User talk:Thatusername96

This is Thatusername96's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Richard James Waugh (August 7)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Ca was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

If you submitted this draft by accident, don't worry. I don't think QSM is a prestigious award because around 4000 own it. You will have to find other ways of establishing notability.

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:Richard James Waugh 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.

Ca ^{talk to me!} 02:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thatusername96! 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! Ca ^{talk to me!} 02:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Richard James Waugh has a new comment[edit]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Richard James Waugh. Thanks! Marshelec (talk) 07:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Richard James Waugh has been accepted[edit]

Richard James Waugh, 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 C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! 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 leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Marshelec (talk) 07:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to assess the article and for your feedback.

Hope you have a good rest of your week! :^) Thatusername96 (talk) 07:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article Richard James Waugh is great work, well done. Please address the two "Clarification needed" templates. Both phrases need rework to achieve a neutral point of view.

There are a few more steps required to really complete the job. These are to find existing articles where there should be a link back to this article. Without that, the article is stranded. One of the best features of Wikipedia is the internal linking, and it is important to make the best use of this to draw readers attention to the existence of the new article. You can check on the state of links back to the article using "What links here" under Tools. One of the easy places to start is with list articles such as List of New Zealand writers. However, there should be a lot more articles where it would be appropriate to link back to Richard James Waugh. I leave this to you, but if you want help please get back to me. Marshelec (talk) 08:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the improvements to the article :). I have just put some work into expanding the Wikidata item about Richard James Waugh. I don't know if you are aware of Wikidata. Here is a link to the item: d:Q121777029. There are parameters that still need to be added. In particular, it would be appropriate to add what Wikidata calls "Statements" for: "date of birth", and "place of birth". Both of these have mandatory requirements for references. If you are happy to do so, please add these statements into the item, complete with the data (ie date of birth and place respectively) plus add the reference (it will give you an option of the reference url if you have an online source, or you can use "As stated in .." for a publication (although it may require you to create a Wikidata item for the publication first). This may all be a bit frustrating if you haven't used Wikidata before, so an alternative is to leave a message on my Talk page with the references you recommend. It would also be good to add references for the "educated at" statements, so if possible please recommend a reference for those as well. Thanks Marshelec (talk) 10:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]