Jump to content

User talk:MatthewVanitas/Archive 31

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33→Archive 35

23:11:14, 1 July 2014 review of submission by Kristengray


Hello,

I'd like to know simply why this post is getting declined and exactly what I have to do to get it live. I'm having a really hard time figuring out why this post is being declined and it is very important that this page is up. Shama "Sak Pase" Joseph is a Grammy-nominated producer and his business is in need of this page. Please, can you explain to me exactly what I need to do to get this accepted and live.

THank you. Kristengray (talk) 23:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


Greetings, the reason is given in the large pink box at the top of your draft: while you have provided references, you have not indicated via footnotes which references support which facts. At any point in the article, the reader should be able to click a footnote which takes them to the precise news article, website, etc. which clearly verifies that the fact is true. If a fact has no footnote, it has no WP:Verifiability and cannot be included, since we must protect the reputation of the subject of the article from falsehood, inaccuracy, etc. Sourcing is absolutely paramount.
Please read Wikipedia:MINREF#When_you_must_use_inline_citations which explains this rule. Fix the issue, then hit Resubmit. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

14:19:02, 2 July 2014 review of submission by WalkerJD


WalkerJD (talk) 14:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

draft wiki page for A.G. Riddle

Hello, I'm trying to create a page for A.G. Riddle. Basically, I guess it is being rejected because you (?) think he is not notable enough. What is puzzling is that he ranks #38 on Amazon, #1 on Kindle Indi, and, as I just resubmitted, his three books have been acquired by CBS Films. It seems to me these are all pretty notable. Plus, I have used references that are not connected to him. What else can I do?Steven C. Price 15:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

We have pretty clear criteria for Notability, and you just have to demonstrate that this author meets those. Pure sales numbers don't matter to us, it's a matter of how significant media/academics find his work. Again, I strongly suggest you read Wikipedia:Notability (authors) to see the criteria. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


Thanks--but CBS Films acquiring his book rights does speak to the "media" attention, doesn't it? Steven C. Price 15:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven C. Price (talk • contribs)

Right, but you haven't provided any footnote to a WP:Reliable source showing that this CBS thing occurred, like a news article, etc. Not his own site, not a blog, but a source that's objective and neutral. We don't need footnotes to his own books, so you can remove those. I think GoodReads is accepted only for basic bio data (where born, went to school, etc) but not for any "claims to fame". A really good sum-up of Notability is the essay WP:42. Fundamentally, you have to demonstrate that other people find him worth writing about. Wikipedia doesn't break new ground, we just aggregate and smooth out existing coverage. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your help! BUT isn't this link: http://www.deadline.com/2014/06/atlantis-gene-movie-cbs-films-rights-deal/ evidence that the deal occurred? I put that in my last draft. Steven C. Price 15:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven C. Price (talk • contribs)

Note, you're still neglecting to sign your posts, so SineBot is doing it for you, but please remember to WP:Sign your posts, and using the code, not by just typing/pasting your name
The Deadline Hollywood article looks reasonable and would strengthen (though not totally resolve) your draft. The problem is you have it there as an embedded link so it doesn't appears as a footnote at the bottom. I'd converted a few of your embedded links to footnotes for you as an example, so please turn that one into a footnote too. If you want to make the footnote look organized, hit the "Cite" button at the top of your editing window, choose the "News" template, and it'll let you put in the info and make it a nice clear footnote.
Note that Deadline Hollywood is one good source, but you'll need more coverage to document WP:Notability. So please make sure you'v checked for news articles, coverage of his career (not his own books, people writing about Riddle) on GoogleBooks, etc. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

And thanks again! I'm using the 4 tildes--isn't that what you're supposed to do? Also, I thought using the [] for a reference was as good as using a Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). So I guess I'm confused when you use one or the other. But I will fix up the page as you suggest. And, I will continue to try to find additional sources. Many Thanks for your time and input and training. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven C. Price (talk • contribs) 21:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Lori Baker page

Dear Matthew Vanitas,

I am writing to seek your advice in relation to the first draft of a page for Lori Baker within Wikipedia. I have updated the page since the rejection, and hope that you can see it -- or should I submit it, and await your response once having done so?

with thanks, Myles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.148.231.12 (talk) 13:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

You aren't logged in so I have no link to your Talk page, but I figured it out. Make it easier on us and ensure that you're logged-in when you post in discussions
Don't hold off on my account, go ahead and Resubmit. The footnotes are a good step forward, but I will say, it would probably help to flesh out the footnotes to be proper citations. That is, if it's an article in a newspaper/journal, make sure to mention what the title of the article is. Sources aren't required to be online, but if they are make sure you include a link to them so readers can read where you got the info. You may find it easier to format your footnotes using the "Cite - Templates" tools at the top of your editing window. But go ahead and Resubmit, and work on smoothing out the footnotes while you await review. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Lamar advertising

Hello, I added a bunch of citations to the history page as a draft. Is there anyway you could approve it!? Thanks so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BLS93 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

It tripped out automatic 'bots that identify copyright violations, so it's already been blanked. Look, we're happy to have you help, but you really need to follow the actual good practices of editing. Don't just take the company website for granted, build a history section by gathering up news/book mentions of Lamar, and as you learn each fact, cite it to its source, and arrange them into a cohesive history.
I'm assuming you're affiliated with Lamar, PR person or summer intern? You don't have to answer or give details, though usually a general "I work with Lamar Advertising" statement in your edits and/or your userpage is appreciated to show you're being up-front about your affiliation. The Lamar Ads page definitely should have a good history section since it's a big company that's been around for years, but it has to be actually compiled based on reliable sources, not just ripped off from the company's website. And even if the company was okay authorizing that section to be used here, we don't want to take their word for it, we want facts verified by WP:Third party sources. Hope this helps. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not a bot >:( But good advice otherwise - BLS93, I strongly advise you to become familiar with the advice that's been given here and on your talk page. We'll be happy to help you if you let us. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 17:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


Okay, I took a look at the content pre-blanking. Again, WP:Sourcing does not mean "paste the exact same stuff back in, but this time list a whole bunch of citations with no explanation whatsoever". If the 1996 Forbes article mentioned "In 1934, Lamar Advertising won the prestigious Acme Award", then create a footnote right after that fact, like so: <ref>Atlas, Riva, "Billboard Mania," Forbes, November 4, 1996, p. 371</ref>. If that article is available online, definitely provide a link too, though offline sources can also be used so long as explicitly clear on title/date/work/etc.
Making tiny modifications to "just paste it in there" and just hoping you'll hit the absolute bare minimum standard with 30 seconds more effort is not a successful strategy. Take a breath, chill for a bit and read up on some classic advice articles like Wikipedia:How to write a great article. Giving Lamar a low-quality article is much worse than just taking your time with it and building it strong. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Thought

Main Article

Thought Post Modern

Thought as the means for meaning, from the instincts sensations emotions and mentations of oneself and in observation...Ref: Working, 2000, Gilbert c. Meilaender, pgs-119-123Arnlodg (talk) 00:55, 3 July 2014...Does this meet wiki impartiality standards...and I can't or I have forgotten how to access sandbox to see if this could become a way to look at thought today, thanks Arnold

I literally cannot understand your message. It has no context, but I assume you're referring to Draft:Philosophy of Observation Cosmos Self. I'll be bluntly honest: I'm not necessarily saying that you personally have mental problems, but the draft and particularly the above message to me read as though written by a person with some form of disorder such as aphasia. Genuinely not meaning this as an insult, just expressing concern about the inability to form clear and communicable messages. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Today this (writing) is the basic post modern philosophical approach to self-observation in Ontology and many other systems of practice...Thought is material...It is our means for meaning: In our nervous system...thought from thinking is mentation, thought from touch is sensation, thought from feeling is emotion...thought is a function of the functions for our being here...Establishing what thought is, is in part necessary for observing oneself in the present...contextually this is about being here now...Arnlodg (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Your messages are not helpful or communicative, and you are not responsive to attempts I've made to help you. Please do not post on my Talk page any more. MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Attack pages

Hi. With something like User:Joshphill/sandbox which accuses a named person of being a pedophile, it would be better not to go through the AfC decline process, which thanks the author for his contribution and invites him to improve it: just tag it {{db-attack}} and put {{uw-attack}} on the author's talk page. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 11:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

22:53:57, 5 July 2014 review of submission by Dave S Hudson


Hello.

I can't argue with your decision, but I would like to emphasize that everything in my draft is factual and accurate. However, I must admit that it is not an article. The proof and factual aspect is in the government and local authorities' records, but there is one key detail missing from those records. Yes, I was trying to put the records straight, because I do believe the circumstances were very unusual, in that a series of coincidences produced a possibly uniquely unusual result.

I assume the rejection is due to the subject matter itself and ask if it is such that even a skilled author could never turn it into an article? To put it another way, is there anything that could be done with the subject matter to justify a re-review?

If the answer is "NO", then I will be on my way. However, it would be a pity if these little twists of fate were never revealed, so I would greatly appreciate any suggestions as what I might try next.

Thank you for your time

Best wishes

David

Dave S Hudson (talk) 22:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello David, as noted at the top of the review, the key reason the draft was declined is that it lacks sourcing. WP:Verifiability is an absolute keystone of Wikipedia, we can't simply type out personal knowledge and vouch for it. While as you note some of this information is based on government records, encyclopedias do not analyze WP:Primary sources directly, but are instead based on WP:Secondary sources such as news articles and academic writings.
If Hudson's career and young age have been documented and commented upon by journalists or academics, that could provide sourcing which would validate the article. If Hudson's career and unusual age for it are not documented in media or academia, that is not a failing of Wikipedia, but perhaps instead indicates that journalists or academics should be made aware of the issue if it is something worth writing about. If you have not yet, taking a look at our policy WP:Notability may help explain our need for sourcing. Hope this helps, MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mike Rafferty (flautist), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Willie Kelly and East Galway. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Intequity

Dear MatthewVanitas. My submission of the Wikipedia "intequity" page's purpose, is, to motivate research about a worth-while concept, "intequity". The original research was done and was published in JETEMS, according to the citation in the article. Can you move the article to somewhere in Wikipedia where the following can happen? A place in Wikipedia; where students (researchers), who are looking for topics to do their post graduate studies or research about, can take the articles and work on those articles, as part of their studies or research. Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdpienaar (talk • contribs) 08:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Mdpienaar, as indicated at the top of your draft, an article about a neologism must have multiple citations to works which discuss the new term, its origins, etc. Optimally at least a few of the citations should be to articles we can see online, as your current sole citation appears to just go to the homepage of a publisher. If you want the Draft:Intequity to publish, burden of proof is upon you to show that the term exists, and journalistic or scholarly authorities have found the concept to be worth examining. Again, see WP:Neologism. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MatthewVanitas. You have new messages at OccultZone's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Drop-In Fuels

Hi Matthew,

I have resubmitted my draft after the corrections suggested.

Regards

Prithvi Simha 03:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prithvisimha092 (talk • contribs)

Gunwolf fixes

Hi Mathew - Just got the Gunwolf additional refs cited that you asked for. all the best, That Guy — Preceding unsigned comment added by That Guy Corp (talk • contribs) 05:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the input. I will work on refining the article. Jladrew Jladrew (talk) 00:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

my article on Ajay Srinivasan was rejected

Hi,

I had submitted an article on Ajay Srinivasan, a few days back and it was rejected. Can you please give me reason for its rejection Bslirx (talk) 06:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Bslirx, did you read the instructions I provided in the huge pink box at the top of your draft? MatthewVanitas (talk) 11:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

William South Page

Hello Matthew: I believe I have the footnoting correct now. Thanks again for your advise. Jladrew (talk) 01:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

09:51:37, 10 July 2014 review of submission by Felixknecht


Let me first thank you for your review! I understand your points, but I just translated this for a friend from German Wikipedia and thought I'd share it with the English one as well. I neither have the time nor motivation to get additional sources etc. So please feel free to delete my draft.

Felixknecht (talk) 09:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

rejected article question

Hi Matthew, I see that the article I submitted for review "chef Alain Lemaire" was rejected but provided no reasons or explanations. Could you please get back to me with what it is I need to fix so I can resubmit it? Thank you, SavaPR1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SavaPR1 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello SavaPR1, did you read the reason provided in the large pink box at the top of your draft? MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Article Submission (Steven Oberman)

Hello, Matt. I am very sorry for all of my formatting issues. This is the first time I've tried to do this.

Reference your message to me: User talk:Kimdavis621 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Major formatting issues at Draft:Steven Oberman[edit] Hello, it took me several minutes to clean up the formatting errors to the point that the draft was even legible.

Take a look at a few of the areas I cleaned up, then the areas I didn't. Note how indenting a paragraph causes the text to display wrong, so do not indent. Also I find-replaced every use of "Mr.", since we don't do that here. Also you were putting

after every single footnote; that's not how it works, that code should only appears once at the bottom of the page, which tells the program to list all the above footnotes there. You also need to make proper section headings rather than bolding your subtitles.

Long/short, please take a look at how other articles are formatted and do likewise. Look at the page after each time you save it, and if there are things that blatantly look to be coded wrong, please fix them.

These format issues are separate from any WP:Notability or WP:Sourcing issues, which a next reviewer will address. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:44, 6 July 2014

Hello Kimdavis621, no need to apologize, that's what the Review process is for. Please just take the constructive criticism into account, make the needed changes, and hit the "Resubmit" button. If you are uncertain on how to format or phrase certain points, our big guideline is the WP:Manual of style, so somewhere you can refer to in order to get some ideas. MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Inline citations are not needed in new articles

Hi Matthew. I see that you declined Draft:Jeremy Sewall with the comment "References for living person bios must be done as footnotes." Inline references are required only for direct quotes and, for living people, in a only few other special cases. Everything does not need a reference. An only the notability references need to be independent of the person. As Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions says:

1. Avoid declining an article because it correctly uses general references to support some or all of the material. The content and sourcing policies require inline citations for only four specific types of material, most commonly direct quotations and contentious material (whether negative, positive, or neutral) about living persons.

Except for direct quotes, in most cases new editors don't need to learn anything about putting in inline citations before their article is accepted. Of course those citations will be needed to improve the quality of the article. Happy reviewing. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Films about the People's Republic of China

Category:Films about the People's Republic of China, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

17:17:35, 13 July 2014 review of submission by Kravitza


Kravitza (talk) 17:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC) Dear Matthew, thank you for such quick review of my submission. I wanted to ask about notability criteria. The draft I submitted was an English version of a page that already exists (Danish one) https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolaj_Grandjean Artist was nominated for two Danish Grammys, his music was featured in episode of House of lies (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2666322/?ref_=ttep_ep8) and some other shows. He also achieved a platinum record for writing and producing entertaining educational children's music. What would it take to create English version of his Danish page? Would it help if I were to provide some links that verify platinum status and Grammy nominations? Thank you in advance for you responceKravitza (talk) 17:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Kravitza , the main this is to provide evidence of his accomplishments through neutral parties. If he got a platinum record, surely it was mentioned in some newspapers? It's fine to use foreign language source, so feel free to cite Danish newspapers. I suggest you take a close look at the Notability policy for musicians, note to yourself which requirements he meets, and make sure those exact requirements are explicitly footnoted in the article, to serious and neutral media sources. Ideally for footnotes, use the "Template - Cite" tool at the top of your editing window to get a nice, clear footnote.
You also had too many links for his sites; to avoid advertising musicians are generally allowed just one "official site" link. Similarly, on his list of albums, please remove all links to sites selling his albums, as that comes across as marketing. A reader wanting to buy one of his albums could find it in seconds on Google or iTunes, no need to belabor it on his page.
So far as the Danish page, other-language WPs have differing levels of standards and supervision, so "but the other page has XYZ" doesn't tend to work as an argument. That said, if your English WP article gets approved, make sure to quick the "Languages" tool at the very bottom of the left-hand margin, where you can select the Danish article to tie this one to so both are linked across languages.
So tidy it up a little, remove any commercial links, it's okay to cite his own page for noncontroversial personal facts (birthplace, school, etc) but any claim of accomplishment must be footnoted to an outside and neutral source that verifies the accomplishment. Hope this helps! MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thank you very much!Kravitza (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Steve Platcow

Hi Matthew,

Articles for creation: Steve Platcow (July 14)

Why was my article rejected?

Thanks, Carolyn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjacobs101 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Cjacobs101, did you read the large pink box at top of your draft? MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Samuel Bolton Colburn, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Asilomar and Don Graham. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Seaton Carew Golf Club

Thank you for the prompt review of this submission. I note the comments about creating articles etc. I still have a lot to learn about the submission processes etc. Its good to have folks keeping you straight! Gairderek (talk) 09:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

LLCO submission rejection

It is ridiculous to reject the LLCO submission based on lack of independent sources. We are talking about a far-left post-Maoist organization, which obviously exists and has a presence in numerous countries. If this standard were applied consistently, it would mean the decimation of Wiki information on the far left of numerous countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100E:B02F:CF1E:219:E3FF:FE0E:8687 (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not "ridiculous". WP:Notability is an ironclad standard of Wikpedia, otherwise anyone could come in here and write about anything they made up last week. If no journalists or academics are writing about LLCO, that's their fault, not Wikipedia's. We're happy to cover any topic which has decent coverage/documentation, regardless of political slant, but we can't simply quote a group writing about itself. A good summary of the rule:

Articles generally require significant coverage

in reliable sources

that are independent of the topic.

Significant coverage

Significant coverage in sources is required to show that a topic meets the general notability guideline (GNG). This means sources that discuss the topic directly and in detail. Not: passing mentions, directory listings, or any old thing that happens to have the name in it.

Reliable sources

We need reliable sources. Usually this means that the publisher has a reputation for fact checking. These might be newspapers, books, or periodicals. Not: forums, fansites, MySpace, Facebook, YouTube, or most blogs.

Independent sources

We need independent sources. Not: articles written by the topic, paid for by the topic, their website, or press releases.

Verifiability

We want readers to be able to verify that Wikipedia articles are not just made up. To do this, cite the information in your article. Non-independent reliable sources can be used for verifiability.


Hope this helps, MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

21:04:33, 15 July 2014 review of submission by Md7799


Matthew, could you help me to make the page more in line with your recommendations? It's my first one and I'd like to do it well and learn, too. Md7799 (talk) 21:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)Melanie Md7799 (talk) 21:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

re Draft:CongressEdits

I asked a question on Draft_talk:CongressEdits, but I don't know if it's better to ask there or here, or expect an answer there or here, so I'm putting it in both places.

The question: Why remove the paragraph about the code that runs the bot? I'd like to see more people run code to check Wikipedia for anonymous edits from other US government agencies, and that'll happen more easily if more people know where the code is located. (I'm not irritated, just curious, since you've got a lot more Wiki experience than I do -- and you edited it to remove the paragraph between the time I submitted the just-prior revision and my next revision, causing my later submission to still have that paragraph.)

Also, I can't find any major notable sources about "Twitter bots", so following the guidelines above in your talk page section on LLCO, I don't think I can create a separate article where I list the source code availability for various bots. What would you recommend in this situation? Aerowolf (talk) 22:19, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


Hello Aerowolf, I don't believe I removed anything about source-code; you can see here the differences between your edits and mine, and all I did was add some links and removed redundant copies of the "submit for review" code: link of changes.
The LLCO thing refers to the overall LLCO topic; there is no problem at all having a redlink for Twitter bots, you are under no obligation to fill-in any redlinks and it is in no way prejudicial to your draft. The problem with LLCO is the drafter has not provided any evidence that any WP:Independent sources are discussing LLCO and its work, whereas your draft clearly provides sources showing that major newsmedia are talking about and CongressEdits.
Overall your draft is headed a good direction, and the topic overall seems to meet WP:Notability due to the media coverage it's getting. The only possible critique is the policy WP:NOTNEWS; that is, the argument that perhaps this site is a flash-in-the-pan that will never be discussed past this summer. At issue is not the longevity of the site/account itself, but rather the question "in 50, 100 years will people still occasionally be saying 'hey, remember that CongressEdits thing back in 2014, there interesting thing about that was..." To draw an example, a lot of murders get a huge burst of media attention, but to have true WP:Notability the murder has to be significant in some way (unusual nature, tied to larger social issues, unique features of the investigation/trial) such as would cause it to be of enduring historical interest. I'm not saying WP:NOTNEWS is an argument against this draft, just saying it's one of the only real objections a person might have.
You appear to have a possible WP:Conflict of interest on the topic, which again is not a total red flag, just an indication that we need to be very sure the draft is neutral and informative. My overall suggestions would be:
  • Persuse the media coverage of the CE, particularly from the most reputable media (whether mainstream, or the most recognized tech journals). Don't ask yourself "what do I think is significant about CE?" Instead ask "what features of CE do the news media find most significant?"
  • Having identified the most-noted features from outside eyes, ensure those key facts are featured in the article.
  • Ensure the article overall has a clear who-what-when-where-why, and that the WP:Lead section has a very brief 2-3 sentences that fully sums-up those basic answers.
Overall I think this should be publishable, just at the moment it's written a little too much like an "About Us!" promo blurb, and not enough like an external examination. Plus you're leaning to heavy on niche media, "linkdroid" and "github" aren't familiar sources to many readers, so make sure the strong pillars of the sourcing are major media since there's plenty of coverage.
Those are my suggestions, give them a shot and you should be good to go. If you need input from a neutral mentor, try visiting WP:Teahouse and ask for some outside input on making the article Neutral and in meeting the key questions readers might have. Teahouse has some really great volunteers there. It might take a few days for reviewers to approve the article, so do all you can to spruce it up in the meantime. MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The article in question was actually started by someone at the US House of Representatives, and I found out about it from @congressedits on Twitter. It's not "my" article, nor am I involved in creating or running it, but I am the one who's trying to flesh the article out.

It is primarily associated with a "political discourse on the Web" topic, linked (loosely) via that topic to Sunlight Foundation.

I'll take a step back and address your concerns. Thanks for your help! Aerowolf (talk) 03:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see where I misinterpreted it. On the next change after yours it had a - on the left side and a + on the right; with most third-party visual diff tools I'm used to seeing it simply match up the left and right. I'm sorry for mistaking it and asking you something that wasn't true. Thanks again! Aerowolf (talk) 03:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Please see my correction on the page.

Hi Matthew,

Thanks for acceptance. I corrected my information by giving a proper reference. Please check and advise.

Regards, Mujeeb Sheikh (user: mujeebsheikh) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.209.120.242 (talk) 06:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for help with article on John Todd Ferrier

Hi Matthew, Thanks for help with article on John Todd Ferrier. A further request for help- how do I regain use of my sandbox? At the moment there's a redirect on it (which I didn't at first spot- oops, massive edit in the wrong place!) Am I safe simply removing the 'redirect'? And on a related topic, the first two attempts to submit the article were some time in getting a response- during time between submission and response, is there any way one can continue using the sandbox? Regards, -Yadsalohcin (talk) 11:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

John Courter page

Thank you for your review of my submission on John Courter. I have revised the entry, included the references you suggested, and incorporated a couple of additional honors which Mr. Courter has received, including the fact that the Guild of Carilloneurs in North America include Courter pieces on both levels of their examinations. Any additional help or advice would be very much appreciated. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bereajan (talk • contribs) 13:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Mihir Joshi Article

You asked for more newspaper / credible sources.

Done. Not all are in English, though.

I have cited the English language ones in the main article and have provided a link to the other (Marathi et al) language links under 'External Links'. Hope it's ok now.

Eldrichr (talk) 16:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Hiranyakeshi river

I have made some editorial changes to Draft:Hiranyakeshi river. Please check them and consider moving the article to its final place. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 17:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

22:38:33, 16 July 2014 review of submission by Angeladenisov


Hi Matthew can you please assist me to getting this live there are many people who want this article online, there is a huge amount of media regarding this artist on a range of topics from large scale concert promotions, collaborations with platinum artists and a major music festival.

Angeladenisov (talk) 22:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Matthew, Thank you for your suggestions! This is my first attempt, and your critique is extremely helpful. I will begin my amends now — Preceding unsigned comment added by Margielennon (talk • contribs) 18:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Matthew,

I think I made https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Raske_Plader a little more notable?

Is it good enough?

Best/ Andy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andymax1 (talk • contribs) 07:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure, reply to my question

Hi Matthew,

If you could provide some general guidelines about my question, that would be helpful. Thanks!

pdelich (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@Pdelich:, cool. Broadly speaking, paid editing has been a controversial issue on Wikipedia, with last I've seen the current consensus strongly discouraging it. For an editor to to solicit paid editing gigs is somewhat untoward, and if an editor is somehow implying that they can use any special privileges of their account (for example like adminship) to keep an article from being modified or deleted, in exchange for money, that's quite inappropriate.
In your particular case it's also misleading since it's not really format or tone that are holding your draft back. I and another reviewer did fixes to those in a matter of minutes just as part of usual cleanup for the WP:Articles for Creation review process. The reason the recent reviewer declined your draft is because he assessed that the sources you provided did not meet the requirements laid out at WP:Notability (film). IIRC, it was that the cites were more advertising, announcements, or general mentions in local news, lacking the critical content and substantive discussion required by N:Film. There is no paid editor who can "fix" a Notability lacking just by editing, so promises of such are misleading to you. If someone had some kind of paid access to a larger media database (like Lexis-Nexus for law, or JSTOR for academics) that somehow had sourcing to apply to the article, they could theoretically offer assistance in finding sources, though charging for such would be pretty mercenary.
The film looks pretty interesting, and I think with proper sourcing its current content/layout is decent, it just all comes back to sourcing. Don't despair, WP:Wikipedia has no deadline. What you could do is have someone Move the draft over to your Sandbox for safe keeping (do not just copy paste it, we use the Move tool instead to preserve the page history); articles that stay over 6mo in Draft: can expire, but Sandbox can hang around for however long is needed. Then when/if the film gets more media coverage that meets the requirements of WP:Notability (film), you can resubmit the draft with the new and stronger sourcing.
All the above make sense, more or less? MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Rejected article - clarifying notability guidelines

Hi Matthew,

Thank you for your feedback on the article that I submitted (DeLena Johnson). I understand what you're saying about notability, but I found another city mayor (in Alaska) that really only has one "outside" reference and yet it was published. I assume the notability guidelines were revised since then (2008-2009)?

Thanks. JGSSS (talk) 17:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)Jeanette

The standard AFC reviewer reply is the policy WP:Other stuff exists. That is, there are many not-great articles floating around Wikipedia, but we aren't going to approve non-Notable articles as a response to other ones out there. If Johnson does end up reaching a higher political rank which automatically meets WP:Notability (politicians) (in the US I believe state rep qualifies), she can have an article then, or if some aspect of her mayor career is so significant it draws attention from outside academic/journalist experts, that would meet the broader WP:Notability (people). But otherwise it just doesn't meet our requirements. If you ever see an article on Wikipedia that you think simply does not meet WP:Notability standards (that is, not just one that's poorly written, but one that's fundamentally about an unqualified topic) please do use the code from Wikipedia:Proposed deletion to propose it be removed. Good luck! MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

To transfer text

Matt, to transfer text of an article into my sandbox for editing, do I cut & paste?Patkelso (talk) 00:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

@Patkelso:, You mean a small piece of an article? If at all possible, it's best to do the editing in the article itself. If you're talking about draft that needs revising, you can keep editing on a draft as long as it's still there, and a draft will only expire if left untouched for like half a year. But as a broad rule, do not move full/mostly-full articles by copy-pasting, since that loses the entire development history of the page so ruins our ability to trace it through time (and properly credit authors who worked on it). If you want to move an article overall, see Wikipedia:Page move.
Oh, I think I see your question on your own Talk page. If there are controversial changes you want that take time, yes it's okay to say copy a paragraph, paste it in your sandbox, tune it up, and paste it back into the main article. Just so long as the main article's history continues and shows all these changes. You might want to use the Edit Summary at bottom of editing window to explain "pasting in modified version of XYZ paragraph with improved phrasing/sourcing." MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

18:48:46, 20 July 2014 review of submission by 86.181.240.248


86.181.240.248 (talk) 18:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC) Please can you tell me why my submission was rejected and what changes I need to make to get it posted

Thank you Nick Blake

08:19:55, 21 July 2014 review of submission by Muwanga-Zake


Muwanga-Zake (talk) 08:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC) Dear Prof. Matthew Vanitas, I request you to take a look at my revision of the Salongo Joshua Serufusa-Zake's page and advise, as I wish to re-submit. Regards Muwanga-Zake Muwanga-Zake (talk) 08:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Dear Matthew

hope your wikibreak was OK and you had a nice rest;)

First of all wanted to thank you very much for the first review of my article about the modern artist Tigran Tsitoghdzyan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Tigran_Tsitoghdzyan . I have followed your instructions and recreated the inline citations and references according to the Wikipedia workflow. Hope now it is OK.

Looking forward for your reply or maybe approval;)

Thank you very much

Hamik

14:12:04, 23 July 2014 review of submission by A.londonfell


The sources to be cited are the books themselves. The proof in referencing that the books exist can be verified through the Library Of Congress in books in print, or through the publisher(s) itself. A.londonfell (talk) 14:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC) Please help us to be more specific in the ways you want, its not clear yo us. A.londonfell (talk) 14:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

09:21:49, 24 July 2014 review of submission by 31.185.130.209


I just wanted to know what type of specific examples/references would be needed to validate the information on the page?

Thanks Oliver

31.185.130.209 (talk) 09:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Matthew:

This is J. Curtis Jones who would like to submit an article defining school culture. I want to thank you for your help. Your suggestions improved the article. I made the second group of changes you suggested to the best of my ability. This computer work is new to me, but I'm learning it.

Curtis — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Curtis Jones (talk • contribs) 21:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

05:54:20, 26 July 2014 review of submission by Rahulbasu16


We understand that this page was created for a current event which is now completed. However, we would like to know any specific reason for declining this page. We are trying to collate the content to update the page. We would need some help on the same.

Rahulbasu16 (talk) 05:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Article Citation Done Please Review

Dear MatthewVanitas,

I have cited my article titled Surojit Chatterjee(Musician) and resubmitted it. Please review it. Tuhinmwiki (talk) 13:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks a lot. Tuhinmwiki (talk) 20:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Dear MatthewVanitas

Can you please help me out that I have recently created article titled Surojit Chatterjee (Musician) but I actually wanted to create article titled Surojit Chatterjee who is a popular musician from West Bengal India. But the title Surojit Chatterjee only is redirecting me to his band paga Bhoomi. Can you please guide me how I can stop that redirection and create article with that title Surojit Chatterjee only instead of Surojit Chatterjee (Musician). Tuhinmwiki (talk) 20:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

A Barnstar for You!

The AFC Backlog Buster Barnstar

Congratulations, MatthewVanitas! You're receiving the The Articles for Creation Barnstar because you got more than 175 points during the recent AFC Backlog elimination drive in June 2014! Thank you for you contributions to Wikipedia at-large and helping to keep the backlog down. We hope you continue reviewing submissions and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! (t) Josve05a (c) 23:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Draft talk:Are you Alice?

Hi, MatthewVanitas, can you take a look at this discussion. It's in a good shape and can handle this one to assure its notability if neccessary. Also, can anyone review AfC or only admins? Cheers, Gabriel Yuji (talk) 02:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Help to correct article submission

Hi Matthew,

Would you mind helping me correct and update my submission to acceptable standards? More specific assistance would be great. Thank you!

Md7799 (talk) 21:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Melanie (Md7799)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Absolute_LoJack

Shama "Sak Pase" Joseph

I've been waiting for a review for over a month now. I am curious as to how soon I can get the page for Shama Sak Pase Joseph up as he is my client who is working for major recording artists. Can someone please contact me and help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristengray (talk • contribs) 00:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Lou Grant- Editorial Cartoonist

Hi I resubmitted this on 25 may 14 after many tries and 'huon' helped me undelte it- how do i get it reviewed again? ````jo-z — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jo-zgrant (talk • contribs) 00:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

my page

are you available to chat?`````jo-z — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jo-zgrant (talk • contribs) 01:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Centrefolds

Hello MatthewVanitas. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Centrefolds".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Centrefolds}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Rankersbo (talk) 09:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Editing Draft:Hong Kong Best Film Awards

Hello, thank you first of all for your review on my article! Secondly, I understood what you requested of me to improve it; but in the meantime I have gathered more information and would like to add it. I've saved it like it is, but would greatly appreciate your advice on how to insert it in the article. I thought about 4 tables, but maybe you have a better suggestion? Thank you very much and best regards, Ana-Maria MarilaAna-Maria Marila (talk) 13:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Could you please tell me if my article is ok? I'm sorry for insisting, but I really need to finish this as soon as possible. Thank you and best regards! Ana-Maria Marila (talk) 07:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)Ana-Maria MarilaAna-Maria Marila (talk) 07:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't look now questions

Hello Matthew,

I have tried to find more sources on the show "Don't Look Now" and have had a hard time finding anything more credible. I have a few questions for you.

  1. Why is the YCDTOTV website not a credible source? The only information I can find is from that website. It was a very obscure show, and the YCDTOTV has all the information, including the actors, episode summaries, and the date of the original airing.
  2. Since there is such little information available, wouldn't any source be better than none?
  3. I spent many hours working on this project, and would like to have it published. Do you have any recommendations?

Thank you,

Davidgoodheart (talk) 02:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Eskimo guitar

The article Eskimo guitar has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links:
Eskimo guitar – news, books, scholar
Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability. Please see the plain-language summary of our notability guidelines.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hyacinth (talk) 03:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MatthewVanitas/Archive_31&oldid=1232840122"