-a-qawwali/ http://www.rhythmhouse.in/Detail.aspx?productListing=11760 http://www.setmp3.com/qawwali/11/jhoom-barabar-jhoom-sharabi-(aziz-nazan)/2048.html http://www.filmjournal.com/filmjournal/esearch/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003601560 You can also search by the name "Aziz Naza" or "jhoom barabar jhoom sharabi" or "chadhta sooraj dheere dheere" Naza mumtaz (talk) 12:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC) Naza mumtaz (talk) 10:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Please see my reply above. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

aziz nazan talk article

I have added some citations, please take a look Naza mumtaz (talk) 12:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
A barnstar to you for reviewing at least 125 submissions during the WikiProject Articles for creation December 2013 - January 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive. Thanks for contributing to the backlog elimination drive!
Posted by Northamerica1000 (talk) on 10:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation

Federation of Alberta Gas Co-ops Ltd. article

Good morning. I see that my Federation of Alberta Gas Co-ops Ltd. article was not accepted. Could you please provide reasons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fedgas (talk • contribs) 15:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. The reasons for the submission being declined can be found at the top of the submission page itself, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Federation of Alberta Gas Co-ops. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 15:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

--Muntazir764 (talk) 04:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I uploaded this picture and because of picture captured by my ancester, i am copyright holder, When i uploaded the picture i did not know about the licence. Know i wanted to make it free to use so that it can be used on diffirente airtical. But the question is how to change the licence?--Muntazir764 (talk) 04:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Muntazir. The easiest way would be to upload it to Wikimedia Commons where, as the copyright holder, you can choose a free license. Once uploaded at Commons, you should be able to use the image on any article on any Wikimedia project (including on the Pakistan article on this one). Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for creation March 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello Arthur goes shopping:

WikiProject AFC is holding a month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from March 1, 2014 to March 31, 2014.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2300 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script has been released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks.
Posted by Northamerica1000 (talk) on 02:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation

A kitten for you!

Thank you for your practical and (wonderfully) non-jargon advice for my draft article. After stepping away from Wikipedia I returned filled with optimisim. With in hours I was screaming in frustration. People like you keep new and infrequent editors logged in and quietly active. Thank you.

Coastal.culture.vulture (talk) 11:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks Arthur for pointing out my mistake re contact info on Plymouth City Council --J8t (talk) 18:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance in the tea room, greatly appreciated. Conor Robinson (talk) 13:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Rgs23 (talk) 16:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

I submitted an article to document Shaila Catherine’s work as a leader in the modern day Vipassana movement, and in particular, as an expert in the meditative state of the Jhanas. The article is located: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Shaila_Catherine

The article was reviewed with the following feedback:

{{AFC submission|d|bio|declinets=20140225150032|decliner=Arthur goes shopping|ts=20140118225548|u=Rgs23|ns=5}}

I’d like to improve the article and found the following secondary reliable sources. Before adding them, I wanted to get some guidance to ensure that they would strengthen the case for Shaila Catherine’s notability. Do the following improve the article for inclusion into Wikipedia?

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgs23 (talk • contribs)

There is nothing to indicate that Leigh Brasington's personal website is a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards. If it's not, then it is no use for proving notability.
Interviews are not very useful for proving notability (because they mostly provide information that the person says about themself) but can be used.
A person being mentioned in other Wikipedia articles does nothing to prove notability, because Wikipedia can be altered by anyone and thus is not a reliable source.
I'm not wholly clear on what "referenced within" means. If a publication contains significant coverage of Catherine (e.g. spends several pages discussing her life or work) then it may be useful to prove her notability. If it merely notes her as being one of a number of people who holds a certain viewpoint (for example), then that is not significant coverage.
To be useful for proving notability, the various books would also need to be reliable sources. For example, not self-published by their authors. There is more about the reliability of sources at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.
I hope this helps. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Incidentally, you could also ask for feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism, as I'm not very knowledgeable about the topic. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Arthur thanks for your reply, yes block has finished few days ago
Aftab Banoori (Contributions) (Talk) 13:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Happy_Attack_Dog`s Helping Hand Award
For working hard to Answer newcomers questions at The Teahouse, in turn educating new Wikipedia Users. Keep up the good Work! Happy_Attack_Dog "The Wikipedians best friend" (talk) 20:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Operation Michael

Nice to see that you've taken an interest in the page, on your way back from the shops.;O)Keith-264 (talk) 13:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

re User:Kanawishi/Five Against Venus

Thank you for your advice. I can see why you regard "The Stars My Destination" as the gold standard for articles on science-fiction novels. I will definitely study that article when I am preparing my own articles for submission. Thanks again for your help.Kanawishi (talk) 21:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks much for your help on my article on Progressive World Security! Much appreciated. Theodicyhunter (talk) 11:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

AFc/Rotating Armature Alternators

Thanks for asking project Electrical Engineering about my draft. I'll study "Reviewing Instructions from the HelpDesk" to help me get some of this amazing process.
Your time zone caught my eye. It was 5am when I saw your 9: UTC. Doug.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Douglas Nelson Turner (talk • contribs) 13:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Startup Village, Yokneam

Thank you for approving the page. Now I would like your help to bring it up to B-Class.

One of your comments is to reduce the excessive use of photos. I commented out many of the photos and would like your feedback. I also tried to edit the introduction to be less like an advertisement.

I looked at the external links and did not know which ones are inappropriate.

Would you mind taking another look and provide me feedback via my talk page or the talk page for Startup Village, Yokneam? Unclefeet (talk) 15:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

For review

Can you review my article [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Veron_%28Software%29 ] & is it appropriate for publication ? Nip123 (talk) 22:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Nip123 has also posted this same message to five other user talk pages. I shall answer on my talk page, and I shall also let Nip123 know that posting the same message to numerous talk pages like this is not considered helpful. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I now see that Nip123 is a block-evading sockpuppet, and this account will be blocked too. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks James! That's that one sorted out I guess. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 15:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Dr Pacella

Hello!

My submission was declined and I was wondering what links we need to take out/fix in order to get my article submitted. Thank you!

DrPacella (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Because Pacella does not seem to meet Wikipedia:ACADEMIC or Wikipedia:ATHLETE, the sort of links you need would be independent reliable sources that discuss or describe Pacella or his activities in detail. That is, material written about Pacella, not material written by Pacella. You can read more about the sort of sources required at Wikipedia:VRS (the summary version) or Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 15:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Article for creation (professor test)

Dear Arthur goes shopping,

I noticed your work on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Andrew Briggs and would like to ask for your advice: 2 weeks ago I submitted my article about a professor and educator Serguei Netessine — Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Serguei Netessine.

Could you please review my submission and accept it, if it meets Wikipedia:ACADEMIC (I believe it does). If not, I am ready to correct it in compliance with your feedback.

It is my first text for the "Articles for creation" section. So I hope that you can help me with it. —Alexandra Goncharik -sms- 18:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rescue Remedies Dog Rescue

Hi Arthur,

You reviewed and rejected this article I submitted last August. Apologies for bringing this up so long after the article submission. The 3D world got in the way for awhile, however I am now working on the article again. If this is an inappropriate place in which to discuss this article, I am happy for you to move my discussion, or let me know where and with whom I should take up this issue.

I would like to submit to you a list of reasons why this article should be accepted for publication:

  • Rescue Remedies really is a legitimate, well-thought-of UK dog rescue charity. The way it lists its rescue dogs is utterly unique. Each dog has its own detailed blog – something that does not otherwise exist in the UK and possibly the rest of the world. This alone should justify its listing, since they have done something no other rescue charity has.
  • As you can see by the number of citations, even if some of these were initially unacceptable to you, the Rescue really does have a large internet presence – it just hasn’t been in existence as long as some of the ‘famous’ UK rescues.
  • There are at least two existing citations that are independent: Hertfordshire Life and Dog World.
  • The Charity Commission listing should also count as independent as only legitimate, registered charities can be listed on the site.
  • Twickenham Vet Surgery supports the Rescue and would not otherwise mention it on their site – the same is true of Paws in the Park.
  • Rescue Remedies works with two citable (and other as yet uncitable) organisations already listed on Wikipedia – Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, and Dogs Blog – this adds to the entry’s legitimacy.
  • Other UK rescues listed on wiki do not exactly have a robust number of citations. Examples: People's Dispensary for Sick Animals (PDSA); Battersea Dogs and Cats Home; The Blue Cross; National Animal Welfare Trust (NAWT)

I really would like to see my article published, so any suggestions you may have in order to achieve this goal (beyond citing newspaper articles that do not yet exist) will be appreciated.

Many thanks for discussing this article with me. Wander Woman (talk) 12:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Wevorce

I listed it for afd, as I wantto get opinions on the general question involved. If nobody supports my view, I will withdrawthe afd . DGG ( talk ) 16:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks DGG, always good to get a wider range of opinions. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Randlev and Hesselbjerg

I was amazed to see that you rejected Randlev and Hesselbjerg some months ago on the grounds it was not notable. The Viking sites documented in the article are covered in both the literature and in news articles, etc. Next time you review an article from a new user, please check things out before reacting so dismissively. It must be very discouraging for keen new users to receive this kind of treatment.--Ipigott (talk) 05:52, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:Ipigott. I'm sorry to have slowed this article in its journey to the mainspace; I should have looked more deeply into the claims made about the topic in the original submission. Having said that however, the decline template explicitly suggests to the submitter that they should add additional sources, and this is what has now happened to make the article acceptable for mainspace.
Regardless, I am going to take a long break from reviewing Articles for Creation submissions, as this incident and a couple of others make me suspect I have become rather jaded with the process after spending just over a year consistently reviewing or dealing with enquiries about reviews. In that time I have declined some thousands of submissions, and accepted some hundreds, as well as replying to around a thousand queries. It becomes hard to see the wood for the trees, as happened here.
There are currently in excess of 14,000 Articles for Creation submissions that have been declined on grounds of notability; a significant proportion of them will soon become eligible for speedy deletion under CSD criterion G13. There are also over 2,700 Articles for Creation submissions awaiting review, of which more than 800 have been waiting for review for over three weeks. This, too, has been acknowledged as very discouraging for keen new users! You may wish to take a look at Category:AfC pending submissions by age or Category:Declined AfC submissions to see if any other submissions would benefit from your insight. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your useful explanations. I'm sorry to see you have taken my comments as a discouragement for your useful work on reviewing new articles. Nevertheless, I think all reviewers should take special care in dismissing out of hand the first article new editors try to put together, especially when the criterion is notability. We are losing more and more Wikipedia enthusiasts, often as a result of the draconian treatment they receive at their first attempt. Rather than simply dismissing their work, much could be done to encourage their progress by suggesting ways in which specific improvements could be made to their submissions. Hope to see you around.--Ipigott (talk) 17:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Editing Husab Uranium

I've recently made some changes to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Husab_Uranium_Project which was reviewed by you in March 2014. I am new and would like your advise on the changes already done to the page. I would also request you to advise what is the best way to source the geo location for this mine and add to the info box I added. I would like to get this page more info rich similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%B6ssing_uranium_mine Best Regards, Zzzatang (talk) 23:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Editing Planet Earth

I've recently acquired a Blu Ray copy of this wonderful series and am doing some research into the people behind it. At present, only the Executive Producer, Alastair Fothergill is listed on the Wiki page but I would like to add a full list of credits, especially for the cameraman who did such a magnificent job. I feel the crew behind these magnificent programmes are "unsung heros". Would this be appropriate and if so what would be the best way to do it? Digidavey (talk) 19:41, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello User:Digidavey. I think any Wikipedia article on a TV series can legitimately include details of the most important participants in making it. On the other hand, however, we wouldn't list everyone from the official credits list (otherwise our articles on some Hollywood blockbusters would be overwhelmed by their huge credits sequences).
I notice that Planet Earth (TV series) uses Template:Infobox television, but has actually left out some of the optional parameters from that template, for example "cinematography =" which might be ideal for your purposes. So you could add some of these parameters back in to the infobox and then populate them with names from the official credits shown in the TV series itself. I don't believe you would need a separate independent source for this, since the listed credits are self-verifying much as the plot of a movie can be described merely by watching the movie.
Any top quality Wikipedia article about a TV series would include, as well as the infobox, sections discussing who was involved in making the TV series and how they contributed to it. However, those sorts of sections would need references to reliable sources. You might look for some suitable examples in Wikipedia:Featured articles#Media to see how this has been done in some of Wikipedia's best articles. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear User:Arthur goes shopping

Dear User:Arthur goes shopping. I am intrigued by your username. Who or what is it derived from? And who, exactly, is the "19th Century military leader" to whom you refer on your user page?

Best regards Carlofantom (talk) 12:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington. Although I suspect the username came first and that connection afterwards. The modern obsession with shopping is something I find rather unusual and inexplicable, although I have recently begun to understand at least a few of the impulses behind it. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

costurk article about aksa improvemnt

Dear Arthur goes hopping, thanks for your review and advice, I did some improvements hope it is okay now , Thank you for your patience and time Costurk (talk) 14:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Anton Milenin page to be improved

Dear Arthur goes shopping, thanks for your review. This ([1]) is my first page in English Wikipedia, and I am writing on a Russian director living and working mainly in Italy. All the sources I have found directly linked to him are in Italian, but quite relevant in Italian theatre publications, and I would like to be sure that the rejection is not related to lack of relevant sources because of a language/cultural problem (that is: for an Italian theatre professional, someone cited by Franco Quadri is an interesting artist, but for an English professional the name Franco Quadri can mean very little...). The page on Italian Wikipedia didn't meet any problems, but maybe there are different parameters. If this is the problem, how can I resolve it? Main question is about how can I point the notability of the subject. In fact, he is one of the few theatre directors using a technique called "structural analysis of text" originated by successors of Stanislavskij at the MXAT and GITIS... This is the reason of notability for this person in the theatre field, but I had no idea on how I could write it. All the theorical books about this technique are in Russian and there are no traces in wikipedia about it, except the Hermeneutic page wich I included in the "categories", and that is in fact quite general. I also cited the Italian articles in which the technique is explained, or those written by actors telling their experiences through this technique. How would you suggest to make this reason of notability explicit? Shall I go in the technical details, explaining what this technique is? Or shall I write a Wikipedia Article about it so that I can link the person page to the technique page? Or is it enough if I add this peculiarity in his biography, as I wrote it to you? Thanks! Silandcoreng (talk) 15:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


ps I am sorry, I hadn't read your post about been too much under work. I will forward my questions at the Project Article for Creation and at the Teahouse. Thanks again Silandcoreng (talk) 02:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

22:08:23, 17 July 2014 review of submission by Carnalito


Draft:Don Benito Alvarez Toral (July 17)

I'm not sure why it was rejected, at least inform me why so that I can make changes and improve it. Sorry if my writing skills aren't that good. I'm hoping to improve!

Carnalito (talk) 22:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@Carnalito: for the decline reason please check the draft page itself, Draft:Don Benito Alvarez Toral. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

What if the evidence is through the words of the people themselves? Should i create a video? or go to sangay itself to confirm it? Hmm. I've seen several posts in wikipedia that got through with insufficient references or no reference at all. But they still got accepted, I know that it's true though. The topic speaks true because I know the history of my people. That is why i'm putting it up here. What kind of reference do you need if we don't have it on the web? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carnalito (talk • contribs) 23:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

01:14:38, 21 July 2014 review of submission by Shoulderdoc1


Hi, I don't know how to justify the Florida State Boxing Commission being noble but it is quoted on in the press often and a quick look at Google today shows two references, one to a fighter with Down's who is suing the FSBC to fight and another about an unlicensed fighter who fought sometime around July 5th aired on NBC. I would request that this be userfy if you think it is appropriate at this time since this is my first wiki submission and I don't understand the process. Thanks very much. Shoulderdoc1 (talk) 01:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

not there

Sorry, I'm not in London. But I'm available almost any time by Skype--we would need to set up a time, because I don't have it on unless I'm expecting a call. DGG ( talk ) 12:59, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

A pie for you!

One good turn deserves another ;-] Slashme (talk) 09:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Like baklava?

Thank u for the welcome and your cookies! :-)

Btw, I have posted the following message today in the English Wikipedia with a problem I've got in the Spanish one, since it seems as if the librarians there were not willing to understand my point:

I have been blocked in my Spanish account because I tried to blank my Talk page. There were two very old messages, with the matter already set, that I do not want to be in display anymore. The regulations about Blanking read like this:

Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered users, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. The removal of material from a user page is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents. There is no need to keep them on display and usually users should not be forced to do so.

The Spanish Wikipedia librarians claim that blanking is forbidden, although it is not clearly stated at the Help page (where it is written that it is forbidden to erase other people's messages without stating in who's Talk page) and not stated at all at the Etiquette page (where it is only written that it could be done, but rather not). It could be a case of mistranslation or misunderstanding, since in the English Wikipedia there is no so prohibition.

Maybe you can help me to solve out this mess? Thank you in advance.

--Yuanyanyu (talk) 10:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

JAN FRANK

Dear Arthur Goes Shopping

I have revised my Jan Frank submission and added several new references - I am not sure if it has just been rejected again The latest version I was sent seemed to be a previous one....without my most recent changes

any help on this would be greatly appreciated

this is my first attempt at a Wiki article and I must admit find it complex

many thanks in advance

yours sincerely

Adrian Dannatt Adrian Dannatt (talk) 16:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Adrian, Draft:Jan Frank is awaiting its next review and has not been rejected again. I can see you added three sources since it was last declined. I will wait for another reviewer to review it, as it is generally best for the same reviewer not to do each review. Apologies that the article creation process is not as easy as it could or should be! Arthur goes shopping (talk) 15:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Are we seeing NTT PR folk?

I have that suspicion. Perhaps socks or meats, but something is happening here. My duck sense is quacking and was prior to your help desk note. Fiddle Faddle 09:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that both of the editors I've seen are very likely to have a conflict of interest. Which means they are breaking the rules if they do not declare it somewhere, I think. But despite that being the case, it may not be a matter for great concern or alarm whether it is two different freelancers that the company's marketing department have hired to work on two different articles, or one employee who has created a separate account for each article for some unknown reason, or some other combination. If each account works independently on its "assigned" article, and they don't, for example, both comment on the same Articles for Deletion discussion, then it's not a worry. After all, as someone mentioned in one of the presentations at Wikimania, if a company or product is notable but no Wikipedia editors have any interest in writing about it, then conflict of interest editors are the only ones left to do so.
On the other hand, neither seems to be making such a good job of it anyway. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree with both of your paragraphs Fiddle Faddle 16:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
For all the help creating Gulab Kothari page. Mr RD 14:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Arthur goes shopping. I will be back once this is picked up by traditional media. Have alerted Anonymous as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scotthoughauthor (talk • contribs) 23:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Draft: Zoe_Tryon

(User talk:Arthur goes shopping) Thanks for your helpful comments! I have implemented your edits and am currently reviewing the copy for places to cut unnecessary info. I have one more question - if I added some information about Zoe's family history as an aristocrat, her official title is the honorable Zoe Tryon, would that help as well?

Many thanks for you continued help! -User:Emc25

Hello User:Emc25... the family history is probably only worth mentioning if an independent reliable source like a newspaper or reputable magazine mentions it. Perhaps the Daily Mail does. In any case, keep it brief and be sure to include an inline citation to the source at the end of the sentence mentioning it. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 00:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Questions put in wrong places

I am not sure why these are here. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 00:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Draft: Doppler Studios

Hi User:Arthur goes shopping; thanks for reviewing my article submission. As per your suggestion, I've updated the copy to remove any remaining non-neutral language that I found, so hopefully it is now sufficiently neutral. However, you also indicated that I used too many references that were "produced by the creator of the subject being discussed", but none of the sources I referred to were produced by Doppler (or by myself, if that is what you meant), or have any connection to Doppler or myself other than the fact that some are recording industry-specific websites and Doppler is a studio operating in the recording industry. Five of the sources are established music or recording industry publications that discuss the particulars of the recording (or music) industry business, and to have so many mentions of Doppler over so many years (earliest one is 1995, and the most recent industry-publication article about Doppler is from 2013) seems to me like an indicator of notability, but perhaps I am misunderstanding either your statement or the Wikipedia rules...if so, I apologize, and please let me know. Or if you can let me know which of the listed sources you feel are inadequate, that would be appreciated; there are a couple of sources that could be considered questionable, but they seem to me to meet the criteria listed under "Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves" in the Sources section, based on their context.

It seems like that is all I should have to worry about to get this article accepted, so I am anxious to get them addressed, and your assistance is appreciated.

Thanks again, and I'll look forward to more info from you... Drgonzo 1972 (talk) 17:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Mochi (magazine)

Hi there. Recently my draft for Mochi (magazine), was rejected with the main reason stated that the references do not establish the magazine's notability. After reading WikiProject Magazines' writing guide, I felt like it meets the notability guidelines. However, the complaint is that our article did not have enough references outside primary sources. So, how many references to independent sources is enough?

As a magazine, we have have produced award winning work, such as being cited and republished in other new sources, including an academic textbook. We're also a significant publication in the Asian American community, especially in the East Coast. Can we talk about how else to prove our notability?

Kathykpham (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)kathykpham

Hello Kathy. Normally five or six independent reliable sources with significant coverage is enough to establish notability, but sometimes less than that is enough if the sources are particularly strong (and detailed). Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Ducere

Hi, I saw that you deleted my page about ducere and I wanted to know why?

Thank you,

Anissa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anissa ducere (talk • contribs) 07:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Anissa. Draft:Ducere has not been deleted, but it has been declined for publication as a Wikipedia article. You can find the reasons for its being declined at the top of the draft page itself, and there are also links there you can follow for more information. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Dustinclendenen re: Allison HUEMAN Torneros

Hello. I was wondering if Allison Torneros could just be renamed to HUEMAN, which is the name she wants to publicly be known by. Or at the very least, could the article be renamed to Allison "HUEMAN" Torneros? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allison_Torneros Even on her website she just goes as Hueman. Please advise, and thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dustinclendenen (talk • contribs) 16:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

AFC/Andrew P. Hayek

Hi there. Would you mind taking a look at my page for review? I would really love to have it published, and would appreciate any assistance you can give me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Andrew_P._Hayek

Dancer88onpointe (talk) 20:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)Dancer88onpointe

AFCH script

As you're using the old version of the AFCH script, please take a look at this discussion and the question (poll) raised below it.

Reference: Draft:Preeth Nambiar‎; 2014-09-12 23:55:05 . . (-435)‎ . . ‎Arthur goes shopping (Talk | contribs)‎ (Declining submission: subject appears to be a non-notable person (AFCH))

--Gryllida (talk) 11:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

21:29:32, 13 September 2014 review of submission by ChemKrist


Dear Arthur goes shopping!

I have added three more references from independent scientific journals and publications. In addition a history section was added and all references linked to URLs for easier verification.

ChemKrist (talk) 21:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC) ChemKrist (talk) 21:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

October 2014 Wikification Drive

This message was delivered on behalf of WikiProject Wikify. To stop receiving messages from WikiProject Wikify, remove your name from the recipients page. -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

Hello Arthur goes shopping:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – NorthAmerica1000 06:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)



Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Request on 21:52:44, 29 October 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Bacimituti


Hi User:Arthur goes shopping! Thank you kindly for reviewing the Draft: Francesco Lo Castro. As this was my first article, I sincerely appreciate your feedback. Would you be able to point out where the tone is non-neutral and how to avoid doing so? Your comments also state that I should stick to the facts and to fully sourced commentary. Again, can you point out where I did not stick to facts and where sources where omitted? I would like to improve the contents of this draft article in order to resubmit it, so any guidance you can provide would be genuinely appreciated.

Bacimituti (talk) 21:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Right from the start. "...suggest an intriguing combination of..." Whose opinion is it that such things are suggested by his work? Who said that it is intriguing? Are those people independent reliable sources? If so, they should be cited with inline citations. If not, these statements of opinion should not be included.
What independent reliable source indicates that Gianni Cataleta is a maestro? It is much better just to give his name, wikilinked if Wikipedia already has an article about him.
"he attended tutoring classes given by Shaun Baxter and Iain Scott, among others". Is this really necessary?
"honed his craft" ... this is promotional, it has almost no factual meaning.
"clubs, pubs, and theatres all around the world" ... this is slightly promotional, some parts of the world don't even have pubs.
The long listing of people he has worked with and venues he has performed in is unnecessary. It could be combined with the previous section just to mention that he has performed in North America, Europe, Asia, South Africa and Australia. If his partnership with Patrizio Buanne is particularly significant, keep it but cite it.
"Expressing his creativity as a guitarist and composer" ... this is promotional and unnecessary.
"two-time Grammy award winner" ... this is unnecessary, just wikilink the name instead.
"A collection of videos from live performances and album tracks can be viewed on Lo Castro's YouTube channel" ... unnecessary since his website will be provided as an external link and in the article's infobox.
"despite their vastly disparate backgrounds, discovered they shared a dedication to melody" ... this is horrible mushy wording. Either cite it (or part of it) to an independent reliable source that said so, or remove it.
'In the words of the host, "Be ready for a great evening of 'warm and sincere' conversation, and music to soothe your soul." ' ... that is the host promoting their own programme, so it is non-independent and unnecessary.
"among a select group of guitarists" ... better as "among the guitarists interviewed by".
The good news is that, as I mentioned, his notability seems not to be in doubt, so if you can fix up all of that, it should be possible to accept the draft. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks (and help)

Dear Arthur Goes Shopping: Thank you so much for putting my Dinu-Alexandre Grigoresco page up and making the necessary formatting changes. I've been trying, unsuccessfully, to link a couple of images from Wikipedia Commons onto the article. I thought they had gone up, but only see their http addresses on the edit page. I was able, however, to put them up on the French-language version of the page (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinu-Alexandre_Grigoresco). Could you please assist? Cheers, Dakou. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dakou (talk • contribs) 20:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Dakou, it looks like you have been successful in getting the images to display in the English Wikipedia article as well now.
I am a little puzzled by their copyright status on Commons. You indicate that the 1983 abstract composition is your own work ... this would presumably mean that you are Dinu Grigoresco, but in the article you state that he died in October 2001. Presumably one or other of these statements must be incorrect. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

05:46:46, 6 November 2014 review of submission by Tcvella


Thanks for the review of the page. I need some help as I want to know on what criteria the article was rejected. I had also viewed the notability guidelines requirements and it deemed fit for me to be added. I had also added links to exteral sources for your reference and included some of his work.

Claudio Vella 05:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Claudio. The draft includes references to two relatively local media organisations (Times of Malta and the Gozo News website) which talk about a talented and promising young man from Malta successfully taking the first steps in his career, in Malta. One of the references is a very brief piece merely mentioning that he completed a course overseas and was highly praised, and another appears to be a reader's letter. This does not quite meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. The other guideline involved is Wikipedia:ARTIST. He does not (yet!) appear to meet any of the four criteria listed there. I am not sure why you feel that he does, or which of them you feel that he does meet. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Arthur goes shopping, the references and links provided link to other sources, and not only two as you mentioned. There are village website, opera house website, Maltese university, and Gozo Government Ministry, apart from the two yoy mentioned. I have read the Wikipedia:ARTIST and the four creteria listed there and I feel that he meets all of them. In my opinion only the first 2 articles I had provided by Times of Malta, which could be taken as the national newspaper in Malta is enough for criteria point 1. His work was reviewed in tv news and tv programmes as well exhibitions, which I know of at least three. Further he produced work for several villages in Gozo and on Malta which usually are monumental work because it is placed on the streets as a festivities ornaments. These should fullfill criteria 3 and 4 of the wiki: Artist. Unfortunately, I cannot provide any link to these as there are no reference to them online. Claudio Vella 19:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The opera house website would not be considered an independent source in this case, and would thus not be useful in proving notability. The others I am not sure about. I suggest you add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft page in order to submit it for another review by a different reviewer. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews

Hello Arthur goes shopping. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Questions about the article declining

Arthur good day,
Last month I created an article Stormy Atmosphere and submitted it for checking. After a few days I was told that you had checked it and it was declined.
Could you please be more specific and point on the very things which were found inacceptible?
For I have already had such conversations with other moderators when writing the article,
and managed to prove the reliability and the independance of all the sources the article is based on...
Thank you very much in advance,
Truly
Silverray

Hi Silverray. Wikipedia:VRS is the important summary here, as linked in the decline reason. The draft does not have references to significant coverage of the band in multiple reliable independent sources. Specifically, I don't consider Sea of Tranquility or the Dream Theater blog to be reliable sources... and most of the other references are to material produced by entities associated with the band itself, therefore not independent. (A YouTube link to a TV appearance does not really help.) As also linked in the decline reason, the band do not appear to meet any of the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles.
This is a difficult call, though... if the band are extensively written about in independent reliable sources in Israel, then it should be possible to establish notability, even if they are largely unknown outside Israel. Feel free to add {{subst:submit}} to the draft page if you would like a second review from a different reviewer. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

02:24:56, 26 November 2014 review of submission by Asza2014


Hello, I have analysed this page, as well as the pages for the other companies, and I am not sure, why this entry has been declined. What other information can be added to increase subject's notability?

In terms of external sources, would the attached pdf of the article work?

thank you for your support.

Asza2014 (talk) 02:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Attaching PDFs to drafts or articles is not possible and serves no purpose. Your references are almost all company certifications, financial report forms, business directories and the like. These are of no use in proving notability... instead what is needed are independent reliable sources that discuss, describe or comment on the organisation in detail. For example a newspaper or magazine article describing the company or its history at length.
Looking at Wikipedia articles about other companies is not a good way of finding examples if the quality of the articles you are looking at is uncertain. Instead, look at articles about businesses that are recognised Wikipedia Good Articles, from the list at Wikipedia:Good articles/Social sciences and society#Businesses & organizations. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Request on 11:22:20, 2 December 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Kolfinnia


Hi there, I created a page for the Inner Terrestrials. They are a dub-punk band who are massive on the underground scene so I was surprised that they don't have a wiki page (they do on the french version). I had a look through the guidelines about musical pages and I can see how I need to find external references to back up the fact that they warrant a page - but I'm unsure how to go about it. As they are an underground band and do self release albums (and won't go near major record labels) I'm a bit unsure where to find extra information/references. Do you have any tips about where I could go from here? Apologies if I get some of this wrong I've not done a wiki page before! :) Many thanks

Kolfinnia (talk) 11:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

JAN FRANK

Dear Arthur goes Shopping

on 21 August you wrote - see below - that my Jan Frank article was awaiting its next review - is this still true

many thanks

Adrian Dannatt

82.244.224.9 (talk) 16:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Adrian, Draft:Jan Frank is awaiting its next review and has not been rejected again. I can see you added three sources since it was last declined. I will wait for another reviewer to review it, as it is generally best for the same reviewer not to do each review. Apologies that the article creation process is not as easy as it could or should be! Arthur goes shopping (talk) 15:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC) Adrian Dannatt (talk) 11:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

82.244.224.9 (talk) 16:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello again Adrian. Draft:Jan Frank was declined for a second time, by a different reviewer, on 3 October 2014 as you can see by looking at the top of the draft page. While I am not a strong adherent of having to have "a citation for almost every statement" in an article about a living person, in this case the content presented does need more inline references than it has. So for example a statement like "Frank was deeply implicated in revolutionary politics as a member of the SDS" ought to have an inline citation to a reliable source either immediately after it, or at least at the end of the sentence or paragraph. The nearest citation does not mention revolutionary politics, so where does this information come from? Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

16:36:11, 8 December 2014 review of submission by 68.99.208.124


I did everything I could do respond to the earlier decline of this submission. I do not understand why you will not accept the submission on Agnese Nelms Haury given that she has funded a $50 million program in Environment and Social Justice and gave away more than $50 million to causes in her lifetime. You have pages for much less generous programs and philanthropists. Several people have tried to google her since the program was announced and suggested we set up a wikipedia page. I cited many articles about her death and her gift as well as the books she wrote and the causes she funded. Thanks for any further guidance! Diana Liverman (trustee for the Agnese Nelms Haury Program in Environment and Social Justice) 68.99.208.124 (talk) 16:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Diana. The version of the draft I'm looking at does not seem to cite many articles about Haury or her activities... it does mention a great many things she did. Wikipedia's view of notability is not decided by how generous a person is or was, but by whether they have received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. A lengthy obituary in the New York Times or similar national press would be a good indication that notability is likely... but actually the obituary link you provided is merely a paid obituary notice, which is not nearly as useful.
Another problem is that your draft is very closely based on the wording and structure of that paid obituary, which is not an acceptable way of producing Wikipedia content... please read Wikipedia:PARAPHRASE. Also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.
User:DGG, do you feel it is sensible to argue that Haury is notable? She was editor of the Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona, and received an honorary doctorate and various other awards from that university. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Arthur, thanks for the detailed replies at the AfC Help Desk! —Anne Delong (talk) 14:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Anne! That has cheered me up after some sad news today. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

First Submission of Sustainable Sites Initiative

Thank you for getting to my article, Arthur goes shopping. Am I right in saying that the key issue with the article currently is that it uses primary sources and that it is pretty much 'original' research, (i.e. taking the Initiatives work and summarizing it for the everyday individual to read and get an overview of what Sustainable Sites is)? I have found two articles that are secondary sources that I think that I can utilize, but I do know that it will be difficult to eliminate all primary sources as partners in developing SITES, primarily ASLA, are also the largest point sources for news within the profession of Landscape Architecture.

Are these that types of sources that should be used? The first is a brief version of the article that I have been working on and I found after receiving your editorial review. The second is more of a case study and can be a supplemental source.

Sustainable Site Initiative from The Play and Playground Encyclopedia

The Sustainable Site Rating System from The Journal for Surface Water Quality Professionals

Finally, with the two press releases, I felt that these were necessary to include in complete unedited form as to ensure that both sides were unbiasedly represented. Would it help if they were both formatted as block quotes? Dp2b (talk) 21:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Arthur goes shopping!

Happy New Year!

Arthur goes shopping,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. NorthAmerica1000 02:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

A barnstar for you!

The Articles for Creation barnstar
Keep up the good work in AFC Becky Sayles (talk) 02:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Draft: Kins (band)

Hello- I have added references as per your suggestion. Their notability and history are now well supported by sources other than the band's own site; these include noteworthy publications, plus major music festivals, whose own sites show the band in their lineup and cite their success and notability. Thanks for the feedback. Rover3000 (talk) 08:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Interview for The Signpost

This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Articles for creation

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Articles for creation for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (interact) @ 20:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

01:48:13, 11 January 2015 review of submission by 58.178.6.62


58.178.6.62 (talk) 01:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Its me again about my aunt. Elizabeth Martin that you rejected. I am willing to revise this article however you want me to you said that you rejected her because she was a regional artist. I don't understand this at all for the following reasons. 1. My aunt was the instigator of the Low Show group which is a significant group in that in the 60'ies they were advocating for women artists to be recognised. And they were successful. A Phd thesis has been written on the impact of this amazing group. They were dubbed "The women of Dobell!" a very famous artist from Maitland in the Newcastle area. 2. My aunt was one of the prime exhibitors in the Von Bertouch Gallery in Newcastle and there is a Wikipedia page on Ann Von Bertouch. I can write a list of the exhibitions she had there and add photos of her with Anne Von Bertouch. 3. My Aunt had exhibitions with Judy Cassab who is also in your Wikipedia. 4. My Aunt wasn't just an amazing artist with a wide genre of applications of her art, She was also an amazing community spirited person and throughout her life she donated free of charge to the community by, painting scenery for local drama productions, Printing posters for the advertising of these productions. Painting murals on the walls of Newcastle and Stockton Hospitals, Volunteering with children's with special needs and promoting up and coming artists and supporting young women artists many of whom sought her personal assistance in her home. She donated sculptures to fundraising events.(58.178.6.62 (talk) 01:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC))

WP:Co-op

Hey Arthur. I remember meeting you from the Wikimania discussion on retaining new editors from last summer. I wanted to ask if you might be interested in mentoring one or more editors during our pilot of the mentorship space called the Co-op. We plan to run the pilot in in Feburary for about one month. The idea is that mentors will be doing one-on-one teaching based on how an editor wants to contribute, and it's not some huge commitment to teach/learn comprehensively about Wikipedia. We also want to make to easier for new editors to find mentors as well. Your experience at AfC will certainly be valuable for new editors looking to start new articles. If you're interested, please sign up here and feel free to peruse, make suggestions, or ask questions about how the Co-op will work. Thanks a bunch, I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey Jethro. It's great to be reminded of that discussion at Wikimania... I hadn't seen it mentioned much since the event. As I mentioned to a few people afterwards, I felt that the round table discussions were some of the most valuable aspects of Wikimania. And that one is particularly important.
Unfortunately I don't think I will be able to help with mentoring at the Co-op, but it's good to see the pilot going forward. I am rather too short on time to do proper one-on-one teaching ... in fact a lot of my advice to new article creators, although detailed, tends to be rather "drive-by". I do think that AfC, and in particular the AfC helpdesk, would be a good place for Co-op mentors ... or Co-op co-ordinators, depending on how it works ... to find new editors in need of help. There are a great many new editors who are given advice of one sort or another there, but in general no-one follows up to see if they even read the advice, if they made changes based on the advice, if they then re-submitted their draft or not, or if there is any other sort of help or encouragement they need. So, there may be lots of opportunities there for your pilot to carry out the sort of detailed follow-up that I and some other AfC-focused editors lack the time to do.
I hope all goes well with the pilot, and I will try to find time to at least check in occasionally and see how things are going. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Wetherby Mares' Hurdle

Hi, not sure why I've had a message on my talk page an article for creation - not really sure why, I added a few bits and pieces to it but it's not my article and I'm not too bothered if it gets promoted or not - I tend to do my new articles straight into article space. You might be better contacting the user who created the draft maybe?? --Bcp67 (talk) 22:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bcp67. The notifications go to the editor who most recently submitted the draft, which in this case was you in this edit. It's something of a minor annoying side effect of trying to get the endless backlog at Articles for Creation dealt with ... there are thousands of these drafts waiting to be reviewed, of which a great many have not been edited for a very long time. The original creator of this particular draft - a single purpose account - hasn't edited for about three months, so seems unlikely to be back. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Ah, thank you - that would explain it. I probably clicked the submit button after I did my little bit of editing. I'm kind of thinking I might try to get it in a reasonable shape and establish notability but depends on what time I have spare. Thanks again for the explanation. --Bcp67 (talk) 10:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I've moved it into mainspace at Wetherby Mares' Hurdle ... things left in Draft often get semi-automatically deleted after a few months, which would be a bit of a waste in this case. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Cheers - looks like some more work has been done it today - thanks for your help with this article, and all the best!--Bcp67 (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC - Helper Script access

An RfC has been opened at RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script. You are invited to comment. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Request on 17:06:14, 30 January 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by WendigoUK


Hi and thank you for reviewing the article Altered States: a cyberpunk sci-fi anthology. I have added more sources but am unsure if this is enough. Please if you can, take another look and let me know. Thank you.WendigoUK (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

WendigoUK (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not sure that this is enough ... I suspect that the "Brainycat" link may not be a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards, but I can't access that website to check. So I will leave it for review by another reviewer, which will happen in due course. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

22:38:27, 1 February 2015 review of submission by 78.144.121.33


Hello, and thanks for reviewing this article. Can you explain why it has not been approved in a little more detail please? It's a 405-word article with 28 external references, all evidencing a public profile in established internationally significant experimental music festivals and recognised publications. I'm not sure how much more verifiable it could get :-). There was a very useful correspondence with the previous reviewer who advised resubmission as a result of the substantial referencing to these sources. I am a bit confused as to why it coming up against the same problem.

I looked at the criteria in the link, and he's in the category 'others' outside of mass music traditions - it may be this is where the confusion lies. Here are some additional points to document the notability:

Article on Saunders in Grove Music (now Oxford Music Online) which is the main musicological source of notability in classical music (including experimental music). Article about his work in MusikTexte by Max Nyfeller, one of Germany's principle new muisc publications, following an hour-long radio documentary on HR2 by the same author. See below for a list of commissioned work, festival performances, and national radio interviews. This is just an indicative selection. If you want to check ths significance of any of these please follow the links in the main article. As an example see http://www.swr.de/swr2/donaueschingen - this is the most prestigious experimental music festival in the world, founded in 1921, and Saunders has had two commissions from them in the last seven years. See also the 2007 entry on this page: http://www.swr.de/swr2/festivals/donaueschingen/englische-version/history-chronological-table-festival-for-new-music-since-1921/donaueschinger-musiktage-chronological/-/id=3503406/mpdid=2273452/nid=3503406/did=2150600/s0py7n/index.html

- Commissions - Westdeutscher Rundfunk (Germany) / Wittener Tage für Neue Kammermusik (2002) Arts Council of England / Huddersfield Contemporary Music Festival (2002) Sheffield/Southampton Universities / Philip Thomas (2002) Project Arts Centre, Dublin (2003) Rhodri Davies (2004) Yorkshire Arts / Stephen Altoft (2004) Klangverein Stuttgart (2004, 2005) London Sinfonietta Blue Touchpaper Project (2005-7) Music weʼd like to hear (2005) Galerie Mark Müller (2005, 2006) Sudwest Rundfunk / Donaueschingen Musiktage (2007, 2010) Pinakothek der Moderne, Munich (2011) Basel Sinfonietta/Ernst von Siemens Musikstiftung (2011) World Saxophone Congress/RICO (2012) Arditti Quartet / Rainy Days Festival (2013) Spitalfields Festival (2014) SPOR Festival (2014)

- Summary of Performances in Festivals & Concert Series (1995-2011) - Brighton Festival (1995, 2001) Ryedale Festival (1997) Darmstadt Internationalen Ferienkurse für Neue Musik, Germany (1998, 2000, 2002) BMIC Cutting Edge, London (2000, 2002, 2004, 2006) BMIC Cutting Edge Tour (2001, 2004, 2005, 2008) Huddersfield Contemporary Music Festival (2001, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2011) Ostrava New Music Days, Czech Republic (2001, 2011) Gothenburg Arts Sounds, Sweden (2001, 2005) Inventionen Berlin, Germany (2002) Wittener Tage für Neue Kammermusik, Germany (2002) BBC Invitation Concerts (2003, 2009) Electric Spring, Huddersfield (2003) Ultima, Norway (2004) Roaring Hooves, Mongolia (2004) Leeds International Music Festival [fuseleeds04] (2004) Borealis, Norway (2004, 2009) Bludenz Tage für Zeitgenossiche Musik, Austria (2005) ensemble recherche 20th Birthday Concerts, Freiburg (2005) Music weʼd like to hear, London (2006, 2011) Rational Rec, London (2006) Aldeburgh Festival / Faster Than Sound (2007) Donaueschingen Musiktage, Germany (2007, 2010) Blurred Edges, Hamburg (2009) Soundwaves Festival, Brighton (2010) Sonorites Festival, Montpelier (2012) Rainy Days, Luxembourg (2013) SPOR Festival, Aarhus (2014) Spitalfields Festival (2014)

- Residencies- Künstlerhaus Boswil, Switzerland (May 1998) Experimental Studio der Heinrich Strobel Stiftung, Freiburg, Germany (January 2003) Experimental Studio für Akustiche Kunst, Freiburg, Germany (January/July 2007)

- Radio Interviews - Sarah Walker, Hear and Now, BBC Radio 3, 07.10.00 Bjorn Gottstein, WDR3, 12 June 2002. Andrew Kurowski, Hear and Now, BBC Radio 3, 30.11.02 Alwynne Pritchard, Hear and Now, BBC Radio 3, 22 .01.03 Alwynne Pritchard, Hear and Now, BBC Radio 3, 05.03.05 Robert Worby, Hear and Now, BBC Radio 3, 16.12.06 Robert Worby, Hear and Now, BBC Radio 3, 22.12.07 Robert Worby, Hear and Now, BBC Radio 3, 21.03.09 Armin Köhler, SWR2, archived on SWR website. Max Nyfeller, Horizonte, Bayerischer Rundfunk, 22.11.10 (as part of a one-hour profile documentary) Robert Worby, Hear and Now, BBC Radio 3, 24.12.11



78.144.121.33 (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The Grove Music article and the article and documentary by Max Nyfeller may in themselves suffice to go most of the way to proving notability. I'm at a disadvantage here in that I can't access the former, and can't comprehend the latter.
Part of the problem with establishing notability is that of your 28 references the majority are not independent, they are things like the websites of festivals that his work has been performed at, or material he has published himself. These are adequate for verifying that his work has been performed at these events and that he has published the material mentioned, but verifying these things does nothing to prove notability by Wikipedia's standards. Equally, the majority of what you list under Further Reading is material written by Saunders, not about Saunders. Being a published author does not in itself confer notability. All of this makes it very hard to see the wood for the trees as a reviewer, and in my opinion it would be better to leave out the long lists of festivals and performers almost entirely.
As you can probably guess, I have very little knowledge of the subject area. It may be a good idea for you to resubmit the draft again ... perhaps trimming down the material somewhat first ... and I will also ask for advice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

194.81.80.52 (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC) Thanks, that's much clearer. I understand re documenting activities rather than evidencing notability, but I think the point is that this implied through the context. Inclusion in a significant (in this context) international festival evidences notability. The Donaueschingen page is evidence of that (the chronology also shows a number of well known composers for instance).

The subject's own writing is peer reviewed in academic journals or edited books, so does that qualify? It's not a personal blog or self-publishing. Perhaps it might be best to remove those completely as they are only 'further reading' if that complicates it? They're just there to provide routes to more information rather than explicitly as references to support inclusion. Only a couple of them are also there in support of the main entry.
That would be great if you could get some clarification, thanks. I have a feeling this is going to be a common pattern given it's (understandably) a different reviewer each time. Looking at a number of other composers who are active in the same field, there are lots of examples of current Wikipedia pages where there is no substantiation of the claims but they are published - far less than the propopsed entry. It's just a little frustrating as a result - but I fully support this process as it's important for the site to have verified data of course. Just struggling as to what to do next! Thanks again for your help, much appreciated.
No problem. The composers WikiProject feel that Saunders is clearly notable, and an editor from there has now accepted the draft. Thanks for your persistence with this! Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015 Wikification drive

Greetings! Just spreading a message to the members of WikiProject Wikify that the February drive has been started. Better late than never! Come on, sign up! :) Grinding, grinding, grinding... what are we finding, finding, finding... (talk) 20:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar
Thanks for your assistance Patience62 (talk) 16:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Texas Early College Education Programs rejection

My article got rejected because it was not notable. I read the guidelines.

Can I cite other wikipedia articles to help with the notability? For example, there are 100+ articles for each specific example of an ECHS. Each Texas Academy also has its own articles. The Early College Option in Texas has no article (probably because it applies to individuals rather than an entity).

Could I just list 5-10 links for each? Listing them all would be so tedious, and there are additions each year. I provided a link to the Texas Education Agency which lists all currently approved schools. Listing the wiki articles would be to show notability.

The point of my article was to provide an overarching explanation of how these entities exist and are funded, to help parents sort through the confusing array of options. Last year I was a parent searching for an option and had trouble locating information in a timely matter. This is really needed. KV13579 (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC) KV13579 — Preceding unsigned comment added by KV13579 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Listing schools that are part of the program does not really help with notability. Writing an article that mainly re-iterates key points of Texas legislation, sourced to that legislation, is probably not the best approach.

How is the law not notable? KV13579 (talk) KV13579 — Preceding undated comment added 21:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Please take a look at Magnet school, a related program covered in Wikipedia at national level, or Specialist schools programme, a somewhat similar program in the United Kingdom. Using independent (third party) reliable sources as these articles have, is key to establishing notability. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
The law of Texas is indeed notable, and Wikipedia has an article on that topic, Law of Texas. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Incidentally, you might find it easier to add information to the "Primary and secondary education" section of the existing Education in Texas article, rather than trying to create a new article. But it's up to you. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Explanation of draft decline?

Hi, you declined https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Vocademy, but I'd say we have 4 sources that are independent and reliable. Yes, it's a stub, but it seems to meet our inclusion guidelines. Could you explain? Hobit (talk) 03:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Hobit. The version submitted, and declined, was this one, which had no references at all. See the section immediately above this.
Incidentally, which four sources are you thinking of? Some of the sources are press releases, some don't contain much coverage of Vocademy itself. The CNC West one does contain significant coverage, and I guess we might consider it independent and reliable, but almost all its content consists of things said to CNC West by Vocademy, and ending with the line "Vocademy is open to everyone and the ideal place to learn and practice these critical skills" makes me wonder too. As does the URL.
I'm not questioning the notability based on what's there now, just it would be useful to know which four you're thinking of. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Ah, wait, digging through the history I find it's items 1, 2, 4 and 8 from this version. Which is reasonable, though the pe.com page linked does not seem to be significant coverage. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

23:32:59, 12 February 2015 review of submission by JennaSys


Just prior to your review, Draft:Vocademy was recently restored after being deleted for sounding overly promotional. The restoring editor stubbed the content and in the process removed the references. I've since added the references back in and trimmed the content to (hopefully) change the tone of the article to be more encyclopedic. Before resubmitting as AfC again I would like to get your opinion on the current edit if possible. I'm new to wiki editing so I'd appreciate any feedback. Thanks! JennaSys (talk) 23:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jenna, based on what Hobit has said below, I think you should go ahead and resubmit it. It is likely to have a good chance of acceptance. You might want to replace "...they held the grand opening of their first facility...", though, with "...they opened their first facility..." Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, that's the type of feedback I was looking for. I've made that change. JennaSys (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Happy Valentine's Day!!!

Happy Valentine's Day, to you and yours! Cheers, Grinding, grinding, grinding... what are we finding, finding, finding... (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Draft: Grishko

Hey Arthur. Thanks for reviewing my page. As you can see, this is my first stab at making an article and I was wondering if you could let me know which part specifically gave it a promotional tone. I've made some changes already. Could you please let me know if this is better. Thanks! Aspaef (talk) 05:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey Aspaef. Yes, that's definitely an improvement. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Chloe Lloyd

Hello. Is the article which I created Draft:Chloe Lloyd being considered for a speedy deletion? Cause I came across this page on wikipedia - http://speedydeletion.wikia.com/wiki/Draft:Chloe_Lloyd --Princessruby (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Princessruby. The speedy deletion Wikia is not associated with Wikipedia, so it's simplest to ignore material on that website. Your draft is currently awaiting its next review. The draft is unlikely to be nominated for speedy deletion unless it is not improved for at least three months. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok thanks. --Princessruby (talk) 08:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Draft: rsync.net

Hello User:Arthur goes shopping; Thanks for reviewing my article submission and for your comments. My goal was to err on the side of as many references as possible, and then cut them down later as editors suggested. Your suggestion to remove the quora reference and consolidate the rsync.net webpage references is well taken. Question: Would you like to consolidate the reference section for rsync.net, or would you like me to do it ? Thank you. Kozubik (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd prefer if you do it, but please let me know if you have any problems with it. You may find Wikipedia:Named references useful.
Note that talk page additions should go at the end of the page, not the top... I nearly missed this. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello User:Arthur goes shopping; I started working on consolidating the references for Draft: rsync.net, but it appears you finished the work ? If so, thank you. It appears today, however, that another editor flagged the article as non-notable. I wonder if you can provide any recommendations or guidance here ? The subject has media mentions going all the way back to 2006 (lifehacker article) and as recent as 2015 (the EFF warrant canary watch page) and a bunch of other high profile media mentions (register, yale law review, etc.) inbetween. What additional references / citations should I be adding to this draft ?

Thanks.

Kozubik (talk) 17:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Kozubik. I think the problem is likely to be that passing mentions don't contribute to proving notability. While the Register and the Yale Law Journal can generally be considered reliable sources, they don't have significant coverage of the company, they only provide passing mentions. The EFF blog is the same, though perhaps slightly further undermined by the fact that they are including rsync.net as an instance of something they are trying to promote (the warrant canary). That leaves you with the CrunchBase profile, the two awards, and the company's own website. I don't think CrunchBase profiles are ever considered useful in proving notability. The company's own website isn't because it is not independent. The "bestbackups" blog I'm not totally clear about the reliability of... these product summaries sound rather promotional, and I am wondering if part of the purpose of the page is to encourage people to click on the links provided beneath each entry. It ends "We will be doing a review about rsync.net soon here" ... did that ever happen? Linux Format is surely a reliable source in this field, but I can't access the article itself so I'm not sure as to the level of coverage given, plus that's only the one source. So overall I don't think we are quite there yet. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Request on 16:46:53, 19 February 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by 71.160.112.81



Hi. I am working on a page for a pro MMA fighter. I have used multiple sources (newspapers, websites, etc) but I keep getting told the sources are not reliable. I don't understand what the problem is. These are national newspapers and reliable MMA databases. Can someone help??

71.160.112.81 (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

This edit to my talk page is the only edit you have made from that IP address, and you haven't told me what Draft you are working on, so it is difficult for me to see. Is this about Draft:Ian Butler - MMA?
MMA databases, even if considered reliable... which many will not be... cannot in themselves provide the significant coverage that is necessary to meet the requirements of the Wikipedia:General notability guideline. Despite that, they may sometimes suffice to establish that an individual meets a criterion in Wikipedia:MMABIO, though that latter is only an essay. From what I can understand from the Draft, Butler does not yet appear to meet any of those criteria.
It may be worthwhile your asking for advice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

17:24:53, 2 March 2015 review of submission by Ronajeanc



Hello Arthur goes shopping,

Thank you for your feedback and edits! I have adjusted my sources: I removed any press releases the pdf.ed sources I had originally included. I also went back and verified the notability and verifiability of these sources to the best of my knowledge. Is there anything else you would recommend that I can edit, or will this be sufficient?

Thank you again for your help! Ronajeanc (talk) 17:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Ronajeanc (talk) 17:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Most of the cited sources still don't look very independent of the topic to me I'm afraid. I will leave it for someone else to carry out the next review. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

18:12:35, 4 March 2015 review of submission by Bcooper87


Thanks for reviewing my article. Do you mind giving me some tips on how to show this subject’s notability in a neutral manner? He is featured as a legal commentator on news shows, is the legal representative of quite a few celebrities, and is a minor reality tv star. I’d appreciate any guidance that you have time to give. Thanks!

Bcooper87 (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately we do not generally regard someone's use as a commentator... what we sometimes rather rudely term "rent-a-quote"... as contributing to notability. It proves that the news show regards the commentator as knowledgeable on the subject, but it does not constitute significant coverage about the commentator.
Equally, because we generally work from the principle that Wikipedia:Notability is not inherited, working for notable people does not make the worker notable themselves. Of course, there are instances where a lawyer's work ends up making them notable, for example the Chewbacca defense is quite well known and thus Johnnie Cochran is notable in Wikipedia's terms.
Minor reality TV stars tend not to be notable either. Looking at the various links in your Draft to information about Cohen's TV appearances, none of them seem to provide significant coverage about Cohen.
Your best approach might be to add a couple more sources, preferably ones with significant coverage of Cohen, and then resubmit the Draft to see if a different reviewer views it differently. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 15:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

20:50:39, 5 March 2015 review of submission by Sauldamon


Hi there. We run digital strategy and develop websites for artists and music industry clientele like Eminem, Pearl Jam, and Tiesto to name a few—the work that we do is cutting edge as far as digital marketing and merchandising, which is the reason we were acquired by SFX Entertainment in 2013. This event was covered by various notable periodicals like Billboard and Tech Crunch. Our company also has some notable history, specifically how our CEO, Michael Fiebach, helped pioneer music industry digital marketing and direct-to-consumer sales in the mid 2000's. We also employ around 45 people and are headquartered in Philadelphia, not a typical music industry city. For these reasons we're appealing to you to approve our page so that we can be among the ranks of proud Wikipedia page owners.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sauldamon (talk) 20:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Sauldamon (talk) 20:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can help much. Looking at the Billboard article referenced in your Draft, it has just one paragraph about Fame House, most or all of which seems to be sourced from Fame House itself. If at some time in the future an authority on the subject writes a history of the music industry that details Fame House's important role in it, that would make it a lot easier to prove Fame House's notability by Wikipedia standards. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Lawrence Trent Article

Arthur goes shopping - You should be aware that there are well over 30 citations preserved in the Lawrence Trent's article history from January 10, 2015 for validation of content. Upon draft submission, it was suggested to reduce the number of citations to 1-3 for biographies. Req: Science Law Chess (talk) 23:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page as there is some more context there. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Arthur goes shopping Arthur goes shopping - I've updated with citations to help with concerns over validity. If the changes are significant improvements, then I would appreciate a new grade for the article and/or the 'citations needed' banner removed.Req: Science Law Chess (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I've made a couple more changes. What does "pers. comm." mean? Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Arthur goes shopping There were some facts about his biography that were contradictory or never mentioned in the resources. So, for example, I had to contact him anonymously and ask for his middle name, his parent's names, and the exact title of his college degree - pres. comm. is personal communication from Wiki guidelines. Thanks for your changes. I am not sure what is needed to improve the article from here, so any tips, questions, or suggestions you may have are welcomed. Req: Science Law Chess (talk) 04:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Personal correspondence is not considered a reliable source, as sources must be published so that they meet Wikipedia:Verifiability. Further, to provide a citation with a link to Trent's own website for such material is misleading, as it suggests the information in question can be found on that website. It would be better to remove all such sources, thus merely leaving unsourced those uncontroversial items that you have found out through personal correspondence.
For information where two verifiable sources are contradictory, it is best to list both versions of the information while also specifying where (from which source) each comes. Or, if you are confident (from personal communication) that one source is correct and the other is wrong, merely list the correct information and the correct source, and ignore the other one.
I am not aware of any "Wiki guidelines" that recommend using personal communication... can you give me a link to such guidelines?
Several of the references in the article are repeated. It would be best to combine these as explained at Wikipedia:Named references. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Re: "Wiki guidelines" - I had reviewed the Wikipedia:Article Layout Template where it had listed "pers. comm." as an example to use in the references section, so I thought this was acceptable to use. But I understand what you mean and agree with your points. Req: Science Law Chess (talk) 03:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC) - I cleaned up the article. I footnoted repeaters and deleted the "pers. comm." references leaving their correct information intact. Req: Science Law Chess (talk) 05:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for linking this, I think Wikipedia:Article Layout Template was potentially misleading so I have altered it somewhat. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I cleaned up the external links. There are only 2, a Kingpin Magazine article, and a link to Mr.Trent's old podcasts. If you don't see any further problems with the article, then I'll get started on another biography. Cheers! Req: Science Law Chess (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

20:51:56, 9 March 2015 review of submission by Radhikakelly


hello there. first, i hope that i am doing this in the correct format. if not, my apologies and please advise. second, i was hoping you might be open to sharing exactly what i need to fix in order to get the Simrit Wikipedia page amended and up and running. as i read the guidelines for writing an article on a living musician, i feel that Simrit meets the criteria. Please point out to me expressly where she falls short in that regard. Also, it was advised that I find more secondary sources for the article. As her personal assistant, I have spoken with Simrit and asked her to give more interviews of a personal nature that would speak to her biography instead of just sending her usual press kit. i am having a challenging time finding any other secondary sources other than the ones i provided. i simply want to be clear, especially as this is my first wiki page, that i understand what is wrong and exactly what you need to fix it and get it live. thank you so very much for your time and attention, it is truly appreciated. best, radhikaRadhikakelly (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Radhikakelly (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Which of the criteria at Wikipedia:MUSICBIO or Wikipedia:COMPOSER do you feel that Simrit meets?
Please be aware that interviews are often not regarded as being as useful as independent reports in proving the notability of individuals, because interviews are what the person says about themselves, not what independent reliable sources say about them. If there isn't yet significant coverage of Simrit in multiple secondary sources, then she may simply not yet be notable enough for there to be a Wikipedia article about her.
Finally, if you are Simrit's personal assistant, you also need to be aware of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Randy Gage Author blp

Thanks for your review of this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Randy_Gage_Author. I received help from the live support and believe that I have modified the article to meet Wikipedia's guidelines. Can you please take a look again and see if it is okay? Thanks very much. TriJenn (talk) 00:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for improving this Draft. The statement about Gage having been a teenage alcoholic still isn't supported by an inline citation, so this still needs fixing. Other than that, I think the requirement for inline citations for controversial facts is met.
Because the sources used are quite heavily slanted towards interviews and awards lists, I think there may still be an issue with proving the notability of the individual by Wikipedia's standards. Wikipedia:Notability (people) or Wikipedia:ENTERTAINER are the relevant notability guidelines. It may just be that I don't have a high regard for motivational speakers, so resubmitting the Draft will allow another reviewer to consider it instead of me. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The Village in the Jungle at DYK

Hi Arthur goes shopping, thanks for creating this interesting article. I had a few minor queries that need your attention before it's ready. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK for The Village in the Jungle

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

DWF LLP - proposed deletion

You almost instantaneously deleted the proposed deletion tag because you said "I consider the article encyclopedic". As this article is clearly a puff for a law firm and is blatant advertising (even including the firm's logo), it meets the standards for deletion. It can only be considered encyclopedic if one believes Wikipedia is a sort of Yellow Pages for Solicitors. I think it would be much fairer if you restored the deletion tag and allowed a discussion to take place for a week as is clearly the intention behind the deletion rules.Ballyeagh (talk) 22:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello Ballyeagh. In my understanding, the process for a deletion discussion is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, not proposed deletion. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Ballyeagh (talk) 09:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

15:51:37, 20 March 2015 review of submission by Sirswindon


Sirswindon (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I really have a problem. Frankly I don't understand the reviewer's concept of notability. Paluzzii's sculpture was important enough to be in Wikipedia, but the individual who created it, is not? I have read many Wikipedia articles about artists with much less notability, so that can not be why you rejected my article. Paluzzi's painting are in many museum collections as well as many private collections. Please clarify and I shall attempt to make changes, but IT CANNOT BE BECAUSE OF NOTABILITY. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rinaldo_Paluzzi As I am age 90.65 I would like someone to clarify this for me as soon as possible; the stress that it his creating is not good for me!!!!

Wikipedia:VRS is the simplest explanation of what is required for notability. Sources that discuss the topic. Simply making long lists of exhibitions does not suffice to meet this requirement. I see you have submitted the Draft for another review, so I will let another reviewer take their view on it. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 15:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Request on 22:49:06, 20 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Sirswindon


Okay, enough of this bouncing me to someone else, etc. It is obvious all of you believe what I written does not reach the level of establishing NOTABILITY. I have looked at a number of other artists (on Wikipedia) with less credentials than of Paluzzi. I phoned the Norton Simion Museum in Pasadena who has one of Paluzzi's works in their collection. They do have it and are sending me an acknoledgement. I will be contacting all the other Museums where Paluzzi's work is located. For me, that he sculptured a major work that warranted an article in Wikipedia should be enough, but since you do not agree, I need to know what else you need? I will be able to supply details from Museums. In the article I included a statement from the Director of The Museo de Arte Abstracto Espanol, praising Paluzzi, which I can shorten, but should add to Paluzzi's notability, but does not seem to be enough. When I GOOGLE his name, six pieces of his work appear, as does your article on his sculpture and an announcement from the Indianapolis Museum of Art. http://www.imamuseum.org/exhibition/rinaldo-paluzzi-recent-paintings Paluzzi's obit includes: "Rinaldo is internationally known for his artistic talents and his paintings and sculptures are on display in Amsterdam, Paris, Spain, Italy, Switzerland, California, Indiana and Pensylvania." Frankly I really don't know what else can be written to establish an artist's notability. http://obituaries.triblive.com/listing/223617/Rinaldo-Paluzzi/ I plan to start again fro scratch, and resubmit a very brief article, would that help? Otherwise I don't know what to do. I keep receiving notices from different people at Wikipedia and it all very confusing, so please advise me as to what I need to do to have this notable artist included with less notable artists on Wikipedia. Sirswindon (talk) 22:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Sirswindon (talk) 22:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe your points here have been replied to by others in other places where you've made the same points. I will add that a member of museum staff is not an independent source concerning works held by that museum, just as a member of staff of a football club is not an independent source about the significance or otherwise of a football player employed by that club.
It seems unlikely that anyone will be successful in persuading you to provide the kind of sources that would clearly establish notability, and it is the nature of the beast that probably no-one else will add such sources while the article is still a Draft. I am therefore going to take the unusual step of suggesting that you take your proposed article and put it directly at Rinaldo Paluzzi. (Click that red link, then put the article in the large text box underneath the instructions, then put in an Edit Summary in the small text box underneath that marked "Edit Summary", then click the Save Page button underneath that.) Then we shall see whether it gets deleted or not.
A list of recognised Wikipedia articles about artists, architects and similar creative people is at Wikipedia:Good articles/Art and architecture#Artists and architects. Looking at some of these may be useful in seeing what sort of references are recommended. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

19:20:14, 19 March 2015 review of submission by Heid Jense


Heid Jense (talk) 19:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

My draft was rejected due to lack of references. I cannot understand as there are 5 (neutral and reliable) references - in addition to the corporate website - and the article is barely more than two lines long.

I have seen other published articles with less references than this.

Please re-review the article, or at least indicate a SPECIFIC change that I must make to have it published.

Thank you.

As far as I can see, the references you've provided are all company profiles, which do not provide significant independent coverage of the company. What's needed is independent reliable sources that have significant coverage, as mentioned in Wikipedia:VRS which is linked in the decline reason. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello.

Thanks for the response. I just find it surprising that the references were not significant enough, as the entry was only a few sentences and the material presented is clearly referred to in the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heid Jense (talk • contribs) 15:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Draft: Grishko

Hi Arthur, not sure if you remember me from a little while ago but I have gone through a few reviews and page improvements since you last reviewed my page and was wondering if you could take a look at it now and tell me what you think? Thank you! Aspaef (talk) 16:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

For me, it still looks a little too promotional. "master craftsmen" really just means "craftsmen". None of the "Notable appearances" are cited to independent sources. The shoes being handmade should only be mentioned once. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Herb Lotman

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

March 26: Articles for creation: Randy Clark (evangelist) Not Approved

Hi! Thanks for reviewing my submission. I had three reviewers say that I was using too many peacock terms, so I removed references to the subject’s actions. If I add them back in, it will restore the notability of the subject, but I'm concerned it will be rejected again for too much peacocking. Any advice for me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephcotten.global (talk • contribs) 16:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Neutrally stated facts about the subject's life and actions are not peacock terms or promotional wording. My advice would be to concentrate on improving the quality of the sources you use as references. This is what decides whether an individual is notable by Wikipedia's standards or not. Material published by organisations with which the person is affiliated, and other Wikipedia pages, and Wordpress blogs, and (usually) interviews with the person, do not count towards establishing notability. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Martin Dahinden submission

Dear Arthur goes shopping,

thank you for reviewing the submission of my entry about Martin Dahinden.

I am obviously a bit confused as to what doesn't work, as it seems to me as if you have repeated the findings of worldbruce, the previous reviewer?

I thought my edits of the piece in which I added secondary sources such as swissinfo.ch (international arm of the Swiss Broadcasting Corporation, an independent public broadcaster roughly comparably to NPR (National Public Radio) or ABP (American Public Broadcasting) in the US, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SRG_SSR), along with an article of the Washington Post, as well as a secondary source article from Tufts University's Fletcher Forum, amended the major flaw of the lack of secondary sources.

As for the notability of the Ambassador, I would like to make the case that his is an exceptionally important diplomatic position, given that Switzerland represents the United States diplomatically in Iran and Cuba - which is a unique function no other country performs.

Even if this were still insufficient to establish the notability of the Swiss Ambassador to the United States, then I am still confused why his predecessor Hon. Manuel Sager did get approval to his own Wiki page (which would need some editing btw), as have countless other diplomats/ambassadors to the United States (I've pointed out Peter Westmacott before, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Westmacott - whose notability looks to me much less established than Amb. Dahinden's, and whose entry doesn't have any independent secondary sources). In other words, why did he and other ambassadors get approval for their entries while Ambassador Dahinden doesn't?

If there's something else that is not in compliance with Wikipedia's requirements (e.g. categories, contingent information), I would be very grateful if you could let me know. I am happy to do some more edits.

Thank you for your help and time, RAOBZFCH (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

This is something of a borderline case. My first thoughts were that any head of diplomatic mission to the United States from a major country would be almost automatically notable. But Wikipedia:Diplomatic notability, although it is only an essay, suggests otherwise... it implies that such people would still need to meet the Wikipedia:General notability guideline or similar.
The first swissinfo source is indeed independent and reliable, but is quite limited in scope... I would question whether it qualifies as significant coverage. The other, and the Fletcher Forum piece, are interviews, so are less useful in proving notability. The Washington Post source is not really about Dahinden, but merely offers some quotes from him about an exhibition that is the actual topic covered.
The article on Westmacott was created in 2006, when newly created articles were not reviewed before acceptance. In general, we don't consider the quality of existing articles when reviewing new ones... if there are problems with other articles then those need fixing, as opposed to adding more new articles with similar problems.
Adding categories is not a priority... I normally consider basic categorisation to be the responsibility of the accepting reviewer, and I regularly accept articles where no categories have been provided by the author. However, it may perhaps be beneficial to better format your references, as providing them as bare links only, can tend to make it harder for the reviewer to establish which of the numerous sources provided are providing evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. There are at least six of your sources that are associated with the Swiss government, plus several more associated with the U.S. government, so "can't see the wood for the trees" can become an issue.
John Berry (administrator) is a recognised Wikipedia Good Article about an ambassador, so it would be useful to take a look at how the references are formatted in that article.
Given the borderline nature of the Draft, you could resubmit it for another reviewer to take a look. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

09:09:38, 30 March 2015 review of submission by Svetilnik


Hello, Arthur! Firstly, thank you for spending your time on reading the article! Secondly, I would like to know what is wrong again with it.

Start with notability: 1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. Yes, this page (which is the source for Paleoart page as well) and several interviews prove this fact 2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. I'm not sure about it 3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Yes. At least all the illustrations of new species prove it. I found a lot of news on relieble sources (Science, National Geographic and so on), who used such illustrations 4. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. Yes, three first prizes, two honorouble mentions in International competitons/contests.

To say about verifiability, I do not see the problem to put the primary sources into article, because Atuchin is not the author (except three) of them, but an artist who supports the research paper. Also, I argue that the blog of phD in Paleontology meets the requirements of reliable sources. As I said before I found a lot of magazines' articles during the resource searching, but I did not put them into article because I was absolutely sure it would be too much.

Thus, I am open to your further suggestions about the article improvement, but I disagree with your decision to decline it.

P.S. I'm really confused that this person or this one are notable enough and their pages are good enough to be included into Wikipedia, while Atuchin's one is not. I have nothing against Karren Karr or Josef Moravec but it seems unfair to me. By the way, by clicking on the link on the Josef Moravec page, you will see two publications with Atuchin's artworks.

All the best, Svetilnik Svetilnik (talk) 09:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello Svetilnik. I do not agree that the about.com source constitutes significant coverage of Atuchin, nor am I even convinced that it is a reliable source. Atuchin's work being used by a number of significant organisations and publications, does not necessarily mean their work has received significant critical attention. And, finally, winning prizes in these relatively obscure competitions does not seem to me, to meet the criterion of "has won significant critical attention". Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

09:08:40, 31 March 2015 review of submission by Svetilnik


Thank you for reply. I also do not think "about.com" is ok, but I found it in Wiki article, now this source is excluded. However, in other link in this article you can find Atuchin. I have another opinion about "obscure competitions"... anyway, do you think this person is not worth and I should give up? Did you see other paleoartists' pages I mentioned you about? Why they are good enough?

Svetilnik (talk) 09:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

DMOZ is crowd-sourced and therefore is not considered a reliable source. And anyway it does not provide significant coverage of Atuchin. It may be that you can establish Atuchin's notability if better sources can be found. We do not establish an individual's notability by comparing with other existing Wikipedia articles, as they might also not meet the guidelines. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Merinsan submission

Hi Arthur goes shopping, Thank you for your review and input on my article about Spoorthi the title winner of Airtel Super Singer Junior Season 4 of 2014-2015. As per your comments I have removed the promotional tone by removing the reference term 'sponsor' from the article. Other than that I really don't find anything promotional in the article. Would appreciate if you can specifically point out something that sounds promotional in this article and I would willingly remove the same. Thanks again for your review and hope for this article to be accepted at the earliest. Regards, Merinsan (talk) 10:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merinsan (talk • contribs) 09:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems this has now been accepted, so well done. Just in time for her appearance at the concert in England, too. Maybe you should consider submitting this newly accepted article for Wikipedia:Did you know? It could help to further improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to the global south. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your review and continued input on improving this article. Appreciate your efforts. You seem to have corrected the 'special judge' to simply 'judge', which in my opinion doesn't reflect the real fact. There were regular judges in the show who appeared on a regular basis and there were 'special judges' or 'special guests' who are popular personalities of Indian music, who were brought in the show for a one-off occasion. We have to differentiate these appearances from regular judges panel. 'Special Judge' or 'Special Guests' is not meant to show them as a special people, but only as a 'one-off' appearance on a special occasion. If it is not acceptable to use 'special', could you please suggest use of an alternate word, to differentiate these appearances from the regular 'judges'. Thank you for your continued assistance. Merinsan (talk) 06:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I've added one instance of "special" back in. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you again. Also is it ok to call 'Special Guests', who are also called on the show on special occasion like a festival episode, or a 'special episode' honouring those personalities. All participants would reproduce music composed or sung by those special guest appearing on the show as 'special guest'. They would not do any judging, but just sit there, listen and comment on the participants' performance, giving valuable input to the praticipants. Simply calling them 'Guests' doesn't reflect good. Or you may please suggest an alternate adjective in these places. Merinsan (talk) 06:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see that the extra word adds anything useful there, since it's the only reference to guests in the article. The programme producer might promote guests or episodes as "special", but Wikipedia does not need such descriptions. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, could you please check this article. This user Ncmvocalist is removing bulk contents from the article without fair and proper justification. The person of the article being a recent winner of a reality show, this user might be a fan of another contestant and possibly nurturing a grudge against Spoorthi. Could you please do the needful and report this user as vandalising the article and help revert the article back to its original content. Merinsan (talk) 12:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I don't really agree with the quantity of material that User:Ncmvocalist removed from the article. But Ncmvocalist has been editing Wikipedia since 2006, on a wide variety of Indian topics, so the suggestion that they may be acting from partiality in a children's talent contest is patently ridiculous. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for having made that suggestion. I was only able see this as a reason for the bulk content removal from the article by this user. I would withdraw that statement if it is not acceptable. I am open to accept and improve the article in any way positively suggested by other members. But bulk content removal such as this seems excessive. Would appreciate if you suggest any edits to make the article better Merinsan (talk) 14:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015 Wikification drive.

Greetings! Just spreading a message to the members of WikiProject Wikify that the April drive has been started. Come on, sign up! :) One hand on the mouse, one hand on the keyboard... and the feet can do the rest! Hee-hee! (talk) 03:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

08:48:47, 11 February 2015 review of submission by Krivucko


Hi Arthur goes shopping, I must admit I'm not quite sure why the article is marked for the delation. THere is a list of 16 outside references in the article, in Google books search there is over 10 pages of results for NooJ as an NLP tool (not a fantasy character - which seems to be more notable and has a page on Wikipedia :) ). Could you please help with a bit more detailed explaination (example maybe) in how to improve the page. Thanks, KK

Krivucko (talk) 08:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Krivucko. What Wikipedia's general notability guideline requires is significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Almost all of the 16 references you provide are either authored by, or edited by, Silberztein, and therefore are not independent of the topic. I am also not as impressed with Cambridge Scholars Publishing as I would be if the material was published by the rather similarly-named Cambridge University Press.
If you were involved in editing some of the provided sources yourself, please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, as it may be relevant to you. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Arthur goes shopping,

sorry for the late answear - it's been a flue season. :( Thanks for the input. So, I should erase all of the references edited by Silberztein and add some where he is not an author nor editor. Correct? It might take me few days to get things fixed. Do we have a time limit on this? :) Thanks, KK --Krivucko (talk) 15:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to remove all the references edited by Silberztein. As a point of comparison, Forth (programming language), which is a recognised Wikipedia Good Article in the computer science field, has references to several sources authored by Charles H. Moore and Elizabeth Rather, who were involved in its development. But it also has a wealth of references to sources independent of them, and these references are how the notability of the topic is established.
The time limit for Drafts is, effectively, six months since the Draft was last edited. So there is no particular shortage of time. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Arthur goes shopping, I've replaced some of the references edited by Silberztein and also added some new ones where he is not an author/editor. Does this look better now? Are we ready for the Resubmit button or are you still not impressed? :) --Krivucko (talk) 19:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Go ahead and resubmit it. You might still have difficulty getting a reviewer that fully comprehends the nature of the topic, but if so we could then ask for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer Science or similar. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Great! Thanks a lot! Will you still be monitoring the page or should I let you know what the reviewer says?--Krivucko (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I have watchlisted the Draft, but please feel free to remind me if it gets declined again, as I might well see it in my watchlist but forget that we had this discussion. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
It's been declined again, so I have asked for advice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer science. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Arthur goes shopping. Will I also get their replay or you'll let me know what they say? --Krivucko (talk) 08:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
It's probably best to watchlist that page so that you'll see any replies there. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I just got your message that we've been aproved as a Start-Class article - thanks a lot for your help. :) I'll try to add more things to the site from time to time to improve it. :) --Krivucko (talk) 09:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Happy Easter!

File:Chocolate-Easter-Bunny.jpg
All the best! "Carry me down, carry me down; carry me down into the wiki!" (talk) 21:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Horace Batten

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Request on 13:38:02, 14 April 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Bent strings


Hi Thanks for reviewing draft:paul swinton This is my first attempt, so I'd be grateful if you would point me in the right direction. a) it was initially rejected for a copyright issue. Do you think this issue is now resolved? b) I looked at Notability (music) while editing the article and thought I had found enough references: He performed on a top-ten single He was main contributor for a (won) grammy (my understanding is that most grammy's are not for individual people but collaborative) {It's on Jack White's page, but he didnt win the grammy, the Album won the grammy, all Jack did was pay for it (I say "all" in reverence ;-)) He's appeared (as an a 'expert in the field') on TV.

Is this enough, or is it that the references are not independent/good enough?

He has produced +90 CDs, which is more than some of the other producers I found on Wiki. Does it assist if I list them like Mike_Vernon_(record_producer)

Thanks for your time and help Bent strings (talk) 13:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


Bent strings (talk) 13:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything copied from the web page link given by the previous reviewer in the version that I looked at, and a quick check didn't show anything else copied either, so I don't think there is now any remaining copyright issue.
My interpretation of the music notability guideline is that the performer would need to be the entity credited with the single, as opposed to being just one of the performers. So for example Bryan Adams would meet that criterion for his single (Everything I Do) I Do It for You, and Nirvana would meet that criterion for their single Smells like Teen Spirit, but Dave Grohl as an individual would not meet the criterion merely for performing on Smells like Teen Spirit. I could be wrong on this...
Essentially the same applies to the Grammy award... just being involved in some way does not confer notability.
You may want to try separating out things written by Swinton... for example the two ISBNs you give as references... into a separate "Publications" section listing the more significant things he has authored, edited or published. Then see if some more references can be added to reliable independent sources that discuss Swinton, and try re-submitting.
You wikilink Granny instead of Grammy under Awards and Nominations... I assume this is an error? Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
We do not generally assess Drafts based on articles already in the encyclopedia, because there are still many articles in the encyclopedia that do not meet the requirements either. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 15:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
-
Thank you for your guidance. I'll do some more research - it's all interesting & I'm learning. Bent strings (talk) 15:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

SkyTechSport Article Submission For Review Changes

Hi Arthur goes Shopping! Thanks SO much for taking the time to review the article I made for "SkyTechSport". I appreciate the feedback and I am going to try my best to fix everything in order to get this article posted and accepted! I made changes per your request. I understand how some of the links could "sound" as promotional and in turn be questionable, but unfortunately I can't change the way the news articles are written as they are acceptable citations, however I DID go back and edit them to make them in the article in order to sound "less promotional". Please take a look at the page again, when you have time, as I would love to get some more feedback. Thanks again!!! Hope it sounds better! :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:SkyTechSport&redirect=no Alex at SkyTechSport (talk) 22:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC) Alex at SkyTechSport

Some of your key sources appear to be churnalism and are thus not what I would regard as news. However, I suggest you make the following further changes:
  • The unique patented interactive system should merely read The patented system
  • uses multiple smart optoelectronic sensors to track all the key parameters should merely read uses optoelectronic sensors to track the parameters
You could then resubmit the Draft using the blue and white Resubmit button.
You should also read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay thank you! I made those changes and just resubmitted it. Fingers crossed! Alex at SkyTechSport (talk) 23:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

16:19:46, 15 April 2015 review of submission by Bmasone


Hi Arthur, this is my first Wiki submission and I don't understand what you are looking for regarding Secondary References. This is a Society with close to 500 members. We are not making any research claims. At a loss...any help is appreciated. Bmasone (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)BrigBmasone (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC) Bmasone (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello Bmasone, please take a look at Wikipedia:VRS. A Draft cannot meet those requirements when the vast majority of sources provided are either the organisation's own website or press releases. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

14:50:28, 3 April 2015 review of submission by JameswoodSK


Hi, I'm somewhat confused by the rejection of my article on Martha Brockenbrough. I was informed that there weren't enough independent references or citations, so I entered more of those. I got this: For your article to be accepted, you need to add more sources that are not written/influenced by Brockenbrough. This will help show that she is notable. ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 20:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

As for the notability of the person, how is she different from Lynn Truss, for example? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynne_Truss I note that the article about her "needs additional citations for verification." but the article is still allowed. So, why isn't mine -- what's different?JameswoodSK (talk) 14:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)James JameswoodSK (talk) 14:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The article Lynne Truss was created in 2004. At that time, newly created articles were not reviewed before acceptance. I would agree, however, that that article needs additional citations. We do not generally assess Drafts based on articles already in the encyclopedia, because there are still many articles in the encyclopedia that do not meet the requirements either. If seeking an article to compare with, it's best to look at an existing recognised Wikipedia Good Article. A list of Good Articles about authors can be found at Wikipedia:Good articles/Language and literature#Writers, publishers, critics. An article would not need to be as lengthy or comprehensive as these in order to be accepted, but they can be useful in providing an idea of the sort of sources that would be best to use. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I added a new reference that appeared today http://www.kirbylarson.com/friend-friday-martha_brockenbrough/.JameswoodSK (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)James

Sources for Mochi magazine

Hi, Arthur!

Kathy asked me for some assistance in finding sources for Mochi Magazine. I found two:

One is from a U.S. ethnic Chinese television network, and the other is from a magazine aimed at university students. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks WhisperToMe! Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome! It's fun searching for sources and helping people out. :) WhisperToMe (talk) 07:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

14:08:00, 21 April 2015 review of submission by Goequinox


I added several additional citations to independent and verifiable sources. Will this be sufficient? thank you.

Goequinox (talk) 14:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it is, as what you've added seems to be either press releases, opinion quotes from people in the organisation, or material that does not have significant coverage of the organisation. However, you could try resubmitting the Draft to see what another reviewer thinks. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I reworked the draft based on your suggestions and included several verifiable third party news sources and trade journals and deleted anything resembling a press release or opinion quote, with the exception of one reference to a link from the organization that includes SEC documents/information. Hopefully this is sufficient to establish notability. If you have any other suggestions please let me know. Thank you. Goequinox (talk) 19:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

05:44:48, 23 April 2015 review of submission by Christinamm


Christinamm (talk) 05:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


Hi Arthur,

Ive adjusted the reference links correctly however, in the previous authors page of martin had less links of notability as well as dead links so I'm not sure why I'm being rejected and how the other author had theirs up for so long. Please advise, i would like to get this article up as soon as possible.

best Christinamm (talk) 05:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)christinamm

The previously existing article Martin Tillman was deleted as being unambiguously promotional. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to promote things or people. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sockpuppet investigation block opened

You were recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sockpuppet investigation block. Given the legal, privacy and BLP implications of holding the case in public the Committee has decided to run the case completely in camera, to that effect there will be no public evidence submission or workshop. Editors with direct knowledge of the events and related evidence are requested to email their to arbcom-en-b@lists.wikimedia.org by May 7, 2015 which is when evidence submission will close. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

21:12:56, 22 April 2015 review of submission by Sophisticationsg


Hi Sir/Mdm,

Thank you so much for the review.

I have changed the person's infobox from Singer to Person, as his song was not notable enough to be listed in the chart, nor was it nominated for any award. Also, he was not an established singer.

Nevertheless, he is well-known in Singapore for his appearance at Singapore Idol, as well as breast implantation, which became a discussion for a period. He was also featured on various local newspapers and social media websites such as AsiaOne, and have Chinese coverage (articles) that can be found online, with title "新加坡「男歌手」鄭福威隆胸" (Singaporean 'singer' Kurt Tay did breast implantation) and its variations.

Therefore, I would appreciate if you could assist me with re-reviewing the suggested person, not as a singer, but as a person who is known for breast implants and his appearance on Singapore Idol. =-)


Am looking forward to hear from you again!


With many sjncere thanks and immense gratitudes. =)

Regards, Sophisticationsg

Sophisticationsg (talk) 21:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The notability guide for people... as opposed to musical performers... is at Wikipedia:BASIC.
I see you have submitted the Draft for another review, so I will allow another reviewer to make the decision. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


Ah.. Thanks for the link, Arthur goes shopping! :) I'll try to make full use of it.
Regards, Sophisticationsg Sophisticationsg (talk) 08:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

18:04:17, 24 April 2015 review of submission by Mctrixie2015


Hi, you have reviewed and declined my article, could you please explain what the problems are in a more understandable way so I can try to fix the problems? Mctrixie2015 (talk) 18:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Wikipedia does not have, nor need, articles about everyone who has presented a radio show. To decide what topics are suitable for inclusion, we use a notability guideline. This requires there to have been significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources about the topic. In your draft, the two main independent reliable sources that are about Bright (not about his girlfriend) seem to be strictly local coverage from minor news sources in the places he lives in and grew up in. There's nothing wrong with this sort of "local boy made good" coverage, but to me it does not seem to establish his notability by Wikipedia standards. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Question from Arfidalocin

Hi Arthur goes shopping, Thanks for reviewing my submission. I would have a question. Is the problem in detailed results [CEO of Ansaldo STS]? Thanks again. Arfidalocin

Hello Arfidalocin. The problem with the version of Draft:Stefano Siragusa that I reviewed, was phrases like this:
  • successfully completed
  • cum laude (twice)
  • the world's leading advisor
  • defined value-creation strategies
  • followed up their subsequent operational implementation
  • leading industrial players
  • BCG talent
  • entrusted with the responsibility of defining and globally coordinating
  • multinational leader
Another more minor concern I had was that most of the sources used later in the article, although seemingly independent and reliable, appeared to consist mostly of information about the company Siragusa runs, with a quote from Siragusa to illustrate a point mentioned about the company, rather than information about Siragusa himself. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello Arthur goes shopping, thank you very much for taking the time to review the article I made about Draft:Stefano Siragusa.

Essentially you were right. I removed the phrases with some problems. What do you think?

Kind regards, Arfidalocin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arfidalocin (talk • contribs) 14:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

That's looking rather better, but I will allow another editor to make the next review. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arfidalocin (talk • contribs) 20:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Peter Woon

Hello! Your submission of Peter Woon at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Peter Woon

Harrias talk 17:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Request on 17:43:14, 6 May 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Oleksiguy


Thanks for reviewing my article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Cooper_Phillip Unfortunately it was declined again due to "submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability".

A previous reviewer pointed out that the only reference which is good is the one from the Heed magazine: http://heedmag.com/2014/10/08/take-heed-new-artist-cooper-phillips/ and I would need need several like that, from different sources to show notability.

Among notability criteria for musicians I found this: "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc.". So I included a reference to YouTube video where my subject performs the National Anthem in front of 22,000 New Jersey Nets fans: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTBEip0Qwn0 Does this reference count as a notability criteria? Do I need more criterias like this one?

Oleksiguy (talk) 17:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The YouTube video in question is not notable by Wikipedia's standards ... we would not have a Wikipedia article about that YouTube video ... and therefore appearing in it does not satisfy the notability criterion in question. It may be easier to establish the subject's notability by including references to independent reliable sources ... for example established music magazines or major newspapers ... that have covered the subject in detail. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

20:40:50, 10 May 2015 review of submission by Karkull


Dear Revisor Arthur, thank you so much for reviewing my article. Could you show me at least ONE EXAMPLE of sources that need citations? Are the current citations, that I have ALL RIGHT? Or even the current citations that are in the article are not good enough? Is there a problem with formating, or problem with content? By looking at all the instructions, I am not sure what exactly is the problem and what part I need to work on. Is there problem with some statements, that do not have citations? If yes, could you tag at least one of them with "Citation Needed"? I know this is my first article and it would be very helpful to show me some examples what exactly need to be improved/changed.

Thank you so so so much! Have a wonderful day. Eva Allaby Karkull (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Eva. I have tagged the uncited sections that I can see, and have also added a couple of templates regarding other problems. Even once all this is fixed, the Draft will need a copy-edit to tidy up the formatting and a little of the wording, but formatting in itself is not a reason to decline a Draft... the copy-editing can be done after acceptance if necessary. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello Arthur, I can see it now, thank you so much, I will work on it!

Eva AllabyKarkull (talk) 01:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Request on 13:32:20, 12 May 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Thunderrank


Hey Arthur goes shopping. Thanks for reviewing my article. However, I have a few issues I've not been able to solve and figure out. I've made 3 revisions to this article and I've added references but it continually keeps getting rejected. Can you please advise on what I should do?

Thunderrank (talk) 13:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

You currently have seven sources cited in the Draft. Which of the seven do you feel are independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the topic? Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Request on 09:45:11, 16 May 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Frankgray


I need help for my entry The Gray Matrix which was declined on May 9. I much appreciate your comments and have taken them seriously. I have also shared them with an academic colleague, Dr Ross James, who has worked closely with me over 20 years and is familiar with the subject matter. We are mystified by the decision - especially as we compare the quality of the submission against other Wikipedia entries. It seems to me that some background information would be very useful to you so that you can better understand the context.... Bear with me....! I have been writing this in semi-retirement, and have been concerned about leaving an accurate, documented legacy. I feel a need to set the record straight regarding The Gray Matrix and where it came from - and when. There seems to be no better place to do this on the neutral and trustworthy platform of Wikipedia. So here are the main points: 1. I have worked in the international context - particularly Southeast Asia - for most of my working life, and have traveled extensively providing training and advising on strategic planning. The people that I have worked with come from various ethnic backgrounds - and their work is conducted in their own native languages rather than in English. This means that me and my work are best known in Asia. The result is that Radio Programming Roles and The Gray Matrix materials have been translated into many other languages - not on my initiative but on the initiative of those who have perceived its usefulness and have written to ask my permission or have proceeded without it! Thus it is to be found in Chinese, French, Hindi, Bahasa Indonesia, Russian, Spanish, Tagalog and Thai. Maybe more... This also has resulted in few references in the English language environment. 2. It has served well in the non-commercial Christian mission/church context. This tends to be very non-promotional and un-pretentious. I have not sought to promote The Gray Matrix. On the contrary it has promoted itself and been picked up and used around the globe. Moreover it is something for which I have been the gate-keeper and so know it better than anyone else.... 3. Some of the references I have cited are not available on-line - like Straehler's and Windsor's theses. But I can scan the relevant pages and make them available if that would help. 4. It has not drawn much benefit from the academic environment as I have not been working from an educational platform. However, its use has been noted in various colleges, and some of these are noted in the references provided. As mentioned in the submission the Gray Matrix has frequently been cited together with the Engel Scale, with many finding it more insightful and helpful because of the added dimension. This has not been a problem for me or for James Engel, my former professor at Wheaton, who has been a great encouragement. Sadly he is now at the end of his life (I just heard from his wife) and so is unable to comment. However it should be noted that in the Wikipedia entry of the Engel Scale there is a direct reference to the Gray Matrix - but alas it does not yet link to an approved entry.

So that is how it is. You can read a full description of the history of the Gray Matrix at The Gray Matrix - Tracking its History

I trust that this is enough appropriate background to help you re-consider. If this is not sufficient may I kindly request that you point to some specific points that need changing or other changes/modifications that are necessary to bring it up to the required standard?

With grateful thanks... Frank


Frank Gray (talk) 09:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I am really very unfamiliar with the topic area and the types of sources used, so I have asked for advice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard. I should also mention that sources do not necessarily need to be in English to be used. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Draft: Keijiro Suga

Dear Arthur goes shopping: Thank you for reviewing my draft for Keijiro Suga. As this is my first article I may be doing something wrong, but in your comments you note I should include more references. I have already included three sources not directly related to the person I am writing about (Suga Keijiro). Additionally, the number of sources mirrors the original Japanese page (to which I link). I'm not sure what else I should add. Any advice would be appreciated! Thank you Clowy (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Clowy. I am guessing you mean the Mainichi and FIGARO references? At least two of these citations, as provided, do not provide enough information to verify the source. I would expect more details, such as author name, page number, titles etc. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Draft: Joe Zook

Article was originally rejected. I added more information with sources as well as added sources to credit the discography. If this is not sufficient can you please tell me what will make it valid? This is my first article so any help would be appreciated. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicman2112 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't normally review the same Draft twice, so I recommend that you resubmit the Draft for another review by clicking the blue and white Submit button on the Draft page. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

12:12:07, 22 May 2015 review of submission by Robin2437


hi. re my page on Natalie Forbes, she was for many years a well known actress on tv and stage. one of the shows was top of the top twenty. she is/was far more well known than many people who only have a few lines. what have i done wrong? re citations, it's not very clear how to add one within the body of the text. she's far from unknown or unworthy so i feel that rejecting her entry is unfair, especially as it seems that all her co-stars have wikipedia pages?

thx

rob (mail@cherryheaven.co.uk)

Robin2437 (talk) 12:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


Robin2437 (talk) 12:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Rob. Nthep has helpfully demonstrated how to put in an inline citation using the Guardian source that you provided. Take a look at that to see how it's done, or you could look at Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. Your Draft also currently lacks wikilinks - these should be used instead of listing other Wikipedia pages at the end. You might find it useful to have a look at Wikipedia:Cheatsheet to see how to add wikilinks. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


Sandbox

I need my sandbox left alone because it is the only place I can use a chinese matrix program I devloped myself. Until further notice I need this space left alone! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinm.reuter (talk • contribs) 07:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello User:Kevinm.reuter. In order to avoid your sandbox contents being deleted, please ensure that you do not put copyrighted material into it. Thank you. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

But it was written with a cipher. For my use only. It was available in the public domain. How do you even recognize that as copyrighted material — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinm.reuter (talk • contribs) 17:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't written using a cipher, it was every single word from a very substantial portion of Douglas Adams' original copyrighted work, in the same order as the original, with just a few words replaced with unusual characters. That work is not public domain. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Incidentally, I suggest you take texts to experiment on from Wikisource, which are all permissible to use so long as you credit the original authors. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Sougata Pramanick

Hi Arthur : There are scores of articles in Wikipedia (randomly picked up Samit Basu) which do not have cited statements. On the contrary the article in question has quite a few references to 'reliable' sources. The suggested searches by you (From your comment) yields cited results. Need your help to refine the article. Thx. SP 08:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pramanick (talk • contribs)

Hello User:Pramanick. The article Samit Basu is only Start class, so is not a good example to compare with a proposed new article. It would be better to compare with a recognised Wikipedia Good Article. For example you can find lists of Good Articles at Wikipedia:Good articles/Natural sciences#Biologists and Wikipedia:Good articles/Natural sciences#Medical people and institutions that may be relevant. Statements like "had risen to a middle management position at Metal Box (I) ltd., driven by his sheer grit" or "made significant contribution in solving long pending issues related to capsule cross-linking" require a citation to a reliable independent source. Finally, you may need to be aware of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Request on 11:21:10, 28 May 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Wuenschp


Thank you for taking time to review my write-up. I tried to resolve the issues you mentioned. Please let me know if I still need further work. Thank you.


Wuenschp (talk) 11:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

That's an improvement, but it's still not in a state where a reviewer could accept it. The various standards accreditations read like promotional material. Unfortunately, if you were to remove all that, there would not be much left. You shouldn't put links to other Wikipedia articles as references, these should be wikilinks instead... see Wikipedia:CHEATSHEET for how to create wikilinks and other things. This leaves you with only two references, which aren't really talking in detail about the subject of the article, that is, the company. Thus establishing the company's notability by Wikipedia's requirements is not possible based on the sources you have so far. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants

Hello, I was just wondering why I have been removed. I have met the criteria (I think, if not please tell me), also I have created and edited lots of articles, mostly architectural based. Check my page as I have a list of created article shttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wrightie99. I also know the wiki guidelines very well. thanks Wrightie99 (talk) 13:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

You currently only have 422 undeleted edits to articles, according to the edit count. The minimum is 500. Although, you will reach that quite soon I imagine! Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh ok thanks for quick reply Wrightie99 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

19:12:38, 28 May 2015 review of submission by Vanessatara


Hello, I am not sure why this article keeps getting rejected. It is both reliable and verifiable, with citations and footnotes. I have read the guidelines for musicians, as well as the golden rule. Can you please tell me what I need to do for this article to be accepted? I am new to Wikipedia. Is there anyone who can help? Been rejected twice now. Thank you!!

Vanessatara (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Vanessatara. If Anderson does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements, then the article will not be accepted. Do you consider that he meets one or more of the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles, and if so, which? Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

June 2015 Wikification drive.

Greetings! Just spreading a message to the members of WikiProject Wikify that the June drive has been started. Come on, sign up! :) "A wiki of beauty is a joy forever." Seriously. That's how long it'd take to read! (talk) 04:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

02:14:24, 3 June 2015 review of submission by Pt.dkpant


Pt.dkpant (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC) I've only endeavoured to put fact for the benefit of people.Many persons who come to me even after go for Kaalserpa solutions. The fact can well be verified from Sri KN Rao.I would have not endeavoured if Ref. of Sri Rao is not known to me for who knows me but Sri Rao is without a doubt an autority

Thank you for letting me know. Please give Sri Rao my regards and warmest wishes. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

WikiJuggernaut -AfC

You removed him from the list- but note he has already reviewed some articles before that happened. Should they be re-reviewed? Although they looked superficially like pretty easy rejections. Also- his contribs appear to show over 700 edits and an account-age of about two years. Although I see he has a few submissions to AfC himself- which have been declined- and I wouldn't be so cynical as to think that he would review and pass his own articles, of course. Cheers, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 15:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for checking this. If you have had a quick look at the Drafts which he rejected, and the rejections look roughly appropriate, then I do not think we need to do anything else. He will likely reach the 500 edit threshold fairly soon, at which point he may or may not re-add himself. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 15:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

21:29:13, 10 June 2015 review of submission by 86.149.186.230


Hi,

Thanks for taking some time to review my submission.

I copied the same layout of an approved article, I was wondering if you could let me know the differences between the article below and the one I am trying to submit so I could make the relevant changes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Hafner

Thanks

86.149.186.230 (talk) 21:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Many Wikipedia articles exist which do not meet the desirable standards... this is partly because new articles could be created without being reviewed, up until a few years ago. Alex Hafner has now been proposed for deletion. So when using an existing article as a comparison or an example to work from, it would be better to use a recognised Wikipedia Good Article. You can find lists of these recognised Good Articles in the various headings and sub-sections to be found after scrolling down the page at Wikipedia:Good articles. A Draft need not be quite so comprehensive or comprehensively referenced as these to be accepted, but they can help to give an idea of the sort of sources, sourcing, and tone that is required. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 22:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

23:20:18, 10 June 2015 review of submission by 82.9.47.116

Hello, and thank you for taking the time to review my draft copy. I can't understand why it was rejected? I've read over all your guidance pages and advice and meet most of the requirements. I've had spelling rechecked and again most of that is also acceptable.

Please can you offer your request so correct editing can take place. Thank you.


82.9.47.116 (talk) 23:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The Draft needs citations to independent reliable sources, so that the statements made about the beavers, particularly their predilections for cheese and lemon juice, can be verified. Take a look at the similarly themed articles Anti-tank dog or Bat bomb, or perhaps the exploding suicide ant Camponotus saundersi, to see the sorts of sources that would be suitable.
Do they attack Monty Python as well as Olive pythons? Arthur goes shopping (talk) 23:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

2 May 2015 - Could you please check if I revised the page accordingly?

Dear Mr. Arthur goes shopping, Thank you very much for reviewing and accepting my page about Dr. Rehani at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madan_M._Rehani I have made revisions to the page and I was hoping that you could have a look to see if the changes I've made warrant the removal of the two remaining 'issues' (i.e. primary sources and tone of language). I have added several independent sources regarding Dr. Rehani's positions and work, and I have changed the language to a neutral tone. Please note that I took the liberty to remove the third issue (orphan page) myself, as the page of the International Organization of Medical Physcics has a link to Dr. Rehani's page. Should you have any suggestions for further improvement, I would love to hear them. Many thanks, Ruben

I'm not really happy to remove the templates. The article still reads like a listing of Rehani's experience and achievements, rather than reading like an encyclopedic biography of him. Which of the added sources are completely independent of Rehani? Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I appreciate the time and effort taken to ensure that this ends up being a proper Wikipedia article, but I'm not sure how to proceed from here. I have based this page on several other Wiki pages of scientists in a similar field and with similar accomplishments (all of which were not flagged with these two issues); I have added some examples at the end of this message. All of these are simply lists of accomplishments, which is indeed what defines a scientist (like a musician is defined by their discography). As of now, the pages mentions (1) where he comes from, (2) where he has been and (3) what he has done (which for scientists means: research & teaching). What else do you wish me to add? Regarding the added sources, the following references are external (i.e. not created by Rehani himself, directly or indirectly): 2, 3, 4, 14, 15, 16, 18, and 20. Here is a selection of article which inspired the one I made. Please have a look at the content and external references (or lack thereof): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanjiv_Sam_Gambhir http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_K._Min http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willi_Kalender https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_G._Farman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vijay_P._Parashar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pauwelsruben (talk • contribs) 10:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
We don't generally consider the website of an organisation for which a person has worked, to be an independent source about that person. As regards articles to base a Draft on, it is not generally useful to merely pick an article on a similar topic, because that article may not adhere to Wikipedia's quality guidelines either. Instead, you should look at recognised Wikipedia Good Articles. You can find such articles about scientific academics at Category:GA-Class biography (science and academia) articles. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification regarding independent sources. I will have to keep looking for better sources about this person. Thanks a lot for the link to Good Articles, this is very helpful; I will be sure to use these as a base for any further modifications I make to Rehani's page or any other pages. At some point in the future, I may contact you again to have another look, but only after I consider the article to be significantly improved. Pauwelsruben (talk) 05:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Help on Tom Crowl entry

I noticed that you mentioned that my article on Tom Crowl sounded more like an advertisement and needed more reliable sources. Tom has done a lot for the ventriloquist community and should be on Wikipedia so if you could tell me anything that should be added or omitted to get this through that would be fantastic. Here's the link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Tom_Crowl

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ventdanieljay (talk • contribs) 18:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Have you checked the comments I left on the Draft? The Washington Times source is useful in helping to prove the notability of Crowl. The other sources provided are not useful for this, because they are apparently all associated with Crowl in one way or another. So, more of the former and less of the latter, please. As I also noted there, encyclopedia articles do not use phrases like " ... utilizing your talents to grow your income online ... " Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

15:43:00, 17 June 2015 review of submission by Lauren gurganus


I would like to request more specific details on why my article was rejected. I understand I need to have a more neutral tone in writing. Any suggestions? Thanks! Lauren gurganus (talk) 15:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Lauren. Your recent changes have helped with the tone, but I would still have issues with phrasing like "works closely with its agency partners in order to assist them in providing substantial and sustainable change" and "work together to identify the most critical, unmet needs" and "concrete solutions that address these local needs in the most efficient and sustainable way possible. The goal is to provide avenues for those in need to be able to help themselves". This is very woolly promotional language that is more suited to a brochure or the organization's website, rather than an encyclopedia article.
Secondly, you currently only have one source listed (the other is another Wikipedia page), plus the organization's own website. And it's not entirely clear what "Cape Fear Area United Way: History of the United Fund of New Hanover County by NC Room Staff of NHC Public Library" actually is. A printed document in that library? A collection of documents in that library? A published work with an identifiable author? You need a variety of independent reliable sources that give detailed coverage of the organization, to establish that it is notable by Wikipedia's standards.
Thirdly, I am left largely unclear as to what the organization actually does, and how it works with the many partners listed... incidentally there is no real need to list all of them. Does it collect money and then gives that money to Food Bank of Central and Eastern NC so that the food bank can buy food? Does it knit blankets and give them to the American Red Cross so that the Red Cross can give the blankets to people who are cold? Does it provide information to needy people as to which of its partners would be best able to help them? These are the sorts of things that would presumably be mentioned in independent sources like newspapers reporting independently on the organization's work, which are also the sorts of sources that you should add to your Draft to establish that there is detailed coverage of it elsewhere. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

20:23:56, 17 June 2015 review of submission by Jennycastelino


Hi- I created the Open Data Plane page because it is a project like the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Plane_Development_Kit. We modeled our site after that one. I included links and references to articles that we mentioned on the page however, there are several other articles that have been written about our efforts. For example: http://www.lightreading.com/components/comms-chips/sdn-nfv-pushes-the-boundaries-for-multicore-processors/a/d-id/713216 and http://telecoms.com/419482/arm-makes-nfv-reference-platform-move-virtualizes-set-top-box/

Would it help to add these in - even if they are not referenced in the text? I am just wondering what the page was missing to make it noteworthy because after reading the guidelines I thought we had met the criteria. Please advise what the issues were. Thank you.

jennycastelinoJennycastelino (talk) 20:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Jennycastelino (talk) 20:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello Jenny. The sources you provided in your Draft were all either issued by people or organizations associated with the project... for example ARM or Cavium or Linaro... or press releases. Such sources cannot suffice to prove notability by Wikipedia's standards.
The links you provide here are not much better. The first only mentions Open Data Plane in passing, and the second is largely based on ARM and Cavium press releases.
Many Wikipedia articles exist which do not meet the desirable standards... this is partly because new articles could be created without being reviewed, up until a few years ago. So when using an existing article as a comparison or an example to work from, it would be better to use a recognised Wikipedia Good Article. You can find lists of these recognised Good Articles in the various headings and sub-sections to be found after scrolling down the page at Wikipedia:Good articles. A Draft need not be quite so comprehensive or comprehensively referenced as these to be accepted, but they can help to give an idea of the sort of sources, sourcing, and tone that is required. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

LUNA PRODUCTIONS Thank you very much Arthur goes shopping for your comments on my draft for a Luna Productions article. I didn't know that IMDb was not considered a good source on films and filmmakers. So already you have taught me something valuable! Currently I'm in California, USA, and do not have my materials or computer, but In a week or so I'll be home and returning to Wikipedia. There I plan to work on a new draft for Luna Productions. It is my hope that you will continue to help me. Again, Thank You! Tendingmagictrees (talk) 00:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

04:49:28, 22 June 2015 review of submission by Orbitzoll


I have radically edited this article from top to bottom, hopefully addressing your concerns and those of others. Would you please take another look and let me know if I have succeeded in making this suitable for submission? Many thanks.

Orbitzoll (talk) 04:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

You need to consider thinning out the references that do not even mention Morris-Nunn, for example the 13 November 2014 news.com.au piece. There are also far too many references that are not independent of Morris-Nunn, because they are either websites of organizations whose buildings he has worked on, or provided by his practice.
After considering this, I suggest you resubmit the Draft for another review by clicking the blue Resubmit button. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Pirate Party Wales

Hello there

You declined my article here.

I am a little stuck on how it can be improved. One of the biggest previous problems was tone and citations. I dramatically improved both but the problems with the article seemed to increase, instead of decrease. For some reason, adding citations to the comments made in the piece has resulted in you asking for _even more_ citations?

I'm a little stuck on how to improve the article. Can you detail where it failed specifically?

Thanks

Drowz0r (talk) 00:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

It is hard to see the wood for the trees. Many of the references provided are not independent... I count at least eight that are either from Pirate Party Wales or from some other section of the Pirate Party organization. Such references cannot be used to prove notability by Wikipedia's standards. Likewise I am sure you understand that a YouTube video that happens to show someone from the organization for a few seconds at a public event, does not constitute significant coverage of the organization. Blogspot and probably "oggybloggyogwr" pages do not count as reliable sources, so they too cannot be used to prove notability.
Also, a slightly smaller problem, is that you don't need half a dozen external links to different blog and facebook pages of the organization... one or at most two will do.
You could resubmit the page for another review with the blue Resubmit button once these issues are addressed, or ask for advice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wales. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Request on 05:10:15, 23 June 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Orbitzoll


Following Teahouse guidance and noting the reasons for declining the article, I have now made further substantial edits. I am uncomfortable about resubmitting unless I think I have met the brief. Could you please take another look at the current draft and opine before I do that? Many thanks.Orbitzoll (talk) 05:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Orbitzoll (talk) 05:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

There are still some references which don't mention Morris-Nunn, but that isn't necessarily a deal-breaker in itself. Go ahead and resubmit it and see what the next reviewer thinks. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

08:18:32, 23 June 2015 review of submission by Orbitzoll


Thanks again for your encouragement. I have made further changes based on your last advice, making sure all references actually mention Morris-Nunn. I have re-submitted. Hopefully the article now passes muster.Orbitzoll (talk) 08:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Orbitzoll (talk) 08:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

22:15:38, 24 June 2015 review of submission by Andrew.krowne


Hello Arthur Goes Shopping,

I have amended the submitted article on Pascal Normal Levensohn, including links to other wiki pages where Pascal was a founding, leading, or pivotal member of notable and established organizations (such as NVCA, or the Council on Foreign Affairs, or chairman of ShotSpotter) as well as the key people with whom Pascal has worked alongside as equals, or more so where he was the senior member, and the junior person has a wiki page to reference. As a matter of comparable businessman in the US, there are a meaningful number of founding members of $100mm early-stage venture capital funds that have wikipedia pages, for which the key achievement being recognized is their being the founder and managing partner of the firm (as Pascal was for Levensohn Venture Partners.) For your reference, clean, comparable founding managing partner examples include Fred Wilson of Union Square Ventures, Dave McClure of 500Startups, John Frankel of ff Venture Capital, and Kenneth Lerer of Lerer Hippeau. The firms are the exact type and size, in the same industry as Pascal's firm. In fact, it is more notable that Levensohn Ventures raised and deployed 3 separate funds, over 20 years, making it one of the oldest still-standing venture capital funds in silicon valley (although there is no source that can be cited on this record, and thus excluded.)

I'd ask that you please re-evaluate where Pascal has contributed across the numerous entities i've referenced in his professional efforts, as well as just how similar and in fact, more notable, the firm he created is, relative to the ones i've mentioned above that are cited on wikipedia.

Thank you!

Andrew.krowne (talk) 22:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Andrew.krowne (talk) 22:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Many Wikipedia articles exist which do not meet the desirable standards... this is partly because new articles could be created without being reviewed, up until a few years ago. So when using an existing article as a comparison or an example to work from, it would be better to use a recognised Wikipedia Good Article. You can find lists of these recognised Good Articles in the various headings and sub-sections to be found after scrolling down the page at Wikipedia:Good articles. A Draft need not be quite so comprehensive or comprehensively referenced as these to be accepted, but they can help to give an idea of the sort of sources, sourcing, and tone that is required. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

16:59:15, 28 June 2015 review of submission by 140.112.218.7


I request a re-review for this draft since I have added much more secondary reliable sources to prove the notability of this young and talented violinist! I believe that he will become one of the great masters in the following 30 years!

140.112.218.7 (talk) 16:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

It seems to have been accepted by another reviewer. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

10:21:58, 1 July 2015 review of submission by SeamusCro


SeamusCro (talk) 10:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for reviewing my recent article submission.

I am looking for a bit more information on why the article was rejected? Is it the whole article or just certain parts of it?

Thanks,

Seamus

I would say about 50% of the paragraphs in the current Draft still contain promotional language to some degree. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

17:57:11, 26 June 2015 review of submission by Mdenaux


I removed lines that were in any way promotional and the article is now limited to facts about the doctor. Could you re-review and let me know if there are still elements that are too much like an ad? Mdenaux (talk) 17:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The Draft no longer has a problem with promotional tone. However, it still lacks references to significant coverage of the subject in independent reliable sources, so it would be best if a different reviewer carried out the next review to establish whether the subject meets Wikipedia's notability standards or has any other issues. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

It appears to still be awaiting re-review, but do I need to do anything to request a new reviewer?

No, you do not need to do anything. It will be re-reviewed when the next reviewer gets around to it. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

15:11:23, 9 July 2015 review of submission by Bjfamilia


hello, my only evidence or reference for my submission is linkedin. Although i can provide copies of my credentials if needed for further clarification.Therefore my question is : what do i do to add to my reference as i just have linkedin as my only reference? Bjfamilia (talk) 15:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

If the only published information about Sadiq is on LinkedIn, then Wikipedia does not need to have an article about Sadiq. You may also need to read Wikipedia:Autobiography. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 15:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

13:09 est, July 9, 2015- Help to get my article accepted

Good Afternoon Arthur thanks for quick review of my article about ValueCentric although I'm disappointed it got rejected. Any input on how many more references I'd need to make it more notable or if you personally think I should add anything to the article? This is my first article I have ever written so any help you can provide would be great.

Thank you, Liam Liam.Callahan (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

In this case it is less about numbers of references than about quality of references. What is required is independent reliable sources that discuss the topic in detail. Almost all of the sources you provided thus far appear to be news outlets merely summarizing press releases issued by the organization itself or its partners and customers. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah ok I'll work on it then. Thanks for the help then.

Liam.Callahan (talk) 17:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Christmas with Scotty McCreery

If you want to revert edits, at least know what the guidelines are. Reviews are opinions, it is not the same thing as facts or BLP issues presented in article. They are reliable as statements of the author per WP:RSOPINION, and the criteria is whether the author is notable per WP:NEWSORG, and that would be a reason for removing it, not whether the source is Yahoo Voice. Hzh (talk) 17:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Yahoo Voices does not fall into the same category as "A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers". On what grounds do you argue that the author is "notable" in this instance? Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
A prime example does not mean the only example. The reviewer appears to be a writer who have written many reviews, but whether he is notable is arguable, and that you can reasonably cite as the reason for removal. I have no problem with you removing edits, just give a proper reason so that other people don't waste time spending time looking up things. Hzh (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Many reviews on... Yahoo Voices. It's interesting that so many reviews published on Yahoo Voices seem to give much higher "ratings" to commercial works than reliable sources do. I wonder why that might be. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 18:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

11:48, July 10, 2015- Help to get my article accepted

Good Morning Arthur I would like to thank you for your review of my article about the company I'm working with. I've try to make my best collecting all datas we managed to get for our 100th birthday of experience last year. The point is that it's really difficult to find information on the public web because the segment of the company is too technical. This is really not as Coca Cola for example. I managed to find some other sources but it comes from French, German and English newspaper. Please, could you have a look again and tell me how is it now?

Thank you very much for your kind help, Adrien

Desoutter Tools (talk) 11:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello Adrien. Not just the sources are a problem, but also the tone. Encyclopedia articles should be written in neutral factual tone, not with phrases like "True to its philosophy" and "Constantly perfected" and "Since then it constantly innovates these production lines" and "Check out our Virtual Showroom".
Sources do not have to be in English to be acceptable... although it is preferred... nor do they have to be online.
You should take a look at recognized Wikipedia Good Articles about businesses, listed at Wikipedia:Good articles/Social sciences and society#Businesses & organizations. For example Holt Manufacturing Company. A Draft need not be quite so comprehensive or comprehensively referenced as these to be accepted, but they can help to give an idea of the sort of sources, sourcing, and tone that is required. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello Arthur, thank you very much for the time you accorded me, I'll try to improve this presentation as best as I can.
I wish you to have a great day,
Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrien at Desoutter (talk • contribs) 13:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

11:48, July 10, 2015- Guide me to get my article accepted

HI arthur,

My article (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Giresh_Naik_K&redirect=no) has declined, reason more references required, As this personality is an upcoming bollywood movie director, his first movie is scheduled to release in aug 2015, i have given new references for your information, www.dnaindia.com is an leading news paper in india. reference: http://epaper.dnaindia.com/epapermain.aspx?pgNo=5&edcode=1310009&eddate=2015-06-28 kindly check the article" being a star child Infuence works" this article is about movie HERO & his film which mentions my it indicates the name of the "director" Giresh Naik K.

Hello Giresh Naik K. I accept that epaper.dnaindia.com can be a reliable independent source in some circumstances, but unfortunately I am unable to access the content at present due to its use of Adobe Flash. In any case, a single independent reliable source mentioning the person, is not enough by itself to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. It would be quite normal and expected that if a director's first movie has not even yet been released, there might not yet be sufficient coverage of that director in independent reliable sources for Wikipedia to be able to have an article about them. Incidentally, your username and your Draft title being the same, suggest that you may need to read Wikipedia:Autobiography. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

14:40:17, 21 July 2015 review of submission by Chase2015


Chase2015 (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I am requesting a review of the article because the person that wrote this article did not use the correct format and wrote the entire thing incorrectly. So please consider reviewing it once more since the entire article is now revised. thank you for your help.Chase2015 (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Done. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

08:02:44, 22 July 2015 review of submission by Smustieles


Hi Arthur, thank you for reviewing my submission and for the feedback.

Are there any particular aspects of the submission that are more like an advertisement? If you have the time and would like to rewrite it I would be more than grateful?

Smustieles (talk) 08:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Smustieles (talk) 08:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

It looks like you have fixed all or most of the problems with promotional wording now. However, unfortunately, the Draft does not currently provide evidence of sufficient coverage of the topic in independent reliable sources. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

01:51:22, 23 July 2015 review of submission by 108.6.16.29


Hello, I added the footnotes you requested, please let me know if there is anything else that needs changes. Thank you for all your help. 108.6.16.29 (talk) 01:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

108.6.16.29 (talk) 01:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Saying someone used to be a drug dealer is not something you can do on Wikipedia without directly citing it to an independent reliable source which says so. I am not even sure that the New York Daily News is a sufficiently reliable source for such a claim. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

20:19:39, 27 July 2015 review of submission by Klw565


We are not particularly requesting a re-review, we are just asking for help in what we should edit to have our draft not appear as an advertisement. We took care to make sure that all the information we wrote is factual, so we are just a bit confused as to which phrases/sentences we need to change in order to (hopefully) have our article eventually approved. Thank you in advance for any pointers you could give us! Klw565 (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The problems for me were the following phrases:
  • "customized, tax-aware investment solutions employing a quantitative, multi-factor investment process that is grounded in economic theory and academic research"
  • "has more than two decades of experience creating solutions for the challenges faced by today’s investors"
Also the lack of references to independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the organisation. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello from the Signpost

Thanks for volunteering to help out with "In the Media" for the Signpost. You are welcome to contribute as much or as little as you want to that section. Here's a short style/process guide I will update soon, but you are more than welcome to jump right in. You can find links to potential stories to write about listed at the bottom of the current ITM draft Gamaliel (talk) 04:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I will try to take a look soon! Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

08:12:17, 30 July 2015 review of submission by Robin2437


hi

my submission was about an actress who had a good and full career. i provided references, and checked everything as much as possible. why has it not been accepted?

if i have made a coding error (and it is pretty complicated) please give me an example of what i should have done?

thanks

Robin (Robin2437) mail@cherryheaven.co.uk

Robin2437 (talk) 08:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Other Wikipedia articles are of no use in proving the notability of a topic. Take a look at Wikipedia:CHEATSHEET to see how to make wikilinks and for other formatting. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

00:25:39, 2 August 2015 review of submission by Chase2015


Hello Arthur, just wanted to know if you received the last edit that was done, I added the information you told me, I cited the notes using the footnotes. Thank you so much for your help and let me know if there is anything else I can do to improve this draft.

Chase2015Chase2015 (talk) 00:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Chase2015 (talk) 00:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

There are still multiple highly controversial statements about living people that are not supported by an inline citation to a reliable source. The Draft cannot be accepted while that continues to be the case. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

14:34:10, 6 August 2015 review of submission by 96.91.245.54


What other sources do I need to add? We just started in April 2015. Would news articles about the organization work?

96.91.245.54 (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, so long as they are not press releases or entirely based on press releases. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

05:49:25, 7 August 2015 review of submission by 72.184.228.226


I was wondering which part of the page sounded like advertising? Would you be able to point out particular parts, or give me ways to make it sound more neutral? 72.184.228.226 (talk) 05:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC) 72.184.228.226 (talk) 05:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

  • renowned
  • across the country
  • more than 2,000 college campuses nationwide
  • an integral part of every student’s life
  • recognized leader in the field who has earned the respect of both his colleagues and the students
  • saving thousands of lives
  • innovative techniques
  • He has made it his life's work
  • perils of abuse
  • inspiring and dynamic speaker
  • expert in the field
As this is a biography of a living person, you must also use inline citations to directly support any statement that is controversial or likely to be challenged.
Finally, I am not convinced that the Draft in its current form clearly establishes Green's notability by Wikipedia standards. To prove notability, you need to provide references to multiple independent reliable sources that discuss Green or his work in detail. Wikipedia:VRS gives a simple summary of what is needed. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject TAFI

Hello, Arthur goes shopping. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's articles for improvement, a project dedicated to significantly improving articles with collaborative editing in a week's time.

Feel free to nominate an article for improvement at the project's Article nomination board. If interested in joining, please add your name to the list of members. Thanks for your consideration. North America1000 09:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

BLPN discusion about Talk:Jess Greenberg

Hi Arthur goes shopping. I pinged you, but I just thought I'd let you know about WP:BLPN#Talk:Jess Greenberg because it involes the removal of a article talk page post you made. Please feel free to comment (either way). Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 14:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion on Megapolis and Western Development

I noticed you just tagged speedy deletion on that article Ministry of Megapolis and Western Development. I need to improve that article by removing the copyrighted materials, Please remove this tag for a moment until i improve it. Thanks ♔ MONARCH Talk to me 13:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand this material was copied from the references but the copyvio detects only 44% which doesn't mean it's full copypaste. Usually copyvio are tagged on articles that has over 59% copypaste from direct references. ♔ MONARCH Talk to me 13:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello Alpha Monarch. Please can you point me to which policy page this 59% figure you mention is listed on? Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Arthur goes shopping I have fixed the copyvio detection. Now it's all done and i appreciate your contribution toward Article for Creation. ♔ MONARCH Talk to me 05:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

Hello Arthur goes shopping:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – North America1000 23:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.
Sent to users on my mailing list. To opt-out forever, just remove your name.

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!

Hello Arthur goes shopping: Enjoy the holiday season and upcoming winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America1000 18:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Can you help me understand the inline citations I need?

Arthur goes shopping: You declined my submission Draft:F.Scott Yeager in June because it did not meet Wikipedia's standard for inline citations. I included those sources I could find. Can you help me understand what material lacks inline citations? And perhaps guide me to a solution that would lead to approval? Thank you for your time. 00:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)Danan (talk)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Arthur_goes_shopping/Archive_1&oldid=1147970553"