User talk:KJP1/Archive 4

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

Cragside scheduled for TFA[edit]

This is to let you know that Cragside has been scheduled as today's featured article for 9 February 2018. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 9, 2018. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the beauty, ""the most dramatic Victorian mansion in the North of England”, and its equally dramatic 15,000-acre estate. The house is notable, too, for its technical innovations using water power, providing electric lighting and water-powered spits, dumb waiter, dishwasher and dinner gong"! - Here's a gong for the conductor at the end of the DYK section with whom I had the honour to sing in choir once, his last concert, and not forgotten, - I forgot which year, but remember that it was Good Friday, the theatre lights were hot, and he wanted to see us in white. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:47, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Venetian helmet-crown[edit]

Hello. Given Victoria's analysis, which is typically astute, I'd be inclined to accept this. Unfortunately, or as the happily case may be, fortunately, I don't have much immediate time to help out. Best as always from Cork. Ceoil (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil - Doing it now! All the best. KJP1 (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:59:59, 21 January 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by David el Dee[edit]

I cannot understand a word of your refusal, and nor can I understand a word of the technical reasons. I have known the subject person since 1966, but there is no reference for this. He was commissioned into the British Army and I quoted the London Gazette entry. He was appointed a Deputy Lieutenant and again, I quoted the London Gazette entry. His father has an entry; his grandfather has an entry - as a Deputy Lieutenant and a baronet, I believe he ought to have an entry. Clearly I am incapable of providing such an entry. Where is the 'save' button? David el Dee (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David el Dee - Hello David, thanks for getting back to me. I'll try and explain the reasons for my decline, and make some suggestions below. You've been editing Wikipedia for a while, so I'll assume a bit of prior knowledge:
  • Reliable sources - these are the bedrock of Wikipedia, as they allow readers to verify the accuracy of what they are reading. Personal knowledge can't substitute for this. You say you have known Sir Reginald for fifty years, and I don't doubt you have, but tell me how I can verify this without a cited source?
  • Citations - this is how we give a source for a claim in an article, to enable readers to verify the claim. So, when I say Sir Reginald is a Deputy Lieutenant of Lincolnshire,[1], I support it with a citation. The problem with your citations is that they aren't placed next (inline) to the fact they claim to support. So they don't support it.
  • Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons - Wikipedia has particularly strict rules regarding living persons, to avoid defamation etc. So inline citations are required. Your draft article doesn't have them, so I declined it. But the issue can be rectified and I'll show you how.
I'll go and do a little work on the draft article, to give you an idea of what I mean. If you need any more help, just give me a shout. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 20:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And now edited. Best of luck with the article. KJP1 (talk) 22:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:26:41, 21 January 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Piravlos[edit]

Thanks for your comment, you are 100% right. I have added it on the Ethereum main article. Have a look. Piravlos (talk) 20:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Piravlos - I'd certainly prefer one article on this topic than two. KJP1 (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help Regarding Draft:Lawn Love[edit]

Hello KJP1 (talk), Thanks for your feedback on the Draft:Lawn Love. Since your feedback, I have tried and edited the content to make it neutral. Request you to have a look, and let me know if now it feels better. If you could pointedly tell which lines or para are not written as a neutral POV, it would be great help for me to improve it further. SVSM (talk) 09:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SVSM - Sure, I'll put my comments on the draft. KJP1 (talk) 10:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And have now done so. KJP1 (talk) 11:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

11:40:43, 22 January 2018 review of submission by Maxkostenko[edit]


It`s not an adverisement aricle. I don`t need no advertisement. Please, would you help me to improve this article in the way statisfying you? I will be so pleased. I just want to create article about new type of education, there is can`t be any advertisment. Please, review this article one more time. I hope you help me with it. I wrote this article for several weeks, and i`m very sad now. Thank you Maxkostenko (talk) 11:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I see you've resubmitted. I'll leave my comments on the article draft. KJP1 (talk) 14:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now done. KJP1 (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Süleyman the Magnificent's Venetian Helmet has been accepted[edit]

Süleyman the Magnificent's Venetian Helmet, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's all sorted properly with the merge tags and everything. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:MyChat[edit]

Hello, thank you for your review. 1. "Issues are many - one reference, to the company's own site." No, 3d2f is not MyChat company. Network Software Solutions is MyChat company and link to their official website is listed in "External links". Only one reference because MyChat was initially oriented on Ukrainian and Russian audience (MyChat has approved articles in Ukrainian and Russian Wikipedia sections). 2. "It's not an article draft, but a simple list of product features. Basically, straight-forward advertising." Agree. I am thinking about adding "History" section. 3. "Editor is not making improvements, despite three previous declines." Disagree. Previous editors told me about secondary sources to establish notability and that English Wikipedia is open to non-English written sources. I added 4 sources in non-English language which are considered to be reliable in our country. They didn't told me about any other weak sides of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astronomich (talk • contribs) 11:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Astronomich - Hi, thanks for your comment. My apologies for attributing 3D2f to you. I'll go and have another look at the article. KJP1 (talk) 17:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Myo Myint Nyein[edit]

Hey, I went ahead and moved this to mainspace. Looks notable and while it has some POV-language, it doesn't appear to be an advert. Moving it to mainspace where more people can work on it seems best. I know you were trying to help redraft it, so I thought I would let you know. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TonyBallioni - appreciated and thanks for letting me know. He absolutely merits an article and there's more than enough material. KJP1 (talk) 14:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Izad[edit]

Hello, KJP1. Firstly, thank you for taking the time to review my draft submission for Reza Izad. From my understanding, the main reasons it got rejected were because you felt that a) the subject wasn't notable and b) the article was written like an advertisement. I plan on learning from your feedback and incorporating it into my drafts moving forward, but I just had a couple questions:

  1. Do you think the draft would hold up stronger if he had more third-party sources that profiled him in more detail?
  2. How could the draft be written less like an advertisement or what do you see written like an advertisement? Everything from what I see is factual and not too fluffed up.

Thank you. JacobPace (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JacobPace - I'm afraid that assisting paid editors to burnish their puff pieces isn't part of what I do here. KJP1 (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@KJP1: I am just looking to get feedback on my draft. I am following the rules as a paid editor here on Wikipedia. Jytdog, just pinging you since you've always been pretty helpful with my situation and are also good at giving me perspective from the Wikipedia community. All I'm looking for is some honest, constructive feedback. Believe me, I want to get done with this just as much as everyone else here but an answer would be very helpful to continue moving forward whether that means fixing something on this draft or not submitting until a certain criteria has been met. For the record, I agree regarding Reza's current lack of notability. JacobPace (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
JacobPace - And "for the record", my "honest, constructive feedback" is that what you do is horseshit, and wholly inimical to the values of Wikipedia. "Believe me", we aren't going to agree and further discussion is quite pointless. KJP1 (talk) 23:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@KJP1: Understood, thanks. JacobPace (talk) 00:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Submission by SFNC[edit]

Thanks for reviewing my submission on LiveRamp!

I revised and added additional citations from the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, TechCrunch, Business Insider, a case study on the business by Harvard Business School, and a case study on the business by Stanford Graduate School of Business to better capture notability. I believe the subject is notable, as it's a large public company with a large body of articles that have been written about it. If there's anything I can do to make it more encyclopedic, would love your suggestions or direct edits. Thanks!

SFNC - Will have another look but, before I do so, can you clarify: do you have a connection, personal or professional, with Draft:LiveRamp, or Rapleaf, Auren Hoffman, Stephen Travis May, or other of their companies or colleagues? These articles/drafts appear to be the only areas of Wikipedia in which you have an interest. If you do have a connection, could you clarify why it isn't declared, as per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest?

09:07:14, 24 January 2018 review of submission by Earworm.ooo[edit]

Two questions: 1) I don't understand why you think it is an ad. I've written it with the most partial language. I even used examples from other pages on how to write it. Why do you think it sounds advertorial? Can you please show an example? 2) Regarding notability. There are only 2 other companies that offer a service similar to Mentimeter: Kahoot and Poll Everywhere. Mentimeter has over 20 million users. How is that not notable? Please explain. Earworm.ooo (talk) 09:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Earworm.ooo - I didn't discuss the subject's Notability, although I don't think it is notable. I did describe it as an advert, which I most definitely think it is. It's a straightforward description of a product, with details of its functions, a how-to-use guide, and a description of its payment models. Topped off with contact details. If you don't think that's an ad, it's unlikely we will agree on the point. You can, of course, resubmit, but I note I'm the third editor that doesn't think it belongs here. KJP1 (talk) 09:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All right. I will add I guess company details and history? I mean, it has to have the description of what the service does. I was basing my entry on the Kahoot one. I will review and resubmit. Thanks.

11:52:18, 24 January 2018 review of submission by Cfbillingham[edit]

Thank you for your advice as to how to improve the page for the Durham Revue. I have added ticket listings from independent sources, news articles in which the subject is either mentioned or fully discussed. Please could you review the page again as I feel you were unnecessarily nit-picking. In comparison with other wikipedia pages for student comedy groups, in particular, the Oxford Revue, this page is certainly more detailed and contains much more reliable sources. Thank you. Cfbillingham 24-01-18 Cfbillingham (talk) 11:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cfbillingham - Thanks for your note. A few points in response:
  • You've enhanced the sourcing. This is good and will certainly improve the draft's chances of acceptance;
  • Assuming you are the Charlie Billingham listed as a member of the revue, I think you should declare a Conflict of interest, as per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest;
  • Comparison with other articles is rarely a strong argument for acceptance, particularly if those other articles are not themselves strong. This essay gives more detail as to why, Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, but, in a nutshell, the fact that one weak article may exist doesn't make a very compelling case to accept another;
  • Lastly, a minor point of style and approach - if I were asking another editor for further assistance, I don't think I would describe their previous efforts to help as "unnecessar(y) nit-picking". Just a thought.

All the best with the draft. KJP1 (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

01:55:18, 25 January 2018 review of submission by Oriz123[edit]


Hi, I am not sure why this was declined tbh. I provided several objective sources, from Forbes, Inc. Entrepreneur, etc. I wrote it as neutral and objective as possible while at the same time describing some of the features(and I didn't even go into all of them - because I really didn't want it to seem like a promotion). Cryptocurrency is in a huge boom right now, and many new people to the space google what it is about and find info on wikipedia. I think it is important and in wikipedia's best interest to be able to inform people about as many different options out there as possible. That is what I'm trying to do - Divi was only my first. The process seems so grueling though, that it really makes me want to reconsider...I am willing to put in the work and contribute because wikipedia only has a couple dozen coins right now out of almost 1,500. I think that needs to be improved, and once I actually manage to get my first article published, I will publish more. For now, I stripped it down further, and hopefully it is neutral enough(albeit very short but more can be added later on I guess) to be approved now. There are many other pages for coins out there, including some very recent approvals, that contain their own website as a source even though I was told that's a no no. There's also shameful advertising on those pages, things I am not tring to do. I can post links to the pages I am talking about if needed, but I feel like pages going alot more against terms than mine have been approved. Please let me know what I need to do to have this page up. Thank you Oriz123 (talk) 01:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oriz123 - Hello and thanks for your message. I'm afraid you and I fundamentally disagree as to whether Wikipedia and its readers would benefit from having 1,500 articles on bitcoins. As such, I'm really not best placed to assist you. Other reviewers may well take a different view, however, and I see you have already resubmitted the draft. I will make one suggestion - the argument that other, poor, articles exist on the same topic is rarely a strong argument for acceptance. See this essay for more information as to why, "Other stuff exists". If you want a model, have a look at some of our best articles, Wikipedia's best, not some of our worst. KJP1 (talk) 07:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure if there is a different way to respond so just editing here. I'm not saying there should be 1,500 articles as many have the same concept, but I do think it provides value for people to learn about the different options, definitely more than exist on wikipedia today. I understand it's not a strong argument that poor articles exist, but I honestly believe that goes against wikipedia's goals. I was hoping to get some insight from you about what, more specifically, was wrong or could be changed with the first draft and/or whether or not the current draft is better, either way thanks for your response.

10:31:58, 26 January 2018 review of submission by Yorkieyork[edit]

Hi, Thanks for reviewing my first submission - You said the article read like an advert so have addressed that by removing the product descriptions. I tried to base this on other company pages which are on wiki already, so if I'm missing anything else please advise what needs to be done. Thank You. Yorkieyork (talk) 10:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yorkieyork - Hi, thanks for getting back. I've two problems with the article, and unfortunately I don't think either can be addressed through redrafting. Firstly, it still reads like an advertisement to me. Secondly, the subject is, in my view, a non-notable food supplements manufacturer. As such, I don't think it meets the criteria set out in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). If you've not done so, it might be helpful to have a look at these. So, the bottom line for me is that I'm not persuaded it should be on Wikipedia. But, it's quite possible I'm wrong and that another reviewer may take a different view. So, if when you've looked at the criteria, you still think it is notable, then re-submit. One last thing; I see this is the only article you've contributed to. And that your user name indicates an affinity with the City of York, the home city for Sweet Cures. If you have a connection with the company, this needs to be declared as a Conflict of interest, and you should carefully review the policies and guidance on Conflict of interest editing, here, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

12:18:49, 26 January 2018 review of submission by Ebrown58[edit]

Please can you clarify why you believe this page is advertising? PetShop uk complies with Wikipedia's "no-advertising" policy, given that it has received significant coverage in reputable newspapers, including Independent, Financial Times and Telegraph. For example, PetShop uk is the first online pet store to be welcomed by the national dog competition, Crufts. PetShop uk is also renowned as a Prince's Trust company and has a unique subscription service called the Bottomless Bowl.

Ebrown58 (talk) 12:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ebrown58 - Happy to take another look. But first, could you clarify, do you have a connection to the company or its owners? If so, what is the nature of the connection? Thanks. KJP1 (talk) 12:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for getting back to me so soon. I am the business owner, Adam Taylor. I am already listed on Wikipedia under the Graduate of the Year 2006 (UK) where my company, PetShop.co.uk is referenced. Several of my friends and colleagues have been asking me what I have been doing since and I would like to document this under PetShop uk (I have omitted .co.uk to abide by Wikipedia's neutrality conventions).

Hi, thanks for the reply. So, a few things:
  • As the business owner, you do need to declare a Conflict of interest and read the policy and guidance about conflict-of-interest editing;
  • The most important, but not the only, issues are that you should disclose your COI when involved with affected articles and you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly;
  • I don't think Wikipedia is the most suitable place to keep friends and colleagues updated on your activities - Facebook, email, a blog or a circular letter might be better alternatives;
  • Turning to the article itself, you will see from the above that you are strongly discouraged from writing it, as it is just not possible for a business owner to write about their own business and maintain the necessary Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. If your business is notable, somebody will, in time, write the article;
  • I am afraid I do still think that the article is more an advertisement that an encyclopedic article on a notable topic. We are likely to disagree on that. But, even if I am wrong, it just isn't appropriate to have an article on here that includes phrases such as "Mr Taylor hopes to reach the £10 million benchmark", without it being crystal clear to readers that the phrase has been written by Mr Taylor, about himself.
Regards. KJP1 (talk) 16:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Are you also Giraffe601, the author of Draft:Adam Taylor and Lil-lambson, the author of Draft:Alexandra Taylor? KJP1 (talk) 16:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Hi KJP1, I have declared my conflict of interest on Draft talk:PetShop uk. Giraffe601 and Lil-lambson are also PetShop uk accounts.

I'm afraid I've no idea of the protocols around running three separate accounts to create drafts on yourself, your wife and your business. I shall ask. KJP1 (talk) 17:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ebrown58 I've raised a query, here, [2]. KJP1 (talk) 17:41, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Restic[edit]

Just wanted to say that I appreciated that you took the time to review the Restic draft, and that you did it so quickly - I thought it would take a couple of months or so before it was done.

That said, was quite disappointed by your take on it. If you had any idea how much time I spent and foremost how much care I took in making sure that I didn't write any claims that weren't backed up by a reference, and writing the entire article in a neutral way/tone and without bias. Suggesting it reads like an advertisement is.. Well I can't even find the words for it.

It's sad that all you look for is notability. A Wikipedia article is less about that and more about other things, but apparently that's not something you value. From a regular user/visitor's point of view, this article did cut it and would have provided value. And I'm saying this from a perspective where I could not care less about it from the projects point of view (I'm just a user of the software, nothing more) - I wrote this article 100% as a service for the Wikipedia visitors, not in any way for the purpose of advertising Restic.

In short, one could sum it up as follows: The article's purpose was to provide a good summary of restic and it's state and features, in a place where a lot of people go to find this information. This is where this information belongs, and users wanting to dig into more specifics are welcome to do so on the project's site. For a piece of software that has been around since 2015 and is evidently established and known to many people, including external and large corporations who wrote about it entirely on their own, there's very little to argue that there needs to be more notability provided. Also, who cares that GitHub is a niche site? That doesn't make restic or the knowledge about restic existance and what it can do for you any less valid.

I asked for the article to be deleted. Not because it doesn't have valid or valuable content, since it actually does, but because I think that as long as reviews of articles like this one are this narrow-sighted and only looking for notability, there's no point in trying. Feel free to delete these comments once you read them, and thanks again for trying to review it!

For reference, here's more direct replies to the comments you made:

  • "Ten of the twenty-three sources are to the company's own site/publications": Yes, because this is the one and main true source for the facts presented in the article in a neutral and unbiased way. This is the source to use for facts.
  • "The rest are blogs or niche, trade sites like GitHub": If you consider large companies like DigitalOcean and Rackspace to be that, then I think there are greater problems involved here than the notability of this article. Also, in what way is the medium used for article text relevant? If the Linux Journal would have written a great article about restic, you'd be inclined to use that for notability. If it so happened that it was published on their blog, it would still contain the same article text, and hence would presumably be of equal value regardless of it being on a blog or not.
  • "Nothing to indicate Notability through significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources": An article like this should not exist on Wikipedia for it's notability, it should exist for its usefulness' and the value it can bring to its readers. In this case an overview and summary of restic and its history and current state is a value to those readers, and they hardly care much about the notability you speak of. Five external and well known parties having involved or written about restic suggests there's enough in terms of restic being worthy a note/article - this isn't unknown software, and it's even been starred thousands of times on GitHub.
  • "The content is basically a list of the product's features": That is what the main part of an overview/summary is all about, so there's nothing wrong with that, and it's not something that should dismiss the article.
Hi, thanks for the detailed feedback. I would want to say, firstly, that I am sorry that I disappointed and upset you by declining your draft. That wasn't the aim and I very much regret that it did so. Turning to the specifics, in essence, I think we have different viewpoints as to what Wikipedia is. This essay is very helpful in that regard, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, particularly the sections entitled, "Wikipedia is not a directory" and "Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal". Wikipedia's an encyclopedia, intending to provide quality articles on notable subjects, written from a neutral point of view through coverage of a range of reliable secondary and independent sources. As such, Notability, rather than "usefulness" is key. There are many thousands of other places people can go to get information on software, such that it isn't essential to have the information here. I understand you have a different viewpoint, and, should you recreate and resubmit the draft, another reviewer may take a different view. That's one of the many advantages of this place. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 16:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you![edit]

Thank you from the London task force of WikiProject Public Art
Just wanted to thank you for your kind words about the project page and for your hard work in creating Statue of Charles II, Royal Hospital Chelsea, Statue of Robert Clayton, Equestrian statue of William III, London, Equestrian statue of Ferdinand Foch, London and Tomb of Karl Marx. Ham II (talk) 11:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ham II - My absolute pleasure. A small contribution to a magnificent project. KJP1 (talk) 14:55, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

16:56:31, 28 January 2018 review of submission by Bravo102[edit]

Hello KJP1 and thanks for reviewing the article. I would like to correct parts that sound like advertising. I tried to write everything based on facts and referenced only independent resources that wrote about the company. I actually have much more references if needed. Could you please point out specific parts of the article that sounds like advertising and require rewriting? Thank you. Bravo102 (talk) 16:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo102 - Hi, thanks for getting back. Unfortunately, I don't think you can re-write it to address the issue, as basically the whole draft is advertising. Source 2 is a basic company listing, with a press release. Source 3 is not reliable, as it's user-driven, and even if it were, it's again just a company statement. Source 5 is a press-release. Source 6 is the same press release, dressed up as an article. And all of sources 1, 4,5,6 are niche IT trade publications. Have a look at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), particularly "On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability". It just hasn't had significant coverage from international, national, or at least regional media that isn't IT-focused. As such, I don't think it meets the Notability criteria.
I see this is the only article on here that you've ever worked on. Do you have a connection, and is there any particular reason why you do want the draft on Wikipedia? KJP1 (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see you've declared a COI. But just declaring it, isn't enough. You then need to follow the rules, in particular:
Editors with a COI should follow Wikipedia policies and best practices scrupulously:
  • you should disclose your COI when involved with affected articles;
  • you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly;
  • you may propose changes on talk pages (by using the {{request edit}} template), or by posting a note at the COI noticeboard, so that they can be peer reviewed.

KJP1 (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

09:52:25, 29 January 2018 review of submission by AbbieWoodAPS[edit]

Hi there, First off, I would like to thank you for reviewing the article so quickly; I wasn't expecting a response so soon! I was hoping you could give a little more insight into what exactly was wrong with the article you reviewed for me. To give a little more information about the COI declaration, I am an employee at the company. I was designated with writing the article as I am very new here and therefore, was the best and keeping this as neutral as possible. Was the article not neutral enough? I ensured to only use information from newspaper articles as Wikipedia advised rather than our own sources.

Thank you. AbbieWoodAPS (talk) 09:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AbbieWoodAPS - Hi Abbie, thanks for getting in touch. So, the problems that I see are as follows:
  • Advertising - It reads like an advertisement for the firm. Have a look at this article, in particular the soapbox section, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. In brief, Wikipedia doesn't exist to provide another marketing platform for businesses.
  • Sourcing - you've not used your own company's materials, which is good. But what we've got is: Sources 1/2, links to articles in local press about the office opening. But both are very similar, even down to the identical photos and are classic, press release-inspired "news". Sources 3/4/5, local government announcements regarding the mayor and local awards, for which APS is a contender among 27. This just isn't the significant coverage required.
  • Notability - in my view, the firm is just not sufficiently Notable to warrant an article. Have a look at this, Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), which gives further guidance on the Notability criteria for companies. This explicitly says, "articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable". Wikipedia isn't a trade gazette, it's an encyclopedia. And I'm afraid I just don't think APS should feature here.
If you still disagree, having read the guidance above, then resubmit. It is possible another reviewer will take a different view. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:05:55, 30 January 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by 80.109.12.26[edit]

i have no idea how to use this editor or how the rules are. Obviously its either only "people who are trained writers only" or wikipedia is just sexist. writing about the term "Manspreading" deserves an wikipedia entry. the same thing done by women and lately beeing called "womenspreading" is called "a joke" or "inapropriate" also the hint "Also completely unsourced." is wrong since i posed a ton of links to articles about that term which have just beein ignored. fine. so if wikipedia is only for those who pay, or beeing paid for writing, then its ok. But please stop calling wikipedia a "Free" encyclopedia then. greets Roland 80.109.12.26 (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, Roland. KJP1 (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

17:52:11, 31 January 2018 review of submission by Homeboy1197[edit]

I believe I have the right to have this published. You have this article published and it is obliviously not factual. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_really,_really,_really_stupid_article_ideas_that_you_really,_really,_really_should_not_create Please reconsider and just humor me please, this means a great deal to the subject of my article. Please. Homeboy1197 (talk) 17:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Homeboy1197 - Hi Homeboy, well I'm afraid you believe wrong. The draft's just not right for Wikipedia. Perhaps Facebook? Sorry. KJP1 (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

06:59:22, 1 February 2018 review of submission by Btfancy[edit]


Thank you for your review of my article. I see what you are saying about the article reading like a promotion. That was not my intention. I have updated the copy, and removed elements such as the timeline which could be seen as promotional. Please let me know if you need me to make any additional changes. I appreciate your feedback. Btfancy (talk) 06:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Tree House[edit]

Thank you for looking at my article. The article was meant to be an objective description of the place. It does not present advertising material but is a factual understanding of the place. I have since edited it to become more neutral but let me know if you'd like me to tweak it any more. Treehouseresidents (talk) 07:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Treehouseresidents - Hi, and thanks for getting back. There are a number of issues. First, it still reads like an advertisement for a tower block. Second, I assume you are connected to the project, from your username. This needs to be declared as a Conflict of interest, and you need to read and follow the guidance on conflict editing. Third, I think it will need a change of name. Wiki already has an article, Tree house, and Tree House, Crawley. I think this would need to be something like, Tree House, Singapore. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 07:20, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KJP1,

No issues on the name, I will have it changed. I have already declared a COI in my account and I have read the guidelines.

This user has made a public declaration indicating that he or she has a conflict of interest with regard to the following Wikipedia article(s): Tree House

As for the content, I have tried to make it as objective as is possible and it merely describes the background, certifications/awards plus amenities of the place. How else can we write it if we do not add these details? I do not have anything written like for instance "this is such a wonderful place or beautiful place" etc. It simply states what has been achieved by the estate along with its due recognition similar to any other building. Treehouseresidents (talk) 07:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Treehouseresidents,
  • "nestled within the Chestnut Avenue private enclaves, Tree House is a stone’s throw away from nature."
  • "These structures features state-of-the-art sustainable technologies and elements such as heat-reducing windows and motion sensors that automatically activate lights."
  • "Amenities-wise, Tree House possesses facilities like an Olympic-sized lap pool as well as an Aqua Gym, Jacuzzi and Rain Spa. A multi-level gym as well as a Concierge Service and public Wi-Fi is available at the common areas."
All unsourced and all advertising. Just declaring the Coi isn't enough. You need to comply with it. KJP1 (talk) 07:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear KJKP

Please find my response as follows:

  • "nestled within the Chestnut Avenue private enclaves, Tree House is a stone’s throw away from nature." (I have adapted this to sound more neutral)
  • "These structures features state-of-the-art sustainable technologies and elements such as heat-reducing windows and motion sensors that automatically activate lights." (I have adapted this to sound more neutral)
  • "Amenities-wise, Tree House possesses facilities like an Olympic-sized lap pool as well as an Aqua Gym, Jacuzzi and Rain Spa. A multi-level gym, as well as a Concierge Service and public Wi-Fi, is available at the common areas." (I can't change this much as it states factual amenities we have. How would you propose we phrase it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treehouseresidents (talk • contribs) 15:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

07:33:49, 1 February 2018 review of submission by Jacob Slaney[edit]

Is the inline link that needs removing the link to the Wikipedia article 'Scorpion Pass Massacre;? Jacob Slaney (talk) 07:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Slaney - Yep, but I think you've converted it to a Wikipedia bluelink which is fine. KJP1 (talk) 07:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

09:27:59, 1 February 2018 review of submission by TheMainAttraction[edit]


I accidentally put the booking email in the bio. I just fixed that error that you pointed out, hopefully it get approved now. I also would want to say Thank You for taking your time out of your day to review my page. The review wait time was definitely amazing. I look forward to continue making articles/edits with you. TheMainAttraction (talk) 09:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

13:47:02, 1 February 2018 review of submission by 62.255.10.202[edit]


Hi i am totally unsure what i need to change i'm not great with this at all. Could you tell me in laymen s terms what i need to change please? 62.255.10.202 (talk) 13:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

62.255.10.202 - Well, first you need to demonstrate Wikipedia:Notability, which, put bluntly, means does the subject warrant an article on Wikipedia. To do this, you need significant coverage from a range of reliable, independent sources, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. And here's your problem. The sources you have are:
  • 1,2,3,7,8 - these are just the listings for his local radio shows, and are neither independent nor significant;
  • 4,5 - links to Wikipedia articles, but Wikipedia can't source itself.
  • 6 - his LinkedIn page - about as non-independent as you could get.

There's just nothing here that illustrates Bailey is Notable. That's not a critical judgement, there must be literally hundreds, if not thousands, of local radio presenters just in the UK, never mind more widely, who don't have articles. If you are still certain he is Notable such as to justify an article, then you just need to find the suitable sources that demonstrate this. I'm copying this note to the draft for convenience. Hope this helps. KJP1 (talk) 08:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:BookMyShow[edit]

I have significantly copyedited this for NPOV and has also added some additional content. This now satisfies WP:CORP. Could you re-review this. Thanks. Let There Be Sunshine (talk) 18:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let There Be Sunshine - I'm afraid I don't agree that it does, and it would appear others don't either. KJP1 (talk) 08:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What is the actual problem ? I think you need to start specifically pointing out the problems so that it could be understood. I don't agree with what Chrissymad said. None of the sources are press releases and have more than enough coverage independent of the subject. It satisfies WP:ORGDEPTH, WP:AUD, WP:ORGIND. Let There Be Sunshine (talk) 08:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then resubmit. Another reviewer, other than the five who have previously declined it and those who have deleted it four times before that, can then take a view. KJP1 (talk) 08:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

01:40:55, 4 February 2018 review of submission by Johndesuza74[edit]

Dear KJP1, I appreciate your review and comments. Although I have taken the references about the subject from established magazines and written the content similar to couple of articles on wikipedia. Can I request you for specific issues noticed by you during the review, it will be help me to revise the Article accordingly. Once again thank you so much for your kind consideration and help. Johndesuza74 (talk) 01:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Johndesuza74 - Thanks for the feedback. I see the article draft has been Speedy Deleted and I think that is for the best. It just isn't notable, as most companies aren't. KJP1 (talk) 12:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

04:46:50, 4 February 2018 review of submission by Bristol Centaurus[edit]

Hi KJP1. Thank you for reviewing my article. I have resubmitted it several times and tried to take out anything that sounded 'promotional'. I'm not sure what else to do? Could you make any suggestions as to how I can improve it? Bristol Centaurus (talk) 04:46, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bristol Centaurus - I'm afraid I don't think it can be improved, in that some (most) organisations/companies just aren't Notable. I see it is now up for deletion and I have to say I think that would be best. KJP1 (talk) 12:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 10:27:16, 4 February 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Cryptolyzer[edit]

I can add information I've researched about problems the project has experienced, including node/wallet sync delays to address your criticism of the article sounding like an advertisement, but that seems like more of a play-by-play of current/recent events. To be clear though, this isn't a "bitcoin ad." The topic is Nano, not Bitcoin, so I find your criticism to be slightly off-topic, subjective and ill-informed. Cryptolyzer (talk) 10:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptolyzer - "Unlike the vast majority of cryptocurrencies, Nano..." If it quacks. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 12:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Draft:Peter Thomas McGuigan[edit]

Hi KJP1, Thanks so much for reviewing and pointing out my draft problem at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Peter_Thomas_McGuigan. I’ve fixed it and resubmitted my entry. Please take a look and tell me if there is any other issue. Your time is very much appreciated! 1001Bookworm (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:05, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

18:50:25, 5 February 2018 review of submission by CyclerForJustice[edit]


Removed a section under the lampix device about them winning awards. Not sure how I can make this better as I think every statement is backed by a independent source and factual. Any specific feedback would be appreciated. CyclerForJustice (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CyclerForJustice - Apologies for the delay in getting back. I see, in the interim, that it has been deleted. I personally think this is for the best as it did read like an advert and I'm just not sure it would have been possible to make it read less so, however much work went in. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 19:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to check for copyvio[edit]

Hi KJP1 and thanks for your work reviewing drafts. Please remember to check for copyright violations. The particular one I saw was Draft:Michael Y Brenner, which had extensive copying from https://padla.org/page-1831060. There's been others recently as well. Thank you, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa - Many thanks - a helpful reminder. I have to say, when declining, I don't routinely check for copyvio if I've already decided to decline, as with Brenner, on the grounds of unsourced promotion, or some other substantive grounds. Is the preferred approach to also always do a copyvio check? I can do this, of course, but it will slow things down, and the sheer torrent of promotional crap that comes through on a daily basis is almost overwhelming as it is! All the best. KJP1 (talk) 19:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I do is that when I open up a draft, I immediately open the copyvios check in another tab, and while it's running I start looking over the draft. That way I'm not really "wasting" time but it still gets done. Primefac (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC) {{tps}[reply]
Primefac - "You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din", a very good suggestion! KJP1 (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I get that can be time consuming, but declined drafts are typically kept for 6 months or more. The bot won't catch all of the copyvio. And the instructions do say to "Please check all submissions for copying from existing sources" — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

05:47:03, 7 February 2018 review of submission by FashionGroupe

Hello KJP1. Noted a rejection sent on your part re: Draft:Pretty Wild Lingerie. The rejection note lacked constructive assistance in highlighting what parts should be improved. I did find some reference to an issue that this article can be perceived as advertising. While crafting it I focused on 2 aspect, mainly 1) ensuring it is of neutral light and 2) using only Magazine from highly reputable intimate industry publications, and media sources with credible interviews or insight: which also included governmental reports such as the United States Government USAID Annual Report and the Government of Hong Kong Company data. There are some parts of which I see can be improved, such are taking out words such as "sexy" or "best" which can be misinterpreted ad advertising. However I've looked at other similar articles such as La Perla (clothing) and Agent Provocateur (lingerie) when researching this topic as well as understanding the right verbiage. The latter two articles are very similar in nature and writing to my article. When comparing them, can you please give me some creative input as to how they are written better than this article. This will help a lot to improve it for re-submission.

Thanks much! FashionGroupe (talk) 05:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FashionGroupe - Thanks very much for the detailed response. I shall certainly have a look at it, and take another look at the draft. Unfortunately, I'm busy today, but will try to get back to it this evening. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 05:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks KJP1, went back an gutted the article to its barebones that cleans some of what I believe were your valid concerns. Please review when time allows., and you can add comments where appropriate. Thanks.

FashionGroupe - Hi, have now had another look at this and appreciate the time taken to prune some of the more promotional terminology, and add some extra sourcing. I think it is good to go, in that it does give coverage of the company's mixed fortunes using a range of reliable, secondary, third-party sources. Just three further comments, but nothing to stop Acceptance, which I shall shortly do.
  • Conflict of interest - your username suggests you may have a connection. If you do, this should be declared, and our policy and guidance on editing with a conflict carefully studied and followed;
  • This, Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, is a good essay on why comparison with other, existing articles, isn't always the strongest argument for acceptance of a draft. As an example, I see that the La Perla (clothing) article is currently tagged as reading too much like an advertisement;
  • Lastly, I apologise for my terse comment in the original Decline. That wasn't appropriate or helpful, and I'm sorry for it. KJP1 (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello KJP1, Major Thanks for the input above which helps with future fashion contributions. I’m learning much with each small contribution. My focus is fashion and hence the user name. It’s the only subject I grasp well and will contribute more groups of articles to. I’ll follow the guidance above and read more on policies and guidance on editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FashionGroupe (talk • contribs) 22:58, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

06:00:08, 7 February 2018 review of submission by Saurav.webkul

Hello, Thank you for reviewing the article and providing feedback. Can you let me know the areas of improvement where I can make changes and re-submit it? Saurav.webkul (talk) 06:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saurav.webkul - Thanks for the response. I'm busy today but will get back to you this evening. KJP1 (talk) 06:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Saurav.webkul Ok, here are the problems that I see with the article:
  • Advertising - to me, it just reads like an ad. The two main sections, Products, and Featured Products, are just lists of things you can buy from the company;
  • Conflict of interest - just declaring the conflict is not enough. You need to read and follow the policy and guidance on editing with a conflict. This says "you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly";
  • Sourcing - this is weak. You are looking for significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. What you've got is - your site, iTunes listings, press "interviews" obviously derived from PR-releases, sites that are closed, niche IT sites, blogs, mere appearances in lists....;
  • Notability - there's nothing to demonstrate this and median rankings for low-prestige tech awards don't cut it;
  • Tone - this is informal and promotional.

I am sorry but, to me, that doesn't have the makings of an acceptable article. KJP1 (talk) 21:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:13:13, 7 February 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Maxgm95

Hi KJP1, I had a quick question about the review you left for my draft article on Perlego. I saw you left a comment stating that "Many sources are to the company's own sites/products", which I assume is a reference to the fact that many of the sources I used also had a link back to Perlego within the article/piece they wrote about it. I admit I was probably a bit overzealous with my referencing (this being my first Wikipedia entry I assumed the more the better), however I do note that a lot of company pages have a large number of very similar articles which reference back to the company page. So my question is: how would you recommend I went about my referencing to make sure this article is as neutral as possible? Thanks and I look forward to hearing from you, Maxgm95. Maxgm95 (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maxgm95 - Thanks for the response. I'm busy today but will get back to you this evening. KJP1 (talk) 06:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maxgm95 - Have now had a further look but I'm afraid I still think it's an advertisement for a non-notable product, even down to listing the subscription rates, "an initial Premium rate of £15 per month; and a discounted Student rate of £12 per month". I'm just not seeing the significant coverage from a range of reliable, third-party sources that would demonstrate Notability. And even if it had that, it still shouldn't have the price list. My second big issue is that I am guessing you have a connection to the company - given this is the only article you've ever touched out of the 5 million plus that we have. If you do, that needs to be declared as a Conflict of interest, and you need to read and follow the policy and guidance on editing with a conflict. Which strongly recommends you don't directly edit articles you're connected with. I'm afraid I just don't think it belongs on here. If you disagree, do go ahead and resubmit. It may be that another editor may take a different view. But you still need to declare a Coi, if I am right and you have one.
I appreciate this might seem hard, given that the competitor companies listed all do have articles, but you'll see that every single one is tagged as advertisement. I'm afraid it is a fact that, for a range of reasons, weak articles do get through Wikipedia's quality checks, but that is not a good reason to add another to the ranks. KJP1 (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
KJP1 - Hi KJP1, thank you for getting back to me on this. I do know the founder of the company and so I thought it would be interesting to write an article on Perlego given that there has been a lot of news written about the area recently, with Cengage (a major publisher in the industry) releasing an identical model to that of Perlego. I did not realise that simply knowing the founder was enough to trigger a CoI but I will make sure to disclose it this time around. I have edited the article to try to remove as much commercial content as possible and leave the article as neutral and factual as possible and so I will resubmit it this one time as I do feel it belongs on Wikipedia. Thanks again for your help. (talk)

Request on 17:15:49, 7 February 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Lyza6107

Hello KJP1, After receiving the decline message and feeling crushed that my first article (which took me days to write, and weeks to muster up the courage to post) was declined. As it turns out, my referenced articles on WikiPedia must have been reviewed by someone who did not scrutinize as closely, nor follow QC guidelines and standards as scrupulously. So the good news is, I went right to work to repair the article based on your instructions:

  • Removed any text that would seem like an advertisement
  • Added more inline citations, and found more references to further the fact-finding details within the text
  • Updated references in full to include page numbers from the book (that was referenced) and also the book's ISBN
  • Added a "See also" area
  • Read through more "How to" articles within Wikipedia, and clicked through to countless pages on how to ensure citations were accurate
  • Referenced even more pages within Wikipedia to determine how to best keep neutrality in check (pages like Pepsi or Coca-cola from larger organizations were way more helpful)

In conclusion, the revisions appear to be in line with Wikipedia's best practices and standards as it relates to posting an article as if it were in an encyclopedia. I even pulled out a hardbound encyclopedia to compare details, trusty old Britannica, and things look well for the resubmit process. To reference some existing Wikipedia nonprofit pages, I do want to note the following for your preview and understanding of why I ended up shocked that mine was being rejected. The following are examples of (to me in hindsight) poorly executed articles that were approved through Wikipedia editors:

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detour_House
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Girls%27_Choir
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Aid_Unlimited
  4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hope_for_Haiti

Please re-review and advise if this time around it passes the editing review process, and/or more specifically what can be done to address any areas of concern or interest. Thanks - New contributor Lyza6107 (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lyza6107 - Thanks very much for getting back and for the detailed response. I shall certainly have a look at it, and take another look at the draft. Unfortunately, I'm busy today, but will try to get back to it this evening. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 05:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lyza6107 - Hi again. First, I wanted to say that I'm sorry that my declining your article draft left you down-hearted. That wasn't my intention and I know it can be depressing to have something you've worked hard on get kicked back. I've now had a chance to review the draft again, but I'm afraid I still think it is a bit promotional, and I'm not sure that the sources demonstrate that it's Notable. Taking the sources in order:
  • Source 1 - the Burnette's own book
  • Source 2 - ok
  • Source 3 - Christian TV station site
  • Source 4 - Christian TV station
  • Source 5 - their own website
  • Source 6 - Christian blog
  • Source 7 - their own annual report
  • Source 8 - their own website
  • Source 9 - not sure - user-driven?
  • Source 10 - their own book
  • Source 11 - fine, but does it mention Love a Child?
  • Source 12 - ok
  • Source 13 - Christian blog?
  • Source 14 - fine, but does it mention Love a Child?
  • Source 15 - a footballing blog
  • Source 16 - as source 2
  • Source 17 - blog?
  • Source 18 - a poultry magazine.
So, you've a bunch (five) that are the subjects' own works, which can't demonstrate Notability. Then you've a bunch (four) which are blogs/websites of organisations the aims and values of which are closely aligned to those of the article subject. I'm really not sure that these can be considered to be truly independent of the subject, although I agree they are separate. Then you've a few (four) that are fine, but at least two, 11 and 14, don't appear to mention the subject at all. And then you've a few niche sources, like the footballing blog and the poultry magazine. Overall, I just don't think this gives the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" which is needed to demonstrate Notability. In short, it needs stronger sourcing.
I appreciate that this will again be depressing, and frustrating when you compare it with some of the other articles you've cited. I am afraid it is true that some, weaker, articles do get through Wikipedia's quality controls. But one of the great things about the Afc process is that you can continue to work on an article and resubmit it at any time. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which concret criteria for your comment

Draft:. Portea- Home Heath Care was deleted fro submission and redirect to edition after your coment. I need know concreat criteria) ( WHY?! Tihonata (talk) 19:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC) Tanks for reaction. Article was written about Portea with references and rewrite, of course, neutral. I did not find bad news about Portea. Tihonata (talk) 19:54, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tihonata - Thanks for the feedback. The issues I see are these:
  • Conflict of interest - You've declared this which is good. But you need to read the policy and guidance on editing with a conflict and follow it. That you are certain the article is "neutral", when it really isn't, shows the dangers of editing articles in which you have a close interest;
  • Advertisement - the draft reads like an advertisement for the company, not a neutral overview of what reliable, independent, secondary sources have written about the article. That you can't see this, shows the problem of editing with a conflict referred to above;
  • Inline citations - there are almost no inline citations. The first four sections have none at all. The section Medical services is just a straightforward list of services you can buy from the company, and is complete advertisement;
  • Embedded links - you have a number of embedded links which we don't use and which need to go;
  • Quotes - your quotes are all from the company's officers and owners, and are again advertising;
  • Promotion - "K Ganesh is a successful serial entrepreneur with four successful green field ventures and exits" - take this, unsourced, claim. Are you really saying that is Neutral?

All in all, this is a very good example of why editors with a personal/financial interest in the subject should not try to write the article on the subject. It is advertising for a company in which you have an interest and it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. KJP1 (talk) 05:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 22:52:19, 7 February 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Clenisha Halo

I need clear direction of what kind of proof you need to publish my article. I don't understand how giving you a link to show you there is music published by known sources like iTunes is not sufficient evidence that this artist exists. Does every sentence need a reliable source to verify its contents? As far as talking to the direct source, that is a real as it gets... how many other people need to publish information on this artist for you to publish my article? Clenisha Halo (talk) 22:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clenisha Halo - Thanks for the response. I shall try to give clear directions below:
  • Sources - You don't have any. Sources are essential to demonstrate Notability and to allow readers to verify what is being claimed. Without them, you can't have an article. Read the article on Referencing for Beginners which shows how to source properly.
  • Embedded links - you do have these and we don't use them. They need to be removed.
  • Notability - "evidence that this artist exists" - that the artist exists does not mean she is Notable.
  • Conflict of interest - I see this is the only draft you've done. Do have a connection to the artist? If you do, this needs to be declared and the policy on editing with a conflict needs to be followed.

I've tried to be as clear as I can and I hope this helps. KJP1 (talk) 06:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nano (Cryptocurrency)

Nano is not "another bitcoin add". It's a cryptocurrency that uses entirely different technology, with an active developer team which is not anonymous. The article as it stands is essentially an add, but the technology is not and deserves it's own page. Sinsoto (talk) 21:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sinsoto - Hi and thanks for your feedback. You say "The article as it stands is essentially an ad" and I completely agree, which is why I declined it. I have no problem at all with a draft on Nano, or indeed bitcoin, which provides a neutral survey of the coverage of the subject by a range of reliable, secondary, third-party sources. Where I have more of an issue is when it is basically, disguised, advertising as in this case. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
KJP1 Sweet, glad those are the only problems you have with it. I'm trying to give it a more neutral point of view, but I'm relatively new to Wikipedia compared to you. It would mean a lot if you could check back on the article in a couple days after I rewrite it and give me some feedback. Sinsoto (talk) 03:57, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ICONOMI

Hi KJP1. Thanks for taking a look at the article. Your comment on it being another bitcoin advert (as I've seen you do to other blockchain projects) shows some naivety. This is a 396 billion dollar asset class that deserves representation on the worlds biggest encyclopedia.

I'd suggest watching this video from yesterday where the US Senate discuss how they will move forward with cryptocurrencies (https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/06/virtual-currencies-oversight-hearing-sec-cftc-bitcoin/) to see how fast this space is being legitimised.

I would respectfully suggest that you reconsider, or let someone else look over articles on blockchain and cryptocurrency, at one point people dismissed the internet, and the car too.

It'sMeSatoshi (talk) 14:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It'sMeSatoshi - Hi, and thanks for the feedback. My response is essentially the same as that given above. I have no issue at all with neutral article drafts on bitcoin and its supporting technologies which present a balanced survey of the coverage of the subject from a range of reliable, secondary, independent sources. What I am less keen on are drafts, on bitcoin or anything else, that seek to use Wikipedia as a promotional platform for a company or product, often written by single-purpose editors, such as yourself, who frequently have interests, declared or undeclared, in the company or product being described.
As to your suggestion that I "let someone else look over articles on blockchain and cryptocurrency", I am genuinely puzzled. Editors whose drafts are declined can resubmit them at any time, and a wide array of reviewers will pick them up. You obviously know this as you have resubmitted your draft. It isn't my general habit to review the same draft twice, so I am sure, at some point, another editor will have a look at it, and they may take a different view as to its merits. KJP1 (talk) 18:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm involved in the Iconomi community in the sense that I am active in their chat rooms and reddit pages. I've also followed crypto more generally and several other projects for a few years. I'd like to comment on some of what has been said above because I feel like something outside of the context of this draft is being argued. This Iconomi draft is in no way shape or form some sort of advertisement for Bitcoin. No more than a Wikipedia article about Vanguard or Fidelity or Coinbase or Kraken is an advertisement for the USD or BTC or ETH. Iconomi is a company, this company currently resides legally in Malta with the Headquarters in Slovenia. The company has 40 employees roughly with a book value approaching $400,000,000 and a market cap that has ranged from roughly $200,000,000 - $500,000,000 over the previous year. The second part of what was stated above is that perhaps this draft is being written as a promotional platform for a company or a product. I find this argument to have at least a basis in what could be reality, as perhaps this could be considered promotional for the Iconomi company itself. Clearly this would not be promotional for Bitcoin but let's say that this would instead be promotional for Iconomi. If a draft is declined on the basis that it could be considered promotional, let me ask you, what specifically could be edited in the article that would remove this from being the case. I can find dozens if not hundreds or thousands of examples of publicly traded or privately held companies with lower market caps which have Wikipedia pages (Bandwidth , Digimarc , Cinedigm , Hibbett_Sports , etc ). Clearly companies of this size can and do have relevant pages on Wikipedia. So rather than dismissing the article as a whole, could you please detail which pieces of the draft seem to in some way be promotional, and what could be done in your eyes to mitigate any bias and improve the article?Stephenallanross (talk) 02:00, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Front page

Nice to see Cragside on the front page today. It's an excellent article and you and DBaK should be rightly pleased with your efforts. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 00:28, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat - Schro, many thanks. It was a highly enjoyable collaborative effort, sparked by our mutual interest in a wonderful house. Exactly what I like about this place. All best wishes. KJP1 (talk) 07:03, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SchroCat - Thank you very much for your kind comments. It must be obvious to all that KJP1 did all the heavy lifting and I just fiddled with semicolons and so on; nevertheless, it has been a great experience to be involved. Cheers DBaK (talk) 12:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

04:21:13, 9 February 2018 review of submission by Mery1994

Hi, could you please tell me what part of this makes it an advertisement? What do I need to change to make it seem less like an ad and just info on the company? Mery1994 (talk) 04:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mery1994 - Hi, the answer to the question, "what part of this makes it an advertisement" is all of it. The answer to the question, "what do I need to change" is all of it. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cragside

Gosh, how long had we had the wrong Edward up there?! I must have read past that 1000 times! Sheesh - glad someone picked it up! Cheers (and sorry, I owe you email) DBaK (talk) 12:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Notability and Reference Checking Against Wikipedia Guidelines

Hello KJP1, Thank you for taking the time to respond. I'm hopeful to get there and be amongst the newer and improved writers on Wikipedia - to give it the credibility it deserves.

Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Love_A_Child# — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyza6107 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your comments:

Taking the sources in order:

  • Source 1 - the Burnette's own book
  1. Question for your comment on Source 1 - Why would this be considered non-notable? Please allow me to share why I feel it is a notable source: 1.) There is no reasonable doubt to the book's authenticity. 2.) The book was not self-published, meaning that this Wikipedia article posting is not about Bobby and Sherry Burnette, but it's about Love A Child, Inc. (the subject in which notability is being questioned for the article). 3.) The book reference as an inline citations should at least be considered a reliable source of information due to its third party publication through Whitaker House (i.e. not self-published by the authors). My understanding of using citations was that they were to showcase where facts or details were pulled. 4.) The details within the article may have been pulled from the book itself, but the facts were further substantiated for the full article by additional inline citations from third party sources provided. 5.) Side note: I actually purchased the book through Amazon - Retrieved from: https://www.amazon.com/Love-Something-Sherry-Bobby-Burnette/dp/1629115606 - and found listings to back the book on Goodreads.com - GoodReads listing. Retrieved from: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/27037767-love-is-something-you-do. Goodreads.com is an entirely independent source to corroborate the book's notability. 6.) According to Wikipedia's own guidelines on sources: "However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."
  • Source 2 - ok
  • Source 3 - Christian TV station site
  1. Question for your comment on Source 3 - The mention of "Christian TV station site" is what I'd like to learn more about. It is not user-generated, nor self-publsihed. You mention that you are not really sure that they can be considered truly independent, yet the referenced Christian TV station is an independent source, and as indicated in the above: According to Wikipedia's own guidelines on sources: "However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources - Under "Biased or opinionated sources" ... Wikipedia itself has published articles on all 3 TV stations mentioned in the article, so I'm wondering why that would not be considered independent.
  • Source 4 - Christian TV station
  1. Question for your comment on Source 4 - Same question for Source 4 comment as I have for Source 3
  • Source 5 - their own website
  • Source 6 - Christian blog
  1. Response to your comment on Source 6 - I see now that the website can be considered a "blog" and that blogs are not typically seen as acceptable references. I will work to pull a better reference in this case.
  • Source 7 - their own annual report
  • Source 8 - their own website
  • Source 9 - not sure - user-driven?
  1. 'Question for your comment on Source 9 - Would you consider checking the source? Global Atlanta is considered a reputable news site. See: https://www.globalatlanta.com/about-us/. This was not a user-driven comment. There was an actual journalist (the Publisher of the Global Atlanta) who covered the full story. This is a 3rd party independent source that falls in line with citing sources guidelines and standards through Wikipedia.
  • Source 10 - their own book
  • Source 11 - fine, but does it mention Love a Child?
  1. Question on comment "but does it mention Love a Child?"- Would you be willing to open this citation and read it? The Harvard Humanitarian Initiative document goes into extensive detail about Love A Child's involvement of the humanitarian relieve provided after the earthquake in Haiti in 2010. On the grounds of this one document alone, the subject of the article can be deemed as "notable". This is a 3rd party independent source that falls in line with citing sources guidelines and standards through Wikipedia. Notability requires verifiable evidence, and there is no greater source than a multi-page document published by Harvard for notability in this case. They thanked Love A Child throughout every page of the text, discussing the partnership.
  • Source 12 - ok
  • Source 13 - Christian blog?
  1. Question on comment "Christian blog?"- Would you be willing to open this citation and read it?- ChristianPost.com is the nation's most comprehensive Christian news website and was launched in March 2004, incorporated with the vision of delivering up-to-date news, information, and commentaries relevant to Christians across denominational lines. The source in question was written by a journalist. This is a 3rd party independent source that falls in line with citing sources guidelines and standards through Wikipedia.
  • Source 14 - fine, but does it mention Love a Child?
  1. Question on comment for Source 14- While it doesn't mention the subject of the article, it provides the basis for the research that went into what was written (which coincides with the subject matter of the article). Is this not allowed?
  • Source 15 - a footballing blog
  1. Response to your comment on Source 15 - I see now that the website can be considered a "blog" and that blogs are not typically seen as acceptable references. I will work to pull a better reference in this case.
  • Source 16 - as source 2
  • Source 17 - blog?
  1. Response to your comment on Source 15 - I see now that the website can be considered a "blog" and that blogs are not typically seen as acceptable references. I will work to pull a better reference in this case.
  • Source 18 - a poultry magazine.
  1. Question on comment for Source 18- As it relates to good, reliable references, this listed reference for the article found on the PoultrySite meets the criteria listed as a verifiable, reliable source. 5m Publishing employs a well respected and highly motivated editorial team to keep ThePoultrySite.com and other publications up to date with the latest industry news, events and technical information.

So, you've a bunch (five) that are the subjects' own works, which can't demonstrate Notability. Then you've a bunch (four) which are blogs/websites of organisations the aims and values of which are closely aligned to those of the article subject. I'm really not sure that these can be considered to be truly independent of the subject, although I agree they are separate. Then you've a few (four) that are fine, but at least two, 11 and 14, don't appear to mention the subject at all. And then you've a few niche sources, like the footballing blog and the poultry magazine. Overall, I just don't think this gives the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" which is needed to demonstrate Notability. In short, it needs stronger sourcing.

  • Response: I counted 8 of the 18 sources that are now left as what would be deemed as "notable, reputable, reliable sources" based on the guidelines stated through Wikipedia. Overall, the remaining references were used to substantiate the facts shown (which were derived from independent, third party sources, not just one particular place). With 700 words in the overall article, 8 solid references, and at least 9 ancillary references listed shows a sincere effort was placed in the direction towards notability.


Thank you for addressing the other articles I found were not well reviewed. I can list dozens more that have not had the review you have provided on this particular entry, but I'd like to focus on making this one pass the test.

Please review the comments in full and let me know if you are willing to answer these remaining questions.

In gratitude, New contributor Lyza — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyza6107 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lyza6107 - Hi Lyza, I'm really sorry but I don't have the time to go line-by-line through every source with you. I set out my concerns re. the draft and declined on that basis. You can of course resubmit at any time and another reviewer may take a different view. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RE: My article submission for "Get Up"

Hiya, i'm 46albertsquare, first, thank you for reviewing my article, second, i disagree with your opinion, it cannot be called a "advertisement", as it is not one, i have phrased it in the best possible manner so it cannot be considered an ad, i have used in a factual and neutral way from the references i've provided, and paraphrased them in the best form of matter, attempting to leave out phrases that could consider it an ad in the first place, i would like to invite you to please reconsider your decision, thanks! (also, i apologize if i did something wrong to your page, it's my first time on a user's talk page) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46albertsquare (talk • contribs) 10:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

46albertsquare - Hi and thanks for the response. But I'm afraid we'll have to disagree, as I think it absolutely is an advertisement. You've three sources, although 2/3 are the same. They are both niche publications, and the first two are standard, PR-release inspired, interviews. The third just mentions the studio is leasing some space. There's no significant coverage of the show from a range of reliable, third-party sources; there's nothing on reception, audience figures etc., as there can't be because it hasn't aired yet. In short, it's a trailer for an upcoming show, for which there is no indication of Notability. To me, that's an advertisement. And no worries about my Talk page, it's fine. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 10:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To add pictures on my creation

Hello user, I m dedicated to my account please help me Nipe Cold (talk) 15:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nipe Cold - I'm sorry but I've no idea what you are talking about. KJP1 (talk) 15:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conversation

I have no idea about how to add pictures or image on my creation works based on any person that picture or photo of that person Nipe Cold (talk) 15:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nipe Cold - So, you want to upload an image? OK - first make sure you have the copyright and that the image is suitable for Wikipedia. Then get it in a digital format on your PC or whatever. Than go here, [3]. Then, press the big blue button on the right labelled Upload. Then follow the instructions. If you can't make it work, there's a helpdesk. Hope this helps. KJP1 (talk) 15:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Walks on ordinals

I do not understand your draft submission refusal. The article is/was in its stub state. The first reference is the most reliable one for being cited 220 times The second reference is the most reliable one for being cited 99 times;

Since the article contains ONLY the method definition and the method definition belongs exclusively to its author, Stevo Todorcevic, there is no need to add anything. --BTZorbas (talk) 23:40, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTZorbas - You can't use the author's works as the only source. You need independent, third-party sourcing. KJP1 (talk) 23:53, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong. The references are valid, the method definition does not need any third-party sourcing.--BTZorbas (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BTZorbas - OK, good to talk. KJP1 (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 02:11:40, 11 February 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Wikieditorj

Thank you for your input. I fail to see how Time Out or Japan Times does not count as a reputable source that implies notoriety. Nor do I see explaining what made a subject famous in neutral language to be like an advertisement. Please reconsider or provide examples that will be helpful for improving the piece. Thanks again. Wikieditorj (talk) 02:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikieditorj - Hi, I see you've asked the same question at the Helpdesk, and got the answer I would have given here. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 07:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have carried out suggested changes about the subject. The language is more neutral now and independent third party sources that demonstrate notoriety were added. Wikieditorj (talk) 08:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikieditorj Fine - but I think you mean Notability. Notoriety has a very different meaning. KJP1 (talk) 09:18, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you for catching the typo. I did mean notability, which I hope is clear now from the added references. There are more references of notability available in Japanese, but since the subject is American I thought it would be helpful to prioritize English resourcesWikieditorj (talk) 10:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for advice to improve the article. Although brief, it provides a useful overview of the subject. Your concern about his notability should be resolved now. Further advice or approval would be great. Wikieditorj (talk) 06:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Peter_Thomas_McGuigan

Hi KJP1, Could you please take a look at my entry at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Peter_Thomas_McGuigan? I hope I've fixed the problem you've helped with. Your time is very much appreciated! 1001Bookworm (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1001Bookworm - Hi, just wanted to apologise for the delay in getting back to you. Shall certainly review the revised draft within the next 48 hours, hopefully sooner. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 18:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1001Bookworm - Now done, and Accepted. Congrat.s. KJP1 (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Squeeze_Tarela

Hi KJP1, Thanks for the feedback. I have removed and fixed the problems you highlighted and hope you ok with it? Please see the entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Squeeze_Tarela Please reconsider and tell me if you need more changes to be done to be it approve. Your time and effort is much appreciated. Regards. Manothot2017 (talk) 08:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Manothot2017 - Hi, just to say sorry for the delayed response. Shall certainly review the revised draft within the next 48 hours, hopefully sooner. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Manothot2017 - sorry it took a while. Now Accepted. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 09:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. Manothot2017 (talk) 10:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:24:37, 11 February 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Trishla rane

HI. I would like to understand the mistakes of this article written about the subject. Trishla rane (talk) 13:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trishla rane - Hi Trisha, and thanks for getting in touch. There are quite a number of issues with the draft, which I've set out below. Please read the links, as well as my comments:
  • Wikipedia:Autobiography - It really isn't a good idea to try to write your autobiography on Wikipedia, and this essays sets out why;
  • Wikipedia:Conflict of interest - You obviously have a conflict of interest if you are trying to write about yourself. This needs to be declared, and the guidance on conflict editing followed;
  • Wikipedia:Neutral point of view - Wikipedia articles are written from a Neutral point of view. It's impossible to be Neutral if you're trying to write about yourself;
  • Wikipedia:Notability - Wikipedia articles cover subjects that have Notability. You really aren't the best person to assess this about yourself. The general criteria say that a subject is notable if they have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject;
  • Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources - You've got three sources, an online news service (1) which gives your name once, an e-newspaper link that doesn't seem to work (2) and a newspaper link (3) that doesn't work either. This doesn't represent significant coverage from reliable sources;
  • Wikipedia:Manual of Style - the layout of the page doesn't conform to our style guide. Just have a look at this, Nadira Babbar, to see how your draft should be laid out;
  • Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch - The tone of the draft is promotional, which isn't surprising as you've written it yourself. But it won't do for Wikipedia. "a well-known Defense family", "though she did not belong to a business background had the foresight to work and achieve on several ambitious projects, thus making her one of the youngest women entrepreneurs", "Not resting on her laurels, she had a vision to", "a passionate social activist", "became the inspiration for plus size women", "Trishla is now considered to be the role model". None of these statements are sourced and they are all what you are saying about yourself.
I hope that the above is helpful in showing you the problems with your draft. It's important to understand that Wikipedia's not Facebook, where you can write whatever you like about yourself. It is also a truly bad idea to try to write your autobiography on here. I'll copy this to the draft for ease of reference. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

11:12:54, 12 February 2018 review of submission by Zowiedied

Zowiedied (talk) 11:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC) Hi... this is zowiedied. mistakes were made in the upload (reference#1 the same as reference #5, etc.) and made an odd submission look odder than it already was. Please edit this article as if it were a genuine candidate for submission, and I will work to find better references for it. Thank you. I think this novel might be noteworthy because of its unique subject matter, and the author's extraordinary claims of 7000 rejections for it. To my knowledge, there's been nothing else like it ever written. Mike[reply]

Zowiedied - Hi Zowiedied, apologies for the slow reply. Shall certainly revisit the revised draft within the next 48 hours. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Zowiedied - Hi, have now had another look but I think the issues remain. There are only four sources:
  • 1 - a link to the author's Amazon page;
  • 2 - a link to the book's Amazon page;
  • 3 - a link to a site for a magazine that appears not to mention the book;
  • 4 - as above.
This just doesn't constitute the significant coverage from a range of reliable, independent sources necessary to establish Notability. Even if one could prove the "most rejected book in history" claim, and the source doesn't, I'm not sure this would give it Notability.
I see another reviewer has also rejected it. I'm afraid I'm just not sure it's right for Wikipedia. Sorry. KJP1 (talk) 07:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

16:24:44, 12 February 2018 review of submission by Lyza6107

Hello KJP1, Thank you for your guidance in the matter of my first Wikipedia article submission. Article edits are fully complete per your specifications. I understand you are not able to go through each citation due to time constraints, so I've listed the NEW source citations for your re-review.

  1. The Harvard Gazette - newspaper - detailing article subject's partnership with HHI
  2. The Association of American Medical Colleges. Academic Medicine publication - detailing article subject's partnership with HHI and the University of Chicago Medical Center after 2010 earthquake in Haiti
  3. Addressed the valid, reliable NEWS sources with better detailed citations (inline citations throughout)
  4. Added The Haitian Times newspaper article
  5. Added article from WATT Poultry USA Magazine - believe it or not, poultry farmers do read about World Poultry Foundation news

Please let me know if you are able to re-review or how I should go about resubmitting in this case. Note that the other references cited are in line with Wikipedia standards. As an example, Wikipedia allows for listing websites to be noted in reference cases to show proof of the listing details mentioned (like the TV stations and radio station website references). Thanks!Lyza6107 (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lyza6107 - Hi Lyza, I see it's back in the pool and it's probably best to let another reviewer take a look. But if I come across it again in my scanning, I'll certainly revisit. All the best with it. KJP1 (talk) 18:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:22:41, 15 February 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Zenminded

Hello, I really appreciate your comments regarding myPOS Store article submitted for approval, my intention was not to create an advertisement type about myPOS, but to use the recent organic publicity from opening the fist physical store in London. In fairness of myPOS, it exists since 2014 and is already present and popular in more that 20 European countries. I'd like to edit the page so that it complies to the wiki guidelines for neutrality. I will try to present the most relevant third party links on the matter. Would that be a good way to go? Zenminded (talk) 09:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC) )[reply]

Zenminded - Hi, As requested, I've had another look. But to me, apart from the promotional issue, it just doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Almost all of the sourcing is from niche financial media, and most of it has all the hallmarks of "news stories" driven by press releases. In some cases, the content is almost identical, which again indicates it's a "lift" from a PR handout. I see it's the only article you've edited in three years. Do you have a connection to the company? If you do, that needs to be declared as a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and you need to follow the policy and guidance on conflict editing. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 09:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

00:36:54, 16 February 2018 review of submission by Yrarendar

I am not certain if I have responded adequately to the reviewer's request for more documentation because I am new to Wikipedia. I would appreciate feedback with regard to whether the new citations are sufficient or whether more (or different) references are needed - and if there are any further changes required. The formatting is also not quite right in that the sections "references" and "external links" are repeated. Any assistance would be appreciated. Yrarendar (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yrarendar - Many thanks for the revisions and now Accepted. If I had one comment, we could do with fewer of his own works as Sources, and a couple more from sources independent of him. He doesn't have much of a web presence, but things can be found, e.g. [4]. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 07:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you KJP1 for your helpful suggestions. I will look for more sources as I improve my skills. Yrarendar (talk) 06:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Review of submission Draft:Suzette Kent

Thanks for your feedback, I think I've addressed the issues you mentioned on Draft:Suzette Kent. Burt Harris (talk) 01:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Burt Harris - Burt, thanks for revising. Now Accepted. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 07:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Peter Thomas McGuigan

Hi KJP1, Thanks so much for your revewing my entry again. Have a great weekend! 1001Bookworm (talk) 01:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. KJP1 (talk) 07:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

13:17:31, 16 February 2018 review of submission by 82.69.33.162

I don't understand why this is regarded as an advertisement for a non-notable bakery. The writing style is objective and referenced with major UK media sources. Over 4 million UK citizens buy products from this bakery annually - which is notable. Many of the UK's major foodservice operators (Costa, Nero, Nando's, Wetherspoon's)sell products manufactured by this company. It is also a consumer brand found in every major UK supermarket. There are other UK bakeries detailed in Wikipedia, which are far less notable. 82.69.33.162 (talk) 13:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

82.69.33.162 - Hi. First, can you clarify if you have a connection to the company? If you do, and I'm guessing you have, that needs to be declared as a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and you need to follow the policy and guidance on editing with a conflict. Second, I'm afraid I just don't agree that the sources do demonstrate Notability. Going through them:
  • 1 - An online business-to-business media company and the article has all the hallmarks of a PR-release inspired piece, as is very common with such media;
  • 2 - Local newspaper, with only a link to the site, not to the article on the bakery. If I could read it, I will guess it is another PR-inspired piece;
  • 3 - Another local newspaper and another PR-driven piece with a long quote from the company's staff. This is the way much local media fills its pages these days;
  • 4 - Another local online business journal with the same issue as above;
  • 5 - BBC newsround coverage of an event which is ok;
  • 6 - Festival covering the same event, with a promotional piece of the company.
I'm afraid that, in my judgement, this just doesn't add up to the significant coverage from a range of reliable, independent sources that is necessary to demonstrate Notability. Third, the argument that there are weak articles on comparable subjects already on Wikipedia is not a strong argument for adding another. This essay explains why in more detail, Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. And one last point. An article doesn’t have to be full of blatant promotion to be advertising. As many companies know very well, just having an article on the biggest online encyclopaedia and the fifth-most popular website in the world, can be very useful advertising. That’s why, unfortunately, there’s quite a market in paid-for editing on here.
You can, of course, resubmit, although I see another reviewer has taken the same view as I. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 13:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

06:00:09, 17 February 2018 review of submission by Robert Biate

The page which i want to publish is fresh n new. nothing has been published about it before, either in book or other resources. except of some photos which i have with me. so kindly help me what and how to do it. the puandam has a connection with the Biate people, and wiki has link page on Biate people and biate/biete language. please suggest how or what can i do to make it publish Robert Biate (talk) 06:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Biate - Robert, I'm afraid that this just can't work. To create an article based on your own researches is Original research and Wikipedia doesn't do that. What we do is give neutral overviews of subjects that have been covered by a range of reliable, secondary, independent sources. If such sources don't exist, and they don't for this, then you just can't write a suitable article. I see it has a mention in the Biate people article, although that isn't sourced either, and that's probably as much as you can do. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 08:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

02:24:19, 18 February 2018 review of submission by CJ Machado

Dear Reviewer, Thank you for reviewing the submission. I have an interest in helping to create a WIKI page for Taras Lyssenko. My interest comes from my veteran advocacy and photo journalism for Homeland Magazine. I am also a producer and writer with Speed and Angels Productions. My interest is simply that many find his work to be fascinating, including myself.

Taras along with his partner Al with A and T Recovery are both veterans. They have recovered OVER 40 once lost WWII US Naval aircraft from the bottom of Lake Michigan to then be restored and displayed in museums across America. There is a magazine editor from New Zealand's Classic Wings that I recently submitted photos to for their recovered aircraft article on Taras Lyssenko and A and T Recovery. I receive many inquiries about a WIKI page for Mr. Lyssenko and the answer is always there is one on A and T Recovery, but oddly not on Lyssenko. "Well, there should be one on Taras and all the work he has done for the preservation of the world's most historical artifacts" according to many supporters and aviation enthusiasts. It's not just our New Zealand compadres. The most recent inquiry was from Planes of Fame in Chino, CA, where they have quite the extensive collection of War Birds. They had recently found out about the discovery of the WWI U-Boat, the UC-97 and contacted me to try and connect their organization with Taras Lyssenko for a symposium for the upcoming 100th anniversary of the end of WWI.

I don't have the energy to check the page often, but I have to say I do think it's a damn shame there isn't just a mention on WIKI for Lyssenko's efforts. I have cut back the page extensively and I am open to any feedback, advise, etc. You noted I am the only editor. I am not tech savvy, but I know of others that wouldn't mind helping.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Many Thanks, CJ Machado CJ Machado (talk) 02:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CJ Machado - Hi, and sorry for the delay in getting back. I've had another look, and it's certainly improved. As you know, he's a controversial figure and that's why you need strong, inline, sourcing which supports the statements made, and a neutral, rather than promotional, tone. You've moved a fair way towards that and another reviewer will have a look at it shortly. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 07:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Good Humor
Thank you for all your assistance. Yrarendar (talk) 08:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very kind, and all the best. KJP1 (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Cloisters

Hi KJP1, this is now at PR, and as its primarily an article about architectural features, your opinion would be especially valued. There is no hurry or rush, however. Ceoil (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil - What a wonderful building, and one I'd never heard of. Good to see it wasn't only Hearst who engaged on industrial-scale looting of our European heritage! I shall certainly drop by the PR. This week is a bit heavy work-wise, although enlivened by drinks with a few friends you know on Tuesday night. So don't shut it up too soon - I'll definitely be there. All the best to you and yours. KJP1 (talk) 21:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; its near my in-laws, and it always amuses me when I go to there to see heritage from here; those early 20th c "philanthropist" were a tricky bunch, financing the first wold war while building collections of art. A whole other story, and see the Metropolitan Museum of Art (which controls the Cloisters) article has a fairly well developed section outlining stuff like this. My own feeling re the Cloisters is that most of the artifacts were in ruin anyway, and would be lost now otherwise. Also intersesting is that a number of the art works were originally looted by Napoleons armies, so plus ca de change (or something). Ceoil (talk) 21:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

07:48:17, 19 February 2018 review of submission by Saurav.webkul


Can you review the article once again as I have made few changes in the content? Also, I have disclosed my conflict my interest, what more I need to add in that? Saurav.webkul (talk) 07:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

13:30:09, 19 February 2018 review of submission by Raphschoen

I tried to be as neutral as possible and cited neutral sources. Bitpanda is quite a big company in Austria, so it would make sense to have an article on Wikipedia. Especially because there are smaller (or defunct) exchanges, which have longer articles (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bitcoin_companies). Raphschoen (talk) 13:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Raphschoen - a few points in response:
  • I see this is the only draft you've ever written, and you appear to have joined today? Do you have a connection to the company?
  • If you do have a connection, this needs to be declared as a Conflict of interest, and you need to read and follow the guidance on editing with a conflict;
  • When you say it is "big" in Austria, what do you mean? Size, employees, turnover, sales, what? The article draft gives me none of this;
  • Your argument that other articles exist on similar companies is not a good argument. That one weak article has made it is rarely a good argument for adding another. This essay explains why, Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. You'll also see that many of those articles are tagged and may not be around long.
Regards. KJP1 (talk) 13:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Review Refined marques

Hi, can you please check this again. We have changed some text according to another administrator, Dragonfly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Refined_Marques — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wpuser1802 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wpuser1802 - As much an advertisement, and as unsuitable for Wikipedia, as when I last looked at it. KJP1 (talk) 21:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Its only facts about the company. What do you think is advertisement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wpuser1802 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about this "Refined Marques is a company that is always after designing and making unique supercars and hypercars. Such as the Bugatti L’Or Blanc and Pagani Pearl and various other cars made. The supercars market is always looking for something new, something that is just not limited. But pushing the limits of production and going beyond what one’s mind can think, design and draw. Each car is tailor made to to its owner as per character, personality and charisma. So the cars do match the owner but will not match a second car which will be made for another owner. It’s like a suit that is made to fit one person with his highly, weight and measurements. And even colors can match one person but will look different in another and might not even match at all. Refined Marques creates each supercar as a piece of art. That you only get one time but never twice. Our big slogan is: your imagination is our limit. The client imagines his car and designs it in his mind. Then Refined Marques brings that to reality with respect of meeting all automobile regulations, security and environment for the cars to be approved road legal as a 1 of 1. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wpuser1802 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wpuser1802 - EVERY BLOODY WORD is an advertisement. Of this, and of your suggestion above. If you can't see that, you shouldn't be trying to write Wikipedia articles. KJP1 (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok i admitt that the last text sounded like an advertisement, but can you please let me know what you think is advertisement about the article that is up to review? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wpuser1802 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wpuser1802 - I've now said three times that, in my view, the whole article is an advertisement and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I can't be any clearer. KJP1 (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok i have edited the text now, you cant mean that it still is advertisement?
Wpuser1802 - I can and it is. We aren't going to agree. Let another reviewer take a look. KJP1 (talk) 22:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do i contact another reviewer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.17.184.81 (talk) 07:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You just press the Resubmit button which will put it back in the pool for review. KJP1 (talk) 08:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you please a have new look at the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wpuser1802 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wpuser1802 - I see it's been declined again, as I would have done. It's just not a suitable Wikipedia article. KJP1 (talk) 07:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

21:34:32, 19 February 2018 review of submission by Bjaouane

I make changes and delete advertising sentence. Bjaouane (talk) 21:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bjaouane - Sorry if I wasn't clear. I gave that sentence as an example. The whole draft is an advertisement and unsuitable for Wikipedia. KJP1 (talk) 21:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 21:44:21, 19 February 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Sandra Panic

Thank you KJP1 for your review and comments. I will take your advice and resubmit when ready. Sandra Panic (talk) 21:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Panic - No problem. She may be Notable, but it needs to be demonstrated by sources, and the tone needs to be Neutral, rather than promotional. I see the Design Museum has a copyvio flag on it. Be careful not to just lift content for this draft from another website. KJP1 (talk) 07:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi KJP1. I finally got around to make the changes reflecting your comments. I hope I moved the needle closer or even maybe got it right this time. I have more content to add but want to make sure I get the hang of it by submitting parts at a time. Look forward to new review and hopefully more helpful comments from you. Thanks.
KJP1 - I received a comment from another user last week upon my submission. It was a helpful comment, but it does not appear that my submission was formally reviewed, since I don't see it was declined. Anyway, I updated the sources to be independent + addressed comments you left me. If you have a moment please let me know if it seems that I am on good path now. Sandra Panic (talk) 23:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

21:55:08, 19 February 2018 review of submission by Bjaouane

Okay, I delete the adevertising paragraph.It's an open source software Bjaouane (talk) 21:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bjaouane - I see it's been deleted and that you've submitted a new draft. I'm afraid, to me, it's as much an advertisement as the old one. KJP1 (talk) 07:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

21:45:50, 19 February 2018 review of submission by Martyn GT


I was not intending for this article to read like a tribute. I would like to convert it to an article that would be acceptable. Have you any suggestions? Martyn GT (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 21:58:34, 19 February 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Martyn GT

Thanks for letting me view your article on William Burgess. I am assuming that this is the sort of detail that is required. Thanks for advisingMartyn GT (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC) Martyn GT (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Martyn GT - The key issue is Wikipedia:Notability, does the subject of the draft warrant an article on Wikipedia? This can come across as dismissive, the subject isn't "important" enough, but it's actually not. The vast majority of GPs don't, and won't, have an article on here. Nor will the even larger number of medical practitioners worldwide. That isn't in any way to diminish the importance of their lives and the contributions they made. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The general Notability criteria state that "people 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". In this case, we have a source mentioning the subject's father, two BMJ articles, and an article from the King's Fund. I'm afraid, in my judgement, these don't meet the criteria for Notability. I hope this is helpful as an explanation, although I'm sure it's not the response you wanted. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 22:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this explanation about the notability issue ... it is very helpful. I will have another think Martyn GT (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Martyn GT - I hope the Burges article was of interest. I should say that the level of sourcing in there isn't generally required, unless you're wanting to create a Featured article. KJP1 (talk) 22:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

15:16:07, 20 February 2018 review of submission by 2800:A4:160B:D300:7139:FDE:A187:CD28

Hello there. This is my first Wikipedia article that just a literal translation of the same article in Spanish. Why the article is allowed like that in Spanish but now in English? Thanks so much in advance.2800:A4:160B:D300:7139:FDE:A187:CD28 (talk) 15:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2800:A4:160B:D300:7139:FDE:A187:CD28 - Requirements can vary between different language Wikipedias. For the English-language Wikipedia, we require that biographies of living people have inline citations. This draft doesn't actually have any sources at all, so it can't be accepted. You need to show Notability by citing significant coverage from reliable, independent sources and you need to support the statements made by having these sources inline. Hope this helps. KJP1 (talk) 07:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

15:44:21, 20 February 2018 review of submission by Genericusername1

Comment: May, or may not, be Notable but the controversial nature of the content indicates a requirement for comprehensive and sound sourcing, which this doesn't have. I also don't think we can have articles with [name redacted] in them. KJP1 (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

{ESp|?}} Confused as to [name redacted], also i added two sec sources but the amount of into available about weikang bio-tech is limited.

Genericusername1 (talk) 15:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)Genericusername1[reply]

Genericusername1 - "may have been defrauded by Casey’s and [name redacted]’s group" - you're writing about obviously controversial events. You therefore need particularly strong sourcing. KJP1 (talk) 07:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Change name[edit]

Can I change my page name please? Habby d (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Habby d - Replied on the editor's Talkpage. KJP1 (talk) 07:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Osbert Lancaster[edit]

My recollection of the precise course of events is hazy, but I seem to recall your saying at the WA that you'd skip the PR and look in at the FAC. I have closed the former and opened the latter, and now need another cup of coffee. Tim riley talk 09:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley - Tim, your recollection is spot on, and I shall get over to the FAC this weekend. KJP1 (talk) 06:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to LaTesha Wilkins article[edit]

Hey I don't get why I was denied it is in neutral perspective and she is published author and poet of 3 books I confused why it's not accepted Aoruko1988 (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aoruko1988 - My guess is that it will have been deleted because it's a biography of a living person, and you didn't have any inline citations. You have to have these for living persons. But you also need to demonstrate Notability, and the draft I declined didn't. That she exists and is a poet doesn't make her Notable and you haven't demonstrated Notability if all you have for sources are links to her books on a book sales site. Take a look at something like this, John Betjeman, to give yourself an idea of what's needed. KJP1 (talk) 07:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

12:42:57, 22 February 2018 review of submission by Rchbeir[edit]

I revised the article as requested. Richard Chbeir (talk) 12:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rchbeir - Unfortunately you haven't, you just put a load of embedded external links in, which we don't use. Have a read of this, Help:Referencing for beginners. KJP1 (talk) 12:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I added the internal links as requested. I wonder why you say that it is not notable?

Richard Chbeir (talk) 13:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rchbeir - I'm trying to help but you've got to be prepared to put a bit of effort in and read our policies and guidance. There are quite a few issues:
  • References - What you're calling references aren't, as we use them. They are links to external websites. We don't use these as embedded links in the main body of the article, though you can use them as External Links at the end;
  • Inline citations - these support the statement made, and are essential for biographies of living people. Have a look at this article, Monique Laurent to try to get an idea of what I mean. It's not perfect, but it does show the difference between inline citations and external links;
  • Notability - I didn't say Chbeir, you, wasn't Notable. I said the sources didn't show it, for the reasons outlined above. You need "significant coverage from reliable, secondary, third-party sources" to show Notability;
  • Wikipedia:Autobiography - It really isn't a good idea to try to write your autobiography on Wikipedia, and this essay sets out why;
  • Wikipedia:Conflict of interest - You obviously have a conflict of interest if you are trying to write about yourself. This needs to be declared, and the guidance on conflict editing followed.
I appreciate Wikipedia can be a bit complicated at the start, but it's actually not that hard to get to grips with. But it is really not a good idea to try and write your own autobiography on here. KJP1 (talk) 14:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DirtyTooth draft[edit]

Hi KJP1, thanks a lot for your comments about my DirtyTooth draft. The Youtube videos were taken directly from both security conferences, RootedCon and Toorcon. Both are very well-respected in the cybersecurity world. Furthermore, I´ve just added more resources (the official paper for example), another talk at the Black Security 2017 in Europe and the publication of the issue in the website ExploitDB, one of the biggest computer vulnerabilities databases. Again, thanks a lot for your help. Phseldon (talk) 15:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Phseldon, Legacypac, Phesldon - I'm not sure I did help much, having wrongly identified it as advertising initially. The problem with YouTube as a source is that its content is user-driven. So while plenty that goes up may be fine, plenty isn't. For example, it's one of the main "sources" used by wannabee-pop stars. I shall certainly go and have another look, although this area isn't my greatest strength. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G11[edit]

You;ve been very properly declining a number of highly promotional AfC submissions. For the worst of them, especially when it seems there is little chance of an article in any event, I find it can be better to also list them for speedy deletion as G11. It discourages the promotional contributor--almost always a coi and often a paid editor --from continually resubmitting. (I've listed a few that I've noticed) . Keep up the good work--we need it. DGG ( talk ) 07:15, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DGG - Many thanks and good advice. To do that, I just put the tag, {Db-g11}, on when declining? I'm afraid I'm not very technically savvy, despite having been around a while. Working at Afc has been a real eye-opener. I'm pretty certain we need some more radical solution than our current process. In the two-odd months I've been doing it, I think the backlog is actually worse than it was when I started. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 07:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DGG - I've had a go here, Draft:Jeremy Kenedy. Have I done it right? KJP1 (talk) 07:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the way to do it. You can either just put of the db-g11 tag, or first decline it and then put on the tag. Use the db-gq11 tag when you think there is no realistic chance of improvement, and watch for article submitted unchanged a second time, or even more. If it's really hopeless but not promotional, then use MfD. Twinkle makes it easy to place the necessary notices- we're trying to devise a workable speedy criterion in such cases--see WT:CSD, but for now, use MfD, We want to give good faith contributor an opportunity to fix their unsatisfactory drafts, but it is of no benefit to them to let them submit unsatisfactory versions repeatedly, and letting them do it decreases the time available to deal promptly with new AfCs that might have possibilities. DGG ( talk ) 09:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

15:44:24, 23 February 2018 review of submission by CA Bell[edit]

Hi There, Thank you so much for taking the time to review my draft of Quick Lane. I was wondering if you could tell me what specifically read like an advertisement? I would be very appreciative for any feedback and happy to change what you think would be necessary. Thanks so much! CA Bell (talk) 15:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CA Bell - The problem for me is that the whole draft is an advert for a company that doesn't seem to meet the notability criteria. It's not a matter of individual words - it's the entire draft. Wikipedia's the biggest online encyclopedia, and the fifth most popular website, in the world. Many companies want to be featured on here for those very reasons, but most companies aren't actually Notable. In my view, this is one. I see you have a declared Conflict of interest. Have you written this draft in return for payment? Assuming you have, I think you understand the point very well. KJP1 (talk) 08:32, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KJP1, thank you for your previous feedback. I have resubmitted the draft: Quick Lane and have updated the citations to meet the nobility criteria per your last comment. All citations are from reliable, well-known independent sources and are "not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed." There are also many secondary sources available to many subjects that have been included. Our sources include: usatoday.com, auotomotive.com, automotive-fleet.com, autonews.com, espn.com, automotiveworld.com, foxsports.com, tirebusiness.com, Zero references are to quicklane.com, media.ford.com or other Ford-related properties and press releases.

If you could kindly take a second look I would be very appreciative. Thank you.--CA Bell (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:59:35, 23 February 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by OjyOkpe Team1[edit]

Hello! I need help editing the article you reviewed. I am new to wikipedia and guess i did not read all the guidelines before submitting my article. Can you help me? OjyOkpe Team1 (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OjyOkpe Team1 - Hi, I've had another look and left feedback but it is so far from an acceptable article that I've tagged for deletion. Sorry, but it's just not suitable. KJP1 (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Target 2 instant payment[edit]

Hi KJP1, I have received you feedback about the TIPS page but unfortunately I have not understood the reason why the article was refused. Cold you kindly explain? I would fix the errors. Kind regards. Nicola Caione (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nicola Caione - hi Nicola, thanks for getting back. As it stood, the draft, which was unsourced, seem to exist to promote the concept, rather than provide an overview of coverage of the concept from a range of reliable, independent sources. The deleting admin. obviously took the same view. You can, of course, recreate it, but try to give sources from reliable outlets, news media etc., that aren't connected to the subject. If you have another go, I'd be very happy to have a look at it. Just drop me a line here. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 08:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi KJP1, I'm editing the article and insert the sources from reliable outlets, ECB, SIA, SWITT, EBA and of course news media etc. Kind regards. Nicola Caione (talk) 8:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Nicola Caione - Great. If you want me to have a look when you're done, just give me a shout here. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 08:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi KJP1, I've done, I would appreciate your feedback.Nicola Caione (talk) 10:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nicola Caione Sure - But it'll be tomorrow, I'm afraid. Until then, can you have a look at any close paraphrasing to this site [ https://www.ecb.europa.eu/paym/initiatives/shared/docs/d8dd9-ami-pay-_20170209_item07b_presentation_on_tips.pdf]? The copyvio detector, [5], that looks for online matches, is showing up quite a few cases where they're similar. KJP1 (talk) 12:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi KJP1, I've reviewed the article according to your suggestion. Now regarding the https://www.ecb.europa.eu/paym/initiatives/shared/docs/d8dd9-ami-pay-_20170209_item07b_presentation_on_tips.pdf please consider that the major amount of similarity are in the "Transaction and information flow" which is a standard istant payment flow, . After my last review the Copvio tool show a similarity of 21.9 (was 34.6). The 24.8 % rank of ecb.europa.eu/paym/retpaym/instant/html/index.en.html and 29.6% of https://www.instapay.today/instant-payments/ were due to one definidion I've copied in the article: "electronic retail payment solutions available 24/7/365 and resulting in the immediate or close-to-immediate interbank clearing of the transaction and crediting of the payee’s account with confirmation to the payer (within seconds of payment initiation).". I hope that after the review the "violation values" would be in line with the wikipedia standards. Nicola Caione (talk) 00:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nicola Caione - Hi, Nicola. Yep, it's certainly improved and its chances of being accepted are better. The Copyvio detector is now only giving 29.6%. That said, it could still do with a few more inline sources (citations) if possible: the sections headed Objectives, Principles, Flow, Pricing and Holidays don't have any at all. If you can find a few more, that would be good. If you can't, resubmit it, and we can see what another reviewer thinks. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 06:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi KJP1, Thank you for the suggestions, I'll add the requested references. Kind regard. Nicola Caione (talk) 08:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi KJP1, I've done a full language review and added few more externale referencies. Is it now in line with the wikipedia editorial standards? Kind regard. Nicola Caione (talk) 11:15, 03 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MFD[edit]

An easier way to list pages for MFD is to use Twinkle. If you haven't already enabled it, do so by selecting it in the Gadgets section of your Preferences page. Then, go to the draft you wish to nominate, and you should see that in the bar where "edit source" appears, there should be a new menu "TW". Select XFD, make sure MFD is selected, enter your reason, et voila. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

jcc - very helpful and I'll give it a go. It's a constant source of shame that, despite over ten years here, I'm so useless at the technical aspects. KJP1 (talk) 19:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
jcc - a nifty tool indeed! Do let me know if I'm not using it properly. I seem to have created a couple of duplicate submissions, although I've removed them. KJP1 (talk) 08:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good; and thanks for all your work reviewing drafts- I imagine it's very different from FA writing! jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
jcc - Different, certainly, but with interest of its own. But the MFD/G11 suggestions are a boon - I was becoming a little frustrated that effort at Afc didn't seem sufficient to hold back the tide. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

22:54:24, 24 February 2018 review of submission by Rgubler[edit]

Please check the non english versions about IOTA here: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOTA_(Kryptow%C3%A4hrung) This non english version tells the truth. Please delete the slander english version soon. Rgubler (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rgubler - Hi, I'm afraid I don't read German. If you think there are issues with the English version that reviewers should know about, just put a comment on the draft's Talkpage. I've set it up for you. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 06:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:45:05, 25 February 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by SuperSophia1[edit]

Hello, I am sorry to bother you, but I am new to Wikipedia and also a ten-year-old. I received your message on the article I submitted. I've noticed that many other articles are very short and have little information. You said that my article was not properly sourced. In my opinion, Famous Birthdays is a pretty official site. Can you tell me what was wrong with it? Just so I know? Thanks, SuperSophia1 SuperSophia1 (talk) 14:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SuperSophia1 - Hi, and no need to apologise for getting in touch. It's good to hear from you. The problem with the site FamousBirthdays.com is that it's user driven, although it is moderated. That means anybody can submit content for inclusion. This is the problem with lots of sites that people want to use as sources, like YouTube and Facebook. You'll see that the draft for Keleigh Sperry has now been deleted. If you want to recreate it, you need to find some good sources that aren't user-driven and that are independent of Keleigh. If you have a look at Taylor Swift, you'll see there are loads of strong references from newspapers, journals, major TV stations etc., etc. You don't need as many as that to start an article, but it gives you an idea of the quality of the sources you want to look for. I have to say, doing a quick Google search didn't give me much. Are you sure she is Notable enough for a Wikipedia article? All the best. KJP1 (talk) 06:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:The Fantasy Footballers[edit]

Draft:The Fantasy Footballers has been updated and is now more encyclopedic. Additional independent sources were also added.

Your previous review was on 06:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC).Crameraj (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:34:18, 27 February 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Shirley Shiv[edit]

Hi Please do let me know how I can recreate this page Parvathy Hospital. Can you please help. Shirley Shiv (talk) 12:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley Shiv - I'm afraid not, as I nominated it for deletion. It was a blatant advert for a private hospital and not suitable for Wikipedia. KJP1 (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

07:47:53, 28 February 2018 review of submission by Btfancy[edit]

Hello, thank you for the feedback. I appreciate your patience while I learn the ropes here. I did my best to further remove any promotional language from the article. I have some ideas for adding in additional information to the article, however I wanted to make sure I correctly updated the original article before adding any more. Can you please re-review, and let me know any feedback? Thank you for your help! Btfancy (talk) 07:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Btfancy - Hi and thanks for getting back. Happy to have another look at the draft but it'll be in the next 48 hours, as real life is a bit busy at present. I'll ping you when I do. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:54:17, 28 February 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Arothsch[edit]

Hi KJP1, I created this article with the intention of providing a record of an important local newspaper to the town of Wellesley, MA. I did not intend to create an advertisement, which is why I'm confused by your review, as well as the fact that you deleted my draft without giving me the chance to improve it. Can you please let me know why this article qualified as an advertisement and if there's any way to get my work back to so I can improve it? Thank you, AR. Arothsch (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arothsch - Hi, and good to hear from you. I've asked the admin. who deleted, on the back of my nomination, whether we can get the draft back to you. I'll let you know when I hear from him. In the absence of the draft, I have to go on memory and my comment as to why I recommended deletion. This suggests a promotional tone and weak sourcing. Was it sourced to the subject's own site? That's never a good sign, as we need significant coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject. Many company drafts have their own sites as sources. Can you recall if this did? From my comment, I'd say one source was the paper's Facebook page, and the other a PR-inspired piece. A quick Google search shows me that five of the six sites that immediately come up are the paper's own. This isn't a good sign either, as we need significant, third-party coverage. Are we sure the journal is Notable, according to our criteria? And was the tone of the article Neutral, rather than promoting the site? If we can get the draft back, I'm very happy to discuss it in detail. I'll be in touch when I know if this is possible. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 21:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
KJP1, thanks for ping. Arothsch, I could restore the text, but its seems to me that there are major questions about the notability of the topic. You will need to provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the media notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the newspaper, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the newspaper claims or interviewing its staff or management. Note that there shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections. That's particularly the case when they are spamlinks to affiliated sites. There is nothing in what you posted to suggest that this on-line student newspaper is notable as defined in the link. Can you assure me that the newspaper meets the notability criteria I've linked, and that you can find independent third-party sources to verify that? If not, there is no point restoring, as it will just keep getting deleted. The alternative is to create a redirect to the town Wellesley, Massachusetts, and add a sentence there. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Arothsch, Jimfbleak - Jim, many thanks indeed for getting back and for the very helpful advice. I'm sure if Arothsch thinks there are suitable sources, they'll be in touch. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 07:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

05:38:10, 1 March 2018 review of submission by 89.148.61.98[edit]

89.148.61.98 (talk) 05:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for getting in touch. I'm afraid I don't read Arabic, so I can't judge the suitability of the sources you've added. I'm sure a reviewer who can will have a look soon. But I'm afraid I don't think they will demonstrate Notability. Many, many people suffer serious illness and I'm afraid that doesn't make them suitable for Wikipedia articles. KJP1 (talk) 05:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:32:38, 1 March 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Rr192[edit]


In defense of article "A Poet Dies on 12th Street" In consideration of the date of creation and installation of this art work it must be taken into account that few if any materials were placed on-line. For example this article published in the Greenline Review of Brooklyn, N.Y. never made it to the internet. Nor were any documents from the artists exhibition at PS1 (now PS/1 MOMA) in Long Is. City, or the 1987 exhibition at the Brooklyn Art and Cultural Assoc., Brooklyn, N.Y. where this artwork was also presented. For that matter even the artist's more highly visible installation "The Horizon is Nothing More than the Limit of our Sight" from the exhibition Working in Brooklyn, Installations at The Brooklyn Museum of Art, Brooklyn, N.Y. in 1990, although published in a catalogue and reviewed extensively at the time, never made it to the internet.

<rr192>

GREENLINE May 1990

Celebration-Artists Exhibit in Local Lofts

by Eszter Szalczer 

A group artists recently opened their lofts in Williamburg to welcome visitors for a one-night show called "Celebration".  Artist's from Turkey Hungary, Russia, Czechoslovakia, and the U S decided to show their works together.

The spaces are in a building known as Bernette’s Salvage Co. because of a sign that remains on the door from a business that used to be there. The building on Harrison Avenue, near Broadway, is on a desolate block with litter, debris and broken glass, vestiges of the fire that burned down the synagogue that used to be on the ground floor. The lofts above were not seriously affected.

As I stepped into the building seemingly in ruins, and caught the first glimpse of the semi-dark space of the first room, I felt an atmosphere pervaded with creative energies. There was no sense of commercialism or any trace of fashionable trends. The artists appeared to just offer themselves, exposing their own concerns and experiments with ideas and images. I felt as if I'd stepped into a lab of Alchemists since most of the works are connected to the subject of transformation communication between different states and levels of being. The works were serious and honest whether playful such as Andras Borocz's drawings of monstrous and grotesque such as M.G. Sedlacek's mobiles or transcendent such as Ron Rocco' installations.

Ron Rocco works deal with cosmic images in the sense of time and space. Walking about them is like catching signals from other worlds around or inside oneself. In "A Warning to My Friends." the rhythm of the universe is rendered by a rotating skeleton fixed at the feet and viewed from the head on a video screen- With this the artist sets up an analogy between macrocosm and microcosm. A wooden bar behind the video set tipping over in an extreme slow motion creates the feeling of measuring time in a timeless process. 

Another composition by Rocco is based on fishes.  They float as if on an ocean of memories- The water is captured in plexiglas a crystallized flow of thoughts The entire sculpture is illuminated by a violet fluorescent light which seems to evoke recollections from subconscious regions of the mind.  A third work of Rocco’s A Poet Dies on 12th Street is also about time and timelessness.  In a plastic bag there is a cassette player broken in pieces and we hear a rasping voice reading poems.  It probably the voice of a dead person or that of an immortal poet preserved in a file.  Here again, ironically different levels of existence collide. 

 Proceeding on to another room were displayed Sasha Jampolsky's pictures in mixed media (silk screen, paint, photo, text).  They resemble enlarged encyclopedia like illustrations.  One illustration depicts a male nude sitting, in an electric chair; another gives visual explanations of the notion of Siam.  This may be an attempt to define pieces of reality in a world of confusion.

The next room exhibited the works of Andras Borocz. In his drawings, Borocz plays with the mythical image of the snake, placing it in different contexts or using it as an organic part of constructions. We can witness the transformation of an archetypal image into a structural element: of our environment. This is a kind nonsense world for our everyday eyes," but it is very familiar from out dreams and seems to be logical to some hidden parts of our minds where objects, beings and relationships reveal their true nature.

This ancient image of the snake, symbol of renewal and eternal life, still proves to be powerful even if it is portrayed as skiing serpents or as a kind of creeper plant or winding around and bursting chimneys or a wheel biting its own tail. Borocz pictures are always in motion, or then catching the very moment or transformation or playing with its possibility. 

Next, we enter another world: a dark "chamber of torture" furnished by M.G. Sedlacek's mobiles.  These are assemblages of iron forms and parts of machines, some or them with lights that flash in a way they resemble tormented human bodies.  They jolt one's senses with their metallic coldness and hard- ness', yet they are humorous because of heir ex4'tgerratcd intensity.  Two floors up Daniel Oates' hung clothing gives a brief summary of human life, fixed in duties, customs and repetitions.  Sermin Kardestuneer displayed abstract pictures, some of them carved in wood, and others painted in geometrical forms and rhythms.  In an inner room we find Levant Tuncer paintings The lightness and sensitivity of his vibrating colors are inviting the viewer to dip into a strange but still familiar material: a bath, one that everybody dreams of secretly.

As you can see all these artists have different worlds and concerns but they have one thing in common: they are all working and searching for the true essence of what might lie hidden behind their materials, whether they be pieces of iron. flashing lights, pieces of wood or paint. Rr192 (talk) 08:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rr192- Hi, and thanks for getting back. The bottom line is that, if there aren't sources, there can't be an article. It's not necessary that these sources be online, although for obvious reasons of accessibility it's preferred if they are, but it is necessary that there are sources. These are how Wikipedia judges Notability: the subject has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". If it hasn't, then you just can't write an article. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KJP1/Archive_4&oldid=1143103646"