User talk:Cabrils: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:13, 8 December 2022

Thanks for your feedback on the draft

Hi Cabrils, many thanks for your help on my draft, I highly appreciate your effort in helping me making it better! I tried as much as possible to take your comments into account. Please let me know if there's more that I can do! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.r0gu3 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi , please see my post at the bottom of the page Cabrils (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cabrils, I appreciate your time and attention to the draft page I submitted. I have added some additional citations to address the notes you shared. Please let me know if you can share any additional suggestions to get the draft where it needs to be. Much respect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BruceBanner60 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bruce. I'll continue this discussion on the talk page where it's more relevant for everyone: Draft_talk:Johnny_Wonder (and always best to let an editor know what draft page you are referring to!). Cabrils (talk) 04:20, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cabrils, please i need your help to review this wikipedia article for Haidar Miles. please find the link here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Haidar_Miles Kanawaedits (talk) 06:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kanawaedits, thanks for the ping. I've had a look at the draft and my advice would be to absorb the comments that the reviewers have made there. I'm sorry to disappoint you but it seems to me that Miles is not sufficiently notable to justify appearing on Wikipedia-- or at least that the current references are not sufficient to meet the guidelines. This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Cabrils (talk) 23:25, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page for your review please!

Hello Cabrils, you have given me such helpful feedback for a page I'm creating, I'd appreciate your feedback for the most recent version for [Advantage Company]. Thank you!! --Grattan33 (talk) 00:59, 22 July 2022 (UTC) (Incidentally, I noticed in the Preview here that it's deleting the word "Medical" in the link...very strange...?)[reply]

A kitten for you!

hi Cabrils, thanks for your thanks (i like fixing errors that appear at ozzie cleanup lists:)}.

Coolabahapple (talk) 07:50, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coolabahapple Cool! And cool clean up list thanks! Haven't seen that before, very handy! Cabrils (talk) 10:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sheik Ali link

I removed the link you found for the Sheik Ali article via ProQuest because it's subject to a conflict of interest and is therefore not reliable under the rules of BLP's. The article was written by the Sheik's son. Sources need to be independent of the subject. 2001:8003:58DD:C700:F148:E7ED:227:B7CB (talk) 22:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you- I didn't realise that. Good pick up. Cabrils (talk) 01:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NW (magazine)

Noted that you improved reference from The Australin for circulation figures. The URL you cited doesn't work http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20072289-7582,00.html. Think it should be theaustralian.com.au, but a search there didn't locate the article. I thin we need a better refernce for circulation. I would prefer to remove the current broken one but thought it best to check first. Teraplane (talk) 22:19, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Teraplane. That url does work but requires a subscription, as you noted in the discussion here, which is why I added the additional metatdata of the author and page number, as I explained in that discussion. Again, as you noted, The Australian has a paywall and searches for content on its site may be limited if you are not a subscriber. Please feel free to add more references but as I suggested to you there, please be mindful of Wikipedia's policies, including WP:OFFLINE. For clarity, that citation is perfectly acceptable and I told you how you can access it. Cabrils (talk) 23:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok then, understand now, thanks for clarifying. The reference is fine, will leave it there. I think generally sources other than News Corp are better, such as 9 News, simply because they provide limited free access to most content. Many people will never consider paying for their news these days, so these The Australian references are invisible to the majority. Maybe Wikipedia needs to indicate when references are blocked by paywalls? Teraplane (talk) 00:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good one. You're certainly entitled to your opinion and if sources are freely available online then there's some clear benefits for verification, but of course there are billions of references that are offline (like hard copy books) which are entirely in accord with WP:VER. Rather than deleting sources, it's probably more constructive to add sources. All the best with it! Cabrils (talk) 01:04, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Roger Baxter-Jones has been accepted

Roger Baxter-Jones, 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.

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!

– robertsky (talk) 17:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My Draft: Draft:Shadee_Elmasry

My draft was declined because it was said that there were not enough secondary-independent sources in the article. This article is a stub, but still has some in the article, as well as many outside of the article. User:Jibreel23

Secondary-Independent Sources in the Article

Secondary-Independent sources not in the article

@Jibreel23:: Hi, thanks for your response, it will speed up this process.

I declined your draft article using a template response, which in hindsight was not quite accurate: the issue for me is that the page does not show how the subject passes WP:GNG, nor specifically WP:PROF. I will add a comment to the draft page clarifying this.

In response to your post here: many of these sources would not pass WP:IRS. Please read both these policies to see how you might be able to improve the draft to meet the requirements. If you have any other questions please let me know, I'd be happy to help. Cabrils (talk) 02:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cabrils: I did more research on Wikipedia citations, and I removed citations that are not suitable for the article.
@Cabrils: I little while ago submitted the draft again! Also I noticed on your profile it says you are an inclusionist. What does that mean?-Jibreel23

@Jibreel23:: Thank you for your efforts. Unfortunately you will see on the draft page that I have again declined your submission--Elmasry is not notable-- he is just another academic. Perhaps in the future when he has achieved more standing he may qualify (see WP:TOOSOON). Keep up the good work. (For what an 'inclusionist' is, see See [[1]]) Cabrils (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cabrils: But I put the sources that were not self-published except for the About Us for safina society which is only used I was talking about his online institute. Also, above I listed sources that are independent in and outside of the article, and once I became for familiar with the criteria for independent sources, I kept the ones that were suitable I removed the others.

@Jibreel23:: Thanks for you further comments. As I said above, and on the draft page, please read WP:GNG, WP:PROF and WP:IRS. The subject of the draft page does not, in my opinion, meet WP:GNG or WP:PROF. Further, the sources do not meet WP:IRS: not being "self-published" does not satisfy WP:IRS. Perhaps in a few years, if Elmasry achieves some of the requirements of WP:PROF he will qualify, but as I said, it is WP:TOOSOON. Cabrils (talk) 02:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cabrils: I still think the topic is notable, but I guess I will have to do more work on it, so that the article itself fits the requirements. I will put more time into it and resubmit it when I think it fits the criteria, and this time I wont be hasty. Thanks for your help.

@Jibreel23:: Great. Keep up the good work. Cabrils (talk) 02:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments on Jessica Leigh Clark-Bojin, your requested changes have been implemented

Thank you for your comments on the AfC for Jessica Leigh Clark-Bojin Your requested edits have been made to the draft. Please advise if you feel the article is suitable for approval now. Thank you kindly! 2604:3D08:977E:B050:E52A:72CB:33EB:340D (talk) 06:27, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response on the page. The reference section has been cleaned up. It appears another editor added many new references, and somehow it created a second set of numbered links. Have also removed a number of sources that may not have fit the definition of reliable/independent as per the last reviewer's feedback. Please advise if entry is now suitable for approval. Thank you kindly. 2604:3D08:977E:B050:F1B3:C18B:CAD:3CAE (talk) 09:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Sorry for the belated reply. The page was looking good after your amendments so I accepted it. Cabrils (talk) 03:04, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To the draft of Ben O'Toole

Hello. I resubmitted the draft, even though some of the sources are missing the titles. In case that you edit it and are dissatisfied with some of the existing sources, it will be easier for me if you delete the corresponding ones immediately. So I can specifically go in search of new ones. 84.154.109.232 (talk) 03:25, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Sorry for the belated reply. The page was looking good after your amendments so I accepted it. Cabrils (talk) 03:03, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Henry F. Korth page is updated

I updated https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Henry_F._Korth with some reliable sources. Please have a look and reassess it, then let me know about the updates if there is any point where I can improve. Thank you for your comments. --Jrovc (talk) 13:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jrovc: Good work! I've commented on the draft, thanks. Cabrils (talk) 00:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cabrils I updated all references and resubut the page, please have a look. Thank you for your support. Jrovc (talk) 12:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job! I've accepted that page. Cabrils (talk) 00:58, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cabrils I am very happy to know that Wikipedia accepts my page. And especially I like to give you thanks for your help. Jrovc (talk) 04:56, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help! Keep up the good work! Cabrils (talk) 23:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Chitiz Agarwal

Hi, thank you for reviewing my page. Can you tell me what is lacking with the references now? The previous editor said some of the references were from press releases and Forbes.com was not a valid source. I have added news articles from high-quality and leading publications from India for the article. You can verify each one of the references. Im confused as to what the problem is now. Would be great if you can give me a clear idea about the problem? As for the page reading like a CV, I have written it exactly how other entrepreneurs pages are on Wikipedia. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falguni_Nayar. Can you point out what else can be changed here? It would be great if you can at least allow the page to be published and let other contributors at least add to the page. If you are still unsatisfied, it can always be improved upon or changed or worst case scenario, removed. Thank you :)

@Alisha3107: Hi. As I posted in my comment on the draft page: the draft may have potential but I agree it currently reads like a CV, which Wikipedia is not! Please familiarise yourself with WP:ANYBIO, WP:PROF and referencing for beginners (all the citations require proper formatting). Please go to and read those links, which will answer your questions. For example, terms like "a Salesforce guru" is not encyclopedic. The references all need proper formatting. I know you are hopeful that the draft will be published but Agarwal needs to meet the basic criteria of being notable--just being a businessman is not sufficient. How you establish notability is explained in those links I sent you. I hope this helps! Good luck with it. Cabrils (talk) 01:16, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you so much for your reply. I have rewritten the draft as per your suggestions and tried to make it sounds less like a CV :). I have also added proper references. I understand it is not enough for a person to be a businessman to be on Wikipedia, but as you can see this person has plenty of news coverage in high-quality newspapers and websites. Along with launching his companies, he has also taken many initiatives to provide training, employment etc. in the IT sector. It would be great if allow me to publish the page now. If you are still unsatisfied, please let me know what else can be improved. In my opinion, I feel I have checked all the boxes for this page's publication :) Thank you so much for your time! Alisha3107 (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Well done-- you've cleaned up the draft significantly. I know this will be disappointing for you, however I am not seeing how the relevant requirements are being met? In particular: WP:ANYBIO:

"1. The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times; or

2. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field; or

3. The person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary (e.g. the Dictionary of National Biography)." Cabrils (talk) 23:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Hi! Please look at my draft. Basically, the sources about this person are in Russian, but to make it easier to understand, I found a source in Forbes in English, where this person is described very extensively, including sanctions against him.31.40.143.16 (talk) 07:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't feel I can adequately assess this draft given the large amount of content in Russian. Be aware that as a source, material from contributors to Forbes is generally not acceptable: WP:FORBESCON. Cabrils (talk) 03:08, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Potter Draft Page

Hi - I've fixed up the references in Robert Potter's page and ensured they are capture in footnotes properly. Thanks for reviewing to date and your advice. Allthefacts007 (talk) 02:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've commented on the [draft] page. Cabrils (talk) 23:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your continued support in the review and your assistance with drafting of article. We are struggling a bit to understand the neutrality issues raised. If it is just a matter of removing some offending paragraphs, happy to review the ones you think are non-compliant. However, in the main the article reflects events, activities, achievements that have taken place and recorded/verified by reputable news sources. So while we acknowledge the article reflects a mainly positive account of the subject, we have had others review outside of wiki who did not think it was an advertisement. Indeed, as we find competing views of the subject, we will be able to update the article. Would that work? Allthefacts007 (talk) 23:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. OK, so I've taken the liberty of tightening the page. I'm sure my changes will appear quite brutal to you, but in my view it is now a page more likely to be considered appropriate for Wikipedia, and the relevant policies (especially WP:ANYBIO). I would note however, that now that the page is tighter (and some of the pith removed), Potter is not standing out as clearly meeting the relevant requirements. It may simply be WP:TOOSOON--being a businessman, who's work is necessarily in the public eye (because cybersecurity is in the public interest) isn't necessarily enough. Please familiarise yourself with WP:ANYBIO and WP:PROF especially. In the circumstances where I have significantly modified the page, I am inclined not to approve it myself and think the proper procedure is for someone else (presumably you) to assess what you think of my changes and submit the page if you feel content, and allow another reviewer to assess it. I know this will be disappointing for you, but I would prefer to avoid a WP:COI (or appearance of COI). Obviously pages are dynamic and are perpetually open to amending at any time, once approved. All the best with it! Cabrils (talk) 23:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your assistance. Really appreciate it! Allthefacts007 (talk) 07:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Georgios Mikellides draft

Thank you for reviewing the draft, I have done some changes in order to be accepted, please let me know what I could further do, or if it could be accepted, that would be great . thank you again https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Georgios_Mikellides — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ieromaxos (talk • contribs) 12:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi--have left a comment on the draft page--your edits have helped but unfortunately the draft still needs quite a bit of work, as well as needs to meet the notability requirements, which I'm not seeing as yet. Cabrils (talk) 02:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review

I have opened a deletion review: Wikipedia:Deletion_review#David_Rohl. Please comment if you'd like. TuckerResearch (talk) 16:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Have posted my thoughts. Cabrils (talk) 04:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Thank you for your suggestions regarding the draft article about Terence Ward which needs to re-submitted. I'm having difficulty with the technical aspects of formatting the article. I accidentally deleted the photo of Terence Ward and have not been able to locate it. I have the photo in an external file but I'm unable to successfully upload it because it already exists. Do you know where I can find the deleted photo and put it back where it was? Also, do you know of any tutoring services that offer instructions in technical aspects of submitting an article? Thank you very much for taking the time to answer this question.

NomadicLibrary (talk) 04:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NomadicLibrary--I'm replying on your Talk page because I think you are more likely to see it there! Cabrils (talk) 23:14, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cabrils, thanks again for your feedback on the earlier draft. I've followed your suggestions and would like to ask if you could review this latest version before I resubmit. Looking forward to your feedback.

Draft:Terence Ward

Best,

NomadicLibrary NomadicLibrary (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nomadic, I think they're all good edits. I've made a couple myself. I'm mindful that there's a controversial history with this page, but think any extant issues can be resolved via editing if necessary. Please submit and I will approve it. Cabrils (talk) 23:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cabrils, Thanks so very much for your review and feedback and your earlier review and suggestions. I will submit the draft momentarily.

NomadicLibrary (talk) 07:59, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cabrils, I just read the most recent draft. Thanks very much for your edits. I re-submitted the draft about an hour ago. NomadicLibrary (talk) 09:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cabrils, Thanks again for your suggestions about how to improve the article about Terence S. Ward. Could you let me know if you received the re-submitted draft? I know you are very occupied and I am not expecting a fast review but would love to know if you received it. I don’t see a mechanism on Wikipedia which I can utilize to confirm if the draft has been received. Thanks so much. NomadicLibrary NomadicLibrary (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nomadic, firstly thanks for your patience, I've had a lot on lately but will get to things when I can. The draft has not been resubmitted yet, so I can't approve it until it is done so. Cabrils (talk) 22:07, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cabrils, Thanks very much for your reply. I just re-submitted the draft again. However I did so via the mobile app. I’m traveling and don’t have a laptop. If the article needs to be submitted from a desktop, please let me know I can get to an internet cafe in the next day or two and resubmit then. As always, many thanks for the guidance and goodwill you extend to this newbie. NomadicLibrary (talk) 18:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nomadic, how annoying for you! Unfortunately the draft is still showing as not being submitted, so as you suggest, maybe try from a desktop when you can. Pleasure to help out, we all started this journey as newbies--actually, aren't we all newbies?! Cabrils (talk) 05:08, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cabrils,

Hope this note finds you well! I've resubmitted the draft of the article about Terence Ward. Previously (earlier this month) I resubmitted the draft twice from my mobile phone and it wasn't received. Thank you again for your guidance and review of the draft. Hopefully this draft will pass muster and be accepted. With warm thanks for the guidance you offered along the way. NomadicLibrary (talk) 08:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cabrils, The article about Terence Ward was accepted yesterday. Many thanks to you for your feedback and guidance! NomadicLibrary (talk) 10:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's great news! Pleasure to help out. Best of luck with future editing. Cabrils (talk) 22:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I just sent a draft for review and there seems to be a long queue. Just wondered if you may please take a look: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Alberto_Caballero_(astronomer) Thank you Iberastro (talk) 22:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the draft has been deleted? Cabrils (talk) 23:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi Cabrils,

I updated the citations to try and include more notable multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Can you please review it again? I just resubmitted it.

On a side note, do I need sources for the Key People section? Please advise.

Thank you for your time! --HHA LTP (talk) 22:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, well done improving the draft. I think it's getting close but my assessment would be that it does not yet meet the requirement of WP:NCORP. Some the of the references, like company profiles from Bloomberg and Crunchbase, are not WP:RELIABLE. And some of the other sources are reliable but don't mention Delix at all--rather the work of Olsen. For this page about Delix to meet the requirements requires it meets WP:NCORP: "Wikipedia bases its decision about whether an organization is notable enough to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product. Notability requires only that these necessary sources have been published—even if these sources are not actually listed in the article yet (though in most cases it probably would improve the article to add them)." (WP:ORGIN).

Other reviewers may feel differently, but my view is that there is not yet enough multiple sources about Delix to justify the page. You might want to consider creating a page for Olsen, who I'm sure could meet WP:PROF, and you could include a section on his page about Delix, and if that section can develop sufficient citations then create/submit a Delix page. Cabrils (talk) 23:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cabrils,

Thank you once again for all the helpful feedback. If you have time, can you please look at what I did for the Draft:Delix Therapeutics article? I removed the last 3 paragraphs from the section named "Product Candidates" because, as you stated, "Delix" was not included within the citations, but "Olson" is. To your point, hopefully once David E. Olson Wikipedia article is up with a section on Delix, I can put back in the 3 paragraphs, and also include hyperlinks between the two Wikipedia articles.

Do you think the Draft:Delix Therapeutics is too short now or ok?

On a related note, I have started to work on a David E. Olson article at Draft:David E. Olson. I am in the process of editing all the citations and making a few other edits to the article before I resubmit it. I am definitely going to keep your comments in mind when editing his page regarding Delix statements.

Thanks yet again!

--- HHA LTP (talk) 22:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HHA,

My pleasure! I think you may have misunderstood me. My suggestion was that a page on Olson would be more likely to meet the requirements for entry in Wikipedia (relevantly including WP:ANYBIO, WP:PROF) than a page on Delix (which must meet WP:NCORP); and on Olson's page there could be a section about Delix. For clarity: I was suggesting that it would be potentially difficult (but not necessarily impossible) for there to be a page on Delix (as you note, the Delix draft is now looking a little thin, but probably OK). I don't agree with your suggestion that the fact that a section about Delix may appear on Olson's page would allow the 3 paragraphs about Olson to be added back to the Delix page. For clarity, I think most editors would suggest that in relation to Olson and Delix, the most appropriate course would be for you to draft a page about Olson, and include a section there about Delix; and withdraw the Delix page entirely. It is generally inappropriate to replicate content across pages, as you are suggesting with the 3 paragraphs, so I would dissuade you from doing that. Having said that, of course you are entitled to submit whatever you like, there's no harm in trying, but you may wish to consider what I've proposed. I've been busy elsewhere but when I have the time I'll undertake a proper review. Thanks for you inclusive approach. Cabrils (talk) 23:25, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delayed reply. Thank you for the clarification and additional recommendations. I will definitely consider what you are proposing or at least not replicate any content across articles. Thank you also for taking a look at the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:David_E._Olson draft. I saw that you moved some content around. It's much appreciated. Best HHA LTP (talk) 02:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! Cabrils (talk) 22:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again,

I was just looking at the "View history" section at https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Draft:Delix_Therapeutics&action=history, and see a comment that I may have included a "deprecated (unreliable) source", but I am not sure which source is the affected one? --HHA LTP (talk) 22:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find a comment about deprecated sources? This page might help you though. Cabrils (talk) 23:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mollydooker Wines

@valereee: I'm posting here following your suggestion on the AfD discussion. I sincerely believe there's some misunderstanding here. All my comments are written neutrally. You wrote: "Your statement "both of which someone of your experience would have access to" is problematic. This time I'll say both Assume Good Faith and Don't Be A Jerk. If you don't understand why this is problematic, ping me to your user talk". My comment simply is meant to inform readers that the sources I added are all verifiable, even though some are offline and require news databases to access, because editors of PMC's (and your) experience would have access to such databases, and so confirm what I have added was legitimate. My comment also makes the point that the nominator would also have had the ability to use such databases to search for and relevant RSs. I, as I'm sure like you, frequent the AfDs and far too often nominations are made without a proper BEFORE being undertaken, irrelevant of the nominator's experience. In the case of Mollydooker Wines, I didn't have to search to the ends of the earth to find RSs-- I was hit by an avalanche of suitable, relevant sources. I do not believe that a quick search on Google is sufficient to justify nominating AfD-- and nor does BEFORE. That is the point I am making. I am somewhat shocked that you assert that making such a point is "problematic".

Also, you twice suggest I link to the articles but as I wrote in the discussion, I am not awre that it's possible to link to articles that are in proxy databases. If you can suggest a solution I would be grateful? Cabrils (talk) 02:27, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what you say that isn't jerky: "Hey, I found a bunch of sources -- maybe easier because I'm here in Australia -- and I think this winemaker is actually notable. I've added sources to the article." That's all. You do not have to comment on the other person at all. It's unnecessary.

If you ever find that you are seeing a pattern of problematic behavior from an editor, you can call it out on the appropriate noticeboard. But just making snarky comments at AfD is not really a good idea. Treat each other kindly. valereee (talk) 02:35, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Thank you for your patience in explaining that. I'll amend the AfD discussion for the record. Again, no offense intended. Cabrils (talk) 02:40, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated: Is there any better way to link to sources on a proxy database than what I've done? Cabrils (talk) 02:41, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, it's a steep learning curve here. I think probably the best place to ask about linking to sources that are on a proxy database would be at either WP:Teahouse or WP:Help desk, where there are likely to be multiple people who actually understand the question. :) valereee (talk) 13:46, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Haha ok thanks! Cabrils (talk) 14:01, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your reverts on Jeremy Griffith

Hello. Recently you reverted my edits on Jeremy Griffith. Specifically, you reverted:

this with the explanation "WP:OR; BLP; UNDUE", and
this with the explanation "WP:BLP; UNDUE; primary source".

The explanations that you gave are not specific enough to communicate how specifically you think my edits were inadequate. Since I still believe my edits were good, please elaborate in detail on what you think is wrong with them. Silver hr (talk) 14:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Silver hr, you can find more information at these links: WP:BLP, WP:OR, and WP:UNDUE. valereee (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Silver. Sure, this is a bit lengthy but you’ve asked for the detail, which I’m happy to provide.

Regarding the legal case edits: The description of the legal cases on the page has been the subject of extensive discussions on the Talk page where many issues have been canvassed in depth, and I would encourage you to read and absorb those discussions if you haven’t already.

Firstly, I think your addition of the defamatory imputation is appropriate so after reverting your edits, I added that back to the page.

However, adding the imputation 3 times is giving it undue emphasis. As my edit summary noted, and valereee clarified, the policies I have cited as relevant here are Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP); no original research (WP:OR); and undue weight (WP:UNDUE).

Your edits breach these policies because your edits, all based on only a primary source (the court judgment), give undue weight to selected aspects of the judgment that did not change the ultimate ruling (as per the concluding paragraph of the judgment) that what was said about Griffith was not justified; nor what the reliable, independent secondary sources state; and you do so by selectively cherry picking content from the judgments (which is original research), all of which is not “written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone” being “fair to their subjects at all times” and “amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization”, in breach of BLP.

The current description on the page was reached after extensive discussion, where the consensus reached is that the current wording is an accurate (fair), proportional (due weight), verifiable (supported by secondary sources) description. To be clear, the defamatory publications were thoroughly discredited, not only in that the ABC was unable to prove it had been truthful in respect of what it said about Griffith, but also by the ABC being ordered to pay out $1 million in damages and costs and the Herald apologising.

Regarding “self-described prophet”: Similarly to the issues explained above, this edit breaches WP:BLP, including WP:BLPSTYLE, WP:BLPBALANCE and WP:BLPPRIMARY (the reference is from a primary source, a book written by Griffith). WP:AVOIDVICTIM is especially relevant given the defamation cases Griffith, Macartney-Snape and their foundation brought were against an ABC television program called “The prophet of Oz”, that the jury found was defamatory and the court of appeal found wasn’t true; and a newspaper article titled “Prophet of the posh”, that was also found to be defamatory, following which the newspaper published a formal apology. Along with “prolonging the victimization” (AVOIDVICTIM), I note a point made by another editor in the Talk page discussion referring to WP:BLPPUBLIC: “Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures”: WP:NPF.

The sole citation is a primary source, Griffith’s book, and therein it makes a number of obviously important points, starting with other people have described Griffith as a prophet ie it’s not just his self-description. Also, to the extent that Griffith accepts that description, he goes to lengths to qualify and demystify the description in a particular secular form, with terms like “unresigned” and “unevasive thinker”, which in turn are carefully defined. Importantly, on reading that material it is clear that in no way does Griffith regard himself as a deity or a figure to be venerated. Without accompanying context and explanation, the use of “self-described prophet” in isolation is thus clearly alarmist and misrepresentative of Griffith’s position and so breaches the purpose and tone of BLPs, noted above.

Accordingly, to meet fairness and neutrality (BLP), and avoid any defamatory imputation, the addition of “self-described prophet” anywhere on the page, let alone in the opening sentence of the page, would require the inclusion of whatever additional material is necessary to meet the fairness and tone of BLPs, noted above. However, doing so raises significant problems in relation to WP:UNDUE and WP:OR. To include all that material to context and fairly present the prophet description would require a disproportionate (UNDUE) amount of material on what is essential a minor issue that is only sourced to a single primary source, not supported by any reliable, independent secondary sources. As to what of that primary source material should be included would require original research (OR), which is not permitted. Cabrils (talk) 02:35, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:36:36, 21 June 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Jzhooley

Jzhooley (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Marylouise Fennell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have added additional citations to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Marylouise_Fennell Can you reassess? Jzhooley (talk) 12:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jzhooley, sure. As I wrote in my comment, Fennell may be able to pass the relevant criteria (including WP:GNG and WP:PROF), however, since my previous review (which was followed by Gusfreind's review which also declined the draft), very little has changed on the draft. You can see here that all you've added since my review is 2 sources to awards, the first of which is at the start of the sentence and seems to be a work in progress. As I noted in my comment, more and better sources are required in my opinion, but once found and added, I think Fennell would probably pass WP:PROF. If I have time I will do some searching too, but I encourage you to amend the draft accordingly before submitting again. Once you've done that, please feel free to ping me again here and I'll be happy to reassess. Cabrils (talk) 22:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		You were super open to accepting feedback in and around Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mollydooker Wines, and don't think no one noticed that. FWIW, I think it's quite possible this company could be proven notable, if not now then in the next few years. You can, if you choose, ask an admin to recreate it in your user space to allow you to work on it and find better sources. I probably have two dozen drafts in my userspace that I'm waiting for that one more bit of sigcov on. valereee (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! What a privilege. Thank you very much valereee, that's quite an honor. Of course it was in large part due to your kind patience and example. I'll do my best to live up to it. And thank you for that excellent suggestion about asking an admin to move the page to my userspace, that's a great idea and something I wasn't aware was possible, but will be very useful. Cabrils (talk) 00:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 00:02:01, 2 July 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by DrGeorge22

DrGeorge22 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Stephen Kukolich (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Cabrils,

      Thanks for FAST review (maybe too fast?) of my submission.  Finding suitable secondary references for scientists is hard.  Politicians and show business people get reviewed and their reviews are PUBLISHED.  For scientists there are publication reviews and grant reviews - BUT those do not get published (not useful for secondary references).  I do not see good sources for secondary references...

Nobel prize seems unlikely... S.

DrGeorge22 (talk) 00:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stephen, yes Wikipedia is aware of the issues surrounding secondary sources for academics-- please see WP:PROF, and also note WP:NACADEMIC point 5 which states that the following persons are presumed notable: "The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon"--this may apply to you. Notwithstanding that, it is always helpful and preferable to include at least some reliable sources. Please do have a look at these links, and the others I included in my original comment on the draft, as they hopefully may inspire some new ideas on what sources could be added. And as I said, once you've amended the draft accordingly, please feel free to resubmit and ping me here and I'd be happy to reassess (I'll also try to find some sources when I have a moment). Cabrils (talk) 03:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Catalano Bio Revision

To address notability... Approximately 200 newspaper articles (newspapers.com)resulted from Catalano's development of the 10% amorphous silicon solar cell. I have cited several to support this in the revision. The Philadelphia Inquirer supported the idea that this was the solar cell equivalent of "running the mile in under 4 minutes or breaking the sound barrier for the first time". Several articles reported the result in Australia and Canada too. The company, Terralux he founded has about 20 articles including a Cleantech Award. Hope this helps get over the hump! EEguy100 (talk) 18:37, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EEguy100, good one. I'm assuming you're aware, but just in case: Wikipedia defines appropriate publications to cite as "reliable sources", and each source needs to be evaluated individually to assess whether it meets the requirements. Hopefully those articles you've included are "reliable" but it's worth double checking! I'll have look too when I can. Thanks! Cabrils (talk) 23:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Philadelphia Inquirer is a major US newspaper. If a referreed scientific article doesn't qualify, and a major, independent, well-regarded newspaper does not, then what does? Based on reading the articles on references here, I thought these many newspaper articles would be most appropriate towards settling the issue of "notable". Newspaper.com is only one of many digital resources for archives and this development alone scored 160 or more articles on the accomplishment. EEguy100 (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EEguy100. As I wrote, each source needs to be evaluated individually to assess whether it meets the requirements. Certainly The Philadelphia Inquirer is a major US newspaper, but that doesn't mean it satisfies the requirements: as an editor, you need to ensure that the specific article meets the guidelines to be considered a reliable source. I note the draft still has links to certainly unreliable sources including Twitter, blogs (www.centauri-dreams.org) and primary sources. These need to be replaced with reliable sources. With respect, I think you need to peruse the links I have sent you so you gain a proper understanding of what Wikipedia is and what it regards as acceptable content. Again, Wikipedia's basic requirement for entry is that the subject is notable . Essentially subjects are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. To properly create such a draft page, please see referencing for beginners. I hope this helps, and please feel free to ask any questions. Cabrils (talk) 23:26, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:49:45, 14 July 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by SWalton91

SWalton91 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Oliver Senton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Good afternoon,

Firstly thank you so much for taking the time to review my latest draft submission on the actor Oliver Senton. It's a real learning curve and I'm so grateful for the guidance from experienced editors.

I'm hoping to attempt a redraft either next week or the week after and wonder if you could point me at any specific areas that need addressing. In terms of the referencing I'm curious if there are specific ones that need reformatting or if there are individual ones you'd like me to update.

I look forward to hearing from you and thank you in advance for you any thoughts you have.

Best wishes,

SWalton91

SWalton91 (talk) 14:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SWalton91,

No worries! We're all beginners really and who doesn't benefit from a helping hand!

Please understand my brief reply is simply due to my limited available time, but the best thing to do would just assess every reference (there's only 21 so it shouldn't take too long) and ideally use a template citation for each rather than the basic link that many currently have. How to apply templates is covered in the 2 links I included in my comment on the draft page. After reading the articles at those 2 links, do let me know if you need more help. And good luck with it, it's a pretty good looking draft-- let me know when you[ve updated the page and I'd be happy to check it again. Cabrils (talk) 08:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Acme Smoked Fish Corp.

Hey, Cabrils! I was a little concerned that there wasn't sufficient coverage. What were you seeing other than the single NYT story? valereee (talk) 17:35, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello valereee! We were bound to bump into each other again at some point!

Yes, I found and added the 2007 obituary article from The Globe and Mail (via The Wikipedia Library, so not freely/publicly available online unfortunately), which expressly included the "largest" claim, and I felt with that and the NYT article (inter alia) it was sufficient to meet GNG. Thoughts? Cabrils (talk) 22:39, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hm...maybe a claim to being the largest salmon smoker in the US is good enough, though honestly that seems iffy to me. And I'm a little leery of using an obit, which isn't about the subject company, to indicate a subject is likely notable when if it is, there ought to be sufficient actual coverage. But oh, well! Thanks! valereee (talk) 22:44, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'll keep looking via some other databases and see what I can find. I'll ping you if I make and additions. Cabrils (talk) 23:03, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is anything very important, FWIW. At worst, the notability is borderline. :) I just like to see what others are thinking re:notability, especially when it's in the areas I have particular interest in, which generally includes anything surrounding foods. Notability is quite tricky in the area, for various reasons. valereee (talk) 12:29, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for this belated reply. Yes I feel similarly, that notability is borderline, but on balance I thought it justified inclusion. Certainly it could be AfD and see what a wider group of reviewers think. I'll add it to my list of pages to continue to improve from time to time. Good to know you're a resident foodie- I'll keep that in mind! Cabrils (talk) 22:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your encouraging words, you're one of the very few Wikipedians who are so positive! Your words "Well done on creating the draft" and "Good job" (positive sentiments you've put on multiple pages I've seen, to multiple users) are heartening to users. Thanks again! Grattan33 (talk) 01:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow thanks very much Grattan33! That's very kind! Cabrils (talk) 04:25, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded, your message was really hopeful on getting the correct edits for a resubmission. DevaneyJohn (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much DevaneyJohn! Very humbling. Always feel free to reach out if you're looking for a second opinion. Cabrils (talk) 22:16, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up for Review of Draft:Kenneth Binmoeller

Hello! I hope that was enough secondary sources and I also added a section regarding the purchase of Dr. Binmoeller's company by Boston Scientific. 2601:347:C080:A10:CDCA:5627:939C:22E9 (talk) 19:31, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Good work, I agree that addition is helpful, however unfortunately I couldn't see any mention of Binmoeller, and that's what is needed-- the draft needs to establish Binmoeller's notability, not Xlumena's (and by extension: if Xlumena is notable then it may justify its own page). Of course it's just my opinion and I may be wrong, but I'm just not seeing "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". The page requires such sources: for instance, some of the sources in the Xlumena addition would not be considered significant coverage, reliable etc about Binmoeller (like this or this). The page needs to meet (at least) WP:PROF. But please let me know what you think? Cabrils (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Binmoeller founded Xlumena with some of his inventions and was integral in the sale as his HOT AXIOS and AXIOS systems were regarded as a much needed improvement on available techniques. The AXIOS was at the time the world's first and only FDA approved approved stent for use of ultrasound Endoscopic technology to drain cysts. There are notes from Boston Scientific on sales figures of the product worldwide. Is it advisable to create multiple pages to flesh out the information tied to this draft? 2601:347:C080:A10:A5C8:5C6B:450:C522 (talk) 04:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good one. That's all good background. You just need to bear in mind that from Wikipedia's perspective, all statements and facts are only as relevant insofar as they are supported by "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". So if you are wanting to include material on the draft page on Binmoeller, he needs to have received that significant coverage in reliable sources. The same goes for Xlumena, so certainly feel free to draft a page for that corporation-- the guidelines the draft will need to meet in order to be published would include WP:NCORP. But each draft page needs to stand on its own legs and satisfy the relevant requirements. If both drafts become approved then links can be made between them, helping the pages not be "orphans". Trust that helps? Cabrils (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help on passing Draft:Broky

Considering the references of other CS professionals and that his teammates and less notable players are on wikipedia, I would like some assistance in making sure this page fits the requirements, please let me know how I should adjust the page and feel free to change whatever you feel is needed. Thanks! Draft:Broky Livitshiro (talk) 00:08, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Pbrks' comments on the draft page, in addition to my comments, give quite detailed suggestions for how to improve the draft. Fundamentally you need to evidence that Broky is notable. Cabrils (talk) 04:26, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback on Jessica Urlichs Article Draft

Hi Cabrils, Appreciate the time to look at the article Draft:Jessica_Urlichs. In relation to your comments about the subject not being notable and not having enough secondary sources, I wanted to inquire exactly what you mean by secondary sources or if you could provide an example of what form this should come in compared to what has already been supplied.

The subject is being asked for interviews more and more across the world, with new publications in news articles, on the radio, in magazines spreads... but of course these are all media that have contacted her and interviewed her.

If these aren't enough how do people obtain a wikipedia page? I have seen wikipedia pages with very little information (example Brent Findlay (Cricketer), yet they have been approved.

Appreciate your time and help here, so I can get a better understanding how this article may get approved. Thanks Drew DrewUrlichs (talk) 10:00, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drew, no worries! Certainly there are many pages on Wikipedia that probably shouldn't be live, so I agree it's confusing when you look to other pages that have scant references. The best way to understand secondary sources is to go the links I included in my comment, especially secondary sources. Please bear in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and I think it's relevant here to understand what Wikipedia is not. Jessica's page needs to meet (amongst other requirements) at least WP:AUTHOR. I encourage you to familiarise yourself with these links, and again, the links I included in my comment. Jessica may well be "being asked for interviews more and more across the world" but that does not necessarily meet the requirements to justify a page on Wikipedia. Again, please peruse the links, they do explain in detail the requirements (and as I said, it may well be that they can be met). ALl the best with it and don't hesitate to ask any more questions, I know it can all be a bit confusing. Cabrils (talk) 10:59, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cabrils, really appreciate getting back to me and apologies on the delay. Didn't get a notification you replied. I have gone through some of the secondary sources and trying to compare to another know author that is on here and trying to determine how hers differs from Jessica's other than she has larger publications doing articles on her.

Any chance you can look at Kate Baer and see what she has that this article doesn't as they are similar in what they both do.

I have also put some changes in the article for review.

Many thanks. DrewUrlichs (talk) 11:16, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DrewUrlichs, no worries about the belated reply. Again, I would repeat my previous comments about the limitations of comparing pages. Notwithstanding those comments, an obvious difference between Baer's and Jessica's sources is the quality of Baer's sources: New York Times, The Guardian, Vogue, Elle, Today. They are significantly more reputable (and thus "reliable") than, with respect, the minor New Zealand sources currently in the draft--on my reading, the strongest source would seem to be the New Zealand edition of Women's Day(?), which just isn't sufficient to meet the notability guidelines. There is no significant, independent coverage from, for example, major NZ newspapers like The New Zealand Herald or The Dominion Post, let alone internationally recognised publications like the NYT. Also the draft includes references to sources that would not be considered reliable, like Squarespace and podcasts. Again, I would encourage you to familiarise yourself with what Wikipedia considers to be reliable sources. I realise this may not be encouraging news, but that would be my assessment at this time. Other reviewers may feel differently but I would classify the sources in the draft as evidence that Jessica has not yet reached a sufficiently notable reputation to meet the guidelines. Honestly, I think Jessica's work may be a good example of WP:TOOSOON. Additionally, there is the (now declared on your editor page--good work) conflict of interest, which leaves me at least with the impression that while the draft may be sincere and well meaning, no independent editor has yet sought to create an entry for Jessica. Cabrils (talk) 23:45, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cabrils, thanks again for taking the time to explain all that information and I get that it may be WP:TOOSOON but I just wanted to clarify one section about you mentioning about reputable sources in NZ. Jessica has the Women's Day article, Stuff Article (which is the same company as the dominion in Wellington) as well as Chanel 9 Australia article, which are all quite reputable and large media sources in Australasia (Australia & NZ). So I wouldn't hope that to be reputable it would have to be American news only?

Thanks again. DrewUrlichs (talk) 07:47, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good question! Absolutely not American-centric: again, please peruse reliable sources because it is a very helpful read, if you haven't already. I'm in Sydney so have some familiarity with the Aust/NZ publications. I agree Women's Day , Stuff and NineHoney carry some weight, but I think on any view they are a long way from New York Times, The Guardian, Vogue, Elle and Today. The guidelines in WP:AUTHOR, that Jessica would need to meet, give good explanation for what is being considered notable. I just don't think Jessica is there yet. My advice would be to strip some of the unhelpful pith from those sources that are not considered reliable, because frankly I think they undermine the prospects of the page looking legitimate and meeting the guidelines, including the podcasts, Amazon and the blogs: in my view they do not help. In some ways your comment that "Women's Day article, Stuff Article (which is the same company as the dominion in Wellington) as well as Chanel 9 Australia article, which are all quite reputable and large media sources in Australasia (Australia & NZ)" actually gets to the nub of it, which is that those 3 sources are the strongest, and if that's the case, they really just aren't very strong. Of course this is just my opinion, and I don't want to unjustifiably deflate your hopes, so I would encourage you to persist, but at the moment it feels TOOSOON... Cabrils (talk) 08:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Jane Katjavivi

Hi Cabrils, I just wandered past this draft, which you had previously reviewed Draft:Jane Katjavivi and realized that she died in the last couple of weeks. I have updated the draft to reflect this, done some reorganizing, and cleaned up formatting issues. Since the article is somewhat timely and of interest due (sadly) to her death, I hope you can re-review it. Many thanks for all your work on draftspace. MaryMO (AR) (talk) 19:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MaryMO! My apologies for this belated reply. I was pleased to see the draft has been accepted, looks like a great page-- well done! Cabrils (talk) 01:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you

		The Guidance Barnstar
		For teaching me important things about the creation of articles, thank you! ExoQuest 21:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much ExoQuest! Cabrils (talk) 01:14, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Leon Lynch — declined

Da Hi. When you declined the draft I prepared on Leon Lynch you noted it reads like a CV. I find that odd since the draft is modeled exactly after the permanent Wikipedia page for the late I. W. Abel, a longtime leader of the United Steelworkers of America. Has the Wiki writing style changed so much that Abel’s entry reads like a CV as well? Or is Abel’s CV-style acceptable and Lynch’s entry unacceptable for other reasons? What entry should I use as a model if not one of a steelworker or other union leader?

As to notability, I cited independent publications that printed multiple paragraphs of coverage on Leon Lynch, including EBONY, an African American magazine that at its zenith reached more than 1.3 million people and an Associated Press article that appeared in newspapers across the country from Memphis, Tennessee, to Las Vegas, Nevada. I also shared the link to an academic research project titled “Digital Diversity Museum,” which I discovered during research on Lynch. These are independent, reputable sources that provided significant coverage of Lynch. And, yes, I also included articles in which others mention him, like The New York Times coverage, in order to demonstrate that his appointment and position with the union were marked widely. The recognition of Lynch’s accomplishments being entered into the U.S. Congressional Record is also an independent, public testament to the significance of his large-scale impact.

Are you saying I need a book about Lynch or a journal entry on him for this submission to be considered for acceptance? As he was not a mountain climber or scientist, the only journals in which he was included are steel and labor related. According to your submission guidelines, these trade journals are not deemed acceptable sources.

Do you have any other suggestions re: “reliable” sources you would find acceptable for this submission?

Thank you.

STTLynch 75.66.168.60 (talk) 14:49, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi STTLynch, good to receive your feedback re Draft:Leon_Lynch. As I wrote in my comments, it's a well presented draft and may indeed satisfy the relevant guidelines, so well done, but I felt it wasn't quite there yet. I'll address your specific questions below but would note that Wikipedia requires inline citations so the references certainly need to be correctly formatted and amended before the page could be accepted (please see referencing for beginners). Until the inline citations have been corrected, it's impossible to accurately assess the notability requirements because statements cannot be accurately sourced, so that;s the starting point for making amendments.

CV-esque: My concern about the draft is that it does not make clear why Lynch is notable (as defined by Wikipedia's guidelines) and to me reads like a CV that would be more appropriately found on a LinkedIn profile. I appreciate it can be confusing when comparing to other pages that might be viewed as similar, but each page needs to be assessed individually on its own merits (indeed I.W.Abel's page may well not satisfy the guidelines) so it's best to avoid comparisons with other pages where possible.

Notability: Requires accurate inline citations in order to be assessed.

Reliable sources: Requires accurate inline citations in order to be assessed. Please see reliable sources for what are considered appropriate (and the detailed description I left in my comment on the draft page).

Conflict of Interest: It's worth noting the tag (box at the top of the draft) that has been added to the page in relation to a possible conflict of interest between you and the draft, which you should address on the Talk page (accessible via the linked tab on the top left of the window). Conflicts of interest are not necessarily fatal to submissions (in some cases they might be inevitable) but certainly should be disclosed and addressed.

I hope this helps. Please feel free to update me and don't hesitate to ask any more questions. Ping me when you've progressed the draft and I'll be happy to reassess. As I said, I do think this page has potential! Cabrils (talk) 22:07, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cabrils, sorry to spam your talk page, but I am trying to contact the IP user and this is probably the best place to centralize discussion.

Cullen328 has since reworked the draft substantially and moved it to mainspace (Leon Lynch). (I agree with that decision.)

IP editor, if you are reading this, it would be nice to have a picture for the article. Unfortunately we have strict rules about copyright, so we cannot just lift something off the internet. For instance I see a nice picture here, copyrighted by the museum, but with credits to the USW.

If you have contacts at USW, please ask them to release a picture (for instance the one above) under a free license. We will need them to email us something from a USW address; they can (should) use that online form (it takes less than two minutes) to generate the email text. (The point of using the form is first to make sure they understand what they are agreeing to when releasing the image, and using lawyer-approved text so that we have a clear license.) Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 09:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good thinking Tigraan, no worries at all. Cabrils (talk) 10:47, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tigraan and Cabrils, I am discussing the photo with STTLynch on my talk page, and that person is in touch with an official of the USW about the photo. Cullen328 (talk) 15:09, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the IP is STTLynch logged out, and I have encouraged the editor to always log in before editing. Also, the article needs work, but I do not have access to all of the sources that are out there. Cullen328 (talk) 15:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for ceaseless good work Jim! Cabrils (talk) 22:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328 and Tigraan, Thanks for your follow up re: the photo of Leon Lynch. Here’s the correspondence I received to release the photo of Lynch to Wikipedia. The image is not copyrighted by the Digital Civil Rights Museum. The image originated at the USW. I will connect with the Steelworkers to ask if they will execute the form you linked in the copy above. Thanks. On Sep 23, 2022, at 10:13 AM, Montana, Tony <tmontana@usw.org> wrote: Hi Sheila -

Thank you for reaching out.

You're welcome to submit the portrait (I downloaded it from the Digital Civil Rights Museum site and attached it) for inclusion in the Wikipedia article. If they require a source, you can tell them it came from the USW or United Steelworkers archive.

I also found this post from the USW Facebook from 2016, which you might find interesting or helpful -https://www.facebook.com/steelworkers/photos/leon-lynch-started-his-steelworker-career-at-usw-local-1011-as-a-tally-man-for-y/10153704340596195/

Obviously, we remember your father fondly and often at USW headquarters and remain thankful for his leadership.

Let me know if you have any questions or need more information.

Best wishes and thanks again. /Tony

USW Communications 60 Boulevard of the Allies Pittsburgh, PA 15222

STTLynch (talk) 15:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:57:30, 11 November 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Navygirl82

Navygirl82 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Stephen Thomas (naval officer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I was told the person was not notable, because of not being in many different sources. This is actually the reason for the article, the subject is a distinguished war hero, with a DSC and responsible for shooting down 3 fighter aircraft in the falkland war, so almost a modern ACE, and achieving what Top-Gun, Maverick claimed in the movie. Yet, he has not much specifically written about him, or by himself (nothing). I modelled the page on that of his commanding officer, Cdr. Sharkey Ward with whom Stephen Worked closely. Steve has been mentione in Sharkey's book and various other books, websites and even on a couple of BBC programmes. Should I find more references for him?

Navygirl82 (talk) 14:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Navygirl82, thanks for getting in touch. Firstly, as I said in my comment, well done on producing the draft, it has great potential. That's all great background about Thomas, sounds incredible. Unfortunately, as I commented, "Wikipedia's basic requirement for entry is that the subject is notable. Essentially subjects are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Presently the draft has 7 references, however, with the exception of the book, none of them seem to me to meet the definition of a reliable source. Blogs and YouTube certainly don't. SO in answer to your question: yes please find more references for him that meet the definition of a reliable source. Given his achievements I'm sure some will exist. Try the national archives or equivalent. If I have time I'll try to have look too. Cabrils (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The youtube video I mentioned is actually from the Imperial War Museum (https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/1060027483), but I can't find a direct access still available through the museum. Also I have included the refence from the Gazette suplement (the offical paper for notifying awards and medals): https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/49134/supplement/12837. This video is also an Imperial war Museum production : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Lw8eWE7aQ8&t=974s and Steve's combat is mentioned by his boss at 18.27. It can be accessed through the museums site here: https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/falklands-conflict-in-the-air-episode-3. I have put these links into the page. So, 3 reliable source? Imperial War Museum, The Gazette and the 2 books (although I only have a copy of Wards book) Appreciate your help with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navygirl82 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this is good. I'm busy for a few days but I will have a good look at the draft--some of the references are incomplete/incorrect (giving error messages) and doubled up, so please have look at cleaning those up and when I get to it I'll have good go at doing any clean up, expanding where possible and any new refs I can find. Please hold off submitting it for review until then, but I think doing these things will be sufficient to make a good, legitimate entry. Well done! Cabrils (talk) 02:41, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Kenneth_Bimoeller

Hi Cabrils! I've been working on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kenneth_Binmoeller recently and think it's fairly close now. Another wiki editor, Gusfriend, left this message regarding meeting the requirement for WP:PROF "WP:PROF via Fellowship of 3 professional societies. Also publishing a book that has been reviewed in scholarly publications"

I've also tried to improve the neutrality of the article, increased the number of notable secondary sources, as well as employing the formal tone. Any help reviewing would be greatly appreciated :) DevaneyJohn (talk) 03:17, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Huge improvements since my July review-- well done! Approved. Cabrils (talk) 03:44, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Javier_G._Fernandez

Dear Cabrils. First of all, thanks a lot for reviewing my draft! This is my second article on relevant academics in the field of bioinspired and sustainable materials. I received your note that the article has been declined because it wasn't supported by enough secondary references, and I was wondering if you could help me improve it with some specific insights. I'm new to this, so before preparing the article I went through Wikipedia's definition of reliable secondary sources and excluded those which didn't fit. I ended up adding 53 references, which I thought was quite good, from CNN, New_scientist, The_New_York_Times, Wired_(magazine)... spamming from 2012 to this year. I read that a good way to know if a secondary source is legit is checking if it had a Wikipedia article, which I did. I added some primary references (i.e., scientific articles by prof. Fernandez), six in total, in those points I thought they were important but only when they were also supported by secondary ones. I had the impression I did a good job, so I must confess I got the decline with sadness. Since I have put quite a lot of time into preparing this article, I was hoping I could get more detailed information on what I did wrong and how I could improve it. As a side note, to prepare this article, I read several articles about other scientists close to Prof. Fernandez. Specifically, I used as a base what I learned writing Peter_Fratzl, the article on Donald_E._Ingber, and the article on Samira_Musah, who is listed as a notable student of the latter (Same for Draft:Javier G. Fernandez). Thank you again for your time and help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BioMatMan (talk • contribs) 17:40, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BioMatMan, thanks for your note, and your efforts to create so good drafts! My comment on the page basically covers everything. THe main issue for me was that many of the sources don't appear to be reliable sources for the purpose of evidencing notability for Fernandez. Checking to see if a source has a wiki page as an indication it is reliable is very misleading--CNN, New_scientist, The_New_York_Times, Wired_(magazine) etc are notable publications, that is why they have an entry. They are not necessarily "reliable" for a certain subject unless they publish a specific article that is substantially about the subject and intellectually independent of them: as I wrote in my comment, "Essentially subjects are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. The first 6 sources of the draft do not seem to me to be reliable: Wikipedia should not be used as a source; the article from Matter is co-authored by the subject; LAUNCH is a blog; the MIT Review is not substantial and is about Shrilk (not Fernandez); 3DPrint is a blog etc. The New Scientist article may be appropriate but I'll need to access it via a database (I'm not presently logged it). As I said, the draft has real potential. My advice is to trim the chaff and retain those sources that are clearly "reliable" and then we can see what the draft looks like-- it might be fine. The content of the page feels generally good, but at present it feels to me like there's too many "promotional" references. Trust this helps! Cabrils (talk) 23:03, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification! I understand your point. I will do a deep cleaning of the references and try to reduce them to the most significative. The MIT Technology Review and LAUNCH, they are related to the awards so I believe I should keep it, but I will restrict their use to the award section instead of using them also in the introduction/main. Once I'm ready, I should resubmit or let you know here? BioMatMan (talk) 00:46, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Cabrils, I'm halfway with the correction and got some doubts. I was hoping you could advise me.

The 3D Printing.com entry is a pseudo-interview with Prof. Fernandez where the writer both analyze the company and interview Fernandez. In the text, it is used to support the sentence "Fernandez is the scientific funder of Chitonous Pte. Ltd.". I understand it would need to be more reliable to support the notability of Fernandez, but that is not the intention of that reference. The intention is to be informative and link the reader to useful and more in-depth information related to the statement. I checked the source and it looks pretty independent. It doesn't have its own Wikipedia page, but it is used in several other articles on Wikipedia, particularly for 3D printing such as: 3D printing, 3DBenchy, Formlabs, MatterHackers, Ultimaker, Cura (software)... I’m aware that an interview is not a secondary source because it is a direct transcription of the interviewee’s ideas, but the reference is not used to support the claims made by Fernandez during the interview. To me, it seems correct to have it as it is now, but I would like to know your opinion.

The second question is about the original research articles. I originally mentioned six peer-reviewed scientific articles, now five, authored by Fernandez. They are used in those areas when a technology developed by Fernandez is mentioned. They don't support notability, which is supported by secondary sources. I believe they are useful because they are the primary source of the technology mentioned. For example, in Jennifer Doudna it is stated, "Doudna and her colleagues made a new discovery that reduces the time and work needed to edit genomic DNA." The first reference [33] is a secondary source and the second reference [34] is the scientific article. I like that balance, and that is what I tried to do, but I see how in Samira Musah there is a section at the end titled "Published works" where some of her articles have been listed (although it seems a pretty arbitrary selection), maybe to avoid the use of primary sources in the text.

Could I have your opinion on those two questions and the current state of the article? I'm almost done with the revision of references, as soon as I have your approval I will resubmit (please let me know if that is the standard procedure).

TL:DR In general, my struggle is that I understand during an article creation is essential to assess notability, however, I don't want to make the article just a "case for notability" but to make an informative encyclopedic article. BioMatMan (talk) 03:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done with the edits and reviewing references. Please, let me know your opinion when you have some time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BioMatMan (talk • contribs) 04:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesis of the changes I made:

I did some tuning of grammar and flow but mainly focused on the references. Removed many references that were overlapping. Since the reliability of the sources was already filtered, I primarily focused my selection on the content and, only when the content was at the same level, on the source. I ended up removing one out of four references from the original draft, including references from sources such as Scientific American and Popular Science... I tried to balance the informative and notability aspects of the article in the references.

The last ten references add little information. They are there because it came to my attention that while the article about Donald E. Ingber has almost 70 references, many of his awards and achievements have been labeled as "citation needed.”

The initial six scientific articles have been reduced to four. All of them have been added together with at least two secondary sources. One reason to keep them is that it came to my attention that Fernandez's scientific articles have been cited several times in Wikipedia. In particular, the articles about Chitin and Chitosan cite the scientific papers [9] [13] ([51 and 56 on Chitosan) and [31] ([33] on Chitin). If the community considers them relevant when describing the advances in the uses of such molecules, it seems correct to include them when discussing the contributions of Fernandez to the field. BioMatMan (talk) 07:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well done on the great cleanup and tightening of the draft, that's a great improvement. To me it still has a slightly promotional flavour to it, but I've tightened it a fraction, correctly placed the citations (always after any punctuation), and notably you'll see I think there are 2 statements in the second paragraph that require citations. If they can be added I would be content to accept it. Cabrils (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Cabrils, thank you again for your help with this article. I agree with the promotional flavor. I will try to repair it in the future, but I have already started working on another piece, so I'd like to wrap this one up and forget it for some time. The reason for the CV perspective is that I used Donald E. Ingber as a model, which has that same perspective. The sentences "Fernandez is a founder of the emerging fields of biologically inspired engineering and its application to sustainable manufacturing. In addition, he has made contributions to numerous other disciplines, including..." are borrowed word by word (except the specializations) from Donald E. Ingber. Because they published together their first article on bioinspired engineering, it seemed correct when I wrote it. For the last week, I have been scoping Wikipedia articles on scientists, and I found similar statements in several. However, I couldn't find any providing citations, so I still am clueless. The best reference I could imagine is Fernandez's description in the awards, but they don't seem a good secondary sources.

I have written the second part (about the topics Fernandez has contributed) based on his publications. I could provide one or several publications for each field, but it would fill the article with secondary sources, worsening it and undoing some of my efforts to clean it up.

In conclusion, while I believe the two sentences are accurate, I can't find good secondary references for them. So the options are to leave the two sentences as they are (with the citation need label) or remove them altogether. Both options seem correct to me, but since the whole point of submitting to AfC was to get a second opinion on the article, I would appreciate it if you decide. BioMatMan (talk) 10:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BioMatMan. It can be misleading referring to other articles too closely because they may well be flawed, but I appreciate the need to seek guidance from somewhere. My advice would be to remove those two sentences for now and add them when reliable sources can be found, because they both contain claims of substance that in my view require verifiability. If you are content to do that, then resubmit the draft and I will be happy to accept it. Again, well done! Cabrils (talk) 00:41, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Cabrils, I have removed the sentences and resubmitted the article. Thanks a lot for the help and guidance in producing it. It took way longer than I expected, but it has been quite a learning experience. BioMatMan (talk) 04:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wilmot Robertson

Hi Cabrils. Could you provide more feedback on your AfC decline for Draft:Wilmot Robertson? You say: "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." Is this a verifiability, RS, or notability issue? As I see it, these are high-quality citations.Freelance-frank (talk) 22:09, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Freelance-frank, thanks for your note. That comment is automatically generate and didn't include the detail I was hoping it would, so my apologies for that. My issue is the formatting of the 10 references: please see referencing for beginners so that standard Wikipedia formatting is used-- it allows readers to more quickly see and appreciate the sources. Ping me once that's done and I'd be happy to have a look. I do think this draft has potential so please do persevere! Cabrils (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My comment on the draft page under the pink box is pretty self- explanatory: "Before this draft can even be considered for review, it needs to be properly sourced in accordance with Wikipedia standards. Please see referencing for beginners and Wikipedia’s Manual of Style for help." Cabrils (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Matthias Faes

Reposted here

Hi Cabrils, many thanks for your help on my draft, I highly appreciate your effort in helping me making it better! I tried as much as possible to take your comments into account. Please let me know if there's more that I can do! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.r0gu3 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 1 December 2022 (UTC) Cabrils (talk) 05:09, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dr.r0gu3, as I commented, I think the draft has potential but I do think some independent, reliable sources need to be added. The sources you added are not considered by Wikipedia to be reliable. You will have seen JBW also feels this is necessary. Please let me know if you have any other questions! Cabrils (talk) 22:45, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 502: / Line 502: @@
 :::In conclusion, while I believe the two sentences are accurate, I can't find good secondary references for them. So the options are to leave the two sentences as they are (with the citation need label) or remove them altogether. Both options seem correct to me, but since the whole point of submitting to AfC was to get a second opinion on the article, I would appreciate it if you decide. [[User:BioMatMan|BioMatMan]] ([[User talk:BioMatMan|talk]]) 10:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 ::::Hi BioMatMan. It can be misleading referring to other articles too closely because they may well be flawed, but I appreciate the need to seek guidance from somewhere. My advice would be to remove those two sentences for now and add them when reliable sources can be found, because they both contain claims of substance that in my view require verifiability. If you are content to do that, then resubmit the draft and I will be happy to accept it. Again, well done! [[User:Cabrils|Cabrils]] ([[User talk:Cabrils#top|talk]]) 00:41, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
+:::::Dear @[[User:Cabrils|Cabrils]], I have removed the sentences and resubmitted the article. Thanks a lot for the help and guidance in producing it. It took way longer than I expected, but it has been quite a learning experience. [[User:BioMatMan|BioMatMan]] ([[User talk:BioMatMan|talk]]) 04:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 == Wilmot Robertson ==