User talk:Cabrils/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

AFC review request

Hey, as a AFC reviewer would you mind reviewing a draft I submitted last month?

Draft:1985 Vavuniya massacre

Thanks! -- Petextrodon (talk) 11:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Petextrodon. Well done on creating the draft page. I've had a look and I'm not sure about this one. I'm a bit concerned about the copyright warning ad not sure that simply "removing links to copyrighted content as per reviewer comment" (per your summary) addresses the issue: as I understand it, copyright is not infringed by including links to sources, rather it is infringed when the content of the draft page includes material that has clearly been lifted from other sources. I would encourage you to thoroughly read this helpful explanation of copyright violation.
The draft also feels to me to be still somewhat parochial in tone (as opposed to an encyclopedic tone); and I note the history of disputes on your Talk page.
I trust this is constructive feedback and wish you the best with it. Cabrils (talk) 22:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Hey thanks for getting back to me.
Regarding copyright violation, this must be a mistake. You can crosscheck the source and verify that I've not plagiarized it. The citation only covers that one sentence preceding it, not rest of the article.
As for the tone, I'm only summarizing the published sources and haven't interjected my own interpretation. I sincerely don't think I've strayed too far from the existing style of other related articles. But I'm open to hearing your suggestions. --- Petextrodon (talk) 01:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
"copyright is not infringed by including links to sources"
I should have addressed this bit. The web source I cited wasn't the original publisher, but has simply reproduced a newspaper article (perhaps without permission). Hopefully this clears up some confusion. -- Petextrodon (talk) 01:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I've now perused the draft and feel this meets the criteria. I can see this page being potentially controversial and being edited, if not challenged, so caution you to be prepared for some activity. All the best with it. Cabrils (talk) 02:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your valuable time. kind regards -- Petextrodon (talk) 02:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Articles

Hello, i was wondering if you can give me some blue links that i can read about how to improve editing and how to spot the roght informations to add to articles? No specific person, just trying to improve my wording in editing. I tried on tea house but nothing seams clear to me, except to say that i need a babel box as english isnt my first language which i did. Also how can we spot reliable press/magazine that doesnt come from perenital reliable sources as not all of them are mentioned? I didnt know that those press sources in the draft of Ed Hayter was reliable. I thought they werent reliable because they are not cited in the perinital reliable sources so now im more confused in how to spot reliable sources. Veganpurplefox (talk) 23:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Please re-read all the lengthy correspondence I have previously sent you, which is replete with links to many many relevant articles and instructions. All the best. Cabrils (talk) 00:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
In the draft space or your talk page? Veganpurplefox (talk) 00:12, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Both. Cabrils (talk) 00:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Ok thank you, i will read them again to get them comprehensive to me and get to understand them more Veganpurplefox (talk) 00:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
That's a good plan. Cabrils (talk) 00:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
i am also sorry to have reverted the draft as I thought they wouldn't have reliable articles anymore and was scared as being submitted again it would be declined again. I wanted it to be perfect and have all the informations needed and have significant coverage to then submit the draft. I don't want the draft to be constantly submitted and then declined so it got me react as I was scared Veganpurplefox (talk) 00:22, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
I also know now how to add the references correctly as I used to do manually but now I got told how to generate itself so if any articles that need refences fixed I will do them correctly now Veganpurplefox (talk) 00:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
I believe Draft:Burning Men would be approved. Was told on tea house its a good article and if you have the time id like you to check it Veganpurplefox (talk) 11:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. I'm not sure about this one and would prefer to leave it to other reviewers. All the best with it. Cabrils (talk) 22:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Ok thank you Veganpurplefox (talk) 23:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Tavneet Suri

Cabrils, why did you accept this article? Besides the COI question, which remains unanswered by the editor, the only valid claim to notability is the named chair. Did you see a single independent secondary source? Everything that's not a journal article or publication by the subject is a blog. Surely we should have higher standards for accepting BLPs. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Drmies. Firstly, apologies if I've misjudged this one. I completely agree the page requires clean up, and the removal of the non-RS sources, however I accepted the draft because:
  • WP:NACADEMIC#5: "The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon."
  • Previously Cullen328 explained that "Drafts that have a likelihood of surviving Articles for Deletion should be accepted".
Having explained that, I'm very happy to be guided by your experience? Of course you would have access to my AfC review history, but if it helps here it is for convenience--you can see I'm not in the habit of accepting rubbish (at least I think so!). Again, your thoughts and experience is much appreciated. Cabrils (talk) 03:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Well, sure, but I'm also sure that Cullen328 is not a fan of promotional BLPs that lack secondary sourcing. The one advantage of the draft process, and you are pretty well versed in it by now I think, is that we can ask for better sourcing, better writing, and I think that's certainly what this article needs. BTW I know you know what you're doing, or I might have just moved it back, and I appreciate your opinion. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:33, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks very much, very valuable feedback. I agree with everything you've said. I'll start by making cleaning up the page a priority; and be more mindful going forward. Thank you again for your counsel and sorry to have imposed on your valuable time. With appreciation, Cabrils (talk) 03:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
On further review I've moved it back to Draft space and left a note on the author explaining why. Thanks again. Cabrils (talk) 04:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Updated Draft: Tavneet Suri

On Draft:Tavneet Suri, I've gone through and updated by contributing additional secondary sourcing and biographical information. NB: I also reverted your edit removing a cite to World Bank Development Impact Blog -- which @Drmies had flagged as a non-RS, but which is a publication of the World Bank Group and a leading venue of popular communication in development economics.

I've also added to the talk page the WP:THREE best sources on notability. As discussed above, a named chair is sufficient, and Professor Suri's Google Scholar citations and publication record also point to significant impact on the scholarly discipline, per WP:NACADEMIC#1.

COI concerns are not relevant; I work in development economics, and hope to address underrepresentation of leading academics in Wikipedia, but have no relation with her that would require disclosure. Thanks in advance. RegMonkey (talk) 21:51, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

  • A blog is still a blog. I don't care much if it's used to verify a place of birth, but it doesn't add anything to notability. Adding a Google Scholar link is a pretty weak move. Again, the subject passes because of that silly "named chair" rule, but the article is still a puff piece in which I find his resume, a website about some board, a directory entry from the NBER, no fewer than six of his own journal articles, and a variety of other problematic cites. I'm happy you were able to find RoySmith's essay--I am truly amazed at how quickly you have mastered these editing skills and found some really esoteric pages. Drmies (talk) 21:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
    @Drmies thanks for the feedback -- appreciate it as I'm learning.
    (1) On notability: First, my understanding is that named chairs are a silver bullet here, so that should not be grounds for exclusion, regardless of opinion on the legitimacy of that as an inclusion rule. Understood regarding Google Scholar. A confirmation on Web of Science (per WP:NACADEMICS#1) draws 17 publications (in journals including the American Economic Review, Econometrica, Science (journal), Journal of Economic Perspectives, and The Economic Journal). Two of these are designated highly cited - in the top 1% for their field and year.
    (2) On sourcing: Understood on too many primary sources. Where relevant, I've replaced with media mentions of published research. I've ensured to only use media outlets validated as generally reliable per WP:RS. I've also removed the World Bank Development Impact cite. RegMonkey (talk) 00:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
    I'm deferring to Drmies at this point, but think it is worth drawing your attention to the General Notes, as WP:NACADEMICS#1 should not be read in isolation and viewed as a "silver bullet". Cabrils (talk) 02:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Polly Ferman

Hi Cabrils, thank you again for the feedback. I have edited Draft:Polly Ferman to include your feedback.

Here are the reasons why I believe the page meets the criteria for WP:NMUSIC:

  • "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." Ferman's work and artistry has been discussed and reviewed in the following non-trivial, reliable and independent publications: Washington Post [1], New York Times [2][3] and El Pais (Uruguay)[4][5], as well as others.
  • "Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country" Ferman has performed all around the world. Here are some examples of independent and reliable sources that covered her international tours: New York Public Library [6]The Atlanta Opera [7], The Havana Times [8], Government of Hong Kong [9], Government of Lebanon [10], and others.
  • "Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles. This should be adapted appropriately for musical genre; for example, having performed two lead roles at major opera houses. Note that this criterion needs to be interpreted with caution, as there have been instances where this criterion was cited in a circular manner to create a self-fulfilling notability loop (e.g., musicians who were "notable" only for having been in two bands, of which one or both were "notable" only because those musicians had been in them.)" She has performed in ensembles with Daniel Binelli and the Hong Kong Chamber Orchestra, which recorded the album Tango in the Night on Orchid Classics[11]. She also was part of the Binelli-Ferman-Isaac Trio with Daniel Binelli and Eduardo Isaac. This trio has recorded albums and performed internationally in Argentina [12][13] and Brazil [14], for example.
  • "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network." She has been featured in New York-specific media coverage including Latin Americans of NY and NJ [15] and in a Hispanic Heritage Month exhibit [16].

Nietabieta (talk) 14:43, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Nietabieta. Well done, you've made significant improvements. Thank you for your thorough explanation, that helps a lot. I'm persuaded. Please feel free to submit the draft and I will accept it, and thank you for your collaboration. Cabrils (talk) 23:10, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Thank you! I just submitted the draft. Nietabieta (talk) 18:46, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Article accepted. Cabrils (talk) 03:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Draft: John Summit

On John Summit: Thank you for your kind comments. I've updated the John Summit draft talk page with WP:THREE and resubmitted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:John_Summit

PSPazW (talk) 14:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for adding the WP:THREE. On further review, I'm not comfortable accepting this page and would prefer to leave it to other reviewers to assess. All the best with it. Cabrils (talk) 21:12, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Draft: Okra_Energy

Thanks for the rapid response! I'm struggling with this concept of 'notable' but will keep at it. I have added my COI on my Talk page - please let me know if it suffices. OkraKemp (talk) 00:47, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Good one. Re 'notable': those links I included in my comment are good places to start. I can't see the COI declaration on your Talk Page? I would encourage you to create a User Page too. Cabrils (talk) 00:54, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

resubmission of Draft:Jaroslav Muzika wiki page

Hello, I have resubmitted the draft of the Jaroslav Muzika page. In addition to formatting the list of titles at the end, I have added in two pictures of independent news articles about the subject, one from the Daily Telegraph, one from Hello. I do not know whether these pictures can be retained in the final published article. But, I thought they would be useful for showing that the subject is notable. You asked, I believe, for three such sources. In addition to those two, here is a third:

Muzika, Alena. The contribution to history of the Czech 313 Squadron of the RAF in Great Britain: Jarsolav Muzika / life experiences of Czech pilots. Thesis, Purkyně University, 1996.

Thank you for your assistance with this matter.Sjmkahn (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello Sjmkahn, thank you for your post.
I note you have declared your conflict of interest for this page, thank you.
  1. For clarity, are you the author of the thesis, Alena Muzika? And is the thesis publicly available; online; in English?
  2. I think the draft has potential, however at this stage, as noted by other reviewers, the draft reads like an essay rather than an encyclopedic entry: please peruse the links I included in my comment on the draft, including ‘Your First Article’ and what Wikipedia is not. In my opinion, the draft requires significant revisions to fall in line with the guidelines for content (including, but not limited to, these 2 links).
  3. The Daily Telegraph and Hello articles do contribute to notability. Theses are not considered to carry the same weight as other reliable sources in relation to establishing notability. Also the publishing of the photographs of those 2 articles is highly likely to breach copyright and so the photographs are unlikely to be included (as you note). However, as I suggested, could you please post them (and any commentary) onto the Talk page to make them more accessible and more efficient for the volunteer reviewers to assess, because I do think they help when assessing the notability of the draft.
I trust this is helpful. Please let me know if you have any other questions. I look forward to your revisions. Cabrils (talk) 00:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

November Articles for creation backlog drive

Hello Cabrils:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is a backlog of over 2600 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Article/Draft confusion

Hi, Cabrils! Remember you declined the publishing of draft:filippo Surace beacuse of a lack of demonstration for the "eight academic-specific criteria" of WP:N/WP:GNG? Well, I stumbled on it via this category and glanced through its page history and I found out that another user created the article itself with the same codes and page info as the draft. As an AfC reviewer, I'm putting this forward to you on whether an AfD, History merge or RMTR could be used to solve this. Ready, waiting and watching at your discretion. Intrisit (talk) 15:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Intrisit for the alert. I'm seeking guidance about the best course of action (you should have received a ping of my post). Will keep you posted. Cabrils (talk) 23:01, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Draft:John_Summit resubmitted

Hi and thanks for your feedback. I've added citations, removed a few statements for which I couldn't find citations, and put in the WP:THREE again on the talk page. My disclosure as a paid contributor was already on my user talk page (currently it's the 4th item on the page). Thanks so much for taking another look. PSPazW (talk) 19:04, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi PSPazW. Apologies for this belated reply. I see John Summit has since been approved, well done. Cabrils (talk) 02:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Re FKP Scorpio draft

Hi there! I appreciate your review on my draft. To address your comments:

1. I am more than happy to confirm I have no connection to the subject or the industry. I wanted to follow the draft process to learn how to write high-grade articles, and noticed the lack of articles in this particular industry that I interact with often (I attend lots of gigs.) I see why now - WP:WikiProject Festivals is seemingly dead after all.

2. I understand where you're coming from regarding WP:RS - the first three citations are from Die Tageszeitung which is one of the most read newspapers in Germany, Pollstar which is the most prominent and a well-trusted journalist source in their industry, and Festivalisten which is a festival magazine that has been running since 2007. I don't think it's a fair assessment that they're "very obscure industry websites".

3. I'd love an explanation of how interviews undermine notability. It's still a secondary source. A source being an interview does not imply impartiality or that it is promotional in nature.

4. Re: WP:N - I would say from the breadth of coverage from all industry sources to mainstream German outlets (it's a German company) that there is significant coverage. Again I believe this article has exemption under WP:NMUSICOTHER.

Please let me know what you think. Thanks in advance. daylon124 (talk) 01:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi daylon124, thanks for your prompt response.
1. Good clarification, no worries.
2. Just in case we're misunderstanding each other, the first 3 citations in the article are to festivalisten, taz and pollstar. I agree Die Tageszeitung isn't obscure but I didn't realise that taz.de is Die Tageszeitung-- my mistake.
3. Interviews: See this lengthy discussion. As I understand it, because an interview necessarily includes the subject of a page, the requirement of RSs to be independent is diminished. This is not to say that published interviews can't or shouldn't be used, rather that when the interview is being cited as the source of notability that it's weight should be diminished.
So the issue in my mind comes down to establishing the notability of FKP Scorpio. It would help if you could identify on the draft's talk page, the WP:THREE best sources that establish notability of the subject?
Thanks. Cabrils (talk) 02:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi Cabrils, thanks for your response. I haven't heard of WP:THREE before - I'll sort this out in the next 24 hours. I appreciate your thought out response and will have a think. Side note - lovely photos on your user page! daylon124 (talk) 02:37, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
No worries. Thanks. Cabrils (talk) 02:43, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Hey there. Please at your leisure take a look at Draft_talk:FKP_Scorpio#WP:THREE_top_sources. For transparency I've added an additional citation to the article on further research. I look forward to your feedback. daylon124 (talk) 22:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks daylon124, that is very helpful. I'm persuaded. Article accepted. Cabrils (talk) 22:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you very much, your assistance in getting this article to acceptable Wiki standards is appreciated! daylon124 (talk) 22:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
No worries daylon124, keep up the good work! Cabrils (talk) 22:29, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Request on 20:59:49, 13 November 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by CancerAnswers


Thank you for the comments! Just so I am sure to fix the right citations, which references are not formatted correctly? I used the auto format function to populate the citations. Thank you!

CancerAnswers (talk) 20:59, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi CancerAnswers, thanks for the ping.
  • Firstly, I would encourage you to create a User Page, it will make communicating much more efficient and ensure you don't miss any alerts or messages (like this one).
  • Secondly, as I mentioned in my comment on the draft, could you please clarify whether you have any connection to the subject, including being paid, because if so you have a conflict of interest that you must declare on your Talk page (to see instructions on how to do this please click the link). Given you uploaded the profile image of Wilson you are almost certainly being paid by him, which isn't prohibited as long as you declare it.
  • Regarding your specific question: the references now all look to be formatted correctly, thank you (at the time of my comment on 1 November they were not.
I would note though that press releases (like the one included from Newswire) are not considered reliable sources and should be removed.
Please note I have also posted a new comment on the Draft.
Please let me know if you have any other questions. Cabrils (talk) 00:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
I can clarify that I do not have any connection to the subject, including being paid. The headshot is available within the Yale School of Medicine purview and I am receiving no compensation for this entry by Dr. Wilson.
I will update the newswise article to something more notable, as he has several publications and sources to include. Thank you! CancerAnswers (talk) 18:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Christopher Del Borrello Submission Declined

hello, I see you declined my submission about Chris Del Borrello. However, I feel that I have shown more than enough notability in all of the guidelines that you said I failed in. If you read my note at the top, I stated how influential and recognized he is by many people. I have provided 42 sources, most being secondary, independent, and Significant. Antny08 (talk) 10:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Antny08, thanks for the ping.
Firstly, please address whether you have any connection to the subject, including being paid, because if so you have a conflict of interest that you must declare on your Talk page (to see instructions on how to do this please click the link).
Secondly, you must address, specifically (a) what notability criteria of (b) which policy you believe the draft meets. The 2 likely relevant criteria are WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.
Regarding WP:NPOL: That policy relevantly states:
"The following are presumed to be notable:
  • Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them.
  • Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.
Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline."
On my and all the other reviewers' reading, the draft does not meet these criteria and so fails WP:NPOL, and so for the draft to be acceptable must meet WP:GNG.
Regarding WP:GNG: That policy relevantly states:
:A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
I note that on the draft's Talk Page you have provided WP:THREE, thank you. I am still considering those sources but in the meantime could you please respond to my query regarding conflict of interest? Cabrils (talk) 23:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello, thanks for your response. No, I do not have any direct connection to the candidate. I am not being paid, or being told to do this, I am doing this by my own choice. This candidate is in the same district as me, but there is no direct connection from me to the candidate.
You said you were still considering my sources, yet you declined my submission. Are you still considering? Also, yes, I am hoping to go for WP:GNG, to show that he meets the general notability guideline. Antny08 (talk) 01:34, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Just replying back to see if you received my message? Thanks! @Cabrils Antny08 (talk) 22:39, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi Antny08.
OK, thanks for your clarification re COI.
Regarding WP:THREE: The Politico article is good and I think reliable. The other two (New Jersey Monitor and New Jersey Globe) don't carry much weight and in my view are insufficient to establish notability (as defined). So in my view I think the draft fails WP:GNG. I know that will be disappointing news for you however I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON so I would say don't lose all hope but if Del Borrello chooses to stand again and is successful, he may then meet WP:NPOL.
I am copying my post onto the draft page for transparency with other reviewers. Cabrils (talk) 02:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Did you look at the other sources i listed? I can just replace the other 2 with better sources Antny08 (talk) 12:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Yes I did. They do not meet WP:RS. Cabrils (talk) 23:16, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello. I have reviewed my article again after discussing with multiple Wikipedia editors. I have added 3 new significant and secondary sources, have fixed neutrality issues in the Political Views section, and most importantly, fixed up my WP:THREE to include better sources. I am fairly confident that this article is ready, so feel free to review it once more if somebody else doesn't get to it first. I also encourage you to look at the 3 extra sources I included under my WP:THREE, as in my opinion, they are good sources as well, but that is entirely up to you. @Cabrils Antny08 (talk) 20:53, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
You chose to answer WP:THREE in the manner you did. The changes you have since made do not include WP:RSs and further that are all from the same source, New Jersey Globe.
According to your Contributions list, you have not discussed the draft with "multiple Wikipedia editors"-- you have not discussed it with anyone. Again, your conduct at this point may be considered disruptive. Cabrils (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
What? I did not discuss on Wikipedia, I discussed on the live chat place. Also, you didn't tell me the website was what was bad about the Wikipedia articles, I just assumed you meant they werent significant enough. Antny08 (talk) 23:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Can you explain to me how New Jersey Globe is not a reliable source? It is a major news networking in New Jersey who publishing countless articles daily. As you can see from this link to a bias checker, New Jersey Globe is a completely neutral source. I do not see why you believe it is unreliable. In fact, I believe it is even more reliable than Politico. Antny08 (talk) 23:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
In my view, it is not sufficiently substantial to meet the notability guidelines to count as a primary source that establishes notability, although views my differ, so even if others do consider it sufficiently substantial, you need (at least) 3 independent sources: Politico, New Jersey Globe and a substantial article that meets WP:RS from somewhere else. Choose what you feel is the best one article from New Jersey Globe and include in in WP:THREE. And find something else. Cabrils (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Do you think this news article is good? Competition in New Jersey Legislative District 4 centers on parental rights – NJTODAY.NET It has very little bias, and factual, according to this site. This news source has also been around since 1822 in the form of a newspaper.
If not that article, maybe this one?It is by NJ.com, New Jersey's biggest and more trusted news source. It is an old article, but the information is still accurate and reliable. Antny08 (talk) 23:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Draft: Pravir Malik

Thank you for your note regarding this page. Potential notability could be assessed in terms of the alternative approaches to i) complex adaptive systems mathematics and ii) envisioning of quantum computing development (that derives from the complex adaptive systems math). There have been several IEEE and other awards for papers/presentations that highlight these (embedded in the following): https://pravirmalik.medium.com/the-trail-of-cosmology-of-light-academic-writings-cad0692c6332. The intent is more to bring out the importance of these approaches than the person itself. Welcome your advise on whether this is possible at this point. Much appreciated. Sundrummer (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Medium is not considered to be a reliable source, in this instance including that the article itself is authored by the subject. I would encourage you to carefully read my comment on the draft page, in particular the links included therein. Cabrils (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

AfC Draft:Geoffrey Holt (philanthropist)

@Cabrils, thank you for your review. I left WP:THREE best sources on the article's talk page. I do not have conflict of interest.

I did receive generous editing help from @BuySomeApples, the first reviewer of the article, who extensively copyedited the draft to alleviate his own concern that the article "did not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia". Yamfri /ˈjæm.friː/ (talk) 23:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Yamfri, thanks for the ping. Thanks for the WP:THREE. OK, I think on balance this is sufficient to meet WP:BLP1E (although I could see some debate about this occurring). I've tweaked the opening sentence to a more encyclopedic tone. I'd be happy to accept the draft if you submit (please post a note here alerting me). Cabrils (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
@Cabrils, thanks. Will resubmit momentarily. Yamfri /ˈjæm.friː/ (talk) 02:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Draft: Sanne Boessenkool

Hi Cabrils!

Thanks heaps for your input. I have updated the draft now, included more secondary citations. I think Boessenkool qualifies for the quality of her work is also highly cited and picked up by global media, her outreach activities and her educational and leadership roles she has in academia. I like to contribute to the low rate of female scientist biographies compared to the male ones on wikipedia. Hope this now stands scrutiny Stjer (talk) 10:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Stjer, thanks for the ping.
Firstly, as I requested, could you please address my question of whether you have a conflict of interest?
Also, as I requested, it would be helpful if you could please identify, on the draft's talk page, the WP:THREE best sources that establish notability of the subject?
And also, as I requested, could you please identify, specifically, which criteria of WP:PROF you believe the draft meets, and why?
This will help a lot in assessing the draft. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Cabrils (talk) 05:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Update on Draft:Joseph Randall Moorman page

I added more independent and notable secondary sources from Smithsonian Magazine that emphasizes Dr. Moorman's invention, COMET, and the role predictive analytics played in COVID treatment, a news article from William and Mary College news archives underlining Dr. Moorman's vision in NICU monitoring, Reuter's Health highlighting Dr. Moorman's HeRO beside monitoring invention, and a Healthcare Finance News article where Moorman is characterized as an expert on medical predictive analytics. MAP1020 (talk) 18:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Good revisions. Draft accepted. Cabrils (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Kat Calvin

Hi! I saw your comments left on my draft. I'm currently editing my article on Kat Calvin and I know you said it reads like a CV. I would like to ask how I can improve it? What should I add, or take away. Can you give me examples? Thank you! DbDc23 (talk) 21:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi @DbDc23, thanks for the ping.
Please carefully read all the links to which I referred you in my comment on the draft--all the answers are there. Cabrils (talk) 21:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Draft:The Foundation for Research on Information Technologies in Society

Thanks for your feedback on my draft article about the IT'IS Foundation. Regarding notability, how do I convince the "wiki-police" of the importance of the research conducted by the IT'IS Foundation without sounding "self-promotional"? The IT'IS Foundation was started to provide research support to the development of research instruments and methods commercialized by Schmid and Partner AG (SPEAG), about which I also have a draft in limbo. SPEAG markets, among other things, systems that are used to test the safety of mobile phones. Virtually every phone sold in France (most likely all over Europe, possibly the rest of the world, but France is what I have data for) is tested with SPEAG equipment for electromagnetic radiation compliance. Since its founding, IT'IS has branched out into biomedical research, developing exposure chambers for animal studies, becoming involved in research on safety in MRI and wireless power transfer, and developing computational tools that include the Virtual Population, a set of morphable, posable computational (=numerical) human avatars as well as computational MRI bores and medical implants. According to the draft's talk page, the topic is within the scope of collaborative efforts on WikiProject Electrical engineering, WikiProject Computer science, WikiProject Higher education, and WikiProject Telecommunications, and the Foundation for Research on Information Technologies in Society is part of the WikiProject Biology. Regarding reliable sources, according to Help:Referencing for beginners, "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources." Almost all of the references I listed are scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals. As I commented earlier about the feedback from DoubleGrazing, that too much content is unreferenced and that there are too many references is an unresolvable conundrum. On the draft's talk page, I've added a topic: WP:THREE best sources Ref. 2: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0649-2 Ref. 17: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0031-9155/59/18/5287 Ref. 19: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bem.22116 PLBounds (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi PLBounds, thanks for the ping. You raise a number of issues.
1. "wiki-police": I would firstly caution you against using such pejorative terms, particularly when writing directly to an Articles for Creation Reviewer (like myself). It tends to set things off on the wrong foot.
2. "...how do I convince the "wiki-police" of the importance of the research conducted by the IT'IS Foundation...": Your starting position is flawed. Wikipedia is not a platform for "important" organisations, rather it is a collection of subjects that have established notability: please re-read the links I included in my initial Comment on the draft, especially WP:N, as well as WP:ABOUT.
As I explained,
"Wikipedia's basic requirement for entry is that the subject is notable. Essentially subjects are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject".
You need to evidence, by the use of reliable sources, articles that establish the notability of the IT'IS Foundation. The articles need to substantially refer to and discuss the IT'IS Foundation specifically. This leads me to my next point, below.
3. WP:THREE: The 3 articles you have cited, on my reading, do not satisfy the relevant notability requirements because they are not substantially about the IT'IS Foundation itself (these are journal articles about specific research that, at least in part, was conducted at or funded by the IT'IS Foundation). You need to find articles about the IT'IS Foundation itself. For example, articles referring to or reviewing these journal articles but with a focus on the work conducted by the IT'IS Foundation.
Again, I would urge you re-read the articles to which I have directed you so that you can improve your understanding of the guidelines. If the IT'IS Foundation is as "important" as you say then I am sure there should be numerous reliable sources you could find and add to the draft to establish its notability.
I trust this is of assistance. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Cabrils (talk) 01:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Good evening Cabrils, thanks very much for your reply, very informative. 1) Sorry about the wiki-police remark, it was meant to be funny, absolutely no offence intended. It won't happen again. 2) Thanks for again clarifying about reliable sources, I get now, I think. I have been writing like a scientist, with evidence to back up the smaller points, believing that the reader will put it together about the whole. It might be difficult to find sources about IT'IS itself. I think I can find documentation about IT'IS being a partner on various international consortia -- would something like that be reliable? 3) Do you think it would be helpful to first write articles about the projects/products, e.g., about the RESTORE project (spinal chord injury repair), the Virtual Population (computational humans), the exposure chambers (NTP results), etc.? These could be then wiki-linked to the IT'IS article.
For the SPEAG article in limbo, I could write a supporting article about "DASY", a robotic system used to test cell phones. As a reliable secondary source about DASY, could I use reports from the Agence Française Nationale des Fréquences (ANFR) about, e.g., the latest iPhone compliance tests? I have had one article related to SPEAG accepted (yay!), about SEMCAD, a computational platform.
Thanks again for your encouraging words! PLBounds (talk) 17:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi @PLBounds.
1. All good.
2. Yes I think that's right, that you have been writing as a scientist, rather than as a Wikipedia editor. However, I still do not think that you have properly understood how Wikipedia works. Please peruse (not scan) all the links I have sent you. You need to gain a fulsome understanding of the relevant policies if your drafts are to be accepted. "Finding documentation" is fine but you need reliable sources (as defined) to establish notability.
3. Each individual article is assessed independently, including whether it meets the notability (and other relevant) requirements, so I don't really see other articles being especially relevant, although if material in an article can be (appropriately) linked to other Wikipedia pages, that is helpful to the reader, but isn't really relevant to the draft page in question.
Hope this helps. To be clear, these organisations may well be notable so I do want to encourage you. The drafts just need to be created with the Wikipedia policies in mind. Let me know if you have any further questions. Cabrils (talk) 04:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you very much -- I'm on it... PLBounds (talk) 09:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks again, lots of editing today, including several new secondary citations and a new list of WP:THREE best sources. PLBounds (talk) 17:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
OK we are progressing. The draft is now heading in the right direction, well done.
However, I still do not see it meeting the notabilty requirements of WP:NCORP (or WP:GNG).
1. WP:THREE: I have looked at the 3 sources and while they do mention/list IT'IS, none of these sources carry sufficient weight to meet the standard required to be considered reliable sources (as defined) that establish notability. All 3 publications are run-of-the-mill industry publications that do not confer above-average notability on to IT'IS. By comparison, a feature article in, for example, the Neue Zürcher Zeitung or EE Times magazine would be considered a RS. So while the 3 sources you presented are a good step in the right direction, I still think you need to better understand reliable sources (and WP:THREE), and I would encourage you to look further afield than trade-type websites. But I feel this is a minor issue (and can be overcome) in comparison to the next point.
2. WP:NCORP: This is the policy the draft needs to meet. As an organisation, IT'IS falls under WP:NCORP. You need to evidence, specifically, what criteria the draft meets to satisfy this policy. I would encourage you to peruse this policy. Once you feel you have a good grasp, see what amendments you can make to the draft, and then you may wish to post here explaining, specifically, what criteria the draft meets and why, and I would be happy to assess.
3. I would also note that Wikipedia is not LinkedIn, and it would help your contributions to be familiar with that (so please read the linked material).
Again, I do think the draft has potential so encourage you to persevere. Cabrils (talk) 22:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment on the IT'IS draft. Before I resubmit, I need to read through it again with an eye to points that require a reference... PLBounds (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
That may be true, but please also address the issues I raise. Cabrils (talk) 05:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello Cabrils, we need experienced volunteers.
  • New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
  • Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
  • Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, it basically boils down to checking CSD, notability, and title). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us.
  • If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions. You can apply for the user-right HERE.
  • If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message at the reviewer's discussion board.
  • Cheers, and hope to see you around.

Sent by NPP Coordination using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Draft: Nic Kaufmann

Hey so on the Nic Kaufman draft, you said about conflict of interest and being paid to edit, and said that I would have to state that on the talk page.

I don’t do editing neither writing because I have partiality with the subject neither being paid. I edit and write because I want to collaborate with Wikipedia. How do I state that I don’t do paid editing a and that I also don’t do partial work ? Meio2934 (talk) 01:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

If you do NOT have a conflict of interest then you do not need to add anything to your Talk page. However, if you want to be absolutely express and clear, you could add a statement to your Talk page saying something like "I am not paid to contribute to Wikipedia and to the best of my knowledge I do not have any conflicts of interest with any of the pages that I edit." Cabrils (talk) 01:34, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. I will certainly do that. Meio2934 (talk) 01:48, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
No worries. All the best with it. Cabrils (talk) 01:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hi Cabrils. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at the permissions page in case your user right is time-limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page or ask via the NPP Discord. In addition, please remember:

  • Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
  • You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
  • If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
  • Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page, including checking for copyright violations using Earwig's copyright violation detector, checking for duplicate articles, and evaluating sources (both in the article, and if needed, via a Google search) for compliance with the general notability guideline.
  • Please review some of our flowcharts (1, 2) to help ensure you don't forget any steps.
  • Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. If you can read any languages other than English, please add yourself to the list of new page reviewers with language proficiencies. – Joe (talk) 11:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in AfC November 2023 Backlog Drive

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
Thank you for your participation in the Articles for Creation's November 2023 Backlog Drive! You made a total of 40 reviews, for a total of 50.5 points. – robertsky (talk) 02:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Note: This excludes any deleted drafts that you have reviewed as I cannot see the deleted drafts. Do sign up earlier for the bot to pickup reviews before drafts get deleted for one reason or another, and/or turn on your AfC log which settings can be found in the ACFH banner. – robertsky (talk) 02:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year Cabrils!

Happy New Year!

Cabrils,
Have a prosperous, productive and wonderful New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

– robertsky (talk) 02:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

A. Kimberley McAllister

Hi Cabrils. How was A. Kimberley McAllister article accepted? Almost 60% of the content is unsourced. Jeraxmoira (talk) 12:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

HiJeraxmoira, apologies for such a belated reply. I accepted the draft because:
  • WP:NACADEMIC#5: "The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon."
  • Previously Cullen328 explained that "Drafts that have a likelihood of surviving Articles for Deletion should be accepted".
I see you've done a significant amount of work cleaning it up-- thank you, much appreciated. Cabrils (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi Cabrils. I just wanted to let you know that even if the article passed WP:NACADEMIC#5, it failed WP:V, which I believe is one of the core policies of Wikipedia. You cannot accept articles with unsourced content into the mainspace, especially for BLPs. You should have asked the author of that draft to remove all unsourced content or removed it yourself before accepting it into the mainspace. I hope this doesn't come across as negative or impolite. Have a great weekend. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks @Jeraxmoira for the feedback, much appreciated. Cabrils (talk) 04:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Draft: Brad Feuer

Thank you for your fair and objective comments. As you can tell, I am new at this. I was about to give up on this subject and go in an entirely new direction for my first article, but your comments gave me the encouragement to proceed. I have reviewed the sources and references that you recommended, and believe that the submission is now more appropriate. Your continued feedback/assessment would be most appreciated! Salish Amerind (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy to help. Your revisions are significant and progressive. However, the draft still contains many references that are not considered to be reliable (including blogs (like the first reference) and private company websites-- please remove them from the draft. Once completed please post here and I'd be happy to reassess. Cabrils (talk) 05:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you so much. Changes made as per your suggestion. This has been an educational process! Salish Amerind (talk) 01:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
FYI, another reviewer didn't see that it was a draft space edit (thought I was removing edits from a main space page) and deleted. After they realized that it was a draft space edit, they have restored the edit. Salish Amerind (talk) 03:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Cabrils, happy New Year! With the changes made, what is my next step? (I'm sorry, but I really am new at this!). Thank you again, SA. Salish Amerind (talk) 15:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Salish Amerind.
Firstly I would encourage you to create a User Page because it will make communicating much easier (for example you will receive alerts when someone pings you).
I've re-read the draft and it's progressing, so well done for that, however on my reading I still see some issues:
1. The draft still contains subjective, qualitative assertions (eg "He is a leader in osteopathic medicine...") that must be supported by at least one reliable source. It would seem you have not read the material to which I referred you in my comment on the draft, including the articles ‘Your First Article’, ‘Referencing for Beginners’ and ‘Easier Referencing for Beginners’. They help explain why articles should be as neutral or objective as possible.
2. Please identify, with specificity, exactly what criteria you believe the draft meets to establish notability? Since Feuer is a physician and attorney, the page needs to meet the relevant criteria found in WP:ANYBIO; and/or WP:NPROF. So please provide a response like, "I believe the draft meets WP:NPROF criteria #3 because...". It may help for you to read this essay which discusses how people who are "run of mill" do not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria.
3. As I requested in my comment, it would help our volunteer reviewers by identifying, on the draft's talk page, the 3 best sources that establish notability of the subject.
4. Again, as I requested in my comment, if you have any connection to the subject, including being paid, you have a conflict of interest that you must declare on your Talk page (to see instructions on how to do this please click the link).
Please take your time reading through these suggestions, and all the links, before responding. I know it can seem a bit overwhelming at first, but you'll get the hang of it pretty quickly I think. All the best with it. Cabrils (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the detailed reply. I have been using other Wikipedia articles somewhat as "templates" for tone and content. That may not have been the best course. I will read the references your provided again, and reconsider. Again, I truly appreciate your review and guidance (and patience). Salish Amerind (talk) 16:17, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Yahya Ekhou

Hello @Cabrils Cabril, I've included extra references on the page. Please submit it again. Hammer-Sabrine (talk) 10:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Hammer-Sabrine, thanks for the ping. Please address the issues I raised in my comment on the draft. Thanks Cabrils (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Lee Kuan Yew Global Business Plan Competition

Hello @Cabrils thanks for your review and feedback on the draft, much appreciated. I do have several questions, starting with a clarification on the points you listed in context to the draft's references. When developing the draft, I browsed wiki for articles of similar theme or topic, and one of them is this (MIT $100K Entrepreneurship Competition). If you don't mind, could you have a look at the references listed for the MIT article and let me know how the ones added for the LKYGBPC competition compares. Thank you! <span data-dtsignatureforswitching="1"></span> Junieparker (talk) 07:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Junieparker. It's often problematic to use other articles are a template for new articles, particularly in this case where the page has already been tagged for having multiple issues. The key issue the draft page needs to overcome is establishing notability. I would encourage you to peruse, not just scan, the links I included in my comment. Also, as I suggested in my comment, it would be helpful if you could please identify, on the draft's talk page, the WP:THREE best sources that establish notability of the subject. Thanks. Cabrils (talk) 22:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cabrils/Archive_4&oldid=1224231128"