User talk:TheSandDoctor/Archives/2017/June

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

Thanks!

I reached out to the online chat and one of them is helping me create it. Thanks so much for all your help! Chrisnadeau1973 (talk) 14:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@Chrisnadeau1973: You are very welcome! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 08:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Article on Sergio Pamies

Hello, I was editing Sergio Pamies article, and I saved the changes and now I cannot see your edits or areas to be improved. Could you help me with this issues on the article?Thank you very much. (˜˜˜˜) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikinanaia (talk • contribs) 08:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@Wikinanaia: I have addressed the no WikiLinks issue for you. Please click on the links in the orphan template to learn how to fix the issue and add links to the page to other relevant pages. If you do not wish to do that, you could always wait for another editor to come along and do so (it does happen fairly frequently) or let me know what should link to it. Hopefully this helps somewhat! If you have any other questions, please do let me know. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 08:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for viewing my newly created article Rajapur,_Ghazipur. As per your suggestion I have linked it with other related articles. Regards--Yavarai (talk) 09:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)Yavarai

@Yavarai: You are very welcome! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 13:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for a review and desired suggestions. Regards Yavarai (talk) 09:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
@Yavarai: Thank you! :D --TheSandDoctor (talk) 13:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

United States v. Lee (disambiguation) and the "orphan" tag

Hi, I see you tagged United States v. Lee (disambiguation) as an orphan. Actually, we want disambiguation pages to be orphans; in most cases, a link to a disambiguation page indicates an error, where an editor meant to link to a substantive article. See Wikipedia:Orphan#On_disambiguation_pages. Thanks! TJRC (talk) 22:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@TJRC: Sorry about that! I didn't realize that it was a disambiguation page. Oops! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Hey, as many good edits as you make, you earn a little slack! TJRC (talk) 22:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

01:41:25, 31 May 2017 review of submission by Finishedfirst



Hi, I haven't received a response to my previous question about this draft. I don't know if I need to resubmit the draft before I do, but I wanted to know of anything else I need to change aside from the peacock language in the career portion. Finishedfirst (talk) 01:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@Finishedfirst: Sorry for not responding sooner - I thought I had. You have definitely made some improvements to that section of the draft and it was my main concern in declining it (if I remember correctly). As for improvements, I would recommend expanding sections if possible. Resubmit it if you would like another review and I will let another reviewer take a look at it. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
@TheSandDoctor: No problem, I have resubmitted the draft, and I am working on adding the collapsible sections now. Thank you. Finishedfirst (talk) 19:57, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Canadian

Re this and other edits: See also goes above refs. Please consider just categorizing or deorphaning rather than tagging? Tagging is a blight on the article and leaves the work to others. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Do you know how do I stop AWB from suggesting the edits Anna Frodesiak? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:12, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
I do not know, I'm afraid. You can ask here: Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
@Anna Frodesiak:  Done --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Ah, more Canadians is always a good thing :) I was actually stopping by to mention the same thing. AWB tagging compared to going through by hand on new pages is typically less useful than going through by hand with page curation. Categorizing user WP:HOTCAT is one of the simplest tasks to do and can save putting on the uncategorized banner, which is one of the most jarring in my opinion, especially when combined with tags above. Anyway, cheers! TonyBallioni (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Good guidance, TonyBallioni. Let me buy you two a fine Labatt 50! Kidding! That stuff was vile! Sure, not as vile as American beer like, say Bud, or the king of vile: the last third of a Foster's on a hot summer's day, but vile nonetheless. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:53, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Ah.... that would do it. This ties nicely into this thread which is peripherally connected. Primefac (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Article on Greville Poke

Hi, thank you for reviewing my new article. I've linked it to one other article. Is this enough to stop it being an orphan? Regards (Karen at Uni of Leeds (talk) 10:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC))

@Karen at Uni of Leeds:  Done You are correct, it is no longer an orphan. I have removed the orphan template from the article accordingly. Thank you for reaching out to me and letting me know! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Soccer Matches at...

Hi there. I noticed you recently moved Draft:Soccer matches at Sanford Stadium from main space to draft space. There are a whole bunch of similarly themed pages by the same author which are all unsourced or very inadequately sourced. I PROD'ed some, only to have that deleted by the author without comments. I left a few talk messages, which are all unanswered. The article you moved to draft has now been duplicated in main space as Soccer matches at the Stanford Stadium. Do you have any views on this? I'm currently stopping short of AFD'ing all the articles. This is likely going to result in commentary from the sports aficionados that references should be sought (probably quite rightly so), but I'm concerned about this barrage of insufficient new articles that just create work for the community.pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 14:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jake Brockman: I agree with you, maybe an administrator could weigh in here? Mz7 Primefac (thanks in advance) --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure either. The user appears to be dedicated to making list articles like this. The main problem is that they are unreferenced, but depending on whether they are valid list topics, I'm not sure whether they are eligible for deletion. I can see an argument that they are "excessive listings of statistics". One option is to propose that they all be merged into their respective stadium articles. Mz7 (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
@Jake Brockman: --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
@Mz7:, @TheSandDoctor:, thanks for this. To be honest, this all seems fairly borderline. Are the lists excessive? Maybe. Is the topic notable? Possibly. Will a merger be actioned? Maybe not, as it would give the main articles too much weight on soccer. Most don't even go into that detail for American football or whatever that stadium's "main sport" is. I can only see to let it go, frustrating as it is... pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 10:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

19:57:13, 1 June 2017 review of submission by Finishedfirst



Hi TheSandDoctor, can you please review the Bez Ambar draft again? Thank you and sorry for the pestering. I recently saw that I can offer beverages. Finishedfirst (talk) 19:57, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Request on 12:41:11, 5 June 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Tralfamadorian1


Hi, I understand the critique you have made. My goal is to get my colleagues to contribute to the page, as many of them know much more about the subject. Is it best to leave the page in drafts, or have it moved to my own sub-page, until it is ready to be resubmitted?

Tralfamadorian1 (talk) 12:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

@Tralfamadorian1: It really comes down to personal preference as to where to leave it while you work on it. If you want it in your userspace, I could move it for you without leaving a redirect. It really does come down to where you want to work on it, as a sub page or in the draft namespace. Hope this helps and please do let me know what you decide! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:28, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Miho Adachi proposed deletion

@96.91.152.57: I was not 100% sure and recall seeing a similar article get deleted at AfD so thought I would prod it, that way, if someone disagreed or had more information, they could simply remove the notice (preferably - but not necessarily - with an explanation within the revert/removal edit summary). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
@Miller17CU94: Thank you for the link and please see my response to the above (within this section). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • If that is the case, I will remove the proposed deletion with a reversion based on Wikipedia:Notability (sports) with explanation listed in Edit Summary. Thanks for helping resolve this. Chris (talk) 14:43, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
@Miller17CU94: Thanks! I thought that it already had been removed (did not check back), if I had noticed it was still prod-ed, I would have removed it myself. Anyways, happy editing! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:27, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

New Article

Ranking Order of Acid and Base Strengths is new article and is not part of the ECW Model page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeaglePower (talk • contribs) 21:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@BeaglePower: What exactly are you talking about? Was this left on the wrong talk page? I do not recall editing any such article and cannot find it in my last 500 contributions? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
I am sorry if I sent this to the wrong person. How can I identify the person who is reviewing the Draft: Ranking Order of Acid and Base Strengths? BeaglePower (talk) 12:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
BeaglePower, there is currently no one reviewing Draft:Ranking Order of Acid and Base Strengths. Please be patient, as there is a bit of a backlog. When it is reviewed you will be notified. Primefac (talk) 12:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Hi!

Hey, TheSandDoctor I worked on Amami rabbit to bring it to a GA level. It would be really great if you could check the article, as let me know the issues so that I can address them and make the endangered species a GA species . I also have removed all the dead links, removed copyvio issues, and such, according to the other GA articles that I created; however, your insights in the article would be really really helpful. Also, if possible, could you review the article as well? Thank you very very much. Adityavagarwal (talk) 18:25, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey, so would you be able to go for the review? Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
@Adityavagarwal:  Done --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much for starting the review of the article. Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank You

The Reviewer Barnstar
Thank You very much for your review on Amami rabbit. Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Adityavagarwal! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'm just checking the status of my draft


Hi, you declined my draft a few weeks ago and we agreed that I fixed peacock language issues, I think. Can you please let me know if my entry is still lacking and the status of my review, if your are still the reviewer. Thank you Finishedfirst (talk) 23:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Improving Connections-based Learning Page

Thank you for reviewing my submission for the Connections-based Learning page. Could you please let me know which parts need attention to achieve minimum standards for inline citations. I would love to get this page up to snuff. Thanks! Serobinson01 (talk) 17:42, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@Serobinson01: Accepted Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Upon further review, I had misread a section of the draft. I have fixed up a couple other minor issues, resubmitted (under your name, because reviewer tools can do that ) and have accepted it (as you should see on your talk page). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Appreciate you fixing those issues. Thanks for your work and approval! Serobinson01 (talk) 17:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
@Serobinson01: You're welcome! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Sandeep Tandon

This article is far too promotional to accept and the sources when examined were equally promotional, being suggestive of press releases. SwisterTwister talk 18:58, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@SwisterTwister: Sorted. Thanks for catching that. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Request on 19:38:00, 26 June 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Etan J. Tal


Dear (The)SandDoctor. It is quite embarassing, but I probably need some help in mending the draft. It seems that I arrived in a Cul-de-sac - my editing ability is exhausted. Nevertheless, I still think that the subject is worth an article, and perhaps some other editor, more competent than me would save this article from oblivion. I thank you for the time and effort you invested in reviewing the draft. Etan J. Tal(talk) 19:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC) 

Etan J. Tal(talk) 19:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
@Etan J. Tal: Thank for for the kind words. I will help how I can but also urge you to reach up on the Teahouse as there are editors there who can help much more than I can. I have added citation needed templates (where citations would be useful) and done some cleanup of the draft, however, I am not familiar with the subject. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:04, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
THanks! Etan J. Tal(talk) 20:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Request on 00:20:27, 27 June 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Cprice81



Cprice81 (talk) 00:20, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@Cprice81: What are you asking exactly? Your message is blank. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Request on 04:51:11, 27 June 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Devopam


Saw your note regarding ilc on the article. Would you please drop a hint when you get time on what is needed there. I try drafting new articles through AfC workflow to understand the editor perspective too, and am curious to know what warranted this rejection. Thanks

Devopam (talk) 04:51, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@Devopam: Certainly! I am glad to help. Please see the 'citation needed' templates that I have put on the page. That would be a good start. There is also one area marked with a "Better source needed" template as the linked source does not mention anything it is beside (his physical fitness levels nor him writing any books). If you have any more questions or questions regarding my answer, please feel free to let me know! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:31, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Urška Arlič Gololičič (June 26)

Dear TheSandDoctor,

I do not really understand how these references are not good enough. Could you please help me with specific references which are not correct? I tried to use mainly official pages of institutions - of the competition, of the theatre, imdb I suppose should also be official enough.. press releases about concerts taking place, are often the only proof that they have happened available online, would it be better if I scanned concert pamphlets/programmes published by institiutions organising the concerts and sent it... I don't know where should I send them for them to become references..? I can get a diploma from the Univesity scanned as well, if that's necessary. I have shortened the txt from what it was before, to only those things I can really find refereces online for, although, that is not all that could be written if I could include scanned documents. I suppose from what I have read about performers who deserve an entry on Wikipedia Urška Arlič Gololičič qualifies, as she has won an international competition and performed internationally, also appeared on a sound track of a not so insignificant film production... From what I have read that qualifies, of course, tell me if that is simply not yet enough :)

All the best!Julia Dobry (talk) 06:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@Julia Dobry: Thank you for reaching out to me about this. imdb is actually not considered that reliable of a source. Have you seen the other AfC comments? --TheSandDoctor (talk)

Battle for the Galaxy draft page

Hi, you recently declined my submission, due to low amount of references, but earlier I posted that someone deleted most of my references from page, is there a way to see the log and restore version with references?

--— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Tyurenkov (talk • contribs) 17:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@Sam Tyurenkov: What is the username of the person who removed the references that you are referring to? Czar? If you are not sure how to view the draft's edit history, navigate to the draft and click on the "View History" button (or click here --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the link to log. Yeah, I think he removed some by mistake, I know there were some of a low quality, but some others were from a known portals, with editorial policy. Should I restore them and resubmit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Tyurenkov (talk • contribs) 17:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
@Sam Tyurenkov: That is something best asked of @Czar: as they are an administrator and I typically defer to their judgement and do not want to challenge their judgement, especially when I am not familiar with the situation. I have 'pinged' them so hopefully they will respond to you soon and be able to provide further explanation. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, hopefully he will take a look. (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 08:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

08:34:33, 27 June 2017 review of submission by DanielleDriveWorks


Hi @TheSandDoctor:, I got your message about the citations on the draft:DriveWorks page not being correct and needing to use footnotes. I have re-read the articles about when to include an inline citation and how to use footnotes and I don't understand what the issue is. The only thing I can see that I haven't done is include a notes section to say what each specific footnote it, rather than just have the footnote display the actual reference. Could you please give me a bit of guidance about what the problem with the references is so I can fix them? Thanks :) Danielle DanielleDriveWorks (talk) 08:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@DanielleDriveWorks: I have gone through the draft and added a few "citation needed" templates as well as one or two "unreferenced section" templates. Hopefully that helps. If you have any more questions, please feel free to reply here with them or ask at the Teahouse, but if you mention me, please tag with {{ping|TheSandDoctor}} (or similar template like you did above) and don't forget to sign your message with ~~~~. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi @TheSandDoctor:, thanks for taking the time to add those, appreciate it :) I will go back and add more references! Once I've added them is it ok to ask admins to check the references or do I just submit it for review again? Thanks again for your help! Danielle DanielleDriveWorks (talk) 12:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi @TheSandDoctor:, I've been through and added citations to all the sections you highlighted. Would you mind having a look over the article and letting me know if it's ok now? I haven't removed the 'citation needed' templates as I noticed it says anyone with a COI shouldn't move them, so if the references are ok please could you remove them? Thank you!! Danielle DanielleDriveWorks (talk) 14:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

23:57:00, 27 June 2017 review of submission by Bobbledavidson


Hi - I see this has been declined because of referencing or footnotes or something but I can't see why. This is likely because I'm not a regular Wikipedian, but I've looked at the hints and at the document/article and can't understand the problem. Please can you provide any more information? --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbledavidson (talk • contribs) 23:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@Bobbledavidson: Accepted I have re-evaluated the draft and have decided to accept it, it can now be found at Giga Science. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi again

Hey, how are you doing? Can you check and give your insights on Yellow-bellied marmot for me? I added a lot of content, cited, linked, restructured and also have removed copyvios (earwig) from it. However, it would be great if you could provide your input (and make changes in the article, if possible) before the GA. @TheSandDoctor: Keen on getting this one right. Adityavagarwal (talk) 20:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Adityavagarwal: Hi there, I am doing fine. I apologize for the delay in my response. Please also note that, while I appreciate someone pinging when mentioning me, there is no need to 'ping' me on my own talk page as I see it anyways and, therefore, the ping has no effect.
I have looked at the article and have done a number of copy edits, however, I feel that more work could be done with it and I recommend that you read through it yourself and see if you can find anything else that needs copy editing. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, apologies for the ping. Also, thanks a bunch for ce'ing and making improvements to the article. There was the comma consistency in the lists(example a, b, and c v/s a, b and c), the range template consistency, and few other ce issues here and there. Hopefully, I have removed them. Also, could you give it a GA review? Thanks. Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
@Adityavagarwal: I do not have time right now, but I will in the next couple of days, okay? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, sure buddy. Adityavagarwal (talk) 19:52, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Looking in, I'll say the page is well-informed and well-preserved; I've found that area of article assessments to be overly-critical so I can't guarantee they will always agree. SwisterTwister talk 19:40, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Yep. It was also unstructured earlier, but hopefully, now the article is better. Yeah, being well-informed, specially might be a major thing in the assessment. Adityavagarwal (talk) 19:52, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
I had a question, as I was doing a review. There is a wikipedia article used as a reference in that article, which I suppose is also a wiki mirror right? So, should I tell the editor to replace it with a non-wikipedia (and reliable) source? Thanks. Also, would be great if you could check out the marmots. Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
@Adityavagarwal: Yes, I would recommend that. I was actually in the process of reviewing the marmots article when you sent this and have reviewed it (it passed!). Good work! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:34, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks mate! So, it is better to not have any wikipedia article as a reference right? Adityavagarwal (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
@Adityavagarwal: You are welcome Adityavagarwal! Having a Wikipedia article as a reference/citation is not allowed. If you want to link to another article, WikiLink it instead. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 07:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the help buddy. Adityavagarwal (talk) 13:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

20:21:05, 28 June 2017 review of submission by CorporateUpdater


I would like to understand why UpClear is not seen as notable when a similar vendor for consumer goods software meets the standard with similar (but admittedly several more) references. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exceedra_Software UpClear is also the first vendor to deliver Trade Promotion Management software via SaaS. Would mentioning this on the intro help improve its notability?

@CorporateUpdater: As noted by an administrator on my talk page to another user back in April (just substitute the examples given with this one in question) "please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Just because one bad page exists on Wikipedia doesn't mean that we should go around creating more bad pages. If the page you're working on needs more sources, add some! If you think that ZoneMinder should be deleted, nominate it for deletion! Always look towards the betterment of Wikipedia. "
Adding additional independent, reliable sources would help to demonstrate the notability. When evaluating drafts, we have to see if, in our opinion, the draft would have a suitable chance of surviving an AfD (articles for deletion) nomination, should it ever be nominated. Typically, that means having as many quality references as possible (which is why I commented on the submission asking for more references). Hopefully this helps shed some light on this. If you have any most questions, please feel free to let me know. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 07:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Adding to the existing page, "Bobby Osborne"

Valerievalpal (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2017 (UTC)At 18 years old, Bobby underwent massive pressure from his father, singing the song, “Ruby Don’t Take Your Love to Town” over radio station WPFB in Middletown, Ohio. The debut song, “Ruby, Don’t Take Your Love to Town” received over 50 telegrams arrived immediately requesting for Bobby to sing the song again. It became their signature song and was the chosen selection for performances on the Grand Ole Opry as well as the historical appearance for President Richard Nixon in the East Room of the White House. >Allmusic.com-Eugene Chadbourne<

During the autumn of 1949, he and friend/banjoist Larry Richardson joined the Lonesome Pine Fiddlers. This effectively changed the band from Delmore Brothers sound-alikes into a pioneering bluegrass band. They recorded a number of sides together including the original version of “Pain In My Heart.” >ref< My Kind of Counry>ref< Paul W. Dennis, Aug. 9, 2011Valerievalpal (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Valerievalpal: I am not sure why this is here? This is not a question by any means and is lacking context. You do know that this is my talk page, not an article or draft, right? If you do not know what a talk page is, click here to read about them and their uses. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 07:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi there

Please, I need you guidance on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Phanosphilippou/sandbox I added sources, I am doing my best to create my profile, and been rejected.

I am not a computer guy, I need help, what am I doing wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phanosphilippou (talk • contribs) 20:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Phanosphilippou: So are you attempting to create a user page or an article about yourself? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 07:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

21:15:00, 28 June 2017 review of submission by 173.162.107.117


I would like to know what is considered a "reliable source" for proving that this is indeed a legitimate company based in Beijing, China and also now in the US. It has been in operation since 2011, various articles from accredited publications can be found on the web about the company. The company also has three functioning and regularly updated websites (related to its products), Noitom.com, Neuronmocap.com and mySwing.com that can be easily looked up. The company has also worked with other established companies with their own Wikipedia pages such as Oculus and HTC VIVE. The CEO and CTO of the company have requested this Wikipedia page be created for business purposes. What would be considered a reliable source(s) for proving this is a legitimate, working business?

@173.162.107.117: Please review WP:RS as well as WP:Your first article, WP:CITE, and the Teahouse. Are you creating this on their request? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 07:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

16:12:54, 29 June 2017 review of submission by Abhishekyadav246



Hi the page which I have submitted is another person with the same name both of them have same profession , request you to please recheck once again

Thank you for pointing that out Abhishekyadav246, I have corrected the decline reason on the draft. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Hey can you please guide me as to how I can improve this page for successful submission, and what additional references I need to add ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishekyadav246 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
@Abhishekyadav246: Please review Wikipedia:Citing sources and Help:Referencing for beginners. Basically, any major significant news coverage. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Hey added few more strong references please have a look at this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishekyadav246 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
@Abhishekyadav246: I have reached out to a fellow reviewer and have received a second opinion on it. The references currently there are simply not enough and seem to be PR more than anything else, one is even a first hand account of her swimming. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Review

Hi TheSandDoctor, please may you review the Ara Vartanian draft again? Thank you! --Oliviabeckett5287 (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done Draft has been accepted Oliviabeckett5287 --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


Can you please review

Hi again! I I am expressing my gratitude even further towards you without your guidance and help and pointing me to the right places and help chats I could had never made the article! You are an amazing person for even having the patience with me for the article. As a father, who's daughter was a victim. If cyberstalking I thank you, also all the other victims wanted to say thank you. We have all become like family due to the fact that we are all victims of a cyber crime and we honestly can not say that without Kris Degioia and her team at csi awareness we would not have peace in our lives again. We are forever greatfuk for you allowing us to give back in some way! Chrisnadeau1973 (talk) 17:53, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but can you please approve the article I created? Chrisnadeau1973 (talk) 04:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@Chrisnadeau1973:  Not done Sorry for the late response, I took another look at the draft and it appears that my recommendations have not been taken into account regarding the citations. I will leave it to another reviewer to give their opinion on it but please consider implementing my suggestions. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I not quite sure how I mis understood your advice all along!! I reformatted it the way you have suggest to do all along! My apologies. I have fixed it now!
Chrisnadeau1973 (talk) 02:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


Request on 13:49:07, 27 June 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Greatbritishstyle


Hi @TheSandDoctor:, please accept this cookie as thanks for reviewing the draft:BVG Group page and leaving your suggestions for improvement. Please can you help me improve the draft by answering three questions? :)

You commented "Please add additional references and expand upon the draft content (if possible)”. 1. For ‘additional references’ do you require more of the same type provided, or a specific type of reference? I’ve read the guidelines on notability and reliable/unbiased sources, and believe the current references meet requirements. If they do not I’d appreciate further guidance. 2. What areas of the article do you feel need further referencing? I attempted to apply a reference to every statement, using references from a range of publications and dates. Again any further guidance will be gratefully received. 3. What areas do you suggest I expand? Thanks again for your help with this. Any additional guidance provided will hopefully save time and frustration :) Look forward to hearing from you.

@Greatbritishstyle: Meaningful significant news is what I was referring to, not simply press release-like. In this case, notability is not inherited from anything else. I would recommend seeing if the references could be improved as a whole and expand the article as necessary in order to include them and be more informative/encyclopedic. Hopefully this helps. If you have any more questions, please feel free to let me know! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
@TheSandDoctor: Hi - thank you for your speedy reply and clarifying what needs to be done. Do you think the draft article is suitable as a stub? Whilst I believe the references can be improved and the article expanded, I think the Wikipedia community could help me better meet requirements. If adding a stub template is possible, are there any edits you suggest before doing so? If a stub is not an appropriate path, I will endeavour to improve existing draft and references.Greatbritishstyle (talk) 14:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
@Greatbritishstyle:Adding a stub template is always an option. I went ahead and added Template:Business-stub to it for you. Sometimes having a stub tag on a draft can certainly help get traffic to it (but no guarantees of course). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi @TheSandDoctor:, i've recently made some structural changes (sections) to this article to make it good enough for the stub categories, as suggested by DrStrauss (talk · contribs) in our conversation now archived here[[1]] (bottom of page). Unfortunately it looks as though the Dr. is no longer taking part in AfC (thanks again for your help @DrStrauss: ), so I wondered if you would mind taking a look to see if it's now acceptable in the stub categories, to be expanded by myself and the wiki community. Thank you Greatbritishstyle (talk) 14:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi @TheSandDoctor:, I wondered if you have had an opportunity to look at this article again? As I said, i've made changes as suggested by @DrStrauss: to get it to an acceptable level for the stub categories - and as a previous reviewer of the article I thought you'd be the best person to take another look at it, now that DrStrauss is no longer working with AfC. Any feedback would be appreciated. Thanks Greatbritishstyle (talk) 11:27, 7 August 2017 (UTC)


Trans FX (band) June 27th revisions

Hi SandDoctor!

I took out the YouTube and Discogs references as well as the external links you told me to....

Thanks!

formzed (talk) 12:12, 27 June 2017 (PST)

@Formzed: Sorry for the late response, you're welcome! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


10:14:28, 28 June 2017 review of submission by Gregory-1000


Dear TheSandDoctor,

Further to declining this article for submission, could you be so kind as to state which parts of the article I have not cited/need to provide a reference for. I realise that the automated message states that the artciel does not meet the minimum standard for inline citations, but could you be more specific as to where these citations are lacking please. Also, bu inline citations, do you want me to provide a more Harvard-like referencing style where I say e.g According to bloggs(1992) this was..., or is the vancouver referencing style okay? I look forward to hearing form you soon.

Greg

@Gregory-1000: I apologize for the delay and thought that I had responded to this. From what I understand, there is no set formatting that must be used, WP:CITESHORT has some good information that may assist you. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

20:27:55, 29 June 2017 review of submission by 72.143.50.42


Hi!!

Thank you for reviewing the submission. Can you be more specific as to which items need a citation? That would be very helpful with getting the article properly formatted for acceptance.

Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.143.50.42 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@72.143.50.42: I am certainly glad to help. I have looked it over again and the majority of the article appears to be almost entirely unsourced. Please review Help:Referencing for beginners and WP:CITE. Basically, any information that could be challenged should be cited (especially facts, assertions, etc). Hopefully this helps. If you have any more questions, please do feel free to let me know. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Great! Thank you for the response. I'll take a look through and find some more sources to back it up. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.143.50.42 (talk) 13:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

17:09:17, 30 June 2017 review of submission by KamalMahrshi


Dude check carefully, all the links have been added correctly and please do google also for the name before rejecting, and if you don't know your job then it's a different story!

KamalMahrshi, you should probably re-read the decline notice and the comment left by TheSandDoctor on the page. The decline had nothing to do with "incorrectly added links". It was because you didn't have enough reliable sources that discussed the subject. Biographies of living people require us to have inline citations in order to be able to verify the facts found in the draft. We shouldn't have to Google it ourselves to figure out if the information is correct! Primefac (talk) 21:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheSandDoctor/Archives/2017/June&oldid=1089565808"