User talk:Fhobbs

Welcome!

Hello, Fhobbs, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 02:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018[edit]

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:Schwarzschild's equation for radiative transfer, from its old location at User:Fhobbs/sandbox. This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 14:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

==Notes Hi! I just wanted to drop a few notes about the draft:

The first is to make sure that you don't have any original research or opinions in the draft. One thing I saw was the phrase "Schwarzschild’s equation provides a simple explanation...". Be very careful with language like this. You can say that a specific source/person states that this, but it shouldn't be a general statement unless it's an extremely widely held viewpoint. This would still need sourcing after the sentence, though.
Some of the sentences are bolded - I wasn't quite sure why this was done. Style-wise, bolding is generally only done with the article title. If it's to emphasize a point, then that's something that we can't do on Wikipedia because this kind of falls into the area of original research since it's seen as the specific writer choosing which points to emphasize by bolding.

I hope that this helps - I've asked someone from the mathematics WikiProject to look over the draft at the Articles for Creation process. Since it was nominated and moved, unfortunately there's not really anything I can do as far as accepting it goes, since that would be seen as a conflict of interest on Wikipedia. The general rules for the AfC process used to be looser, but they've since tightened them up quite a bit. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:44, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I approved the article, because it seemed ready to me. Your notes are still on the talk page. Congratulations, you did a good job. DS (talk) 02:03, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]