User talk:Port norw

Welcome!

Hi Port norw! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (November 6)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Timtrent was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Port norw/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Port norw! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to the submission and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Port norw (talk) 22:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I (hopefully) fixed the missing references, by linking all the items to relevant links (publisher, publisher lists, media articles, etc.)

Thank you Port norw (talk) 22:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

New message from Timtrent

Hello, Port norw. You have new messages at Timtrent's talk page.
Message added 23:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Leaving a talkback message in case as a new user you do not yet understand the ping system 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Harald Grytten (November 6)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Vanderwaalforces were: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Harald Grytten and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Harald Grytten has been accepted

Harald Grytten, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Please look at the additional edits I have made prior to acceptance.

I believe it has a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process, so I have accepted it. You have worked hard. It is by no means perfect, but the community can make it better. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

First and foremost, thank you!

I tried to read your final comments but the system has either taken them somewhere (I'll look) or you deleted them.

I will continue on with this wish to help Wikipedia become what it can - I was one of those original lunatics that back in the times of Mosaic (and even pre-Mosaic) was going about how the Internet would change the world (of knowledge) for the better (well... look at us now)...

I am grateful for your time and for your help - I hope you have a clear notion of how rare and precious it is, these days, to find someone being helpful for the sake of it, while acting under the wraps of almost anonimity. Kudos, @Timtrent, thank you

I used a (defensive) alias as starting point in Wikipedia, but I would like you to know that my name is Vasco Pinhol.

As a last request, I would like to ask you if you could show me a link into a Wikipedia entry that you find flawless - a golden standard for Wikipedia articles. I will look at it carefully and learn as much as I can from it.

Thanks again!

Vasco Port norw (talk) 12:10, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

It's kind of you to introduce yourself. I am honoured. There is never a need to be other than anonymous.

If you would like to examine what I did, use the "History" tab, and learn how to compare versions. I could show you, but learning will serve you better.

There is no such thing as a perfect article. Category:Good articles shows you articles that are considered to be good. They have been thoroughly over reviewed and will still have faults. This version of Elsie Reasoner Ralph is one I created and am satisfied with. If you compare what I left with what others added yoiu can judge whether they made improvements or not. I'm reasonably pleased with Shearwater III and with G. Prout & Sons, neither of which is perfect in any way.

I wonder if those examples help?

For the future, this essay has a process for creating articles from scratch which will work for any topic assuming references exist. I learned it over time and used it for Elsie Ralph. I create new articles rarely nowadays. The system suggests I have created 192, but that count is exaggerated by software foibles. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Here I go!

Hope you have a good Sunday Port norw (talk) 14:20, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I studied, and built another post and hope it came out better - hope all is well with you, and in case we don't cross paths beforeuntil then, I wish you a very merry Holidays and end-of-year. Port norw (talk) 16:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ana Mesquita (artist) has been accepted

Ana Mesquita (artist), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Xegma(talk) 05:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Xegma.

I plan to continue - in the meantime, I will try to improve the article, perhaps by adding a disambiguation, as there seems to be more Ana Mesquita's (although their pages seem to be only in Portuguese).

All the best, Port norw (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Ana Mesquita (artist) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ana Mesquita (artist) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ana Mesquita (artist) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Netherzone (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Ana Mesquita (artist) moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Ana Mesquita (artist). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because as discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ana Mesquita (artist). I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Star Mississippi 18:15, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your time,@Star Mississippi

I will continue with the editing - especially in terms of sources - and will bother you guys again when I feel that substantive changes have been made.

@Netherzone has been extremely helpful in refining my knowledge and understanding of what are best practices. In Portugal, there is a bias towards terseness when dealing with art and artists, quite different from the lively to-and-fro I am used to see on e.g. the American cultural front. The majority of the sources I've found that would follow your guidelines are in press format, in magazines that did not - and typically don't - digitize the content. Port norw (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@Port norw, it was a pleasure to work with you, and I appreciate your positive, collegial way of communicating. If you find significant coverage in non-digitized magazines, post a link here (and ping me) or on my talk page, and I'll see if I can find it here in the states, or through other resources available in the US. Netherzone (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Netherzone !

I've been revisiting the references and found a few that might fit your standards in terms of secondary sourcing.

It might be that I'll present the article for reviewing again soon enough.

It's been quite a learning experience, and I've detected a few pitfalls for which I welcome your insights - I mentioned a couple before, but while checking the reviews I came across something that might be conceptually interesting to you: Ana Mesquita is the life partner of the very well known Portuguese composer/musician João Gil and they have a creative partnership in which she's the "visual arts" counterpart (a bit on the same wavelenght - albeit not relevance - of Yoko Ono and John Lennon, with similar hyerarchical issues) of the duo. I am sure you can better picture the issues I might find when it you contextualize it with this observation.

Thanks again! Port norw (talk) 13:13, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

It's never a bother, please feel free to be in touch if either of us can help in any ways.

It's such a (worthy) challenge to find sufficient offline coverage. Star Mississippi 23:35, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you!

It's been really a good learning experience with you guys giving some pointers that might help - I have a very hectic and colorful cultural life and the "how to build a better page" I found is perhaps a wee too granular, so I initially folllowed what I wrongly thought was the "standard voice" and quickly ran into trouble.

I have changed a few relevant things and hope it can be presented for review soon - but I have one question: the first original sin was to write a "too peppy text" that was reviewed as "promotional", and since then I've cleaned it and cleared it of offending tone (I have a science background - marine biology - so I know how to stick to facts), but the original reference remains although I feel that it has been solved.

I don't know what is the right protocol to deal with this issue, and feel that it might color potential reviews?

Thanks again, anyway. Port norw (talk) 13:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm always willing to help out, Port norw, and StarM & I both have experience working on art/culture issues and women artists. Please feel free to ask further questions as they come up.

I'd suggest taking your time with this article and not try to resubmit it too soon. IMO, the "peppy/promo" tone was the secondary issue, one that is easily resolved. The main problem is that there does not seem to be enough fully independent, secondary, in-depth significant coverage in verifiable reliable sources at this time. This is the crux of WP:TOOSOON.

As her career develops and more is written specifically about her (not by her or about the people she collaborates with) there will be better sources available. As I've sometimes said, writing a WP article is not a race to the finish line or to a specific deadline date. It's much better to have a well-sourced and well-crafted short article than a mediocre one that could be nominated for deletion again.

In a nutshell, Fully independent means sources that are not connected to her at all (or the galleries/institutions where she shows, etc.). Secondary means things like reviews by art critics, historians, or journalists rather than press releases, show announcements or calendar listings. In-depth significant coverage means comprehensive content about her and her life/accomplishments as described by others not short mentions, simple name checks, or a few sentences in something mainly written about another person. Verifiable means a source can be confirmed via an online-search or offline library hard-copy search. Reliable sources means things like established newspapers, art magazines, art history books by good publishing houses, not blogs, or native advertising or churnalism or commercial sites.

Keep improving the draft, adding sources as they are published or found. As long as you continue to make changes at least every 5 or 6 months, it will not be deleted. There is a lot to learn here at WP, and I hope you continue to improve the draft and make other contributions and improvements to the encyclopedia! Netherzone (talk) 14:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

This is an example of a good source that counts towards notability: https://www.cascais.pt/noticia/bairro-da-torre-em-festa-recebe-mural-de-ana-mesquita-mesq

It is independent, in-depth and significant coverage of her, a secondary reliable source. Good find! Netherzone (talk) 15:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you!

And thank you for your help - I believe I got it now. Also, I am not so much rushing as following my usual workflow. Problem - solution, and sooner is often better.

Also, there are more topics to deal with, meaning that whenever I find the proper form, I'll be wider in the subject reach. There are many intellectually and artistically interesting individuals both in Norway and in Portugal that never got to scratch the surface of the larger net - and Wikipedia English is an amazing tool Port norw (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)