User talk:Johannes Maximilian/Archives 2023/October
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
New pages patrol newsletter
Hello Johannes Maximilian/Archives 2023,
Backlog update: At the time of this message, there are 11,300 articles and 15,600 redirects awaiting review. This is the highest backlog in a long time. Please help out by doing additional reviews!
October backlog elimination drive: A one-month backlog drive for October will start in one week! Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Articles will earn 4x as many points compared to redirects. You can sign up here.
PageTriage code upgrades: Upgrades to the PageTriage code, initiated by the NPP open letter in 2022 and actioned by the WMF Moderator Tools Team in 2023, are ongoing. More information can be found here. As part of this work, the Special:NewPagesFeed now has a new version in beta! The update leaves the NewPagesFeed appearance and function mostly identical to the old one, but updates the underlying code, making it easier to maintain and helping make sure the extension is not decommissioned due to maintenance issues in the future. You can try out the new Special:NewPagesFeed here - it will replace the current version soon.
Notability tip: Professors can meet WP:PROF #1 by having their academic papers be widely cited by their peers. When reviewing professor articles, it is a good idea to find their Google Scholar or Scopus profile and take a look at their h-index and number of citations. As a very rough rule of thumb, for most fields, articles on people with a h-index of twenty or more, a first-authored paper with more than a thousand citations, or multiple papers each with more than a hundred citations are likely to be kept at AfD.
Reviewing tip: If you would like like a second opinion on your reviews or simply want another new page reviewer by your side when patrolling, we recommend pair reviewing! This is where two reviewers use Discord voice chat and screen sharing to communicate with each other while reviewing the same article simultaneously. This is a great way to learn and transfer knowledge.
Reminders:
- You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
- Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
- To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Request on 17:10:27, 7 October 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Machko
Dear Reviewer,
I would like to ask you what other than university's official website reliable sources could a student association mention in order to prove its authenticity?
Cordially,
Maciej Gładyś Vice President of PSAG
Machko (talk) 17:10, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Are you ever going to elaborate or are you just going to keep saying "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources."? KingTheD (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- Do you ever read comments? It was stated on 30 September by fellow reviewer User:Qcne that "familysearch.org cannot be used as a source, see WP:RSP." If you obviously put no effort into improving your draft, it will obviously be declined again. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 15:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- That was a misunderstanding and I fixed the issue. KingTheD (talk) 15:48, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- No, I did. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 15:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- What did you do to my references? KingTheD (talk) 15:52, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- Did you even read what I'm saying? KingTheD (talk) 15:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- If you don't want to improve your draft, then I cannot help you. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 15:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- I do, you're the one who won't tell me what's wrong with it. KingTheD (talk) 15:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- Can you explain what's wrong with the obituary? And if census records can't be used then why is there a references template for them? KingTheD (talk) 15:58, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Johannes Maximilian So is the draft good now? KingTheD (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- You're really putting effort into this so I'm being patient with you. Sorry for coming across as rude, it's just very frustrating to see how a draft is not improved even though it's very simple to change that. Now, I used the "thank" button because your recent edits are an obvious improvement, and it's worth giving credit where it's due. However, that does not mean that your draft is now in a good state. See, it still cites a source that you were told is deemed unreliable here on Wikipedia. I feel that this might need some more thorough explaining; we may presume that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such, it describes what is believed to be established knowledge. Established knowledge is always derived from reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, and in order to establish notability, these sources also must describe the topic in significant detail.
- The problem with familysearch.org is that anyone can register on that platform and upload content, i.e., it is not reliable as a source, and thus, there is consensus not to accept it as a source here on Wikipedia.
The Blossbury Advertiser also doesn't seem quite like a very well established source. The article there is an obituary, it lacks author information, and also context. There is no information whatsoever on the Blossbury Advertiser – it remains totally unclear whether that source even exists. I'm not saying that I believe that someone has made the effort to fake that source, but that would certainly be possible.The Canton Independent-Sentinel seems like a real source, but again, the cited article is also an obituary in a local newspaper. This hardly establishes notability. The third source (Ward) is an acceptable source, it verifies the sentence that it's cited for (that's good!), but it lacks what on Wikipedia is known as significant coverage. I.e., the book mentions Irvin briefly, but that's it. This is insufficient to establish notability. Source 4 is a simple newspaper announcement, and, in this case, a failed verification, i.e., the article text is contentually different from the source, which it must not be. Even if it wasn't, the source would still not be sufficient to establish notability. - Summarising this, we have got one unreliable source, which is an immediate no-go; but let's pretend it isn't: Then we have got two obituaries in local newspapers, a passing mention in a book, and routine news coverage with failed verification. This is not sufficient to establish notability. I advise you cite good sources that describe the subject in thorough detail. If you find that you cannot do that, that is possibly because the subject is not notable for inclusion within Wikipedia. I'm assuming that you haven't uploaded these newspaper articles to the archives – it looks to me that you have already found the better part of the content covering Irvin (which is not always easy to do, especially in cases like this one with no good digital source coverage). I wish you good luck with this, and I don't want to convey demotivation, but I have doubts that sources indicating Irvin's notability can be found. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 21:34, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for being patiant with me. First of all according to the Library of Congress, the Blossburg Advertiser operated in Blossburg, PA for 32 years, I'd consider that fairly established. https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn86081135/ Secound off all in the book Irvin is metioned 9 times, sometimes under the name Irwin (page 454 has all the pages where he is mentioned). KingTheD (talk) 22:16, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Johannes Maximilian So is the draft good now? KingTheD (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- If you don't want to improve your draft, then I cannot help you. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 15:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- No, I did. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 15:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Draft:Clan Watson
hi, yea I thought the review would be in a few months, so I was still editing when you reviewed the article, sorry about that. Can you give me some pointers to the main sources you find questionable? I not the creator of the article and am still cleaning up various sources. Yours, ever, Czar Brodie~commonswiki (talk) 16:39, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- Cheers! The draft in question has too many referencing issues to be acceptable. Footnotes 55 and 56 are the same, and the source they refer to also makes no sense as it remains unclear how it would be used as a source in a Wikipedia article. Footnotes 58 and 59 are also the same. 60, and 62 refer to unreliable sources; 63 has a reference error, 65 and 67 are the same footnotes, and they refer to a flickr photograph. Please fix your draft so it can be reviewed. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 19:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- many thanks, good feedback. Yours ever, Czar Brodie~commonswiki (talk) 20:32, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Miss-spelling on your warning note
Hi Johannes Maximilian,
There’s a few misspellings and missing punctuation mark on the warning you placed on my page. Not trying to be rude, just wanted you to know in case the first part is from a template you use :-)
See below:
Comment: To make this clear, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia per WP:5P1, and as such, it relies upon established knowledge that others have already discvered and described, i.e., it retells what the sources it cites say. This is why any good AfC reviewer always has a good look at the references section: If the footnotes refer to sources that are flawed (e.g., unreliable, not independent, not secondary, or a combination of these properties), then the draft cannot be accepted.
• There is an obvious punctuation error in the first sentence, and this draft has multiple punctuation errors Mwikiforce (talk) 01:33, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello Johannes, Kindly dropping you a note to let you know I have removed the improper sourcing in my draft article (I hope to Wiki's standards). I have removed any/all IMDB sources and found the credits in proper sources like Variety, Hollywood Reporter, etc. and resubmitted the article. Thank you for your time.
Declined: Draft: Brian E. Kinsella
Hi Johannes. Maximilian,
Thank you for taking the time to review my draft on Brian E. Kinsella so fast.
However, it was declined because it’s indicated I’m missing reliable sources?
I have researched sources like crazy, and there are articles from The Wall Street Journal, Business Insider, Yahoo! Finance, FOX Business etc. - all in all 28 2nd hand sources. So I am not really sure what I did wrong? I even checked with reviewers that seems to be veterans on this site, that all said it looked good and my prediction was listed as a Class B with no issues?
I am new here, and this is my first draft. I’ve been trying to read through as much documentation as possible, and this is my first attempt of writing on Wikipedia.
If you can help me, by telling me what I need to change to get this approved that would be SO appreciated. :-)
Best,
Mwikiforce Mwikiforce (talk) 16:13, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- He's quite rude and unhelpful, I would find someone else. KingTheD (talk) 16:15, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- Hi KingTheD,
- Thank you for the feedback. I will try to wait and see what he says. It might be helpful for me, because I’m not sure what I did wrong yet, and would love to change anything that needs changing. I’m new here, so it’s a new “passion” that I had about trying out Wikipedia, but I know I’m not perfect at it yet.
- I do appreciate you looking at the page too though, and your feedback. Seems like everyone is very busy on here :-)
- Best,
- Mwikiforce Mwikiforce (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- Your draft looks really well researched. KingTheD (talk) 16:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you KinTheD. I'm going to try to work on it...Phew...But I certainly am not getting paid anything to write this. Mwikiforce (talk) 23:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- See, footnotes 13, 14, and 20 refer to unreliable sources; a Wikipdia draft cannot be accepted into the mainspace with sources like that. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 18:58, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- So, I'm looking at the declined revision, and it looks like source 13 is PR Newswire (generally unreliable), 14 is New York Post (deprecated, but piggybacking on a prior citation; could easily be removed without altering the prose), but 20 is Associated Press? Is it considered unreliable because they posted it to their Youtube channel instead of their main site? I see the draft has been tagged for G11 now, so maybe all this is moot. Folly Mox (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- Hello User:Folly Mox, the draft is obvious UPE. References 13, 14, and 20 stand out as being unreliable (it's a no-brainer), but all the other sources (and I mean: virtually all of them) fail at least one of the WP:SIRS criteria. Also read that text, nobody in the right mind would write something as promotional as that, and the OP knows his way around Wikipedia way too well. I hope this doesn't need any further explaining? Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 20:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Folly Mox and Johannes Maximilian,
- I have been working this AM on trying to make the article more encyclopedic in tone. (haven't allocated/updated citations as of now though). I wanted to see what your thoughts are on my updating version?
- Also, the Youtube comment you made Folly Mix - is Youtube Podcasts considered unreliable sources? I have this clip from the Terry Virts' (astronaut) podcast, can I use that as a reference? It's an interview with Brian E. Kinsella and his co-founder of Stop Soldier Suicide, and has a lot of content about what he does. I just don't want to get into more trouble :-)
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlZs8GV9Z6Q
- Thank you for your time in advance, Mwikiforce (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you Johannes. I'm a little demotivated right now. I definitely am not getting any form of payment to write this, and have made SO many edits - listening to people on here who's been on here longer. So I just don't understand why it's suddenly getting deleted. And then expedited request to delete. I spent SO much time on research - days, so I'll give it another go tomorrow. I think I need to take an evening off of Wikipedia. Hopefully it's not all gone tomorrow.
- Thank you for writing back though. I appreciate that. Mwikiforce (talk) 23:15, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Johannes Maximilian,
- I am still working on editing my article, and have tried to rephrase everything on it to carry a more encyclopedic tone. But I keep running into a problem. It is really hard to edit the page, because I have to scroll through this bulleted list you wrote out on the actual article. I tried to remove it once (for the same reason, and had copied/pasted all your comments onto a word document, so I had your comments), but you put it back immediately. Is it possible at least to move it to my user talk page? I will go through each of your bullets today, to review my references, and won’t move it without your comments.
- Thank you so much in advance for any help on this.
- Please see below, what I am asking to move:
- Comment: To make this clear, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia per WP:5P1, and as such, it relies upon established knowledge that others have already discvered and described, i.e., it retells what the sources it cites say. This is why any good AfC reviewer always has a good look at the references section: If the footnotes refer to sources that are flawed (e.g., unreliable, not independent, not secondary, or a combination of these properties), then the draft cannot be accepted. • There is an obvious punctuation error in the first sentence, and this draft has multiple punctuation errors • The draft has multiple external links in its body, which per WP:EL ought to be avoided • There's serious WP:OVERCITE in multiple sections • Footnote 23 has a misplaced
|url-status=live• The tone is a bit unencyclopedic with strong adjectives and hollow phrases such as, for example, "diverse initiatives dedicated to", "pressing need", "dire need of assistance", or "Leveraging his background as a former Army Captain acknowledged for relief work following the 2010 Haiti earthquake" with a footnote refering to a stockphoto; "Kinsella promptly volunteered", "monumental task", "grappling with increasingly perilous circumstances", "stringent timelines", "utilizing diverse means", "Their efforts and dedication culminated", "underscoring one of many larger initiatives"… And this is just from the first section. Please fix this! • This draft cites various sources that fail Wikipedia's secondary independent reliable sources with significant coverage critera: 2: Includes parts of an interview with Kinsella (not independent) 3: This source doesn't mention the subject 4: Incorrectly cited, and the source doesn't mention the subject 5: Doesn't mention the subject 7: A stockphotograph on Almany, used to cite an exceptionally strong claim ("Leveraging his background as a former Army Captain acknowledged for relief work following the 2010 Haiti earthquake"); I reckon this doesn't need explaining?! 8: Includes parts of an interview with Kinsella (not independent) 9: The source doesn't support what is claimed in the article (it's about the rescue of an individual, and not about "exploring resettlement opportunities" 11: Relies upon what "Kinsella said"; thus not independent I'd say 12: Insignificant coverage 13: PRNewswire, unreliable press releases 14: New York Post, generally unreliable source 15: Insignificant coverage 16: A reliable source, but not independent, and it cannot be used to establish notability 17: A reliable source, but not independent, and it cannot be used to establish notability 18: A reliable source, but not independent, and it cannot be used to establish notability 19: Relies upon what "Kinsella said" 20: An interview 21: Doesn't mention the subject 22: The same as 19 23: Doesn't mention the subject 25: Relies upon what Kinsella said 27: Press release 28: Press release Now if I sum up all of this it becomes pretty obvious to me that this draft is not normal. The draft tries to praise its subject way to blatantly, the sources are mostly nonsense and I thus suspect a conflict of interest, possibly undisclosed paid editing. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 19:59, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: To make this clear, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia per WP:5P1, and as such, it relies upon established knowledge that others have already discvered and described, i.e., it retells what the sources it cites say. This is why any good AfC reviewer always has a good look at the references section: If the footnotes refer to sources that are flawed (e.g., unreliable, not independent, not secondary, or a combination of these properties), then the draft cannot be accepted. • There is an obvious punctuation error in the first sentence, and this draft has multiple punctuation errors • The draft has multiple external links in its body, which per WP:EL ought to be avoided • There's serious WP:OVERCITE in multiple sections • Footnote 23 has a misplaced
- Mwikiforce (talk) 09:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Johannes, I just saw this. I overlooked the comment accidentally. I am looking at this today. Edited all the text. I will look into those sources. Thank you! Mwikiforce (talk) 09:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Johannes Maximillian, I have removed the references [13], [14] and [20], as well as:
- https://www.dvidshub.net/image/5307096/brian-kinsella-receives-mpsm
- https://seeflection.com/22549/black-box-project-uses-ai-to-prevent-suicide/
- https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-army-capt-brian-kinsella-freehold-nj-is-currently-serving-in-haiti-129494836.html
- https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/roberts--ryan-investments-proudly-welcomes-brian-kinsella-veteran-us-army-officer-and-co-founder-of-stop-soldier-suicide-to-its-advisory-board-300954404.html
- https://nypost.com/2015/05/18/you-dont-need-to-be-a-drill-sergeant-to-run-your-workday-like-one/
- http://sanantonioreport.org/usaa-backed-coalition-launches-41-million-fund-to-prevent-veteran-suicide-promote-mental-health/
- https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ex-goldman-sachs-analyst-help-veterans-by-finding-them-jobs-201055540.html
- https://theweek.com/world/1004322/a-private-operation-run-out-of-a-hotel-conference-room-has-helped-evacuate
- https://www.rappore.com/provider/brian-e-kinsella
- https://roberts-ryan.com/team/brian-kinsella/
- https://stopsoldiersuicide.org/board-of-directors
- https://elitetraveler.com/travel/travel-news/a-night-for-life-a-fundraising-event-at-the-intrepid-museum
- https://www.military.com/benefits/veterans-health-care/how-usaas-face-fight-building-coalition-combat-veteran-suicide.html
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNllhhvJGhM
- https://magazine.krieger.jhu.edu/2020/11/reducing-military-suicides/
- I have found some other new links that I think should be considered 2nd degree reliable sources per what I've read.
- Would you mind giving it another look before I resubmit?
- Thank you so much in advance!
- Best, Mwikiforce (talk) 15:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Johannes, thank you for the quick review of the links! I really appreciate that! I removed ref. 6 (the blog) and ref. 10 (that appeared to be a donation page - sorry missed that).
- But ref 2: the press release about receiving the award. I am not sure what documentation is fine here? I am trying to document that he received the medal, which is the reason I'm writing about this person. Also:
- "• Ref 11 doesn't discuss the draft's subject", I thought this would be reliable supporting evidence from reliable source for the Black Box Project? Can it not be used for that?
- Thanks again for the quick response! Mwikiforce (talk) 15:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Johannes Maximilian,
- I removed two of the four refs on my page - pending your response on the last two. I updated your comments with the "now" new and accurate ref. numbers, so that you don't have to spend time on finding them. The two left in question are: Ref. 2 + ref 9.
- I look forward to hearing comments from you.
- Best, Mwikiforce (talk) 16:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- So, I'm looking at the declined revision, and it looks like source 13 is PR Newswire (generally unreliable), 14 is New York Post (deprecated, but piggybacking on a prior citation; could easily be removed without altering the prose), but 20 is Associated Press? Is it considered unreliable because they posted it to their Youtube channel instead of their main site? I see the draft has been tagged for G11 now, so maybe all this is moot. Folly Mox (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Draft:Spirit of Sacramento (boat)
I am curious as to why this page was denied. There are multiple reliable sources and it is a landmark of a major US city and is thus notable enough for a short page. Advice or what to correct would be appreciated- thanks Cramso (talk) 00:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Hello, you have cited YouTube, which is not considered a reliable source. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 13:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Draft:Charles Robert O'Dell
You declined this article on 8 October 2023 saying that it did not have reliable sources. This probably refers to the fact that all of the sources are primary, which should be the most reliable type, although more tedious to check a long list. Please advise me to how I should proceed. There are a few typos to be corrected. I would change this and modify the draft per your advice, then resubmit. Viele Danke. 5txzk (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Draft:1935 KLM Bushehr incident
Hi, you reviewed the draft Draft:1935 KLM Bushehr incident and I have some questions about it. You say “submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources” without giving details. As the draft has many reliable sources can you say what you mean, do you want more sources? Or other sources? Have you seen the this source of De Courant/Nieuws van de Dag? Or the other sources of De Limburger, De Gooi- en Eemlander, Leeuwarder Courant, Bataviaasch Nieuwsblad, Aaltensche Courant, Deli Courant. The website of aviacrash.nl is owned and maintained by Aviodrome. Or if you indicate which part you have doubts about its reliability, I will show you (another) source confirming it. Thanks, 109.37.146.241 (talk) 18:31, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- Hello, footnote 13 refers to an unreliable source. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 18:59, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- So in fact you are not question for more sources, but it’s about 1 reference you are questioning. While a Wordpress website is seen as unreliable, it writes about the news from newspapers that are also published on that page, so showing multiple reliable sources. However I took a closer look the reference is redundant because it’s also covered in the other sources. So to keep it easy I removed the link for you. Is it now good enough to resubmit it? 109.37.150.239 (talk) 20:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- A reply would be appreciated. 109.37.150.239 (talk) 20:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.37.131.14 (talk)
- So in fact you are not question for more sources, but it’s about 1 reference you are questioning. While a Wordpress website is seen as unreliable, it writes about the news from newspapers that are also published on that page, so showing multiple reliable sources. However I took a closer look the reference is redundant because it’s also covered in the other sources. So to keep it easy I removed the link for you. Is it now good enough to resubmit it? 109.37.150.239 (talk) 20:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
"Mio Pang Fei" Page
Hello,
Hope you are well!
Based on your submission review today of this page, I would like to know what exactly went wrong as for your notes. 1) the sources - is it because of the two dead links, or are there more issues? 2) can you give examples as to which parts are not in an "encyclopedia" format in your perspective?
I would greatly appreciate your reply on this, thank you! Misterjonas777 (talk) 22:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- I have left a comment on your draft's page: Special:Diff/1179660043. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 16:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your attention and guidance! Changes will be made in the coming future. I shall let you know. Thanks :) Misterjonas777 (talk) 16:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Draft:Sorato Anraku
Greetings Johannes!
I believe you previously declined the submission of the Wikipedia page for Sorato Anraku here on 10 September 2023. While I am not the initial creator of the article, I have made changes to the draft based on your feedback, adding in some reliable secondary sources that cover his sporting accomplishments.
Most of the sources are from the same 4 sources; while they are reliable, I am not sure if it is repetitive. As the subject's competitive career has just begun, the range of sources about him in English are quite limited despite him being a relevant current figure in the sport, so I hope this will not be a significant issue.
I would really appreciate if you could take another look at the page to see if it passes the criteria to be published. Thank you so much, and I really appreciate any feedback you have! Tequilaconcanciones (talk) 03:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
draft: Seann Nicols
Hi Johannes,
I updated citations and removed all the external links as you suggested. Thanks. NeutralNavigator (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Draft:Pierce Street Jazz
Johannes, Thank you for reviewing my draft of "Pierce Street Jazz" and for your helpful comment. Accordingly, I have completely reworked the "Guest soloist" section, limiting it to only "soloists" that can be properly referenced. For these I have provided appropriate, independent citations. In light of this, I ask that you take another look at the draft with hopes that you can now approve it for publication. Please note also that the article is considered to be "within the scope of" the following projects: WikiProject Higher education; Music genres taskforce of the Music Project; WikiProject California; and WikiProject Jazz. Sincerely, Wctrenchard (talk) 05:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Draft:Murder of Jiang Ge
Hi. Recently I made the Draft:Murder of Jiang Ge but you it rejected due to it lacking reliable sources. Since the incident was predominantly covered more in Chinese and Japanese media than in other international media, I was unable to find more sources other than in Chinese and Japanese. I avoided using deprecated Chinese sources and yet my article was rejected. Could you elaborate more based on review of the draft on what sources I should not have used and should change to in order to have it accepted? Toadboy123 (talk) 12:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Draft:Samuel Lee Anderson
Hi Johannes,
I updated Draft:Samuel Lee Anderson with sourced citations and removed all the unsourced external links as you suggested. Thanks K. NatrualEdit1888 (talk) 16:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Draft:Eklecty-City
Hi Johannes,
You refused this draft. So of course I understand that Dailymotion's twitter source is not taken into account. However, to refuse the whole article seems to me to be really exaggerated. Like this disscusion about the acceptance of the WhatCulture site, Eklecty-City is a broad-source website, of the same type as Screen Rant, io9 or Gizmodo, which is often used as a reliable source around Wikipedia. What's more, the Eklecty-City article is far more substantiated than other some pages cited above. Do I have to remove the "Twitter" source to validate the page?
Thanks for your time. Myrastoh (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Declined speedy
Hi, just wanted to let you know that I declined your speedy deletion request at Draft:Vehicles - you nominated it under WP:G1 but it doesn't fit that criterion as the text isn't pure nonsense. Per WP:NOTCSD, criterion A10 also doesn't apply. WaggersTALK 12:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Draft:Mital-U
Dear Johannes Thank you for your feedback to the draft page of Mital-U. You write "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified." I've added links of official (fe 'Swiss National Sound Archives' is a foundation integrated with the Federal Office of Culture as "Swiss National Sound Archives Section" of the Swiss National Library) or non-profit (fe swisspunk.ch is a Non-Profit-Organisation that aims to document the history of punk music in Switzerland) organisations, which are reliable sources. Could you please specify why these sources are not serious/credible, or tell us what exactly is not correct? HAL 7C0 (talk) 13:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Draft: JDoodle
Hi Johannes,
You reviewed the page on JDoodle that I wrote and rejeted it since it didnt meet some guidelines. Could you please help me out as to how it can be better and fixed? This is my first time trying to publish and page and I would really appreciate any help that I can get.
Thanks in advance! Zahwa Jameel (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
I have difficulty with your decline. While I see a lack of sources, I do see sufficient that I believe it stands a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion discussion. May we talk about it? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- I also have difficult with Draft:Lawton Leroy Pratt. While I added a reference to Summer Con to safeguard it, I din'tt see the need. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- Hello Timtrent, thank you very much for asking for clarification. I don't want to come across as rude, but keep the draft-reviewer ratio in mind. Now, I treat Wikipedia rather strictly as an encyclopedia, i.e., a work that describes what is believed to be established knowledge. I am convinced this is in good accordance with Wikipedia's WP:5P1 fundamental principle; one could even argue it is WP:5P1. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia needs proper citations, i.e. good references to reliable sources. Anyone who has completed upper secondary education knows (or should know) what this is, and considering the aforementioned draft-reviewer ratio, I reckon it is reasonable to presume that I can take it for granted that any reasonable editor knows the basic principle of a citation in a "scientific" work. The Summer Coon article lacks proper citations. It has references that contain bare URLs, but it remains unclear what's being cited there. See, this citation took me less than a minute to create, but despite having significantly improved that reference there, I still don't know which page of that work was used. Sure, I could now get that paper, read through its text and determine the right page, but since I haven't created the draft, it would take some time to do so. The original editor would need to take like 5 minutes of his or her time to fix all of the references, and not doing that – i.e., chucking bare URLs at the reviewers – is lazy. If reviewers were tasked to fix poor citations, there would be no incentive to improve drafts for those who create them.
- The Lawton Leroy Pratt article should – per its lemma – describe an individual, but about 50 per cent of its text describes something loosely related to that individual. Also note the first two sentences: "Lawton Leroy Pratt (1886-1943) and his wife owned a prosperous undertaking business in the LaVilla neighborhood in Jacksonville, Florida. The Florida Archives have a photo of L. L. Pratt Undertaking at 527 West Beaver Street where the family lived upstairs and did business below." Do you think that this is a good Wikipedia article? I don't: Who was Pratt? The article explains that, yes, but it does so in its fourth sentence. Is the article about Pratt or his home? Who knows. And what made me decline the draft was that it doesn't describe or even make it plausible why Wikipedia would have an article on that particular topic. Undertakes have existed ever since humans have settled in larger settlements. Why is this particular undertaker notable? Because he was photographed? The sources seem to focus on the funeral home rather than Pratt, so one cannot argue – based on the current version of the article – that Pratt has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Why does he now qualify for a Wikipedia article? I cannot answer that question based on the current version of the article. And that's why I declined the draft as a submission about a person not yet shown to meet notability guidelines.
- I hope this is both comprehensive and comprehensible; feel free to ask additional questions, I'm happy to clarify things. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 19:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- You need to set that against the criteria AFC reviewers are asked to use. "In your view, does this stand a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion discussion?" That is what we are asked to decide.
- We are not required to seek perfection, indeed we should not. Our brief, and thus the one you take on when you use the AFCH script, is not the same as the NPP brief. AFC reviewers are menage to accept borderline articles on the basis that there is a probability of the community improving them. NPP is a stronger review, of those articles new to mainspace from whatever source. Even so it does not require perfection either. Paragraph one at Wikipedia:New pages patrol refers.
- "I don't want to come across as rude, but keep the draft-reviewer ratio in mind." - please understand that this is a form of words which is guaranteed to cause offence, marginally less rude than being overtly offensive, it is still unpleasant to receive. Indeed, it prevented my paying attention to what you wrote. I also have no idea what the "draft-reviewer ratio" is. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi Johannes,
I translated an article from Persian to English. Still, I was rejected due to lack of reliable sources, I do my best to gather all the resources I could find in English from different websites. Some of them are Persian, I try to use the least Persian sources as possible, could you please help with telling me the reasons that why sources are not reliable and how to make it better? This is my first translation in Wikipedia. Thanks Soroudh (talk) 18:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- I replied in your draft. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 19:31, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Draft:Ira Vouk Dear Johannes. Thank you for your prompt review of the above draft. I have made the changes you requested. Please review when you have a moment. I did my best to follow the guidelines and previously worked with another user on this article before submitting it for review (please see the conversation in my Talk). I believe that all remaining sources are compliant with wikipedia requirements (as third-party, independent, reliable and verifiable). The only one that I was hesitant about was crunchbase but it's the only source supporting the content about her being the co-founder of iRates, and crunchbase is traditionally a reliable source for looking up startup information. Similar to the above, on the second topic. I have reworded the article a few times to keep the formal and neutral tone and I believe it should now satisfy the requirements of neutrality. If anything else is needed - please let me know. Thank you again for your time. --Faminalizblr (talk) 19:17, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello Johannes, thank you for reviewing my article. I have made the changes you have requested, are you able to review at your earliest convenience. Anything else I missed, please let me know, Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creep1872 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Draft: Karzan Kardozi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Karzan_Kardozi
Dear Johannes, forgive me I don't know if I'm contacting you the right way or not. I just wanted you to know that I have added references to Kurdish sources to the page "Draft:Karzan Kardozi". Please know, he is a Kurdish filmmakers and most of the sources are in Kurdish. Don't know what other thing to do in order have you guys at Wiki to approve the article. There are many young and talented Kurdish filmmakers that should have Wiki pages, just don't know how to go about it and list them.
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naderjamie6 (talk • contribs) 11:44, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Draft Patrick Rampelotto
Hi Johannes,
I made changes to my draft after you refused its publication. May I ask you kindly to read the draft again and tell me if anything is still to improve? I really want to avoid a second refusal since the review process is long.
Thanks for the feedback.
Catherine Lemieux Catherine Lemieux (talk) 12:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Hello Catherine, I commented on your draft: Special:Diff/1179665634. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 16:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your feedback. Quoting an article where an artist is not interviewed is quite a challenge. What puzzles me, is that I see many wikipedia pages (especially for writers, musicians, etc) that rely solely on interviews... Just two examples:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molly_Nilsson
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annie_Le_Brun
- In any case, I will quote only from the published theory books where Rampelotto's work is discussed. 91.141.51.89 (talk) 12:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Johannes,
- Thanks for your meticulous work. I changed most of the references, deleted all interviews. Would you be so kind as to check my draft again?
- A few remarks:
- Designboom is a serious online architecture and design magazine. You suggested that you can submit content without being reviewed, which is not true. Lea Zeitoun is an independent journalist, editor at designboom.
- The articles of Michael Hausenblas in der Standard are not, as you mentionned, "MAK editorials". Hausenblas is a journalist (Redakteur) mostly writing about art and design. The referenced articles were both published online and in the magazine "Rondo" issued by the newspaper der Standard.
- If a solo exhibition at the Museum of Applied Arts of Vienna, four full pages in a reference book issued by Thames and Hudson, an academic paper discussing the work of Rampelotto do not count as establishing "notability", I don't know what will!
- Best regards,
- Catherine Lemieux Catherine Lemieux (talk) 12:34, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Appreciate the help
|
Collaboration Thanks |
| For your help on Draft:Simon Petermann. CNMall41 (talk) 20:40, 20 October 2023 (UTC) |
Draft:Artmajeur Hi Johannes, you just declined the drafted translation of the FR wikipedia page for Artmajeur for the lacking reliable sources. The draft contains a great number of external references from major media and I beleive all elements cited are properly referenced. Are Forbes, Femme Actuelle, Paris Match, Connaissance des arts, or the Official Journal of the french republic not reliable sources? Should I remove information not based on such sources exclusively ? Please advise 🙏 --Sylphidre (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for your detailed comment, I was able to rewrite the text with clean references, and retreive sources details with all available information such as translated titles, date of publication and author name when available. 👍 Sylphidre (talk) 09:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
- I made the corrections and addressed the points your raised, but may be I should get everything clean before re-submiting again. Would you mind check them out and provide feedback on the draft discussion page? Draft talk:Artmajeur#Sources quality 🙌 Sylphidre (talk) 09:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Revision of Draft: Seann Nicols Following Your Feedback
Dear Johannes,
Thank you for your insightful feedback on the draft page of Seann Nicols. I have taken your comments seriously and made comprehensive revisions to address the concerns you raised, particularly regarding the sourcing and verifiability of the claims made in the text.
I have worked meticulously to ensure that the text now accurately represents the claims made in the referenced sources. The erroneous citations to YouTube videos have been rectified, and I have removed or amended any statements that were not supported by the provided references.
I appreciate the time and effort you have taken to review the draft, and I hope that the revisions now align the article more closely with Wikipedia's standards. I am open to further suggestions and am committed to making any additional adjustments necessary to meet the guidelines for publication.
I have resubmitted the draft for your review and am looking forward to your feedback.
Thank you once again for your assistance in this process. NeutralNavigator (talk) 00:54, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Johannes,
- I received your comment stating that the improvements on the Seann Nicols draft looked favorable. Thank you. I'm wondering what happens next. I've re-submitted the draft for review. and I've noticed a few minor edits have been made. Is it possible for you to review it again, or does it go back into the queue to be passed along to another reviewer? Any information is appreciated. Thank you again for your assistance. NeutralNavigator (talk) 18:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Draft: Wasim Abu Salem
Hello Johannes, I hope that you are well, and thank you for the review. I have changed how the sources on the page are used and tried to use specific quotes from each source to highlight what was cited from that source. I'm looking forward to your response to see if I'm moving in the right direction or if you feel that more changes are needed. Thank you for any assistance you can provide; I wish you a pleasant rest of the day. MoMit (talk) 22:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Blade article draft space
Hey! Thank you for reviewing the article and pointing out the mistakes. I have fixed the sources and therefore it’s been resubmitted. Please consider reviewing it again, and if there are any issues again, I will fix them right away. Thanks! Russell7890 (talk) 13:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Regarding the article
yeah JohannesMaximilian, i have used many reliable sources in the draft. The person is of high prominence in Nigeria, but unfortunately, the editors keep bringing in excuses. The first one is "seems like a resume", second was "too much citations" and third was "less citations". this is already becoming something else. with just a google search, you will understand the subject is prominent. I have added secondary reliable sources, dignified media channels cited. But still excuses. Please do check my draft log for Bala Sanusi Turaki and see how many edits i have made. Brogonee (talk) 00:51, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Draft:Mira (singer)
Hello Johannes, you declined the drafted translation of the English wikipedia page for the romanian singer Mira for lacking reliable sources. You said to fix references 10, 25, and 30. I just changed the references, could you please check if they are ok now before I submit it again? Or should I remove those paragraphs for this draft to be approved? I don't want to wait another 4-5 months to see it rejected again. A.Alex10 (talk) 10:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Draft:Turaki
Hello Johannes, you commented on my article Bala Sanusi Turaki Indicating that "The source Reporters is not a reliable source". Kindly check how many citations i have provided. i will remove the source reporters from the list and i will remain with 5, i am trying to avoid citation overkill on the article. thanks bro! Brogonee (talk) 22:22, 30 October 2023 (UTC)