Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/October 2013 Backlog Elimination Drive/Pratyya Ghosh
Re-reviews
[edit]Thanks @Anne Delong: for reviewing my reviews. I see there's 6 fail. I have no objection with them cause I have missed those points. I think I need to be more careful from now. 
--Pratyya (Hello!) 11:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hello, Pratyya Ghosh. Welcome back, and I'm glad that you are not too upset about the reviews. While you've been away from Afc since the last drive, we've been having a lot of discussion about how we reviewers can help the submitters to improve their pages so that they will be accepted as soon as possible. Leaving a comment when reviewing, mentioning additional problems and suggestions, is one way reduce the number of declines and make the new users happier in the long run. I notice in this drive that the new point system is making everyone more careful! You reviewed my list quickly, so if you were just being nice and you want to go back and find some flaws I will not be upset. Happy reviewing! —Anne Delong (talk) 12:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hey Anne, No problem I watched every reviews made by you. It took 49 mins to re-review your reviews. (I have a statistics of this timings, summary, reviews and re-reviews in my PC. So I know how much time I gave to AFC) The main point is, I couldn't find any flaw. It's clean. Cause you've made additional comments. So I couldn't find a place to Fail you. If I could be like you!! Anyway I'm not upset. And If I have some penalties, I'll not be upset. I'll learn from that penalty. Will you please tell me how'll I detect "Duplicate" and "Copyvio"? I google every submission. But I can't find duplicate or copyvio. Is there any easy but effective way to find these?--Pratyya (Hello!) 13:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- I use Google as well. I choose a sentence from the middle, usually one whose writing style makes it seem professionally written, and/or highly promotional, and I put quotation marks around it in the Google search (this makes a big difference). These are the ones that are most likely to be copyvios. However, there is a tool that is available that uses Yahoo rather than Google that The Earwig has created on the Wikipedia toolserver that may help you. I haven't tried myself yet, but I know others use it. Here it is: http://toolserver.org/~earwig/copyvios . Yahoo doesn't seem to find as many pages as Google, but it finds a lot. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:15, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hello, Pratyya Ghosh. Welcome back, and I'm glad that you are not too upset about the reviews. While you've been away from Afc since the last drive, we've been having a lot of discussion about how we reviewers can help the submitters to improve their pages so that they will be accepted as soon as possible. Leaving a comment when reviewing, mentioning additional problems and suggestions, is one way reduce the number of declines and make the new users happier in the long run. I notice in this drive that the new point system is making everyone more careful! You reviewed my list quickly, so if you were just being nice and you want to go back and find some flaws I will not be upset. Happy reviewing! —Anne Delong (talk) 12:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Re-reviews by Rankersbo
[edit]Hey @Rankersbo:, I don't agree with you on those failed reviews.
- Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Karl Tombak--Someone who was nominated or was invited to participated in Southern Entertainment Awards can't be called Non-notable.
- Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lauren Jauregui-- She is a member of Fifth Harmony. So I think I can't call her non notable.--Pratyya (Hello!) 14:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- No, I stand by my re-reviews. Being part of a notable act does not make one notable in itself, you have to have significant coverage in your own right. The Karl Tomback article doesn't convey notability, he participated, he didn't win. Rankersbo (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC)